Where is the Income Tax Law?!?!-Freedom to fascism-A Must See!

Im not sure how many have seen this movie, but it is a MUST SEE!!!! This is the movie that got me started on my awakening. It point blank proves that the federal income tax is illegal. I know most cannot watch this now, but please bookmark and watch later. It is probably the single most important movie. Man I wish something like this would go viral. Would sure wake alot of people up IMO. Enjoy

There is no tax law, by law you are not obliged to pay it. Do you think the super rich pay taxes? Of course they dont

I absolutely LOVE this documentary. I saw this a while ago, and since then I have researched and found tons of evidence on how we are being forced to abide, and follow imaginary laws and rules that we put there by those that control the system, which consists of those currently in power, and those that play a huge part behind the scenes.

S&F People have to see this!!

Peace, NRE.

reply to post by AllUrChips


Yeah I remember watching this video, and there were interviews with several former IRS agents. They described hearing that there was no actual law that required citizens to pay an income tax. They thought it was silly, so they digged around to try and find it, but couldn't. So they quit their jobs, and haven't paid a dollar in their income tax since!

this documentary pretty much got me started..

feels so long ago...great watch! Aaron Russo ftw

isn't this stuff the reason for Wesley Snipes being in prison right now?



Just asking...

Yes alot of people dont know that Russo was killed( probably by the CIA) just one year after this movie came out. He was truth seeking pioneer of our day
The movie came out in 2006, he died in 2007

reply to post by Rohdan


It is. Like the movie states they use their bully strong arm force to make people comply. They scare them into compliance. The rest, well they make an example of. I think tax evasion brought down al capone as well

i used to show this documentary first when trying to "reprogram" someone...it sets them in the right "wtf"-kind of state and is not tooooo fringe.....right after that i hit them with the reptilians o.O

reply to post by AllUrChips
"Voluntary" OBVIOUSLY means mandatory.

"Income" does NOT mean what we define it as in the tax code.

2 + 2 = 5.

GOT IT?

EDIT:
Go here, read: Republic Magazine issue 5 - The Federal Income Tax Scam
Disclaimer: I'm not an attorney or legal expert. Learn and act at your own risk.

reply to post by Praetorius



Sweet thanks for the link! I will have to check it out

Originally posted by AllUrChips
reply to post by Praetorius

 

Sweet thanks for the link! I will have to check it out

Sure thing, friend. I highly recommend checking out all their issues. My subscription ran out long ago (I first found out about Republic Mag at PAUL'S RALLY FOR THE REPUBLIC IN MINNEAPOLIS 2008, YEAH!!) and I don't know if they're even still making them, but I really need to check up and resubscribe, along with picking up any back issues I missed.

Good stuff.

Sorry for the outburst. That was just such good times.

That film is full of misquotes, misconceptions and downright false claims. If this film caused your 'awakening' then you're a terribly gullible individual.

I didn't bother watching more than 20 minutes of outright lies trying to pass themselves as truth before I stopped watching.

reply to post by links234
Perhaps you can answer some questions for us, then - and these ARE honest questions:

So the reason the government outright refuses to clarify the situation, and merely relies on prosecution instead is...?

The reason former IRS agent Joseph Bannister was acquitted by a jury when the federal government went after him is...?

The reason an Illinois jury acquitted Gaylon Harrell of tax evasion charges because the judge could not provide a federal statute requiring him to pay as specified under the Illinois constitution is...?

The reason SCOTUS, in Brushaber vs. Union Pacific Railroad concluded that "the Sixteenth Amendment confers no new power of taxation on the government" is...?

It appears that whenever a jury requests in-code evidence that a person is required to pay federal taxes, the government is either unwilling or unable to provide that evidence to the satisfaction of a jury. Failing to do so even one time, despite how many successful prosecutions they may be able to secure, is damning on the face. When the question comes up, why is it not simply being proven to juries of our peers that yes - in fact, the law is right here?

Why aren't you asking that, as well? They're stealing from you, too. Their own books define income as something other than the fair exchange of wages for labor. They also define "someone required to pay federal income tax" as something different than you and I, as well as providing very confusing information in claiming it's a voluntary tax.

Can you shine some light here, that I haven't been able to find them doing clearly? Thanks in advance.

I Read the federal Mafia by Irwin schiff and that really opened my eyes how brazen these people are. You'd think since they are so corrupt they would at least have a law on the books for whatever it is they do but that's not even the case, they mostly just do as they please and make it seem like the law.

reply to post by links234


I implore you to tell us the lies. Name one lie for starters 3.2.1..........GO!
ETA: And we will be waiting

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by links234

 

Perhaps you can answer some questions for us, then - and these ARE honest questions:

So the reason the government outright refuses to clarify the situation, and merely relies on prosecution instead is...?

