Tryagain
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Dec, 2006 10:27 am
Goodonya, right ripper mate! Although I do think you could have helped out Tryknot with her question about; cell block H.

It was I believe an Australian television soap opera. It was set in Wentworth Detention Centre, a fictional women's prison.


However, anti H-Block was the political party label used by candidates standing in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland in support of the 1981 hunger strike.

The successes of the Anti H-Block movement galvanised the hard line Irish Republican movement and led to the formal entry into electoral politics of Provisional Sinn Fein the following year.


As for President Ford; In domestic policy, President Ford felt that through modest tax and spending cuts, deregulating industries, and decontrolling energy prices to stimulate production, he could contain both inflation and unemployment.

His philosophy is best summarized by one of his favorite speech lines, "A government big enough to give us everything we want is a government big enough to take from us everything we have."

Through compromise, (due to the heavily Democratic Congress) bills involving energy decontrol, tax cuts, deregulation of the railroad and securities industries, and antitrust law reform were approved.

Well done Mr President.
0 Replies
 
tryknot
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Dec, 2006 12:57 pm
You don't show where your location is. Is it too personal to ask if it is in the USA? Also, who do you think was our best President was? I would like to know.
0 Replies
 
dadpad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Dec, 2006 05:30 pm
the show was called "prisoner " here TA. which is why I did not recognise the title.

Bev and Lizzie were my favorites.
0 Replies
 
Tryagain
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Dec, 2006 05:57 pm
DP: To quote tv.com:

"Set behind the bars of the Wentworth Detention Centre, Prisoner: Cell Block H ran for seven years in Australia and has become legendary all over the world for allegedly having wobbly sets, ugly actresses and ridiculous plots."

If it did not deal with US tax and fiscal matters I'm outta here…unless it had some in depth shower scenes!



TK: Do you need an eye test (no pun intended) look here I am, over here! {({({( waves )})})}


LINCOLN: Born in a log cabin to a common family, pursued an education, worked hard, cared about the American ideals, and wielded power in their defense. He used brilliant skills to preserve the nation dedicated to the idea that 'all men are created equal.' Expanded presidential powers. Emancipation Proclamation. Gettysburg Address. Wise leadership. Etc.

Who would you choose, the suspense is killing me?
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Dec, 2006 07:38 pm
Tryagain, your plight reminded me of a group a few years back that challenged the IRS via full page ads in USA Today. Their arguments seemed a little more solid than your own, so I decided to look them up for you. Good Luck!

CLICK HERE!
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Dec, 2006 09:28 pm
Yeah, Bob Schulz at WeThePeople is having a great time..

Washington County forecloses on Tax Protestor Bob Schulz

This is a nice list of people to avoid telling you how to avoid taxes
http://www.etaxes.com/tax_scams.html

Then there is this..
Extremism in America


This is very important for anyone thinking about not paying taxes because of tax scams that say things like the "16th amendment was never ratified."
Anti-Tax Law Evasion Schemes
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Dec, 2006 10:55 pm
parados wrote:
Yeah, Bob Schulz at WeThePeople is having a great time..

Washington County forecloses on Tax Protestor Bob Schulz

This is a nice list of people to avoid telling you how to avoid taxes
http://www.etaxes.com/tax_scams.html

Then there is this..
Extremism in America


This is very important for anyone thinking about not paying taxes because of tax scams that say things like the "16th amendment was never ratified."
Anti-Tax Law Evasion Schemes
Not taking sides here, but what have you proved about Bob Schulz in regard to Income Tax? Your first link shows he's legally fighting a property tax, disposition as of yet unknown. Your second shows that he had a Congressman's ear and even had a symposium tentatively scheduled... presumably to force the IRS (who HE has been chasing for years) to defend themselves against his claims.
Quote:
Bob Schulz, We The People (GiveMeLiberty.org, TaxHonesty.org)

Somehow, Mr. Schulz has convinced Maryland Representative Roscoe Bartlett (R-6th) to assist him in scheduling a forum on the legality of the federal income tax system. Mr. Schulz went on a hunger strike to protest the tax system. In a letter from the Congressman to Bob Schulz, Bartlett states "We have re-scheduled the forum (symposium) for February 27 and 28 in the Science and Technology Committee Hearing Room in the Rayburn House Office Building beginning at 9:00 a.m. each day. A letter of support and confirmation signed by myself and other members of Congress has been drafted, circulated, and will be sent to officials at the Department of Justice, Treasury and the IRS, informing them of the dates and times and requiring their attendance. I will personally chair the event and have invited other members of Congress to attend and sit on the panel."
The third link goes into more detail about how both the DOJ and the IRS ducked him, charged him with nothing, and shows no evidence that Schulz has been answered and points to the probability that he hasn't... and the fourth is a link to the IRS!

