Indirect Taxes Imposed Directly

[Hyrion]

Famspear Please answer these questions specifically.

1. Is it your belief that ...

Actually, it's you who are telling the IRS, us, and eventually the Courts that your income is not taxable.

The burden of proving the claim currently rests on you. It is up to you to first prove why you believe your income is not taxable when the cases you are citing clearly identify your income as taxable.

[LPC]

Okay, I'll play.

Please answer these questions specifically.

1. Is it your belief that all income can be taxed without the rule of apportionment? If yes, provide documentation that backs up your belief.

Yes; the 16th Amendment.

2. Is it your belief at the 16th amendment gave Congress the unlimited power to tax all incomes directly? If yes, provide documentation.

Yes; the 16th Amendment.

3. Is it your belief that the income tax is not in the category of indirect? If yes, provide documentation.

Not relevant, because I (and Famspear) have never said that "the income tax is not in the category of indirect."

4. What is the constitutional meaning of indirect tax?

A tax that does not need to be apportioned, but needs to be geographically uniform.

Such as the income tax.

5. What is your interpretation of this text? We have considered the act only in respect of the tax on income derived from real estate, and from invested personal property, and have not commented on so much of it as bears on gains or profits from business, privileges, or employments, in view of the instances in which taxation on business, privileges, or employments has assumed the guise of an excise tax and been sustained as such.

My interpretation is that it is a quotation from the opinion of the Supreme Court in the second decision in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 158 US 601, 635 (1895), and that the Supreme Court was saying that the tax act in question was unconstitutional only as it applied to income from real and personal property, and was not unconstitutional as it applied to wages, salaries, and other earnings from employment.

6. What is Mr. Justice WHITE Interpretation of the 16th amendment? Provide documentation.

Mr. Justice White's interpretation of the 16th Amendment is that it allows Congress to impose a tax on all incomes, without apportionment. See his opinion in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916).

[Micheal360]

I am going to put an end to this nonsense right here and right now. Famspear has repeatedly said that I am miss reading case law and that he has clearly explained to me that I was. The truth is I am not miss reading anything. Famspear has his head full of concrete and stuff. I'm not going to talk about indirect or direct taxes in constitutional law. I am going to show you that a man actually be the IRS in court without no doubt or confusion.

On May 12, 2006 in Peoria, Illinois, the attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) begged the court to dismiss all charges against IRS victim Robert Lawrence in federal District Court.

The motion for dismissal came on the heels of a surprise tactic by Lawrence’s defense attorney Oscar Stilley. http://www.givemeliberty.org/rtp2/updat ... -06-09.htm

And before Famspear tries to construe his own crazy knowledge of what happened in this case. Here is Robert Lawrence talking about what happened in his case and how he won.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LP6yPZsGpZM

It is a lengthy video and a lot of it you don't need to hear. I actually watched it through its entirety but you can fast-forward through it. And for all you people that agreed with Famspear and not me. Here is undeniable evidence.

[wserra]

Here is undeniable evidence.

Undeniable evidence that you're an idiot.

You would think that someone who is about to post "undeniable evidence" of something might check the place where he is about to post it to see if the subject has been discussed before. Well, if you would think that, you don't know our Jamie/Mike.

We have, of course, discussed the Robert Lawrence case before. And even if we had not, Jamie/Mike, why do you think that Stilley's moronic PRA argument that has never worked supports your moronic 16th Amendment argument that has never worked? Is it that anything that has never worked must be right?

ETA: the link in my post in the earlier thread to the Seventh Circuit order in Lawrence's appeal of the trial court's denial of his Hyde Amendment motion (for his legal fees) is now dead. Here it is.

[AndyK]

Unbelievable.

1 - The Lawrence case was dismissed at the request of the government because the indictment had incorrect information concerning the amount of taxes evaded / owed.

2 - Oscar Stilley lost his license to practise law as a direct result of promoting the PRA argument. Also, he was imprisoned for various tax-related crimes.

SockPuppet -- try to find some legitimate justification for your insanity.

[notorial dissent]

Mikey/Jimmy, not even a credible try. The case didn't even have anything to do with your claim. The PRA nonsense has nothing to do with the 16th Amendment, and it like your apportionment argument has long been dead in the water. Crickets are still chirping.

[Micheal360]

Here is undeniable evidence.

Undeniable evidence that you're an idiot.

