VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4, 5 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 01:23:23 06/26/03 Thu
Author: billstoddard
Subject: Very Wrong!
In reply to: F. Lee B. 's message, "Perhaps those people understood the language of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, of the US Constitution: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes," and determined that Irwin Schiff is a loon who can't comprehend and hence, should be institutionally committed." on 10:56:49 06/25/03 Wed

You're overlooking the fact that Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution gives Congress the
"power to lay and collect taxes, DUTIES, IMPOSTS, AND EXCISES....but all duties, imposts and excises shall be UNIFORM throughout the United States." (emphasis added)

This Clause permits an INDIRECT tax on goods and services that people buy (a sales tax), and it has to be the same amount of tax in all states and for all people. The "Income Tax" is not imposed this way.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3, and Section 9, Clause 4 provide for DIRECT Taxes that have to be apportioned based on the population of the States. Congress has to decide the amount of money to be collected via the tax. Then Congress has to apportion a fixed percentage of that amount against each state based on its population. Then a tax rate would have to be assigned to each state, so that the states could collect the total dollar amount apportioned. THe "Income Tax" is not imposed this way either.

The "Income Tax" as imposed, falls into neither of these two categories of taxes, so on that basis, it cannot be imposed as a MANDATORY tax!

I should also point out that there is no Statute anywhere in the 9500+ page Internal Revenue Code that makes anyone LIABLE TO PAY AN INCOME TAX OR TO FILE AN INCOME TAX RETURN! THAT'S why "The Federal Mafia" has been banned by the government! They don't want Irwin Schiff to infect people with the truth, so they've laid to waste the FIRST AMENDMENT and free speech!

And as for you assertion that he should be institutionally committed for his beliefs, this was one of the tactics perfected in Communist Russia. When they decided they didn't like the view points of any of their citizens, they would brand those citizens as mentally impaired, and those people would disappear, just as you're suggesting Irwin should!

Mr. Schiff has broken no laws, he's only published information and opinions that the government cannot refute, and therefore, DOES NOT LIKE!

If you go to his website, you can hear recordings of the court hearings where he virtually BEGS the judge to cross examine, under oath, the government attorneys who claim that Irwin broke laws! THE JUDGE DOES NOT DO THIS! Why? Because Irwin would prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that THERE IS NO CASE AGAINST HIM!

Also, I would strongly suggest you buy one of his other books that is NOT currently banned (not yet anyway), "The Great Income Tax Hoax", in order that you may improve your understanding of the "Income Tax". http://www.paynoincometax.com

Is this the kind of country you want to live in, F. Lee?

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> [> [> I think this news article tells us all we need to know about this charlatan Irwin Schiff -- F. Lee B., 15:41:01 06/26/03 Thu

Author of 'Voluntary' Income Tax Theories Sued for Millions
By Jason Pierce
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
May 29, 2002

(CNSNews.com) - Former Libertarian presidential candidate Irwin Schiff, who maintains the federal income tax is optional, is being sued by a New Hampshire man who says he lost his business after following Schiff's tax advice.

Steven Swan, a former real estate agent in Auburn, N.H., is suing Schiff for $1 million in compensation for the loss of earnings from his real estate business since 1997, $1 million for physical and emotional distress for the loss of his business and earning ability and $5 million in punitive damages.

The lawsuit was filed May 23 in U.S. District Court in Las Vegas, Nev., currently lives.

"If you do something where you encourage people to do something to their detriment, whether they believe it or not, it is called a tort, and so I filed a lawsuit for the torts I believe [Schiff] committed," Swan said.

Swan claims in his lawsuit that he first met Schiff at a Libertarian luncheon in New Hampshire in 1995 where Schiff was speaking. Afterwards, according to the suit, the two spent approximately three hours in the hotel lobby, during which time Schiff told Swan about his theories that the federal income tax was voluntary.

Swan says he then bought the books Schiff had authored on how to legally avoid paying income taxes, and even began teaching others about Schiff's theories at seminars.

