Posted on 03/05/2002 5:28:32 AM PST by It'salmosttolate
|
|
March 2, 2002 Historic Truth-in-Taxation Hearing Exposes Government Fraud---And Abuse Of Power Against American Citizens. The Evidence And Record Of Facts Now Stand Irrefutable. Extensive Documentary Evidence and Expert Testimony Under Oath Established a Factual Public Record That Will Be Used by The People in Upcoming Legal Actions.
On February 27 and 28, 2002, at the Washington Marriott in Washington DC, the We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education sponsored the long-awaited Truth-In-Taxation Hearing. This historic event brought to public attention the facts about how the three branches of the federal government have intentionally and systematically conspired to deprive the American People of our Constitutional rights, and reduce our citizens to indentured servants of a corrupt federal government bureaucracy. The hearing was but another step in the People's determination to get to the truth regarding the fraudulent origin and operation of the Federal Reserve System, the unconstitutional creation of the Internal Revenue Service, and the illegal operations of our nation's income tax system. Expert witnesses testified, under oath, to various questions challenging the legal authority of the IRS to force employers to withhold any income tax from the paychecks of their employees and the legal authority of the IRS to force most American citizens to file a tax return and to pay the income tax. The Foundation's objective was to establish a factual record, to be used by the People in support of their future actions regarding the income tax. Although we had hoped to have hostile witnesses from DOJ and IRS answer our questions as they agreed to in July, 2001, they arrogantly refused to appear before We The People in this recorded, public forum to answer our questions. From the Record of the hearing, the reason is obvious; DOJ and IRS could not answer the questions truthfully without admitting to the fraudulent jurisdiction of the IRS and the illegal operation of the income tax system. |
|||||
but again most people don't give a rip about what's being done to them.
Your just not reaching the right folks.
That ain't the group that Schulz and Co. have any interest in. But Congress does.
Milton Friedman as quoted by Northwest Florida Daily News, 10-16-2000:
Answer?
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
-George Bernard Shaw
Liberty and freedom have a price, responsibility. If that price is avoided there are no brakes on the growth of government, the ultimate result is the end of freedom through creeping socialism.
I continue to be amazed at how childish they are; if only they wish hard enough, things will change.
Taxtruth, of course, is hopeless. He doesn't think the government should levy taxes of any kind. He's a freeloader.
Does this make you pro-status quo?
If you stand against those who protest the current income tax and IRS, you've put yourself as supporting both.
Is that where you are, solidly behind the income tax and IRS?
He's a freeloader.
Not really, he is an anarchist however. They are worse than freeloaders.
The freeloaders are the ones Congress tends to pander too. You'll note the lack of Congressional attendence or concern in regards to Schulz' dog an pony show.
If you stand against those who protest the current income tax and IRS, you've put yourself as supporting both.
We just do not stand behind scammers and con artists.
The income/payroll tax system in the nation must go right along with the IRS. But Schulz offer nothing of the sort.
It is long past time to end the Income Tax once and for all and get rid of the intrusive anal exam of family finances by government. Support the enactment of the only bills before congress that would actually achieve that.
H.R.2525
SPONSOR: Rep Linder, John (introduced 07/17/2001)
A bill to promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national retail sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.
Refer: http://www.fairtax.org & http://www.salestax.org
the modification then enactment and ratification of:
H.J.RES.45
Sponsor: (introduced 4/25/2001)
Latest Major Action: 5/9/2001 Referred to House subcommitte.
Title: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to abolishing personal income, estate, and gift taxes and prohibiting the Untied States Government from engaging in the business in competition with its citizens.
(Modified to prohibit all income, payroll, gift estate taxes as HR2525 calls for, or we will see European VAT style hidden taxes along with payroll excises to take over in the place of the of the current individual income tax(i.e. personal income tax) that Ron Paul amendment prohibits.)
