Where is the Law?

A collection of old posts from all forums. No new threads or new posts in old threads allowed. For archive use only.
jkeeb
Pirate Judge of Which Things Work
Posts: 321
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2004 6:13 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Where is the Law?

Post by jkeeb »

If you're still around nuclearjerk, let's start the argument. In order to start, I say the law showing you may owe taxes is section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code. Your response?
Remember that CtC is about the rule of law.

John J. Bulten
Imalawman
Enchanted Consultant of the Red Stapler
Posts: 1808
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 8:23 pm
Location: Formerly in a cubicle by the window where I could see the squirrels, and they were married.

Re: Where is the Law?

Post by Imalawman »

jkeeb wrote:If you're still around nuclearjerk, let's start the argument. In order to start, I say the law showing you may owe taxes is section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code. Your response?
No, see, he's convinced. Remember? He's now a tax-paying citizen. He'll never again be duped into a tax protestor theory. :roll:
"Some people are like Slinkies ... not really good for anything, but you can't help smiling when you see one tumble down the stairs" - Unknown
Mr. Mephistopheles
Faustus Quatlus
Posts: 798
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 3:46 am

Re: Where is the Law?

Post by Mr. Mephistopheles »

jkeeb wrote:If you're still around nuclearjerk, let's start the argument. In order to start, I say the law showing you may owe taxes is section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code. Your response?
Silly, don't you know that Codes aren't laws? :wink:
Quixote
Quatloosian Master of Deception
Posts: 1542
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2003 2:00 am
Location: Sanhoudalistan

Re: Where is the Law?

Post by Quixote »

Anyway, the reason for all this "tax-protesting" is that there is no clearly defined law that says we as private individuals are liable for taxes.
One of the problems with the casual tax denier, as opposed to the batshit crazy ones, is that he is not sufficiently familiar with statutes in general to see how clear the IRC is. Texas has executed more people in recent years than any other state. It is therefore surprising to learn that no one has ever commited capital murder in Texas, at least not if we read the law like a TP.

All sections below are from the Texas Penal Code.
§ 19.03. CAPITAL MURDER[0]. (a) A person commits an
offense if the person commits murder as defined under Section
19.02(b)(1) and:
We don't need to know what follows after "and:", because no one has ever committed murder as defined in Section 19.02(b)(1).
§ 19.02. MURDER.

...

(b) A person commits an offense if he:
(1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an
individual;
(2) intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits
an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an
individual; or
(3) commits or attempts to commit a felony, other than
manslaughter, and in the course of and in furtherance of the
commission or attempt, or in immediate flight from the commission
or attempt, he commits or attempts to commit an act clearly
dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual.
Emphasis added.

See. Section 19.02(b)(1) doesn't define murder, it just states that any of the listed actions is an offense. For all we know, that offense might be jay walking. Since murder is not defined in Section 19.02(b)(1), then no one can commit murder as defined in Section 19.02(b)(1). And yet the Innocence Project has never raised that point.

If I squint just right, I may find out that I don't have to stop at red lights either.
"Here is a fundamental question to ask yourself- what is the goal of the income tax scam? I think it is a means to extract wealth from the masses and give it to a parasite class." Skankbeat