I'm not sure, exactly, the situation you're looking at so I don't know how to exactly answer that question.

The reason former IRS agent Joseph Bannister was acquitted by a jury when the federal government went after him is...?

Joseph Banister pays his taxes. He advised Walter Thompson to not pay his employees income taxes. As an advisor, Mr. Bannister didn't really do anything wrong, anything that the government could prove anyway. However, Mr. Thompson served 6 years in federal prison and was released in 2010. Mr. Banister has since lost his licensure as a 'tax professional.'

The reason an Illinois jury acquitted Gaylon Harrell of tax evasion charges because the judge could not provide a federal statute requiring him to pay as specified under the Illinois constitution is...?

Gaylon "Whitey" Harrell sued the federal government to stop seeking his income taxes at least three times, failing each time, prior to the IRS going after him. Which they did and they did successfully, his employer was required to pay his back taxes and Mr. Harrell was ordered to pay $3,000. He did, however, manage to evade Illinois state taxes for at least one year but was then convicted of not paying them in 2006. Mr. Harrell filed a motion to dismiss and was denied. On February 5, 2009, Harrell was sentenced to two years probation, a fine of $2,500 and court costs, and payment of his state taxes for 1996, 1997, and 1998, plus penalties and interest.

It appears that whenever a jury requests in-code evidence that a person is required to pay federal taxes, the government is either unwilling or unable to provide that evidence to the satisfaction of a jury. Failing to do so even one time, despite how many successful prosecutions they may be able to secure, is damning on the face. When the question comes up, why is it not simply being proven to juries of our peers that yes - in fact, the law is right here?

The law is Title 26 of the US Code section one imposing the tax:

There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of...

Followed by the various filing status' and their respective bracket (married, head of household, etc).

Section 61 defines 'income':

Gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;
(2) Gross income derived from business;
(3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
(4) Interest;
(5) Rents;
(6) Royalties;
(7) Dividends;

Sections 6012 requires you to file the tax:

Returns with respect to income taxes shall be made by the following:
(1)(A) Every individual having for the taxable year gross income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount

Section 6151 requires you to pay the tax:

When a return of tax is required under this title or regulations, the person required to make such return shall, without assessment or notice and demand from the Secretary, pay such tax to the internal revenue officer with whom the return is filed, and shall pay such tax at the time and place fixed for filing the return (determined without regard to any extension of time for filing the return).

Why aren't you asking that, as well? They're stealing from you, too. Their own books define income as something other than the fair exchange of wages for labor. They also define "someone required to pay federal income tax" as something different than you and I, as well as providing very confusing information in claiming it's a voluntary tax.

I don't consider it stealing, so I never bother to ask. Their definition is, basically, 'whatever source derived'. If $500,000 falls from the sky into your lap, that could possibly be taxed.

Can you shine some light here, that I haven't been able to find them doing clearly? Thanks in advance.

I hope I helped clear that up, you're welcome!

reply to post by AllUrChips


I'm sorry, it took me an hour to do all the research for a previous request. If there's anything else you'd like me to look into, let me know.

reply to post by links234


Sure. You can come up with verifiable links to your sources. I will see your title 26 and raise you a few titles.

26 USC 7806(b) says that Title 26 is not the law. In other words, "No inference, implication or presumption of legislative construction shall be drawn or made by reason of the location or grouping of any particular section or provision or portion of this title..." N.B. "legislative construction" means "law." 26 USC 4161(a) says lures must be taxed. Nordby supply Co. applied 26 USC 7806(b) to invalidate the lure tax. The Internal Revenue Code is not the law. It only defines a contract between the IRS and the individual.

www.1215.org...

reply to post by links234


What I think is misunderstood by many that follow the "tax" rules, is that you are bonded with this agreement at birth through your S.S No. and B.C , then as an adult you get a Tax ID, this after signed and agreed upon then contractually enforces the laws and statutes.

There are plenty of ways to get out of this, but with the fear of the I.R.S, and other agencies, is what makes people think they have no choice.

The reason why you will not find a "law" that states clearly that you have to pay, is that it will bring a lawsuit for "involuntary servitude" which claims that if you continue to provide monetary funds to a "person", or "corporation" under fear, and duress, then it is clearly a form of slavery.


Peace, NRE.