Tyranny from the IRS

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by 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 Have you written to your congressman or senator to get the unjust law repealed?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.

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]

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

the IRS view...



http://www.irs.gov/Tax-Professionals...#_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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Cybermat47

lol I remember seeing that as a kid. too funny

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

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]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

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

Ok then, how would you defend them?

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

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]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

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]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

but this is not court.

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

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

Ok then, how would you defend them?

jury nullification, it is a beautiful thing.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Aktungbby

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.