In 1996, Swan's suit alleges, he used Schiff's theories to try to convince the Internal Revenue Service that he owed the government nothing and planned to pay nothing

Later, Swan was forced to close his business and IRS employees levied his bank accounts. When Swan used Schiff's theories to file two lawsuits against IRS employees, the U.S. District Court in New Hampshire dismissed both.

Last week, Swan directed his legal action at Schiff.

"He honestly believes what he is saying," Swan said. "But I think he is misconstrued. I don't think it is anything he is trying to do purposely, but he is guilty of misrepresentation, fraud and negligence."

Schiff, who ran unsuccessfully for the 1996 Libertarian Party presidential nomination, said Swann's lawsuit is "nonsense."

"My books point out that I went to jail for four years," Schiff said. "My books point out that I sued the government.

"There are disclaimers in all my books, but I stand by everything in my books," he said.

Schiff added that in teaching people about his theories, he gives those who listen the information necessary to avoid paying taxes, but has no control over what is done with the information.

"It can't take Steve six years to learn I am wrong," Schiff said. "Here's what I do: I bring them the law, the statutes and the code, but I tell them they are dealing with the federal government, which is a criminal government.

"If I told [Swan] to go rob a bank, would he do it? What is he, an idiot?" Schiff said.

Swan admitted Schiff did not force him to take any action.

"It's true that I didn't have to listen to him," Swan said. "I didn't have to listen to the guy, but he was so convincing that I did listen to him".


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> http://www.schiffiswrong.info/ -- F. Lee B., 15:53:31 06/26/03 Thu


[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> Steven Swan -- Howard Roark, 20:15:45 06/26/03 Thu

Steven Swan is a cheat and a liar. He was doing fine following the law and then decided to branch out and create his own theory, which has NOTHING to do with Mr. Schiff. When Swan got in trouble for whatever crap he was promoting, he BLAMED everything on Schiff.

He most likely cut a deal with the government to sue Schiff in return for them going easy on him.

Swan is a crybaby. See the FACTS at http://www.paynoincometax.com

And if you REALLY need clarification, WALK into an IRS office with a copy of the Internal Revenue Code and ask them to show you the LAW that makes you liable for the "income tax" and then to SHOW you the LAW that requires you to pay the "income tax".

By the way, you will most likely have to bring your own code book, because, NO IRS office that I ever visited had a copy of the law!

Guess what, they CANNOT do it. I know first hand. And before anyone posts any disagreement on here, you first MUST personaly visit an IRS office.


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> Look In The Internal Revenue Code Index For Income Tax LIABILITY! -- billstoddard, 23:30:37 06/26/03 Thu

If you look in the index to the Internal Revenue Code, you can look at the lists of statutes that apply to taxes other than income, such as alcohol, tobacco, gasoline, etc., and you will see that there are statutes under each that provide for liabilites, as well as penalties for non payment of, those particular taxes.

If you look at the statutes that according to the index, apply to "Income Taxes", you will see that there are NO STATUTES LISTED THERE FOR "LIABILITIES" OR "PENALTIES"!

The same thing if you look in the index under "Liabilities" and "Penalties". You will see a long list of taxes that have liability and penalty statutes connected with them, but a liability or penalty statute for INCOME TAXES is conspicuously ABSENT!

WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU?

F. Lee, maybe you should be more sure of your facts before you go around accusing people of being crazy!


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> It might help if you actually gave us some law numbers so we could look this up more easily. For example, when I was on the air on WMEL and was challenging a local candidate's eligibility to run for office, I was very careful to cite specific laws from the Florida state code, and to give the requisite code numbers so that my listeners could follow-up on their own. The federal code is similar, so give us some code numbers. -- "Vince From Villanova" (Details are so pesky, ain't they?), 03:38:51 06/27/03 Fri


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> No No No you got it backwards, you show some law numbers -- Fernando Powers, 05:01:34 06/27/03 Fri

I believe that the burden falls on the accuser so if one person tells another that they are liable for anything. The person accusing should be able to point to the law or site it right? So you Mr. Vince villenova it's a lot like getting a ticket for a moving violation and on the ticket the officer sites on the ticket the actual law that you have violated right? Non of this will you know government can do this and that and so on. Just site the law, regulation to be exact. Personally the IRS has not been able to show me the law in their office and their mission statement says that they have to show and explain the law to taxpayers (yes I pay taxes please stay focused) and their job description tells me that the irs employees are suppose to know the law extensively so just show me . Pleassssssssssssssssssse. How did you say it bada beem baadaboom or something of sort. BAMM!
Semper Fi, Fernando Powers


