in tax debate, need help.

[Mr. White]

Mr. White, you are a lawyer or a law student correct?

If so, tell me if this is correct.

In order to raise of defense in a criminal proceeding of mistake of law as was in the Cheek Supreme Court case, under the Model Penal Code,

Section 2.04
Mistake of same law is no defense unless it falls under one of the exceptions
1. either the mistake is of a required Mens Rea (culpability) of the actual law.
2. or the law provides that a mistake of Mens Rea is a defense.
3. or the law is not known to the actor and has not been published or otherwise reasonably been make available prior to the conduct alleged.
(courts have interpreted this to mean that if the law that was not available AND it is not something that a reasonable person would know was a law requiring their action or inaction then it is a defense)
4. or the mistake was in reasonable reliance on an official statement of law such as a court, and afterwards determined to be invalid or erroneous

The Cheek case fell within the 1. mistake above.

He tried to say that he lacked the Mens Rea of Willful, meaning purpose to not file.
The Court ruled that just because he was part of the tax protest movement and they had convinced him that the law was unconstitutional didnt mean that he lacked the Mens Rea of Willful.

The word "protest" in itself means that you know of the required action (pay taxes) but you are protesting it by some means.

Therefore, Cheek, had the required Mens Rea of willful to not file a tax return.


I know that it is hard to understand the Cheek case if you havent been to law school. Go to law school and you will see why these decisions are the way they are...

That looks like a correct analysis to me, but I'm only a student. Never ceases to amaze me that people take such great issue when someone else inteprets a word, but then fail to admit that their own interpretation is equally as arbitrary.

 

[ionlyknowy]

I explain the income tax fraud in detail on this thread. If you want all the facts, read my posts here:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=122320

There is a law, but it is being fraudulently and deceptively misapplied to every American citizen.

There are many things that dont smell right with you...

You opened your account here on RP forums on 2/2/2008 with 230 posts and NEVER once posted in the RP grassroots section. ALL of them have been in the off topic forums or Ron on the issues forum.

What's up with that? Very fishy if you ask me... maybe an agent provocateur

 

[ionlyknowy]

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/...ax-protesters-frivolous-claims_441982_15.html


LOS ANGELES -- "I'm a big supporter of fixing potholes and erecting swing sets ... I am more than happy to pay those taxes," Maggie Gyllenhaal's character says in the 2006 movie "Stranger than Fiction."

"I'm just not such a big fan of the percentage that the government uses for national defense, corporate bailouts, and campaign discretionary funds. So, I didn't pay those taxes. I think I sent a letter to that effect with my return," she says.

The audience can't help chuckle when Maggie Gyllenhaal charmingly utters those words. They laugh out loud when Will Ferrell replies: "Would it be the letter that begins 'Dear imperialist swine?'"

Of course, this is all in fun, just lines in a movie.

Somehow it's not nearly as funny when you learn that Wesley Snipes sent a $1 million fictitious "bill of exchange" to the U.S. Treasury Secretary with his IRS payment voucher, less than four months after he was notified by the IRS that he was under investigation. It's as though he was deliberately defying the Treasury Secretary, just asking to be prosecuted.

From 2002 though October 2007, when he was indicted on eight counts of tax evasion, Snipes persisted in taunting the IRS by not filing tax returns, and asking for refunds of taxes he'd paid in the past. You can see a copy of the indictment on TheSmokingGun.com. See the site.

That's exactly what Larken Rose, another tax protester, did, says Steven H. Kassel, a San Bruno, Calif.-based enrolled agent. Rose wrote a letter challenging the Treasury Secretary to prosecute him, and maintained a Web site challenging Section 861 and the constitutionality of the income tax.

Finally, Rose got his day in court. On Aug. 12, 2005, 12 jurors took about ninety minutes to have lunch and to convict him on five counts of failure to file federal income tax returns. You can read the details of the court proceedings on the Quatloos.com Hall of Shame page. Quatloos.com is a nonprofit site devoted to posting information on financial scams. See the Web site.

