Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

Illegal Income Taxes, Would You Pay Them?


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> Illegal Income Taxes, Would You Pay Them? Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Illegal Income Taxes, Would You Pay Them? - 12/26/2006 8:33:45 AM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline 		Illegal Income Taxes, Would You Pay Them?

First this is not a poll but but an invitation to a tax/law/constitutional/rights discussion.

If someone told you and could prove to you that the income taxes you were paying to the federal government were unconstitutional, therefore illegal what would you think or do about that?

Do we have any constitutional experts in the group here?  

From the work that Bill Benson has done and after reading the briefs noticing how diligently the government is trying to prevent litigation regarding the legality of the 16th amendment as well as attempting to disregard several other constutitionally granted rights i am inclined to think there is a smoking gun here.  Make that cannon.

Below are only 2 of many briefs of Bill vs the government in which i coverted to text and put directly on here for everyones convenience, and then also a snippet version of the governments charges and for more info you will need to get it off his site directly but i think this should be enough to wet everyone interest who are concerned with taxation as it stands today which when all things considered is approximately 50% for middle income to as high as 94% for upper income and the super wealthy elite pay no taxes at all.

So what do you think about the possibility or even the probability that the income taxes we pay today are mostly illegal?


Quick synopsis: The government is suing Bill Benson for selling his book that shows people how not to pay illegal taxes, for false advertising and lost tax revenue by saying that what Bill preaches is false and untrue, yet that same government is trying to block him from litigating his case/claim that the us government falsified the ratification of the 16th amendment in his own defense.  anyway...  

This is unbelievably good shist folks!!!     Read Read Read and lets hear your comments!  and go to the site to get more details!!! This is seriously HOT stuff imo!

So actual public court briefs that Benson is making public for us:  http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/new/home.asp

ALLEGATIONS AGAINST BENSON

The complaint asserts Benson is promoting, organizing or selling plans or arrangements and making statements regarding the excludability of income that he knows or has reason to know are false or fraudulent as to a material matter.  (Complaint, ¶ 1.a.)  In particular, the complaint alleges Benson offers for sale on his website a set of documents that Benson contends is a compendium of information:

(1) giving the purchasers of the information the education and choice toward not filing an income tax return, and (2) giving the purchasers of the information the education to say “Based on my state-of-mind, frame of mind, reliance and belief I am obeying the dictates of Constitutional law.”  (Id ., ¶¶ 5-6.)  The complaint further alleges that Benson falsely tells customers the federal income tax is unconstitutional because the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution was not properly ratified by the states, (Id ., ¶ 8.), and that those false statements constitute “false and fraudulent tax advice.”  (Id., ¶ 9.)  Finally, the complaint alleges Benson falsely tells customers “[t]o date, the IRS has steadfastly refused to prosecute any person standing on this defense.”  (Id., ¶ 11.)

<snipped the remaining 15 pages of this section for brevity>

-------------------------

RESPONSE TO BENSON’S LOCAL RULE 56.1 STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
Case 1:04-cv-07403     Document 54     Filed 12/19/2005     Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff,  )
)
v.  ) Case No. 04 C 7403
)
WILLIAM J. BENSON, individually and ) Judge Filip
d/b/a Constitutional Research Associates, )
)
Defendant.  )
                                                                            )

RESPONSE TO BENSON’S LOCAL RULE 56.1 STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
The plaintiff, the United States of America, responds to Benson’s Local Rule 56.1
Statement of Material Facts (D.E. 53) as follows:
ADDITIONAL FACTS
26 - 30. Admit.
31 - 51. Objection.  The United States objects to the purported “facts” set forth in paragraphs 31 through 51, inclusive, of Benson’s Local Rule 56.1
Statement of Material Facts.  These “facts,” which relate solely to
defendant’s contention that the Sixteenth Amendment was never ratified,
constitute matters that are irrelevant, immaterial, impertinent and
scandalous with respect to the issues and subject matter of this civil
action. Furthermore, for the reasons set forth at length in plaintiff’s reply
brief, defendant is collaterally estopped from challenging the validity of
the Sixteenth Amendment or its ratification as a result of the decision in

1468016.11
Case 1:04-cv-07403     Document 54     Filed 12/19/2005     Page 2 of 3

United States v. Benson, 941 F.2d 598, 607 (7th Cir. 1991), that held that
the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment was a nonjusticiable political
question that was “beyond review” by the federal courts.
52. Admit.
53 - 54. Deny.  Declaration of IRS Revenue Agent Paul Ponzo (D.E. 40), 14 and
15.
55 - 56. Admit.
Dated this   19th   day of December, 2005.

