Hey Alvin you were right but THIS IS WHY I PAY THE BULLSHIT TAXES [Archive]

View Full Version : Hey Alvin you were right but THIS IS WHY I PAY THE BULLSHIT TAXES

Rodney Ransom

11-07-2007, 04:40 AM

SHERRY JACKSON CONVICTED UNDER WHAT LAW?

By: Devvy
November 5, 2007

© 2007 - NewsWithViews.com

“It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.” James Madison, Father of the U.S. Constitution

My friend, Sherry Jackson, is the latest victim in the Federal Department of Justice's crusade to silence any American who dares tell the truth about the misapplication of the federal income tax. Sherry isn't some "tax protester" who wanted to get out of "paying her fair share." This intelligent, articulate woman is a former IRS Revenue Agent and Certified Public Accountant. She is a woman of rare qualities. A wife, a mother. A woman of deep religious faith. She also doesn't put up with liars, the railroading of the American people and has worked very hard over the years to get the factual truth to her fellow countrymen and women about how we the people have been had. Of course, this doesn't sit well with the criminal syndicate out there in Washington, DC.

Sherry determined many years ago that she was not one of those required to file and pay federal income taxes. Sherry didn't come to this conclusion overnight nor did she undertake her exhaustive research to "get out of paying her fair share." Sherry also came to understand the symbiotic relationship between the privately owned Federal Reserve and it's feeding artery, the IRS. Like so many others, DOJ went after her for willful failure to file and on October 30, 2007, she was convicted by a jury who obviously has zero knowledge of the law nor did they care. They did their civic duty!

When I heard the news, I was sick to my soul. Another friend found guilty of violating a law that doesn't exist. Another honest, decent, law abiding American will be stripped from her family and friends, taken to a federal pen, finger printed, strip searched, degraded and humiliated because twelve jurors not only have no idea of the subject matter, they didn't believe Sherry's testimony known as a good faith reliance defense. The feds brought in some highly suspect rebuttal witnesses (more on this later) and the curtain closed. Less than 45 minutes later, America's friend was made a felon. Have you ever been in a federal court room? I have and I state categorically that most people put on the stand, fighting for their life, their very freedom, would fill their drawers before the swearing in even begins. Sherry held her own on the stand.

The focus of this column is what isn't being discussed and that is ambiguity in the law and individuals all charged with the same "crime," with some juries convicting, while others acquit. The IRS uses the Sixteenth Amendment as justification for the income tax fleecing. For those who have never read any of my columns before, I have written a hundred over the past 18 years on the income tax; most are archived here, the rest are on my CD. Regular readers know of Bill Benson's incontrovertible proof, with court certified documents to back up his discovery, that the Sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was never properly ratified. Therefore, it is a law that does not exist, yet your government has kept this lie intact to continue stealing the fruits of your labor.

In January 2000, a lawsuit was filed in Oklahoma challenging the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment. This suit was brought by the Wallace Institute on behalf of Bill Benson. The results were typical and due to lack of funding, no appeal was filed. One of the most important aspects regarding the making of our laws is what's called the journal entry rule; see here. When I interviewed Jeff Dickstein recently on a radio show I hosted, he told me this will be one issue included if they go to the U.S. Supreme Court on Bill Benson's case.

For the sake of argument, let's say the Sixteenth Amendment was actually ratified. What have the courts said on its meaning? Jeff Dickstein, a constitutional attorney with decades of experience in the federal court rooms and expert on this issue, can tell you:

"In 1894 Congress passed an income tax act very similar to the current income tax law. That law was challenged on the basis that a tax on income is a direct tax, the United States Constitution requires direct taxes to be apportioned, and the act passed by Congress was not apportioned. The United States Supreme Court agreed and held the income tax act was unconstitutional in Pollock v. Farmer's Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, aff. reh., 158 U.S. 601 (1895)." Ah, but what about Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916) and Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920), both U.S. Supreme Court cases? Jeff gives you a complete overview here and unless one is willing to take the time to research this issue, they will continue to believe a lie. This comprehensive and easy to understand explanation of what the courts have said is crucial. The bottom line as Jeff says is this:

"Whether you agree with Brushaber that the tax is an excise tax that doesn't have to be apportioned, or agree with Eisner that the tax is a direct tax that doesn't have to be apportioned, without the 16th Amendment, the law reverts back to Pollock. The serious student will find my book, Judicial Tyranny and Your Income Tax, an in depth study of the history of the income tax, with two chapters devoted to the issue of direct and indirect taxes, and an extensive analysis of the Pollock and Brushaber cases."

As the courts have been divided on this law and can't make up their mind, how can any American be charged and convicted for violating this so called law? It's called 'uncertainty of the law' and this is what constitutional attorney, Larry Becraft, with about 30 years experience in federal court rooms has to say:

"Under the U.S. Constitution, the Congress is authorized to impose two different types of taxes, direct and indirect. Via Art. 1, §8, cl. 1, of the Constitution, indirect taxes (excises, duties and imposts) must be uniformly imposed throughout the country. Direct taxes are required via Art. 1, §2, cl. 3, and Art. 1, §9, cl. 4, to be imposed pursuant to the regulation of apportionment. These tax categories are mutually exclusive and any given tax must squarely fit within one category or the other. To which constitutional category does the federal income tax belong? Is it a direct tax, or is it an indirect tax? Do American courts speak with unanimity about this simple question of what is the nature of this tax?" Larry provides an understandable overview on this issue that you must read to fully understand what's happening to our fellow Americans like Sherry. Take the time this week or this weekend to read Jeff's analysis cited above and Larry's analysis here. They aren't that long and will validate what I'm saying in this column.

Juries

I have written before about ignorant juries who want nothing more than to "feel good about themselves" by convicting "tax protesters" when they don't have a clue about the laws or the history of tax laws. They don't even know their rights as jurors or jury nullification. They only know what these buzzards from the U.S. Attorney's office tell them: This defendant wanted to cheat you! He/she didn't want to pay their fair share! But, what about these juries who are all over the place on convictions?

2000: Whitey Harrell was charged in state court (Illinois) on willful failure to file income taxes. Just like Sherry Jackson. He was acquitted by a "jury of his peers." In Whitey's case, his jury fore person was a remarkable and lovely woman named Marcella Brooks; I had the pleasure and honor to share the podium with her at the National Press Club in Washington, DC, on my birthday, June 29, 2000. You can watch Marcella's speech here and I recommend you take the 14 minutes to listen to what she has to say about the case and her role as a juror.

2006, Dr. Tom Clayton, a learned and generous man, was convicted on six counts of willful failure to file and making a false return using the 861 argument. State of Texas. Like Sherry, Dr. Clayton believed what he read and didn't read in black and white: that the income tax laws are being misapplied to most Americans and that he was not required to file. The most putrid statement was made following the conviction by a smarmy government employee: "The majority of people are willing to pay their taxes, U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton said after Clayton's conviction, "but those who aren't must be held accountable. This conviction is a reminder that the obligation to pay taxes is not negotiable." Johnny boy Sutton is the same U.S. Attorney responsible for the railroading of U.S. Border Patrol Agents, Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean into long federal prison sentences.

1993, Lloyd Long was charged with willful failure to file and he was acquitted by a jury of his peers. Larry Becraft was his attorney. State of Tennessee.

2007: Tommy Cryer, attorney at law; State of Louisiana. Charged with two counts of willful failure to file. Larry Becraft was his attorney. A jury unanimously found him not guilty.

2003: Vernie Kuglin, a former FED-EX pilot was acquitted on six counts of tax evasion. Her attorneys were Larry Becraft and Bob Bernhoft. State of Tennessee.

2005: Joseph Banister, former IRS Criminal Investigation Division Special Agent was charged as follows: Alleged violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371- Conspiracy; 18 U.S.C. § 287 - False Claims Against United States (Two counts); 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1) - Filing False Tax Returns; 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2) - Aiding and Assisting the Filing of False Tax Returns (Three Counts); 26 U.S.C. § 7202 - Willful Failure to Withhold and Pay Taxes (10 Counts). The indictment contains several bald faced lies that I personally know to be false. The feds wanted Joe bad, but a jury of 12 acquitted him on all charges. His legal team was Jeff Dickstein and Bob Bernhoft. State of California.

2007: Sherry Jackson charged with four counts of willful failure to file. Legal counsel, Larry Becraft and Jeff Dickstein. Found guilty by a jury of 12. State of Georgia.

1991, U.S. v Sanders. Attorneys Larry Becraft and Jeff Dickstein represented Mr. Franklin Sanders, Jr. and 16 other people. Charges ranged from conspiracy to failing to file tax returns. All defendants were found not guilty on all counts by a jury of 12 in the federal case. The state then went after Franklin and he was convicted. State of Tennessee. "But acquittal in federal court did not end Sanders' ordeal. The IRS had sent an agent to work for the Tennessee Revenue Department (Sanders contends) to cook up some state charge against him." See link below, The Franklin Sanders Case.

