Tyranny from the IRS

[Bubblehead1980]

http://www.activistpost.com/2013/11/irs-to-jail-woman-who-owes-0-in-taxes.html

Yes, the story is in right wing sites but just read, it's happening and not uncommon.I am waiting for the day I get audited because of my outspoken opposition to the fed and the 16th amendment.Sure it will happen:/\\!!

[Oberon]

I'm thinking four to five pages for this one. :yep:

[vienna]

Not quite so innocent and rather well known tax protesters:

http://tpgurus.wikidot.com/peter-hendrickson

http://www.justice.gov/tax/txdv07320.htm


Gee, and all I had to do was use that new-fangled (and probably leftist/socialist) thingamabob called "Google". I had to do it; all the cool kids are "Googling"...


<O>

[Bubblehead1980]

Not quite so innocent and rather well known tax protesters:

http://tpgurus.wikidot.com/peter-hendrickson

http://www.justice.gov/tax/txdv07320.htm


Gee, and all I had to do was use that new-fangled (and probably leftist/socialist) thingamabob called "Google". I had to do it; all the cool kids are "Googling"...


<O>


Who cares if they are tax protesters? Government does not have the right to do what they are doing, especially to her in this case. I am aware they are, notice I said yes I know it's a right wing site.I looked them up, so nice try, play again.:har: See you, it is personal for you, oh so witty one.

[u crank]

I am waiting for the day I get audited because of my outspoken opposition to the fed and the 16th amendment.Sure it will happen:/\\!!

How do you sleep at night? :D

[Bubblehead1980]

How do you sleep at night? :D

Not a serious question I know but I sleep quite well, thanks.

[vienna]

Well, it's gone from unfounded assertion to defensive insults in less than 5 posts. That may be a record for Bubbles...

The people in question have brought down this misery on themselves. By virtue of their basically turning the "plight" into a business (selling books, etc), they are no better than the 'snake oil' salesmen who pitch get rich quick scheme in infomercials on late night TV. They seek to profit from being "martyrs". The lowest of the low...

If you really looked them up, and, given your self-purported legal acumen and depth of knowledge, you would have found they goaded the government into action; the IRS did not spontaneously go knocking on their door. If you jaywalk in front of a cop, expect to get a ticket...


<O>

[Bubblehead1980]

Well, it's gone from unfounded assertion to defensive insults in less than 5 posts. That may be a record for Bubbles...

The people in question have brought down this misery on themselves. By virtue of their basically turning the "plight" into a business (selling books, etc), they are no better than the 'snake oil' salesmen who pitch get rich quick scheme in infomercials on late night TV. They seek to profit from being "martyrs". The lowest of the low...

If you really looked them up, and, given your self-purported legal acumen and depth of knowledge, you would have found they goaded the government into action; the IRS did not spontaneously go knocking on their door. If you jaywalk in front of a cop, expect to get a ticket...


<O>

NO, you started the insults with your "witty sarcasm" . They brought this on themselves? Man you are just a tool for the government eh? They are tax protesters, so what? They see something is wrong and stand up to it and so what if they write books or whatever, this fight requires money and writing a book etc is a way to spread the message.The government is picking on them because of their views, especially the wife.She is refusing to sign a form because is saying it's not true, they are trying to force her, she is standing strong and the government hates it.The Judge even offered a reasonable compromise but the tyrannical IRS said no.Fact is, they want her in prison because she dares to stand up. Sad part is, people, myself included at this point in my life, do not have the guts to do what these people are doing.Although my fight may begin when I refuse to purchase health insurance, especially via the government's exchanges until I can really afford it. We shall see what happens, but wake up, stop being part of the problem.

[AndyJWest]

If you 'protest' by breaking laws, you can expect to be prosecuted for breaking laws. Not that 'protester' is necessarily the word I'd use to describe someone who resorts to firebombing...

[Bubblehead1980]

If you 'protest' by breaking laws, you can expect to be prosecuted for breaking laws. Not that 'protester' is necessarily the word I'd use to describe someone who resorts to firebombing...


An unjust law is no law at all.Everything aside, they are focusing on his wife not being reasonable because they want her in prison, to make a point, to show their power.This is tyranny, plain and simple.