PATRICK FITZGERALD
United States Attorney
/s/ Robert D. Metcalfe                 
ROBERT D. METCALFE
Trial Attorney, Tax Division
U.S. Department of Justice
Washington, D.C.   
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
United States of America
--------------------------
Case 1:04-cv-07403     Document 56     Filed 12/20/2005     Page 1 of 7



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) CASE NO. 04C 7403
)
Plaintiff, ) Judge Filip
)
v.  )  Magistrate Judge Keys
)
WILLIAM J. BENSON,  )
)
Defendant. )
____________________________________)

BENSON’S MOTION TO STRIKE AND MOTION TO HAVE
FACTS DEEMED ADMITTED

Comes now Defendant, William J. Benson (“Benson”), by and through his counsel of record, Jeffrey A. Dickstein, and respectfully moves this court for an order striking paragraphs 31-51 of the Government’s Response to Benson’s Local Rule 56.1 Statement of Material Facts, and deeming as admitted the facts set forth in those paragraphs.  Benson further respectfully moves the court to strike those portions of the United States Reply Brief that fail to sufficiently state any defense to Benson’s arguments contained in his Opposition to the Government’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

Local Rules 56.1(a)(3)(B) and (b)(3)(B) require the government to controvert any additional facts that require denial of summary judgment.  Failure to controvert results in the additional facts being deemed admitted.  The issue before the court is quite simple: whether Benson’s speech that the Sixteenth Amendment was not ratified is in actuality true or false.  If his speech is true, his “tax advice” is not “false and fraudulent” and the government loses its case.  Paragraphs 31 – 51 of Benson’s statement of material facts undeniably, and conclusively, show an insufficient number of states ratified the proposed Sixteenth Amendment to allow it to

1
Case 1:04-cv-07403     Document 56     Filed 12/20/2005     Page 2 of 7

become a part of the United States Constitution.  Benson’s speech is absolutely true as a matter of fact.

The government has not, and cannot, controvert Benson’s facts.  Instead, it has imposed spurious, frivolous objections to the facts themselves.  Whether or not Benson’s speech is true is the very issue and subject matter of this civil action.  How do facts that conclusively provide the answer to that question become irrelevant, immaterial, impertinent or scandalous?  They don’t, and Plaintiff’s argument suggesting they do is patently without merit.

Benson predicted in his Motion to Dismiss the Complaint that the government would attempt to prevent him from putting on any defense.  The motion was prophetic.  According to the government, the issue of the truth or falsity of Benson’s speech is “beyond review” by the courts.  According to the government, Benson’s facts are not admissible.  Hence, according to the government, Benson is to have no defense, as a matter of law or as a matter of fact, that he hasn’t engaged in conduct subject to penalty.  The government, as well as this court, was made aware in Benson’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint that to proceed against Benson in this manner would, according to the United States Supreme Court, violate Benson’s constitutional rights to due process.  The government, with proven prior knowledge of its illegal conduct, nonetheless here proceeds.  In so proceeding, Plaintiff has asked the court to entertain a defense not allowed by years of Constitutional precedent.

One does not, in the United States, lose freedom by being subjected to an irrebutable presumption.  Yet, the last two papers filed by the Plaintiff, its Response to Benson’s Rule 56.1 Statement of Material Fact and the United States Reply Brief, seek to have the case determined by that very unconstitutional and illegal methodology.  Rule 12(f) of the Rules of Civil

2
Case 1:04-cv-07403     Document 56     Filed 12/20/2005     Page 3 of 7

Procedure authorizes this court to strike insufficient defenses from pleadings.  Benson is moving the court to strike the government’s insufficient defenses.

According to the government, the “purported ‘facts’” set forth in paragraphs 31 through 51, inclusive, of Benson’s Local Rule 56.1 Statement of Material Facts “relate solely to defendant’s contention that the Sixteenth Amendment was never ratified.”  (Response to Benson’s Local Rule 56.1 Statement of Material Facts, p. 1.)  Unless Plaintiff is using some Rules of Evidence unknown to the legal community at large, by definition Benson presented facts relevant and material to the issues and subject matter before the court.  The Plaintiff isn’t even entitled to “object” to these facts, its obligation being to “controvert” these facts “including, in the case of any disagreement, by providing specific references to the affidavits, parts of the record, and other supporting materials relied upon.”  Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(B).  The government has failed to do so.

So too, the government has not demonstrated in any way that the facts presented by Benson, including well established mathematical rules of subtraction, are impertinent or scandalous.  What is impertinent is the government’s refusal to admit the facts in light of their total inability to prove they are false.  What is scandalous is the government intentionally attempting to deny Benson due process of law and to impugn his character by suggesting he has a mental deficiency resulting in “twisted logic.”  (Response to Benson’s Local Rule 56.1


Statement of Material Facts, p. 1.)

Furthermore, the government’s contention that Benson is collaterally estopped from
challenging the validity of the Sixteenth Amendment or its ratification in a case in which he was precluded from making the argument, much less present supporting evidence, is also patently frivolous.  Lawsuits are a means of settling a dispute between litigants.  In the Benson criminal



3
Case 1:04-cv-07403     Document 56     Filed 12/20/2005     Page 4 of 7

case, the dispute as to whether the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified was not litigated.  The government filed a motion to prevent Benson from litigating the issue, and the district court granted the motion. Benson challenged the granting of that motion on appeal and lost.  This sequence of events does not constitute an actual litigation of the issue on its merits.

