Just another post about THE ILLEGITIMATE IRS

It just feels like the right time for a refresher course on the IRS!

THE ILLEGITIMATE IRS
HAS RUINED AMERICA!

By: Gordon Bishop

etherzone.com...

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is a government agency that illegally became America's tax collector without the approval of the States in 1913. It is the unlawful 16th Amendment.

There are dozens of lawsuits pending before the United States Supreme Court, demanding that the U.S. Treasurer, the IRS Commissioner and the President of the United States submit the "evidence" that makes the IRS legal.

They can't! This is the biggest extortion of money in the history of America.

Who loves the tax collector?

It is, of course, true that no one loves the tax collector and that taxes are the price we pay for a civil society. But we've become, actually, a more uncivil society because of the existence of the IRS. It punishes success and rewards lying, cheating and false representation in filing one's tax returns to the IRS.

If only we could all get on the same page.

To make matters worse, Barack Hussein Obama has hired more than 50,000 new IRS agents to go after the taxpayers who make government possible. What a rub. Wihout us workabees, there would be No revenues,No IRS operations -- and the collapse of the federal government.

This is fair:

The country tax collector who is responsible for the collection of property taxes is engaged in a necessary activity because it is through his or her efforts that the local police, fire departments and schools are funded.

This is not:

Unlike the local property and sales taxes, the federal income tax and the IRS have perverted the law, which is supposed to ensure equal justice, into an instrument of plunger through legislation (as contrasted with constitutional law) and regulation.

When they start pushing this new VAT, remember the only way it would be fair is if they stop taking money from our paychecks and let us KEEP WHAT WE EARN.

Most of our Founding Fathers were students of the Scottish Enlightenment, and the most influential book on their thinking was Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations," published in 1776. (Smith and Ben Franklin were personal friends.)

Smith was endorsing a proportional or "flat tax," or VAT (Value Added Tax), or sales tax.

etherzone.com...

[edit on 19-4-2010 by 5 oClock]

If you look CLOSELY at your tax forms &tc. you will see the US Federal Government puts in phrases like VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS &tc. because they know the 16th Ammendment did not get 2/3 of the states to sign on - so flatly and plainly and explicitly and truthfully, the whole Federal Tax System in the US is (tecnically and literally) a big LIE.

But who's going to go to the trouble of taking them to court and having your bank accounts illegally seized by the Feds, and then wait for a JURY of your (ahem) 'peers' to decide whether there is a Federal Tax Statutue or not .

Some people have done it and won; others not so lucky (can you say a Pair of New Hampshire Dentists?) and were found guilty of tax evasion and imprisoned (husband and wife in separate state insitutions).

I guess they wanted to make an EXAMPLE of these Yankees with Guts: clearly the Federal Govt does NOT want people to fight them over the Federal Tax Issue - but it's all not-there in Black and White !!

You either have 2/3 majority of the states or you do NOT. And they KNOW they do not have it. So they hit hard to get the American Tax Paying Slob to Back Off - and fast, too !

reply to post by Sigismundus


If we only knew half of what goes on.

Allegations of abuse

The IRS, and in particular the IRS Criminal Investigation Division (IRS CID), has on more than one occasion been accused of abusive behavior.[23][24][25][26] Statements given in hearings before the Senate Finance Committee criticize the IRS:

“[D]oes the IRS correct abuses when they become aware of them? Oftentimes, they do. However, the more important question is, does the IRS cover up occurrences of abuse? The answer is, yes! If the true number of incidences of taxpayer abuse were ever known, the public would be appalled. If the public also ever knew the number of abuses "covered up" by the IRS, there could be a tax revolt.[23]

en.wikipedia.org...

no, u dont have to pay ur taxes
but if u dont they come string u up
to a prison cell and take ur property.
Have a lovely day

Isn't income tax an "assumed duty?" meaning it's assumed you must pay income tax unless you disagree up front?

So what would be the proper way to be "unassumed?" send the IRS a tax return with "Unassumed Duty" in bold ink across the page?

I really, really enjoy these postings. Takes me back to my Posse Comitatus days.

Here is a real source, backed by the full weight of the US court system. Every myth you have listed, and many you never even heard of, are listed.

Real source for tax protesters.

This again...

Just read this article: en.wikipedia.org...

The supreme court has upheld the 16th amendment repeatedly. Also 42 states are listed as having ratified the amendment.

reply to post by 5 oClock


What is your complaint, exactly?

That you're not making enough money? I have personal friends who make over 500,000 a year (which isn't exactly a lot compared to what true "rich" people make) and they're doing just fine before taxes, and after taxes.