Full of holes

Even Irwin Schiff, the top member of the Quatloos Hall of Shame and voice of the tax protester movement, admits that the Section 861 argument is full of holes. This stubborn and optimistic man, with conviction after conviction, presently maintains a blog from prison, still convinced that income taxes are illegal. Schiff, serving a 12-year sentence, has filed an appeal with the Supreme Court, protesting the $2.6 million summary judgment against him. See the Quatloos page on Schiff.

You will find some amazing tales of resistance and civil disobedience in the cases repeatedly lost by people in the tax protester movement. Reading them, you will think the stories were written by screenwriters with fertile imaginations. They can't possibly be true. But not only are the cases true, they are the tip of the iceberg. Thousands of people, many who believe the tactics proposed have a basis in law, subscribe to the practices espoused by the promoters.

Kassel tells us of one client who bought into a scheme that promised to decode his IRS individual master file. Each person's IRS file contains entries with codes next to them instead of descriptions. This schemer promised to read the individual's master file printout and reveal the secret code information.

You've got to scratch your head here and ask why. After all, if you call IRS's toll free number and ask them to explain the codes on your record, they will. Or you can look them up on the Web site of Patrick J. Lynch, an insurance agent, and decipher your own record. See the site.

Incidentally, if you look at a printout of your master file these days, IRS is showing text next to the code. You can clearly understand what each line means.

The purveyors of these often costly services say you must file a Freedom of Information Act request to get this information about your own account. But generally, you can get practically everything you need by filing a Form 4506-T for all transcripts of tax returns, payment and assessment history, even W-2s and 1099s, related to a particular tax year.

Not only is it not adversarial, it's free. You should get most transcripts within two to six weeks. Transcripts of more recent years will arrive within about a week, depending on IRS's workload.

So why did Kassel's client, the one who paid to decode the master file, seek Kassel's services? Ah, there's the hook. Once you've been scared into believing there's something sinister and illegal about the whole tax system, it's not hard to believe, say, that setting up a trust will make your income tax-free, and safe from both IRS and creditors.

That's where the promoters make their real money - selling these trusts. The fact is, you cannot hide your wages and business income in a trust without paying taxes on them. Legitimate trusts either pass the income through the trustees, or the trusts pay rather high tax rates.

Getting serious about frivolity

The IRS is focusing on these types of frivolous arguments. In November, the tax agency issued a detailed document explaining what they mean by frivolous arguments. In it, you'll find information about the voluntary tax system, taxable income, an explanation of Internal Revenue Code terminology, the constitutional argument, and fictional legal arguments. See the IRS page.

The document also deals with another practice that's been eating up IRS time and resources, as well as those of the tax court. Once the frivolous statements are made on tax returns or frivolous arguments are advanced with regard to not filing at all, individuals who reject the tax code then use the very same law to file appeals and request due process hearings, requiring IRS collections and appeals staff to appear and hear their case.

Until the Tax Relief and Health Care Act passed in December 2006, IRS was required to hear these cases, but the TRHCA contains a provision that allows IRS to disregard all hearing requests based on frivolous arguments that are filed after March 15, 2007.

Just in case you're not sure exactly what arguments IRS considers frivolous, you can read IRS's 15-page explanation in Notice 2008-14. See the IRS document (PDF).

The tax court benefits from this provision of TRHCA because once a decision is reached in a Collections Due Process hearing, the taxpayer may file a Tax Court Petition within 30 days of the date of the letter. With no hearing, there's no opportunity for tax court, Kassel said.

To help reduce the incidence of frivolous arguments, the TRHCA also contained a provision increasing the penalties for frivolous tax returns to $5,000, up from $500. See the IRS page.

Truth or fiction?

So the IRS issues all these notices, pronouncements, explanations. Big deal. Are they right? After all, with all these protesters out there fighting so hard, citing so many cases, even going to jail certain that they are in the right, they can't all possibly be wrong can they?

The question so intrigued Pennsylvania estate attorney Dan Evans that he started listening to the arguments and reading the discussions on the topic. Whenever someone cited a case, he'd go look it up. Evans learned that most of the cases cited either had nothing whatsoever to do with the issue in question, or it was a case lost by a protester.

Evans saved his research on a segment of his Web site devoted to tax protester matters. Pretty soon, he'd built up the definitive file on a case-by-case basis. Evans analyzes the court cases and points out the flaws in each argument. See the Web site.