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I replied to the wrong message. In Bill Stoddard's "Code Index" post, he said he'd found mentions of the penalties attached to other tax laws. I was asking him to provide THOSE code numbers so that we could see what to look for exactly. -- "Vince From Villanova" (Geez, work with me here...), 03:18:32 06/28/03 Sat


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Details Are Pesky Only When They're Not Needed. What Law Requires One To Pay The "Income Tax"? -- billstoddard, 02:20:52 06/30/03 Mon

Vince, the exact Internal Revenue Code statutes that create liabilities for, and penalties for nonpayment of, taxes OTHER than "Income" are of no concern here. I don't argue the point that they do exist because they do. The point is that there are NO similar penalties or requirements listed in the Internal Revenue Code index in connection with "Income Taxes".

Basically, there are NO Internal Revenue Code sections that REQUIRE one to FILE an "Income Tax" return, or to PAY an "Income Tax". Additionally, the word "income" is not defined in the IR Code either.

Of course if that's incorrect, then I'm sure you can use some of those "pesky" little details that you may have at your disposal to prove me wrong.


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> It's a simple request: if you can give me specific examples of penalty provisions for other taxes, then I'll know what to look for in the income tax statutes. I'm not trying to argue with you; I'm asking you for more information. Why not give it to me? You seem more interested in demagoguing this issue than in actually changing anyone's minds. Notice that you haven't convinced anyone yet with your current methods? That might be a sign to try a different tactic. -- "Vince From Villanova" (If it doesn't work, don't keep doing it.), 21:10:59 06/30/03 Mon


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> You're Missing The Point, Vince! -- billstoddard, 00:08:47 07/01/03 Tue

The details of the statutes that provide filing requirements for, and payment of, these other taxes are unimportant because I haven't questioned their existence or validity. What's important here is that by comparison, I cannot provide you similar statutes that provide filing requirements for, or payment of, "Income Taxes" because they do not exist! IRS employees and government attorneys cannot show them to you either for the same reason! The banning of Mr. Schiff's book has occured because of what he has written about the "INCOME" Tax, but not these "other" taxes.

They have claimed that Irwin Schiff has broken the "law" by teaching details he has uncovered regarding the "Income Tax" in his book "The Federal Mafia", though they cite no proof of his alleged malefaction. It's rather interesting to me that you don't ask for proof of the GOVERNMENT'S claims instead!

It's also interesting that the abridgement of Mr. Schiff's First Amendment rights to free speech by our government, which was the original point of this thread of messages, doesn't seem to bother you, particularly that as a former talk radio host (if you really were), the same criminal disregard of the First Amendment provisions of the Constitution by the US government could be brought to bear against YOU as well, if the government decides that you have said something they don't like, or hadn't you considered that?

BTW, a "demagogue" is a "person who tries to stir up the people by appeals to emotion, prejudice, etc, in order to win them over quickly and so gain power."

I'm not trying to gain "power" over anyone. I have nothing to sell. I'm not calling anyone names. I'm not being emotional, and I'm not appealing to any prejudice! I merely stated the events concerning Mr. Schiff and the unlawful suppression of his book.

Vince, do you file an "Income Tax Return"? Do you pay an "Income Tax"? If you do , who told you to? Did you ever ask to see proof that you were required to pay the "Income Tax"? If you didn't, then how do you know that you are supposed to?

If you can point to a statute that makes Americans LIABLE for an "Income Tax", why not cite it for us? Better yet, as per Mr. Schiff's challenge to the lawyers at the Toledo Law School (see http://www.paynoincometax.com), why not cite the statute for Mr. Schiff and collect $50K?


