Personal Income Tax - Law or Fraud?

[Makalakumu]

I watched a bootleg on google video today of Aaron Russo's "America: From Freedom to Fascism," today. This movie was very provacative and disturbing.

The main theme of the movie was that income taxes were unconstitutional and that there actually was no law that required you to pay them. This would mean that the IRS is illegal and that all of their past actions, including throwing people in prison and confiscating everything this person owns, is also illegal.

The video was removed due to copywrite enfringement, unfortunately. However, here are some officially sanctioned clips...

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=America+From+Freedom+to+Fascism

What do you think about this? Are income taxes legal or illegal? Can anyone actually find a law that states that we must pay a personal income tax?

upnorthkyosa

ps - the movie also connected this to the Federal Reserve Act. They state that the funds levied by the Federal Income Tax go to pay the interest to the central bank that makes our money. Is there anything to this contention? If so, this would make the frauds perpetrated by Worldcom and Enron look like liquor store robberies.

 

[FearlessFreep]

I'v followed this thought process from a far, on both accounts, and admit that I find some of it pretty compelling

 

[michaeledward]

I think you might be able to present a compelling argument for between 7 to 12 years. After that, I think the IRS might get a little testy. Your new accomodations will be less than welcoming.

 

[bydand]

What I think people fail to remember is that though the original income tax was overturned as unconstitutional. the 16th Admendment was ratified by the States. Of course some will arguee that because the punctuation is different in some of the States papers, or that because Congress didn't recognize Ohio's ratification until the 1950's, it isn't valid. If one were to apply this reasoning to everything that passed into Federal law during the same time frame, where would we be? Some common sense has to prevail in the argument and individual laws or taxes we may not like have to be looked at in context, not just held to a shakey double standard. IMO

 

[Makalakumu]

I think you might be able to present a compelling argument for between 7 to 12 years. After that, I think the IRS might get a little testy. Your new accomodations will be less than welcoming.

ie...mother****ing gitmo. Geez, man...this is heavy...I mean, if the government can defraud millions of Americans, falsly imprison hundreds of thousands more, and basically confiscate billions in assets, what else couldn't they do?

BTW - did ya'll know that the pentagon lost 2.3 trillion dollars? Apparently, the fed was looking for it.

 

[Makalakumu]

What I think people fail to remember is that though the original income tax was overturned as unconstitutional. the 16th Admendment was ratified by the States. Of course some will arguee that because the punctuation is different in some of the States papers, or that because Congress didn't recognize Ohio's ratification until the 1950's, it isn't valid. If one were to apply this reasoning to everything that passed into Federal law during the same time frame, where would we be? Some common sense has to prevail in the argument and individual laws or taxes we may not like have to be looked at in context, not just held to a shakey double standard. IMO

Do you have a citation for this? And can you use this like an arrow and point to a federal law that justifies personal income tax?

 

[Carol]

ie...mother****ing gitmo. Geez, man...this is heavy...I mean, if the government can defraud millions of Americans, falsly imprison hundreds of thousands more, and basically confiscate billions in assets, what else couldn't they do?

BTW - did ya'll know that the pentagon lost 2.3 trillion dollars? Apparently, the fed was looking for it.

2.3 trillion? Must be lying around somewhere. Bet it's next to the set of keys that I lost not long back. Or...not.

 

[Makalakumu]

Al Capone was imprisoned onFederal Tax Evasion charges. If there are no laws against tax evasion at the federal level, then he was falsely imprisoned.

Sorry, maybe that was a bad example...

 

[jazkiljok]

read, absorb, pay.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7151524/

 

[still learning]

Hello, If the above videos and comments were true.....How come no one took it to the supreme court to decide if is a LAW or FRAUD?

In the past most of the people who paid no taxes..now have a free home with bars included. .........Aloha

 

[bydand]

For some information about the legality, look up "US -vs- Pollack"(can be found in Blacks Law) for the case that determined that the 1894 fed Income Tax was unconstitutional. Then in 1913 the 16th Admendment was ratified giving the fed gov. the power to tax peoples income. That one is easy to find, just check any copy of the Constitution of the United States. In 1939 the tax laws were codified into the U.S. Code, which manily is the Federal laws, it was IRC1939. Even if the nay-sayers could prove the 16th Admendment wasn't ratified properly, it wouldn't change the fact that it is now part of the US Code. It has been from 1939 to the present and if in the past 67 years nobody has been able to prove beyond doubt that it is unlawful well.... Look at the bold for the reference documents. They are avaliable in any public library

 

[Makalakumu]

For some information about the legality, look up "US -vs- Pollack"(can be found in Blacks Law) for the case that determined that the 1894 fed Income Tax was unconstitutional. Then in 1913 the 16th Admendment was ratified giving the fed gov. the power to tax peoples income. That one is easy to find, just check any copy of the Constitution of the United States. In 1939 the tax laws were codified into the U.S. Code, which manily is the Federal laws, it was IRC1939. Even if the nay-sayers could prove the 16th Admendment wasn't ratified properly, it wouldn't change the fact that it is now part of the US Code. It has been from 1939 to the present and if in the past 67 years nobody has been able to prove beyond doubt that it is unlawful well.... Look at the bold for the reference documents. They are avaliable in any public library

The videos cite eight supreme court cases that ruled that the 16th amendment gave the federal government no new power to tax. This is interesting in and of itself because it specifically addresses the powers of the 16th amendment.

And then the video presents the contention that the 16th amendment was never properly ratified. According to the specific rules laid down by the constitution, this amendment was not ratified...thus the federal reserve act is unconstitutional and so is income tax.