This is just a passion for him, not a vocation, so don't look to him for legal advice in frivolous filings. His Web site is open to the public as a free resource.

Do tax protesters lose every single case? Have they no victories whatsoever? Well, there is one. Tommy K. Cryer was acquitted of tax evasion in U.S. District Court in Louisiana on July 1, 2007. This was a monumental public relations victory for the tax protester movement. Until you read further -- and learn that he was only acquitted of misdemeanor charges for willfully failing to file his 2000 and 2001 tax returns. Cryer was not relieved of any tax debt. He still has to pay IRS all the taxes, penalty and interest for all the years.

Once again, a court case didn't touch on the constitutionality of income taxes. All it did was settle a civil matter of willfulness. Close, but no cigar.

Eva Rosenberg is the founder of TaxMama.com and an enrolled agent licensed to represent taxpayers before the IRS. She is the author of the new book, "Small Business Taxes Made Easy." Reach her at [email protected].

Copyright © 2008 MarketW

 

[ionlyknowy]

And finally, if you have any more Tax protest arguments please find your argument on this webpage.

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

The website contains almost 100 Tax Protester arguments, and disproves them with facts and case law.


Have Fun!




Here are the args from the site:


*

Introduction
o

What is the purpose of this FAQ?
o

What is a “tax protester”?
*

Constitutional Fallacies
o

The federal income tax is unconstitutional because it is a “direct tax” that must be apportioned among the states in accordance with the census.
o

The income tax cannot apply to individual citizens, because that would be a “direct tax” prohibited by the Constitution.
o

The income tax is a “direct tax” because it is collected from individuals who cannot shift the burden to others.
o

The income tax cannot apply to wages, because that would be a “direct tax” that must be apportioned in accordance with the Constitution.
o

Wages cannot be taxed because our labor is our property, and so a tax on labor would be a tax on property and a “direct tax” within the meaning of the Constitution.
o

Income taxes are not “Duties, Imposts, or Excises” and so must be “direct taxes” that must be apportioned.
o

Wages cannot be taxed because the exercise of a fundamental right cannot be taxed and the right to work is a fundamental right reserved to the citizens of the United States by the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.
o

The authors of the Constitution (aka, the “Founding Fathers”) never intended to give Congress the power to tax incomes from labor.
o

Congress can only tax the exercise of “privileges” or the income from “revenue taxable activities.”
o

Congress can only tax income arising out of activities that Congress can regulate, such as alcohol, tobacco, or firearms, or from interstate commerce.
o

The income tax cannot apply to individual citizens because Congress has power only over states and not over individual citizens.
o

Income cannot be taxed unless the source of the income is first determined.
o

The 16th Amendment is ineffective because it does not expressly repeal any provision of Article I of the Constitution.
o

The 16th Amendment gave Congress no new power to tax.
o

The 16th Amendment was not properly ratified.
o

The 16th Amendment is ineffective because the word “income” is not defined.
o

The income tax cannot apply to citizens outside of the District of Columbia, the territories of the United States, and the forts and military bases of the United States, because the federal government has no jurisdiction outside of those “federal areas.”
o

The income tax cannot apply to natural-born “sovereign state citizens” because they are not “citizens” within the meaning of the 14th Amendment.
o

The federal income tax cannot apply to wages, because forcing people to share the fruits of their labors would be the same as slavery or “involuntary servitude” prohibited by the Thirteenth Amendment.
o

The federal income tax amounts to a deprivation of property without due process and without just compensation, which is contrary to the 5th Amendment to the constitution.
o

Any assessment or collection of any tax without a court order is a violation of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment to the Constitution.
o

Withholding of income tax from wages without consent and without any court order is a deprivation of property without due process contrary to the 5th Amendment to the Constitution.
o

Any assessment or collection of any tax without a trial by jury is a violation of the 7th Amendment.
o

You cannot be required to file an income tax return because a tax return is a form of testimony and the 5th Amendment guarantees that you cannot be compelled to testify against yourself.
o

The IRS cannot require anyone to file an income tax return because that would be a violation of our 4th Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.
o