Had Benson been convicted for criminal fraud for falsely telling people that the Sixteenth Amendment was not ratified, and had he been given an opportunity to prove that he was not falsely telling people that the Sixteenth Amendment was not ratified, then collateral estoppel might preclude him from defending a later case on the same grounds.  That, however, is not the state of the matter.  The causes of action against Benson in the criminal case were one count of income tax evasion and two counts of misdemeanor failure to file.  No evidence whatsoever, indeed no issue of non-ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, was presented to any trier of fact in that case. The issues litigated were whether certain payments were required to be reported.  That the legislature of the State of Oklahoma intentionally amended, by legislative protocol, the proposed Sixteenth Amendment was not presented.  That Secretary of State Knox and his Solicitor declared ratification based upon false presumptions was not presented.  There is no case in the history of United States litigation that has ever addressed the arguments and the facts HERE presented by Benson.

Specifically addressing Benson, the Seventh Circuit stated they had reviewed the arguments made in The Law That Never Was in the Thomas case, and concluded that “Benson did not discover anything.”  That statement is absolutely false.  First, Thomas didn’t make the arguments being made here.  Second, the Seventh Circuit admits it only considered what Secretary of State Knox considered.  Third, Benson did discover something that Knox never considered.  Knox never looked at any evidence other than the certificates of ratification because



4
Case 1:04-cv-07403     Document 56     Filed 12/20/2005     Page 5 of 7
he presumed no State did what they are precluded by law from doing.  Benson discovered that in fact several States engaged in conduct they were precluded by law from doing, and he has proven that in this litigation.  This argument, and the proof supporting it, has not been raised in any prior case involving Sixteenth Amendment ratification.  This issue has never been litigated anywhere.

In the very reference cited by the government, 18 Charles A. Wright, et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 4418 at 169-170 (1981), it is stated: “To be sure, issue preclusion is seldom appropriate if successive actions grow out of entirely separate fact settings.”  The facts of the government’s criminal case against Benson’s and the successive action of the government here are “entirely separate fact settings.”  United States v. Bailin, 977 F.2d 270 (7th Cir. 1992), cited by the government, is not only wholly inapplicable to any factual situation present in this case, but also fails to support the government’s legal theory.  The case in fact supports Benson’s contention that the government’s collateral estoppel argument does not present a cognizable defense, and should be struck.

Let’s be clear.  The government brought this action against Benson.  The government specifically raised the issue that Benson’s telling people the Sixteenth Amendment wasn’t ratified, is false.  The government’s sole ability to win its case is dependent upon Benson’s statements constituting “false and fraudulent” tax advice.  The government’s assertion has been factually proven to be wrong.  The case law relied upon by the government as precedent has been shown to be seriously defective and non-binding on Benson.  The government has presented no opposition to the contention that the enrolled bill rule and RS 205, as applied with respect to the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, violates Article V of the United States Constitution and are themselves unconstitutional.



5
Case 1:04-cv-07403     Document 56     Filed 12/20/2005     Page 6 of 7

The government seriously underestimated the results of its ill designed litigation against Benson and has been defeated.  The government’s new strategy of preventing Benson from presenting a defense, a strategy Benson predicted, violates due process of law.  The government’s strategy does not amount to a sufficient defense because the defense is not authorized at law.

Benson’s speech, being true, prevents any application of the commercial speech exception to the First Amendment, not that such exception is applicable to Benson’s political speech in the first instance.  Benson is not engaged in the commercial selling of trusts.  That people hearing Benson’s speech may have engaged in conduct costing the federal government substantial tax revenues is not controlling with respect to First Amendment speech.  The issue under the First Amendment is whether Benson’s speech invokes imminent lawless conduct.  It does not.  Despite admitting fact number 52 that inquiry of Benson is being made by a criminal investigator of the federal government, Plaintiff makes no refutation that Benson has a Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, and therefore neither has to admit nor deny that he has “customers.”
Finally, the government has failed to deny, or support its denial with the required reference to proof of fact to the contrary, paragraphs 31 through 51 of Benson’s Local Rule 56.1


Statement of Material Facts.

Wherefore, Benson moves this court for an order striking those portions of the government’s recent pleadings, under the authority of F.R.C.P. 12(f), that fail to present a sufficient defense.  Benson further moves this court for an order, pursuant to the provisions of Local Rule 56.1, deeming as admitted the facts contained in paragraphs 31 through 51 of Benson’s Local Rule 56.1 Statement of Material Facts.

6

Case 1:04-cv-07403     Document 56     Filed 12/20/2005     Page 7 of 7

Dated: December 20, 2005.