You would think that someone who is about to post "undeniable evidence" of something might check the place where he is about to post it to see if the subject has been discussed before. Well, if you would think that, you don't know our Jamie/Mike.

We have, of course, discussed the Robert Lawrence case before. And even if we had not, Jamie/Mike, why do you think that Stilley's moronic PRA argument that has never worked supports your moronic 16th Amendment argument that has never worked? Is it that anything that has never worked must be right?

ETA: the link in my post in the earlier thread to the Seventh Circuit order in Lawrence's appeal of the trial court's denial of his Hyde Amendment motion (for his legal fees) is now dead. Here it is.

First and foremost the IRS let him go, hello! And if you watched the video you would realize it wasn't just about the OMB number. His case is very interesting. There are court cases that have reject it, and their court cases that did not reject.

Both the 10th Circuit and Supreme Court have determined that “tax forms are information collection requests” under the PRA, Dole v. United Steelworkers, 494 U.S. 26, 110 S.Ct. 929, 93233, 108 L.Ed.2d 23 (1990); United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 630 & n. 13 (10th Cir. 1990) (dictum), and “the 1040 form is the information collection request which arguably must comply with the PRA. It is through the 1040 form that the government obtains all of the tax information it requires,...” U.S. v. Dawes, 951 F.2d 1189 (10th Cir. 1991)

These arguments or some variation or permutation thereof, based on purported lack of compliance with the PRA, have been addressed repeatedly by this Court,3 the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the court to which any
appeal in this case will lie,4 the Courts of Appeals for most of the other circuits,5 and numerous District Courts.6 Although the courts have considered numerous and different arguments and have stated various reasons for their conclusions, every court that has considered the argument that the PRA in some way relieves taxpayers of their duty to file income tax returns has rejected it.

Let me get this right I don't want to misinterpret this. We have a duty to file income tax returns?

There is something seriously wrong with this case. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-c ... 2278-0.pdf

It is cited: On appeal, Garber generally asserts that his wages do not constitute taxable income and that the Internal Revenue Code does not require him to file a tax return.

The federal courts, however, have roundly rejected such arguments. See United States
v. Raymond, 228 F.3d 804, 812 (7th Cir. 2000); United States v. Cooper, 170 F.3d 691, 691 (7th
Cir. 1999) (such arguments are “frivolous squared”); United States v. Middleton, 246 F.3d 825,
841 (6th Cir. 2001); Newman v. Schiff, 778 F.2d 460, 467 (8th Cir. 1985).

United States v. Raymond, 228 F.3d 804, 812 (7th Cir. 2000

That case is about Taxpayer A claims that he is not required to file a federal income tax return or pay income taxes because filing a return and paying tax are “voluntary”

United States v. Cooper, 170 F.3d 691, 691 (7th Cir. 1999)

That case is about tax fraud.

How about this? United States v. Middleton, 246 F.3d 825, 841 (6th Cir. 2001)

It cited he made 80% of his business income receipts from 1992 through 1996 (totaling more than $2.5 million), yet had no record, receipt, or other document to verify even one business expense.

Okay, that's business and that is taxable within the provisions of the 16th amendment and the meaning of the Constitution.

Newman v. Schiff, 778 F.2d 460, 467 (8th Cir. 1985).

John A. Newman, an attorney practicing law in St. Louis, Missouri, brought this action against Irwin Schiff of Hamden, Connecticut, alleging breach of contract. Newman claimed that Schiff had made a public offer of reward to anyone who could cite any section of the Internal Revenue Code that says an individual is required to file an income tax return. Newman asserted that he accepted Schiff's offer, and that Schiff breached the contract by failing to pay him the reward. The district court1 ruled in favor of Schiff by finding that Newman's acceptance was not timely, and Newman appeals. We affirm the judgment of the district court.

All those cases that have been reference do not address "Garber generally asserts that his wages do not constitute taxable income and that the Internal Revenue Code does not require him to file a tax return."

I have gotten that case here: http://www.justice.gov/tax/readingroom/ ... tm#10.04[2]

10.03 PERSON LIABLE

Each of the categories set forth in section 7203 specifies a distinct
and separate obligation. Failure to perform an obligation in any one of the
categories may constitute an offense. See Sansone v. United
States, 380 U.S. 343, 351 (1965). An offender may be charged with
failure to perform each obligation as often as the obligation arises.
See United States v. Harris, 726 F.2d 558, 560 (9th Cir.
1984) (defendant who failed to file for three years guilty of three
separate offenses rather than one continuing offense); United States v.
Stuart, 689 F.2d 759, 763 (8th Cir. 1982) (same).