Receipt of Federal Reserve Notes is not “income” because Federal Reserve Notes are not lawful money (“coins in gold or silver”) within the meaning of the Constitution.
o

The establishment of a “Pure Trust” can protect income and earnings from income tax, because a trust is a form of contract and is therefore protected from impairment by the contract clause to the Constitution.
o

Under the 1st Amendment, there is a right to withhold taxes from the government until the government has answered a “petition for the redress of grievances.”
*

Statutory Fallacies
o

The Internal Revenue Code is not a law.
o

The Internal Revenue Code does not define “income.”
o

The Internal Revenue Code cannot define “income” because it is a term used in the Constitution and Congress cannot modify the Constitution by statute.
o

Wages are not income.
o

Wages are not “income” because wages represent an equal exchange of labor (a form of “property”) for money (another form of property), so there is no gain and no income.
o

Even if my wages are income, I can deduct deduct the ordinary costs of living in order to calculate the “gain” from my labor.
o

Even if my wages are gross income, I can deduct the full amount of the wages as a “claim of right” and not have any taxable income.
o

Wages are not income, but only a “source” of income (Section 61 of the Internal Revenue Code lists only sources of income), so wages are not taxable.
o

Wages paid within the United States are not a “source” of income defined by section 861 of the Internal Revenue Code, and so are not taxable.
o

The income tax does not apply to citizens outside of the District of Columbia and territories of the United States because the way “United States” is defined in the Internal Revenue Code does not include the states of the United States.
o

The income tax only applies to the domestic income of nonresident aliens.
o

Nothing in the Internal Revenue Code makes an ordinary citizen liable for the income tax.
o

Nothing in the Internal Revenue Code requires an ordinary citizen to file a return.
o

The requirement to file a return is based on the receipt of income in excess of the exemption amount, but the exemption amount is not specified by the statute and so there is no enforceable obligation to file a return.
o

The income tax is voluntary.
o

The income tax is only binding on people who have entered into contracts with the government, such as by applying for a Social Security number, driver’s license, or other governmental benefit or privilege.
o

Form W-4 (i.e., the federal withholding certificate) is an agreement to be liable for the income tax.
o

There is no requirement to apply for a Social Security number.
o

The income tax applies only to government employees and corporate officers.
o

The income tax applies only to corporations.
o

I am not a “person” within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code.
o

The tax laws only apply to “taxpayers” and you are not required to file returns or pay taxes if you are not a “taxpayer.”
o

I cannot be prosecuted for failing to file a tax return if I have a good faith belief that the tax laws do not apply to me.
o

There is a difference between the “United States” and the “United States of America.”
o

There is a difference between “United States District Courts” and “District Courts of the United States.”
*

Procedural Fallacies
o

The Internal Revenue Service has never adopted any regulations imposing any income tax. Furthermore, failing to file a tax return is not a crime because the relevant provisions of the Internal Revenue Code have never been implemented by regulations.
o

The Office of Management and Budget does not require any form for the income tax imposed by section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code, and identifies section 1 of the Code as applying only to nonresident aliens.
o

Form 1040 does not bear a valid OMB control number and so no penalty can be imposed for failing to file a tax return.
o

Form 1040 and its instructions were not adopted in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act.
o

The Internal Revenue Code does not require any payment of tax by individuals, and the Internal Revenue Service has admitted this by failing to include any reference to section 1 or section 6012 in the Privacy Act Statement included in Form 1040.
o

The Internal Revenue Service is not an agency of the federal government, but a private corporation incorporated in Delaware (or, alternatively, an agency of the government of Puerto Rico).
o

The notices issued by the IRS are not valid because they were not signed by the Secretary of the Treasury personally and the Secretary has failed to properly delegate the authority to sign the notices.
o

The notices issued by the IRS are invalid because they are not signed under penalties of perjury as required by I.R.C. section 6065.
o

If I do not file a return, then the Internal Revenue Service cannot assess a deficiency without first preparing a signed “substitute for return” in accordance with I.R.C. section 6020(b).
o

I have revoked my consent to be a taxpayer.
o

I have a letter from the IRS saying that I am not required to file an income tax return.
o