The Law Offices of Robert G. Bernhoft, S.C.
by:   /s/ Jeffrey A. Dickstein         
Jeffrey A. Dickstein
Attorney Pro Hac Vice




< Message edited by Real0ne -- 12/26/2006 8:43:38 AM >

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: Illegal Income Taxes, Would You Pay Them? - 12/26/2006 8:39:12 AM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline 		It's not about right or wrong, it's about rendering unto Caesar what is Caesars in the hope of just being left the fuck alone...


(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: Illegal Income Taxes, Would You Pay Them? - 12/26/2006 8:50:05 AM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

It's not about right or wrong, it's about rendering unto Caesar what is Caesars in the hope of just being left the fuck alone...


i realize you are just being flip, but i fear the majority of the population of this country feels the same way.  Fighting for our rights cost lives and fighting to keep those rights unfortunately is a lot of work...  but then have you ever added up the cost of complacency?  To the tune of a trillion++++ per year!!  That could buy some pretty good attorneys so we could be left the fuck alone and have our rights intact too doncha think?


_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to farglebargle)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: Illegal Income Taxes, Would You Pay Them? - 12/26/2006 9:03:21 AM   
subfever


Posts: 2895
Joined: 5/22/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

It's not about right or wrong, it's about rendering unto Caesar what is Caesars in the hope of just being left the fuck alone...




Unfortunately, that's about the size of it.

As far as I know, no single man has taken on the 800 pound gorilla without getting hurt.

Take Larken Rose for example. His argument is quite studied and comprehensive.

http://www.theft-by-deception.com/

Nevertheless, he is now serving time in a Fed pen. The Fed's didn't even prove him guilty. Nor did Rose ever get to present his case in front of the jury. A judge will always obey the powers-that-be, and ignore the law.

It's very unlikely that the masses will ever band together to right these wrongs, as long as the masses feel that they have something to lose by trying.

And the unfortunate fact is that they do have something to lose, especially if they're endeavoring to put themselves in the limelight, and/or organizing a "movement."

(in reply to farglebargle)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: Illegal Income Taxes, Would You Pay Them? - 12/26/2006 9:27:12 AM   
LadyEllen


Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline 		It is your duty as a citizen to uphold and maintain your nation, and to participate actively, contributing all you can and all that might be asked, in the furtherance of the common wealth of your fellow citizens, and in the defence of your nation and your fellow citizens from harm.

Therefore, paying this tax fulfils a large part of your duty as a citizen, whilst refusing to pay it or objecting to it, directly violates those duties. Further, encouraging others to refuse or object can only result in harm to your fellow citizens when their assets are seized and they are imprisoned. Thus you must pay, and rejoice in doing so, knowing that thereby you support and maintain your responsibilities and shall not be punished.

E

_____________________________

In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.

(in reply to subfever)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: Illegal Income Taxes, Would You Pay Them? - 12/26/2006 9:29:16 AM   
LadyEllen


Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline 		I wonder if there will ever be a tax on cynical sarcasm?

I'd hate to see my bill

E

_____________________________

In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.

(in reply to LadyEllen)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: Illegal Income Taxes, Would You Pay Them? - 12/26/2006 9:40:16 AM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

It is your duty as a citizen to uphold and maintain your nation,


You misspelled STATE.


quote:


and to participate actively, contributing all you can and all that might be asked, in the furtherance of the common wealth of your fellow citizens, and in the defence of your nation and your fellow citizens from harm.


Yeah, but we don't need the Feds for any of that. Just ask the people of New Orleans what use the Feds were...
]

(in reply to LadyEllen)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: Illegal Income Taxes, Would You Pay Them? - 12/26/2006 9:48:50 AM   
UtopianRanger


Posts: 3251
Status: offline
quote:

It's very unlikely that the masses will ever band together to right these wrongs, as long as the masses feel that they have something to lose by trying.

And the unfortunate fact is that they do have something to lose, especially if they're endeavoring to put themselves in the limelight, and/or organizing a "movement."


Undoubtedly this is the key. And I keep hoping that the internet is the medium to make this all possible one day. But then I think about how most of the lazy-ass populace just wanted to negotiate with the British.

Sad but true.


- R



_____________________________

"If you are going to win any battle, you have to do one thing. You have to make the mind run the body. Never let the body tell the mind what to do... the body is never tired if the mind is not tired."

-General George S. Patton


(in reply to subfever)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: Illegal Income Taxes, Would You Pay Them? - 12/26/2006 1:45:45 PM   
Termyn8or


Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline 		I have known about this for a long time. The most successful plan I have seen was by "Start Freedom Project". I know a guy did it and even got busted for a felony and when he was on paper, they said 'obey all laws'. The PO asked about taxes and he simply told him there was no law that said he had to pay. No problem.