Any "person" who fails to perform an obligation imposed by the
Internal Revenue Code and the applicable regulations may be liable for
prosecution under section 7203. The term "person" is "construed to mean and
include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or
corporation." 26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(1). Internal Revenue Code section
7343 extends the definition of "person" to include "an officer or employee
of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership who as such
officer, employee, or member is under a duty to perform the act in respect
of which the violation occurs." See United States v. Neal, 93
F.3d 219, 223 (6th Cir. 1996)(corporate officers liable under section 7203
for failure to file employer's quarterly tax return (Form 941)); Ryan v.
United States, 314 F.2d 306, 309 (10th Cir. 1963).

Now the income tax is obligation not a duty? Let's look at the cases that are referenced that make you liable.

Sansone v. United States, 380 U.S. 343, 351 (1965)

"I did not report the 1957 sale in our joint income tax return for 1957 because I was burdened with a [380 U.S. 343, 345] number of financial obligations and did not feel I could raise the money to pay any tax due. It was my intention to report all sales in a future year and pay the tax due. I knew that I should have reported the 1957 sale, but my wife did not know that it should have been reported. It was not my intention to evade the payment of our proper taxes and I intended to pay any additional taxes due when I was financially able to do so."

United States v. Harris, 726 F.2d 558, 560 (9th Cir. 1984)

He didn't file his income tax return and tried to plead the fifth.

UNITED STATES v. STUART Nope, nothing in that case that indicates who's liable.

[Hyrion]

I am going to put an end to this nonsense right here and right now.

The only way you can do that is to ask yourself why you're putting in this much effort into convincing us of your beliefs. Ultimately, when you do go to Court, it won't be our opinions you will be attempting to reason against.

It'll be the Law and the particular Judges interpretation/understanding of the Law. And you won't have anywhere near as many chances to explain your reasoning as you have here. You'll get one chance - maybe two - and then the Judge will rule and it'll be done.

So why all the effort?

[Duke2Earl]

What do we learn for the above? That some people are simply unable to learn. Most people in this world want to spend their time actually having a rewarding and productive life, with their families and the people around them. Some others want to spend their lives tilting at windmills accomplishing nothing but building frustration. The actual chance you will win this argument with the government is zero. Have the nice unhappy and frustrating life that you so desire, Michael.

[Famspear]

As usual, Jameson/Micheal has not done his homework.

Adapted from something I wrote in "another place" on the internet:

Some tax protesters have argued that criminal defendant Robert Lawrence (United States v. Lawrence, no. 06-10019, United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois (Peoria)) was successful with an OMB control number argument when his case was dismissed by a federal court in 2006. According to the court record, the IRS agents who had calculated Mr. Lawrence's tax liability discovered errors they themselves had made—based on information obtained from Lawrence's own tax returns, regarding the taxpayer's tax basis in certain property Lawrence had sold. With respect to certain properties the taxpayer had sold, the IRS agents discovered that he had more tax basis than they had originally calculated—therefore, lower gains or even losses, and thus lower taxes. The IRS agents brought their errors to the attention of the government lawyers, who then asked that the charges be dropped. (United States' Response to Defendant's Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs, entry 31-1, June 23, 2006, United States v. Lawrence, no. 06-10019, United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois (Peoria).)

Lawrence then asked the trial court to order the government to reimburse him for his legal fees. The court ruled against him on that.

He then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit—to try to obtain a reversal of the trial court's refusal to order the government to compensate him for the legal fees he had incurred. At the Court of Appeals, Lawrence contended that he should be reimbursed because the government's conduct against him had been "vexatious, frivolous, or in bad faith." He raised his PRA/OMB control number argument—an argument he had also raised at the trial court level.