I am not required to file a tax return because I wrote a letter to the IRS demanding to know where in the Internal Revenue Code it says I am required to file and the IRS has failed to respond.
o

I can comply with the law, and avoid any tax liability, by filing a “zero return” along with a statement explaining why I am not liable for any income tax.
o

I can comply with the law, and avoid any tax liability, by filing a “tax statement” instead of a tax return.
o

The IRS cannot levy on property or file a lien on property without first obtaining a judgment or order of a court.
o

A “notice of levy” (or “notice of lien”) is not the same as an actual levy (or an actual lien).
o

IRS employees can be sued for fraudulently issuing notices of lien or notices of levy.
o

Banks and employers that honor levies can be sued
o

The Tax Court is controlled by the IRS and always rules in its favor.
o

If you’re right, why don’t you claim the $________ reward that [name of tax protester] is offering to anyone who can show [insert tax protester gibberish here]?
*

Fundamental Misconceptions, Illiteracy, and Illogic
o

Not understanding the legal process, or the meaning of “law.” (E.g., “Why do you always assume that the courts are right and the tax protesters are wrong? Couldn’t the courts be wrong about what the Constitution means?”)
o

Not understanding the meaning of “due process.”
o

Not understanding the meaning of “jurisdiction.”
o

Taking quotations out of context.
o

A belief that the word “includes” is restrictive.
o

An over-reliance on generalities and platitudes.
o

Rejecting simple explanations.
o

Ignoring the ordinary meaning of words.
o

Assuming that, if a statement is true, the converse of the statement must also be true.
o

Inconsistency in applying “ad hoc,” result-oriented arguments.
o

Not being able to see the forest for the trees.
o

A belief in the “magic” of words.
o

“Chaining” unrelated decisions together.
o

Lies and fabrications.
o

Legalistic gibberish.
*

Paranoid (and Other) Delusions
o

There are lots of tax protesters who have won cases against the IRS, such as John Cheek, Lloyd Long, and Vernice Kuglin.
o

There are many lawyers, accountants, former IRS employees, and other well-educated people who agree with tax protester arguments.
o

There are lots of court decisions favorable to tax protesters, but the judges always seal the transcripts, suppress the opinions, or issue “gag orders” against the parties so that the opinions are never published.
o

The court decisions against tax protesters are all rendered by ignorant, corrupt judges who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo because their salaries are paid by the income tax and they are not going to bite the hand that feeds them.
o

The court decisions against tax protesters are all rendered by judges who are afraid of being audited by the IRS and so are afraid to rule against the IRS.
o

The IRS always wins against tax protesters because the IRS only litigates cases against ignorant, ill-prepared defendants it knows it can beat, and it always settles cases against the smart defendants who know how to beat the IRS.
o

The taxpayers who have challenged the tax system and lost all lost because they argued their cases badly.
o

If Congress really meant for Americans to pay taxes on their earnings, Congress would have changed to law to make our obligations and liabilities clearer, because then tax protesters would have no choice by to obey the law.
o

I would file returns and pay taxes if Congress, the IRS, or the courts would just show me the law that requires me to do so.
*

Related (But Non-Tax) Lunacies
o

The tax laws cannot be enforced against citizens in federal courts, because federal courts are “admiralty” or “maritime” courts or (alternatively) tax enforcement is governed by admiralty law and can be defeated by properly invoking admiralty procedures.
o

If the flag of the United States that is in the courtroom has a gold fringe, then the court is operating under martial law.
o

In a jury trial, the defendant can ask the jury to decide the validity of the law.
o

A name that is written all in capital letters (as in a court caption) is not the same as a name written in mixed case (upper and lower case).
o

Putting a comma or colon between your first and last names shows that you are a freeman not subject to governmental authority.
o

Using zipcodes on the mail you send, or accepting mail with zip codes, is what subjects you to federal jurisdiction.
*

More About Tax Protesters
o

A “tax protester” is only someone classified as a “tax protester” by the Internal Revenue Service in accordance with the IRS definition of “tax protester.”
o

What penalties can be imposed on tax protesters?
o

Why do tax protesters keeping violating the laws, and keep litigating, even after it is clear that they have lost and have no valid arguments?
o

Is tax protesting a cult?
o

The federal income tax is inapplicable, invalid, unenforceable, or unconstitutional because [________________]?
o

Other web sites with information on tax protester arguments.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

You obviously dont know how our legal system works. You systematically go through IRS code, and CFR regulation and pick out words that "could" have another meaning.