Also, Joe Bannister is an ex-IRS agent who goes around the country spreading this info. While still an agent he came across the Devy Kidd website and actually was there to know his enemy. A devout Christian, after some literary intercourse with Kidd he went to his superiors in the IRS asking to see the exact statute that required people to pay taxes. They responded by kindly preparing a resignation for him to sign. A couple of years ago they decided to prosecute him and it sounds a hell of a lot like the Benson case. Unfortunately I do not know what the outcome was.

I have learned alot, and the one MAIN most MAJOR thing to know if you intend to refuse to pay taxes or to cheat or anything other than comply is DO NOT FILE. A 1040 is not a reciept, nor a balance sheet, it is a contract. It is also an affidavit that you are reporting your income truthfully. If nothing else, let's say you can even prove that you don't owe any taxes, they can get you on perjury.

A few years ago there was a case involving a pilot, self employed who won her case. At her acquittal the prosecutor asked the judge to order her to pay the tax to which the judge replied "I do not work for the IRS". Don't expect this to happen every time, to say the least.

You must be very careful. First of all do not try to assert any Constitutional rights or jurisdictional challenges in the court itself. These need to be presented as evidence in writing and filed as exhibits. Otherwise they can be simply stricken from the record.

You get your writs filed and supporting copies of extant law and they are like exhibit A, B etc. If you do it right one of two things will happen, well three. One is that they will throw the case out, but don't hold your breath. Another possibility, less pleasant but not bad, is that they tie up your assets for about a year and dismiss the case due to speedy trial issues. In these cases you get your stuff back, but when ? You need the resources to do this. Imagine life with no bank account, no source of income for a year, actually I think it is more like 9 months, not very consoling.

Another thing that might happen is that if your evidence is really strong (it has happened), the case might get marked 'not to published nor quoted'. In that case it doesn't matter if you won or lost. With nothing on record stating that you have a sentence, that sentence cannot be carried out. When that happens you got a different can of worms, getting your stuff back. The fuckers will try to keep it and you need heuristic evidence of it's seizure, because you can't refer to the case they brought against you. There is no record of it.

So you have to sue them, and have all ownership records etc., all that. Of course you persue the civil litigation. All kinds of things to sue for, especially if you got money, they impound your plane, fuck up your bank account so you can't make payroll and have to shut down your company, things like that.

Just remember in any court trial, in person never mention the Constitution, do it in writing.

I still am optimistic about this even though a person I know is in jail. Not over this, he did something really stupid. He sold some drugs and got popped.

In that light, I offer this caveat : You can win, but the cost is that you will be a target. He was. Quarter million a year and no taxes. Employees too, so there may have been a half million going around that they didn't get their dirty little fingers into. They do not like that.

Wilhelm E Schmidt or Schmitt was a big one disseminating info like this. He disappeared. Of course he was old so there may not have been any skullduggery involved. He may have just passed away.

In closing I offer this warning. Yes it can be done, and it is tempting, but it is not for everybody. If you want to persue this forget this forum, forget any TV or other entertainment, you will have to study. You are not playing with kids, they know what they are doing and have alot more moves than you. This is something like going to the racetrack with the rent money, or playing a game of chess when your opponent has all rooks and queens and all you have is pawns.

You need a rock solid basis in law for every assertion you make, and not just in the Constitution. You need to be prepared to go to jail for a short time if you make a mistake. You need people on the outside who will research for you and are in the know about the whole situation.

Making a quarter mil a year and having most of your equipment paid off, living high, but not too high that you don't have like $20,000 in a safe somewhere, you might have a reason to do this. It would be stupid for some people. Work at a bank or other big company forget it. You simply can't. If you make less than about $60,000 a year you can cheat enough so you don't have to.

Absolute fact of the matter is that you can get out of paying taxes, but is it worth it ? Alot of people/families who don't make that much get EIC and can actually get back more than they paid in. In that case it would be sheer stupidity. Some also pay a small amount of tax and use the system like a bank account. They might make good money but put 2 or 3 less dependants on the W4. Then they pay off their Chrismas expenses with it (hopefully).

You can do many things, fight taxes, run for office, get vocal about political issues etc., anytime you want. Just remember that you become a target and you better keep your nose clean. Don't drive drinking, don't sell weed, in fact don't do anything illegal in public. Also if your creditors catch wind of you removing yourself from the tax system, don't expect the most glorious treatment from them either.

And do not get legally married in this country. DO NOT get a marriage license. There are alot of other things you can't do. I could never provide an exhaustive list. A contractor can't do certain work unless the customer gets a homeowner's permit. Keep your bank accounts safe and a few secret ones. Never write a check to a lawyer, government or doctor or hospital.

There is alot more to it. Their way is good, but my way is better. I do not exist. No ID, no nothing. I removed myself from the system cleanly. They probably think I died. I am very careful not to create a paper trail. I will not go into the details of what I did, and it, also, is not for everybody.