Why is it such a big deal for you? Perhaps if your income is too low, you should take that up with your employer, rather than blaming the IRS. After all, rich people have to pay taxes too -- and they pay a lot more than you do. They don't seem to be too upset over it, either, because they can still afford their comfortable life styles.



Or have I missed the mark? Please clarify.

Originally posted by Kaytagg
reply to post by 5 oClock

 

What is your complaint, exactly?

That you're not making enough money? I have personal friends who make over 500,000 a year (which isn't exactly a lot compared to what true "rich" people make) and they're doing just fine before taxes, and after taxes.


Why is it such a big deal for you? Perhaps if your income is too low, you should take that up with your employer, rather than blaming the IRS. After all, rich people have to pay taxes too -- and they pay a lot more than you do. They don't seem to be too upset over it, either, because they can still afford their comfortable life styles.



Or have I missed the mark? Please clarify.

Here is a better question..

Is it your business to know?

reply to post by Scarcer


Yes, definitely, because this probably has nothing to do with paying taxes, and everything to do with stagnating wages and inequality.


To reiterate, rich people aren't complaining.. Only poor people are.

(no offense if you're poor -- again, if your wages are too low, take this up with your employer, don't try to "end taxes.")

[edit on 19-4-2010 by Kaytagg]

Originally posted by Kaytagg
reply to post by Scarcer

 

Yes, definitely, because this probably has nothing to do with paying taxes, and everything to do with stagnating wages and inequality.


To reiterate, rich people aren't complaining.. Only poor people are.

(no offense if you're poor -- again, if your wages are too low, take this up with your employer, don't try to "end taxes.")

[edit on 19-4-2010 by Kaytagg]

What if the employer doesn't have the money? Take it up with the customers? Lol

Sure sure, the Rich don't complain, because who's pocket's is the money really coming out of? Yours

Raise taxes on the wealthy? They will just charge you more to get it back.

The wealthy have more options than a measly business owner.

It's really funny that the IRS has a classification of 2 different citizens here in the U.S.

They qualify you as a "taxpayer" or a "non-taxpayer" and the IRS rules only apply to those that are under the heading of "taxpayers"...

If you want to find out how you can go into the "non-taxpayers" realm, which is completely legal, and not only legal, but "supported" by the IRS, just go to

www.losthorizons.com

Once you have gone through and learned all there is to know about the "truth" of the matter, just like the "good book" says, "The truth shall set you free".

The IRS is a joke and they operate off 99% bluff and intimidation.

Remember what happened to that bully back in high school when you finally stepped up to him?

Learn the facts. Learn the truth. Live free of dis info.

peas

Originally posted by Kaytagg
reply to post by Scarcer

 

Yes, definitely, because this probably has nothing to do with paying taxes, and everything to do with stagnating wages and inequality.


To reiterate, rich people aren't complaining.. Only poor people are.

(no offense if you're poor -- again, if your wages are too low, take this up with your employer, don't try to "end taxes.")

[edit on 19-4-2010 by Kaytagg]

I would really like everyone to read the post from " Keytagg"

Shame on you to ASSume how much or how little someone makes
I could put you in your place, but instead lets just say I'm poor as dirt. When you realize where your Federal tax money goes it doesn't matter what you pay, be it 10% or 50% or YOUR EARNINGS.

Do you realize that a 1 term representative will get his/her health benefits paid for BY YOU for the rest of their lives?

Are you tired of the war machine?

Am I to ASSume that you believe there is no waste & corruption in our Gov.??

Wake up!

ps. By the way, I just recently hired on 2 new employees at a comfortable wage, just so they can get off the unemployment rolls and help pay for the DC machine.

[edit on 20-4-2010 by 5 oClock]

[edit on 20-4-2010 by 5 oClock]

Originally posted by theonlyrusty

It's really funny that the IRS has a classification of 2 different citizens here in the U.S.

They qualify you as a "taxpayer" or a "non-taxpayer" and the IRS rules only apply to those that are under the heading of "taxpayers"...

If you want to find out how you can go into the "non-taxpayers" realm, which is completely legal, and not only legal, but "supported" by the IRS, just go to

www.losthorizons.com

Once you have gone through and learned all there is to know about the "truth" of the matter, just like the "good book" says, "The truth shall set you free".

The IRS is a joke and they operate off 99% bluff and intimidation.

Remember what happened to that bully back in high school when you finally stepped up to him?

Learn the facts. Learn the truth. Live free of dis info.

peas

You know that Pete Henderson (losthorizons.com) was sentenced to 33 months, a $25,000 fine, and almost $30,000 in restitution.

Source

He followed his own advice.


Learn the facts. Learn the truth. Live free of dis info. BUT be sure of that learn'n thing.

