Reduce your debt!! ... I'm curious.

[miklin]

Originally Posted by Batalov

It took me a few years to shed any doubt that people are the same in the countries on both sides of the curtain. If it is any consolation, now that U.S.of A. mentality turned close to communistic ("I was misled by vultures, so I deserve to keep my grab and everyone else must help me, bail me, bail me, reduce my debt!" ~= "From each according to ability, to each according to his needs"), the ex-U.S.S.R. spiraled beyond capitalism into complete lawlessness (because common people stopped thinking for 70 years and now they have no idea how to count money on any level, this muscle is atrophied there). This see-saw will bounce for a while, I guess... Wild West in Russia, socialism in America, and back... I am exaggerating, of course, for simplicity.

And what in Russia all so is bad???

[joblack]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

Reality check: Do you actually think that if the income tax weren't legal, it would still be enforced this many decades after it was instituted?

How many tax-protesters/nonpayers who actually argued in court that the income tax was illegal do you want to interview in their federal prison visiting rooms? (See below for Sherry Peel Jackson)

The Internet allows people to broadcast to the world any old unfounded idea they have, whereas they used to be limited to having pamphlets printed up and handed out to folks passing by.

For more reality, see http://www.keytlaw.com/irs/taxarguments.htm:
... or "The Tax Protester FAQ" at http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html

Check out the documentation ... your 'argument' that it couldn´t be illegal because it is used so many years is flaud. In Germany we had laws which were prosecuted until somebody tried to stop it with the help of the 'Bundesverfassungsgericht' (equivalent to the Supreme Court).

Originally Posted by cheesehead

Reply from http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...084856AA4vfoo: (Edit: that page now says the question has been deleted (?!). However, the link to evans-legal.com does work.)

"You can ignore Internet conspiracy theory videos like "America: Freedom to Fascism" and "Zeitgeist". They are full of inaccuracies, erroneous information, and out-of-context quotes. Go to http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html and look up almost all income tax related arguments brought forth in those films and see that they are wrong. BTW, Sherry Peel Jackson, one of the people interviewed in Freedom to Fascism was recently CONVICTED of failing to file income tax returns. The trial lasted two days and the jury only needed 45 minutes to convict her on all counts. The stuff on the Federal Reserve in both of those films is also wrong."

- - -

From the OP [my emphasis]:

"... companies telling consumers ...

... Credit companies would rather get "some" money ... [from] the person going bankrupt ..."

I didn't say that everything is true in 'From Freedom to Fascism' but I'm in the business long enough that I know that 'generic conspiracy bashing' doesn't help to find more accurate information.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by joblack

Check out the documentation

I have. See below.

But you give no sign that you have yet followed the links I provided (I apologize for the erroneous trailing colons on two of the URLs, but I have since posted corrections) to where you could find corroboration of my position.

your 'argument' that it couldn´t be illegal because it is used so many years is flaud.

I presented that argument as a lead-off reality check, not claiming that it was either my only argument or was a clincher.

I then referred you to places where you could read more substantial answers yourself.

In Germany we had laws which were prosecuted until somebody tried to stop it with the help of the 'Bundesverfassungsgericht' (equivalent to the Supreme Court).

... and you don't think that there have been any challenges to the income tax law in U.S. federal courts, even though I specifically referred to convictions of folks who had done so? You don't think that, in a country where many far-less-consequential laws have been challenged all the way to the national Supreme Court in widely publicized efforts, the law on which the income tax is based has somehow never been similarly challenged?

Yes, indeed -- do, by all means, check out the documentation ... on the federal side as well. You can find, as indicated in the reply I quoted from answers.yahoo.com, that each of the income-tax-is-illegal arguments is countered by available legal evidence and shown to be incomplete, out-of-context, or just plain wrong.

I have followed the trail of those anti-income-tax arguments myself, a few years ago. I spent some time reading through several anti-income-tax sites to see what arguments they had. I knew immediately from my previous knowledge that some of their arguments were flawed, and I looked up the evidence that countered the arguments I hadn't seen before.

(BTW, while i was composing my previous reply, I consciously recalled such situations as what you referred to in Germany. Since I gave you links to where you could find counters to the anti-tax arguments, which I expected you to investigate, I didn't bother mentioning that thought. There have been numerous U.S. federal court decisions, including of the U.S. Supreme Court, confirming the validity of the federal income tax.)

I didn't say that everything is true in 'From Freedom to Fascism' but I'm in the business long enough that I know that 'generic conspiracy bashing' doesn't help to find more accurate information.

Did you, as advocated in the answers.yahoo.com quote, "Go to http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html and look up almost all income tax related arguments brought forth in those films and see that they are wrong", in accordance with your own admonition to check out the documentation?

