EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Wed Jul 30, 2014 3:07 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 87 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 9:54 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2005 5:02 pm
Posts: 5941
WAYNE I have to go work......I will get into this more in detail tomorrow....I enjoy discussing this stuff.....Keep in mind that in the Corporation Excise Tax of 1909 (36 Stat. 112) the definition of income was given as profit derived from corporate activity I believe. I went to bed at 3am and was awaken at 8 by my son and his fiancee..I am groggy as hell lol!!! AND I gotta leave for a 3 hour drive to do a demo in a couple hours.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 10:47 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20472
Location: Southeastern US
OHIOSTEVE wrote:
WAYNE I have to go work......I will get into this more in detail tomorrow....I enjoy discussing this stuff.....Keep in mind that in the Corporation Excise Tax of 1909 (36 Stat. 112) the definition of income was given as profit derived from corporate activity I believe. I went to bed at 3am and was awaken at 8 by my son and his fiancee..I am groggy as hell lol!!! AND I gotta leave for a 3 hour drive to do a demo in a couple hours.


No problem, I have enjoyed a few Constitutional law discussions myself.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 10:54 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20472
Location: Southeastern US
To give a recap to get on the same page:

Quote:
The constitution allows for two types of taxes...direct ( cigarettes tobacco gas firearms etc etc) and apportioned ( the govt has a need for X amount of dollars and that cost is divided equally among the states based on population) the income tax is neither, and is illegal.


I took this to mean that you thought the tax on income was not specifically legal, and replied:

Quote:
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.


Pointing to the direct reference to the taxation of income, to which you indicated that was not the issue.

Quote:
The supreme court has already ruled ( I will have to find it again) that the 16th amendment gave congress NO NEW POWERS. If the power was not there prior to the 16th then it is not there now.


To which it was pointed out there was a unification of the definitions used for taxes on income:

Quote:
Congress already had the power to tax all incomes. But taxes on incomes from some sources had been held to be "direct taxes" within the meaning of the constitutional requirement as to apportionment. The Amendment relieved from that requirement and obliterated the distinction in that respect between taxes on income that are direct taxes and those that are not, and so put on the same basis all incomes "from whatever source derived".


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 11:10 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20472
Location: Southeastern US
Quote:
The constitution allows for two types of taxes...direct ( cigarettes tobacco gas firearms etc etc) and apportioned ( the govt has a need for X amount of dollars and that cost is divided equally among the states based on population) the income tax is neither, and is illegal.


Where I became confused here is the listing of the taxes. There is a direct tax, such as a "head tax" or property tax on property owned as of Jan 1st, for example. This direct tax is required to be apportioned to the states on a relative population based on the most recent census. None of the current income tax is apportioned because of the 16th Amendment. The income from service has always been an indirect or excise type tax, but in 1895 there was a change and the income from property was ruled to be a direct tax (Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co) and thus it needed to be directly apportioned. This affected income from property such as interest, dividends, or rents, which were legally required to be apportioned, until the ratification of the 16th Amendment. Thus, all income is treated now as an indirect or excise tax and is not required to be apportioned to the states in any fashion. Tax on income is legal and the income tax is also legal in the way the taxes are not apportioned to the states by population.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 4:41 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2005 5:02 pm
Posts: 5941
Wayne I just went out to go to my demo and my truck that I just spent 700 bucks on is smoking and clanging like crazy ( it was fine when I parked it last night) ANYWAY I do not have time to get into this right now but lemme give you something to look into ( I am not an expert and enjoy learning as long as its not arguing) There is a distinct difference between the money you recieve for your labor and the income spoken of in the 16th amendment. I have several supreme court cases listed somewhere that I need time to dig up. I also have some sections of the IRS TAX CODE somewhere around here that are pretty interesting.....One in particular that has a list of things NOT EXEMPT from the income tax( again I have to find this again and cannot give the exact statute or section) My laymans way of thinking would assume that if there is a list of things NOT exempt then whatever is not on the list IS exempt. mine and your incomes are not listed. The income tax is LEGAL as it is written...I honestly believe it is being APPLIED illegally. ANYWAY Give me some time to either get drunk or fix this truck or shoot myself Then I will look up the stuff and get back into this.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 4:14 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2006 10:09 am
Posts: 542
Location: Stratford WI
Quote:
your belief is a single mother working 3 jobs to support her children who pays taxes on whatever paltry earnings she is making doesn't deserve the fundamental right to health care benefits for herself and her children.