Hi ScWizard:

Pls name the 33 states (preferably in order, and naming the Governor at the time who signed the bill) that passed the 16th Ammendment.

Oh, and be VERY accurate, please.

We're waiting.

Originally posted by Sigismundus
Hi ScWizard:

Pls name the 33 states (preferably in order, and naming the Governor at the time who signed the bill) that passed the 16th Ammendment.

Oh, and be VERY accurate, please.

We're waiting.

List of states were in that link, just scroll down a little bit. The date it was signed in each state is there too, with that much information you should be able to find the Governor of your preferred state.

Hi SC Wizard:

There is alot more to this story than your link shows - that is, if you take it step by step and look into ORIGINAL documents (Wikipedia is always a good start, but nothing more than that)

Read the US CONSTITUTION Article I, Section 2:

Reprefentatives & direct Taxes fhall be apportion’d among the feveral States which may be included within this Union, according to their refpective Numbers, which fhall be determin’d by adding to the whole Number of free Perfons, including thofe bound to Service for a Term of Years, & excluding Indians [who are] not tax’d, [to be regarded as] three fifths of all other Perfons.


The actual Enumeration fhall be made within three Years after the firft Meeting of the Congrefs of thefe United States, & within every subfequent Term of ten Years, in fuch Manner as they fhall by Law direct.


US CONSTITUTIONAL - PROPOSED AMMENDMENT 16

Congress shall have the Pow’r to lay & collect Taxes on Incomes, from whatever Source deriv’d, without Apportionment among the several States, & without regard to any Census or Enumeration."


Here is a telling quote from the US District Court Judge James Fox in 2003:

"If you closely examine the US Constitition’s 16th Amendment very carefully, you would find that a sufficient number of the States never actually fully ratified that Amendment in accordance with the precepts laid down in the US Constitution."

- U.S. District Court Judge James C. Fox, April, 2003.

In fact, only two of the US States ‘properly & constitutionally / legally’ ratified the proposed 16th Amendment back in 1913 - i.e. went by the book.

Yet in February 1913 Secretary of State Knox declared the 16th Amendment to have been fully ratified and the US Government has been (technically speaking) unlawfully demanding income taxes from its citizens ever since.

Article V of the U.S. Constitution specifies the Ratification process, & requires 3/4 of the States to ratify any amendment proposed by Congress.


In 1913 there were 48 States in the United States = meaning that affirmative legal action of 36 different states was required for full Ratification of any Ammendment to the US Constitution.


In 1984 a close examnination of the original state legislature documents from several KEY states shows in fact that many states that had been declared as having actually fully signed on for Ratification of the 16th Ammendment BUT had in fact NOT ratified the Amendment as expressly worded in the document.


A 16-page memorandum from the Solicitor of the Department of State, whose duty is the provision of legal opinions for the use of the Secretary of State lists the many Printer’s Errors he found in the ratification process

The 4 states listed below are among the 38 states that Philander Knox claimed ratification from.

• The Kentucky Senate voted upon the Resolution, but rejected it by a vote of 9 in favor and 22 opposed.
• The Oklahoma Senate amended the language of the 16th Amendment to have a precisely opposite meaning – that Congress SHALL NOT HAVE THE POWER TO LEVY AN INCOME TAX.

• The California legislative assembly shows NO evidence of EVER recording any Vote upon any proposal to adopt the 16th amendment proposed by Congress.

• The State of Minnesota sent nothing to the Secretary of State in Washington.

• OHIO in 1803 was thought to have been admitted to the Union, but in fact, it was not until 1953 (150th anniversary) that documents were unearthed to PROVE that both houses of the state legislature did not ratify admission to the Union in 1803: OHIO was then officially added to the UNION in 1953 by a vote of both houses of their state legislature.

• In 1913 OHIO was not ‘legally’ part of the US, (their 2 hourse of their state Legislature both-having-not- voted for admission to the Union )therefore could not legally vote on any resolution for Ammendment to the US Constitution (technically) in 1913– admitting OHIO to the Union in 1913 would be an ‘ex-post-facto’ legal action which would nullify several hundred laws on the books of that state.

In fact, only 33 states engaged in the actual physical legal voting activity of amending the language of the Amendment proposed by Congress, a power that individual states do not possess.

Since 36 states in 1913 were needed for FULL Ratification, the failure of 13 to ratify would mean the Ammendment never legally passed the State Legislatures – and that the Amendment never really legally is Law.

Technically speaking, Judge James Knox is legally correct, despite a number of federal courts upholding the Ammendment as legally binding on the states.