And to keep em reminded that there is indeed a Constitution to pay attention to:
H.R.175
Sponsor: (introduced 1/3/2001)
Latest Major Action: 2/12/2001 Referred to House subcommittee
Title: To require Congress to specify the source of authority under the United States Constitution for the enactment of laws, and for other purposes.
and maybe we might get to someplace reasonable. But Schulz' mob certainly do not have any answers other than a ticket to a life of just plain misery and no change as far as the tax system goes. Ther route offer no more than to make the problem more intractable and government crack down even more. But then that may be Schulz, Schiff, Conklin & Bannister's tactical goal in all this. If have noted several members of their fold express such sentiments.
Unhappy, and oppressed people do rash things. And anarchy begats Tyranny.
No. I support wholely and unabashedly the NRST.
I continue to be amazed at how childish they are;
I have known many such folks in my area of the country.
Unfortunately, a large percentage of their followers are just that, childish and very gullible. They are just plain open to the scams of people like Schiff and Kotmair. The core of the movement takes the mantle of a religous quest to them with an unquestioning faith in their base axioms.
There is no reason in it, just the belief that it has to be true because it agrees with their view of the world as a place of overwhelming black conspiracies out to get them personally. They band together for support and feed on their concepts in a very tight knit clique with dissenting views or information suspected and not to be tolerated.
I was having some difficulty understanding your points of view and you can see what I thought was your positions.
Geezer, I didn't read all of your excerpts, but in the ones I did read, I didn't seen much that supports the current system or damns the efforts of Schultz.
Frankly, I'd prefer to believe that Schultz is correct in his assertions than believe that the government, IRS, and the current application of tax laws are correct.
Where, exactly is the scam? Obviously there are matters of conflicting opinion, but isn't that what redress of greivance and the courts are for? I haven't donated to this guy, but if he makes money off his advocasy, what is the difference between that and someone working for the NRA?
You'd "prefer"? You're one of the gullible. You don't like the government, so you'll believe anything a clown like Schulz says.
I haven't donated to this guy, but if he makes money off his advocasy, what is the difference between that and someone working for the NRA?
People who buy Schulz's nonsense are at high risk of going to jail.
We all get to choose what we believe. We both get to choose whether to believe a "clown" or the government. It is obvious which choice you have made.
Me? I hold skepticim of much of what the government says and does without shame. No one will ever call me a Fedophile.
You don't think anyone who once claimed/thought they were being paid by Clinton could ever admit the money they receive was confiscated from someone elses labor un-constitutional do you?
I didn't seen much that supports the current system or damns the efforts of Schultz.
I don't write to support the current system, read my #9 and hit the links in it. You will find the courts, IRS positions, and DOJ positions are entirely opposed to the idea of an "illegal" or somehow unconstitutional income tax.
I have not begun to load all the information available concerning the invalidity of the Schulz position who dominant points are
and a plethora of miscellaneous failed theories laid out by the leaders of Schulz' effort mainly Schiff, Conklin, Bannister, Kidd.
The discussion in reply #9 merely highlites a small number of Supreme Court cases that establish
1) the income tax is an indirect tax and has been valid both before and after the 16th amendment, having been repeatedly upheld.
2) indirect taxes were intended to be levied on and paid by the individual by the founding fathers.
3) the only reason the Supreme Court would ever invalidate any indirect tax would be if one could be proven beyond a doubt that the purpose of laying the tax was to totally destroy a fundamental right.
4) the only place to turn is Congress for repeal or modifying the income/payroll tax system.
The 5th amendment charge I didn't cover but, heres the dominant Supreme Court cases for you.
GARNER v. UNITED STATES, 424 U.S. 648 (1976)
"In United States v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259 (1927), the Court held that the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination is not a defense to prosecution for failing to file a return at all. But the Court indicated that the privilege could be claimed against specific disclosures sought on a return, saying:
- "If the form of return provided called for answers that the defendant was privileged from making he could have raised the objection in the return, but could not on that account refuse to make any return at all."
"In summary, we conclude that since Garner made disclosures instead of claiming the privilege on his tax returns, his disclosures were not compelled incriminations. 21 He therefore was foreclosed from invoking the privilege when such information was later introduced as evidence against him in a criminal prosecution.
