So in other words, you have no freaking idea. If you don't have any idea, just say so, it's ok. I don't know everything either.
Not paying income tax= not a crime (If you think it is, prove this one to me, show me the so called law that states we have to pay income tax)
Passed by Congress July 2, 1909. Ratified February 3, 1913.
Note: Article I, section 9, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 16.
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.
Moreover, in addition, the conclusion reached in the Pollock Case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class [240 U.S. 1, 17] of direct taxes on property, but, on the contrary, recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such unless and until it was concluded that to enforce it would amount to accomplishing the result which the requirement as to apportionment of direct taxation was adopted to prevent, in which case the duty would arise to disregard form and consider substance alone, and hence subject the tax to the regulation as to apportionment which otherwise as an excise would not apply to it.
...the contention that the Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax although it is relieved from apportionment and is necessarily therefore not subject to the rule of uniformity as such rule only applies to taxes which are not direct, thus destroying the two great classifications which have been recognized and enforced from the beginning, is also wholly without foundation...
This must be unless it can be said that although the Constitution, as a result of the Amendment, in express terms excludes the criterion of source of income, that criterion yet remains for the purpose of destroying the classifications of the Constitution by taking an excise out of the class to which it belongs and transferring it to a class in which it cannot be placed consistently with the requirements of the Constitution. Indeed, from another point of view, the Amendment demonstrates that no such purpose was intended, and on the contrary shows that it was drawn with the object of maintaining the limitations of the Constitution and harmonizing their operation.
...he contention that the Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax although it is relieved from apportionment and is necessarily therefore not subject to the rule of uniformity as such rule only applies to taxes which are not direct, thus destroying the two great classifications which have been recognized and enforced from the beginning, is also wholly without foundation...
We say this because it is to be observed that although from the date of the Hylton Case, because of statements made in the opinions in that case, it had come to be accepted that direct taxes in the constitutional sense were confined to taxes levied directly on real estate because of its ownership, the Amendment contains nothing repudiation or challenging the ruling in the Pollock Case that the word 'direct' had a broader significance, since it embraced also taxes levied directly on personal property because of its ownership, and therefore the Amendment at least impliedly makes such wider significance a part of the Constitution,-a condition which clearly demonstrates that the purpose was not to change the existing interpretation except to the extent necessary to accomplish the result intended; that is, the prevention of the resort to the sources from which a taxed income was derived in order to cause a direct tax on the income to be a direct tax on the source itself, and thereby to take an income tax out of the class of excises, duties, and imposts, and place it in the class of direct taxes
by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged,
The income tax, is therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax; It is the basis for determining the amount of tax.
Just because YOU say that income tax is unconstitutional won't stop the IRS from garnishing your income in the event that you don't pay taxes. Sure you can get a lawyer and play their game and not pay as much tax, but there are two certainty in life, Death and Taxes.
Originally posted by Geeky_Bubbe
In my state [US] driving is NOT a "right," it is a "privilege." Agree with that or no, it's written into the law.
United States v. Guest 383 U.S. 745 (1966) is a United States Supreme Court opinion, authored by Justice Potter Stewart, in which the court extended the protection of the 14th Amendment to citizens who suffer rights deprivations at the hands of private conspiracies, where there is minimal state participation in the conspiracy. The Court also held that there is Constitutional right to travel from state to state.
The right of the citizen to travel upon public highways and to transport his/her property thereon, either by carriage or automobile, is not a mere privilege which a City/State may prohibit at will, but a common right which he/she has under the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental right which the public and individuals cannot be rightfully deprived.
For a crime to exist, there must be an injured party. "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed on one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights.
Originally posted by Unity_99
I have a feeling this is something that would do to have a nonprofit organization in every community.
Though I'm far more radical. Finecombing through laws, to see which ones these self appointed rulers have safeguarded for the people (but now are abused) is far less important to me than for us to fundamentally realize all these laws are crimes. They're slavery. Along with their banks and realtors.
I consider most of them to outrageous and a crime to support. I denounce our governments, and courthouses, they're fascist criminal. I have never and will never give them that authority of me, my children or any person, if they take that authority it is an act of violence akin to a psycho movie or Jack the Ripper.
I refuse to play games with termininology and forms. The terminology I will use is my own words, grass roots, with my defined meanings. I do not yeild my authority.
I want to get people awake, aware, denouncing all, and opting out of this criminal slave system, and taking back their inaleiable (my definition, don't need to see whats written or not written) rights to land and resources and recreate a just moneyless world, with volunteering and education, and everyone contributing to leadership with fast methods of removing someone who goofs up or acts in self interst controlling ways, like jury duty counsels.
That way if a group is fanatatical and unloving and actually believes in punitive versus healing, we can split and do our eutopia.
Nonetheless, this may be a first step of the way, because it gets people to think of the system they're in, but its far too complicated and legalistic, on both sides, even the freeman side.
[edit on 1-8-2010 by Unity_99]
"Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion -- to go where and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct." II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135