Aren't you even a little curious why the IRS would A. not answer him directly, B. not arrest and charge him, C. has made a show of arresting people for conspiracies and money laundering but has seldom bothered to charge these individuals with individual Tax Evasion? Seems to me; the easiest way to put the matter to rest would be to A. answer him head on, B. arrest and charge him, and then C. to make a public show of how each element of his claims are false and led to his conviction. Why don't they do that? Confused
0 Replies
 
tryknot
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Dec, 2006 12:45 am
Tryagain wrote:
DP: To quote tv.com:

"Set behind the bars of the Wentworth Detention Centre, Prisoner: Cell Block H ran for seven years in Australia and has become legendary all over the world for allegedly having wobbly sets, ugly actresses and ridiculous plots."

If it did not deal with US tax and fiscal matters I'm outta here…unless it had some in depth shower scenes!



TK: Do you need an eye test (no pun intended) look here I am, over here! {({({( waves )})})}


LINCOLN: Born in a log cabin to a common family, pursued an education, worked hard, cared about the American ideals, and wielded power in their defense. He used brilliant skills to preserve the nation dedicated to the idea that 'all men are created equal.' Expanded presidential powers. Emancipation Proclamation. Gettysburg Address. Wise leadership. Etc.

Who would you choose, the suspense is killing me?


Suspense! I like that. That is a hard decision. There were 3 that I liked for various reasons.
1st would be 1st, otherwise George. He didn't like party politics. He was known to be aloof, admired rather than loved. I visited his home in VA. It is quite lovely and serene there. Just sat on that porch of his looking at the scenery wondering what it was like back then.
2nd would be Nixon. Although best remembered for Watergate, his way with foreign leaders is a task to be admired. Few Presidents have ever accomplished that. He made ending the Vietnam War a priority and also getting us in good with China. Foreign affairs seemed to be his specialty.
Last and certainly not least is Reagan. His communication skills were excellent. He played a huge role in bringing down the Communist system.
0 Replies
 
tryknot
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Dec, 2006 01:08 am
As far as taxation in the USA, I pay my fair share. The IRS is an organization. The people there are just doing their jobs. I find them friendly on the most part. How best to avoid taxes some may ask. Who else would know better than an insider. Someone who knows the system and how they work. Just wrote that for thought. Not, that I would know anything about the organization.
Personally, I pick my battles carefully and know when not to look back.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Dec, 2006 08:29 am
O Bill,

Yeah? and? Your arguments are based on not doing any research at all.

Bob Schulz pays his income tax. He just happens to make money on telling other people how to NOT pay theirs. He was charging pay per view at $30 a crack for a symposium that never occurred as scheduled in 2001 and still hasn't occurred. He has made a rather nice living on scamming people. He was given a cease and desist order by the IRS under new laws. He fought that and got a reprieve in 2006 when the courts said the IRS needed a court order and couldn't just send him a summons.

The answers to Shulz's questions from 2001 can be found in the IRS link I provided. The courts have been pretty harsh on anyone using the arguments Shulz is proposing. They have found them to be frivolous and people that attempt to use them have been sanctioned for continuing with them even after being warned by the court. The persons that ran WeThePeople in California were tried and convicted of tax fraud. The fact that Shulz has failed to pay local taxes and lost his property shows how shallow his arguments are. His argument on the local level was he can withhold taxes until the local government addresses his grievances. Losing his property shows the courts disagreed. The argument is similar to his present Federal tax case that is on appeal.

This is the government response to Schulz's appeal of the case he lost on the Federal level. It is actually quite funny to read. Schulz is arguing that the plaintiff's don't have to pay taxes because the government has not directly answered their questions and that the attempt by the government to collect those taxes is retaliation for asking questions. http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/CourtFilings/USCOA-DOJ-Response-RTP-4-06.pdf

The first response in any courtroom would be to tell the person to go see a lawyer, the government doesn't have to answer all the questions if they have been answered and are in the public record.
0 Replies
 
Tryagain
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Dec, 2006 04:10 pm
TK, your choices are very interesting and if I may say somewhat unusual, well, two out of three. I think it would make a thread of it's own.