I warn you: one of my pet peeves is having people instruct me to do something ("Check out ...") they themselves will not do! If you continue to fail to show that you have examined the evidence on the federal side to which you have been guided by links I provided, I may not be gentle in my responses.

OTOH, if, after genuinely tracking down what they provide, you find the answers at the links I gave above to be insufficient, I will dig through my past bookmarks collections to find other sites that I read during my earlier investigation of the income tax protesters' arguments.

- - - - -

BTW, in case you wish to challenge me, in return, to view videos like "America - From Freedom to Fascism":

I currently have a dialup connection that makes it impractical to view videos unless they're quite short (which I suppose those are not), but I am willing to review textual anti-tax sites you recommend.

[Batalov]

Originally Posted by miklin

And what in Russia all so is bad???

Did I say something about all being bad? Is Wild West = bad?

I guess I was trying to understand why people don't take all this radio spam for what it is - and I think it is because of the mentality shift which is induced by the travesty at the very top of the pyramid.

Surely, there are legitimate debt reductions. They must be played out on the verge of bancruptcy, because if you go bancrupt they won't get anything at all. So you have to play convincingly. Ah well, that's been said here already. So if the agency will help you defraud the lenders then it's no good, and if you are really almost bancrupt then you most likely don't need them. To use those sharks' services when you are as much ok as your neighbor (which I hope you are) is a disservice to yourself - you will get in more trouble.


P.S. That reminds me that when this thread was still 2 messages long I was tempted to respond "Yeah! Reduce you debt and increase your ..... - all in one place! all by the same people" but I chuckled and thought that this was too obvious and didn't do it. For me spam is spam, I don't discriminate. Radio spam? It's older than our parents!

[joblack]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

If you continue to fail to show that you have examined the evidence on the federal side to which you have been guided by links I provided, I may not be gentle in my responses.

Don´t patronize me! I´m not your little pal nor I´m here to 'legally proof' it. If you want to be an a'hole there a many other places to be that.

That the Supreme Court decided against it so far is right, but in my opinion that doesn´t mean it´s legal.

The Supreme Court decides differently in every epoch - how can that be the absolute last instance whats legal and whats not? The flip-flop strategy can be seen by other topics like abortion or same sex mariage.

The Income Tax came with the FED act from the December 13th, 1913. If you read the constitution you will see that the money (=coins) have to be released by the government. The FED as a semi-private organization had gone around it by releasing dollar bills (not coins). That was never intended by The Founders.

If the Supreme Court would decide against an income tax the USA would most probably go bancrupt.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by joblack

I´m not your little pal nor I´m here to 'legally proof' it.

... nor have you yet shown that you have followed your own "Check out ..." admonition by reading and digesting the information at the links I gave you!

That the Supreme Court decided against it so far is right, but in my opinion that doesn´t mean it´s legal.

... which is why the links I gave you lead to refutations of a multitude of anti-tax arguments, not just one ...

but you haven't discovered that, yet, have you?

(BTW, it's a little odd that you write that after having previously posted, "In Germany we had laws which were prosecuted until somebody tried to stop it with the help of the 'Bundesverfassungsgericht' (equivalent to the Supreme Court)". Are you trying to say that the Bundesverfassungsgericht was/is more ... (some adjective) ... in Germany than the U.S. Supreme Court is in the U.S.? Or what?)

The Income Tax came with the FED act from the December 13th, 1913. If you read the constitution you will see that the money (=coins) have to be released by the government. The FED as a semi-private organization had gone around it by releasing dollar bills (not coins). That was never intended by The Founders.

... and if you had actually read the stuff in the "Tax Protester FAQ" to which I linked, you would have found

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#FRNs

Receipt of Federal Reserve Notes is not “income” because Federal Reserve Notes are not lawful money (“coins in gold or silver”) within the meaning of the constitution.

Although tax protesters and other critics of modern banking like to claim only gold and silver can be “money,” there is no such limitation in the Constitution. Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution states that “No State shall ... coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts ...,” but Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 states that Congress shall have the power “To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin,” with no mention of any restriction to gold or silver. This difference has been clearly recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court:

“The constitutional authority of Congress to provide a currency for the whole countryis now firmly established ... By the constitution of the United States, the several states are prohibited from coining money, emitting bills of credit, or making anything but gold or silver a tender of payment of debts. But no intention can be inferred from these to deny to Congress either of these powers.... Under the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States, and to issue circulating notes for the money borrowed, its powers to define the quality and force of those notes as currency is as broad as the like power over a metallic currency under the power to coin money and to regulate the value thereof. Under the two powers, taken together, Congress is authorized to established a national currency, either in coin or in paper and to make the currency lawful money for all purposes, as regards the national government or private individuals.”

Juilliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421, 446 (1884).

How do courts respond when taxpayers claim that the receipt of federal reserve notes is not “income”?

“Plaintiffs further seek an injunction against the Internal Revenue Service (‘IRS’) to prevent tax collection activities on federal reserve notes, contending that federal reserve notes are not lawful money of the United States ‘as defined and intended by the spirit of the Constitution’ and that Congress has violated the separation of powers doctrine by issuing federal reserve notes which are not redeemable in coin, thereby rendering federal reserve notes ‘counterfeit securities.’ ... Plaintiffs are incorrect.

“The contention that paper money is illegal has been consistently rejected. [Citations omitted.]

“Congress has exercised this power [to establish a national currency] by delegation to the federal reserve system. 12 U.S.C. section 411. Federal reserve notes are legal tender for all debts, including taxes. 31 U.S.C. section 392; Milam v. U.S. 524 F.2d 629 (9th Cir. 1974). The United States Constitution, art. 1, section 10, ‘prohibits the states from declaring legal tender anything other than gold or silver, but does not limit Congress’ power to declare what shall be legal tender for all debts.’ U.S. v. Rifen, 577 F.2d 1111,1112 (8th Cir. 1978). Since Congress has done so, there can be no valid challenge to the legality of federal reserve notes. United States v. Anderson, 584 F.2d 369, 374 (10th Cir. 1978).”

Wilson v. United States of America, 81 AFTR2d ¶98-785 (D.Col. 1998).


In United States v. Daly, 481 F.2d 28 (8th Cir. 1973), the court affirmed a conviction for willfully failing to file income tax returns, describing the argument that “the only ‘Legal Tender Dollars’ are those which contain a mixture of gold and silver and that only those dollars may be constitutionally taxed” as “clearly frivolous.”


See also, Guaranty Trust Co. v. Henwood, 307 U.S. 247 (1939); Norman v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 294 U.S. 240 (1935); United States v. Kelley, 539 F.2d 1199 (9th Cir. 1976), cert. den. 429 U.S. 963 (1976); United States v. Wangrud, 533 F.2d 495 (9th Cir. 1976), cert. den. 429 U.S. 818; United States v. Daly, 481 F.2d 28 (8th Cir. 1937), cert den. 414 U.S. 1064 (1973); Cupp v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 68 (1975), aff’d 559 F.2d 1207 (3rd Cir. 1975); United State v. Porth, 426 F.2d 519 (10th Cir. 1970), cert. den. 400 U.S. 824 (1970); See also, United States v. Condo, 741 F.2d 238, 239 (9th Cir. 1984) (affirming criminal conviction for tax fraud and rejecting as “frivolous” the argument that Federal Reserve Notes are not valid currency, cannot be taxed, and are merely “debts”); United States v. Rickman, 638 F.2d 182, 184 (10th Cir. 1980) (affirming criminal conviction for willfully failing to file a return and rejecting the taxpayer’s argument that “the Federal Reserve Notes in which he was paid were not lawful money within the meaning of Art. 1, section 8, United States Constitution”).


For more information on the federal reserve system, see Debunking the Federal Reserve Conspiracy Theories by Edward Flaherty.


The claim that “Federal Reserve Notes are not taxable income when paid to a taxpayer because they are not gold or silver and may not be redeemed for gold or silver” has been identified by the IRS as a “frivolous position” that can result in a penalty of $5,000 when asserted in a tax return or included in certain collection-related submissions. Notice 2007-30, 2007-14 I.R.B. 883.

... but you haven't actually checked out that documentation yet, have you? (Or else you wouldn't have set forth that faulty "coins" argument in this latest posting of yours, would you?)

Re-read my "pet peeve" warning in my previous posting. I'll stop patronizing you after you actually show us that you practice what you preach!

I'm familiar with the common bluffing game played in online forums wherein each poster postures as an authority countering the arguments presented by the other side, but has/will not actually done/do the work of looking up what's available on the Internet even when links are handily provided. I will continue to call your bluffs on this matter, joblack, so that every other reader of this thread will see which side actually has the valid arguments and which does not. I will continue to demonstrate, when necessary, that the links I post actually have pertinent information and refute the shallow anti-tax arguments you present, just as I have actually shown, not merely bluffed, in this posting.

[joblack]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

Re-read my "pet peeve" warning in my previous posting. I'll stop patronizing you after you actually show us that you practice what you preach!