This is a lie. See my first link again. There is no obfuscation on my part. The obfuscation and unnecessary complexity were introduced by the government.

YOU ARE NOT A UNITED STATES JUDGE.

Appeal to authority fallacy.

Only judges can interpret the law from the legislature. And they have done so NUMEROUS times.

And none of this refutes anything I posted earlier.

What the Courts have done, is realized that the Tax Protest movement will never give up, and as soon as they rule on one of the definitions of the words above, you will just move to the next word.

What the government has done is introduce volumes of unnecessary complexity and obfuscation to hide the deception that I clearly pointed out in my first link.

Every time I refute one argument with case law,.

You have refuted nothing I posted in the first link. Please stop lying.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

There are many things that dont smell right with you...

You opened your account here on RP forums on 2/2/2008 with 230 posts and NEVER once posted in the RP grassroots section. ALL of them have been in the off topic forums or Ron on the issues forum.

What's up with that? Very fishy if you ask me... maybe an agent provocateur

I'm here to tell the truth. And I'm a Ron Paul supporter. Why are you here?

 

[Truth-Bringer]

The website contains almost 100 Tax Protester arguments, and disproves them with facts and case law.

Wow. Tax attorneys who support the income tax. That's shocking... No conflict of interest there...

None of there "proofs" disproves anything I've posted:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=122320

 

[ionlyknowy]

Wow. Tax attorneys who support the income tax. That's shocking... No conflict of interest there...

None of there "proofs" disproves anything I've posted:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=122320

Um, dude, please stop.

I didnt even attempt to rebut any of your arguments because you pretty much offered an argument for every word in the code.

There were too many arguments, and not enough time. Therefore I posted a website that refutes all of your arguments.

And for your information the guy behind that website is not a tax attorney. If you read the news article that I posted then you would have realized this. The website is run by an attorney, but not a tax attorney. He does this in his spare time as a hobby.

I know that you think you are right, and that you have made it your duty to spread what you think is right all across the internet. But, I would like to caution you that you may be doing more bad than good. I am attempting to show you that if someone takes what you say to heart and goes to court with it, then they will end up getting burned pretty badly.

Find some other way to protest the income tax, dont use the court system. Run for office or something. The courts have already determined that you have to pay, take your losses and move on to the next avenue to facilitate change.

 

[ionlyknowy]

Here I will do the work for you so you dont have to read the article.

"Evans saved his research on a segment of his Web site devoted to tax protester matters. Pretty soon, he'd built up the definitive file on a case-by-case basis. Evans analyzes the court cases and points out the flaws in each argument. See the Web site.
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html

This is just a passion for him, not a vocation, so don't look to him for legal advice in frivolous filings. His Web site is open to the public as a free resource."


Go to the website, find your argument and read why it isn't correct. If you dont do this then you are advocating a lie.

You may be liable for criminal charges if you induce someone to break the law.

 

[ionlyknowy]

This is a lie. See my first link again. There is no obfuscation on my part. The obfuscation and unnecessary complexity were introduced by the government.



Appeal to authority fallacy.



And none of this refutes anything I posted earlier.



What the government has done is introduce volumes of unnecessary complexity and obfuscation to hide the deception that I clearly pointed out in my first link.



You have refuted nothing I posted in the first link. Please stop lying.

Appeal to authority fallacy.
By no way was this an appeal to authority. In an appeal to authority you espouse an argument that in essence says that because (person in authority says so) then it is correct.

I am not arguing this. I am saying that in our legal system, what the judge says in his holding is the law of the land until it is overturned by another judge that has authority over him. Judges are people, and they can be wrong, I realize this. BUT you must obey what they say if you dont want to be punished. You are in America and if you dont like this, then leave.


And none of this refutes anything I posted earlier.

