IRS 4,

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Wild Wild West : One Thread

The fact is, since direct federal taxation (of a person) is prohibited by the constitution (this has not been repealed, to date) and the 5th amendment prohibits taking peoples property without compensation...."...nor be deprivedof property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation"

The United States Supreme Court said in Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton Railroad Co. that this( mandatory Social Security tax) was unconstitutional; and this case has not been overturned to date. IT STILL STANDS.

That this is true, is further substantiated by the statements of the Supreme Court in the case of Stanton V. Baltic Mining Co. 240 US 103 36 S. Ct, 278 (1916):

".. 16th amendment conferred no new powers of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning FROM BEING TAKEN OUT OF THE CATAGORY OF INDIRECT TAXATION TO WHICH IT INHERENTLY BELONGED."

In the stanton case, the court affirmed that the 16th amendment did not repeal Article 1, Sec. 9 Cl. 4 which prohibits direct taxation by the government, and acknowledged that it was a direct tax.

It is important to remember that court opinions are not law. Article 1 Sec, 1 Cl. 1 reads "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

Article 6 Cl. 2 says the the constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. This means that court opinions (mostly district courts) which are at odds with the United States Supreme Court opinions and or the constitution, are unlawful because courts may not "re-interpret" If a law requires re-interpreting, then it is void for vagueness.

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), April 27, 2001

Answers

[It is important to remember that court opinions are not law.]

This statement kind of ignores the fact that court opinions ARE the law, and have been since Marbury v. Madison.

Essentially, your entire argument is that the law means what you wish to believe it means, rather than what the courts, the legislature, and the IRS SAY it means and enforce it that way.

I really don't understand what else you're trying to say. The 16th amendment says the government can tax any income, from whatever source derived. This amendment was passed to actually DO something, namely clarify what was meant by "direct" and "indirect" taxation by making such distinctions irrelevant.

Basically, this amendment says Congress can tax income, however they wish to define it, in any way they damn please. Now, you may find this offensive. I might find this offensive. But it is the law. If you choose, you can be like Mr. Sloan and go to jail screaming that everyone is illegal but him and it's all a huge scam. You might even believe it, and jail is still jail.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 27, 2001.


And you can choose to believe that all judges are saints and their word and opinion is sacred, but I choose to open my eyes and examine all of the law, and not just an occasional disinfo cut and paste. Are you going to examine the cases your "authority" cited?

You claim to adhere to SC rulings. Well, I just quoted a few that have never been overturned. Are you going to scrunch your eyes and put your fingers in your ears?

I just showed you the explanation for the 16th, IN THE SUPREME COURTS WORDS.

TRY READING AND COMPREHENDING AT THE SAME TIME.

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), April 27, 2001.


[Basically this amendment says that congress can tax income however they define it, in any way they damn please.]

AND THEY DID DEFINE IT. But of course not any way they damned please.

The 16th... "conferred no new powers of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary(full, entire) power of income taxation possessed by congress from the beginning from being taken out of the catagory of INDIRECT TAXATION to which it inherently belonged." If this ruling does not exist or has been overturned, then the 16th could be used to suit you, Flint, but sorry to disappoint you, it hasn't.

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), April 27, 2001.


KoFE:

Now wait a minute. To "support" your case, you cite the courts. But when you don't like what the courts decide, THEN you attack me for citing the courts. Heads you win, tails I lose, right?

I have enough sense to recognize that I had better obey the law *as the courts interpret it*. If you wish to bring test cases in an effort to set new precedents and get things changed, then you are welcome to do so. Be warned that as far as I can tell, the courts find NO ambiguity in the tax laws -- we really don't find one court disagreeing with another over what the tax laws say. Indeed, the tax laws are at least as clearly defined and consistently decided as any other area of law.

And your claims have been raised and rejected so many times that those who raise them are being fined for wasting time. You know this. Why not redirect your energy into something more productive and intelligent?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 27, 2001.