I know Dr. Clayton, Joe Banister, Tommy Cryer, Vernie and of course, Sherry. I am fully versed on all these cases and this is just a handful, believe me. So, we have Vernie, Whitey, Franklin, Tommy and Joseph all acquitted on willful failure to file charges. Yet, Dr. Clayton and Sherry are convicted on the same charges by different juries in different states. If the law is so clear cut, how is it some Americans are getting acquitted and some convicted on the same charges? Where is there justice in this insanity?

Congressman Ron Paul has promised that if elected president he will get rid of the IRS immediately. Every candidate from the Republican and Democrat parties promises more of the same fleecing or in multi-millionaire, John Edwards words, he wants to raise taxes.

Ron Paul introduced a bill on December 12, 2000 to end the withholding taxing scheme. I believe he will see this happen if elected president. No other presidential candidate from either party will even entertain discussing this rape of the American people.

Ron Paul has a current bill to abolish the privately owned Federal Reserve and I believe he will fight to get this done if elected. No other presidential candidate from either party will even broach this subject because they are either too ignorant of the subject matter. Many of them know that to continue funding these endless wars and wasteful spending, they need the central bank to keep borrowing, further enslaving we the people, our children and grand children into unpayable debt and indentured servitude.

There is one other educational piece you must read if you haven't already. This piece is titled, Why An Income Tax is Not Necessary to Fund the Federal Government.' As you will see, the first part deals with educating Americans on where your income taxes actually go, the debt and deficit. The next part deals with 'A Pioneer on the Withholding Issue', Vivien Kellems. This part is particularly important because it goes right to the heart of the court decisions discussed at the top of this column regarding apportionment of taxes. What a magnificent statement by this woman on the intent of those who birthed this republic. Vivien stopped withholding from her employees in 1948 and won the narrow battle she fought. Vivien's trial transcripts, her FBI file I obtained under a Freedom of Information Act request and all the Wallace Institute newsletters covering our Sixteenth Amendment lawsuit are on my CD.

Towards the bottom is actual testimony (Senate) on how and why this withholding taxing scheme was cooked up and it's sickening. If you don't have time to read Why an income tax isn't necessary, I've put it up in the audio section on my web site. Download it to your IPod or a CD and listen in commute traffic or any driving you do. I get more requests for reprints from newspapers, Internet sites and college professors for this piece than any other. You have my permission to copy, distribute; paper or CD, just please don't make any changes and attribute the proper copyright to me.

How many more Americans will be sent to federal prison for violating a law that doesn't exist? And, even if it did exist, does NOT apply to the majority of Americans? These U.S. Attorneys aren't stupid and neither are the federal judges who are allowing this persecution against we the people to continue. Instead of quitting their jobs like Joe Banister did, forfeiting an $80,000 a year secure job with a wife and two sons, these buzzards stay on the job and draw paychecks while they send the best of the best like Sherry Jackson, to prison. They are moral cowards. Gutless parasites that feed off the host, which is Congress, who have been conning the American people since 1913. The first step towards stopping this is getting Ron Paul nominated as our next president at that GOP convention next summer.

If you are a person of faith, please pray for Sherry, her family and all the other victims of this corrupt system.

Important Links:

1 - Sherry Jackson's web site
2 - Must watch: 4-minute video: Smearing Ron Paul by useful idiots
3 - Our biggest challenge in '08
4 - USDOJ: Who will stop this criminal enterprise
5 - Wrong law used by Johnny Sutton to convict border agents
6 - Vernie Kuglin's trial transcripts
7 - Four-month trial ends with no convictions
8 - The Franklin Sanders case
9 - Lloyd Long trial transcript
10 - The Right Argument on Taxes

© 2007 - NewsWithViews.com - All Rights Reserved

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Devvy Kidd authored the booklets, Why A Bankrupt America and Blind Loyalty; 2 million copies sold. Devvy appears on radio shows all over the country, ran for Congress and is a highly sought after public speaker. Devvy belongs to no organization.

She left the Republican Party in 1996 and has been an independent voter ever since. Devvy isn't left, right or in the middle; she is a constitutionalist who believes in the supreme law of the land, not some political party. Her web site (www.devvy.com) contains a tremendous amount of information, solutions and a vast Reading Room.

Devvy's website: www.devvy.com

Before you send Devvy e-mail, please take the time to check the FAQ section on her web site. It is filled with answers to frequently asked questions and links to reliable research sources.

E-mail is: devvyk@earthlink.net

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Home

Congressman Ron Paul has promised that if elected president he will get rid of the IRS immediately. Every candidate from the Republican and Democrat parties promises more of the same fleecing or in multi-millionaire, John Edwards words, he wants to raise taxes.

Rodney Ransom

11-07-2007, 04:50 AM

11-07-2007, 03:42 PM

Just to be clear for all of the ""KNOW IT ALL FAKE TAX EXPERTS ON THE BOARD"" , I agree with everything ALVIN posted a month ago,...

Yes, a shame indeed.

SuzanneT

11-07-2007, 04:37 PM

Yes, a shame indeed.
:lol:

deepsouth

11-07-2007, 04:58 PM

i'm no genius, but we are taxed to fucking death and then we are taxed again.

Armento

11-07-2007, 05:03 PM

i'm no genius, but we are taxed to fucking death and then we are taxed again.
top percentile gets taxed around 17% while we're taxed about 30%... go figure that out

deepsouth

11-07-2007, 05:25 PM

top percentile gets taxed around 17% while we're taxed about 30%... go figure that out

i give up.

Moksha

11-07-2007, 05:28 PM

Tts

SuzanneT

11-07-2007, 05:44 PM

i'm no genius, but we are taxed to fucking death and then we are taxed again.
You ain't seen nothing yet, wait til taxes are raised by the next president to pay for this shitty war.

The Buddy Love Show

11-07-2007, 06:24 PM

Just to be clear for all of the ""KNOW IT ALL FAKE TAX EXPERTS ON THE BOARD"" , I agree with everything ALVIN posted a month ago, I just don't want to go through what this sista is going through. It's a shame that speaking the truth has such a price to pay.

You mean that "sista" has more balls than you do?

and more conviction in her beliefs?

I would have kept that to my self

Rodney Ransom

11-08-2007, 12:27 AM

You mean that "sista" has more balls than you do?

and more conviction in her beliefs?

I would have kept that to my self

Whatever you say man........
Is that the best you could do?????
COME ON YOU CAN DO BETTER THAN THAT.
Where is your so called facts on the subject matter?????

Rodney Ransom

11-08-2007, 12:28 AM

You mean that "sista" has more balls than you do?

and more conviction in her beliefs?

I would have kept that to my self

And what are you doing about the situation??????

BHouse

11-08-2007, 12:51 AM

Alvin and Tony Mundaca both say:

http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/314/jesusagrees7qayf1.gif

Doug

11-08-2007, 12:52 AM

Rodney Ransom

11-08-2007, 03:50 AM

The presumption being that she speaks the truth.

Hey Doug
Can you prove otherwise???

ebot9000

11-08-2007, 03:52 AM

oh for the love of christ, not again

Doug

11-08-2007, 09:30 AM

Hey Doug
Can you prove otherwise???

Been there, done that with your boy alvin. Y'all go on and believe otherwise though.

The Buddy Love Show

11-08-2007, 09:59 AM

And what are you doing about the situation??????

While raising two kids:

Owned or been a part of 6 businesses in which I paid employees and incurred additional tax liabilities

I pay taxes so the government can provide services i agree and disagree with

MAN UP and stop bitching

The government, and ithe tax system arent responsible for the person you are not

The Buddy Love Show

11-08-2007, 10:10 AM

btw, Rodney, just to be clear

Your posting dumb shit from some dumb ass about taxes on a message board isnt "doing something about the situation"

Being involved in the political process, electing and WORKING with officials on progressive taxes laws, participating w citizens groups who are ACTIVELY involved w changing tax laws, doing the hard work - THATS doing something about it

I'm willing to bet that you have very good excuses why you do none of the above

Your posting nonsense from quacks on a message board exposes you as a fraud and a sophist

ACTS not WORDS differentiate the players from the buffoons

Doug

11-08-2007, 10:17 AM

alvin

11-08-2007, 10:25 AM

While raising two kids:

Owned or been a part of 6 businesses in which I paid employees and incurred additional tax liabilitiesfine. but the AVERAGE person has no liability to income tax until that person VOLUNTARILY COMPLIES to the tax obligation.

I pay taxes so the government can provide services i agree and disagree with

provide services like a multi TRILLION DOLLAR "war" that the "taxpayer" is paying for...

MAN UP and stop bitching

The government, and ithe tax system arent responsible for the person you are not

I thought "we the people" ARE THE GOVERNMENT???