I wasnt attempting to refute anything you posted. You posted enough arguments to make me give up in trying to refute them all. I am glad that you have unlimited time to come up with this stuff, but I do not have the time to refute every definition of a word in a code that you dont agree with. Take it to court, I know attorneys, but you must pay them up front, no contingency. If you really believe your arguments you will do this yourself. Have you?

What the government has done is introduce volumes of unnecessary complexity and obfuscation to hide the deception that I clearly pointed out in my first link.

Just because you say so... take it to court, I guarantee you will end up in debt.

You have refuted nothing I posted in the first link. Please stop lying.
you my friend are persistent, and I know that as soon as I refute one thing you will come up with another so I give up. By nature of this setup you have the advantage in this sense. If the tables were turned I could not offer you more refutations of arguments that you have not made yet, to make you drown in work.

 

[ionlyknowy]

I'm here to tell the truth. And I'm a Ron Paul supporter. Why are you here?

No, you are here to act like a judge. You go through the code and say "
Even more importantly, how can you "make a return" if there isn’t a positive law anywhere that even defines what it is? The statute above is NOT law or positive law, so it doesn't help us at all. According to 26 U.S.C. §7806(b), the title of a code section means nothing, and therefore "file" is irrelevant because it is not mentioned."

or

"After careful examination of all statutes that mention "returns", we conclude based on the preponderance of evidence that it really means a "return of income", which is a fancy way of describing a "kickback" or "bribe" given by federal "employees" to their "employer", the federal government."

What gives you the authority to determine this? You say "by preponderance of the evidence", YOU CANNOT MAKE THIS DECISION, ONLY JUDGES AND JURIES CAN DO THIS. Did you write the code? A lawyer cant even definitively decipher exactly what a law, code, or regulation says with complete accuracy.

Then you make the sweeping assumption, "return of income", which is a fancy way of describing a "kickback" or "bribe" given by federal "employees" to their "employer", the federal government." BUT YOU DO NOT OFFER ANY PROOF THAT THIS IS CORRECT.

Your arguments are full of this type of BS. These arguments would only work on people that are not very intelligent. You have a large audience though given that the average IQ is 100.

Judges and the courts are the only entities that can interpret the laws. The legislature writes usually ambiguous laws, then people bring cases where the facts may violate it.. then the judge and courts determine exactly what the law was meant to be. Lawyers dont even interpret the law, they just argue the facts and try to persuade the court to read the law such that it is favorable to their client.

This is how our judicial system works. You cannot go to a law or code and make your own inferences about it. By doing so you expose your naivety of the very law you attempt to master.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

Judges and the courts are the only entities that can interpret the laws.

And nothing that I've posted has been interpreted in any other way than was implied. Many of the interpretations are cloaked as well to protect the fraud. The reasons the judiciary has been compromised in this regard were described in my posts.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

Go to the website, find your argument and read why it isn't correct.

ROTFL. AGAIN - I've read through the website. His research is flawed and incomplete. It refutes nothing I posted earlier.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

Um, dude, please stop.

You're the one who needs to stop skewing the truth.

I didnt even attempt to rebut any of your arguments

Because you can't.

 

[ionlyknowy]

You're the one who needs to stop skewing the truth.



Because you can't.

You forgot to address my post that took your particular statements in your argument and explained why they are flawed. Post #91

remember the preponderance of the evidence argument? You cannot make this decision, only a judge and jury can do this. The fact that you made the decision speaks volumes.

Did you come up with these arguments yourself? Or is it from a website or what? If it is a website, then please post it here so we can make a more informed decision.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

By no way was this an appeal to authority.

Yes, it is - you're claiming only authority can determine the logical truth of a matter.

I wasnt attempting to refute anything you posted.

Then have a Coke and a smile and STFU.

Just because you say so...

No, because it's a fact that Title 26 and the IRS code and manuals are full of obfuscation and unnecessary complexity.

take it to court,

Why do you expect the government to rule honestly on a deception? It's a conflict of interest, for reasons I posted earlier. Why would you expect to win a suit on the income tax in a court system funded by the income tax?

You are the one who is persistent in refusing to address my arguments while claiming all the while that I'm wrong - "just because you say so..."

so I give up.

Then leave.