What fundamental right?

I was a single parent of 3 kids I got all my taxes back plus because of the earned income credit.

One time the packing plant I was working at closed without notice and there I was with all kinds of bills and no way to pay. Actually went down to the courthouse to apply for something called section 8 housing which would have helped with the rent. I was told there was a 2 year waiting list and if any more "federally sponsored" people came in I would be bumped.
So now we are importing people and indoctrinating them immediately into the free ride.

When I got my next job I made sure it had medical benefits. And even when I left that job and went to one that didn't have benefits I was able to take them with me and made the payments myself.

_________________
sammyds world

Watch out where the huskies go, don't you eat that yellow snow


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 2:42 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2005 5:02 pm
Posts: 5941
HEY WAYNE...STILL IN THE MIDDLE OF EVERYTHING...HERES SOMETHING FOR YOU TO DELVE INTO IN THE MEANTIME.


1040 Checkmate?

DOJ Dismisses Felony Tax Prosecution
-- With Prejudice -- After PRA Defense Raised

Evidence OMB Complicit In Income Tax Fraud

DOJ & IRS Petitioned To Explain


On May 12, 2006 in Peoria, Illinois, the attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) begged the court to dismiss all charges against IRS victim Robert Lawrence in federal District Court.

The motion for dismissal came on the heels of a surprise tactic by Lawrence’s defense attorney Oscar Stilley.

The tactic threatened exposure of IRS’s on-going efforts to defraud the public. The move put DOJ attorneys in a state of panic that left them with only one alternative: beg for dismissal, with prejudice.

Stilley’s tactic paid off. Sixty days earlier, the DOJ had indicted Lawrence on three counts of willful failure to file a 1040 form, and three felony counts of income tax evasion. The federal Judge dismissed all charges with prejudice, meaning the DOJ cannot charge Lawrence with those crimes again.

The trial was to have started on Monday morning, May 15th.

On Wednesday, May 10, Stilley mailed a set of documents to the DOJ in response to DOJ’s discovery demands. The documents revealed to DOJ for the first time that Lawrence was basing his entire defense on an act of Congress, 44 U.S.C. 3500 – 3520, also known as the "Paperwork Reduction Act" (PRA).


http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTP2/UPDATES/Update2006-06-09.htm


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 2:53 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2005 5:02 pm
Posts: 5941
http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/MISC/Cryer/CRYER--MotiontoDismiss.pdf
PAGES 26-30 OR SO SEEM TO BE THE MOST INTERESTING TO ME BUT THE ENTIRE THING IS very LONG BUT VERY ENLIGHTENING.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 7:12 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20472
Location: Southeastern US
OHIOSTEVE wrote:
http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/MISC/Cryer/CRYER--MotiontoDismiss.pdf
PAGES 26-30 OR SO SEEM TO BE THE MOST INTERESTING TO ME BUT THE ENTIRE THING IS very LONG BUT VERY ENLIGHTENING.


The attempt to make these claims as a defense is fairly common in both the attampt and failure to succeed. A court ruling that supports the calims would make a point, but a copy of the claims do not.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 7:17 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20472
Location: Southeastern US
OHIOSTEVE wrote:
HEY WAYNE...STILL IN THE MIDDLE OF EVERYTHING...HERES SOMETHING FOR YOU TO DELVE INTO IN THE MEANTIME.


1040 Checkmate?

DOJ Dismisses Felony Tax Prosecution
-- With Prejudice -- After PRA Defense Raised

Evidence OMB Complicit In Income Tax Fraud

DOJ & IRS Petitioned To Explain


On May 12, 2006 in Peoria, Illinois, the attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) begged the court to dismiss all charges against IRS victim Robert Lawrence in federal District Court.