And you are right, as far as the federal government is concerned a federal "person" only exists on paper...a "taxpayer". There to provide money for "services" that the flesh and blood human "agrees and disagrees" with.

All done under the auspices of VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE...

WE THE PEOPLE give the Federal government consent to dictate so you are 100% CORRECT in your statement that people need to "man up" and "dictate" for themselves and not allow a corrupt government to manipulate their lives for them.

alvin

11-08-2007, 10:35 AM

i'm no genius, but we are taxed to fucking death and then we are taxed again.truth.

and the question can be asked where does all this 'tax" go?

To enrich the life of the "subject"

or to enrich the life of the "subjugator"

Listen closely to the words of Congress when they talk about preserving the rights of the "taxpayer"(ie. subject)...

SuzanneT

11-08-2007, 10:54 AM

NOT WORK SAFE :icon_rofl:

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c2/suezeebaby/IRS_Enforcement-A1-thumb.jpg

DaveR

11-08-2007, 10:54 AM

Alvin and Tony Mundaca both say:

http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/314/jesusagrees7qayf1.gif
:rofl5:

DaveR

11-08-2007, 10:58 AM

NOT WORK SAFE :icon_rofl:

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c2/suezeebaby/IRS_Enforcement-A1-thumb.jpg
:eek: :biglaugha:

The Buddy Love Show

11-08-2007, 11:57 AM

I thought

since the above isnt in caps how can I believe you?

alvin, save your responses. you don't "think", you parrot and you've been repeatedly shown to be delusional in addition to being ignorant.

The Buddy Love Show

11-08-2007, 12:03 PM

The Buddy Love Show

11-08-2007, 01:41 PM

Moksha

11-08-2007, 01:58 PM

damn trick questions

Did the MarkBe moniker get retired again already?

The Buddy Love Show

11-08-2007, 02:01 PM

Did the MarkBe moniker get retired again already?

nah

Rom guessed correctly...used an old computer and mixed accounts and blahblah sum = I'm not overly computer savvy

my typing sucks too

alvin

11-08-2007, 07:58 PM

What progressive tax groups DO Rodney and alvin belong to?

What political candidates positions can they expound on?

I bet a five dollar donation to the fund of their choosing that the answer is none and none

(thats a suckers bet - by expound, i mean in their own words, and as they have proven, repeatedly, they have none)

U.S. DEBT $9 TRILLION
http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_7396729?nclick_check=1

The national debt is the total of the annual budget deficits plus money that the government borrows from the Social Security and other government trust funds.

You mean "progressive" tax groups that borrow from my federal "strawman" for their personal gain...just to have future generations held bond(age)to the national debt.

As far as "political" candidates(Democrat-Republican- etc)...I leave that up to people that need "representation"...If someone wants to empower another to act on their behalf more power to them.

As far as the latest band of merry thieves running for office...the majority of them don't "represent" much...just their special interest groups and the $$$$$$$$$ being tossed to them just for a vote of confidence.

The only thing they(politicians) are concerned with is maintaining the status quo of the "taxpayer".

Rodney Ransom

11-09-2007, 04:08 AM

While raising two kids:

Owned or been a part of 6 businesses in which I paid employees and incurred additional tax liabilities

I pay taxes so the government can provide services i agree and disagree with

MAN UP and stop bitching

The government, and ithe tax system arent responsible for the person you are not

What services do they provide you????
Taking 1/3 of your weekly or bi weekly salary for what???
Can you really show me where your TAX DOLLARS WENT???
Man up and stop bitching ,look in the mirror, NO I DONT THINK SO KID
I just put up some info that might SHED light on how corrupt this system really is. Also to show people how little by little our rights are being taken AWAY from us.
The government is fucking you over ROYALLY but YOUR FAR TOOOOOO
INTELLIGENT TO SEE THAT. HA HA HA LOL.
As far you owing anything a buisness and raising 2 kids , who gives a fuck. YOU STILL HAVEN'T POSTED ANY REAL INFO CONCERNING WHY THE SISTA GOT ARRESTED. TIS TIS TIS.

Rodney Ransom

11-09-2007, 04:33 AM

Rodney Ransom

11-09-2007, 04:45 AM

damn trick questions

The Federal Reserve banking system is unconstitutional and has maxed out the national debt and bankrupted the United States government.
Federal income taxes were imposed in response to, or as part of, the plan implementing the Federal Reserve System.
Federal income taxes are unconstitutional or otherwise legally invalid.
The use of the Federal income tax to counter the economic effects of the Federal Reserve System is futile.

TAKEN FROM WIKIPEDIA LOOK UP THE NAME ARRON RUSSO.

Doug

11-09-2007, 09:10 AM

The Buddy Love Show

11-09-2007, 11:05 AM

Rodney Ransom = Loser

why you worried about taxes anyway, you're too stupid to have a job that pays any real money

SuzanneT

11-09-2007, 11:25 AM

Rodney Ransom = Loser

why you worried about taxes anyway, you're too stupid to have a job that pays any real money
As much as I hate to admit it, I LUV these tax threads.
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c2/suezeebaby/bangHeadAgainstWall.gifSo I may as well join the damn club!

The Buddy Love Show

11-09-2007, 11:30 AM

Who needs to belong to a tax group when the info I posted shows you the seriousness of the situation.

Your boring me with this corny RHETORIC, but continue, the more you type the DUMBER YOU SOUND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Keep your five bucks it may help you get out of REHAB one day.

notice how he didnt answer the questions

and they werent even that hard

as is typical of the lazy and stupid their only real action is the talk they talk and not the walk they walk

yer apathetic ass wasnt even original enough to broach the topic at hand, you had to let alvin do it. Make that meek, lazy, and stupid

Rodney Ransom

11-09-2007, 03:14 PM

Rodney Ransom = Loser

why you worried about taxes anyway, you're too stupid to have a job that pays any real money

Im not the one with the ""SERIOUS"" COKE HABIT, IDIOT, YOUR A CLOWN AT BEST.

Your the REAL LOSER..............

Moksha

11-09-2007, 03:17 PM

Im not the one with the ""SERIOUS"" COKE HABIT, IDIOT, YOUR A CLOWN AT BEST.

Your the REAL LOSER..............

LEARN spelling before calling people idiotic. It's "you're."

I tried to hold it in... but it's the third time you've screwed it up in this thread.

Rodney Ransom

11-09-2007, 03:17 PM

notice how he didnt answer the questions

and they werent even that hard

as is typical of the lazy and stupid their only real action is the talk they talk and not the walk they walk

yer apathetic ass wasnt even original enough to broach the topic at hand, you had to let alvin do it. Make that meek, lazy, and stupid

You didnt answer any of my questions but that's cool. I even posted some more info from Arron Russo.
PSUEDO ,intelllectual NEGROES kill me , bwhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.
Mabye your just here to DEBUNK info that you cant handle.
Perform on clown ,I made my point.....................

Rodney Ransom

11-09-2007, 03:18 PM

LEARN spelling before calling people idiotic. It's "you're."

I tried to hold it in... but it's the third time you've screwed it up in this thread.

No problem mistakes happen.

Moksha

11-09-2007, 03:21 PM

The Federal Reserve banking system is unconstitutional and has maxed out the national debt and bankrupted the United States government.
Federal income taxes were imposed in response to, or as part of, the plan implementing the Federal Reserve System.
Federal income taxes are unconstitutional or otherwise legally invalid.
The use of the Federal income tax to counter the economic effects of the Federal Reserve System is futile.

TAKEN FROM WIKIPEDIA LOOK UP THE NAME ARRON RUSSO.

The same Wiki page you copied your above post from also calls the film it is referring to "factually dubious." The page also goes to some length to point out all the factual errors and misleading statements in the film.

Funny how you left that out of your copy and pasting...

For those that care: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America:_From_Freedom_to_Fascism

Rodney Ransom

11-09-2007, 03:24 PM

LEARN spelling before calling people idiotic. It's "you're."

I tried to hold it in... but it's the third time you've screwed it up in this thread.

I can tell that you are /you're (lol I hope that's/that is correct lol )
on HIS side, Are you going to correct his mistakes/errors as well???
Nevermind I already know where this is going. LOL Thanks anyway

Rodney Ransom

11-09-2007, 03:27 PM

The same Wiki page you copied your above post from also calls the film it is referring to "factually dubious." The page also goes to some length to point out all the factual errors and misleading statements in the film.

Funny how you left that out of your copy and pasting...

For those that care: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America:_From_Freedom_to_Fascism

I still haven't seen any info that proves this as incorrect.

