Where is the Law?

[nuclearj]

Man you folks are rough! Seem like this web site's purpose is to poke fun and debase people who are standing up for their rights. We are in the jungle fighting, while you sheeple are in the pastures grazing accepting what ever the farmer gives you. And I have heard of stories of what lonely farmers do to sheep...

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. If there was a clearly defined law, no one would have a contention with the IRS and their associates. If you can find this law (clearly defined, without a doubt and not left open to interpretation (good luck, really!)) I will pay my fair share.

I do agree that there are tax scams and greedy people feeding off the system. They give the real patriots a bad rep. The real patriots win by not even going to court, that's why you rarely hear of our victories. But that tide is changing to:
http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data ... 1218324298

Live the good life, the type our forefathers had intended as freemen/women. Not the life that the alphabet mafia (FED, IRS, CIA, FCC, et al) has created, and forced us to live.

[Demosthenes]

The Internal Revenue Code is the law.

Yawn.

[nuclearj]

The Internal Revenue Code is the law.

Yawn.

Enjoy the pasture.

[Demosthenes]

Enjoy financial ruin, your family hitting the road, and potentially time in prison.

[nuclearj]

Enjoy financial ruin, your family hitting the road, and potentially time in prison.

Better to die on my feet than live on my knees.

[Demosthenes]

Don't you get tired of spouting cliches?

[Cpt Banjo]

Son, you have probably heard the expression that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. In the context of taxation, it is also the last refuge of a deadbeat.

[jg]

For a primer on "Where is the law?" see Jon Siegel's Income Tax Page at http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/ ... omeTax.htm

Around the web you can find scores of people and organizations touting the concept that there is no obligation to pay income taxes. They have dozens of theories, each kookier than the last. There is an eerie fascination to these theories, many of which are laced with so many references to the tax code and regulations that they have a veneer of plausibility that just might fool a very naive lay person. As a small public service, this page explains the error in some popular tax protestor theories.

One of the links is for Income Tax Myths "There's just no law requiring you to pay federal income taxes."

If there are any specific items mentioned by Professor Siegel that you would like to discuss we can use his page as a starting point.
I hope this helps you see that it is at best a myth that "There's just no law requiring you to pay federal income taxes."

[Famspear]

Man you folks are rough! Seem[s] like this web site's purpose is to poke fun and debase people who are standing up for their rights. We are in the jungle fighting, while you sheeple are in the pastures grazing accepting what ever the farmer gives you. And I have heard of stories of what lonely farmers do to sheep...

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. If there was a clearly defined law, no one would have a contention with the IRS and their associates. If you can find this law (clearly defined, without a doubt and not left open to interpretation (good luck, really!)) I will pay my fair share.

I do agree that there are tax scams and greedy people feeding off the system. They give the real patriots a bad rep. The real patriots win by not even going to court, that's why you rarely hear of our victories. But that tide is changing to:
http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data ... 1218324298

Live the good life, the type our forefathers had intended as freemen/women. Not the life that the alphabet mafia (FED, IRS, CIA, FCC, et al) has created, and forced us to live.

(bolding added).

Dear nuclearj: Regarding the story you linked -- I haven't read the whole story, but this is old, old news. The government lawyers in the case actually were found to have committed wrongful acts, and they actually were punished. And that's good. By the way, I happen to know Collis Redd, the enrolled agent quoted in the story. I disagree with Collis Redd regarding his quoted comment about Michael Minns being the only lawyer who can handle the job, etc. There are many tax lawyers who can do what Minns does.

A primary purpose of this web site is to educate people about scams. Arguing that you are not legally obligated to pay federal income taxes under the phony line that "there is no clearly defined law that says we as private individuals are liable for taxes" is part of the body of tax protester scams out there. Based on your opening comment, it appears that you are either a scammer or you are delusional, or maybe a bit of both.

There is of course a clearly defined law that says that you as a private individual are liable for taxes, and you, nuclearj, are well aware of the existence of that law. If you weren't aware of the existence of the law, you would not have come here to the forum and begun rehashing tax protester rhetoric you have read somewhere. We have seen all this before.

By the way, here's a little secret: In internet posts, you should avoid using the word "sheeple" to refer to people with whose views you disagree. That is a term, the use of which tends to identify you as being someone who has blindly swallowed lots of tax protester and other anti-government garbage. On the internet, using the term "sheeple" is a sort of functional equivalent of using "valley girl" talk in an art museum. Using that term tends to identify you as a rube. Whether that's true or not in your case, you shouldn't want to give other people that impression of you.

Many of the people here at Quatloos are pretty "heavy hitters" in the world of exposing scams, including tax protester scams. Based on the tenor of your comments, I believe it's safe to say that there are many people here who have far more accurate and detailed knowledge about the legal validity of the U.S. federal income tax than you will ever hope to have. And these people can spot a scammer or a delusional person a mile away.