The motion for dismissal came on the heels of a surprise tactic by Lawrence’s defense attorney Oscar Stilley.

The tactic threatened exposure of IRS’s on-going efforts to defraud the public. The move put DOJ attorneys in a state of panic that left them with only one alternative: beg for dismissal, with prejudice.

Stilley’s tactic paid off. Sixty days earlier, the DOJ had indicted Lawrence on three counts of willful failure to file a 1040 form, and three felony counts of income tax evasion. The federal Judge dismissed all charges with prejudice, meaning the DOJ cannot charge Lawrence with those crimes again.

The trial was to have started on Monday morning, May 15th.

On Wednesday, May 10, Stilley mailed a set of documents to the DOJ in response to DOJ’s discovery demands. The documents revealed to DOJ for the first time that Lawrence was basing his entire defense on an act of Congress, 44 U.S.C. 3500 – 3520, also known as the "Paperwork Reduction Act" (PRA).

http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTP2/UPDATES/Update2006-06-09.htm


The supposed failure based on the form not being compliant with the PRA does in no way make the tax illegal nor unconstitutional.


In Section 3512 of the Act, titled "Public Protection," it says that no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with an agency’s collection of information request (such as a 1040 form), if the request does not display a valid control number assigned by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the requirements of the Act, or if the agency fails to inform the person who is to respond to the collection of information that he is not required to respond to the collection of information request unless it displays a valid control number.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 10:27 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2005 5:02 pm
Posts: 5941
Wayne Stollings wrote:
OHIOSTEVE wrote:
http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/MISC/Cryer/CRYER--MotiontoDismiss.pdf
PAGES 26-30 OR SO SEEM TO BE THE MOST INTERESTING TO ME BUT THE ENTIRE THING IS very LONG BUT VERY ENLIGHTENING.


The attempt to make these claims as a defense is fairly common in both the attampt and failure to succeed. A court ruling that supports the calims would make a point, but a copy of the claims do not.
These are not exactly claims wayne..They are actual sections of the tax code..I understand what you are saying however....


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 10:30 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2005 5:02 pm
Posts: 5941
Wayne Stollings wrote:
OHIOSTEVE wrote:
HEY WAYNE...STILL IN THE MIDDLE OF EVERYTHING...HERES SOMETHING FOR YOU TO DELVE INTO IN THE MEANTIME.


1040 Checkmate?

DOJ Dismisses Felony Tax Prosecution
-- With Prejudice -- After PRA Defense Raised

Evidence OMB Complicit In Income Tax Fraud

DOJ & IRS Petitioned To Explain


On May 12, 2006 in Peoria, Illinois, the attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) begged the court to dismiss all charges against IRS victim Robert Lawrence in federal District Court.

The motion for dismissal came on the heels of a surprise tactic by Lawrence’s defense attorney Oscar Stilley.

The tactic threatened exposure of IRS’s on-going efforts to defraud the public. The move put DOJ attorneys in a state of panic that left them with only one alternative: beg for dismissal, with prejudice.

Stilley’s tactic paid off. Sixty days earlier, the DOJ had indicted Lawrence on three counts of willful failure to file a 1040 form, and three felony counts of income tax evasion. The federal Judge dismissed all charges with prejudice, meaning the DOJ cannot charge Lawrence with those crimes again.

The trial was to have started on Monday morning, May 15th.

On Wednesday, May 10, Stilley mailed a set of documents to the DOJ in response to DOJ’s discovery demands. The documents revealed to DOJ for the first time that Lawrence was basing his entire defense on an act of Congress, 44 U.S.C. 3500 – 3520, also known as the "Paperwork Reduction Act" (PRA).

http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTP2/UPDATES/Update2006-06-09.htm


The supposed failure based on the form not being compliant with the PRA does in no way make the tax illegal nor unconstitutional.