But that's what you have been doing, Flint . Citing cases to bolster YOUR claim. Then, when I go research them, come back and dispute the REFERENCE you supplied, you claim I disagree with the case opinion, when, the case opinion is not at fault, but your reference is.

You cite cases you haven't even read. Or, if you have read it you haven't understood it. Patton v. Grady made no mention of the 5th; not once. But you tried to claim I was wrong, and you were going to show me how.

Then you use the same tactic that you accuse me of. You vanish. But first you make a few more insults. (Where have I seen this pattern before?)

-- KoFE (oyur@town.USSA), April 27, 2001.



BTW, please cite a case where my claims have been raised and rejected for wasting time.

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), April 27, 2001.

KoFE:

I already cited them, about 4 threads back. Now I feel I'm trying to have a dialogue with a parrot.

So I tell you what. You can win to your heart's content, have fun. If you try to do so in a court of law, let us know how it comes out. You go first, OK?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 27, 2001.


When I say "re-interpreting" by the corts, I'm referring to lower court rulings, not the Supreme Court. They interpret, and the warn against re-interpreting. That is what is confusing you.

The lower courts and prosecutors in many cases have twisted the SC decisions. A blatant example is about 2 threads down "judges running amok" ., Where Oregons' SC ordered a man to pay College tuition. This is obviously unconstitutional.

But if the public accepts it, then it will continue.

And of course there will always be intellectually dishonest people who wll say, so what?

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), April 27, 2001.


That's how they win. They know you don't care enough or have the attention span to figure it out if you did.

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), April 27, 2001.

In your American slang, I think there is a phrase, "Put your money where your mouth is." If I understand Senor Flint, this is what he is saying. Simply refuse to pay your taxes and take your argument into the courts. If you are correct, you will win. If you are wrong, you will be fined and possibly imprisoned. May I suggest you contact the IRS and tell them you refuse to pay. This will save you waiting for an audit and you can move directly into the legal test phase of your analysis. Do let us know how you fare.

-- Jose Ortega y Gasset (j_ortega_y_gasset@hotmail.com), April 27, 2001.


Link to Tax Protestor Thread

A thread from the last forum.

-- Remember (the@ld.forum.com), April 27, 2001.


Glad to see at least one honest poster admit that fear what keeps them from the truth, rather than claiming to know something they don't.

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), April 27, 2001.

There is no comparison to what I posted and what this FAQ site refers to.

That should illustrate Old Forums intention.

You will also notice that there are no sound arguments to challenge what I've posted.

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), April 27, 2001.


So if there are no sound arguments against your position, of course you will test them legally rather than pay a large portion of your income. When shall we expect the citation from your winning case? I look forward to reading about your victory as I am sure it will inspire others to follow you. Or is this just the hollow rattling of an empty barrell, a man who claims his argument is sound and yet is afraid to test this outside of an internet forum?

I am reminded of the man who says he could fight the bulls, he just does not want to.

-- Jose Ortega y Gasset (j_ortega_y_gasset@hotmail.com), April 27, 2001.


Kofe: I also agree with Senor there.

Fear is a very REAL issue. My ex didnt file a return for years, then WE got STUCK paying the bill.

Fear will, at its best, keep me uninformed and outta jail. :-)

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), April 28, 2001.



Jose, I'm not going to waste a lot of time disputing sly accusations. I haven't asked any one to "get involved."

Don't look up; just keep chewing.

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), April 28, 2001.


I would pay my taxes, Senor Kofe, for simply the entertainment value of watching you in Court. Do tell us all when your trial begins. I shall procure air fare, if only watch your summation and the judgement that will closely follow.

Your accusations are not sly, or even clever. Perhaps it is the perspective of an expatriate, but the taxes in America seem quite reasonable if only for the freedom it buys. I would gladly pay more than deal with the "death squads" and secret police of other nations. I must also say, your environment is rather clean, your roads well maintained and your military is the strongest in the world.