Anyone wants to try the thing out, see if they can get out, I would love to hear it. My situation is unique in that I can arrainge things in ways others simply cannot. So forget my method of beating them and get to the right way. I knew a guy getting a healthy private pension. No tax. He died, but there was no foul play. Left me an AK and our other buddy a pickup truck. He had worked for GM, and actually became a non taxpayer while he still worked. I would dare guess that he was the only one in the history of that corporation to demand that they stop taking taxes out of his check, who succeded.

The bigger the company you work for the harder it is. And the only way you can completely indemnify the company is to present them a bill each week for your work. The 1099s are not good enough, because under IRS rules if the company dictates where and when the work is to be done, you are supposed to be on W2s, getting taxes witheld. You might be out of the system, but you can't expect them to do something their lawyers and accounts will tell them might land them in jail. That is unreasonable.

In a situation like this you had better be pretty damn valuable to the company. My GM buddy was a millright. Look around, if there are 15 others around doing the same job as you, it will not work usually.

You have to get them not to withold, therefore you technicaslly cannot be a legal employee of the company. Even if you become John Doe dba John Doe, they might not go for it. Also if you drive or operate heavy machinery you'll need to carry your own insurance.

What I've seen happening in recent years, well not so recent, is that people get divorced from a good olady, keep her happy. All property and equipment is in her name. He gets a dba account at a bank. This is when he is the chief breadwinner. This doesn't work for alot of people because some find that it is hard to find anyone to trust to that degree.

This is not flaking it off on someone else, it is common sense. If the IRS sees you with millions in assets but no income they get curious. No matter how well founded our roots are in the law, they don't always obey it. Millions in assets and no 1040s will make you a target. Plus getting everything possible out of your name is good when they come looking to take your stuff.

More later, the maid quit because I refused to take taxes out of her check. I sent her back to Mexico. So now I have to wash my own clothes. BBL.

T

(in reply to UtopianRanger)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: Illegal Income Taxes, Would You Pay Them? - 12/26/2006 2:16:17 PM   
Lordandmaster


Posts: 10943
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline 		So let me get this straight.

Global warming is a complete and utter hoax, but the illegality of federal income tax...now THAT'S a real issue.

Yeah, yeah, I'm being facetious.

(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: Illegal Income Taxes, Would You Pay Them? - 12/26/2006 2:45:22 PM   
subfever


Posts: 2895
Joined: 5/22/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

It's not about right or wrong, it's about rendering unto Caesar what is Caesars in the hope of just being left the fuck alone...


i realize you are just being flip, but i fear the majority of the population of this country feels the same way.  Fighting for our rights cost lives and fighting to keep those rights unfortunately is a lot of work...  but then have you ever added up the cost of complacency?  To the tune of a trillion++++ per year!!  That could buy some pretty good attorneys so we could be left the fuck alone and have our rights intact too doncha think?



No, I don't think this would work. Remember, it is their court on their turf. If you believe that it's the peoples court... you are sadly mistaken. If a case is the center of too much attention, the judge will do whatever the powers-that-be tell him to do.

In my opinion, the only strategy that would work is to first dismantle the powers-that-be. The only way to move towards that goal is to educate the masses, and elect people in power who are willing to take the steps necessary to dismantle the privately owned Federal Reserve. That's step one.  

(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: Illegal Income Taxes, Would You Pay Them? - 12/26/2006 2:49:42 PM   
subfever


Posts: 2895
Joined: 5/22/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

It is your duty as a citizen to uphold and maintain your nation, and to participate actively, contributing all you can and all that might be asked, in the furtherance of the common wealth of your fellow citizens, and in the defence of your nation and your fellow citizens from harm.

Therefore, paying this tax fulfils a large part of your duty as a citizen, whilst refusing to pay it or objecting to it, directly violates those duties. Further, encouraging others to refuse or object can only result in harm to your fellow citizens when their assets are seized and they are imprisoned. Thus you must pay, and rejoice in doing so, knowing that thereby you support and maintain your responsibilities and shall not be punished.

E


Yes, well... why don't we just close our eyes tight, hand them the vaseline, bend over, and spread our cheeks for them while we're at it?

(in reply to LadyEllen)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: Illegal Income Taxes, Would You Pay Them? - 12/26/2006 2:56:22 PM   
subfever


Posts: 2895
Joined: 5/22/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: UtopianRanger


quote:

It's very unlikely that the masses will ever band together to right these wrongs, as long as the masses feel that they have something to lose by trying.

And the unfortunate fact is that they do have something to lose, especially if they're endeavoring to put themselves in the limelight, and/or organizing a "movement."


Undoubtedly this is the key. And I keep hoping that the internet is the medium to make this all possible one day. But then I think about how most of the lazy-ass populace just wanted to negotiate with the British.

Sad but true.

- R


Yes, I have high hopes for the potential of the internet in this regards too. However, it has also occurred to me that the internet also gives the powers-that-be the ability to easily identify who potentially threatens their power.   