I'm familiar with the common bluffing game played in online forums wherein each poster postures as an authority countering the arguments presented by the other side, but has/will not actually do the work of looking up what's available on the Internet even when links are handily provided. I will continue to call your bluffs on this matter, joblack, so that every other reader of this thread will see which side actually has the valid arguments and which does not. I will continue to demonstrate that the links I post actually have pertinent information and refute the shallow anti-tax arguments you present, just as I have actually shown, not merely bluffed on my part.

At first: preaching has to be left in the church. In scientific argumentation it has no practical effect and people who are talking in that manner are normally (religious) nuts ...

Your link about the myths of the FED ( http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill.../flaherty.html - Debunking Federal Reserve) is partly not correct.

Myth #1: The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was crafted by Wall Street bankers and a few senators in a secret meeting.

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill...flaherty1.html

The author G. Edward Griffin


from the book The Creature from Jekyll Island proofed the secret meetings.

Myth #8: If it were not for the Federal Reserve charging the government interest, the budget would be balanced and we would have no national debt.

If the Government would create their own money they couldn´t be in debt to their own people (they could be in debt to foreign countries but this is a different topic).

The actual monetary system is flaud per se because it needs exponential growth to exist - this problem wouldn´t be solved by just letting the government create the money.
---

The other claims of Mr. Evans haven´t been double checked by me yet. As you know everybody can open a site in the internet and links are as worthy as the person who stand behind it.

I can´t see a bluff on my side - you have skipped my other arguments so far but demanding instant answers for your hudge link material.

My suggestion is that you adjust your behaviour and don´t play the 'typical lawer' ...

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by joblack

At first: preaching has to be left in the church. In scientific argumentation it has no practical effect and people who are talking in that manner are normally (religious) nuts ...

There are also secular definitions.

From Webster's Third New International Dictionary:

"¹preach ... vi ... 2 : to urge acceptance or abandonment of an idea or course of action ... vt ... 2 to advocate earnestly"

By "preach" I referred to your "Check out the documentation" imperative phrase directed to me.

Your link about the myths of the FED ( http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill.../flaherty.html - Debunking Federal Reserve) is partly not correct.

Myth #1: The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was crafted by Wall Street bankers and a few senators in a secret meeting.

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill...flaherty1.html

The author G. Edward Griffin


from the book The Creature from Jekyll Island proofed the secret meetings.

Myth #8: If it were not for the Federal Reserve charging the government interest, the budget would be balanced and we would have no national debt.

If the Government would create their own money they couldn´t be in debt to their own people (they could be in debt to foreign countries but this is a different topic).

The actual monetary system is flaud per se because it needs exponential growth to exist - this problem wouldn´t be solved by just letting the government create the money.

I can't tell what you quoted from one source, what you quoted from another, which part is your own words, and what it is that is partly not correct. Will you please clarify this?

[garo]

joblack, please keep the discussion civil. Name calling "a'hole" is not permitted on the forums.

[cheesehead]

But I need to apologize for being too belligerent.

Stuff like claiming the income tax is illegal, or similar schemes in which some people have been manipulated by others into passing on bogus stuff (stuff that the manipulators know is bogus, but try to deceive others into believing), on the Internet or elsewhere, are hot-buttons with me. I hate it when I see manipulative people persuade others to believe bogus claims, and thus lead them to join in spreading the deception. (joblack is not on the manipulative side of this. I'm not so much angry at joblack -- other than the relatively minor matter of do-as-I-say checking out of references -- as I am at the tactics of the tax-protesting movement leaders who by now know very well what the law is and means in regard to legality of the income tax.)

I'll try (once again) to remember that as soon as I realize that I'm reacting to a hot-button issue, I need to take a break to settle down.

- - -

Footnote about a similar case: Some leaders of the creationist (creation science, intelligent design, teach-the-controversy, ...) movement are manipulative rather than sincere, since by now they've been informed many times over many years about their misquotations and out-of-context quotations of statements by scientists about evolution, and misuse of scientific principles, but keep publishing their distortions over and over. I'm thinking of Michael Behe in particular -- I've seen the correspondence some leading (evolutionary) scientists have sent him about this.

[joblack]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

There are also secular definitions.

From Webster's Third New International Dictionary:

"¹preach ... vi ... 2 : to urge acceptance or abandonment of an idea or course of action ... vt ... 2 to advocate earnestly"

By "preach" I referred to your "Check out the documentation" imperative phrase directed to me.

I can't tell what you quoted from one source, what you quoted from another, which part is your own words, and what it is that is partly not correct. Will you please clarify this?

It´s a link from your link

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#FRNs

The bold sentences are from your source, the answers are from myself and are the corrections.