The video also presents numerous court cases in which people have been brought to court or have brought the IRS to court. In all of them, people either demanded to see the law that they had broken or they wanted to see the law that gave the federal government the power to tax them. In all cases they were denied this. The movie also cites a recent court case, in which a federal judge ruled that the federal government did not have to show this law.

Anyway, despite repeated attempts, the IRS has never been forced to reveal the laws that give it the power to do what it does...and according to a lower federal court, it never has to.

 

[bydand]

Oh well it appears to be one of those topics that several are going to dis-agree about. No matter really, I intend to continue paying my taxes because I am a bigger benefit to my family at home and work than in jail. Guess that is what it really comes down to. Plus I look at how screwed up the Country is WITH the income, I can just imagine how totally screwed we would be if they were broke on top of being stupid.

 

[TonyMac]

Most law schools have you run a kangaroo court in your first year where you are required to defend a defendant whom has chosen not to pay thier income taxes. You are expected to win. Reality is different.

 

[fireman00]

Law - period. The 16th amendment which enpowers Congress to tax "incomes, from whatever source derived...." was passed in 1913.

Here's the amendment verbatim;
Amendment XVI

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.

 

[Makalakumu]

Law - period. The 16th amendment which enpowers Congress to tax "incomes, from whatever source derived...." was passed in 1913.

Here's the amendment verbatim;
Amendment XVI

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.

http://www.givemeliberty.org/features/taxes/19990709_xcdfr_is_income.htm

WASHINGTON -- Evidence strongly suggests that the 16th Amendment, which establishes the income tax, was not approved properly as required by the Constitution and was fraudulently ratified.

Here are some specifics...

All total, Benson collected 17,000 documents, all properly notarized and certified by officials of the states. And what they reveal is shocking.

The ratification required by at least 36 states -- three-fourths of the 48 states then in existence -- has to be identical to the amendment passed by Congress. Benson cites federal documents affirming that for state approval to be acceptable, neither words nor punctuation can be changed. And the states may not violate their own state constitutions in ratifying the amendment.


Of the 48 states, here's the story:

• Eight states (Rhode Island, Utah, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Kentucky, Florida, Virginia and Pennsylvania) did not approve or ratify the amendment.
• Texas and Louisiana were forbidden by their own state constitutions to empower the federal government to tax.
• Vermont and Massachusetts rejected the amendment with a recorded vote count, and only later declared it passed without a recorded vote after the amendment was declared ratified by Knox.
• Tennessee, Ohio, Mississippi, California and Washington violated their state constitutions in their ratification procedures.
• Minnesota did not send any copy of its resolution to Knox, let alone a signed and sealed one, as required.
• And Oklahoma, Georgia and Illinois made unacceptable changes in wording. (Some of the above states also made such changes, in addition to their other unacceptable procedures.)

Take 48 states, deduct these 21, and you have proper ratification by only 27 states -- far less than the required 36.

Here is what the US federal government did to Benson...

Benson's story doesn't end with the compilation and publication of his research. As expected, his evidence that our present system of government is based on a fraud did not get a friendly reception in Washington. Benson says a senatorial aide attempted to bribe him. Suppress all copies of your books, he was told, and "you will live in comfort for the rest of your life."

Benson didn't cooperate, and he landed in prison on income tax charges.
"Going to prison was not easy," he told the symposium, "but because I had written volume one and was speaking about it, the government was determined to put me in prison."

And that wasn't all. Benson was on prescribed medication for encephalitis. That medication was confiscated, and "four guards and three nurses entered my cell and forcibly injected me with different medication." As a result, he spent nearly two years in prison in a wheelchair.

"I now have to use a cane and walker, and often a wheelchair," Benson said, "all because of the federal government."

An appellate court reversed Benson's conviction, and he was free after 15 months and five days. But, ignoring prohibitions of double jeopardy, the Feds clamped him in prison again. And took away his medication again.

This time he was in jail only 22 days. His wife had appealed to Congress, and after a congressional inquiry the prison authorities stopped his overmedication and returned him to his original prescribed medication. The judge who had jailed him was furious when presented with evidence that the government's actions were unlawful, and ordered him released.

 

[JBrainard]

Everything I've heard and read suggests that it's a fraud. Not that I could get away with not paying it... :shooter: <- that's the feds.

 

[Makalakumu]

Does anyone feel uncomfortable? What else might the fed do, if they can do this?

 

[Don Roley]

Hello, If the above videos and comments were true.....How come no one took it to the supreme court to decide if is a LAW or FRAUD?

In the past most of the people who paid no taxes..now have a free home with bars included. .........Aloha

That is what gets me. After all the increadible rulings various courts have made over the years, why has not even one case been argued to conclusion about the matter?

It would be nice if there was no invcome tax. But I trust the lack of legal challenges more than I do a bunch of sites on the internet. If there was no legal standing for the income tax, you could bet that the various states and such that depend on it would make sure to put it into place ASAP.

Of course, for about a hundred years the constituion clearly said that all men are created equal- but those with a dark skin were still slaves. But it seems to me that people would be covering their butts legally if they needed to by making the income tax legal. The goverment could not work as is without it, and people would vote for it if faced with the alternative.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

People who believe all the various conspiracy theories out there -no moon landing, 9/11 demolition teory, illumanati, x-file stuff-are also the same people who buy into this tax protest stuff. They sit next to each other at the Hatters Tea Party playing tug-o-war with the same teapot.

http://www.quatloos.com/Tax_Protestors_Page.htm