[vienna]

The real problem is people not knowing which fights to pick. If you defend a charlatan, you are not only perpetuating their fraud, you are damaging the very argument you wish to make. There are a great many other persons who are truly being persecuted by various government entities, but, unless some politacally or personal-gain motivated individual or group, say, like the Limbaughs and Sharptons of the world, rush to their "defense", no one ever really raise a hand to help them, unless it's something like the ACLU or other "liberal" group...

When I did my Google search, I just picked two out of the top five hits. I did skim over the others, but I felt those two were a good example of my point. They are not being persecuted because of their "outspoken opposition"; they plain and simple violated the law. As a "future barrister", you should understand the distinction. If you don't like the law change it or change those who make the law...

Additional problems arise from those who make broad, sweeping assertions without proper foundation, reasoning, or researched knowledge...

By the way, thank you for noting my wit. Jealous, much? I will see if there is a "witless protection" program avilable for you... :D


<O>

[Jimbuna]

I was always under the impression that a law, whether thought to be good or bad by sections of the community was a law, provided it was passed into being by the relevant authority.

[Madox58]

Is this thread going to turn into this?

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_Ek1QPFXmY80/S9nbcV24z_I/AAAAAAAAFCc/oWzyvFf9u_k/tinfoil.gif

[Jimbuna]

Nope.

[vienna]

Is this thread going to turn into this?


Why are you using future tense?...


<O>

[Sailor Steve]

Who cares if they are tax protesters? Government does not have the right to do what they are doing, especially to her in this case.

They are tax protesters, so what? They see something is wrong and stand up to it and so what if they write books or whatever, this fight requires money and writing a book etc is a way to spread the message.
The bottom line is simple. They lied on the tax form. They claimed zero income, but they actually made considerably more than zero. That is indeed a crime.

The government is picking on them because of their views, especially the wife.She is refusing to sign a form because is saying it's not true, they are trying to force her, she is standing strong and the government hates it.
If she signs the form she's guilty of perjury, because she claimed zero income, which is a lie. The law requires that the form be signed. The law requires that if you are self-employed and make more than $400 you must file a return. She is in the process of breaking the law. How complicated is that?

I'm aware that the IRS has pulled some pretty shady stuff, and continues to do so. This may be one of those cases. It doesn't necessarily look like it though. Protesting a law is fine. Doing so by breaking it is not.

An unjust law is no law at all.
So get it changed. I believe the Federal Income Tax to be an unjust law, but it's there and the only way to fix it is to get it repealed.

Everything aside, they are focusing on his wife not being reasonable because they want her in prison, to make a point, to show their power.This is tyranny, plain and simple.
That's possibly true. It's doubtful that it's the whole IRS doing it, simply because there would have to be a stated policy showing up somewhere, and sooner or later an IRS employee would expose it. More likely is that it's a self-important IRS official trying to prove something. More likely still is that these people are breaking the law, and the law must be enforced or else it's, as you say, no law at all.

[Bubblehead1980]

The real problem is people not knowing which fights to pick. If you defend a charlatan, you are not only perpetuating their fraud, you are damaging the very argument you wish to make. There are a great many other persons who are truly being persecuted by various government entities, but, unless some politacally or personal-gain motivated individual or group, say, like the Limbaughs and Sharptons of the world, rush to their "defense", no one ever really raise a hand to help them, unless it's something like the ACLU or other "liberal" group...

When I did my Google search, I just picked two out of the top five hits. I did skim over the others, but I felt those two were a good example of my point. They are not being persecuted because of their "outspoken opposition"; they plain and simple violated the law. As a "future barrister", you should understand the distinction. If you don't like the law change it or change those who make the law...

Additional problems arise from those who make broad, sweeping assertions without proper foundation, reasoning, or researched knowledge...

By the way, thank you for noting my wit. Jealous, much? I will see if there is a "witless protection" program avilable for you... :D


<O>

Who cares if they violated the law? The laws are unjust, an unjust law is no law at all.The government is picking on the wife now to prove a point, even the judge made a reasonable compromise but the government, in typical tyrannical fashion said no, because they want these people to suffer.