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I give up. If you want to convince someone of something, and they ask you for more information, the standard response is to give them that information. Your continued refusal to do so has convinced me of nothing, except for this: you're more interested in watching yourself type than you are in winning anyone over on this issue. -- "Vince From Villanova" (Questions are meant to be answered.), 08:07:18 07/01/03 Tue


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> They believe your questions can be answered by buying Schiff's book first. This push to sell someone's book is probably more of a scam that possibly paying income tax. -- Law Abiding Tax Paying Citizen, 10:03:27 07/01/03 Tue


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> Side Issues Are Not Important! FOCUS! -- billstoddard, 17:37:29 07/01/03 Tue

If it was possible to condense Mr. Schiff's book into a few paragraphs, there would be no need for the book in the first place!

The Internal Revenue Code Index sections I refer to total several pages of small print. It would not be practical for me to reproduce them here, particularly since mentioning all of them and describing their contents does not serve to further the REAL issues at hand, specifically, WHY IS THE GOVERNMENT BANNING MR. SCHIFF'S BOOK WHEN THEY HAVE NOT PROVEN THAT HE HAS COMMITTED A CRIME BY PUBLISHING AND SELLING THE BOOK?

The First Amendment of the US Constitution has been destroyed in this process! Why as a former broadcaster (if you really were, Vince, which I seriously doubt) does this not bother you as the government could just as easily censor YOU as well?

And Vince, a few posts ago, you claimed that the "Federal Code" is similar to the "Florida state code". Were these statutes that related to "Income", or some other types of statutes?

Additionally, as a supposed authority on the "Income Tax", or at least Florida's state version of the "Income Tax", if there really is a statute REQUIRING the filing of an "Income Tax" raturn, as well as the payment of the "Income Tax", you should be able to cite these statutes. No need to go to the trouble of reproducing them here, JUST POINT THEM OUT TO US, THAT'S ALL!

If you or anybody else reading this post has their own personal tax attorney or CPA, please ask these people to cite for you the Internal Revenue Code statutes that REQUIRE you to file an "Income Tax" return, or that REQUIRE you to pay the "Income Tax". You could go down to your local H&R Block office as well and ask these questions. You may be very surprised at how they respond!

And Vince, if you find the answer, please post it here, then call Irwin and claim your $50K prize!


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> VINCE OF VILLANOVA IS A FAKE PHONY FRAUD! HERE'S WHY: -- billstoddard, 16:03:49 07/03/03 Thu

Anybody who's been viewing these posts can now safely disregard ANYTHING and EVERYTHING "Vince Of Villanova" says, because he is a disinformation artist!

In a post above he claims that while he was a talk show host in Florida (GIVE ME A BREAK!), he queried a local political candidate as to specific details concerning the Florida State Income Tax codes. He then asks me to cite certain Federal "Income" Tax codes, since he claims that the Florida Code is similar to the Federal Code.

Well, guess what? THERE IS NO FLORIDA STATE INCOME TAX!!!!

AND IF THERE IS NO FLORIDA STATE INCOME TAX, THEN HOW CAN THE FLORIDA "CODE" BE SIMILAR TO THE FEDERAL CODE?

And Vince, now that you've been caught in this lie, don't try to claim that you were comparing code sections for other types of laws, because you know damned well that you were speaking of "INCOME" Tax laws, STATE V. FEDERAL!!

Additionally, this explains why the abrogation of Irwin Schiff's free speech rights doesn't bother Vince, who as a supposedly former talk radio host, could have the same unconstitutional restrictions imposed on HIM. This is of no consequence to "Vince" because "Vince" ain't NEVER BEEN, and NEVER WILL, be a RADIO TALK SHOW HOST!

So, Vince, now that you've been unmasked as the fake, phony, fraudulent, lying disseminator or disinformation that you are, tell us, WHAT LAW REQUIRES AMERICANS TO PAY THE "INCOME" TAX? AND HOW COME THE GUBMIT CANNOT PROVE THAT IRWIN SCHIFF HAS ACTUALLY BROKEN A LAW?