Parados, for one so young your answers are amazingly informative and factual. This is in itself unfortunate because I was enjoying Bill's reply. Whilst I digest your links, may I pose the following:

In an effort to avoid attending a family bake and bring reunion, you make the excuse that you have to dig the rear yard before the rains. Arming yourself with a reasonably priced digging implement resplendent with a hickory handle you begin. Almost immediately you dig up an old sealed jar. With trembling hands you bring the contents (a parchment) into the light. It is an amendment to the Constitution, which reads: "No US citizen will ever be subjected to domestic taxes"

What would be the response of the executive?
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Dec, 2006 05:13 pm
parados wrote:
O Bill,

Yeah? and? Your arguments are based on not doing any research at all.
I simply pointed out what your links failed to show... and still fail to show. I've no dog in this fight and simply find the IRS's repeated and obvious failures to respond intriguing. I feel no obligation to de-substantiate your naked assertions nor will I take over your burden of proof for same.

parados wrote:
Bob Schulz pays his income tax. He just happens to make money on telling other people how to NOT pay theirs. He was charging pay per view at $30 a crack for a symposium that never occurred as scheduled in 2001 and still hasn't occurred. He has made a rather nice living on scamming people. He was given a cease and desist order by the IRS under new laws. He fought that and got a reprieve in 2006 when the courts said the IRS needed a court order and couldn't just send him a summons.
I must have missed the link that showed Bob Schulz pays his income tax. As for the symposium; your links do show that A. The events of Sept 11th postponed the symposium and B. Both the DOJ and the IRS refused to participate and C. the Congressman who was setting it up pulled out. I remain curious why the IRS wouldn't welcome the opportunity to put the matter to rest once and for all.

parados wrote:
The answers to Shulz's questions from 2001 can be found in the IRS link I provided.
Not really. The IRS makes blanket assertions that theoretically cover his complaints but utterly fail to specifically do so. Example:
The IRS wrote:
Sixteenth Amendment
These arguments claim that the constitutional amendment establishing the basis for income tax was never properly ratified. However, the courts have held that none of the points presented undermine the fact that the Sixteenth Amendment was indeed ratified in 1913.
The courts never heard Bob's arguments because the IRS chose to duck the questions with jurisdiction and sovereign protection loopholes and have thus far prevented his arguments from being heard.

Why not face the issues head on?

parados wrote:
The courts have been pretty harsh on anyone using the arguments Shulz is proposing. They have found them to be frivolous and people that attempt to use them have been sanctioned for continuing with them even after being warned by the court. The persons that ran WeThePeople in California were tried and convicted of tax fraud.
Interesting as that may be, it is largely irrelevant as far as Bob Schulz is concerned... and obviously both the courts and the IRS concur. It has yet to be proven that his claims are reasonably covered by that decision, let alone identical.

parados wrote:
The fact that Shulz has failed to pay local taxes and lost his property shows how shallow his arguments are. His argument on the local level was he can withhold taxes until the local government addresses his grievances. Losing his property shows the courts disagreed.
Show me where your link proved A. his protest and means for same illegal, B. he lost his property, and C. how his local disputes have any bearing on his Federal case (let alone "show how shallow")whatsoever.

parados wrote:
The argument is similar to his present Federal tax case that is on appeal.
Laughing This assessment thus far shows neither rightness nor wrongness in either case... as well as being completely irrelevant.

parados wrote:
This is the government response to Schulz's appeal of the case he lost on the Federal level. It is actually quite funny to read. Schulz is arguing that the plaintiff's don't have to pay taxes because the government has not directly answered their questions and that the attempt by the government to collect those taxes is retaliation for asking questions. http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/CourtFilings/USCOA-DOJ-Response-RTP-4-06.pdf
Agreed; that is funny. However, it also shows the government choosing to deny his petition on the basis that any relief would inhibit it's ability to function. That's kind of a circular argument if you ask me... and further demonstrates the IRS's ongoing refusal to answer his questions head on. What are they afraid of?

parados wrote:
The first response in any courtroom would be to tell the person to go see a lawyer, the government doesn't have to answer all the questions if they have been answered and are in the public record.
A lawyer would certainly be advisable; but the government's excuse for not answering questions was demonstrated again by claiming it would inhibit it's ability to function... NOT a claim to have already answered the questions. Another circular argument, though legal, does nothing to prove Bob's claims frivolous.