I looked them up and what I see are two people who have been fighting the good fight against an oppressive government.Writing a book etc is how you spread the word and so what if make some money off of it, it's needed to carry on this battle.

Yes, I realize you move to change the law or those who make them but it does not always work.How you change the law iswith a movement and if the law is so unjust, some may choose not to obey it in the meantime to draw attention to the subject.There is a lot of power behind keeping the 16th amendment as is and it's called the IRS.The IRS is a weapon that few in power would want to give up.

The woman owes them no money, she is simply refusing to sign a form and allow them to force her to submit to their will.This is tyrannical behavior would expect from Russia etc, not the US, but it is commonplace sadly.Thanks to people like you, who think it is acceptable.

FYI, the ACLU geneally only helps you if you are poor, non white, or fighting something religious, unless you are a muslim who tried to attack the US.

Jealous? lol right.No, just your "wit" is deflection, because you think trying to be sarcastic makes you funny and original, but it does not.You are just another hack trying to tow the government line because it makes you feel good about yourself.Also, it's personal because I made the post.Grow up, make an argument or SHUT UP. Personal insults, veiled or overt are not called for.

[vienna]

Pathetic, Bubbles, just plain pathetic...


<O>

[vienna]

FYI, the ACLU geneally only helps you if you are poor, non white, or fighting something religious, unless you are a muslim who tried to attack the US.


BTW, re: the ACLU and who they defend:


https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/citizens-united-v-federal-election-commission-aclu-amicus-brief

Research is a wonderful thing; try it sometimes - I promise it won't hurt...


<O>

[Bubblehead1980]

BTW, re: the ACLU and who they defend:


https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/citizens-united-v-federal-election-commission-aclu-amicus-brief

Research is a wonderful thing; try it sometimes - I promise it won't hurt...


<O>


Do you even live here? I have real world experience with the ACLU.Generally speaking, they only handle cases involving non whites etc Now, is that their official policy? No but is it generally what they do? Yes. Example, I once met with the local director in my home town who refused to lift a finger to help a white, middle class guy facing some issues with the local police.Maybe a year later, same type of case, it was all over local news, black client and ACLU was helping him.This repeats itself all over the country.Do they help white people sometimes? Yes but generally ? no, unless it has do with religion. Just how it is and is one reason that organization is so reviled by many.The name and it's purpose sounds great, but the left wing loons who run the show there have ruined it, then again if I recall the founder was a communist, so makes sense.Thin they would take up the case of a tax protester? Doubt it, unless they were black, but maybe not even then.

[vienna]

Still pathetic...


<O>

[Bubblehead1980]

BTW, re: the ACLU and who they defend:


https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/citizens-united-v-federal-election-commission-aclu-amicus-brief

Research is a wonderful thing; try it sometimes - I promise it won't hurt...


<O>

Ok, so they got it right for once, but I will maintain my stance.That is what I said generally speaking, meaning they may get it right sometimes but like I mentioned in other post, they have an agenda and it does not always involve all citizens.

[Sailor Steve]

Too much excitement! Vienna, please tone down the sarcasm. It's not much better than out-and-out insult. Bubblehead, please don't get so wound up. You have to understand that while you may be right about this, you also be wrong.

[vienna]

Sorry Steve, will comply... :up:


<O>

[vienna]

From a Google search (search term:"ACLU defend conservative"):

http://www.aclufightsforchristians.com/

http://www.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/07/21/aclu-defending-gun-rights-but-that-wont-convince-the-wingnuts-nobodys-coming-after-their-guns

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/10/02/us/aclu-boasts-wide-portfolio-of-cases-but-conservatives-see-partisanship.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2005/01/aclu-defends-religious-conservatives.html

http://blogs.e-rockford.com/applesauce/2012/07/27/aclu-defends-chick-fil-as-right-to-be-homophobic/#axzz2joAnNATh

http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conservative/2011/01/when-the-aclu-defends-right-to-bear-arms-345008.html

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/07/21/us/civil-liberties-union-asks-court-to-quash-iran-contra-indictment.html


There are a whole lot more but I leave that to others to look up...


And this has been argued before - in 2006!:

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=222262



<O>

[TarJak]

Bubbles, what have you done about this injustice? Have you written to your congressman or senator to get the unjust law repealed? Have you made any attempt to assist the persecuted?