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Ah, you can't give me the info I want, so now you're going to misquote me, eh? Too bad the quote is right there for all to read... "For example, when I was on the air on WMEL and was challenging a local candidate's eligibility to run for office, I was very careful to cite specific laws from the Florida state code..." I was referring to ELECTION LAW. Geez, dude, no wonder you're not convincing anyone. Grow up. -- "Vince From Villanova" (Bill... is your last name really Clinton?), 16:40:21 07/04/03 Fri


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> Vince Was Misquoted Accurately! -- billstoddard, 17:57:01 07/04/03 Fri

Here is Vince's COMPLETE post from above:

"It might help if you actually gave us some law numbers so we could look this up more easily. For example, when I was on the air on WMEL and was challenging a local candidate's eligibility to run for office, I was very careful to cite specific laws from the Florida state code, and to give the requisite code numbers so that my listeners could follow-up on their own. THE FEDERAL CODE IS SIMILAR, SO GIVE US SOME CODE NUMBERS." (emphasis added)

This whole thread of posts is about "Income" Taxes and the trashing of the Constitution! It has NOTHING to do with "ELECTION LAW", and you know it! You made no mention of "election law", even though I gave you a chance to clarify yourself two posts prior. I caught you in your lie and you don't like it. Too bad!

I don't mind a fake, phony, fraudulent disinformation artist, but being a CUT RATE fake, phony, fraudulent disinformation artist as you are, Vince, is really retrograde! Pretending to have been a radio host is pretty lame too. Shame on you!

And you still haven't told us WHY IRWIN SCHIFF'S FIRST AMENDEMENT RIGHTS HAVE BEEN STOLEN, nor have you explained WHAT LAW MAKES AMERICANS LIABLE FOR AN "INCOME TAX"!

Irwin is waiting to write you the $50K check.


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Okay, let me spell out the point I was trying to make real simply: Both. the. Florida. codes. and. the. federal. codes. use. statute. numbers. to. make. referring. to. specific. laws. easier. to. do. Okay? I. was. using. Florida. election. law. as. an. example. of. this. simple. concept. Now. turn. on. your. brain. and. read. my. posts. again. and. you'll. see. the. point. I. was. trying. to. make. -- "Vince From Villanova" (Hooked on phonics worked for me!), 05:06:50 07/05/03 Sat


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Your "Point" Is Moot! THINK!!! -- billstoddard, 14:03:11 07/05/03 Sat

I'm sure we're all impressed to know that you mastered "Hooked On Phonics", Vince. From the level of non-reasoning you display on this board, I figured "Hooked On Crack" was more your speed (no pun intended).

Now that you have "Hooked On Phonics" under your scholastic belt, you should consider developing your reading and comprehension skills to a POST-second grade level for a change. Then in a few years, you may be ready to harness your formidable intellectual gifts to help us answer the PERTINENT questions I have raised here several times now:

1) WHY IS THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CENSORING IRWIN SCHIFF WHEN THEY WON'T EVEN CITE A SINGLE LAW THAT HE HAS BROKEN?

2) WHAT LAW REQUIRES AMERICAN CITIZENS TO PAY THE "INCOME TAX"?

I don't really have anything against you, Vince. Even though you lied about having worked in radio as an on-air personality, your're probably not a bad guy, but you just don't have your priorities straight. This is not about YOU! It's about THE LOSS OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH, THE LOSS OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES! If the government can silence Irwin Schiff not because he broke any laws, but because they merely don't like what he says, what protection do ANY OF US have then?


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> If I'm a liar, I'd say that makes me a bad guy, so you can quit patronizing me. Oh, except for one thing: I'm not a liar. Ask Gary, a.k.a. Surf. As for your original point, exactly how many new Irwin Schiff allies have you lined up from this message board with your ridiculous, heavy-handed tactics? Time to re-think your "strategery," my friend. -- "Vince From Villanova" (Flies? Honey? Remember that?), 17:00:25 07/05/03 Sat


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Vince, Take A Valium. Better Yet, Take Two! -- billstoddard, 23:48:32 07/05/03 Sat

Okay, you're a bad guy, Vince. Does that make you feel better? Geez, you're a paranoid solipsist. Everything revolves around YOU, or so you think.

And why do you need Gary/Surf to intervene on your behalf? Aren't you capable of handling your own verbal battles, especially when you start them? Well, you can HANDLE them, you just can't WIN them.