The Buddy Love Show

11-09-2007, 03:31 PM

You didnt answer any of my questions but that's cool. I even posted some more info from Arron Russo.
PSUEDO ,intelllectual NEGROES kill me , bwhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.
Mabye your just here to DEBUNK info that you cant handle.
Perform on clown ,I made my point.....................

being that i asked the initial questions, which you have still not answered, why should i respond to you

you're weak of mind and a follower

the letter, which was published by right wing kook devvy kidd, isnt info about why you pay taxes; its a cut and paste job. You were too stupid, weak, and lazy to even take the time to write about how that letter applies to yourself. Thats why you WONT talk about what organizations you are in and what political work you do for your cause because the answer is none. You're typical of the lazy and weakminded who wont even take the time and energy to describe your OWN position or talk of your OWN actions. Instead you basically write: "what she said"

i made no claim as an intellectual - YOU ascribed that to me, because, as I said before, you're weak

but you obviously recognize your betters

11-09-2007, 05:46 PM

YOU STILL HAVEN'T POSTED ANY REAL INFO CONCERNING WHY THE SISTA GOT ARRESTED. TIS TIS TIS.

Um, maybe she didn't file tax returns or pay her taxes? As much as you and others just can't seem to come to grips with it, these are obligations mandated by federal law in the United States of America. I would go through the trouble of citing the Internal Revenue Code sections to you, but we already did that on the other thread and you've already said you agree with Alvin, so... Oh, never mind.

Doug

11-09-2007, 07:04 PM

I still haven't seen any info that proves this as incorrect.

http://www.innercity.freeserve.co.uk/See%20no%20Evil,%20Hear%20no%20Evil,Speak%20no%20e vil.JPG

DJ Duke

11-09-2007, 09:20 PM

Should I stay or should I go?? LMAO

Rodney Ransom

11-10-2007, 05:22 AM

being that i asked the initial questions, which you have still not answered, why should i respond to you

you're weak of mind and a follower

the letter, which was published by right wing kook devvy kidd, isnt info about why you pay taxes; its a cut and paste job. You were too stupid, weak, and lazy to even take the time to write about how that letter applies to yourself. Thats why you WONT talk about what organizations you are in and what political work you do for your cause because the answer is none. You're typical of the lazy and weakminded who wont even take the time and energy to describe your OWN position or talk of your OWN actions. Instead you basically write: "what she said"

i made no claim as an intellectual - YOU ascribed that to me, because, as I said before, you're weak

but you obviously recognize your betters

A follower of who???
Not you CRACKHEAD, he he nigga please
like I said you can't handle the truth because it ain't in you.
FYI YOU ASSHOLE
ALL POLITICAL ORGANIZATIONS, AND READ CAFEFULLY ""BITCH"",
ARE RUN BY THE SAME SECRET SOCIETY WHO MANIPULATE THE GOVERNMENT & CONTROL THE MEDIA. ALL OF THE MEDIA AT THAT!!!!
So at the end of the day WHY BECOME PART OF THE BULLSHIT?????
Especially when you already know the outcome.
Both political parties ( THE RIGHT & THE LEFT , DEMON-CRATS & ROB THE PUBLIC-ANS ) are in bed with each other on every level.
It DOSEN'T MATTER """""WHO""""" YOU VOTE FOR, DAYUM!!!!!!!!!
Its all about the BLOODLINE & which one you belong to/too LOL LOL (sp?)
You know like the ROTHCHILDS, the ROCKERFELLERS, the BILDERBERGS etc
I REFUSE TO JOIN ANY POLITICAL PARTY OR ORGANIZATION.
DOES THAT AT LEAST ANSWER YOUR QUESTION HUH FUGGIN TRICK!!!

DID YOU EVER ASK YOURSELF WHY THE U.S DOLLAR IS SHRINKING???
THE FEDERAL BANK IS A JOKE.

The letter applies to me because Im sick of the NONSENSE, why the fuck are we paying taxes (1/3 of our paycheck) to a small group of crooks, who are INDEPENDENT of this fake ass government. SHEEEESH don't you get it???
My ""ACTIONS"" as you put it have been to email people & to reach out to those in my area/community & keep them abreast to these type of situations, as they occur. THAT MIGHT NOT BE GRASSROOTS POLITICS , OR YOUR TYPE OF THINKING BUT, WHO ARE YOU??? ARE YOU ONE OF THESE AGENTS ( A POOR ONE AT THAT) SENT TO KILL/DESTROY ANY TYPE OF MOVEMENT OR MOVEMENTS ,THAT YOU MIGHT SEE BEGINNING TO RISE??? HMMM I WONDER NIGGA. DON'T WORRY ABOUT THE CAUSE I SERVE CHECK YOURSELF FIRST!!!
As far as SHERRY PEEL JACKSON (WHO I HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING FOR A WHILE) is concerned she has WAAAAAAY MORE BALLS THEN YOU. I AM GOING TO SEND HER SOME MONEY , AND MAYBE EVEN VISIT HER IF I CAN. SHE NEEDS SUPPORT. IT'S PEOPLE LIKE YOU WHO GOT HER THROWN IN JAIL IN THE FIRST PLACE. PEOPLE WITH NO INFORMATION WHATSOEVER, JUST SOME WATERED DOWN OPINONS FROM A SLAVE/SATANIC BLOODTHIRSTY OPERATED & CONTROLLED CORPERATE MEDIA.....

NO ,YOU AIN'T NO INTELLECTUAL , NOT EVEN CLOSE. FUCK OUTTA HERE!!!
THE ONLY THING THAT YOU'RE CAPABLE OF DOING IS TRYING TO BRING OTHERS DOWN. GUESS WHAT, YOU JUST PROVED ME RIGHT , YOU'RE JUST TOOOOOOOOO STUPID & ARROGANT TO KNOW IT.

I AM GOING TO LET YOU & SOME OF THE OTHERS ENJOY POKING FUN AT THE TRUTH. IM OUT OF HERE ........................

The Buddy Love Show

11-10-2007, 08:58 AM

A follower of who???
Not you CRACKHEAD, he he nigga please
like I said you can't handle the truth because it ain't in you.
FYI YOU ASSHOLE
ALL POLITICAL ORGANIZATIONS, AND READ CAFEFULLY ""BITCH"",
ARE RUN BY THE SAME SECRET SOCIETY WHO MANIPULATE THE GOVERNMENT & CONTROL THE MEDIA. ALL OF THE MEDIA AT THAT!!!!
So at the end of the day WHY BECOME PART OF THE BULLSHIT?????
Especially when you already know the outcome.
Both political parties ( THE RIGHT & THE LEFT , DEMON-CRATS & ROB THE PUBLIC-ANS ) are in bed with each other on every level.
It DOSEN'T MATTER """""WHO""""" YOU VOTE FOR, DAYUM!!!!!!!!!
Its all about the BLOODLINE & which one you belong to/too LOL LOL (sp?)
You know like the ROTHCHILDS, the ROCKERFELLERS, the BILDERBERGS etc
I REFUSE TO JOIN ANY POLITICAL PARTY OR ORGANIZATION.
DOES THAT AT LEAST ANSWER YOUR QUESTION HUH FUGGIN TRICK!!!

DID YOU EVER ASK YOURSELF WHY THE U.S DOLLAR IS SHRINKING???
THE FEDERAL BANK IS A JOKE.

The letter applies to me because Im sick of the NONSENSE, why the fuck are we paying taxes (1/3 of our paycheck) to a small group of crooks, who are INDEPENDENT of this fake ass government. SHEEEESH don't you get it???
My ""ACTIONS"" as you put it have been to email people & to reach out to those in my area/community & keep them abreast to these type of situations, as they occur. THAT MIGHT NOT BE GRASSROOTS POLITICS , OR YOUR TYPE OF THINKING BUT, WHO ARE YOU??? ARE YOU ONE OF THESE AGENTS ( A POOR ONE AT THAT) SENT TO KILL/DESTROY ANY TYPE OF MOVEMENT OR MOVEMENTS ,THAT YOU MIGHT SEE BEGINNING TO RISE??? HMMM I WONDER NIGGA. DON'T WORRY ABOUT THE CAUSE I SERVE CHECK YOURSELF FIRST!!!
As far as SHERRY PEEL JACKSON (WHO I HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING FOR A WHILE) is concerned she has WAAAAAAY MORE BALLS THEN YOU. I AM GOING TO SEND HER SOME MONEY , AND MAYBE EVEN VISIT HER IF I CAN. SHE NEEDS SUPPORT. IT'S PEOPLE LIKE YOU WHO GOT HER THROWN IN JAIL IN THE FIRST PLACE. PEOPLE WITH NO INFORMATION WHATSOEVER, JUST SOME WATERED DOWN OPINONS FROM A SLAVE/SATANIC BLOODTHIRSTY OPERATED & CONTROLLED CORPERATE MEDIA.....

NO ,YOU AIN'T NO INTELLECTUAL , NOT EVEN CLOSE. FUCK OUTTA HERE!!!
THE ONLY THING THAT YOU'RE CAPABLE OF DOING IS TRYING TO BRING OTHERS DOWN. GUESS WHAT, YOU JUST PROVED ME RIGHT , YOU'RE JUST TOOOOOOOOO STUPID & ARROGANT TO KNOW IT.