It seems to me fairly clear. If your legal argument is so compelling, you should have no problem winning your legal case. Or are you one of those tax protestors who simply does not file and allow other citizens to bear the burden of your noncompliance? I do hope you practice some level of intellectual honesty and do not drive on public roads, buy products whose safety is ensured by government agencies or avail yourself of any other subsidized services. If you did, one might rightly accuse you of parisitism on your fellow man.

-- Jose Ortega y Gasset (j_ortega_y_gasset@hotmail.com), April 28, 2001.


And .as usual, your comments are made w/out understanding, Jose.

America has a reputation for freedom; because of the original document which guarantees that freedom, but which has been perverted by the true parasites. I generate more revenue by my actions than you probably do when you file a 1040, which by the way, is what is mandatory for you if you are a no-resident alien. That is what the law actually says, and I would be willing to show you as well, but since you readily admit that your freedom can be bought with protection money, you may not be interested.

Revenue generated by activity, rather than preying on citizens property, is what the constitution mandates. I'm finding it very interesting; the smears, clueless knee jerk reactions, and complete absence of law that is presented by those who answer. You are just the latest to illustrate the conditioned ignorance of most of the public.

I predict that you will post a few more insults, and then fizzle like the rest, unless you would like to read the actual law that I have quoted in the first 7 paragraphs of this thread, and explain how it disagrees with your opinion.

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), April 28, 2001.


I believe another common American phrase is, "Put up or shut up." Or is all your bombastic rhetoric really just saying you have no plans to test your legal theories in a court of law?

I can assure you that you have far more freedom than rest of the world. You may find the current level of liberty unsuitable given your personal view of the U.S. Constitution. This is like the wealthy man who complain about the quality of the jamon serrano while the peasants are starving. Forgive me, but this is why the rest of the world dislikes Americans. You act like spoiled children.

As to your generation of revenue, we can verify this during your court case. I am certain the government will show a keen interest in the income you contend cannot be legally taxed.

Now, let us decide what U.S. court will be trying your case. Please post the date and I assure you I will take a few moments from my busy schedule to fly and in watch you dazzle the court with your breathtaking analysis. This is a challenge, Senor; consider the gauntlet thrown. As for the law, I have read your interpretation and find it well refuted by the tax protestor FAQ posted by another participant. The simple fact, Kofe, is that tax protestors do not win in court. You can claim the court is acting illegally, but this claim has been heard (on many occasions) and found not only legally unsound but frivolous.

My refutation is simple. Your theories have been explored by the U.S. legal system and summarily rejected. Case closed.

-- Jose Ortega y Gasset (j_ortega_y_gasset@hotmail.com), April 28, 2001.


Yes indeed, you refutation is simple, because it is refuted by a simpleton, who cannot read what the Constitution of the country that claims he to love so much, actually says, but instead post irrelevant disinformation, absent of law,referenced by previous simpletons who did the same. You are calling the Supreme Law of the United States, and the Supreme Courts interpertation of the law "bombastic rhetoric".

I could not imagine myself going to a foreign country and telling the citizens there that they should except illegal acts of their public servants because things are worse in other countries. How did you become so arrogant?

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), April 28, 2001.


The challenge was to take your claims to court, NOT to throw a tantrum and call names.

So, when is your court date?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 28, 2001.


When are you going to explain the cases you cited?

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), April 28, 2001.

I have posted a series of links on another thread. These links contain the actual cases of tax protestors who have taken your analysis into the legal system and lost. I could quote from the judgements who found your arguments without a shred of merit... but this would be repetitive. In making these numerous findings, the judges quoted copious amounts of case law that establish the U.S. government does have the right to tax income.

You could contend that all of these judges (at every level of legal system) are wrong... and that you are right. You could claim that your personal insights into the U.S. Constitution are more accurate than generations of judges, attorneys and constitution law scholars. Is this really what you are saying... that America suffers from some grand legal conspiracy where judges refuse to acknowledge the "true" meaning of the law?

-- Jose Ortega y Gasset (j_ortega_y_gasset@hotmail.com), April 28, 2001.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