The judgment is
- Affirmed."
UNITED STATES v. SULLIVAN, 274 U.S. 259 (1927)
"As the defendant's income was taxed, the statute of course required a return. See United States v. Sischo, 262 U.S. 165 , 43 S. Ct. 511. In the decision that this was contrary to the Constitution we are of opinion that the protection of the Fifth Amendment was pressed too far. If the form of return provided called for answers that the defendant was privileged from making he could have raised the objection in the return, but could not on that account refuse to make any return at all. We are not called on to decide what, if anything, he might have withheld. Most of the items warranted no compaint. It would be an extreme if not an extravagant application [274 U.S. 259, 264] of the Fifth Amendment to say that it authorized a man to refuse to state the amount of his income because it had been made in crime. But if the defendant desired to test that or any other point he should have tested it in the return so that it could be passed upon. He could not draw a conjurer's circle around the whole matter by his own declaration that to write any word upon the government blank would bring him into danger of the law. Mason v. United States, 244 U.S. 362 , 37 S. Ct. 621; United States ex rel. Vajtauer v. Commissioner of Immigration ( January 3, 1927) , 47 S. Ct. 302. In this case the defendant did not even make a declaration, he simply abstained from making a return. See further the decision of the Privy Council, Minister of Finance v. Smith (1927) A. C. 193.
For other arguments refer to:
FRIVOLOUS FILING POSITION BASED ON SECTION 861
DOJ CRIMINAL JUSTICE MANUAL, Section 40 TAX PROTESTORS
And a comprehensive FAQ compiled by a lawyer of all the Tax Protest arguments that have failed repeatedly and why:
And there are of course the many Court cases from the Article III Courts, (i.e. federal district, appellate, & Supreme Court) that support all the above.
And finally, for a blow by blow of the judgements of current cases:
Quatloo's Tax Protestor Gallery
The ultimate place to go for the answers, is Congress. They, afterall are the ones ultimately responsible for the condition of the Statutes, Regulations and Executive Orders. It is Congress in the end the enacts the enabling legislation and accepts or rejects the content of all Regulations and E.O.s.
The Courts have made it abundantly clear that the arguments presented in the above texts are failed and decided, and provide no relief to the defendant. Infact they have also made it very clear as to where to turn for relief from the very beginning as regards the income tax law.
Major point to consider, not one of the leaders mentioned above has won an appeal and test of law based on the their claims. They have however lost repeatedly when they have attempted to bring it to the courts, or the DOJ has introduced them into that arena for failure to comply with the tax code.
For a comprehensive debate item by item and blow by blow of every argument handed out by the Schulz & Co's followers see the following FR threads:
where I and others have debated head on with the TP community followers.
You don't think anyone who once claimed/thought they were being paid by Clinton
That's right lewislynn just as you and every other TPr continues to pay every disabled veteran out there.
Everyone who purchases goods and services today unknowingly pays the full burden of the income/payroll tax system whether they file or not.
That individual income tax return that captures everyone's attention each April, is nothing more an accounting sheet the government cons individuals, held at ransom, into filling out. It puts a blinder on the eyes of the voter, and totally distorts their perceptions as to the real impact of taxation in their lives.
As pointed out in the article the tax system is actually fuelled from the dollars we spend which pays gross wages, and investment returns to individuals who are the ultimate purchases of consumed good and service and hence the payers of all taxes.
We spend "disposable income", (i.e. "aftertax" income) which finances all income that is taxed. Viewing from the perspective of consumption dollars, where it is all generated, we get an entirely different perspective on what is being done to us.
Between business income taxes and payroll taxes, the burden on citizen as reflected through higher prices, lower wages, and lower return on investements are indeed horrendous.
The following article covers the mechanism on how the current Federal tax system propagates and is embedded into consumption expenditure.