I AM GOING TO LET YOU & SOME OF THE OTHERS ENJOY POKING FUN AT THE TRUTH. IM OUT OF HERE ........................

damn...

the lunatic fringe exposes itself

you got all hysterical (in the derogatory female sense of the word) real quick

you aint no grassroots activist youre a streetcorner kook...

as for "assholes" and "bitches" and "tricks" - you must be thinking of your family

The Buddy Love Show

11-10-2007, 09:14 AM

btw

you spelled Rothschild and Rockefeller wrong - that really damages your credibility

hold on, what am i saying. "credibility". my bad.

DJ Timmy Richardson

11-10-2007, 10:06 AM

Can y'all continue without the insults. The debate is good without it.

DJ Duke

11-10-2007, 02:31 PM

Those people that are prosecuted and indicted are nothing more than political prisoners in an effort to scare everyone into the systematic economic and political slavery..

Moksha

11-10-2007, 11:57 PM

ALL POLITICAL ORGANIZATIONS, AND READ CAFEFULLY ""BITCH"",
ARE RUN BY THE SAME SECRET SOCIETY WHO MANIPULATE THE GOVERNMENT & CONTROL THE MEDIA. ALL OF THE MEDIA AT THAT!!!!

I'm a media gatekeeper. Tell me more about these so-called people who control me.

11-11-2007, 01:02 AM

Those people that are prosecuted and indicted are nothing more than political prisoners in an effort to scare everyone into the systematic economic and political slavery..

:scared: I've got another word for them...criminals.

DJ Duke

11-11-2007, 06:16 AM

:scared: I've got another word for them...criminals.

Yeah, that's what they want to you to believe. And I'm sure most people will believe that without knowing any better. Do you even know what they are prosecuted for?

Moksha

11-11-2007, 12:18 PM

Do you even know what they are prosecuted for?

willful failure to file tax returns

Moksha

11-11-2007, 12:29 PM

DJ Duke

11-11-2007, 02:44 PM

willful failure to file tax returns

Do you know the elements they need to prove to get a conviction?

TAD

11-11-2007, 03:23 PM

And for those constantly asking for laws, here ya go:

http://uscode.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00007201----000-.html

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00007203----000-.html

And here are the sentencing guidelines:

http://www.ussc.gov/1998guid/2t1_1.htm

maybe i'm dumb & i know i'm gonna get clowned (go easy i'm fragile) but what does this really prove? are there not laws that are unconstitutional and racist? were there not laws in the past that were set up to dehumanize lblacks. are there not laws today that are "fishy" to say the least. eg: three strikes out, crack/cocaine sentencing disparities etc. they are obviously laws and cannot be proven otherwise, but are they FAIR?

if people can actually beat out the irs in court what does that say about the supposed supreme income tax laws.

i mean seriously call me ignant, stupid, ill-informed, naive, head in the sand type, but some people have spent much of their lives investigationg this shit. how is it that a few armchair specialists (not talking about the lawers and even they cannot claim to know everything) know so much yet keep posting internet links cutting & pasting, like their opposition yet throw out wisecracks for doing the same thing: "CUTTING AND PASTING FROM THE INTERNET"!!! is it the flashy animation & graphics, the dope award winning web design so common among "conspiracy" sites that make them suspect? i mean can a brother get a proper lesson, pretty please?

The Buddy Love Show

11-11-2007, 03:30 PM

i mean seriously call me ignant, stupid, ill-informed, naive, head in the sand type, but some people have spent much of their lives investigationg this shit.

some people spent their lives investigating how you can actually turn lead into gold and silver, finding the universal solvent and creating the elixir of life

we laughed at them too

DJ Duke

11-11-2007, 03:34 PM

we laughed at them too

That's nice. Laugh at people who try something different. Interesting attitude.

TAD

11-11-2007, 03:41 PM

some people spent their lives investigating how you can actually turn lead into gold and silver, finding the universal solvent and creating the elixir of life

we laughed at them too

yeah but they were onto something. alchemy is a beautiful thing.

The Buddy Love Show

11-11-2007, 03:44 PM

That's nice. Laugh at people who try something different. Interesting attitude.

Im glad you support alchemy

Pwned

DJ Duke

11-11-2007, 03:46 PM

yeah but they were onto something. alchemy is a beautiful thing.

Don't you get it? We should laugh and ridicule others with different ideas and beliefs. That way we can belong to a majority and feel good about ourselves. It takes balls to join the majority or collectively identical thinkers.

TAD

11-11-2007, 03:51 PM

Don't you get it? We should laugh and ridicule others with different ideas and beliefs. That way we can belong to a majority and feel good about ourselves. It takes balls to join the majority or collectively identical thinkers.

*sigh* my sarcasm slipped under the radar. poo poo.

The Buddy Love Show

11-11-2007, 03:51 PM

yeah but they were onto something. alchemy is a beautiful thing.

LOL

I personally know 3 people who are deep into the IRS because they listened to the half facts presented by folk like alvin

as typical of con men, these folk mix truth w bullshit to create a plausible sounding argument

in their case they were duped by the then in vogue nonsense argument based on the Three Fifths compromise

DJ Duke

11-11-2007, 04:06 PM

*sigh* my sarcasm slipped under the radar. poo poo.

So did mine.. lol

DJ Duke

11-11-2007, 04:12 PM

LOL

I personally know 3 people who are deep into the IRS because they listened to the half facts presented by folk like alvin

as typical of con men, these folk mix truth w bullshit to create a plausible sounding argument

in their case they were duped by the then in vogue nonsense argument based on the Three Fifths compromise

You are aware that several Congressional Investigations found the IRS to be abusive and over stepping their boundaries etc? So, while I agree that there are scam artists out there, I wouldn't be so quick to jump on with the IRS as the moral authority to enforce and impose tax penalties on people.

On the other hand, I am convinced that a lot of these so-called scam artist mean well and are genuinely in their efforts, but again, that doesn't apply to all of them.

I am just never keen on seeing people be so dismissive of others, especially when they aren't hurting you. or maybe you tried one of the "slam dunk theories" yourself and lost? LOL

The Buddy Love Show

11-11-2007, 04:23 PM

You are aware that several Congressional Investigations found the IRS to be abusive and over stepping their boundaries etc?

Any of those investigations say they cant collect taxes?......or is this another of those truth mixed w fact thingies i was referring to?

DJ Duke

11-11-2007, 04:31 PM

Any of those investigations say they cant collect taxes?......or is this another of those truth mixed w fact thingies i was referring to?

I didn't say anything about that. Why would you try to twist what I said. My point was simply, that NOT ONLY does the IRS get it wrong, but they use tactics that are equal or a small notch below mob tactics to intimidate people and abuse them. That has nothing to do with whether or not they have a RIGHT to collect. You wouldn't make the same statement about cops would you? I.e. that they have a right to do what they do, even though there are cases where they are clearly abusive. You are not going to defend abusive cops too, are you?

The bottom line is that people in a position of authority many times are wrong in their conclusion,but also abuse it.

TAD

11-11-2007, 04:35 PM

Moksha

11-11-2007, 05:12 PM

Do you know the elements they need to prove to get a conviction?

To prove a [sections] 7201 violation, the government must prove three elements: (1) the existence of a tax deficiency; (2) an affirmative act constituting an evasion or attempted evasion of the tax; and (3) willfulness.(4) The government bears the burden of proving each element beyond a reasonable doubt.(5)

DJ Duke

11-11-2007, 05:17 PM

To prove a [sections] 7201 violation, the government must prove three elements: (1) the existence of a tax deficiency; (2) an affirmative act constituting an evasion or attempted evasion of the tax; and (3) willfulness.(4) The government bears the burden of proving each element beyond a reasonable doubt.(5)

Then my next question would be. Do YOU think that people like Alvin actually and fully believe what he says about not having to pay taxes? Not whether you agree with his position, but whether or not you believe HE believes what he is saying?

DJ Duke

11-11-2007, 05:21 PM

I personally know 3 people who are deep into the IRS because they listened to the half facts presented by folk like alvin

Do you think the income tax law is "just"? Do you think the methods which they impose the laws are "just"?

Moksha

11-11-2007, 05:45 PM

Then my next question would be. Do YOU think that people like Alvin actually and fully believe what he says about not having to pay taxes? Not whether you agree with his position, but whether or not you believe HE believes what he is saying?

I think that Alvin, specifically, does believe in what he says. He seems to still be formulating exactly what that stance is, as his arguments have evolved over the months. But no matter how the specific rationals mutate, the conviction that the end result is no taxes seems to be firm. (I also think that mose "UFO abductees" believe in their experiences. I'm sure schizophrenic mass murderers believe the voices in their heads, too.)

I wouldn't be willing to speculate on what others actually and fully believe without having some sort of discourse.