(in reply to UtopianRanger)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: Illegal Income Taxes, Would You Pay Them? - 12/26/2006 3:07:59 PM   
seeksfemslave


Posts: 4011
Joined: 6/16/2006
Status: offline 		RealOne you seem to have a "thing" about Federal Income Tax. Speaking as a non American I think I am right in saying that whether or not you feel you can prove that such taxes are illegal is of zero consequence. What you have to do is to get the Supreme Court to make a judgement on the matter.

Has this ever happened ?

Just to cover my back I haven't read much of the posts so if this has already been mentioned I apologise.

< Message edited by seeksfemslave -- 12/26/2006 3:12:06 PM >

(in reply to subfever)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: Illegal Income Taxes, Would You Pay Them? - 12/26/2006 3:40:20 PM   
untamedshysub


Posts: 220
Joined: 2/26/2005
Status: offline 		we all know that the tax was suppose to be a tempoary thing back after WW2 I think but the government has come to depend on it and so has a lot of other people. Its not the Federal income tax that kills you its the Social Security tax because the Federal Income tax allows you to make so much money before you pay any taxes  and it starts to roll back after you reach a certain tax bracket. While people are not paying attention the Social Security limit gets higher each year and the cap on Medicare tax was taken off years ago and that tax is on every penny you make. I dont mind paying taxes, what I mind is I have no say in how the money is spent. I mind being lied to that Social Security will go broke because all the billions of dollars that is collected that account should be  well in the black but because the govt has set it up that it can spend the access of what they collect every year nothing is there.  I think no one should be allowed to be a career politican and that as a civil servant they should stick to what was orginally planned and not collect a salary but have a real job like everyone else.

(in reply to seeksfemslave)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: Illegal Income Taxes, Would You Pay Them? - 12/26/2006 3:41:18 PM   
LadyEllen


Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline 		How on earth you all expect to outwit the judges, the IRS, the lawyers and the government at large, when you cannot see cynical sarcasm when its on display - and better still, indicated as such, I dont know.

But good luck with it

E

_____________________________

In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.

(in reply to seeksfemslave)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: Illegal Income Taxes, Would You Pay Them? - 12/26/2006 4:57:38 PM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or


You make many good points T8 but its not quite that difficult.  of course if you want to take every possible precaution to every possible contingency then i suppose you have to live like JC with nothing.  i would cerainly protect assets in anyway possible if i were to attempt to do this.

Auditing in this country is used as a weapon and its not really to much fun to get tied up in the court system.

One thing i do and suggest others do however is donating to the people, that is the true patriots of this country who are fighting for all of us to keep our liberties, such as bensen, russo, jones and several more to help with their legal funds.  The opposite of taxation is good will.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subfever
No, I don't think this would work. Remember, it is their court on their turf. If you believe that it's the peoples court... you are sadly mistaken. If a case is the center of too much attention, the judge will do whatever the powers-that-be tell him to do.

In my opinion, the only strategy that would work is to first dismantle the powers-that-be. The only way to move towards that goal is to educate the masses, and elect people in power who are willing to take the steps necessary to dismantle the privately owned Federal Reserve. That's step one.  


i was thinking more in terms of a fantasy....  where all at once the whole of the tax payer base said nope and set up up a fair taxes fund that took the trillion plus bucks that is now being illegally collected by big brother and put it into a spank naughty big brother fund and filled the courts with several class action suits all at the same time.   The irs can barely audit 2% of all the taxes paid much less enforce the collection of thousands of taxpayers at the same time who now would have a stupendous legal fund to draw from that in a couple years would drarf the ruling elite's fund. 

Now since they can only enforce roughly 2% that presents an opportunity, a capitalist opportunity in true capitalistic style and a profit for the people of 98% on a trillion+.

To those in the Failure of Capitalism thread this is how capitalism works to the finer points LOLOLOLOL

quote:

ORIGINAL: subfever
Yes, I have high hopes for the potential of the internet in this regards too. However, it has also occurred to me that the internet also gives the powers-that-be the ability to easily identify who potentially threatens their power. 


i dont because it is only a matter of time before they get their fingers in this too.  It is already being under attack and they continue to attack it.  a constant battle of atrition when trying to keep things free.

But i agree that it is a great source for information that you DO NOT see on the press!

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

RealOne you seem to have a "thing" about Federal Income Tax. Speaking as a non American I think I am right in saying that whether or not you feel you can prove that such taxes are illegal is of zero consequence. What you have to do is to get the Supreme Court to make a judgement on the matter.

Has this ever happened ?

Just to cover my back I haven't read much of the posts so if this has already been mentioned I apologise.


It gets kind of hairy but the supreme court ruled against the 16th amendment based on other previous constitutional laws that collecting unapportioned taxes is illegal.  If you take a moment to read the legal briefs you can see names mentioned of people who simply "faked" us out into believing we had to pay taxes.

Even wilson who tried to put the republican party in a better with the people that year agreed that he sold the country down the tubes.