DO YOU PAY YOUR INCOME TAX
AT THE SUPERMARKET?
by D. Sherman Cox J.D. L.L.M. Taxation
The percentage used in the above article is somewhat off target in that it is based on a percentage that excludes individual income tax and SS/medicare contribution extracted out of individual wages & salaries. The 24% in the article considers only those factors actually paid to government out of impositions on the business in complying with the income, payroll, excise & tariff tax laws.
The total contribution of the federal tax system(including taxes in gross wage/salaries) to the price of retail consumption goods and services is 36% for federal taxes alone. Why? Because wages and the taxes on them are paid for out of sales receipt to business,(i.e. consumption expenditure). If we add in the cost of compliance of more than $600billion/year, the percentage that truely represents the burden on the family due to the Federal income payroll tax system increases to about a 47% of family consumption expenditures.
Tax as % of current family retail expenditure = fed/(1-state-fed-savings) =
23.5/(1-.235-0.102-0.012) = 36.09%
Current total Federal tax revenues are about $1900billion, more than $600billion(Paine '97, Pilla '95, AGCCA 2000, Williams 2000) additional dollars are passed on in consumption prices due to the business costs of complying with the federal income/payroll tax laws.
Percent total current federal burden (taxes + compliance costs) of consumption dollars = 36*(1900+600)/1900 = 47.36% as passed through consumption prices. Reduce the taxes on business and simplify them in any way possible ultimately means a lower price and higher standard of living for the citizen.
Frankly, I'd prefer to believe that Schultz is correct in his assertions than believe that the government, IRS, and the current application of tax laws are correct.
So would every other person paying taxes. Unfortunately what one would prefer to believe does not go very far in a courtroom when you property and/or liberty are at stake.
Obviously there are matters of conflicting opinion, but isn't that what redress of greivance and the courts are for?
Yes, but these are not just matters of mere conflicting opinion. The courts have made it very clear that the tide is totally against every argument put forward by these Schulz & Company. Every single argument they put forward has lost repeatedly in the courts.
Schulz and company disagree with the courts you see.
I haven't donated to this guy, but if he makes money off his advocasy, what is the difference between that and someone working for the NRA?
Following the NRA's advice won't put you on the wrong side of the docket in a court room defending you property and liberty. Consistantly putting the arguments of Schulz and Co. to test will.
That's is called a total scam with no concern for the welfare of those who are attracted to the Schulz & company message.
True, however the courts make it clear that to act on such beliefs is costly:
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.
KANNE, Circuit Judge.
- Like moths to a flame, some people find themselves irresistibly drawn to the tax protestor movement's illusory claim that there is no legal requirement to pay federal income tax. And, like the moths, these people sometimes get burned. Lorin G. Sloan believed these claims and because he acted upon them now faces four months in a federal prison; there can be little doubt that he has been burned.
- The real tragedy of this case is the unconscionable waste of Mr. Sloan's time, resources, and emotion in continuing to pursue these wholly defective and unsuccessful arguments about the validity of the income tax laws of the United States. Despite our rejection of Mr. Sloan's legal analysis of the tax laws, we are not unmindful of the sincerity of his beliefs. On the other hand, we are less sure of the sincerity of the professional tax protestors who promote their views in literature and meetings to persons like Mr. Sloan, yet are unlikely ever to face the type of penalties incurred by him. It may be that our decision will not alter Mr. Sloan's views regarding the tax laws of this country, for he has stated that if we affirm his conviction without applying the law as he understands it, our decision will be "a sham to which I WILL NOT SUBMIT." It may also be that serving his sentence in prison will not alter Mr. Sloan's view. We hope this pessimistic assessment is incorrect.
- We AFFIRM the conviction of Lorin G. Sloan on all counts.
By the way, New American, the house publication of the John Birch Society sees thing pretty much as I do.
Patriot Beware!
by Thomas R. Eddlem
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1997/vo13no04/vo13no04_patriot.htm
There are too few effective persons in the fight to remove the income tax as it is.
The Patriot Package
For a donation of $36.95, receive:
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