In March 2007 the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit rejected the OMB argument. The Court also rejected his request for reimbursement for the legal fees he incurred. The following is an excerpt from the Court's decision:

According to Lawrence, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) required the Internal Revenue Service to display valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) numbers on its Form 1040 [ . . . ] Lawrence argues that the PRA by its terms prohibits the government from imposing a criminal penalty upon a citizen for the failure to complete a form where the information request at issue does not comply with the PRA. Lawrence never explains how this argument is even relevant to the three counts involving tax evasion, but even as to the other three counts, it must fail [ . . . ] Lawrence's brief represents an attempt to prove that the PRA could present a valid defense to the criminal charges. Yet Lawrence conceded at oral argument that no case from this circuit establishes such a proposition, and in fact Lawrence cites no caselaw from any jurisdiction that so holds. In contrast, the government referenced numerous cases supporting its position that the PRA does not present a defense to a criminal action for failure to file income taxes [ . . . ] Lawrence provides no explanation of how government conduct can be vexatious, frivolous, or in bad faith when there is no law contrary to it.

--Judgment, page 2, docket entry 39, March 26, 2007, United States v. Lawrence, United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, No. 06-3205.

[Famspear]

I am going to put an end to this nonsense right here and right now.

No, the only nonsense here is your own posting.

Famspear has repeatedly said that I am miss reading case law and that he has clearly explained to me that I was. The truth is I am not miss reading anything.

Yes, you are misreading just about everything.

Famspear has his head full of concrete and stuff.

No.

I'm not going to talk about indirect or direct taxes in constitutional law. I am going to show you that a man actually be [sic] the IRS in court without no doubt or confusion.

No, you're not. And no, you didn't.

You're still not catching on.

[Famspear]

Both the 10th Circuit and Supreme Court have determined that “tax forms are information collection requests” under the PRA....

Blah-blah-blah......

Get to the point, Einstein.

Tax protesters argue that Form 1040 does not comply with the PRA. THEY HAVE LOST EVERY SINGLE TIME ON THIS ARGUMENT.

Tax protesters have argued that they don't have to file Form 1040 or pay tax, or both, because of some sort of alleged defect in the Form 1040 with respect to the OMB control number. THEY HAVE LOST EVERY SINGLE TIME ON THIS ARGUMENT.

The duty to file federal income tax returns and the duty to pay federal income tax IS NOT NEGATED BY ANY PROVISION OF THE PRA. The PRA/OMB control number arguments are frivolous.

Do your homework.

[Micheal360]

Unbelievable.

1 - The Lawrence case was dismissed at the request of the government because the indictment had incorrect information concerning the amount of taxes evaded / owed.

2 - Oscar Stilley lost his license to practise law as a direct result of promoting the PRA argument. Also, he was imprisoned for various tax-related crimes.

SockPuppet -- try to find some legitimate justification for your insanity.

I am not talking about him in general. Obsolete you did not watch the video. You and this SockPuppet, do you have some weird fetish? Jameson has filed appeals that has stop wage garnishment Levy's. He has had a hearing with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of revenue office of appeals. His hearing took place over the phone on Tuesday, December 18, 2015 at 11 AM. He is still waiting for a decision. He faxed in this documentation. http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendme ... ion01.html Then he called to confirm that the appeals officer received the documentation. He also made it clear that he was going to talk about that documentation on the day of his hearing.

It's already been established quite clear that the income tax is being treated as a excise or duty tax. And according to the documentation, businesses and corporations are reliable to pay the income tax. If a individual owns a apartment building and receives income on the rents on the apartments, that individual will have to pay the income tax. I know it's hard for you sheep to understand that the 16th amendment does in fact have limitations. It doesn't matter what you sheep think. I just find it kind of odd for seven years the Department of revenue and the IRS has been trying to collect through wage garnishment Levy's on Jameson's income and has not been successful. The IRS have their own Department of revenue have their own procedures. They are both obligated to answer Jameson's complaints. If he is misunderstanding that documentation than the Department of revenue and the IRS has to provide reasonable facts. That is part of the due process and there is no escaping it. So far he has not received an explanation and no collection actions have been executed. And as soon as Jameson receives his answers I will share the verdict with everybody. Everything is so simple like you sheep are claiming, and why is it taken so long, and no collection actions are being executed?

[Hyrion]

Obsolete you did not watch the video.

Obsolete Obviously your communication skills are declining.

Jameson has filed appeals that has stop wage garnishment Levy's. He has had a hearing with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of revenue office of appeals. His hearing took place over the phone on Tuesday, December 18, 2015 at 11 AM. He is still waiting for a decision.

That phone conversation was not with a Court Of Law. So you're just in the first stages of your adventure. Why don't you wait to see how your adventure really is going to turn out before trying to insist "it really does work".

