Why Has Dr. Paul Never Publicly Demanded The IRS To "Show Us The Law?"

[Danke]

Okay. I give up. You win. I don't know how to read the US Code, nor do any of the judges in the country, and when Congress passed the law they really didn't intend for it to be a tax. It was kind of a prank they were playing. They knew that the 16th amendment was invalid so they wrote a tax code that doesn't really impose a tax and they are just hoping smart guys like you will not figure it out. But I see that they failed because you DID figure it out and now the whole scheme is going to be exposed, nobody is going to have to pay their income tax and the judges will all agree and Congress won't try to amend the statute because the 16th amendment has been exposed as a fraud and we will all live happily ever after as the federal government dries up and blows away.

(here's the important part so pay attention Walt becaue I know you are here to learn and not just disrupt ) .

Pot meet Kettle.

 

[Acala]

Lol

Pot meet Kettle.

I am not interested in disrupting. I AM interested in keeping people from being hurt by half-baked legal theories that are unsupported by the law as written and accepted by the courts. But there is a limit as to how much frustration I am willing to endure.

I wish you well because I believe you are a supporter of liberty. I hope you don't end up in jail. And I really hope nobody else ends up in jail because they believed you or that ass Russo. But if you do end up in jail, don't say you were not warned. Your legal theories don't hold water.

 

[WaltM]

Pot meet Kettle.

you are desperate to quote people from different threads, out of context to support your nonsense.

Acala gave up, I have not.

You have not, to this moment, shown what your knowledge of the IRS code saved or earned you as far as money, meaning

a) you've got nothing
b) you got something you know is illegal, so you're afraid to brag about it
c) you know you're lying, and are afraid to admit it

 

[WaltM]

I am not interested in disrupting. I AM interested in keeping people from being hurt by half-baked legal theories that are unsupported by the law as written and accepted by the courts. But there is a limit as to how much frustration I am willing to endure.

I wish you well because I believe you are a supporter of liberty. I hope you don't end up in jail. And I really hope nobody else ends up in jail because they believed you or that ass Russo. But if you do end up in jail, don't say you were not warned. Your legal theories don't hold water.

that's basically what I've been saying the whole time.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I am not interested in disrupting. I AM interested in keeping people from being hurt by half-baked legal theories that are unsupported by the law as written and accepted by the courts. But there is a limit as to how much frustration I am willing to endure.

I wish you well because I believe you are a supporter of liberty. I hope you don't end up in jail. And I really hope nobody else ends up in jail because they believed you or that ass Russo. But if you do end up in jail, don't say you were not warned. Your legal theories don't hold water.

First no one with any knowledge on this subject advocates people to openly defy taxation. There is no question the courts and guns are against you if you do. Ron Paul has commented about people litigating justice in the courts and has made comments similar to: These people are 100% right and lose 100% of the time. Anyone who has studied the matter knows how corrupt the judicial racket is. The judicial monopoly was supposed to have a monopoly on deciding truth on a case by case basis not preventing people from introducing evidence to discover the truth by presuming all statues are lawful.

Enforcing a creditor position for the money you create is likely the most viable strategy. Look at that David vs. Monsanto video and what does David do in the end after losing a suit, counter suit, and appeals over intellectual property? Forces a small claims settlement demanding Monsanto remove their GMO plants from his land. However there are always going to be a few individuals who are not going bow down and worship the state and submit their humanity to pay a human being tax and who can fault them?

Now all that stated how come this concept is so hard to grasp? In order for an individual to fall under a jurisdiction of government there must be privileges or immunities. Why is it so hard when understanding all of this is so easy?

Only people who drive obtain driver licenses.
Only people who sell real estate obtain real estate licenses.
Only people who sell certain goods collect sales tax.
Only people who work with electricity obtain electrical licenses.
Only people who produce tobacco pay tax stamps.
Only people who import pay duties.

What privileges and immunities does the federal government extend to establish jurisdiction over an individual for purposes of income taxation?

Is it guarantees of a Republic via common defense by providing a safe market? What if I am a native adult who owns a firearm and de facto member of the militia? Does the government provide something for me I am already not providing?

Is it money by establishing standard weights and measures for a dollar to facilitate trade? If I do not facilitate trade in dollars is government providing anything?

Is it federal arbitration?

Is it using the Post Office?

Is it social charity and general welfare?

