Judge Roy Bean wrote:
Simple solution - use your own theory to determine what the values are and see what happens if you're prosecuted when you argue that you need to know what Congress says it is.
Until you've tested it in court, you're wasting your time. And ours.
It is never a waste of time to search for the truth. Even Buddha can tell you that.
And I did test it, but not in court. In order to go to court I would have needed to be arrested or at least charged with some crime. I have never had a single problem with the IRS. They agree with me and told me I was not required to file a 1040 well over a decade ago. The even told me that I would only have to report property OTHER THAN MONEY in the fair market value and we all know that silver and gold dollars minted since 1986 are money and legal tender.
USC 31, SUBCHAPTER I—MONETARY SYSTEM § 5101. Decimal system
United States money is expressed in dollars, dimes or tenths, cents or hundreths,[1] and mills or thousandths. A dime is a tenth of a dollar, a cent is a hundredth of a dollar, and a mill is a thousandth of a dollar.
See also § 5112.
You Pro-slavery members of the Marxist Religious Cult know me well. So does the IRS. So does the DoJ. So does Greg Damm. Why would I go to court when we all agree that I am not even suspected of committing a crime? Why would I become a cult member by being a taxpayer? Why would I have faith in your religious beliefs when law must be required and not faith to show me that I am wrong.
You Marx cultists are just angry because I don't worship at the alter of Communism and your established Civic religion that turns Americans into slaves.
I put your Marxist faith in FRNs to the test, given for such things, in the Bible...prove all things and hold fast to that which is good and unequal weights and measures are an abomination to the Lord, and they failed both tests. Obviously you agree because you cannot cite the law.
"No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions,
whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa.’ Everson v. Board of Ed. of Ewing, 330 U.S., at 15, 67 S.Ct., at 511-512."
Lee v. Weisman 505 U.S. 577, 601 (1992)
“I certainly came to the conclusion many years ago that Marxism is a religion, contrary to Marx’s contention that he was being ‘scientific’. This was related to my own upbringing in a fundamentalist, Pentecostal church and I came to see a huge number of similarities and parallels between the two belief systems.” Dr. Wallace Mills of St Mary’s University
The Encyclopedia of the World’s Religions includes a chapter on Marxism, declaring that it meets all the essential requirements of a religion. See R. C. Zaehner, “Dialectical Materialism,” in R. C. Zaehner, ed., Encyclopedia of the World’s Religions (New York: Barnes and Noble Books, 1997)
The Supreme Court has ruled that the government cannot establish a religion of secularism in School Dist. of Abington Tp., Pa. v. Schempp 374 U.S. 203, *225, (1963)
"We agree of course that the State may not establish a ‘religion of secularism’ in the sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion, thus ‘preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe.'"
So why don't you try going to court to prove you Marxists have not established a religion of secularism with Marx's 2nd, 5th and 10th planks firmly established.
Because "Until you've tested it in court, you're wasting your time. And ours."
Sec. 3. Free Exercise of Religion Protected.
(a) In General: Government
shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b).
(b) Exception: Government may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person--
(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the
least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
(c) Judicial Relief: A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under article III of the Constitution.
So if I want to use Gold Coins minted since 1986 to calculate any possible taxable income can you tell me why that would not be the least restrictive on MY religious exercise?
And remember that I am not required to do a thing to change MY religious beliefs
until the government demonstrates that application of the burden to the person is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. So until the Government demonstrates it by perhaps showing me the law that says that gold and silver dollars are not REALLY dollars as declared to be by Congress, then I have no reason to believe that I have a "known duty" to do it any other way.
And you Marxist IRS agents know what that means...Right? I mean you have read Cheek...Right? And that, of course, this only ONE of many explanations I am looking for so that I can understand
in clear and unequivocal language if I am actually a person required to file which is something the district director told me in writing, that I was not such a person.
So since I cannot find such a clear and unequivocal law I MUST presume that I am exempt:
Keeping in mind the well-settled rule that t
he citizen is exempt from taxation unless the same is imposed by clear and unequivocal language, and that where the construction of a tax law is doubtful, the doubt is to be resolved in favor of those upon whom the tax is sought to be laid.
Spreckels Sugar Refining Co. v. McClain, 192 U.S. 397, 24 S.Ct. 376, 418, U.S. 1904
So I came here to TRY to get that "demonstration" and as usual you Marxists CANNOT CITE THE LAW but only dance around it in worship of Marxist 2nd and 5th Commandments.
It is a fundamental tenet of due process that "[n]o one may be required at peril of life, liberty or property to speculate as to the meaning of penal statutes." Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U.S. 451, 453 (1939). A criminal statute is therefore invalid if it "fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden." United States v. Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114, 123 (1979)
So how come you brilliant former prosecutors and IRS agents force me to keep speculating? All I want are clear and unequivocal laws and no one can give them to me after 30 years of searching. Or maybe I am not a "person of ordinary intelligence" which means I cannot commit a tax crime anyway. Right?