This is gonna be fun!

57 replies [Last post]
dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-11-15

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4312730277175242198 &q=freedom+to+fascism&hl=en
 
Watch the whole thing.  Share some thoughts.
Please don't comment unless you've watched a significant portion of the film.  It's around an hour and 45 minutes long. 

dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-11-15

Disclaimer:  I'm not necessarily supporting all of the above films contentions, just interested in discussing the assertions made by the film.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

How about if I go to the film's website, read this;
Dear Lovers of Liberty, the struggle is just beginning! Get ready...


  • Are you aware by May of 2008 the law will require you to carry a national identification card?
  • Are you aware that there are plans being developed to have all Americans embedded with a Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) computer chip under their skin so they can be tracked wherever they go?
  • Are you aware the Supreme Court has ruled that the government has no authority to impose a direct unapportioned tax on the labor of the American people, and the 16th Amendment does not give the government that power?
  • Are you aware that computer voting machines can be rigged and there is no way to ensure that your vote is counted?

and save my self a significant portion of an hour and 45 minutes of my life? 

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

And  for this I missed Dancing with the Stars?
Who got bounced tonite?
Dude, good stuff! Scary! How do we verify?

dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-11-15

As far as the Fed Reserve stuff, I'm not too sold (although my interest is peaked a little).
The tax stuff is absolutely flooring though. 
BondGuy: to answer your question...I think that the fact that there are multiples of people actually winning in court over this, including former IRS agents, gives this enough credibility. 
The main reason I posted the above link is that I was curious about anyone else's ideas on how to verify.

dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-11-15

mikebutler222 wrote:
How about if I go to the film's website, read this;
Dear Lovers of Liberty, the struggle is just beginning! Get ready...


  • Are you aware by May of 2008 the law will require you to carry a national identification card?
  • Are you aware that there are plans being developed to have all Americans embedded with a Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) computer chip under their skin so they can be tracked wherever they go?
  • Are you aware the Supreme Court has ruled that the government has no authority to impose a direct unapportioned tax on the labor of the American people, and the 16th Amendment does not give the government that power?
  • Are you aware that computer voting machines can be rigged and there is no way to ensure that your vote is counted?

and save my self a significant portion of an hour and 45 minutes of my life? 

Yeah Mike, you would throw the baby out with the bath water. 
You'd be suprised Mike, there's a lot of good stuff in that movie (and some wacky stuff too).  Point is that they lay down a pretty rock solid case backed by Supreme Court rulings which specify that the income tax on WAGES as we know it is essentially illegal.   
There are some places where the movie jumps to some conclusions which I think are stretching it a bit, but for the most part, it does a great job of exposing the reality of our tax code and how the current system violates the consitution.  It backs this assertion with real life cases and successes in the courts.
But I wouldn't expect you to get it anyway.  Good luck amigo.

Starka's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-30

I remember a case about 25 years ago, where a Connecticut woman who
owned a machine shop refused to deduct taxes from employees wages. Her
contention was that her firm's accountants were not paid IRS agents, and
therefore she (her company) had no obligtion to do the government's work
for it. Income tax, she felt, was a matter between the IRS and the employee
and had nothing to do with her. They fought that for years until the lady
died. The premise seems reasonable, but I can't see the tax courts letting
ANYONE get away with that!

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

dude wrote:
As far as the Fed Reserve stuff, I'm not too sold (although my interest is peaked a little).
The tax stuff is absolutely flooring though. 
BondGuy: to answer your question...I think that the fact that there are multiples of people actually winning in court over this, including former IRS agents, gives this enough credibility. 
The main reason I posted the above link is that I was curious about anyone else's ideas on how to verify.

Dude, there are people losing too. Ivin,(was that his name?) did 13 years. Still, it is fasinating that there are people winning. A former friend of mine is finishing up a 14 year stretch for tax fraud. Watching what happened to him was maddening. The IRS doesn't play fair.
There are problems. Being that I'm not a constitutional lawyer I don't have a big enough set to take a stand. I'm not betting my net worth, controlled as it may be by secret bankers, on my ability to beat the IRS at a game it has perfected. Or close enough to perfected that taking a stand exposes my liberty and net worth to a process that extremely stacks the deck against me. Call me sensible, call me conservative, call me a pussy, either way I'm definately not going first on this one. 
On the big brother RFID issue and the Real ID program, this is a problem. The probem being that the nation of sheep in which we live is willingly moving towards that May 08 entrance gate. There is resistance, Montana, New Hamshire, California, and a few other states have passed laws or have legislation pending which will limit the info included on the card and either eliminate the RFID or will add protections which at least partially address the personal ID threat. One disgusting aspect to this fight is that some states aren't fighting for the ID concerns but rather because the act is an unfunded mandate. These states want the money to implement the program. The process of signing people up and getting fifty state governments to comply added to, all the info flowing to and through the Homeland Security Dept will be a massive undertaking. I feel a Katrina moment coming.
As for Montana, the only state that has completely rejected the program, their residents will be non compliant. All the negatives that were brought up in the film will apply. For the rest of us, it's either sign up or watch life as we know it come to a screeching halt. That's a problem if protections aren't implemented. Anyone care to take a life changing stand?
Of course there is one alternative:
Montana, that's one of those big rectangular states west of the Mississippi, right? They've got some decent neighborhoods there don't they? What's the weather like in January?

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

dude wrote:Point is that they lay down a pretty rock solid case backed by Supreme Court rulings which specify that the income tax on WAGES as we know it is essentially illegal.   
 
Actually, dude, I think the point is (as is the case in any crockumentary) they SEEM the make a rock solid case because they leave out every bit of evidence to the contrary. You and I, people who don’t know shiite from Shineola on the specific subject, are prefect fodder for these kinds of things because we’re dependent on the film maker for every last bit of information on the subject. That's why they're a complete and total waste of time, imho. <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
 
Objective documentaries, otoh, that allow more than one perspective to be shown, with give and take between various experts, are invaluable.
 

BrokerRecruit's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-04-19

BondGuy wrote:
And  for this I missed Dancing with the Stars?
Who got bounced tonite?
Dude, good stuff! Scary! How do we verify?

Joey Lawrence left (my wife watches it). 

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

BrokerRecruit wrote:BondGuy wrote:
And  for this I missed Dancing with the Stars?
Who got bounced tonite?
Dude, good stuff! Scary! How do we verify?

Joey Lawrence left (my wife watches it). 

Thanks, still going with Emmitt

dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-11-15

I will never accept a RFID device and may even refuse a national ID card!!!  I believe that such developments are an egregious theft of individual liberty and will do little to fight the actual war on terrorism. 
I believe that fear is a powerful tool to motivate the masses and unfortunatley, it seems that the masses are too fattened on our current consumer culture to risk their 'way of life'.  It seems that the current propaganda focuses on preserving our way of life more than anything.  Sadly this is the average American's achilles heel...the EXPECTATION that their way of life is preserved.  They'll trade security and freedom for the governments' tit and narcotic promise that their way of life won't be inconvenienced.
Unfortunatley, our way of life is not currently sustainable...it will have to change whether we like it or not, as more and more countries compete for fewer resources.  There is nothing that justifies our consumption of the majority of the worlds' resources, while only having a fraction of it's population.  Do you think the people in China deserve the American dream too?  An even more important (because in the end it doesn't matter what you think about it) question is: Do the Chinese people feel like they deserve the American dream too?  It's figuring out how each party can meet their needs that will determine how much of our current way of life we'll be able to preserve.  If we persist with this 'manifest destiny' type logic, that we deserve the American Dream (as it is now defined) the only outcome will be conflict...and of a far more heinous kind than the current War on Terror/Freedom or whatever you want to call it.
Why are most people cynical about the candidates they vote for...why do so many people feel like it won't make much difference for who they vote for?  Maybe it's because it's obvious that party lines and special interests have the influence, not truth.  Everybody's saving their own a*ses. 
 

dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-11-15

mikebutler222 wrote:
dude wrote:Point is that they lay down a pretty rock solid case backed by Supreme Court rulings which specify that the income tax on WAGES as we know it is essentially illegal.   
 
Actually, dude, I think the point is (as is the case in any crockumentary) they SEEM the make a rock solid case because they leave out every bit of evidence to the contrary. You and I, people who don’t know shiite from Shineola on the specific subject, are prefect fodder for these kinds of things because we’re dependent on the film maker for every last bit of information on the subject. That's why they're a complete and total waste of time, imho. <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Objective documentaries, otoh, that allow more than one perspective to be shown, with give and take between various experts, are invaluable.
 
Since you didn't watch the film MikeB, your input is dreadfully worthless.  Thanks for watching, but...sorry.
 
I love when people start making assumptions and having opinions about something they have not experienced.
 
I specified that those who comment should at least watch a significant portion of the film.  This is a subject I am interested in discussing with those who have seen the film.  Other input is off topic. 
 
When you watch the movie c'mon back and I'll gladly entertain any of your input amigo.  Until then....FLUSH!!!!

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

dude wrote:mikebutler222 wrote: <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
dude wrote:Point is that they lay down a pretty rock solid case backed by Supreme Court rulings which specify that the income tax on WAGES as we know it is essentially illegal.   
 
Actually, dude, I think the point is (as is the case in any crockumentary) they SEEM the make a rock solid case because they leave out every bit of evidence to the contrary. You and I, people who don’t know shiite from Shineola on the specific subject, are prefect fodder for these kinds of things because we’re dependent on the film maker for every last bit of information on the subject. That's why they're a complete and total waste of time, imho.
Objective documentaries, otoh, that allow more than one perspective to be shown, with give and take between various experts, are invaluable.
 
Since you didn't watch the film MikeB, your input is dreadfully worthless.  Thanks for watching, but...sorry.
 
 
Wait a sec, dude, I read their webpage, I read numerous reviews, pro and con of it. Now, are you going to tell me they presented both sides? Really? Reviews of the film, pro and con, mentioned that as a significant shortcoming.
 
I love when people start making assumptions and having opinions about something they have not experienced.
ecified that those who comment should at least watch a significant portion of the film.  This is a subject I am interested in discussing with those who have seen the film.  Other input is off topic. 
Fine, if you’re interested in a discussion of a single side of an issue, be my guest. I meant no insult to you, I was simply commenting on the nature of the beast, the crockumentary or “advocamentary” if you prefer.  I can't imagine it's worth the time involved.
 
When you watch the movie c'mon back and I'll gladly entertain any of your input amigo.  Until then....FLUSH!!!!

 
Perhaps, then,  we can discuss sometime the value of indoctrination (which is what these things are, regardless of the source left or right) over a presentation of all sides of an issue.
 

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

dude wrote:  There is nothing that justifies our consumption of the majority of the worlds' resources, while only having a fraction of it's population. 
 
We don't consume a majority of the world's resources, we consume a majority of the world's resources that are currently being consumed, and for unit's produced with same resources, we're among the most efficent on the planet.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America:_Freedom_to_Fascism
 
By contrast, Scott Moore, movie critic of the Portland Mercury, writes: "There are a lot of stupid people in this world, and some of those stupid people are going to see America: From Freedom to Fascism and buy into its half-baked, hole-ridden, libertarian rhetoric about the alleged illegality of the federal income tax. And that's a shame, if for no other reason than it'll be a small defeat for logic." Moore states: "By presenting half-baked ideas with the faux certainty that comes through sheer repetition and bending historical facts to fit his agenda, Russo manages to portray the legality of the income tax as something actually worthy of debate. Thing is, it's only up for debate among anti-tax conspiracy theorists who have anarchist, anti-social tendencies."
Now, if I know nothing of the historical facts involved (and I don't) how am I to know if he's bent them? Why, then, would I want to discuss, without having seen anything of the other side, his take on "historic facts"? Have I learned anything or am I just discussing the indoctrination I got? If there’s both side presented, then I’m game for it, if not…..<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
 To me it's as if someone from Mars, who knew nothing of JFK's assassination, nothing of opposing theories and the over all controversy, who wanted to debate Oliver Stone's movie on the subject. Not to pick on Stone (I can’t think of a better example), but regardless of what you think of it, at the very best all you can say of it is that it’s thought provoking among people who know the bigger story not told there.
That’s my only point, not an insult to dude.
 

dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-11-15

mikebutler222 wrote:
dude wrote:  There is nothing that justifies our consumption of the majority of the worlds' resources, while only having a fraction of it's population. 
 
We don't consume a majority of the world's resources, we consume a majority of the world's resources that are currently being consumed, and for unit's produced with same resources, we're among the most efficent on the planet.

Mike...c'mon, you're smart enough to know that I meant 'consume the majority of the currently consumed resources'.  Let's not play word games, you're above that my friend. 
Again...your input on the movie (the topic of this thread, in case you didn't realize it) is pretty worthless.  I don't care what reviews or 'snippets' you've read.  This is a thread on the movie, it's presented evidence and conclusions. 
I can't have a conversation with someone about some of the specific cases and evidence in the movie with someone who hasn't even availed themselves of that information now can I?  Nothing personal, and in fact I'd love to hear what you (not some reviewer etc..) think of the info presented. 
Knowing you as a smart and literate individual and as someone who is fair minded, keep in mind that I posted a disclaimer at the beginning (mostly in anticipation of your comments to be honest).
Whether you think the concept is 'wacko' or whatever...there are quite a few people winning court cases based on the argument this movie is contending (and yes there are some loosing too).  If you think that this topic is still in the realm of wacko's...you may be implying that our Courts' are siding with the wackos in many cases.
In my view, people asking to be provided the exact law, which unequivocally requires us to UNVOLUNTARILY forfeit a portion of our wages is completely reasonable and in the realm of the dreadfully ordinary, not the extraordinary.  If we are a country that is ruled by law (as we claim) then this request should be completely reasonable and supported by you MikeB.
The point is that no one to date has been able to come forward and clearly point out a law, which is why people are winning these cases.  
In fact, based on the constitution and precedent set by the Supreme Court...the current tax system is illegal.
Some of the other conclusions the movie makes are tenous and speculative in the extreme...I wish he would have stayed focused on the tax issues frankly. 
The other aspects of the movie are worthless to discuss since they lie in the realm of extreme speculation.
Anyhow, I really don't give a crap what you think until you've seen the movie.  Don't waste your time since you're not going to persuade me of anything until you can intelligently comment on the movie's points and evidence.  And, I am open to persuasive arguments on this topic.

dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-11-15

http://www.fairtax.org/index.htm
The above orginazation is more in line with what I believe to be a sensible tax system. 

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

mikebutler222 wrote:
dude wrote:Point is that they lay down a pretty rock solid case backed by Supreme Court rulings which specify that the income tax on WAGES as we know it is essentially illegal.   
 
Actually, dude, I think the point is (as is the case in any crockumentary) they SEEM the make a rock solid case because they leave out every bit of evidence to the contrary. You and I, people who don’t know shiite from Shineola on the specific subject, are prefect fodder for these kinds of things because we’re dependent on the film maker for every last bit of information on the subject. That's why they're a complete and total waste of time, imho. <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Objective documentaries, otoh, that allow more than one perspective to be shown, with give and take between various experts, are invaluable.
 

I didn't think it was a waste of time. It was thought provoking. The parts about your rights in front of the IRS were spot on. Not exagerated one bit. As was the "you are guilty until proven innocent" if charged by the IRS. And the seize and ruin nature of their agents was accurate, if a bit under played in the film. These guys are mean and they are liars. Hopefully you'll never find this out from personal experience, but the movie DID NOT exaggerate this. What other side is there to the IRS acting on no more than an unsubstanciated tip to turn your life upside down.
I know this from personal experience. A long time ago while embroiled in bitter custody fight with my ex-wife, she called the IRS with a claim of tax fraud against me. These people we not gentle. They turned my life upside down based on the word of a bitter woman. She later, in open court, recanted the accusation. That she was a drug addict had no effect on the IRS going through seven years of my tax records. So yeah, the movie is not crap on that point. Did you know that the accuser in these cases shares whatever is collected? At least that was how it worked in those days. Play the odds, drop a dime on those asshole neighbors and coworkers, and collect a bounty. Ruin innocent people's lives and get paid for it. Nice huh?
Not liking the name calling.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

dude wrote:mikebutler222 wrote:
dude wrote:  There is nothing that justifies our consumption of the majority of the worlds' resources, while only having a fraction of it's population. 
 
We don't consume a majority of the world's resources, we consume a majority of the world's resources that are currently being consumed, and for unit's produced with same resources, we're among the most efficent on the planet.

Mike...c'mon, you're smart enough to know that I meant 'consume the majority of the currently consumed resources'.  Let's not play word games, you're above that my friend. 
Thanks, but smart as I am, I didn't know what you meant.
 
Again...your input on the movie (the topic of this thread, in case you didn't realize it) is pretty worthless.  I don't care what reviews or 'snippets' you've read.  This is a thread on the movie, it's presented evidence and conclusions. 
Well, since it only presents evidence it wants you to see, and not the whole picture.....
I can't have a conversation with someone about some of the specific cases and evidence in the movie with someone who hasn't even availed themselves of that information now can I?  Nothing personal, and in fact I'd love to hear what you (not some reviewer etc..) think of the info presented. 
The point, dude, is that it's just one side, it doesn't even pretend to be objective.
 
Knowing you as a smart and literate individual and as someone who is fair minded, keep in mind that I posted a disclaimer at the beginning (mostly in anticipation of your comments to be honest).
I honestly don't even get what your point is here. It seems as though you want to protect yourself from me associating you with things said on the film. I haven't, and wouldn't do that.
Whether you think the concept is 'wacko' or whatever...there are quite a few people winning court cases based on the argument this movie is contending (and yes there are some loosing too). 
That's my point too. Objective reviewers have said the film distorts the results and leaves out defeats in court of the theory.
If you think that this topic is still in the realm of wacko's...you may be implying that our Courts' are siding with the wackos in many cases.
I didn't say that, either. I simply questioned the value of watching something that only shows one side of an issues, especially when objective sources say it's distorted facts.
 
In my view, people asking to be provided the exact law, which unequivocally requires us to UNVOLUNTARILY forfeit a portion of our wages is completely reasonable and in the realm of the dreadfully ordinary, not the extraordinary. 
The problem is they reject the law named to them, calling it a regulation. The courts have spoken on this one, it's law.
 
The point is that no one to date has been able to come forward and clearly point out a law, which is why people are winning these cases.  
They aren't winning on the grounds they claim and the courts have spoken, it is law.
In fact, based on the constitution and precedent set by the Supreme Court...the current tax system is illegal.
Now you're supporting the movie, care to discuss the lawyers who say this is bunk?
Anyhow, I really don't give a crap what you think until you've seen the movie.  Don't waste your time since you're not going to persuade me of anything until you can intelligently comment on the movie's points and evidence. 
Just for you, dude, I'm going to piss away the time required to this this thing. Then I'm going to bring you leagal sources that make the acse that watching propaganda isn't the same as watching an objective discussion....
 
 

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

mikebutler222 wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America:_Freedom_to_Fascism
 
By contrast, Scott Moore, movie critic of the Portland Mercury, writes: "There are a lot of stupid people in this world, and some of those stupid people are going to see America: From Freedom to Fascism and buy into its half-baked, hole-ridden, libertarian rhetoric about the alleged illegality of the federal income tax. And that's a shame, if for no other reason than it'll be a small defeat for logic." Moore states: "By presenting half-baked ideas with the faux certainty that comes through sheer repetition and bending historical facts to fit his agenda, Russo manages to portray the legality of the income tax as something actually worthy of debate. Thing is, it's only up for debate among anti-tax conspiracy theorists who have anarchist, anti-social tendencies."
Now, if I know nothing of the historical facts involved (and I don't) how am I to know if he's bent them? Why, then, would I want to discuss, without having seen anything of the other side, his take on "historic facts"? Have I learned anything or am I just discussing the indoctrination I got? If there’s both side presented, then I’m game for it, if not…..<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
 To me it's as if someone from Mars, who knew nothing of JFK's assassination, nothing of opposing theories and the over all controversy, who wanted to debate Oliver Stone's movie on the subject. Not to pick on Stone (I can’t think of a better example), but regardless of what you think of it, at the very best all you can say of it is that it’s thought provoking among people who know the bigger story not told there.
That’s my only point, not an insult to dude.
 

Does Moore show the actual tax law, to back his tinfoil hat assertations? Or does he merely state that to question the law is absurd? That point was covered in the film. Does Moore back anything he says?
We've got a columnist here, a financial writer who makes FAs look like crooks every week by doing some creative fact bending of his own.
I'm one of those uniformed who doesn't know. Seems absurd on the surface. How did those two people in the film beat income tax evasion/fraud charges? That's fasinating.

babbling looney's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-02

Do you think the people in China deserve the American dream too?
This has nothing to do with the movie or whatever, I didn't look at it and won't waste my time with it. 
I have a client who just returned from a 2 week trip in China.  He said the air, especially in Bejing was so dirty with coal smoke and dust that he could take a direct picture of the sun with his camera without having to use a filter. It was like being in twilight all the time and everything was covered with soot.  The Chinese use coal as the major heating source in most of the country and the air pollution is incredible.  He compared it to the lethal coal/smog conditions in industrial England in the 1800's.  In addition the pollution of the oceans, rivers and harbors was just awful, with people dumping raw sewage, industrial chemicals and everything else directly into the water. 
He did say that he never saw so many BMWs and other luxury sedans in the same place as in Bejing and the gap between the rich and the poor throughout the country was astounding.
He did get to see the pottery soldiers and some of the areas of China that will soon be flooded by a huge hydro product.  The residents of that area are being booted out without much consideration as to what will become of them or to the historical and envirionmental concerns.   The Sierra Club or its equiviant doesn't exist in China.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Gorges_Dam
So before we begin to castigate our country and beat our breasts about how evil we are, we might want to take a clearer look at what the rest of the world is doing to its environment and how they treat their poor people.  At least our poor have Playstations, television, cell phones and more than ample food and access to free health care. Some of my Doctor clients call medi-cal the California Gold Card.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

http://www.quatloos.com/article.php?ID=317

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEFriday, February 24, 2006WWW.USDOJ.GOV

TAX(202) 514-2007TDD (202) 514-1888
Professional Tax Resister Sentenced to More Than 12 Years in Prison for Tax Fraud
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Longtime tax protestor Irwin Schiff was sentenced in federal district court in Las Vegas to total of 163 months in prison—151 months for tax fraud and an additional 12 months for contempt of court—the Department of Justice and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) announced today. In addition, Schiff was ordered to pay more than $4.2 million in restitution and to serve three years of supervised release..
In October 2005, Schiff was convicted of conspiring to defraud the United States, aiding and assisting in the preparation of false income tax returns, filing his own false tax returns, and evading the payment of millions of dollars in back taxes owed. This marks the third time Schiff has been convicted for committing federal tax offenses. Schiff previously has spent more than four years in jail for his tax crimes. Two associates of Schiff, Cynthia Neun and Lawrence Cohen, were also convicted of aiding and assisting other taxpayers in the filing of false tax returns. On February 3, 2006, Cohen was sentenced to 33 months in prison. Neun was sentenced yesterday to 68 months in prison and ordered to pay $1.1 million in restitution..
“Last October, a jury of his peers found Mr. Schiff guilty of serious tax crimes related not only to his own tax evasion, but also to his encouraging and enabling others to file false returns. The prison sentence handed down today reflects the seriousness of those crimes,” said Eileen J. O’Connor, Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Tax Division. “The Department of Justice is working vigorously to vindicate the interests of law- abiding Americans who file returns and pay the taxes the law requires.” .
“Mr. Schiff earned this sentence,” said IRS Commissioner Mark Everson. “For years he has preyed on others by holding out false hope that they need not pay their taxes.”.
According to the indictment and the evidence introduced at trial, beginning in 1995, Schiff aided thousands of taxpayers in the filing of false federal income tax returns with the IRS that reported zero taxable income in spite of the taxpayers earning reportable income. Schiff owned and operated Freedom Books, a business that sold books, tapes, and informational packages encouraging customers not to pay income tax. According to a government witness who testified at trial, between 1997 and 2002, Freedom Books sold more than $4.2 million of these products..
The evidence presented at trial also proved that Schiff evaded the payment of more than $2 million in taxes he owed the IRS from 1979 through 1985. Schiff concealed income he earned from Freedom Books, in part, by using offshore bank accounts and conducting financial transactions through secret “warehouse” banking services. The evidence also showed that Schiff used debit cards issued by offshore banks to obtain funds he transferred offshore, that he opened bank accounts using multiple tax identification numbers and that he concealed his wealth by hiding his assets through the use of nominees..
Assistant Attorney General O’Connor thanked Tax Division Trial Attorneys Jeffrey A. Neiman, David J. Ignall, and Melissa Schraibman, who prosecuted the case. She also thanked Criminal Investigation Special Agents David Holland, Adam Steiner, and Autumn Woodard of the IRS, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Nevada, whose assistance was essential to the successful investigation and prosecution of the case..
Additional information about the Justice Department’s Tax Division and its enforcement efforts may be found at http://www.usdoj.gov/tax.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

BondGuy wrote:mikebutler222 wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America:_Freedom_to_Fascism
 
By contrast, Scott Moore, movie critic of the Portland Mercury, writes: "There are a lot of stupid people in this world, and some of those stupid people are going to see America: From Freedom to Fascism and buy into its half-baked, hole-ridden, libertarian rhetoric about the alleged illegality of the federal income tax. And that's a shame, if for no other reason than it'll be a small defeat for logic." Moore states: "By presenting half-baked ideas with the faux certainty that comes through sheer repetition and bending historical facts to fit his agenda, Russo manages to portray the legality of the income tax as something actually worthy of debate. Thing is, it's only up for debate among anti-tax conspiracy theorists who have anarchist, anti-social tendencies."
Now, if I know nothing of the historical facts involved (and I don't) how am I to know if he's bent them? Why, then, would I want to discuss, without having seen anything of the other side, his take on "historic facts"? Have I learned anything or am I just discussing the indoctrination I got? If there’s both side presented, then I’m game for it, if not…..<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
 To me it's as if someone from Mars, who knew nothing of JFK's assassination, nothing of opposing theories and the over all controversy, who wanted to debate Oliver Stone's movie on the subject. Not to pick on Stone (I can’t think of a better example), but regardless of what you think of it, at the very best all you can say of it is that it’s thought provoking among people who know the bigger story not told there.
That’s my only point, not an insult to dude.
 

Does Moore show the actual tax law, to back his tinfoil hat assertations?
They keep saying "law" and they ignore the fact the T Regs ARE law....
 
Or does he merely state that to question the law is absurd? That point was covered in the film. Does Moore back anything he says?
We've got a columnist here, a financial writer who makes FAs look like crooks every week by doing some creative fact bending of his own.
I'm one of those uniformed who doesn't know. Seems absurd on the surface. How did those two people in the film beat income tax evasion/fraud charges? That's fasinating.
It would be, see Shriff's conviction below.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=106509,00. html
 
II. Internal Revenue Code Arguments

(1) There is no Internal Revenue Code that imposes taxes;(2) Only "individuals" are required to pay taxes; or(3) The IRS can only assess taxes against people who file returns.
The Truth: The tax law is found in Title 26 of the United States Code. The requirement to file an income tax return is not voluntary and it is clearly set forth in the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Sections 6011(a), 6012(a), et seq., and 6072(a). Our system of taxation allows taxpayers to determine the correct amount of tax and complete the appropriate forms "voluntarily" rather than have the government do it for them. However, any taxpayer whose income falls below the statutory amount, does not have to file a return.
 
III. Sixteenth Amendment Argument
The Constitutional Amendment establishing the basis for income tax was never properly ratified.

The Truth: The Sixteenth Amendment was properly ratified in 1913, and it states "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
IV. Constitutional Argument
Filing a Form 1040 violates the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination or the Fourth Amendment right to privacy.

The Truth: The courts have consistently held that disclosure of the type of routine financial information required on a tax return does not incriminate an individual or violate the right to privacy.
 
 

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

EXHIBIT: Tax Protestor Dummies
These are people who really believed in the tax protestor literature, who followed it to the letter, and then was either sent to prison for tax evasion, or sanctioned or fined for asserting a stupid theory in court, or had some goofy case against the IRS dismissed, etc. These cases demonstrate conclusively that irrespective of what the scam artists who sell the tax protestor materials tell you, the only thing that will happen is that you will get creamed by the IRS in court. Oh, and you will also have lost the money you paid for the materials, your defense attorney's fees, the value of your lost time fighting the IRS, and your reputation as a sensible individual.
Recent Losses by the Tax Protestor Idiots:



  • United States v. Schiff; “America’s leading untax expert” is convicted of three counts of attempted tax evasion and one count of willful failure to file. Some expert!

  • United States v. Schiff; Schiff tries for a reduced or corrected sentence on the grounds that his fee speech and free association rights were being violated, and that by filing a tax returns he was being compelled to testify against him self. He loses, again.

  • Schiff v. United States; Schiff tries for a reduced or corrected sentence on the grounds that his fee speech and free association rights were being violated, and that by filing a tax returns he was being compelled to testify against him self. He loses, again.

  • Schiff v. Cox; Schiff files a Writ of Habeas Corpus to try to get out of jail. He loses this too.

  • In re Schiff; Schiff also files a Writ of Mandamus. It is denied too.

  • Tully v. Commissioner; T.C. Memo. 1999-422; No. 16008-98 (December 27, 1999)Tax evasion promoter who established exempt organizations for individuals was liable for the fraud and failure-to-file penalties, and on its own motion, assessed the maximum section 6673 penalty for abuse and delay.

  • Snyder v. Department of State Revenue; Cause No. 49T10-9806-TA-70 (January 21, 2000) Argued that wages are not income under either Indiana law or the Internal Revenue Code.

  • Bibbs v. United States; 85 AFTR2d Par. 2000-348; No. 99-5117 (January 11, 2000)Argued that as Ohio private citizens they are not subject to U.S. income taxation.

  • Scoville v. United States; 85 AFTR2d Par. 2000-355; No. 94-0936-CV-W-6 (December 3, 1999)Court held that insurance proceeds payable to wife of tax protestor could by levied upon by the IRS since the couple had structured their affairs specifically to avoid the IRS's lien for back taxes owed.

  • Greene v. Commissioner; T.C. Memo. 2000-26; No. 15225-98 (January 21, 2000)Argued that the federal income tax laws apply only to employees of government-related entities.

  • Treglowne v. United States; 84 AFTR2d Par. 99-5618; No. 99-CV-70323-DT (November 17, 1999)Argued that he was not required to provide incriminating information to the IRS under the Fifth Amendment.

  • Miller v. United States; 85 AFTR2d Par. 2000-390; No. 98-4021 (August 4, 1999)Aruged that the income tax established under the Internal Revenue Code ("IRC") does not apply to him because, inter alia, there is no statute or regulation that makes him "A PEOPLE, A Private Christian" liable under the IRC; as "A PEOPLE, A Private Christian" he did not earn "wages" or "gross income" as defined in the IRC or regulations; and he had no taxable "income" according to the meaning of the term and the Supreme Court's definition of the term.

  • McQuatters v. Commissioner; T.C. Memo. 2000-34; No. 16871-98 (February 3, 2000)Argued, among other things, that letters addressed to "Dear Taxpayer" were fraudulent, and that "income" cannot be defined -- In addition to losing, he additionally received a $5,000 fine from the court for making frivolous arguments.

  • House v. Commissioner; 85 AFTR2d Par. 2000-419; No. 2:99-2428-23AJ (January 10, 2000) Aruged that they are not "persons" within the meaning of the IRS statutes as they are instead "citizens of the Sovereign State of South Carolina" and cannot be taxed by the United States

Other Losses by the Tax Protestor Idiots:


  • United States v. Melton, No. 94-5535 (4th Cir. 1996)Argued that the law requiring them to pay taxes and file returns is unclear.

  • United States v. Ross, No. 93-1010 (7th Cir. 1995)Argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction because Indiana is not part of the United States, and because there were no regulations issued to implement the criminal statute under which he was convicted.

  • United States v. Gardell, No. 93-1916 (1st Cir. 1994)Argued that he has no obligation to pay taxes because he has "the Status of Freeman and . . . has no Contractual, Quasi-Contractual or implied agreements with the Federal Government."

  • United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255 (8th Cir. 1993)Argued that the district court did not have "inland jurisdiction," that wages are untaxable, that the income tax is voluntary, and that they were "Free Citizens of the Republic of Minnesota.

  • United States v. Steiner, 963 F.2d 381 (9th Cir. 1992)Argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction over "sovereign citizens," that he was not a "taxpayer" under the federal tax laws, and that the word "includes" is a term of restriction, not expansion.

  • United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499 (7th Cir. 1991)Argued that there is no law imposing a tax on income, that "freeborn" state citizens are exempt from income tax, and that an individual is not a"person" under the tax code.

  • United States v. Saunders, 951 F.2d 1065 (9th Cir. 1991)Argued that IRS summonses are invalid without an OMB control number, that the IRS lacks authority to issue and enforce summonses because no Treasury Delegation Orders were published in the Federal Register, and that the district court has no jurisdiction.

  • United States v. Hicks, 947 F.2d 1356 (9th Cir. 1991)Argued that he should be acquitted of tax evasion because the IRS failed to display OMB numbers on Form 1040 and because the IRS failed to publish Form 1040 in the Federal Register.

  • Schiff v. United States, 919 F.2d 830 (2nd Cir. 1990)Argued that federal reserve notes are not taxable income, that the Constitution does not authorize an income tax, and that tax assessments are takings.

  • United States v. Bowers, 920 F.2d 220 (4th Cir. 1990)Argued that the IRS failed to comply with the publication requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.

  • United States v. White, No. 89-10533 (9th Cir. 1990)Argued that there is no law requiring him, as "a sovereign citizen of the state of Nevada," to file income tax returns.

  • United States v. McDonald, No. 88-5239 (9th Cir. 1990)Argued that as a "white, natural born, state citizen," the income tax does not apply to him, that he is not a "person" or a "resident," and that the district court lacked jurisdiction.

  • In re Becraft, 885 F.2d 547 (9th Cir. 1989)Argued that the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct non-apportioned tax on citizens residing in the United States.

  • Miller v. United States, 868 F.2d 236 (7th Cir. 1988)Argued that the Sixteenth Amendment was never legally ratified.

  • United States v. Genger, No. 87-1043 (9th Cir. 1988)Argued that the district court erroneously exercised admiralty jurisdiction over him, and that filing a federal tax return violated his First Amendment right to freely exercise his religion.

  • McLaughlin v. United States, 832 F.2d 986 (7th Cir. 1987)Argued that the federal income tax is a contract, and that he didn't owe any tax because he rescinded the contract.

  • Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68 (7th Cir. 1986)Argued that wages are not income under the tax code, and that the income tax is a taking.

  • United States v. Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438 (9th Cir. 1986)Argued that the Sixteenth Amendment was never properly ratified.

  • Casper v. Commissioner, 805 F.2d 902 (10th Cir. 1986)Argued that wages are exchanges of property rather than taxable income.

  • Eicher v. United States, 774 F.2d 27 (1st Cir. 1985)Argued that the Fifth Amendment allowed him to withhold all financial information from his income tax return.

  • Newman v. Schiff, 778 F.2d 460 (8th Cir. 1985)Irwin Schiff offered $100,000 to anyone who could prove that the tax code requires individuals to pay income tax.

  • Olson v. United States, 760 F.2d 1003 (9th Cir. 1985)Argued that he owed no taxes because he had not obtained any privilege from a governmental agency.

  • Charczuk v. Commissioner, 771 F.2d 471 (10th Cir. 1985)Argued that the Constitution does not authorize an income tax, that there is no law imposing an income tax, and that the definition of "income" is vague.

  • Ficalora v. Commissioner, 751 F.2d 85 (2d Cir. 1984)Argued that Congress does not possess the constitutional authority to impose a "direct" tax, that no law makes any individual liable to pay a tax or excise on "taxable income," and that "income" has no defined meaning and is unconstitutionally vague and indefinite.

  • Lovell v. United States, 755 F.2d 517 (7th Cir. 1984)Argued that they are exempt from federal taxation because they are "natural individuals" who have not "requested, obtained or exercised any privilege from an agency of government."

  • United States v. Condo, 741 F.2d 238 (9th Cir. 1984)Argued that Federal Reserve notes cannot be taxed, that the Sixteenth Amendment only allows taxing income from "sources," not persons, and that the word "includes" is a term of limitation, not expansion.

  • United States v. Heise, 709 F.2d 449 (6th Cir. 1983)Argued that his failure to file proper returns constituted a valid exercise of his Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination.

  • United States v. Drefke, 707 F.2d 978 (8th Cir. 1983)Argued that he was a "nontaxpayer" because he did not enter a contract for government services, that the district court had no jurisdiction, and that the tax code violated his Fifth and Thirteenth Amendment rights.

  • McCann v. Greenway, 952 F. Supp. 647 (W.D. Mo. 1997)Argued that a state court lacked jurisdiction over him because the flag in the courtroom had yellow fringe on it, thus converting it into the "maritime flag of war." A Favorite!

  • United States v. Hartman, 915 F. Supp. 1227 (M.D. Fla. 1996)Argued that payment of income taxes is voluntary, and that summonses from the I.R.S. cannot be enforced without implementing regulations.

  • United States v. Rhodes, 921 F. Supp. 261 (M.D. Penn. 1996)Argued that "income" under the Sixteenth Amendment is limited to profit proceeding from property, and that he is not a "person" under the Internal Revenue Code.

  • United States v. Greenstreet, 912 F. Supp. 224 (N.D. Tex. 1996)Filed UCC-1 financing statements against federal employees. Argued that as a "white Preamble natural sovereign Common Law De Jure Citizen of the Republic/State of Texas," the district court lacked jurisdiction, that the case should be moved to "Our One Supreme Court for the Republic of Texas," and that fringe on an American flag denotes a court of admiralty.

  • Albers v. Internal Revenue Service, No. 95-3068 (D. Neb. 1996)Argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction, that they were non-resident aliens because Nebraska is not part of the United States, and that they did not fall within the provisions of the tax code.

  • Valldejuli v. Social Security Admin., No. 94-10051 (N.D. Fla. 1994)Argued that he was fraudulently induced into signing a "contract" with the Social Security Administration, and that he is a natural sovereign citizen of the United States who is not subject to the Social Security system.

  • United States v. Sato, 704 F. Supp. 816 (N.D. Ill. 1989)Argued that Congress' power to tax does not extend beyond the District of Columbia and other federal areas, and that the Sixteenth Amendment was never ratified lawfully.

  • United States v. House, 617 F. Supp 237 (W.D. Mich. 1985)Argued that the Sixteenth Amendment was never legally ratified.

  • Young v. Internal Revenue Service, 596 F. Supp. 141 (N.D. Ind. 1984)Argued that the IRS was not created by "positive law," that the tax code does not apply to "sovereign citizens," that the tax code is a bill of attainder, and that the district court lacks jurisdiction.

  • Snyder v. United States, 596 F. Supp. 240 (N.D. Ind. 1984)Argued that the I.R.S. is a private corporation and not part of the government of the United States.

  • McKinney v. Regan, 599 F. Supp. 126 (M.D. La. 1984)Argued that as a "Sovereign Individual," the "Common Law of the United States of America, a Republic" protected him from penalties for filing a frivolous tax return.

  • Wisconsin v. Glick, 782 F.2d 670 (7th Cir. 1986)Argued that a land patent from the United States conveyed clear title and no one may encumber the property with mortgages, thereby preventing foreclosure.

  • Hilgeford v. Peoples Bank, 776 F.2d 176 (7th Cir. 1985)Argued that drafting and signing a "federal land patent" grants an interest superior to that of a bank trying to foreclose.

  • Nixon v. Individual Head of St. Joseph Mortgage Co., 612 F. Supp. 253 (N.D. Ind. 1985)Argued that court should dismiss foreclosure action on the basis of a "land patent" which he drafted, executed, and recorded in the County Recorder of Deeds Office.

  • Britt v. Federal Land Bank Assoc. of St. Louis, 505 N.E. 2d 387 (Ill. Ct. App. 1987)Argued that creation of land patents required that the bank return foreclosed property to possession of plaintiffs.

  • United States ex rel. Verdone v. Circuit Court for Taylor County, 851 F. Supp. 345 (W.D. Wisc. 1993)Argued that the traffic laws infringed on his right to travel and that enforcement of the traffic laws constituted a conspiracy.

  • City of Spokane v. Port, 716 P.2d 945 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986)Argued that a law requiring that drivers have licenses unconstitutionally restricts one's right to travel.

  • State v. Gibson, 697 P.2d 1216 (Idaho Ct. App. 1985)Argued that as a "free man" the motor vehicle laws do not apply to him without his consent.

  • State v. Turk, 643 P.2d 224 (Mont. 1982)Argued that Montana's compulsory automobile liability insurance statutes are unconstitutional.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

http://www.quatloos.com/taxscams/cm-taxpr.htm
 
That link goes with the above post.

dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-11-15

babbling looney wrote:
Do you think the people in China deserve the American dream too?
This has nothing to do with the movie or whatever, I didn't look at it and won't waste my time with it. 
I have a client who just returned from a 2 week trip in China.  He said the air, especially in Bejing was so dirty with coal smoke and dust that he could take a direct picture of the sun with his camera without having to use a filter. It was like being in twilight all the time and everything was covered with soot.  The Chinese use coal as the major heating source in most of the country and the air pollution is incredible.  He compared it to the lethal coal/smog conditions in industrial England in the 1800's.  In addition the pollution of the oceans, rivers and harbors was just awful, with people dumping raw sewage, industrial chemicals and everything else directly into the water. 
He did say that he never saw so many BMWs and other luxury sedans in the same place as in Bejing and the gap between the rich and the poor throughout the country was astounding.
He did get to see the pottery soldiers and some of the areas of China that will soon be flooded by a huge hydro product.  The residents of that area are being booted out without much consideration as to what will become of them or to the historical and envirionmental concerns.   The Sierra Club or its equiviant doesn't exist in China.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Gorges_Dam
So before we begin to castigate our country and beat our breasts about how evil we are, we might want to take a clearer look at what the rest of the world is doing to its environment and how they treat their poor people.  At least our poor have Playstations, television, cell phones and more than ample food and access to free health care. Some of my Doctor clients call medi-cal the California Gold Card.

I don't know where you got the impression I was in any way endorsing China...just making a point that could be attributed to any emerging economy, not just China.
China's interest in 'the American Dream' is driving it's using enormous amounts of coal for power.  This is exactly the kind of problem I'm alluding to, a world which can't support everyone (or even a  significant portion of the worlds population) living like we do.

dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-11-15

mikebutler222 wrote:
http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=106509,00. html
 
II. Internal Revenue Code Arguments

(1) There is no Internal Revenue Code that imposes taxes;(2) Only "individuals" are required to pay taxes; or(3) The IRS can only assess taxes against people who file returns.
The Truth: The tax law is found in Title 26 of the United States Code. The requirement to file an income tax return is not voluntary and it is clearly set forth in the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Sections 6011(a), 6012(a), et seq., and 6072(a). Our system of taxation allows taxpayers to determine the correct amount of tax and complete the appropriate forms "voluntarily" rather than have the government do it for them. However, any taxpayer whose income falls below the statutory amount, does not have to file a return.
 
III. Sixteenth Amendment Argument
The Constitutional Amendment establishing the basis for income tax was never properly ratified.

The Truth: The Sixteenth Amendment was properly ratified in 1913, and it states "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
IV. Constitutional Argument
Filing a Form 1040 violates the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination or the Fourth Amendment right to privacy.

The Truth: The courts have consistently held that disclosure of the type of routine financial information required on a tax return does not incriminate an individual or violate the right to privacy.

 
Talk about citing a biased source....geez.  I'm supposed to believe it because it has a bolded The Truth by it?

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

mikebutler222 wrote:
http://www.quatloos.com/taxscams/cm-taxpr.htm
 
That link goes with the above post.

Damn Mike, you the man! Wow good stuff!
However, not convinced that this is all for naught(is that the right word?)
Without the transcripts of the above cases it's impossible to tell how fair these trails were. Did the agents lie?  Did the IRS manufacture evidence? My case never got to a courtroom because there was no finding of fraud. I can tell you from experience though that the IRS agents lied their asses off. I got railroaded. They, on several occassions, showed up at my doorstep and threatened me. Scary stuff! When I complained they not only denied that it had happened, they denied that agents with the names I mentioned even existed. Obviously, I was making this up. So, I had my own plan. Mind you I was cooperating fully, yet it made no difference. I waited because i knew they would do it again. And they did. They had their usual nice guy attitude on to gain entry to the house where they told me they wanted to discuss my situation. This time I told them to wait a minute and left the room. As I reentered the room I quickly raised a camera and snapped off a picture. I was also holding a tape recorder. The agents without saying another word got up and left. That ended that problem. I for one am not surprised by these convictions, or  by Irwin's.
So, yeah, all this proves is it doesn't pay to fight the powers that be. I'm not going to fight. I've already gone my 12 rounds with these guys. That was enough for me. And I wasn't a tax protestor like my former friend. I'm just fine with the status quo.
 

dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-11-15

Look...I'm not a tax lawyer (Thank God) and don't claim to have the knowledge to stand behind this movies claims.  I thought it would be interesting to access this board's collective insight to ascertain whether this holds any water. 
MikeB, yes my assertion that the current tax system is illegal is borrowed from the movie...I don't necessarily buy it 100%, but I thought the movie was quite persuasive (albiet one pointed) and until someone can clearly point me to the laws which contradict the assertions, I'll stand by it merely for sake of this discussion.  I'm obviously nowhere near the point where I'll forego filing my taxes, since I'm not THAT convinced yet. 
Never the less, I think most here would agree that there are some serious problems with our tax code and the IRS in general.
Thanks for the links MikeB, good addition to the discussion.
 

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

What's the group's take on Real ID and RFID technology?

dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-11-15

BondGuy wrote:mikebutler222 wrote:
http://www.quatloos.com/taxscams/cm-taxpr.htm
 
That link goes with the above post.

Damn Mike, you the man! Wow good stuff!
However, not convinced that this is all for naught(is that the right word?)
Without the transcripts of the above cases it's impossible to tell how fair these trails were. Did the agents lie?  Did the IRS manufacture evidence? My case never got to a courtroom because there was no finding of fraud. I can tell you from experience though that the IRS agents lied their asses off. I got railroaded. They, on several occassions, showed up at my doorstep and threatened me. Scary stuff! When I complained they not only denied that it had happened, they denied that agents with the names I mentioned even existed. Obviously, I was making this up. So, I had my own plan. Mind you I was cooperating fully, yet it made no difference. I waited because i knew they would do it again. And they did. They had their usual nice guy attitude on to gain entry to the house where they told me they wanted to discuss my situation. This time I told them to wait a minute and left the room. As I reentered the room I quickly raised a camera and snapped off a picture. I was also holding a tape recorder. The agents without saying another word got up and left. That ended that problem. I for one am not surprised by these convictions, or  by Irwin's.
So, yeah, all this proves is it doesn't pay to fight the powers that be. I'm not going to fight. I've already gone my 12 rounds with these guys. That was enough for me. And I wasn't a tax protestor like my former friend. I'm just fine with the status quo.
BondGuy,
It's stories like yours which get me flaming angry!  Whether or not the current tax code is legal or not, the behavior of the IRS is clearly illegal in your case and many others I have heard of. 
I feel that the behavior of the IRS alone should be enough to bring it down...unfortunately Americans don't really care unless it comes knocking on their doorstep.

dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-11-15

More interesting stuff:
from: http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/new/home.asp
The Discovery
Article V of the U.S. Constitution specifies the ratification process, and requires 3/4 of the States to ratify any amendment proposed by Congress. There were 48 States in the American Union in 1913, meaning that affirmative action of 36 states was required for ratification. In February, 1913, Secretary of State Philander Knox issued a proclamation claiming that 38 states had ratified the amendment.
In 1984, William J. Benson began a research project, never before performed, to investigate the process of ratification of the 16th Amendment. After traveling to the capitols of the New England states, and reviewing the journals of the state legislative bodies, he saw that many states had not ratified the Amendment. Continuing his research at the National Archives in Washington, DC, Bill Benson discovered his Golden Key. This damning piece of evidence is a 16 page memorandum from the Solicitor of the Department of State, whose duty is the provision of legal opinions for the use of the Secretary of State. In this memorandum sent to the Secretary of State, the Solicitor of the Department of State lists the many errors he found in the ratification process!
The 4 states listed below are among the 38 states that Philander Knox claimed ratification from.


  • The Kentucky Senate voted upon the resolution, but rejected it by a vote of 9 in favor and 22 opposed.
  • The Oklahoma Senate amended the language of the 16th Amendment to have a precisely opposite meaning.
  • The California legislative assembly never recorded any vote upon any proposal to adopt the amendment proposed by Congress.
  • The State of Minnesota sent nothing to the Secretary of State in Washington.

When his year long project was finished at the end of 1984, Bill had visited every state capitol and knew that not a single state had actually and legally ratified the proposal to amend the Constitution. 33 states engaged in the unauthorized activity of amending the language of the amendment proposed by congress, a power the states do not possess. Since 36 states were needed for ratification, the failure of 13 to ratify would be fatal to the amendment, and this occurs within the major (first three) defects tabulated in Defects in Ratification of the 16th Amendment. Even if we were to ignore defects of spelling, capitalization, and punctuation, we would still have only 2 states which successfully ratified.
 
Thoughts?

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

 
 
The Whitey Harrell case, a state cse, btw, not Federal;
http://www.quatloos.com/Tax-Forums/viewtopic.php?t=1006367&a mp;highlight=&sid=5441350d7c8acd2afd2aa1612ebc4fc0
http://www.quatloos.com/Tax-Forums/viewtopic.php?t=1005771
Basic jury nullification....btw, he's been charged again....
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

dude wrote:mikebutler222 wrote:
http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=106509,00. html
 
II. Internal Revenue Code Arguments

(1) There is no Internal Revenue Code that imposes taxes;(2) Only "individuals" are required to pay taxes; or(3) The IRS can only assess taxes against people who file returns.
The Truth: The tax law is found in Title 26 of the United States Code. The requirement to file an income tax return is not voluntary and it is clearly set forth in the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Sections 6011(a), 6012(a), et seq., and 6072(a). Our system of taxation allows taxpayers to determine the correct amount of tax and complete the appropriate forms "voluntarily" rather than have the government do it for them. However, any taxpayer whose income falls below the statutory amount, does not have to file a return.
 
III. Sixteenth Amendment Argument
The Constitutional Amendment establishing the basis for income tax was never properly ratified.

The Truth: The Sixteenth Amendment was properly ratified in 1913, and it states "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
IV. Constitutional Argument
Filing a Form 1040 violates the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination or the Fourth Amendment right to privacy.

The Truth: The courts have consistently held that disclosure of the type of routine financial information required on a tax return does not incriminate an individual or violate the right to privacy.

 
Talk about citing a biased source....geez.  I'm supposed to believe it because it has a bolded The Truth by it?

That's the way it came from the IRS source, dude.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

BondGuy wrote:mikebutler222 wrote:
http://www.quatloos.com/taxscams/cm-taxpr.htm
 
That link goes with the above post.

Damn Mike, you the man! Wow good stuff!
However, not convinced that this is all for naught(is that the right word?)
Without the transcripts of the above cases it's impossible to tell how fair these trails were.
Perhaps true, but the point is there have been many, many convictions. I'm sorry to hear about your problems with them.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

dude wrote:
More interesting stuff:
from: http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/new/home.asp
The Discovery
Article V of the U.S. Constitution specifies the ratification process, and requires 3/4 of the States to ratify any amendment proposed by Congress. ......
Thoughts?

Yeah, the USSC has decided Bill's all wet 

babbling looney's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-02

I don't know where you got the impression I was in any way endorsing China...just making a point that could be attributed to any emerging economy, not just China.
Dude, I didn't get that impression about you at all.  I just thought it was interesting that the issues (pollution, rich upper class and very very poor lower class, ecological disasters) my client saw in China are never ever brought up while in the USA we are beaten about the brow and told how bad we are.
When the Chinese get their gigantic hydro power plant going that will probably relieve the dependence on coal.  However, can you just imagine the caterwauling if we proposed to dam up the Grand Canyon to generate power for Las Vegas?
As to the IRS, I've been audited. It wasn't fun, but it wasn't hell either.  The IRS agent was actually very nice, but then so was I.... very cooperative and properly deferential and acted awed to be in the presence of the little bureaucrat.   You know, the fly/honey thing.  Maybe being a woman, who can't/won't wear polo shirts, had something to do with it  
Trying to tilt against windmills is not, IMNSHO, a very productive use of time. 

Indyone's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-31

Thanks all for an interesting thread.  As a part-time practicing accountant, I've heard my share of interesting stories.  It was common knowledge among the teaching staff at my university that the IRS would target the BOTTOM 20% of accounting students for new hires.  The supposition was that they were trying to save money on new hires.  I can tell you for a fact that although I was top 10% of my class, the IRS recruiter didn't so much as say hello to me, so as far as I could see the bottom of the barrel story was true.
I can also tell you that except for errors in reporting estimated tax payments (client indicates that all estimates are paid and then when the notice arrives, says "oops!"), every notice my clients have received for as long as I can remember, has been due to an IRS error.  Sadly, clients pay for my time dealing with the IRS to correct the error, which is almost like paying another tax for IRS stupidity.
In fairness to the IRS agents I've dealt with in recent years, I no longer believe that they hire from the bottom (if indeed they ever did).  Erroneous notices are almost always the product of IRS computer matching errors, and I've found the actual employees to be very helpful in resolving the erroneous notices.  It just seems wrong that clients have to pay for resolving these errors, but I'm certainly not going to eat my time when it's not my error either.
As far as dealing with difficult agents, a CPA I once worked with actually smeared something (I think he told me that it was a teargas derivative) on the walls of his conference room when an agent was due in for an audit.  I think the agent was in the room for 30 minutes tops and decided that the books looked good enough to take a pass...

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

Indyone wrote:
As far as dealing with difficult agents, a CPA I once worked with actually smeared something (I think he told me that it was a teargas derivative) on the walls of his conference room when an agent was due in for an audit.  I think the agent was in the room for 30 minutes tops and decided that the books looked good enough to take a pass...

Damn! Why didn't I think of that?
Actually, sometime over the past ten years or so, maybe less, the IRS has adopted a kindler gentler attitude. Their employees will try to help. Unfortunately i believe that is about to change. I read recently, somplace that the new attitude hasn't helped compliance or collections. I don't recall the details.
I still regard IRS agents as dangerous people lacking personal decency and integrity. Hash yes, but not without good reason.

dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-11-15

babbling looney wrote:
I don't know where you got the impression I was in any way endorsing China...just making a point that could be attributed to any emerging economy, not just China.
Dude, I didn't get that impression about you at all.  I just thought it was interesting that the issues (pollution, rich upper class and very very poor lower class, ecological disasters) my client saw in China are never ever brought up while in the USA we are beaten about the brow and told how bad we are.
When the Chinese get their gigantic hydro power plant going that will probably relieve the dependence on coal.  However, can you just imagine the caterwauling if we proposed to dam up the Grand Canyon to generate power for Las Vegas?
As to the IRS, I've been audited. It wasn't fun, but it wasn't hell either.  The IRS agent was actually very nice, but then so was I.... very cooperative and properly deferential and acted awed to be in the presence of the little bureaucrat.   You know, the fly/honey thing.  Maybe being a woman, who can't/won't wear polo shirts, had something to do with it  
Trying to tilt against windmills is not, IMNSHO, a very productive use of time. 

Agreed.  There is not enough talk about the EXTREME lack of responsibility China exhibits towards environmental issues.  I think this is going to be a major issue in the years to come.  We have been seeing an increase in air particulate levels for many years on the West Coast due to China's activities.
 

dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-11-15

BondGuy wrote:What's the group's take on Real ID and RFID technology?
Look, I'm not an evangelical type Christian by any means, but some of the similarities between the Book of Revelation's talk concerning the 'number of the beast' and the development and direction of RFID technology is quite alarming. 
I've been following the development of this technology for sometime and on the surface, getting a 'veri chip' implant makes sense...decreased identity theft, convienience, simplified identification etc, etc...
It's just that I'm not willing to trade my indepedence and anonymity for those 'convieniences'. 
If any of the movie's contentions are true, then I predict some major 'catastrophe' or event that will be just enough to persuade the coutry towards adopting this technology.  This sounds extreme, but I'd probably fight to the death if it ever came to that to avoid being implanted.  I don't trust our government in the least, my liberties are my only true asset.
I believe most people are so seduced by their 'way of life' and material possessions that they would willingly submit to a chip if the circumstances were scary enough, you know, like, they'd lose their house, wealth etc... 
First it will start with the national ID card and then over time as people get used to it, implant chips will be the next logical step.  I expect a lot of fear mongering in the days to come.
 

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

dude wrote:First it will start with the national ID card....
 
The only "national ID card" we'll be getting, imho, will be some form of a state driver's license (or ID for non-drivers, which many, if not all states already offer) that has some national uniformity to lessen the chance of forgery.

Indyone's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-31

Aw, man...I just renewed my license...

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

disturbing but true...

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

joedabrkr wrote:disturbing but true...
Sorry joe, what aspect of the discussion are you referring to as disturbing?
 

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

BondGuy wrote:Actually, sometime over the past ten years or so, maybe less, the IRS has adopted a kindler gentler attitude.
There was a change of the law during the Clinton administration that ended the IRS's presumption of guilt approach. You'll never guess who was on what side of the fight 

babbling looney's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-02

This sounds extreme, but I'd probably fight to the death if it ever came to that to avoid being implanted.  I don't trust our government in the least, my liberties are my only true asset.
Amen to that.  I don't have a problem with some sort of standardized national identification card along the lines of a driver's license that could be use to prevent voter fraud and make our lives as financial professionals easier when we are attempting to prove identity of prospects and prevent money laundering.    It would also be nice for people who move around to not have to get a new ID card every time they move to a different State.
If any of the movie's contentions are true, then I predict some major 'catastrophe' or event
Way ahead of you there.  We have a 15 x 20 block building that houses our agricutural pump. My husband calls it the Armageddon pantry.  I expect we have enough food and other supplies (ammo and scotch ) to last for at least 8 months or more.       
Plus it's convenient, if we run out of coffee I don't have to have to go to the store in the snow but instead grab a bag of beans from the pump house.  After Katrina, I figured the next disaster will leave us high and dry because of our rural location and we will be on our own for some time. 

Starka's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-30

If memory servres, the "kinder, gentler IRS" was during the G.H.W. Presidency.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

Starka wrote:If memory servres, the "kinder, gentler IRS" was during the G.H.W. Presidency.
It was the Clinton admin, the GOP Senate. Democrats rejected it (said it was a concern only of the rich, and then abused folks of all income levels came out of the woodwork), and then Clinton triangulated, and signed it.
http://grassley.senate.gov/releases/1997/pr12-18.htm
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/07/22/irs.signing/
 
 

Please or Register to post comments.

Industry Newsletters
Investment Category Sponsor Links

 

Careers Category Sponsor Links

Sponsored Introduction Continue on to (or wait seconds) ×