Snopes Article on "Voluntary Tax"

[bmielke]

Taxes are voluntatry?

According to Snopes.com no.

Read the article HERE

I can't seem to higlight it to copy and past any of it in to this post.

[Brandybuck]

According to a Troofer aquaintance of mine, you can't trust anything Snopes says, because they supported the "official" story of 9/11. That's not all, a Birfer friend told me, "who the f**k gave Snopes the right to judge the facts!".

Are people starting to catch on that we're secretly funding Snopes?

[bmielke]

According to a Troofer aquaintance of mine, you can't trust anything Snopes says, because they supported the "official" story of 9/11. That's not all, a Birfer friend told me, "who the f**k gave Snopes the right to judge the facts!".

Are people starting to catch on that we're secretly funding Snopes?

If you had any idea how many shell companies, dummy corporations, and trusts you have to go through you would know that they don't have a clue. There is in fact more danger of them finding Barak Obama's real birth certificate then them ever stumbling through that maze.

Rumor has it that Orly Taitz was going to take on Snopes until she got into trying to prove anything, she went the easy route, (on to another dead end we laid in front of her.)

[Unidyne]

I have a friend of a relative who is a borderline "birther", and he doesn't trust Snopes because "Anyone could put anything on the internet and say it's the truth".

Meanwhile, he passes on just about anything that is e-mailed to him about Obama's supposed Kenyan citizenship or various 9/11 conspiracies.

[rogfulton]

A while back (months, maybe a year) my mother forwarded me an email from a church friend of hers that went into great detail why Snopes was not trustworthy. It was really interesting to see how many ways someone could say "they's libruls" and "they's doin' from their kitchen table!" I wish I had kept it so I could share it here.

I responded to my mother by sending a link to an article I knew of at the time where the site owners intimated they were liberal politically and that they do all their research at their kitchen table. I also wish I had kept that link.

She stopped forwarding emails with everyone's email listed because my brothers and I would reply-all and debunk each one. Now only one email is listed To:

[Imalawman]

A while back (months, maybe a year) my mother forwarded me an email from a church friend of hers that went into great detail why Snopes was not trustworthy. It was really interesting to see how many ways someone could say "they's libruls" and "they's doin' from their kitchen table!" I wish I had kept it so I could share it here.

I responded to my mother by sending a link to an article I knew of at the time where the site owners intimated they were liberal politically and that they do all their research at their kitchen table. I also wish I had kept that link.

She stopped forwarding emails with everyone's email listed because my brothers and I would reply-all and debunk each one. Now only one email is listed To:

My family has stopped doing that too. ha! Must be a Quatloos thing.

[Demosthenes]

My poor 82 year old father in law spends a good part of every morning trying to debunk the crap that his generation emails out to everyone on their lists. It's amazing how many retired golfers and bridge players are totally into the whole birfer nonsense in Palm Springs, CA.

[The Observer]

It's amazing how many retired golfers and bridge players are totally into the whole birfer nonsense in Palm Springs, CA.

Wow - one can retire from playing golf and bridge? Do they have a good pension system?

[Judge Roy Bean]

It's amazing how many retired golfers and bridge players are totally into the whole birfer nonsense in Palm Springs, CA.

Wow - one can retire from playing golf and bridge? ...

From bridge, yes. From golf, no.

Reminds me of the old joke about the three guys sitting in the clubhouse bar after a round, looking glum and not saying much. Finally the bartender decides to ask them what was wrong.

"Rough day, eh boys?"

One of the men looked up and nodded.

"It was really bad out there," another one said.

"Worst day of golf I ever had," said one.

The bartender seemed confused; the weather was mild, the wind was low and everyone else in the club seemed to be having a pretty good time.

The bartender finally asked. "Why so glum?"

The one man that hadn't spoken turned to the bartender and said, "One of the guys in our foursome, Harry, had a heart attack."

"Right on the sixth tee," another said.

The bartender looked startled. "Wow, I'm really sorry about that. That's terrible."

"Yep. All damn afternoon it was hit the ball, drag Harry, hit the ball and drag Harry."

[jkeeb]

Be careful, don't get me started.