What is it? As much as I would like to think the Ron Paul revolution has members of the private lawyer unions educating all of us mentally incompetent people who are not allowed to represent anyone else in a court I don't think that is the case. More like the opposite is the case.

Since the Ron Paul campaign and the Revolution making a mainstream appearance how is it that no one in opposition can explain federal jurisdiction with regards to income taxation. Name any other government privilege, license, or tax where jurisdiction can not be explained?

Only people who __________ have wages.
Only people who __________ have income.

 

[Acala]

Fie!

Pot meet Kettle.

Now see what you've done? You have WaltM sticking up for me! Oh the humanity!!!!!!

 

[WaltM]

Now see what you've done? You have WaltM sticking up for me! Oh the humanity!!!!!!

I'm sorry it took you so long to see that.

I feel sorry for people who don't see how mistaken and dishonest Danke is.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I'm sorry it took you so long to see that.

I feel sorry for people who don't see how mistaken and dishonest Danke is.

Mistaken and dishonest how?

You can't explain federal jurisdiction with regards to income taxation and you are going to claim Danke is dishonest and mistaken?

If government says you need a license to be an electrician it is up to government to prove you need one based on whatever activity you are doing. Same goes for collecting sales tax or any other privileged activity.

So not only can you not articulate federal jurisdiction with regards to income taxation you are going to throw someone under the bus having no knowledge of their personal actions? Does he have some obligation to post documents to satisfy anyone? Hardly...

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

There IS statutory authority for the income tax.

Someone asserting this ought to be able to articulate federal jurisdiction.

 

[Acala]

Done

Someone asserting this ought to be able to articulate federal jurisdiction.

I am sure we agree on about 99% of everything that matters concerning government and politics so I count you as a friend and ally. There is no point in me generating hostility by harping on an issue we will not agree on. Especially when it is an issue about which I HOPE you can prove me wrong!

Peace Patriot.

 

[WaltM]

Mistaken and dishonest how?

By not being able to tell us what his knowledge has earned him.

You can't explain federal jurisdiction with regards to income taxation and you are going to claim Danke is dishonest and mistaken?

I think I can, at least I can tell you I know enough to comply and don't claim to know more than an average lawyer or accountant.

If government says you need a license to be an electrician it is up to government to prove you need one based on whatever activity you are doing. Same goes for collecting sales tax or any other privileged activity.

It is, and their gun is all the explanation I need.

So not only can you not articulate federal jurisdiction with regards to income taxation you are going to throw someone under the bus having no knowledge of their personal actions?

I challenge him to brag about what he knows and what he's done, if he's so sure he's legal and right.

I don't need to know the exact details, I can tell you I do what I am told and I've never been in trouble.

Does he have some obligation to post documents to satisfy anyone? Hardly...

No, and I don't owe him any respect until he does. At least, share what he's earned with his alleged knowledge of the code we don't know.

He can't even tell you what a contract is or isn't.

When asked about 1099-OID, he couldn't tell you.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I am sure we agree on about 99% of everything that matters concerning government and politics so I count you as a friend and ally. There is no point in me generating hostility by harping on an issue we will not agree on. Especially when it is an issue about which I HOPE you can prove me wrong!

Peace Patriot.

We probably do agree on much but why can't there be an intellectual discussion on this? The federal government does not have unlimited jurisdiction. Is there something in my previous post that does not make sense?

Only people who _______ have to __________.

If you own a horse do you need a driver license? Since you feel there is authority in statue I want to understand jurisdiction and what that authority is based on and who it applies to.

Danke makes a post like this....

Why? He could just look up the congressional records.

Revenue Act of 1862

Revenue Act of 1864

Revenue Act of 1865

Revenue Act of 1867

Revenue Act of 1870

Revenue Act of 1872

Revenue Act of 1873 (Revised Statutes)

Revenue Act of 1878

Revenue Act of 1894

Corporate Excise Tax Act of 1909

Federal Reserve Act

Revenue Act of 1913

Revenue Act of 1916

Revenue Act of 1917

Revenue Act of 1919

Revenue Act of 1921

Classification Act of 1923

Revenue Act of 1924

Revenue Act of 1926

Revenue Act of 1928

Index To The Federal Statutes 1874 - 1931

Revenue Act of 1932

Revenue Act of 1934

Revenue Act of 1935

Social Security Act of 1935

Revenue Act of 1936

Revenue Act of 1938

The IRC of 1939

Appendix to the IRC of 1939
The 'Preliminary Materials' chapter in the 1986 IRC contains a dual cross-reference table, first indexing 1939 code sections to the 1986 code, then indexing 1986 sections to the 1939 sections from which they are drawn. Once having identified the 1939 section in which you are interested, find the section listing in the 1939 appendix, where the actual statute section that it represents is listed.