1913 was also the year that the Jekyll Island 'Paul Warburg-designed' Federal Reserve Banking Cartel was put into effect which is intricately related to the effects of passing the 16th Ammendment in Congress i.e. terms of raising the capital FROM THE TAXPAYERS necessary to protect the banking Cartels, specifically the internaitional financial giants e.g. the Banking Houses of JP Morgan, Bauer-Rothschild, Rockefeller and others within the Cartel.

The more you dig back into the actual paperwork, the more you see FRAUD FRAUD FRAUD written all over this socalled Ammendment.

Tax denial never really works out in anyone's favor.

Just sayin'.

reply to post by Sigismundus



You may or may not know that a guy named Bill Benson used to say many of the things you listed.

He was convicted of tax evasion back in the early 90's.

Is this your source of info?

Haven't heard this stuff for several years. Thanks for bringing back some old, friendly memories.

Hi Hinky

Actually most of this was discovered (or re-discovered !) by Judge James Fox in 2003 - as for Bensen, I imagine it was the whim of the Jury that tried his case that convicted him in the end - ditto for that famous pair of New Hampshire millionaire dentists who also had a Jury vote against them.

But several trials by Jury have vindicated US FEDERAL Income Tax evading Defendants as well - so it is kind of the luck of the draw - depends on the mind-set of the Jury that votes on the guilt or innocence of the defendant.

I (for one) would not advise taking the route of confronting the US Federal Govt on this issue as many have done in the past - some have won but MANY have lost - since it ends up costing not only time (years...), a LOT of money, and often eventual denied-access to modern bank accounts.

Most of the post-2003 arguments on the FEDERAL Income Tax provisions of Ammendment 16 have to do with the actual Constitututional wording as it pertains to the PRECISE method of passage of Ammendments to the US Constitution via the individual State Assemblies & Legislatures -

So many states that were 'officially' announced as "Ammendment 16 passed/ratified" in the Congressional Rollcall in 1913 by Secretary of State Philander Knox had SEVERAL Documents that were voted on in the State Assemblies that were worded DIFFERENTLY than the actual wording of the Constitutional Ammendment Proposition 16 - which according to congressional by-rules makes such legislation legally invalid.

And of course, technically, OHIO could not officially vote in any session of a Constitutional Conventioin prior to 1953 when they finally voted to become a State of the Union of the United States of America (apparently in 1803 both houses of their legislature did NOT vote on joining the Union !)

And of course, we are dealing with Technical LEGALITIES here, which is what the LAW in the US (and in many part of the world) have come to be all about.

See: DOCUMENT NO. 97-120, of the 97TH CONGRESS, 1st Session, entitled How Our Laws Are Made, written by Edward F. Willett, Jr. Esq.,

Law Revision Counsel of the United States House of Representatives, in which the comparable exactitude in which bills must be concurred under federal legislative rules is detailed:

"Each proposed Amendment MUST be inserted in precisely the proper place in the bill, with the spelling and punctuation exactly the same as it was adopted by the House.

It is IMPORTANT that the Senate receive a copy of the bill in the SAME PRECISE EXACT WRITTEN FORM in which it passed the House.

The preparation of such a copy is the function of the Enrolling clerk.

When the Bill has been agreed to in identical form by both Bodies - either without amendment by the Senate, or by House concurrence in the Senate amendments, or by agreement in both bodies to the conference report - a copy of the bill is enrolled for presentation to the President.

The preparation of the Enrolled Bill is a VERY painstaking and important task since it must reflect precisely the effect of all amendments, either by deletion, substitution, or addition, agreed to by both bodies.

The enrolling clerk must prepare METICUOLOUSLY the final form of the bill, as it was agreed to by both Houses, for presentation to the President.

Each Amendment must be set out in the enrollment exactly as agreed to, and all punctuation must be in accord with the action taken."

In his report on the failure of ratifications of the Income Tax Amendment to then Secretary of State Philander Knox, the Solicitor of the Department of State recognized and acknowledged the defects of ratification.

Knox failed to demand mandatory corrective action by the States.

If all of this seems picayune to people on this thread, remember that the Law if often flipped over a technicality.

But to me, at least, these discomforting FACTS about Knox and the ratification process for the 16th Ammendment (coming as it did during the rushed formation of the Federal Reserve Act that needed massive influxes of TAX revenue to bolster private banks in the Cartel) all need to be known by the wider American public (of course, none of ths means that any Jury trying a modern case of Income Tax Evasion will agree to consider ANY of these technical legalities above: a Jury can convict ANYONE of tax evasion for ANY reason they deem fit - by a simple vote in the Jury Box - and they often are not told of the facts, and/or ignore them when they pass final judgment on any one individual or corporation).