Posting a poorly researched rant on Subsim is the best way to get the law changed? Try doing something about it, if it is such a problem that gets up your nose so much.

[vienna]

^^^ What he said +1 ...


<O>

[Cybermat47]

Bubbles, what have you done about this injustice? Have you written to your congressman or senator to get the unjust law repealed? Have you made any attempt to assist the persecuted?

Posting a poorly researched rant on Subsim is the best way to get the law changed? Try doing something about the problem if it is such a problem that gets up your nose so much.

That's... that's actually a very good point.

[Bilge_Rat]

The guvernment's view...

MICHIGAN WOMAN ARRESTED FOR CRIMINAL CONTEMPT

WASHINGTON – Doreen Hendrickson of Commerce Township, Mich., was arrested today following an indictment by a federal grand jury for criminal contempt, the Justice Department and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) announced.

Hendrickson and her husband, Peter Hendrickson, filed tax returns for 2002 and 2003 on which they claimed more than $20,000 in fraudulent tax refunds. These returns were based on the frivolous argument set forth in Peter Hendrickson's book, Cracking the Code, that only federal, state and local government employees are liable for the payment of income taxes. In May 2007, as part of a lawsuit against the Hendricksons filed by the department's Tax Division, U.S. District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds in Detroit entered a permanent injunction that barred the Hendricksons from filing additional false tax returns. Judge Edmunds also ordered the Hendricksons to file amended 2002 and 2003 returns. According to the indictment, Doreen Hendrickson violated this injunction by failing to file amended 2002 and 2003 tax returns and by filing a false 2008 tax return that was based on the arguments in her husband's book.

An indictment is merely an accusation, and the defendant is presumed innocent unless proven guilty.

This case was investigated and is being prosecuted by Trial Attorneys Melissa S. Siskind and Jeffrey B. Bender of the Tax Division, with the assistance of IRS-Criminal Investigation.

http://www.justice.gov/tax/2013/txdv13657.htm

nothing to see here folks, move along...

[Bilge_Rat]

the IRS view...


The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments

(...)

4. Contention: The only “employees” subject to federal income tax are employees of the federal government.

This contention asserts that the federal government can tax only employees of the federal government; therefore, employees in the private sector are immune from federal income tax liability. This argument is based on a misinterpretation of section 3401, which imposes responsibilities to withhold tax from “wages.” That section establishes the general rule that “wages” include all remuneration for services performed by an employee for his employer. Section 3401(c) goes on to state that the term “employee” includes “an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof . . . .”

The Law: Section 3401(c) defines “employee” and states that the term “includes an officer, employee or elected official of the United States . . . .” This language does not address how other employees’ wages are subject to withholding or taxation. Section 7701(c) states that the use of the word “includes” “shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.” Thus, the word “includes” as used in the definition of “employee” is a term of enlargement, not of limitation. It makes federal employees and officials a part of the definition of “employee,” which generally includes private citizens. The IRS warned taxpayers of the consequences of making this frivolous argument. Rev. Rul. 2006-18 (http://www.irs.gov/irb/2006-15_IRB/ar07.html), 2006-1 C.B. 743.
Relevant Case Law:

Montero v. Commissioner, 354 F. App’x 173 (5th Cir. 2009) – the court affirmed a $20,000 section 6673(a) penalty against the petitioner for advancing frivolous arguments that he is not an employee earning wages as defined by sections 3121 and 3401.
Sullivan v. United States, 788 F.2d 813, 815 (1st Cir. 1986) – the court imposed sanctions on the taxpayer for bringing a frivolous appeal and rejected his attempt to recover a civil penalty for filing a frivolous return, stating “to the extent [he] argues that he received no ‘wages’. . . because he was not an ‘employee’ within the meaning of 26 U.S.C. § 3401(c), that contention is meritless. . . . The statute does not purport to limit withholding to the persons listed therein.”