You can find literally tons of stuff on the net about it.  my parents knew about it a zillion years ago so its no real secret from peeps who kept up on politics.  just google 16th amendment fraud and you will get mounds of data on it.  Beson i thought has the most info on it and presented his findings to the court in tabular form that it was never ratified into law.  The government has yet to respond with anything, that is read "ANYTHING" to the contrary but threats and road blocks to justice.

The bottom line is that with the patriot act and other laws the government is passing to protect its little empire is growing at an alarming rate, and cutting deeper into out freedoms.  People are begining to fear this government more than ever before.  if you study ww2 with the reichstag and now compare it to the wtc there is not difference!  new yorkers know the gov took it down! the fbi has admitted they have no case against OBL!  and on and on and on...  Bush and blari for that matter both turned out to be tyrants and it has gotten to the point that it does not matter who you vote for its all the same!  Bush openly said he does not care if what he did was against the law!  its on record!  if this isnt something to be fearful of then what is?

quote:

ORIGINAL: untamedshysub

I dont mind paying taxes, what I mind is I have no say in how the money is spent. I mind being lied to that Social Security will go broke because all the billions of dollars that is collected that account should be  well in the black but because the govt has set it up that it can spend the access of what they collect every year nothing is there.  I think no one should be allowed to be a career politican and that as a civil servant they should stick to what was orginally planned and not collect a salary but have a real job like everyone else.

i do!

we should not be paying unapportioned taxes period. the government is required to give each of us a balance sheet as to where the money goes. when was the last time you got one?

billions of bucks are being lost all the time and never found in th efederal gov.  bucks that we didnt have to pay in the first place.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

How on earth you all expect to outwit the judges, the IRS, the lawyers and the government at large, when you cannot see cynical sarcasm when its on display - and better still, indicated as such, I dont know.

But good luck with it

E


you do not outwit judges, you use their own system to fight them and of course the constitution of the us as a loaded gun.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subfever

Yes, well... why don't we just close our eyes tight, hand them the vaseline, bend over, and spread our cheeks for them while we're at it?


well at least they are still using vasoline! :)

Watch the movies below for more!!!

< Message edited by Real0ne -- 12/26/2006 5:31:00 PM >

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to Termyn8or)
Profile   Post #: 17
RE: Illegal Income Taxes, Would You Pay Them? - 12/26/2006 5:10:58 PM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

How on earth you all expect to outwit the judges,


Read this from the legal scripts:

These “facts,” which relate solely to defendant’s contention that the Sixteenth Amendment was never ratified, constitute matters that are irrelevant, immaterial, impertinent and scandalous with respect to the issues and subject matter of this civil action.


Furthermore, for the reasons set forth at length in plaintiff’s reply
brief, defendant is collaterally estopped from challenging the validity of
the Sixteenth Amendment or its ratification as a result of the decision in
United States v. Benson, 941 F.2d 598, 607 (7th Cir. 1991), that held that
the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment was a nonjusticiable political
question that was “beyond review” by the federal courts.


How hard is it to outwit this? using lower court decisions to outwardly deny our constitutional right to justice and remedy!
the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment was a nonjusticiable political question that was “beyond review” by the federal courts.

since when?????

View the films below!!!

< Message edited by Real0ne -- 12/26/2006 5:20:59 PM >

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to LadyEllen)
Profile   Post #: 18
RE: Illegal Income Taxes, Would You Pay Them? - 12/26/2006 5:17:38 PM   
subfever


Posts: 2895
Joined: 5/22/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

How on earth you all expect to outwit the judges, the IRS, the lawyers and the government at large, when you cannot see cynical sarcasm when its on display - and better still, indicated as such, I dont know.
E


LOL... it must be that dry British humor that throws us off.

(in reply to LadyEllen)
Profile   Post #: 19
RE: Illegal Income Taxes, Would You Pay Them? - 12/26/2006 5:35:20 PM   
NeedToUseYou


Posts: 2297
Joined: 12/24/2005
From: None of your business
Status: offline 		I plan on moving eventually.

This country is all about taxing, more and more adding more fees, permits, fines, etc.... And then people get all baffled by the fact that people at the bottom are getting poorer, and propose entitlements as a solution. I don't like that country. So, I'm sure I won't be here in 10 years. I read a book about all this in 1999 and that was my first exposure, and from what I see the government is alot smarter than the most of the people to the point they've convinced a large segment of the population that government is the solution. LOL.

Small government, moderate laws, that is what I'm looking for.

It's not happening in this country anytime soon. If anything the government is getting bigger and bigger, and people seem to be proposing that government is the solution more and more. It's like the kidnap victims that fall in love with the abductor. LOL.

I'm thinking the phillipines are pretty good about taxes, but they may have other drawbacks. I have years to get it straight, so, I'll have my ideal country localized by then. And solar panels will work great there.



< Message edited by NeedToUseYou -- 12/26/2006 5:39:45 PM >

(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 20
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> Illegal Income Taxes, Would You Pay Them? Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.140