Posted on 04/13/2007 1:08:43 PM PDT by SmithL
No, you asked me a frivolous question, which seems to be the only type of question you can formulate.
Sorry, I don't waste time digging around in old statutes. The USC eliminates the need to do so. Unless, of course, you can make a showing that 26 USC is somehow inconsistent with the underlying laws. Start with Public Law 83-591, 68A Stat. 3, the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 and work your way forward through all of the statutory amendments. Maybe you'll find something.
Good luck. Thousands of very smart criminal defense lawyers haven't been able to do it. Their clients wouldn't be sitting in prison if they could have somehow done it, so I don't think I'll hold my breath waiting for you to do it.
It's too bad that you're confused about U.S. tax law. But, that ain't my problem. At least you've stopped pimping that pile of tax protester propaganda that you call a movie.
So I take it you’re not going to answer my simple question in Post #74?
I see. So you copy and paste a bunch of amendment law and I ask you why you did it and you come back that my question is frivolous.
That’s a sign of someone that does not want to answer the question because they’ve been caught stepping in it. That’s Ok, you put out enough info here for alot more ‘frivolous’ questions.
We’ll get to those in time. And if you don’t want to answer them, then I will fill in the blanks for you.
So your score for answering the first simple question is zero.
The '54 IRC passed both houses of Congress as HR-8300 and Eisenhower signed it on August 16, 1954, creating Public Law 83-591. There you go. Have at it. Thousands of lawyers have had over 50 years to bring that one magic case that got PL 83-591 ruled unconstitutional. Hasn't happened.
So the simple 'frivolous' question now posed to you is, has the original source law for the personal income tax and its 'voluntary' filing requirements only been into effect since 1954?
If it's too 'frivolous' for you, or irritates you too much coming from a 'criminal tax protestor' like me, then don't bother to answer, I will answer for you.
Meanwhile, why don't you try some of your magic stuff out on the IRS?
Could it be that you don't really believe in the efficacy of any of the junk you spout?
As I have said numerous times on this thread and others I file a 1040 and pay the IRS. So why should I fear them?
So the fact that you are threatening me with IRS abuse sure does confirm what is in Russo's film.
I will answer the simple 'frivolous' question that was posed to you in Post #84 in response to your Post#50.
... has the original source law for the personal income tax and its 'voluntary' filing requirements only been into effect since 1954?
And the answer is:
....No.
See how 'simple' that was?
So of the two simple 'frivolous' questions asked of you from a 'criminal tax protestor' like me, your score is ....still.... zero.
Standby for simple 'frivolous' question #3 from your neighborhood criminal tax protestor.
Be sure to let the lawyers for all of the tax protesters who are in federal prison for violating provisions of 26 USC know about your magic answers.
Why do I need to talk to lawyers? I have said repeatedly that I pay the 1040 taxes and I have explained why. Furthermore, Russo’s film never advocates that people not pay the 1040 taxes although he interviews people that stopped because he wanted to find out why they did what they did. Remember him saying he also wanted to get the story from the IRS side? to be objective? Well that’s another detail we will get to.
I figured once your previous ramblings and rants were broken down bit by bit and simplified, that you would fall back on the ‘people in prison’ argument.
Before you were throwing out multiple bashes in one post making it dizzying for anyone to piece together the details. Now that you are being asked to account one statement at a time, you decide to hurl insults and threats without answering.
Here you go.
Question #3:
If the original source Public law detailing the provisions for implementing the personal income tax were not signed into law in 1954, why did you post that they were in Post #50? And if that is too embarassing for you to deal with, then after you get done insulting and threatening me again, answer the question of ***what year*** the original source Public Law was signed.
Hint: the original statutes were only 14 pages long and with today’s font and printing they would be about 8 pages. But then we are going to get into those statutes and the later Supreme Court challenges that held something that will be very surprising to people today.
Thanks for pointing that out.
Yup. Such is the state of the current law.
We can argue against it rationally, or we can flail at it frivolously and irrationally as do tax protesters and people who believe idiotic TP garbage like Hostage.
They do nothing but discredit the entire effort while making fools out of themselves, and make reform harder to accomplish. I despise ignoramuses like Hostage and his ilk, they only poison the reform enviroment.
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.