Let's see how far this tax protestor/ evader goes with arguments

[onlyrp]

I feel the same way as you regarding property taxes. Retired people who have put their children through school and have no dependents have to pay property taxes while apartment dwellers rely on elderly people to finance their children's education.

You could do away with property taxes and income taxes, relying on the basic tax structure already in place: sales taxes, sin taxes, ad valorem taxes, fines, fees, permits, etc., etc. ad infinitum.

that's all nice and ideal, and even practical, but that's not how the law or law enforcers demand, so until that changes, I prefer to be safe, even if I'm right.

 

[BKom]

No, "willful failure" means you both failed, and did it intentionally, rather than out of ignorance or negligence. It's not the thought that's the crime, it's still the act itself, willful is just to make it clear, you didn't do it by accident.

http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/belief.htm
It's not a crime if you actually believe you are not liable, however, people who have experience in law and taxes are less likely to be believed. And as this page states, you won't be automatically believed, so try your luck with the jury.

So, if you truly believe you don't legally have to file, you cannot be charged with "willful" failure to file. They have to prove your state of mind to prove you were willful. And that's just what I said. It's a thought crime. So, how long have you worked for the IRS?

 

[onlyrp]

So, if you truly believe you don't legally have to file, you cannot be charged with "willful" failure to file. They have to prove your state of mind to prove you were willful. And that's just what I said. It's a thought crime. So, how long have you worked for the IRS?

it depends on whether the jury buys your story, can you prove to them you are sincerely ignorant and acted in good faith? Or will they think you're playing dumb because you don't want to pay? Keep in mind, ignorance can only go so far, if you are put on notice, and warned (and you get that more than enough times when you get to court), it's going to be less convincing. Because the jury will ask "Ok, so you INITIALLY didn't know, but you were warned many times before you were brought here, so why didn't you give up and comply?"

Do you think a jury that pays or overpays their taxes are going to take nicely somebody who claims he believes he's immune for taxation?

You are correct that prosecution has the burden of proof on the crime, but when YOU are the defendent making the extraordinary argument of "not willful" "good faith" "ignorance", the burden of proof shifts to you. I don't work for the IRS (or any part of the government), I just know a bit about evaders because I read both sides and hate to be in their shoes.

You are not criminal for what you think, you ARE criminal if you lie, especially if you intentionally lied to escape liability of a crime. It's not thought crime, it's crime of perjury. But all of this goes out the window if you can convince the jury you're innocent, so go ahead.

By the way, if you can prove your actual belief that you are immune from taxation, that at most gets you off for "willful failure", it does not relieve you from tax liability itself. So it's not thought crime, it's the act of not filing, and willful is just an add-on.

 

[BKom]

it depends on whether the jury buys your story, can you prove to them you are sincerely ignorant and acted in good faith? Or will they think you're playing dumb because you don't want to pay? Keep in mind, ignorance can only go so far, if you are put on notice, and warned (and you get that more than enough times when you get to court), it's going to be less convincing. Because the jury will ask "Ok, so you INITIALLY didn't know, but you were warned many times before you were brought here, so why didn't you give up and comply?"

Do you think a jury that pays or overpays their taxes are going to take nicely somebody who claims he believes he's immune for taxation?

You are correct that prosecution has the burden of proof on the crime, but when YOU are the defendent making the extraordinary argument of "not willful" "good faith" "ignorance", the burden of proof shifts to you. I don't work for the IRS (or any part of the government), I just know a bit about evaders because I read both sides and hate to be in their shoes.

You are not criminal for what you think, you ARE criminal if you lie, especially if you intentionally lied to escape liability of a crime. It's not thought crime, it's crime of perjury. But all of this goes out the window if you can convince the jury you're innocent, so go ahead.

By the way, if you can prove your actual belief that you are immune from taxation, that at most gets you off for "willful failure", it does not relieve you from tax liability itself. So it's not thought crime, it's the act of not filing, and willful is just an add-on.