The Buddy Love Show

11-11-2007, 05:50 PM

Do you think the income tax law is "just"? Do you think the methods which they impose the laws are "just"?

the first question makes no sense

as for the second, enforcement, I'm of the Baretta school - dont do the crime if ya cant do the time

I've answered many of your questions and you have yet to answer mine - just wanted to point that out

DJ Duke

11-11-2007, 06:01 PM

I think that Alvin, specifically, does believe in what he says. He seems to still be formulating exactly what that stance is, as his arguments have evolved over the months. But no matter how the specific rationals mutate, the conviction that the end result is no taxes seems to be firm. (I also think that mose "UFO abductees" believe in their experiences. I'm sure schizophrenic mass murderers believe the voices in their heads, too.)

I wouldn't be willing to speculate on what others actually and fully believe without having some sort of discourse.

I concur, which would lead me to believe that really ANY reasonable person listening to Alvin or others with similar convictions could NOT find him guilty of of willful failure, since it the Courts have stated that if a jury finds a defendant to have a good faith belief that they are not required to pay income taxes they cannot be found guilty under the willful failure to file.

Even a misunderstanding of the law is a defense. "A good faith misunderstanding of the duty to pay income taxes can negate the willfulness element of tax evasion charge, and the misunderstanding need not have a reasonable basis to provide a defense." See US v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619; 1990 U.S. App.

So let me go back to what I stated earlier about a lot of these people being political victims of a bigger problems, since I think we both agree that those people actually believe what they say, how could they still be found guilty? Or even prosecuted for that matter? Isn't it the responsibility of a prosecutor to view all the evidence BEFORE making an indictment so as to make sure a guilty verdict could be had? In other words, if a prosecutor believes that they cannot get a guilty verdict, should they not prosecute? If one element alone is not proven the case fails. Perhaps you can understand why I say these people are political victims.

Now, there is a big difference from the prosecution of people that deliberately avoid paying taxes, when they KNOW they have to, to those who really and actually believe they don't have to. They are not one and the same. Whether you or I agree with their position is irrelevant, we should acquit them if WE believe they believe what they say. Shouldn't the prosecutor do the same as a matter of justice and law?

The so called "others" were really people like Sherrie Jackson who I also think believes what she says. Obviously it is a case by case issue.

DJ Duke

11-11-2007, 06:08 PM

the first question makes no sense

What doesn’t make sense about whether or not you find the income tax law a “just” law. Either you think the income tax law is fair or not. I am not sure why that is confusing.

as for the second, enforcement, I'm of the Baretta school - dont do the crime if ya cant do the time

That doesn’t answer the question. Do YOU think the way the IRS enforce the laws are just? The fact that you believe people should do the time for their crime has nothing to do with whether or not the laws or the enforcement of the laws are just. Let me give you an example. There were laws against non-whites, so you would also say that anyone violating those laws should do their time? I just want to get your position correct.

I've answered many of your questions and you have yet to answer mine - just wanted to point that out

I thought I did, but if I missed some please let me know which ones.

The Buddy Love Show

11-11-2007, 06:25 PM

What doesn’t make sense about whether or not you find the income tax law a “just” law. Either you think the income tax law is fair or not. I am not sure why that is confusing.

That doesn’t answer the question. Do YOU think the way the IRS enforce the laws are just? The fact that you believe people should do the time for their crime has nothing to do with whether or not the laws or the enforcement of the laws are just. Let me give you an example. There were laws against non-whites, so you would also say that anyone violating those laws should do their time? I just want to get your position correct.

I thought I did, but if I missed some please let me know which ones.

1. "The income tax law" - which one? maybe I'm stupid but there is no "income tax law" in your haste to be relevant you have been sloppy

2. If you violate the law you should be punished - is there something that is impeding your understanding of this concept. making this a white black issue is a phony argument (and par for the course)

3. just read the questions you didnt answer

Moksha

11-11-2007, 06:32 PM

I concur, which would lead me to believe that really ANY reasonable person listening to Alvin or others with similar convictions could NOT find him guilty of of willful failure, since it the Courts have stated that if a jury finds a defendant to have a good faith belief that they are not required to pay income taxes they cannot be found guilty under the willful failure to file.

Even a misunderstanding of the law is a defense. "A good faith misunderstanding of the duty to pay income taxes can negate the willfulness element of tax evasion charge, and the misunderstanding need not have a reasonable basis to provide a defense." See US v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619; 1990 U.S. App.

"can" is the key word in your quote. plenty of tax protestors who apparently believe can and will be successfully prosecuted (that is why there is the frivilous claims section in the code). You can willfully evade paying, regardless of the beliefs that led you to the evasion. the language of the law does not preclude believers from enforcement (though, that defense has, on ocassion, worked with certain juries).

Moksha

11-11-2007, 06:38 PM

"can" is the key word in your quote. plenty of tax protestors who apparently believe can and will be successfully prosecuted (that is why there is the frivilous claims section in the code). You can willfully evade paying, regardless of the beliefs that led you to the evasion. the language of the law does not preclude believers from enforcement (though, that defense has, on ocassion, worked with certain juries).

from wiki

Under the Cheek Doctrine (Cheek v. United States[28]), the United States Supreme Court ruled that a genuine, good faith belief that one is not violating the Federal tax law (such as a mistake based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the tax law itself) would be a valid defense to a charge of "willfulness" ("willfulness" in this case being knowledge or awareness that one is violating the tax law itself), even though that belief is irrational or unreasonable. On the surface, this rule might appear to be of some comfort to tax protesters who assert, for example, that "wages are not income."[29] However, merely asserting that one has such a good faith belief is not determinative in court; under the American legal system the trier of fact (the jury, or the trial judge in a non-jury trial) decides whether the defendant really has the good faith belief he or she claims. With respect to willfulness, the placing of the burden of proof on the prosecution is of limited utility to a defendant that the jury simply does not believe.

A further stumbling block for tax protesters is found in the Cheek Doctrine with respect to arguments about "constitutionality." Under the Doctrine, the belief that the Sixteenth Amendment was not properly ratified and the belief that the Federal income tax is otherwise unconstitutional are not treated as beliefs that one is not violating the "tax law" — i.e., these errors are not treated as being caused by the "complexity of the tax law."

In the Cheek case the Court stated:
Claims that some of the provisions of the tax code are unconstitutional are submissions of a different order. They do not arise from innocent mistakes caused by the complexity of the Internal Revenue Code. Rather, they reveal full knowledge of the provisions at issue and a studied conclusion, however wrong, that those provisions are invalid and unenforceable. Thus, in this case, Cheek paid his taxes for years, but after attending various seminars and based on his own study, he concluded that the income tax laws could not constitutionally require him to pay a tax.

The Court continued:
We do not believe that Congress contemplated that such a taxpayer, without risking criminal prosecution, could ignore the duties imposed upon him by the Internal Revenue Code and refuse to utilize the mechanisms provided by Congress to present his claims of invalidity to the courts and to abide by their decisions. There is no doubt that Cheek, from year to year, was free to pay the tax that the law purported to require, file for a refund and, if denied, present his claims of invalidity, constitutional or otherwise, to the courts. See 26 U.S.C. 7422. Also, without paying the tax, he could have challenged claims of tax deficiencies in the Tax Court, 6213, with the right to appeal to a higher court if unsuccessful. 7482(a)(1). Cheek took neither course in some years, and, when he did, was unwilling to accept the outcome. As we see it, he is in no position to claim that his good-faith belief about the validity of the Internal Revenue Code negates willfulness or provides a defense to criminal prosecution under 7201 and 7203. Of course, Cheek was free in this very case to present his claims of invalidity and have them adjudicated, but, like defendants in criminal cases in other contexts who "willfully" refuse to comply with the duties placed upon them by the law, he must take the risk of being wrong.[30]

The Court ruled that such beliefs — even if held in good faith — are not a defense to a charge of willfulness. By pointing out that arguments about constitutionality of Federal income tax laws "reveal full knowledge of the provisions at issue and a studied conclusion, however wrong, that those provisions are invalid and unenforceable," the Supreme Court may have been impliedly warning that asserting such "constitutional" arguments (in open court or otherwise) might actually help the prosecutor prove willfulness.[31] Daniel B. Evans, a tax lawyer who has written about tax protester arguments, has stated that:
[ . . . ] if you plan ahead to use it [the Cheek defense], then it is almost certain to fail, because your efforts to establish your “good faith belief” are going to be used by the government as evidence that you knew that what you were doing was wrong when you did it, which is why you worked to set up a defense in advance. Planning not to file tax returns and avoid prosecution using a “good faith belief” is kind of like planning to kill someone using a claim of “self-defense.” If you’ve planned in advance, then it shouldn’t work.[32]

DJ Duke

11-11-2007, 07:21 PM

1. "The income tax law" - which one? maybe I'm stupid but there is no "income tax law" in your haste to be relevant you have been sloppy

2. If you violate the law you should be punished - is there something that is impeding your understanding of this concept. making this a white black issue is a phony argument (and par for the course)

3. just read the questions you didnt answer

I think you are right. We probably should end our discussion as I can see it is beginning to take a personal toll on you. I take it you believe that ANY law should be enforced and regardless of whether it is just or not. I still didn't see any questions I didn't answer.