If I'm wrong about your having been a radio host, apparently your friendship with Gary/Surf isn't sufficiently strong enough, nor does he hold you in high enough esteem to feel the need, without being prompted by you, to have corrected me on this point so far. But I'll keep an open mind if that changes.

Also, I am not being condescending to you, nor am I patronizing you. And if you ever WERE to broadcast on the radio, I wouldn't patronize your station either, nor would anyone else, I suspect.

As far as your reference to honey, it tastes good, and it greatly enhances the sweetness of breads, cereals, and other edibles to which it's added. Some people even claim that honey has agalgesic properties when applied to minor, open flesh wounds. As for flies? Well Vince, I think if you start to shower with water AND soap more than once a week, preferably every day, you'll find that the flies will eventually leave you alone.

BUT WHAT DOES ANY OF THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE FIRST AMENDMENT? Again, Vince, you display absolutely no ability or inclination to STAY ON TOPIC! Your extreme states of paranoia and solipsism lead you to believe that everything in this thread is ultimately about YOU. It's not! It's about FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EVERY AMERICAN'S GOD GIVEN CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT TO PRACTICE IT! It's also about the fact that there is NO LAW REQUIRING AMERICANS TO PAY THE "INCOME TAX"!

I don't know how many "Irwin Schiff allies" I've "lined up from this message board" so far. And I really don't care! I just want to make sure that as many of the people who view these posts as possible know that FREE SPEECH IS UNDER ATTACK IN THIS COUNTRY, and that this is a clear and present danger to each and every one of us!

BTW, Vince (or anyone else), DO you pay taxes that you are NOT LIABLE for?


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I invoked the name of Surf because he once called into my show when it was still on the air. As for the rest, I'm going to now do what I meant to do 2 days ago: leave you to have the last word and stop keeping this thread active. Go re-group, re-think your strategy, and troll around some other message board. Maybe you'll have better luck there. -- "Vince From Villanova" (It's been fun...), 05:43:38 07/06/03 Sun


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> Let's put it this way, you'll have to come up with something more credible for your defense of lawlessness than the personal website of a convicted felon like Mr. Schiff. -- Ellsworth Toohey, 02:28:17 06/27/03 Fri


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> defense of lawlessness? -- Mike Powers, 21:37:02 06/28/03 Sat


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> defense of lawlessness? -- Mike Powers, 22:36:23 06/28/03 Sat

The man quotes law and that is lawlessness? The man is a convicted felon for asking "show me the law" that requires me to file. Now why can't it be, "here is the law it is right here". It has never happenned? Come on that's not a hard question to answer.

Unless your Joe Banister former special agent of the IRS he couldn't find it either and shortly afterwards left and well as Sherry Peel Jackson former IRS agent and CPA. If you honestly look you might run into some problems. You can find these names on the internet and then make your own conclusions if you dare. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17023

http://stillaslave.blogspot.com/

Do you pay bills right off if you can't understand the charges? If upon receiving a bill from your mechanic and there is something in the bill you don't understand or didn't agree to, you just pay the bill don't you. You have this same belief for taxes too then.

Well the Federal Crop Insurance case (Supreme Court) verifies the right to question and have answers to those questions before agreement or action can be taken.

You can look up this case on the internet and you will be able to verify the exact words. You'll will find it's legal and lawful.

What is lawless. The lack of law or misapplication of it. Where is the law making me liable for the imposition of tax in section 1. as is outlined in Section 6001 and 6011 as referenced in the Privacy act of a 1040 Instruction booklet almost to the exact wording.

If you can't find the law that makes you "liable", since this is a lawful requirement, this is lawless.

The imposition of a penalty regarding Alcohol, Tabacco and Firearm (ATF)upon someone who is filing an income return is also lawless. Would you pay someone for putting lawn mower spark plugs in your car and then pay him on top of that for the repairs now necessary for trying to shove those into your engine? Well if you would pay the penalty, can I be your mechanic.

You should first start reading the other side of the issue. Be skeptical of course I know I am. "The Great Income Tax Hoax" by Irwin Schiff is a very technical and precise history of the income tax. www.paynoincometax.com

Mike Powers


[ Edit | View ]


[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-5
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.