Everything depends on whether a jury believes you. That's not the point. The point is that they don't charge you with the crime of failure to file, they charge you with the thought crime of believing you have a duty to file, and not filing.

I know you know the difference, officer. So you can quit the act now. Like I said before, I pay because I wish to stay out of jail and for no other reason. I am fully aware that I don't owe any income taxes. And I'm not willing to go to court or jail or any lengths at all to prove it. I decided a long time ago that it's wiser to pick my battles. And that means I don't pick fights with a government of thugs. I know lots of people lie on their returns. I never have because it's not worth a couple of bucks to me. And yet, I do feel a kinship with those who fight the income tax because they are technically correct and they are willing to put themselves on the line for all of us.

And isn't it interesting that the IRS doesn't hire locals with ties to the community. They almost always move people to areas where they can operate as sociopaths and not feel quite the remorse that a local person would. I find that fascinating.

The funniest thing was that when Irwin Schiff was imprisoned the first time, most of his property was a warehouse full of his books on how not to pay the income tax. The government seized the books as payment, but returned them when he was released because they didn't know what to do with them. Of course, that may just have been part of their plan to get more people to follow Irwin's plan so they could put more people under the hot lights. Just a theory, officer. Please drop the act, it's all too obvious.

 

[hazek]

If anyone has ever heard of Marc Stevens and his IRC cases you'd know there's no such thing as a state, a taxpayer or a taxable income. You can ask the IRS if you are entitled to a fair trial, then you can ask them for witnesses and evidence that you are in fact a taxpayer and they don't have any.

Just go listen to his calls of shame marcstevens.net, it's a laughable scam enforced with state owned guns, that's what it is, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Enforcer]

I don't work for any government agency, but I don't care if you think I do, at least you're not suspecting me of any crimes. What I sound like is a person who doesn't want anybody who gets in trouble with the law or law enforcers, even if the law enforcers are wrong. If you want to play with fire, go ahead, don't say nobody warned you.

I am sure that a lot of people in the tax protest "movement" are aware of the dangers. We've been over the consequences on this thread. It's a Cost / Benefits analysis issue. Sure, everybody can sit back and go along to get along, but what are the long term effects of doing nothing? What did Benjamin Franklin say about trading Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety?

The fifty six men that signed the Declaration of Independence were considered criminals. You enjoy certain benefits from their efforts, but you do not want to pass that Freedom and Liberty on to the next generation. You want to succumb to the POWER of the federal government while giving folks all this "legal" doublespeak. You persist in giving us Uncle Scam's POV and quite frankly, nobody that is actively fighting these unconstitutional laws and policies is being swayed by your arguments.

Okay, we've been warned. Now I challenge you to read the laws and the history of what has been going on. You don't have to answer me on this thread. Just look at the evidence that has been presented on this thread. Research it from both sides and then if you begin to see that the government is legally in the wrong, ask yourself, in your heart, what are the long term ramifications for allowing injustice and tyranny to prevail. Once you understand the issue, you might be inclined to stand with those protesting unconstitutional taxes OR stand out of their way. In any event, you cannot buy into the mainstream argument on one hand and support a candidate that opposes the government's position on the other hand. Worse, you want to disrupt a legitimate site where Ron Paul disagrees with you, which - in and of itself - probably causes a lot of people to be lukewarm toward a campaign marked by pissing matches where you are objecting to issues championed by Ron Paul.

 

[onlyrp]

Everything depends on whether a jury believes you. That's not the point. The point is that they don't charge you with the crime of failure to file, they charge you with the thought crime of believing you have a duty to file, and not filing.

Knowing the law and intentionally disobeying is one of the most important elements of a crime. By this logic, all crimes are or include thought crimes, because one of the most important and first things to prove is that you knew of the law, and chose to disobey it (while ignorance is not a defense, knowing and intentionally breaking a law is).

 

[onlyrp]

If anyone has ever heard of Marc Stevens and his IRC cases you'd know there's no such thing as a state, a taxpayer or a taxable income. You can ask the IRS if you are entitled to a fair trial, then you can ask them for witnesses and evidence that you are in fact a taxpayer and they don't have any.