And, no, you have no credibility when you say "if you can find this law" you will pay your "fair share." The validity of the federal income tax law is not "open to interpretation" in the sense in which you are saying. And there is absolutely no doubt, from a legal standpoint, that the federal income tax is legally valid. The fact that you and other tax protesters create your own "interpretations" (or that you may claim to have your own "doubts") is not worth a warm bucket of spit.

[LPC]

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.

Nonsense.

Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code IMPOSES a tax on your income. Do you really think a tax can be imposed on your income without your being liable for the tax?

If there were any doubt, the doubt is removed by sections 6012 and 6151. Section 6012 requires people with more than a certain amount of gross income to file returns, and section 6151 requires them to pay the tax shown on the return.

See http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#liable for the numerous court decisions that have ridiculed the notion that there is no law making anyone liable for the income tax.

If there was a clearly defined law, no one would have a contention with the IRS and their associates.

More nonsense. There are crackpots who claim that the states of the United States are not part of the United States, that they are sovereigns who are masters of the government, that they are immune from tax because they have inserted a colon (":") between their first and last names, and other incredible gibberish. No wording of the law is going to stop you and those other crackpots from contending that you don't need pay taxes.

If you can find this law (clearly defined, without a doubt and not left open to interpretation (good luck, really!)) I will pay my fair share.

I've shown you the law. It's clearly defined, without a doubt, and not left open to interpretation. I'm sure the IRS is looking forward to getting your return.

The real patriots win by not even going to court, that's why you rarely hear of our victories.

What you're saying is that your "wins" are undocumented, unprovable, and irreproducible. And that, when you go to court, you'll lose.

You might as well claim to be backed by invisible magic fairies, because your claim is both totally unprovable and totally useless.

But that tide is changing to:
http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data ... 1218324298

As has been explained numerous times, a not guilty verdict in a criminal case only means that the government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants were WILLFULLY violating the tax laws, and were not acting out of a good faith mistake. It does NOT mean that the tax laws are not valid, or do not apply, because the defendants will still end up paying the taxes owed, with interest and penalties.

You might as well claim that murder is legal because OJ Simpson was found not guilty.

[LPC]

Better to die on my feet than live on my knees.

No, it's better to live on your feet than to die on your knees.

Irwin Schiff and Ed Brown both said "there is no law," and they could both die in prison, figuratively (if not literally) on their knees.

Meanwhile, those of us who file our tax returns are still on our feet.

[Nikki]

Better to die on my feet than live on my knees.

No, it's better to live on your feet than to die on your knees.

Irwin Schiff and Ed Brown both said "there is no law," and they could both die in prison, figuratively (if not literally) on their knees.

Meanwhile, those of us who file our tax returns are still on our feet.

No, we're not. We're reclining in out hammocks, sipping the appropriate climate-zone beverage, and planning how to dispose of retirement income substantially more significant than the high-three of any of these sovereign patriots.

Us poor sheeple really got it tough.

[RyanMcC]

HereIsTheLaw.Com

[wserra]

Us poor sheeple really got it tough.

I don't feel for nitwits like "nuclearj". I feel for its kids. Hopefully they don't have to rely on it for anything. If they rely on "nuclearj" to finance their education, for example, they'll be asking my kids if they can fill the water glasses.

[wserra]

The real patriots win by not even going to court, that's why you rarely hear of our victories.

What kind of non-reason is that? If you win a case "without going to court", you still have the documentation to prove that you won - the correspondence, the non-pros agreement, whatever. Why has none of that surfaced? Oh, I see, they won without even having to put anything in writing. Why, they just thought their power thoughts, and the evil government slunk away.

Maybe your fellow idiots believe that, but no one with any sense does.

But that tide is changing to:
http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data ... 1218324298

Ah. Bellringer's site. Tell us about NESARA, why don't you?

[LOBO]

nuclearj: If you can find this law (clearly defined, without a doubt and not left open to interpretation (good luck, really!)) I will pay my fair share.


Demosthenes: The Internal Reve......

nuclearj: (fingers in ear) LALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALA
LALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALA
LALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALA
LALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALA

[DarkestBeforeDawn]

The Internal Revenue Code is the law.

Yawn.

The Law is force. If the Law was set in Stone we would be still following British Law, and before that Roman Law, and before that Clan Law.

http://www.serenitysangel.net/laws/Silly.html
Silly supposed Laws.

If Congress passes a Law that says all dogs will walk on two feet, do you really think that is Law? Law is what is enforced, in it's purest form it is FORCE. Just because something is written down does not make it a Law.

[jkeeb]

Ahh, Darkest before Dumb has provided us with a spiffy off-point comment to add to the festivities.

[DarkestBeforeDawn]

Ahh, Darkest before Dumb has provided us with a spiffy off-point comment to add to the festivities.

You say what you want -- a Law without force is a joke, kind of like your pointless statement.

I guess you are right, Law is probably what is not enforced. Makes sense.

[Nikki]

Darkest:

Assuming you are old enough to operate an automobile that you don't have to pedal, do you stop at those octagonal, red signs? Always, or just when you see a police officere there?