United States v. Latham, 754 F.2d 747, 750 (7th Cir. 1985) – calling the instructions the taxpayer wanted given to the jury “inane,” the court said, “[the] instruction which indicated that under 26 U.S.C. § 3401(c) the category of ‘employee’ does not include privately employed wage earners is a preposterous reading of the statute. It is obvious within the context of [the law] the word ‘includes’ is a term of enlargement not of limitation, and the reference to certain entities or categories is not intended to exclude all others.”

United States v. Hendrickson, 100 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2007-5395, 2007 WL 2385071 (E.D. Mich. May 2, 2007) – the court permanently barred Peter and Doreen Hendrickson, who filed tax returns on which they falsely reported their income as zero, from filing tax returns and forms based on frivolous claims in Hendrickson’s book, “Cracking the Code,” that only federal, state, or local government workers are liable for federal income tax or subject to the withholding of federal taxes.

Other Cases:
Peth v. Breitzmann, 611 F. Supp. 50, 53 (E.D. Wis. 1985); Pabon v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-476, 68 T.C.M. (CCH) 813, 816 (1994).




http://www.irs.gov/Tax-Professionals/The-Truth-About-Frivolous-Tax-Arguments-Section-I#_Toc350157899

This is not the first time the Hendricksons have been in Court on this issue.

Although I would agree that sending them to jail is a bit harsh. We also have tax protesters in Canada. The courts routinely reject their arguments, but Canada Revenue Agency is content just to enforce the tax assessments and collect the cash. Sending them to jail just creates martyrs to the cause.

[Bubblehead1980]

Bubbles, what have you done about this injustice? Have you written to your congressman or senator to get the unjust law repealed? Have you made any attempt to assist the persecuted?

Posting a poorly researched rant on Subsim is the best way to get the law changed? Try doing something about it, if it is such a problem that gets up your nose so much.


Tarjak, I am involved with this offline and online, I have protested, I have written letters to various officials and absolutely plan to write a book one day in the future on this issue.Once I am practicing, I plan to handle as many of these type of cases as possible, .Honestly, you don't know me and it's insulting for you to sit here and say all I have done is talk about this on subsim.I share the message as much as possible, so why don't you think before you speak, thanks.

Poorly researched? no I looked them up, I see them as victims of a tyrannical government.I coudl care less if they broke this law.They are standing up to an unjust law and now, the wife is being persecuted, even after the judge offered a reasonable compromise but the tyrants at the IRS said NO, because they want to show their power by putting a citizen in jail for daring to challenge them.

[Cybermat47]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G56VgsLfKY4

:O:

[Bubblehead1980]

the IRS view...



http://www.irs.gov/Tax-Professionals/The-Truth-About-Frivolous-Tax-Arguments-Section-I#_Toc350157899

This is not the first time the Hendricksons have been in Court on this issue.

Although I would agree that sending them to jail is a bit harsh. We also have tax protesters in Canada. The courts routinely reject their arguments, but Canada Revenue Agency is content just to enforce the tax assessments and collect the cash. Sending them to jail just creates martyrs to the cause.


Yes and those that stand up to this are PATRIOTS. I wish I had the guts to stand up to it the way they have, perhaps one day I will be in a position that I can.I do feel I can do more from outside a jail cell than in but much how Mandela languished in prison for many years until his country came to it's senses, some of us will until enough of our citizens see the light.That is the most frustrating part.I honestly get very angry when I hear fellow citizens taking the side of the government here, the amount of obedience and compliance, aka servitude that is ingrained in the average american is just disturbing

[Bubblehead1980]

Too much excitement! Vienna, please tone down the sarcasm. It's not much better than out-and-out insult. Bubblehead, please don't get so wound up. You have to understand that while you may be right about this, you also be wrong.


Thank you for being fair.I do tend to get fired up on this subject, especially those who defend the government.Like I always say, there are possibilities I am wrong but this is a case when I know I am not.Facts are cut and dry, they oppose the government and income tax, that aside, she is being persecuted because refuses to sign a document, so they want to put her in prison.

[Bubblehead1980]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G56VgsLfKY4

:O:

lol I remember seeing that as a kid. too funny

[AndyJWest]

Tarjak, I am involved with this offline and online, I have protested, I have written letters to various officials and absolutely plan to write a book one day in the future on this issue.Once I am practicing, I plan to handle as many of these type of cases as possible, .Honestly, you don't know me and it's insulting for you to sit here and say all I have done is talk about this on subsim.I share the message as much as possible, so why don't you think before you speak, thanks.