Just go listen to his calls of shame marcstevens.net, it's a laughable scam enforced with state owned guns, that's what it is, nothing more, nothing less.

those kinds of questions are what courts call "contempt". That is why people who make those arguments are never accompanied by an attorney, no licensed attorney would risk their career for such questions.

Oh, has Marc Stevens won a case? Or is he all talk? How much money does he earn and how much taxes does he pay (I'm sure he's not afraid to say it, since he's been in court and knows what he's doing).

 

[onlyrp]

I am sure that a lot of people in the tax protest "movement" are aware of the dangers. We've been over the consequences on this thread. It's a Cost / Benefits analysis issue. Sure, everybody can sit back and go along to get along, but what are the long term effects of doing nothing? What did Benjamin Franklin say about trading Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety?

The fifty six men that signed the Declaration of Independence were considered criminals. You enjoy certain benefits from their efforts, but you do not want to pass that Freedom and Liberty on to the next generation. You want to succumb to the POWER of the federal government while giving folks all this "legal" doublespeak. You persist in giving us Uncle Scam's POV and quite frankly, nobody that is actively fighting these unconstitutional laws and policies is being swayed by your arguments.

Okay, we've been warned. Now I challenge you to read the laws and the history of what has been going on. You don't have to answer me on this thread. Just look at the evidence that has been presented on this thread. Research it from both sides and then if you begin to see that the government is legally in the wrong, ask yourself, in your heart, what are the long term ramifications for allowing injustice and tyranny to prevail. Once you understand the issue, you might be inclined to stand with those protesting unconstitutional taxes OR stand out of their way. In any event, you cannot buy into the mainstream argument on one hand and support a candidate that opposes the government's position on the other hand. Worse, you want to disrupt a legitimate site where Ron Paul disagrees with you, which - in and of itself - probably causes a lot of people to be lukewarm toward a campaign marked by pissing matches where you are objecting to issues championed by Ron Paul.

I am not objecting to issues championed by Ron Paul, Ron Paul does not advocate tax evasion, he advocates changing laws before breaking them.

 

[onlyrp]

And isn't it interesting that the IRS doesn't hire locals with ties to the community. They almost always move people to areas where they can operate as sociopaths and not feel quite the remorse that a local person would. I find that fascinating.

If they did hire locals, wouldn't you complain they're getting out of their way to be your friend, or you have local sellouts and tyranny is out of control? What can the IRS do, short of relieving you of tax liability, that can decrease your criticism?

"Operate as sociopaths" is just you complaining that they're enforcing laws as objectively an impartially as they can. It's not always that way, policemen have to arrest people they know and see in their city, they also are responsible for handling evictions, searches and seizures. Is that necessarily better?

 

[hazek]

those kinds of questions are what courts call "contempt". That is why people who make those arguments are never accompanied by an attorney, no licensed attorney would risk their career for such questions.

Oh, has Marc Stevens won a case? Or is he all talk? How much money does he earn and how much taxes does he pay (I'm sure he's not afraid to say it, since he's been in court and knows what he's doing).

Go to his website and listen to his recordings with the IRS, he has them listed under "calls of shame". And how can asking for witnesses and evidence that he is a taxpayer be "contempt" when it's what they are suppose to present to the court when a charge is brought forth, it is what they call the burden of proof. If people just taking it laying down when they are charged with being a taxpayer and they don't contest that charge, obviously they are going to lose. However listen to those calls of shame how angry those agents get when he asks them for proof to support their charge.

And FYI he has been very successful in a number of cases. Just click his site and read through it.

 

[onlyrp]

Go to his website and listen to his recordings with the IRS, he has them listed under "calls of shame". And how can asking for witnesses and evidence that he is a taxpayer be "contempt" when it's what they are suppose to present to the court when a charge is brought forth, it is what they call the burden of proof. If people just taking it laying down when they are charged with being a taxpayer and they don't contest that charge, obviously they are going to lose. However listen to those calls of shame how angry those agents get when he asks them for proof to support their charge.