 

[ionlyknowy]

You're the one who needs to stop skewing the truth.



Because you can't.

No one can refute your arguments in your eyes because when they try you just say, "no, this doesnt refute anything" or you just ignore the attempt.

You totally skipped my attempt to refute 2 out of 1,000,000,000 of your arguments above in post #91.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

You forgot to address my post that took your particular statements in your argument and explained why they are flawed. Post #91

remember the preponderance of the evidence argument? You cannot make this decision, only a judge and jury can do this. The fact that you made the decision speaks volumes.

A judge is not the final authority on law in the American legal system. I'm qualified to be a juror, so when can I get in on the action and make this decision?

"It is not only [the juror's] right, but his duty...to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court." - John Adams, 1771

".....it is usual for the jurors to decide the fact, and to refer the law arising on it to the decision of the judges. But this division of the subject lies with their discretion only. And if the question relate to any point of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the judges may be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law and fact." - Thomas Jefferson, "Notes on Virginia," 1782

"Another apprehension [about the French Revolution] is, that a majority cannot be induced to adopt the trial by jury; and I consider that as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution...." - Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Tom Paine, 1789

"It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision.....you have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy." - Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay, Georgia v. Brailsford, 1794

"Jurors should acquit, even against the judge's instruction...if exercising their judgement with discretion and honesty they have a clear conviction that the charge of the court is wrong." - Alexander Hamilton, 1804

"Petty juries, consisting usually of twelve men, attend courts to try matters of fact in civil causes, and to decide both the law and the fact in criminal prosecutions. The decision of a petty jury is called a verdict." - Noah Webster, Dictionary of the English Language, 1828

"If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by a judge, and contrary to the evidence...If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision." - 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, United States v. Moylan, 1969

"[The jury has an] unreviewable and irreversible power...to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge...The pages of history shine on instances of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard uncontradicted evidence and instructions of the judge; for example, acquittals under the fugitive slave law." - D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Unites States v. Dougherty, 1972

"The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both the law and the facts." - Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Horning v. District of Columbia, 1920

"It is universally conceded that a verdict of acquittal, although rendered against the instructions of the judge, is final, and cannot be set aside; and consequently that the jury have the legal power to decide for themselves the law involved in the general issues of guilty or not guilty." - Justices Gray and Shiras, Sparf and Hansen v. United States, 1894, dissent

http://www.crfc.org/americanjury/nullification.html

http://www.fija.org

 

[Truth-Bringer]

No one can refute your arguments in your eyes

"In my eyes" means nothing. Just another excuse.

You totally skipped my attempt to refute

You've skipped all mine. So why should I address yours when you skip mine?

 

[Truth-Bringer]

You want to talk about interpretation - what about when judges and politicians misinterpret clear original intent? You talk of these people as if they're infallible. Guess again:

Thomas Jefferson repealed all internal taxes during his administration, and except for the temporary taxes levied during the War of 1812, America was tax free from 1800 to 1860. And that was the original intent of the Constitution, as clarified by Madison in Federalist 45, that the powers of the federal government were few and defined and that its revenue was to come solely from tariff revenue. Internal taxation was meant only as a temporary measure for emergencies.


"Madison’s Notes on the Constitutional Convention [see Federalist Paper #45] reveal clearly that the framers of the Constitution believed for some time [and wrote this requirement into the Constitution] that the principal, if not sole, support of the new Federal Government would be derived from customs duties and taxes connected with shipping and importations. Internal taxation would not be resorted to except infrequently, and for special [emergency] reasons. The first resort to internal taxation, the enactment of internal revenue laws in 1791 and in the following 10 years, was occasioned by the exigencies of the public credit. These first laws were repealed in 1802. Internal revenue laws were reenacted for the period 1813-17, when the effects of the war of 1812 caused Congress to resort to internal taxation. From 1818 to 1861, however, the United States had no internal revenue laws and the Federal Government was supported by the revenue from import duties and the proceeds from the sale of public lands. In 1862 Congress once more levied internal revenue taxes. This time the establishment of an internal revenue system, not exclusively dependent upon the supplies of foreign commerce, was permanent."

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/Articles/SeparationOfPowersDoctrine.htm