Having said that, I want to clarify to others, that the issue was about Just laws, not race.

DJ Duke

11-11-2007, 07:25 PM

from wiki if you plan ahead to use it [the Cheek defense], then it is almost certain to fail, because your efforts to establish your “good faith belief” are going to be used by the government as evidence that you knew that what you were doing was wrong when you did it, which is why you worked to set up a defense in advance. Planning not to file tax returns and avoid prosecution using a “good faith belief” is kind of like planning to kill someone using a claim of “self-defense.” If you’ve planned in advance, then it shouldn’t work.[32]

I am not sure I agree with your conclusion of the case, but in any event, you didn't address the issue of you finding someone guilty.

The Buddy Love Show

11-11-2007, 07:26 PM

I think you are right. We probably should end our discussion as I can see it is beginning to take a personal toll on you. I take it you believe that ANY law should be enforced and regardless of whether it is just or not. I still didn't see any questions I didn't answer.

Having said that, I want to clarify to others, that the issue was about Just laws, not race.

It isnt taking a personal toll on me

I just aint got polite conversation for those who apologize for racists

but of course - those arent YOUR positions

for your information The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is one of the cornerstones of the civil rights movement. But hey, they let niggers vote in some places, so why care about it?

DJ Duke

11-11-2007, 07:50 PM

It isnt taking a personal toll on me

I just aint got polite conversation for those who apologize for racists

but of course - those arent YOUR positions

for your information The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is one of the cornerstones of the civil rights movement. But hey, they let niggers vote in some places, so why care about it?

Apologize for racist? WHAT? I can't believe you actually drew that completely ridiculous and unfair conclusion from a question I had. You actually think that I thought it was a good idea to disallow ANYONE not to vote? Come on, if you think that you are gravely mistaken and disingenuous.

This is like anyone who wants to discuss the Holocaust they are automatically labeled anti-Semite and thus the conversation must end.

You can't personally believe that Ron Paul believes that either? Or perhaps you have some insight to what his reasoning for his vote was.

Here is what Paul may stand on the Voting Act:

"While the Act is often considered a landmark in civil rights legislation, it has been criticized by some (especially during talks of renewal in 2006) as a bill that has achieved its goal of minority voting and now has become an overreach of federal power or too demanding of certain states." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act

So it is TWO-fold,

One, that the Act accomplished something GOOD, the former, but also something BAD, the latter. And perhaps that is why Paul is against it, since he is AGAINST Federal Government intrusion, but that DOES NOT MEAN HE IS AGAINST voting rights for everyone. Don't assume that because someone votes against a Bill, it is just a clear-cut issue. I have tried to articulate that a few times already. Bill are sometimes complicated, and ALSO used in a completely different way than initially intended.

There is where I was getting at, but you had to speed 1000 miles ahead and come to some preposterous conclusion that I somehow support racist people, and mind you, that that statement is all of which some will see.

Further, if you read the intention of the Act, you will find it really had nothing to do with race, but rather literacy tests, which may indirectly affect some minorities.

DJ Loka

11-11-2007, 07:56 PM

The Buddy Love Show

11-11-2007, 08:03 PM

Here is what Paul may stand on the Voting Act:

"While the Act is often considered a landmark in civil rights legislation, it has been criticized by some (especially during talks of renewal in 2006) as a bill that has achieved its goal of minority voting and now has become an overreach of federal power or too demanding of certain states." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act

wow

I'm sure the african americans of florida circa 2000 will agree

by the way, those "some" = racists and self hating blacks

DJ Duke

11-11-2007, 08:05 PM

i bet you tax protesters would have a better chance of protesting if they actually paid their taxes, got together as a group and filed suit against the government in some sort of class action (i have no idea if that's even possible, but i'm just surmising)

do any of the lawyer heads know if that would be something that's possible? a class action against the irs?

I'm not sure who you are referring to as "tax protester" but I am not one just for the record. I just like debating all kinds of stuff =) It gives me a chance to exercise that part of my brain.

Second, there is a group who already filed suit against the IRS, well, I think many did. Although I think most of those people are somewhat misguided, I do think they mean well, at least some of them. One group is we the people. www.givemeliberty.org Again, I don't endorse anything they say, but it is an avenue for you to follow one of the suits at least.

DJ Duke

11-11-2007, 08:14 PM

I'm sure the african americans of florida circa 2000 will agree

Agree on what? I'm not sure I follow you.

by the way, those "some" = racists and self hating blacks

Are you referring to people like Justice Thomas who don't believe in affirmative action?

Again, without stating my personal view, why can't people have different political and philosophical views without being self-hating? I.e. one is "more black" than the other. Isn't this the criticism Obama has gotten? He isn't "black" enough because of some of his views? And why does this type of debate appear to be exclusive to blacks? I mean, you don't hear Hispanics talk about he isn't Hispanic enough or he is a self hating Hispanic, or whites the same. and I am using these terms loosely, because I think they are all nonsense.

I may be wrong but there appears to be a feud among blacks when it comes to black Republicans, like they somehow sold out as Uncle Toms. Am I wrong?

I remember the light v. dark skin feud. Like it actually accomplished anything. Wait, how did we get on the race issue? We were talking taxes for crying out loud. LOL

DJ Loka

11-11-2007, 08:15 PM

I'm not sure who you are referring to as "tax protester" but I am not one just for the record. I just like debating all kinds of stuff =) It gives me a chance to exercise that part of my brain.

Second, there is a group who already filed suit against the IRS, well, I think many did. Although I think most of those people are somewhat misguided, I do think they mean well, at least some of them. One group is we the people. www.givemeliberty.org (http://www.givemeliberty.org) Again, I don't endorse anything they say, but it is an avenue for you to follow one of the suits at least.

well in many income brackets (like mine and probably many others) the rate at which we're taxed is unreasonable compared to those who make much much more and have more available to them...

so there might be an issue of what's 'just' as far as a reasonable percentage but i do think paying taxes and EVERYONE paying them is JUST, we DO receive alot of services etc etc...

i'd throw my hat into a class action based on lowering the rate for income brackets under 200k (or some mutually agreed upon #)

but i'd think you'd have to continually pay taxes, and then get the refund from the gov't should something like that actually win.

you can't just NOT pay though...that's just some bullshit.

The Buddy Love Show

11-11-2007, 08:20 PM

Agree on what? I'm not sure I follow you.

Are you referring to people like Justice Thomas who don't believe in affirmative action?

Again, without stating my personal view, why can't people have different political and philosophical views without being self-hating? I.e. one is "more black" than the other. Isn't this the criticism Obama has gotten? He isn't "black" enough because of some of his views? And why does this type of debate appear to be exclusive to blacks? I mean, you don't hear Hispanics talk about he isn't Hispanic enough or he is a self hating Hispanic, or whites the same. and I am using these terms loosely, because I think they are all nonsense.

I may be wrong but there appears to be a feud among blacks when it comes to black Republicans, like they somehow sold out as Uncle Toms. Am I wrong?

I remember the light v. dark skin feud. Like it actually accomplished anything. Wait, how did we get on the race issue? We were talking taxes for crying out loud. LOL

When Pauls anti immigration measures kick in you'll be out of the country along w your kids, if you have any

Thats not my view - it's just a fun argument

DJ Duke

11-11-2007, 08:33 PM

When Pauls anti immigration measures kick in you'll be out of the country along w your kids, if you have any

Thats not my view - it's just a fun argument

First, that is not an argument, its a statement, and I was asking question. I didn't make ridiculous statements. What's wrong with us discussing these issues? I enjoy it, as long as it is civil and you don't jump to some erroneous conclusion BEFORE asking me to clarify. So far you really haven't asked me much. Besides I like hearing different people's view and why they came to it.

I got one for you, when the Aliens arrive, they will arrive in the Jesus mobile but only take people from Cuba with them. Thats not my view - it's just a fun argument....

The Buddy Love Show

11-11-2007, 08:42 PM

First, that is not an argument, its a statement, and I was asking question. I didn't make ridiculous statements. What's wrong with us discussing these issues? I enjoy it, as long as it is civil and you don't jump to some erroneous conclusion BEFORE asking me to clarify. So far you really haven't asked me much. Besides I like hearing different people's view and why they came to it.