And FYI he has been very successful in a number of cases. Just click his site and read through it.

can you link me to one good case, or the best case of a tax evasion or tax fraud success? I'm very curious but have little time, you obvious are familiar with this stuff.

Courts typically consider arguments and questions "frivilous" or "contempt" if it is out of order of business, a person asks something they can look up (such as a law) or a person claims he is smarter than the judge on law. So in a courtroom, you are not going to ask "show me evidence I am guilty" , you should probably ask "what law makes me guilty, and why does it apply to me" , even such a question would be contempt, if it's obvious that it's a law that applies to all citizens and residents.

A shorter answer is : if you are not an attorney and ask questions at the wrong time, wrong way, it's contempt.

 

[Enforcer]

I am not objecting to issues championed by Ron Paul, Ron Paul does not advocate tax evasion, he advocates changing laws before breaking them.

Well I guess you must be Ron Paul? Ron Paul is doing what he can at a legislative level, but our forefathers were abundantly clear.

"The ultimate authority...resides in the people alone."

"The freemen of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much ...to forget it." James Madison

"Honor, justice, and humanity, forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us. We cannot endure the infamy and guilt of resigning succeeding generations to that wretchedness which inevitably awaits them if we basely entail hereditary bondage on them."
Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of the Causes and Necessities of Taking up Arms, July 6, 1775

onlyrp, you have our permission and our blessing to confine yourself to the morsels fed to you by your government / god.

 

[hazek]

can you link me to one good case, or the best case of a tax evasion or tax fraud success? I'm very curious but have little time, you obvious are familiar with this stuff.

Courts typically consider arguments and questions "frivilous" or "contempt" if it is out of order of business, a person asks something they can look up (such as a law) or a person claims he is smarter than the judge on law. So in a courtroom, you are not going to ask "show me evidence I am guilty" , you should probably ask "what law makes me guilty, and why does it apply to me" , even such a question would be contempt, if it's obvious that it's a law that applies to all citizens and residents.

A shorter answer is : if you are not an attorney and ask questions at the wrong time, wrong way, it's contempt.

The question's he asks are pretty basic:
1. Do you have the authority to vacate the assessment
2. Is my client entitled to a fair trial,
3. Would a lack of sufficient evidence or witnesses against my client be reason for vacating the assessment
4. Do you have any evidence or witnesses to support your claim that my client is a taxpayer or has taxable income

And guess what they never do. Here are the calls: http://marcstevens.net/cos go listen to them.

 

[Steven Douglas]

wait, doesn't legal tender mean you are forced to accept it?

No. Our federal legal tender laws HAPPEN to include forced acceptance of Federal Reserve notes in payment of debts, including taxes ("all debts, public and private").

The Legal Tender Act of Utah, on the other hand, explicitly states that NOBODY is compelled to accept gold or silver coin in payment, and furthermore than nobody can be compelled to pay in gold and silver coin. In the case of Utah, "legal tender" means only that federally minted coins may "legally compete" with other forms of legal tender. You MAY make payments using such coins, and you MAY accept such as payment - with protections from that act so that you are not penalized for so doing (e.g., transfer from one medium to another may NOT be taxed, or counted or taxed as income or capital gains on the state level).

 

[onlyrp]

No. Our federal legal tender laws HAPPEN to include forced acceptance of Federal Reserve notes in payment of debts, including taxes ("all debts, public and private").

The Legal Tender Act of Utah, on the other hand, explicitly states that NOBODY is compelled to accept gold or silver coin in payment, and furthermore than nobody can be compelled to pay in gold and silver coin. In the case of Utah, "legal tender" means only that federally minted coins may "legally compete" with other forms of legal tender. You MAY make payments using such coins, and you MAY accept such as payment - with protections from that act so that you are not penalized for so doing (e.g., transfer from one medium to another may NOT be taxed, or counted or taxed as income or capital gains on the state level).

sorry, explain to me this again. IF you take out the incidental "forced acceptance" part of legal tender, what does legal tender mean?