As for your split personality, the only person you're fooling (assuming you're even fooling him) is yourself.

[Micheal360]

Both the 10th Circuit and Supreme Court have determined that “tax forms are information collection requests” under the PRA....

Blah-blah-blah......

Get to the point, Einstein.

Tax protesters argue that Form 1040 does not comply with the PRA. THEY HAVE LOST EVERY SINGLE TIME ON THIS ARGUMENT.

Tax protesters have argued that they don't have to file Form 1040 or pay tax, or both, because of some sort of alleged defect in the Form 1040 with respect to the OMB control number. THEY HAVE LOST EVERY SINGLE TIME ON THIS ARGUMENT.

The duty to file federal income tax returns and the duty to pay federal income tax IS NOT NEGATED BY ANY PROVISION OF THE PRA. The PRA/OMB control number arguments are frivolous.

Do your homework.

Yes Famspear you are correct, I have read up on that. He also points out who is liable. Do you actually think that banister and Turner just woke up one day and went crazy on their beliefs? You actually believe that Tom Cryer was that incompetence of a lawyer to understand that he was liable for the income tax? Do you really believe that Edwin Vieira doesn't know how to interpret constitutional law? Do you actually believe that Ron Paul doesn't understand the constitutional taxing powers of Congress? Do you actually think that the founding fathers fought a bloody revolution war for nothing? The British was taxing us to death. Chief Justice white recognized that the 16th amendment was in fact being interpreted wrong. He specifically said 16th amendment must be construed to the original Constitution. He specifically said that the 16th amendment cannot be in conflict with article 1. Mr. White also recognize that the 16th amendment was being misused and abused. You would live just find in the commonest country. You are a sheep that can be easily led out to the pastor. You can be manipulated and controlled easily. You are weak and the government likes that. Tax protesters are standing up to their rights to earn a living without the government dipping into their pockets. Tax protesters realize that the government is shady on this income tax honesty movement. Tax protesters are fighting for the quality of their life. Thank God the founding fathers were not bunch of pussy's. Only if they knew what was going on today. All their accomplishments are being destroyed. And people like you are allowing it to happen and that is just a shame.

[AndyK]

Dear pair of sock puppets:

In case you were not aware; the IRS Form 1040 (and every other IRS tac reporting form) DOES comply with the PRA.

Every single form has the appropriate number on it, indicating that it was reviewed and approved by the responsible agency.

If you care to do a tad opf ORIGINAL research, you could go to that agency's site and discover all the IRS document filings and approvals.

But, you are not one to allow facts to distract you from your conscusions.

[Duke2Earl]

Yes Famspear you are correct, I have read up on that. He also points out who is liable. Do you actually think that banister and Turner just woke up one day and went crazy on their beliefs? You actually believe that Tom Cryer was that incompetence of a lawyer to understand that he was liable for the income tax? Do you really believe that Edwin Vieira doesn't know how to interpret constitutional law? Do you actually believe that Ron Paul doesn't understand the constitutional taxing powers of Congress? Do you actually think that the founding fathers fought a bloody revolution war for nothing? The British was taxing us to death. Chief Justice white recognized that the 16th amendment was in fact being interpreted wrong. He specifically said 16th amendment must be construed to the original Constitution. He specifically said that the 16th amendment cannot be in conflict with article 1. Mr. White also recognize that the 16th amendment was being misused and abused. You would live just find in the commonest country. You are a sheep that can be easily led out to the pastor. You can be manipulated and controlled easily. You are weak and the government likes that. Tax protesters are standing up to their rights to earn a living without the government dipping into their pockets. Tax protesters realize that the government is shady on this income tax honesty movement. Tax protesters are fighting for the quality of their life. Thank God the founding fathers were not bunch of pussy's. Only if they knew what was going on today. All their accomplishments are being destroyed. And people like you are allowing it to happen and that is just a shame.

And now we get to the real point.... It's just not FAIR that this poor baby has to pay taxes. He seems to forget that the reason Jesus was born in that stable was the Romans required people to go to their place of birth to pay their taxes... damn those Roman socialists. He seems to forget that the greatest founding father of them all, George Washington, ordered out the army to enforce federal tax laws in Pennsylvania. This highly toxic mixture of arrogance, ignorance and greed will not end well. You have demanded that you be put through the wringer...seeing you chose that route... you better learn to enjoy it.