Poorly researched? no I looked them up, I see them as victims of a tyrannical government.I coudl care less if they broke this law.They are standing up to an unjust law and now, the wife is being persecuted, even after the judge offered a reasonable compromise but the tyrants at the IRS said NO, because they want to show their power by putting a citizen in jail for daring to challenge them.

So you will be 'defending' people by saying "I could care less if they broke this law". Yeah. That'll work. Sure...

[Ducimus]

I haven't read the article, not going to, but i did quickly glance at it, to see the article title. I just have to say that one should avoid overusing words like "Tyranny". Particuarly in a post title. (Yes I know I've used this word myself, but I try to avoid it's use) Something like "overbearing" would have been a better choice. If you start out slamming down powerful words before the opening statement of your post, to the casual viewer its like going from 0 to full retard in 0.5 seconds.

[Bubblehead1980]

So you will be 'defending' people by saying "I could care less if they broke this law". Yeah. That'll work. Sure...


Of course not, there are other ways to do it, but this is not court.

[Bubblehead1980]

I haven't read the article, not going to, but i did quickly glance at it, to see the article title. I just have to say that one should avoid overusing words like "Tyranny". Particuarly in a post title. (Yes I know I've used this word myself, but I try to avoid it's use) Something like "overbearing" would have been a better choice. If you start out slamming down powerful words before the opening statement of your post, to the casual viewer its like going from 0 to full retard in 0.5 seconds.


I see your point but I prefer to call it what it is.I believe downplaying it as simply being "overbearing" does a real disservice to the victims.

[AndyJWest]

Of course not, there are other ways to do it, but this is not court.

Ok then, how would you defend them?

[Ducimus]

I see your point but I prefer to call it what it is.I believe downplaying it as simply being "overbearing" does a real disservice to the victims.

Well, ask yourself this, what is the greater disservice? Downplaying your choice of words, or not having been heard at all? If your trying to convey something, you need to entice the reader to read, and in these politically charged times, if you don't choose your words carefully, it doesn't get read. Just, speaking generally of course. On this forum, reputations being what they are, for right or wrong, everyone already has their mind made up on who' who and what's what, so it might not matter how you craft your words anyway. Although I think some folks will applaud you for having done so just the same.

[Sailor Steve]

Like I always say, there are possibilities I am wrong but this is a case when I know I am not.
And that's what I'm talking about. Believing in something, and being passionate about it, is a good thing, but you have to be able to show it, not just say it. If you can't show it, you don't know it.

Facts are cut and dry, they oppose the government and income tax, that aside, she is being persecuted because refuses to sign a document, so they want to put her in prison.
It is not a fact that she is being persecuted, it is an opinion. The government's opinion is that she is being prosecuted, and rightly so. My opinion is that the law needs to be changed and the IRS needs to go, but it has to be done within the law.

It is an undeniable fact that she broke the law. Right or wrong, no government can ever let that go unanswered, especially if the law is an arbitrary one. It's not a matter of wanting to "show their power", it's a matter of using that power or losing it. If they let this go it will only encourage others. The jury will decide this.

[Oberon]

but this is not court.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/09/08/article-1310125-0B188959000005DC-865_468x375.jpg

"You are in the court-room of world opinion, and you can answer, yes or no?"

[Bubblehead1980]

Ok then, how would you defend them?

jury nullification, it is a beautiful thing.

[Sailor Steve]

Jefferson's original 'Life, liberty and property' was altered to "pursuit of Happiness" to enable Justice John Marshall in McCulloch vs Maryland to pronounce" The power to tax is the power to destroy". This has never been overturned.
Huh? John Locke's "Life, liberty and property" was altered by Jefferson in 1776, when John Marshall was twenty. He didn't become Chief Justice until 1801, twenty-five years after Jefferson's epic. Pretty good foresight on Jefferson's part.