Does it mean required to record for tax purpose? or does it mean it's legal to accept it (which is silly, you can't tell me what not to accept if I'm stupid enough to)?

 

[dude58677]

sorry, explain to me this again. IF you take out the incidental "forced acceptance" part of legal tender, what does legal tender mean?

Does it mean required to record for tax purpose? or does it mean it's legal to accept it (which is silly, you can't tell me what not to accept if I'm stupid enough to)?

This is hilarious, an IRS agent such as yourself trying to interpret legitimate State law. What Utah did was legal under Article 1 section 10. The federal government has no jurisidiction to interpret legitimate State law.


I got news for you. Ron Paul is a close friend of Irwin Schiff and has said that the underground economy is the real economy. He also encourages civil disobedience. You don't like that do you?

 

[onlyrp]

This is hilarious, an IRS agent such as yourself trying to interpret legitimate State law. What Utah did was legal under Article 1 section 10. The federal government has no jurisidiction to interpret legitimate State law.


I got news for you. Ron Paul is a close friend of Irwin Schiff and has said that the underground economy is the real economy. He also encourages civil disobedience. You don't like that do you?

Show me where he said that.

And I'm not an agent of the government, calling me that won't change that. I don't know what the State law means, so I ask. I won't believe him without doubts, but I want to hear it first.

 

[Steven Douglas]

sorry, explain to me this again. IF you take out the incidental "forced acceptance" part of legal tender, what does legal tender mean?

In one sense it is a misnomer, since legal tender is, by common definition, whatever a creditor is forced by law to accept if it is offered as payment of a debt. It might be more accurate to call it an "anti-legal tender" act, because while the Treasury and the Fed have long demonetized gold and silver coin, Utah put it squarely back on the table, as a competing currency. Along with the state's official endorsement comes state protections as a potentially viable circulating currency option for those who want it. In addition, Utah is weighing its options for alternate competing forms of currency, obviously sending a message to the Fed.

US minted gold and silver coins are declared to be legal tender in Utah, but really the advantage of calling it that is that you are not "buying" such coins in the eyes of the state. Such coins are not treated as commodities, and will not be taxed as such. When you trade Fed notes for US minted gold or silver coin, Utah only sees that you are exchanging one form of legal tender for another - money for money, and therefore exempt from certain types of liability when exchanged for other types of legal tender.

Whether or not you are required to record it for tax purposes is for you and your attorney to decide. I can't give legal advice.

 

[onlyrp]

In one sense it is a misnomer, since legal tender is, by common definition, whatever a creditor is forced by law to accept if it is offered as payment of a debt. It might be more accurate to call it an "anti-legal tender" act, because while the Treasury and the Fed have long demonetized gold and silver coin, Utah put it squarely back on the table, as a competing currency. Along with the state's official endorsement comes state protections as a potentially viable circulating currency option for those who want it. In addition, Utah is weighing its options for alternate competing forms of currency, obviously sending a message to the Fed.

US minted gold and silver coins are declared to be legal tender in Utah, but really the advantage of calling it that is that you are not "buying" such coins in the eyes of the state. Such coins are not treated as commodities, and will not be taxed as such. When you trade Fed notes for US minted gold or silver coin, Utah only sees that you are exchanging one form of legal tender for another - money for money, and therefore exempt from certain types of liability when exchanged for other types of legal tender.

Whether or not you are required to record it for tax purposes is for you and your attorney to decide. I can't give legal advice.

so legal tender just means "forced to accept as debt settlement", but not "forced to accept as payment for other goods"?

"Along with the state's official endorsement comes state protections as a potentially viable circulating currency option for those who want it. In addition, Utah is weighing its options for alternate competing forms of currency, obviously sending a message to the Fed."

but it's not illegal to use gold coins or any other barter in place of circulating currency. so what has this law done?