In Section 3512 of the Act, titled "Public Protection," it says that no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with an agency’s collection of information request (such as a 1040 form), if the request does not display a valid control number assigned by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the requirements of the Act, or if the agency fails to inform the person who is to respond to the collection of information that he is not required to respond to the collection of information request unless it displays a valid control number.

I am not sure if I am following you here wayne...the law states that government documents MUST have an OMB number, otherwise responding to them is voluntary ( simplistic wording I know) The 1040 form which is used to prosecute folks for failure to file does NOT have an OMB number. The government is required to inform you that a response is NOT required if it does not have that number.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 10:34 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2005 5:02 pm
Posts: 5941
I aM just now getting home so I haven't had time to dig this stuff up yet but there was a supreme court ruling that stated the tax laws apply ONLY to tax payers and NOT to non tax payers.......inferring that there are 2 classes of people in the U.S as far as taxation is concerned...ALSO the tax codes seem to always say that ANYONE LIABLE UNDER THIS SECTION is required to blah blah....they never seem to go on and tell you who is actually liable.
I know also that the SCOTUS has ruled that my labor is my property....they have also ruled that in an equal exchange of property there is no profit.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 7:44 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20472
Location: Southeastern US
OHIOSTEVE wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
OHIOSTEVE wrote:
HEY WAYNE...STILL IN THE MIDDLE OF EVERYTHING...HERES SOMETHING FOR YOU TO DELVE INTO IN THE MEANTIME.


1040 Checkmate?

DOJ Dismisses Felony Tax Prosecution
-- With Prejudice -- After PRA Defense Raised

Evidence OMB Complicit In Income Tax Fraud

DOJ & IRS Petitioned To Explain


On May 12, 2006 in Peoria, Illinois, the attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) begged the court to dismiss all charges against IRS victim Robert Lawrence in federal District Court.

The motion for dismissal came on the heels of a surprise tactic by Lawrence’s defense attorney Oscar Stilley.

The tactic threatened exposure of IRS’s on-going efforts to defraud the public. The move put DOJ attorneys in a state of panic that left them with only one alternative: beg for dismissal, with prejudice.

Stilley’s tactic paid off. Sixty days earlier, the DOJ had indicted Lawrence on three counts of willful failure to file a 1040 form, and three felony counts of income tax evasion. The federal Judge dismissed all charges with prejudice, meaning the DOJ cannot charge Lawrence with those crimes again.

The trial was to have started on Monday morning, May 15th.

On Wednesday, May 10, Stilley mailed a set of documents to the DOJ in response to DOJ’s discovery demands. The documents revealed to DOJ for the first time that Lawrence was basing his entire defense on an act of Congress, 44 U.S.C. 3500 – 3520, also known as the "Paperwork Reduction Act" (PRA).

http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTP2/UPDATES/Update2006-06-09.htm


The supposed failure based on the form not being compliant with the PRA does in no way make the tax illegal nor unconstitutional.


In Section 3512 of the Act, titled "Public Protection," it says that no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with an agency’s collection of information request (such as a 1040 form), if the request does not display a valid control number assigned by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the requirements of the Act, or if the agency fails to inform the person who is to respond to the collection of information that he is not required to respond to the collection of information request unless it displays a valid control number.

I am not sure if I am following you here wayne...the law states that government documents MUST have an OMB number, otherwise responding to them is voluntary ( simplistic wording I know) The 1040 form which is used to prosecute folks for failure to file does NOT have an OMB number. The government is required to inform you that a response is NOT required if it does not have that number.


This is one of the attempts by anti-tax proponents to make a point. They do not like taxes and do not want to pay so they try anything and everything to keep from doing so. In this case they claim the form is incorrect, which is not related to whether the act of taxation of income is or is not legal. If the form is incorrect it would be corrected by clarification in the PRA or by changing the form, in either case it does not make the act of taxation of income illegal.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 7:58 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20472
Location: Southeastern US
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protes ... _arguments

Several of the claims are addressed in this article.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 87 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 14 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group