[fortinbras]

“A tax, in its essential characteristics, ... is not a debt nor in the nature of a debt. A tax is an impost levied by authority of the govt upon its citizens or subjects for the support of the State. It is not founded on contract or agreement. It operates in invitum {= against an unwilling party}. A debt is a sum of money due by certain and express agreement; it originates and is founded upon contracts express or implied.” Lane County v. Oregon (1869) 74 US (7 Wall.) 71 at 80, 19 L.Ed. 101 at 106 (citation omitted, emphasis added). Similarly, Meriwether v. Garrett (1880) 102 US (12 Otto) 472 at 513, 26 L.Ed. 197; and N.J. v. Anderson (1906) 203 US 483 at 492, 51 L.Ed. 284, 27 S.Ct 137.

[Imalawman]

“A tax, in its essential characteristics, ... is not a debt nor in the nature of a debt. A tax is an impost leveled by authority of the govt upon its citizens or subjects for the support of the State. It is not founded on contract or agreement. It operates in invitum {= against an unwilling party}. A debt is a sum of money due by certain and express agreement; it originates and is founded upon contracts express or implied.” Lane County v. Oregon (1869) 74 US (7 Wall.) 71 at 80, 19 L.Ed. 101 at 106 (citation omitted, emphasis added). Similarly, Meriwether v. Garrett (1880) 102 US (12 Otto) 472 at 513, 26 L.Ed. 197; and N.J. v. Anderson (1906) 203 US 483 at 492, 51 L.Ed. 284, 27 S.Ct 137.

That's a good quote. I've never seen it before.

[Gregg]

“A tax, in its essential characteristics, ... is not a debt nor in the nature of a debt. A tax is an impost leveled by authority of the govt upon its citizens or subjects for the support of the State. It is not founded on contract or agreement. It operates in invitum {= against an unwilling party}. A debt is a sum of money due by certain and express agreement; it originates and is founded upon contracts express or implied.” Lane County v. Oregon (1869) 74 US (7 Wall.) 71 at 80, 19 L.Ed. 101 at 106 (citation omitted, emphasis added). Similarly, Meriwether v. Garrett (1880) 102 US (12 Otto) 472 at 513, 26 L.Ed. 197; and N.J. v. Anderson (1906) 203 US 483 at 492, 51 L.Ed. 284, 27 S.Ct 137.

That's a good quote. I've never seen it before.

Post it at LH and a fw heads might explode

[The Observer]

Doubtful. More likely that we will see quite a few posts denouncing the citation as just more evidence of how corrupt the courts are, a couple posts claiming that this is just meaningless dicta, other posts from "legal beagles" claiming that the citation means the exact opposite of what a reasonable person understands it to be saying, and then of course the mandatory banning of any LHer who had the audacity to merely indicate that this citation might actually mean what it says.

[fortinbras]

Correction to quote: My typo says taxes are "leveled", should say "levied".

[Pottapaug1938]

Doubtful. More likely that we will see quite a few posts denouncing the citation as just more evidence of how corrupt the courts are....

Given that the cases cited are from 1869, 1880 and 1906, all well before the enactment of the 16th Amendment, it will be interesting indeed to see these cases explained away in this fashion.

[Pottapaug1938]

We might also see the citation... um, "condensed", as follows:

[quote="fortinbras"]“A tax, in its essential characteristics, ... originates and is founded upon contracts express or implied.”

[Nikki]

Have you been ghost-writing for Pete?

[Imalawman]

We might also see the citation... um, "condensed", as follows:

“A tax, in its essential characteristics, ... originates and is founded upon contracts express or implied.”

Moreover, the case correctly points out that the IRS cannot levy or file a lien based upon taxes which have not been paid. An unpaid tax is not a debt. It cannot be collected as if it were. Certainly, if a tax arose by agreement or contract, one would assume that normal collection activities would be implemented to collect the tax. However, while the government may impose a tax and may ask for the tax to paid, they cannot establish liability for the tax. Since they cannot establish a contractual liability, they cannot also then collect the tax in the same manner as if it were a legal debt instrument. The IRS themselves reiterate this point where they point out that the tax system is based upon voluntary compliance. Through manipulation and deceit, the IRS has managed to convince the courts that they can enforce a unpaid tax as if it were a private obligation. This case clearly points out that in fact, they cannot. So, while they may complain, beg, and otherwise make a nuisance of themselves trying to collect the voluntary tax, they cannot force you - a natural born man upon the land - to hand over the tax through debt collection tactics.

How's that?

[Pottapaug1938]

Have you been ghost-writing for Pete?

No; but after reading enough of his piffle I can spout CtC gibberish and nonsense as well as the next person....