[Gregg]

Do you actually think that banister and Turner just woke up one day and went crazy on their beliefs?

Yes, its the most plausible explanation

You actually believe that Tom Cryer was that incompetence of a lawyer to understand that he was liable for the income tax?

Absolutely, I do, or at best some combination of incompetent and crazy.

Do you really believe that Edwin Vieira doesn't know how to interpret constitutional law?

00Yep.

Do you actually believe that Ron Paul doesn't understand the constitutional taxing powers of Congress?

Another slam dunk, Ron Paul likes to hear the sound of his own voice jabbering into the wind, without a clue in the world what the sounds are meaning.

Do you actually think that the founding fathers fought a bloody revolution war for nothing? The British was taxing us to death.

The taxes were minimal and even had a good justification, it wasn't the tax, it was their imposition without any input from those taxed.

[Micheal360]

Obsolete you did not watch the video.

Obsolete Obviously your communication skills are declining.

Jameson has filed appeals that has stop wage garnishment Levy's. He has had a hearing with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of revenue office of appeals. His hearing took place over the phone on Tuesday, December 18, 2015 at 11 AM. He is still waiting for a decision.

That phone conversation was not with a Court Of Law. So you're just in the first stages of your adventure. Why don't you wait to see how your adventure really is going to turn out before trying to insist "it really does work".

As for your split personality, the only person you're fooling (assuming you're even fooling him) is yourself.

Seriously, you are such a tool! The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of revenue office of appeals. I really do believe that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has the power to execute wage garnishment Levy's. I live with Jameson. He has all his notices that was sent to him from Massachusetts Department of revenue. He has notices that were sent from his employer stating that the wage garnishment was going to go into effect. Notice date 12/28/12

Notice of levy on wages, salary income. This is what the notice says. If you believe this Levy is an error, you must file a written appeal directly with the Massachusetts Department of revenue. Your appeal letter, together with supporting documentation, should be sent to the Massachusetts Department of revenue, PO Box 7049, Boston, MA 02204. However, the filing of an appeal does not stop this Levy and your employer is required to continue to make payments to the department into the final decision is reached. Jameson has made a copy of the notice and printed out this: http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendme ... ion01.html and attached to the notice as documentation and requested that he got clarification that his income was in fact taxable under the provisions of the 16th amendment and within the meaning of the Constitution. He was in shock when his paycheck never got any money garnished. And never heard back on his appeal decision.

He has received another notice of levy on wages, salary and other income. Notice date 12/26/14 He repealed it the same exact way that he appealed the other one. And he got the same results.Jameson has not paid his taxes in full for seven years. He doesn't have any of his IRS notices because he did not keep a copy for himself, he sent in the original notice with attached documentation just like he did for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The first notice that he has received from the IRS that was sent to his employer for wage garnishment. He called up the IRS and spoken to the customer service rep and asked if he can get on a payment plan. The woman said no, it is already in effect and it's in the computer. Jameson did not appeal the notice until after he has spoken to the customer service rep. Jameson realizes that he has 30 days before the wage garnishment kicks in. After three months go by and they still have not garnished his wages, he has came to the conclusion that there is in fact something wrong. So you can think what you want. You can interpret constitutional law anyway that you want to and think that you are right, I don't care. It is quite obvious that the IRS and the Department of revenue cannot interpret constitutional law to the point where they can prove that Jameson's income is in fact taxable under the 16th amendment provisions and within the meaning of the Constitution.

[Micheal360]

Do you actually think that banister and Turner just woke up one day and went crazy on their beliefs?

Yes, its the most plausible explanation

You actually believe that Tom Cryer was that incompetence of a lawyer to understand that he was liable for the income tax?

Absolutely, I do, or at best some combination of incompetent and crazy.

Do you really believe that Edwin Vieira doesn't know how to interpret constitutional law?

00Yep.

Do you actually believe that Ron Paul doesn't understand the constitutional taxing powers of Congress?

Another slam dunk, Ron Paul likes to hear the sound of his own voice jabbering into the wind, without a clue in the world what the sounds are meaning.

Do you actually think that the founding fathers fought a bloody revolution war for nothing? The British was taxing us to death.

The taxes were minimal and even had a good justification, it wasn't the tax, it was their imposition without any input from those taxed.

Tool!