I got one for you, when the Aliens arrive, they will arrive in the Jesus mobile but only take people from Cuba with them. Thats not my view - it's just a fun argument....

unlike yourself, i dont find the fight for life, health, wealth, and civil rights "fun arguments"

this shit is for real to some of us - not some armchair bullshit session

DJ Loka

11-11-2007, 08:44 PM

unlike yourself, i dont find the fight for life, health, wealth, and civil rights "fun arguments"

this shit is for real to some of us - not some armchair bullshit session

:respent:

DJ Duke

11-11-2007, 08:59 PM

unlike yourself, i dont find the fight for life, health, wealth, and civil rights "fun arguments"

this shit is for real to some of us - not some armchair bullshit session

YOU started the fun argument thing, not I. And again, you are making some erroneous assumption about me, that I somehow don't think that health, wealth and civil rights are important. Obviously you know nothing about me, but I will say that it isn't fair to label someone anything near like that, especially since you are making no effort for me to clarify it. me enjoying a good debate does NOT mean I think civil rights are unimportant. That is just ridiculous. That is just the Hannity and O'Reilly argument.

Since you don't seem to be able to argue the merits of the issues, but rather make erroneous conclusions and label me, I think its best we stop. I don't know where all the anger is coming from.

The Buddy Love Show

11-11-2007, 09:14 PM

YOU started the fun argument thing, not I. And again, you are making some erroneous assumption about me, that I somehow don't think that health, wealth and civil rights are important. Obviously you know nothing about me, but I will say that it isn't fair to label someone anything near like that, especially since you are making no effort for me to clarify it. me enjoying a good debate does NOT mean I think civil rights are unimportant. That is just ridiculous. That is just the Hannity and O'Reilly argument.

Since you don't seem to be able to argue the merits of the issues, but rather make erroneous conclusions and label me, but I think its best we stop. I don't know where all the anger is coming from.

i guess my "anger" isnt an "erroneous assumption" on your part?

open the windowshade Wiley Coyote, you're about to get hit by a train

if you don't believe in it, then shut it

and wheres yer green card anyway? you legal enough to actually be talking w born americans? - a right which Mr Paul might just as easily remove from you as he would the darker shaded immigrants whom he thinks darken our doorways - don't worry thats just a "fun argument". i dont believe in that shit

alvin

11-11-2007, 09:28 PM

Here's a newspaper account of Ms. Peel-Jackson's ordeal...

http://www.ajc.com/cherokee/content/metro/dekalb/stories/2007/10/30/irs_1031.html

Notice how her attorney mentions "good faith"...

UNIFORM COMMERICIAL CODE
http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/1/article1.htm#s1-101

(20) "Good faith," except as otherwise provided in Article 5, means honesty in fact and the observance of reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing.

Also note the use(by her attorney) of the term "American" being used to describe the flesh and blood Ms. Peel-Jackson. The IRS isn't interested in the American...just the "taxpayer"/ "individual"(SHERRY PEEL-JACKSON) represented by IRS "law"(ie. code) and IRS private corporate "agents"...

(27) "Person" means an individual, corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, limited liability company, association, joint venture, government, governmental subdivision, agency, or instrumentality, public corporation, or any other legal or commercial entity.to the IRS a "person"(individual) is a legal instrument and commercial entity...

(33) "Representative" means a person empowered to act for another, including an agent, an officer of a corporation or association, and a trustee, executor, or administrator of an estate.

http://www.corporate.com/glossary.jsp

Agent

Anyone who is authorized to act on the behalf of another. A corporation acts only through its agents; therefore, it is important to define what actions an agent is authorized to perform.

When dealing with the IRS(the collection branch of the private corporation Federal Reserve)...the IRS "agent" is dealing with legal instruments and commercial entities(individuals)

And here's some more information from her trial taken from an observer...

http://www.triallogs.com/index.php?/content/view/249/1/

DJ Duke

11-11-2007, 09:32 PM

Here's a newspaper account of Ms. Peel-Jackson's ordeal...

Oh you're back. Maybe you can take over for me. They have begun the personal smear campaigns when they disagree with what you say or can't explain their positions. =)

On the Jackson issue, I just don't see how she could have gotten convicted, since I am not in agreement with her beliefs, I do absolutely believe that she believes them, which means she has a good faith belief, thus not guilty of willful failure to file.

11-11-2007, 09:34 PM

The Buddy Love Show

11-11-2007, 09:36 PM

For what it's worth (which is obviously nothing), for the One Zillionth time, nothing you posted above is even in the same planetary alignment with reality.

speaking of planetary alignment..has alvin posted any more news from his aliens page?

DJ Duke

11-11-2007, 09:37 PM

For what it's worth (which is obviously nothing), for the One Zillionth time, nothing you posted above is even in the same planetary alignment with reality.

LOL. I'm in tears from laughing.. You guys are hilarious...

11-11-2007, 10:01 PM

11-11-2007, 10:08 PM

[QUOTE=alvin;561003]Here's a newspaper account of Ms. Peel-Jackson's ordeal...

Her ordeal? Ooh, here's my favorite part:

"Sitting at the witness stand, with large books of federal regulations and the tax code in front of her, Jackson said she could not find any section of the tax code that held her liable for income taxes.

"I'd done a lot of research and I was just about sure," she testified. "I did not have to file an income tax return."

During cross-examination, assistant U.S. Attorney Richard Langway read Section 1 of the tax code to Jackson, who is married. A tax is imposed on "every married individual," Langway read, asking Jackson how she could not be an individual.

"I couldn't find the definition of 'individual,' " Jackson replied."

:rofl5:

Reminds me of this classic testimony:

Capt. Ross: Corporal Barnes, I hold here the Marine Corps Outline for Recruit Training. You're familiar with this book?
Cpl. Barnes: Yes, sir.
Capt. Ross: You've read it?
Cpl. Barnes: Yes, sir.
Capt. Ross: Good. Would you open it up to the chapter that deals with code reds, please?
Cpl. Barnes: Sir?
Capt. Ross: Just flip open to the page of the book that talks about code reds.
Cpl. Barnes: Well, sir code red is a term that we use, I mean, just down at Gitmo, I really don't think that...
Capt. Ross: Ah, we're in luck then. Standard Operating Procedures, Rifle Security Company, Guantanamo Bay Cuba. Now I assume we'll find the term code red and its definition in that book. Am I right?
Cpl. Barnes: No sir.
Capt. Ross: Coporal Barnes, I'm a Marine. Is there no book. No pamphlet or manual, no regulation or set of written orders or instructions that lets me know that, as a Marine, one of my duties is to perform code reds?
Cpl. Barnes: No sir. No book, sir.
Capt. Ross: No further questions.
[as Ross walks back to his table Kaffey takes the book out of his hand]
Kaffee: Corporal would you open this book up to the part that says that where the mess hall is.
Cpl. Barnes: Well, Lt Kaffey, that's not in the book either, sir.
Kaffee: You mean to say the entire time you've been at Gitmo you've never had a meal?
Cpl. Barnes: No, sir. Three squares a day, sir.
Kaffee: Well, I don't understand. How did you know where the mess hall was if it wasn't in this book?
Cpl. Barnes: I guess I just followed the crowd at chow time, sir.
Kaffee: Thanks. No more questions.

Q. Ms. Peel-Jackson, how did you not know you were an individual?
A. Well, um, I guess I never looked in the mirror.

The Buddy Love Show

11-11-2007, 10:29 PM

alvin

11-11-2007, 11:41 PM

For what it's worth (which is obviously nothing), for the One Zillionth time, nothing you posted above is even in the same planetary alignment with reality.

for what it's worth(for example a Federal Reserve Note), I will take your opinion into account.

Doug

11-12-2007, 09:44 AM

It's worth noting that even if she had been found innocent of willful failure to file, she still would have been on the hook for the taxes. That's the part that the apologists for Ms. (or Mrs. as it were) Jackson fail to mention.

alvin

11-12-2007, 11:07 AM

MONOPLY MEN(FEDERAL RESERVE FRAUD)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7065177340464808778

some pretty disturbing facts including:

-discloses the history of the Federal Reserve Act

-discloses the ownership of the Federal Reserve(merchant banks within the City of London)

djmarbll

11-12-2007, 01:11 PM

LEARN spelling before calling people idiotic. It's "you're."

I tried to hold it in... but it's the third time you've screwed it up in this thread.

I'm glad you said something. I see people spell you're as your all the time! :thumbsup:

djmarbll

11-12-2007, 01:16 PM

The same Wiki page you copied your above post from also calls the film it is referring to "factually dubious." The page also goes to some length to point out all the factual errors and misleading statements in the film.

Funny how you left that out of your copy and pasting...

For those that care: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America:_From_Freedom_to_Fascism

The Criticisms section pretty much pointed out the fallacies of many of those quotes I've seen and even posted before. Interesting. Thanks for posting Moksha.

Milo

08-17-2008, 07:23 PM

Alvin and Tony Mundaca both say:

http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/314/jesusagrees7qayf1.gif

:rofl5::rofl::icon_rofl::grinyes::lol: