Ron Paul may not be everyone’s cup of tea but he’s got more integrity in one of his whiskers than you could ever hope to have. He can win elections on a regular basis because he is credible. You’d be lucky to get your dog to vote for you if you had a dog that could vote.
And Ron Paul says in Russo’s film there is no law.
And he’s only one credible person in that film that says the samething. And you call them kooks. You’re the kook and a sassy one at that.
There is no law. you can’t find it, it doesn’t exist. USC is code based on laws that Congress passes and a President signs. There is no law behind the USC sections for the personal income tax.
And on the subject of the personal income tax as a voluntary tax, you said it was never voluntary. Well you can take that up with Sheldon Cohen, a former IRS commissioner and writer of the personal income tax code and now general counsel to the IRS, when he was interviewed in Russo’s film acknowledged the personal income tax was described as voluntary but confused it with the voluntary stopping at a stop sign when there is no traffic cop nearby.
So these are the facts you are up against and yes Russo shows documents and references throughout that anyone can check out.
Yet you call him kook. Man you couldn’t wipe his *ss if you begged to do it. He’s way over you in class.
You’re done scumbag.
Enjoy your little niche job IN THE BUSINESS!
Bye!
Cohen was referring to the fact that you voluntarily self-assess by filing a return. As opposed to the IRS coming to see you and assessing you. Which is exactly what will happen if you don't self-assess. And you think that makes the income tax voluntary?
Not to mention that Cohen is neither a "writer of the personal income tax code" or "now general counsel to the IRS" except perhaps in your deluded mind. Donald Korb is IRS General Counsel and has been for 3 years. Cohen was never a member of Congress. Got any more made-up stuff to cough up?
Paul is a camera-hound who should know better. But, he likes to egg gullible people like you on and he's good at it. He sucked you in, didn't he?
I asked you to cite some, any, inconsistency between the underlying statutes and 26 USC. You couldn't do it. Instead you remain in denial of the existence of the statutes.
For instance, take 26 USC 1, which imposes a tax on taxable income. Here's the list of statutes which you claim don't exist:
Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 5; Pub. L. 88–272, title I, § 111, Feb. 26, 1964, 78 Stat. 19; Pub. L. 89–809, title I, § 103(a)(2), Nov. 13, 1966, 80 Stat. 1550; Pub. L. 91–172, title VIII, § 803(a), Dec. 30, 1969, 83 Stat. 678; Pub. L. 95–30, title I, § 101(a), May 23, 1977, 91 Stat. 127; Pub. L. 95–600, title I, § 101(a), Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2767; Pub. L. 97–34, title I, §§ 101(a), 104 (a), Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 176, 188; Pub. L. 97–448, title I, § 101(a)(3), Jan. 12, 1983, 96 Stat. 2366; Pub. L. 99–514, title I, § 101(a), title III, § 302(a), title XIV, § 1411(a), Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2096, 2218, 2714; Pub. L. 100–647, title I, §§ 1001(a)(3), 1014 (e)(1)–(3), (6), (7), title VI, § 6006(a), Nov. 10, 1988, 102 Stat. 3349, 3561, 3562, 3686; Pub. L. 101–239, title VII, §§ 7811(j)(1), 7816 (b), 7831 (a), Dec. 19, 1989, 103 Stat. 2411, 2420, 2425; Pub. L. 101–508, title XI, §§ 11101(a)–(c), (d)(1)(A), (2), 11103(c), 11104(b), Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1388–403 to 1388–406, 1388–408; Pub. L. 103–66, title XIII, §§ 13201(a), (b)(3)(A), (B), 13202 (a), 13206 (d)(2), Aug. 10, 1993, 107 Stat. 457, 459, 461, 467; Pub. L. 104–188, title I, § 1704(m)(1), (2), Aug. 20, 1996, 110 Stat. 1882, 1883; Pub. L. 105–34, title III, § 311(a), Aug. 5, 1997, 111 Stat. 831; Pub. L. 105–206, title V, § 5001(a)(1)–(4), title VI, §§ 6005(d)(1), 6007 (f)(1), July 22, 1998, 112 Stat. 787, 788, 800, 810; Pub. L. 105–277, div. J, title IV, § 4002(i)(1), (3), Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681–907, 2681–908; Pub. L. 106–554, § 1(a)(7) [title I, § 117(b)(1)], Dec. 21, 2000, 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A–604; Pub. L. 107–16, title I, § 101(a), (c)(1), (2), title III, §§ 301(c)(1), 302 (a), (b), June 7, 2001, 115 Stat. 41, 43, 54; Pub. L. 108–27, title I, §§ 102(a), (b)(1), 104 (a), (b), 105 (a), title III, §§ 301(a)(1), (2)(A), (b)(1), 302 (a), (e)(1), May 28, 2003, 117 Stat. 754, 755, 758, 760, 763; Pub. L. 108–311, title I, § 101(c), (d), title IV, §§ 402(a)(1)–(3), 408(a)(1), (2), Oct. 4, 2004, 118 Stat. 1167, 1168, 1184, 1190; Pub. L. 108–357, title IV, § 413(c)(1), Oct. 22, 2004, 118 Stat. 1506.
All of it passed by Congress and signed by the President at the time.
So, where's even a single inconsistency? Or, do you admit that 26 USC 1 is accurate? That's OK, pick another section and point out where it is inconsistent with the underlying statutes. Pick one, any one, and find an inconsistency.
The USC is a convenience so that you don't have to pick through all of the underlying legislation to figure out what the current law is. USC provisions are admissable in federal court and presumed to be correct absent a specific showing otherwise. Hundreds of people are charged and convicted of criminal violations of 26 USC every year. These people all have lawyers, yet not one of them has ever successfully maintained that there is no valid tax law. But you, an expert in nothing, claim there is no tax law. I saw it in a movie, it must be true!
Unless you can find a provision in 26 USC that doesn't agree with the laws it is based on, you are simply in denial and doing a fine job of demonstrating your abundant, profound and impenetrable ignorance.
Are you going to embarrass yourself further or will you admit that you're full of it and don't have the slightest clue about what you are babbling about?