The Public Salary Tax Act of 1939

The Current Tax Payment Act of 1943

Elements of the Victory Tax Act and their repeal

The IRC of 1954

The Internal Revenue Code of 1986

Code of Federal Regulations for Title 26 (Internal Revenue)

Congress passed the Act > Statutes written > then Regulations > then Codes.

great post btw... (except for the Revenue Act of 1861 which had a direct apportioned tax of 20 mil on land, internal duties, and the first income tax in section 49)

I don't post here to make friends or make enemies. I am interested in truth. I have taken a ton of crap over the past couple years arguing the minority position of original intent government has redefined the word Naturalization to mean Immigration just like redefining the word Commerce. But when I make an argument I cite the evidence to back up my assertions. I do not see the opposition of income taxation arguments extending the same courtesy to cite the federal jurisdiction of income tax.

Everyone on this forum likely understands the guns of government are going to work in governments best interests. That in and of itself does not make something true and how it ought to be.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I think I can, at least I can tell you I know enough to comply and don't claim to know more than an average lawyer or accountant.

Since you admit you have nothing to contribute to the discussion on this subject matter I am going to ignore your posts on the topic.

YouTube - Social Conformity: The Bystander Effect

 

[WaltM]

Since you admit you have nothing to contribute to the discussion on this subject matter I am going to ignore your posts on the topic.

I answered your question as to why I'm honest and he is not.

He can't even back up what he says.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

He can't even back up what he says.

I disagree.

 

[WaltM]

I disagree.

then let's see him back it up, you're free to disagree, but dont expect me to take him seriously and not call him dishonest, hypocritical.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

then let's see him back it up, you're free to disagree, but dont expect me to take him seriously and not call him dishonest, hypocritical.

Don't ask me to vouch for you if you are going to be a hypocrite and selectively apply credibility.

 

[Nanerbeet]

If you don't want to pay taxes, don't sign up for social security. You cannot file a tax return without a social security number and the employer cannot deduct witholdings. The down side is that no business can hire you as an employee-- you'll have to work as a contractor and forgo benefits. Also, a business can't 1099 you without a SSN.


Think of it this way; you waived your rights when you opted-in to club Fed by signing up for Social Security. Think of it as a contract between you and the government-- by signing up for the benefits, you are also liable for the costs. Why do you think the IRS sues you in civil court?


You don't go to jail for not paying taxes-- you go to jail by hiding or lying about your liability (i.e. failing to file a return and/or trying to defraud the United States government through special schemes designed specifically (not incidentally) to avoid liablity).



http://www.loompanics.com/Articles/YesYouCan.html

 

[mrsat_98]

Income for tax purposes is defined in the code.

"gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
(1) Compensation for services, . . "

That means YOUR wages.

Funny thing the Surpreme Court of the State of Lousiana articulated the following.

" We do not believe these people that adopted the constitution understand that a tax on their wages salaries tips and commissions is NOT an income tax."

Someone asserting this ought to be able to articulate federal jurisdiction.

Who is the person at 4 USC 110 (a), Which state? or is it "within the State" or "in this State" or "in the State"? 4 USC 110 (d).

Which state did J Edgar Hoover define as the very definition of the communist party ? It was a "state within a state" on page vii of Master of Deceit.

https://taxlaw.state.fl.us/view.asp... - 1995-1999 Technical Assistance Advisements

above link is a trail that I have not seen addressed on just who the person is at 26 USC 7701, 4 USC 110 (a).

 

[WaltM]

Don't ask me to vouch for you if you are going to be a hypocrite and selectively apply credibility.

How am I a hypocrite?

Have I not honestly admitted I have no special knowledge, have I ever practiced different than what I preach?

I don't apply selective credibility, I don't claim to have much, I ask he, who claims he knows more, to show it.

I expect you to vouch for me on whatever you know about me, for good OR bad.