[Bubblehead1980]

Well, ask yourself this, what is the greater disservice? Downplaying your choice of words, or not having been heard at all? If your trying to convey something, you need to entice the reader to read, and in these politically charged times, if you don't choose your words carefully, it doesn't get read. Just, speaking generally of course. On this forum, reputations being what they are, for right or wrong, everyone already has their mind made up on who' who and what's what, so it might not matter how you craft your words anyway. Although I think some folks will applaud you for having done so just the same.

I see your point, I think it when it comes to this forum, most of the vocal ones have a side and will either agree or disagree, although some surprise me and switch sides.I seek no affirmation from others, spreading the message works. Myself and others have been sounding the alarm about Barack Hussein Obama, obamacare, etc for years now and finally, it seems americans and even some of the media are waking up, his 39% approval ratings show this along with ABC news grilling his press boy Carney rather tough as of late.I enjoy, even if it is years late, having others confirm I was right when the undeniable results come out.the IRS has always been a tyrannical thing as has the 16th amendment which predate obama but that agency has become much more of a political tool since he came to power.

Anyways, I see your point, just prefer to called a spade a spade so speak, this is tyranny and calling it anything else is understating the danger.

[Bubblehead1980]

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/09/08/article-1310125-0B188959000005DC-865_468x375.jpg

"You are in the court-room of world opinion, and you can answer, yes or no?"

Adlai Stevenson? REALLY? lol

[Wolferz]

So, where's all the research regarding the illegal means used to pass the income tax laws?:arrgh!:

[AndyJWest]

jury nullification, it is a beautiful thing.

A lawyer defending a criminal case may zealously advocate for the acquittal of his client using any evidentiary argument for which he has a reasonable good faith basis. Current legal standards strongly disfavor jury nullification and prohibit express exhortations that a jury nullify the law. Accordingly, a lawyer may not, consistent with the rules of professional conduct, expressly urge a jury to disregard the law. Nor may a lawyer disregard a ruling of the tribunal limiting the scope of permissible argument.

http://www.dcbar.org/for_lawyers/ethics/legal_ethics/opinions/opinion320.cfm

[Bubblehead1980]

http://www.dcbar.org/for_lawyers/ethics/legal_ethics/opinions/opinion320.cfm


Andy, I know this, does not mean can't do it in a roundabout way and get it to work, if attorney is skilled enough, I have witnessed it. gaming the system works.

[Mr Quatro]

Myself and others have been sounding the alarm about Barack Hussein Obama, obamacare, etc for years now and finally, it seems americans and even some of the media are waking up, his 39% approval ratings show this along with ABC news grilling his press boy Carney rather tough as of late.

Wow! A new record of sorts ... 47 post before Obama's name came out in the open. :up:

[Bubblehead1980]

So, where's all the research regarding the illegal means used to pass the income tax laws?:arrgh!:

I did not say illegal, I said unjust. There was some sketchy details in the passage of the 16th Amendment also, but it is the law and thus needs to be repealed.Some Patriots choose not to follow it and more power to them.I feel that I can serve the cause better from outside a jail cell than in so don't have the will/guts to outright break such laws currently.Laws that are harmful are unjust so disobeying them is warranted.Really, if enough people stood up and refused to give their money, we would see a change but I understand why it does not happen but perhaps will one day.

[TarJak]

Tarjak, I am involved with this offline and online, I have protested, I have written letters to various officials and absolutely plan to write a book one day in the future on this issue.Once I am practicing, I plan to handle as many of these type of cases as possible, .
Well done you. What response have you gotten? I can only assume you are using different language to suit your audience? Using your usual subsim style is likely to get your correspondence put in the round file pretty quickly.

Honestly, you don't know me and it's insulting for you to sit here and say all I have done is talk about this on subsim.I share the message as much as possible, so why don't you think before you speak, thanks.
I could care less about whether you feel insulted. I also could care less about what you think of me or my posts here. We both know it doesn't matter. Or at least one of us does.:03:


Poorly researched? no I looked them up, I see them as victims of a tyrannical government.I coudl care less if they broke this law.They are standing up to an unjust law and now, the wife is being persecuted, even after the judge offered a reasonable compromise but the tyrants at the IRS said NO, because they want to show their power by putting a citizen in jail for daring to challenge them.
:roll:

[Jimbuna]

I'm thinking four to five pages for this one. :yep:

Your estimation is on track.