I've neither the time nor the qualifications to get any deeper into this, but; this layman remains intrigued by the IRS's steadfast refusal to address Bob's complaints head on. Surely the additional dancing is more expensive and ultimately lends itself to others like Bob convincing more Americans to cheat. The question remains: Why not just answer his questions in an appropriate court and set an iron clad precedent against all of his allegedly frivolous claims?

Ps. Thank you for providing some interesting reading material. Know that it is appreciated.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Dec, 2006 08:42 am
Tryagain wrote:
TK, your choices are very interesting and if I may say somewhat unusual, well, two out of three. I think it would make a thread of it's own.



Parados, for one so young your answers are amazingly informative and factual. This is in itself unfortunate because I was enjoying Bill's reply. Whilst I digest your links, may I pose the following:

In an effort to avoid attending a family bake and bring reunion, you make the excuse that you have to dig the rear yard before the rains. Arming yourself with a reasonably priced digging implement resplendent with a hickory handle you begin. Almost immediately you dig up an old sealed jar. With trembling hands you bring the contents (a parchment) into the light. It is an amendment to the Constitution, which reads: "No US citizen will ever be subjected to domestic taxes"

What would be the response of the executive?


Probably the same response as mine. He would laugh out loud.
An amendment buried in a jar and no record of the Congress or any states voting on said amendment? In order for an amendment to actually amend the constitution it has to follow the process called for in the constitution. Burying an amendment in a jar isn't one of the ways to amend the constitution.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Dec, 2006 08:49 am
Tryagain wrote:
In an effort to avoid attending a family bake and bring reunion, you make the excuse that you have to dig the rear yard before the rains. Arming yourself with a reasonably priced digging implement resplendent with a hickory handle you begin. Almost immediately you dig up an old sealed jar. With trembling hands you bring the contents (a parchment) into the light. It is an amendment to the Constitution, which reads: "No US citizen will ever be subjected to domestic taxes"

What would be the response of the executive?


The issue would not be in the hands of the executive branch. However, were anyone to attempt to claim that as a basis for not paying their income tax, i rather suspect the answer of the courts would be that no such amendment to the constitution had ever been ratified.

Next.
0 Replies
 
TTH
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Dec, 2006 09:03 am
I really don't like to debate politics, but how do you know what is in the jar is authenic or not? Wouldn't it depend on various things like who wrote it, when it was written, how it got to be in a jar? Should it not go before The Judicial Branch for interpretation?

Also, were you aware that Article IV Section IV of the Constitution says "The
United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,...."


I knew there was a reason I favored Republicans Very Happy
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Dec, 2006 09:06 am
parados wrote:
Burying an amendment in a jar isn't one of the ways to amend the constitution.

What if the buried amendment says that burying amendments in jars shall be a permissible way to amend the constitution?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Dec, 2006 09:10 am
joefromchicago wrote:
parados wrote:
Burying an amendment in a jar isn't one of the ways to amend the constitution.

What if the buried amendment says that burying amendments in jars shall be a permissible way to amend the constitution?


It would still have been invalid until such time as it had been ratified, and therefore have amended the constitutionally acceptable manner of amending the constitution.

Next.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Dec, 2006 09:14 am
tryingtohelp wrote:
Also, were you aware that Article IV Section IV of the Constitution says "The
United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,...."


This not just false--it's stupid. The Republican Party did not exist at the time the Constitution was ratified, and had not even yet been conceived of.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Dec, 2006 09:26 am
Quote:
parados wrote:

The answers to Shulz's questions from 2001 can be found in the IRS link I provided.

Not really. The IRS makes blanket assertions that theoretically cover his complaints but utterly fail to specifically do so. Example:
The IRS wrote:
Quote:

Sixteenth Amendment
These arguments claim that the constitutional amendment establishing the basis for income tax was never properly ratified. However, the courts have held that none of the points presented undermine the fact that the Sixteenth Amendment was indeed ratified in 1913.

The courts never heard Bob's arguments because the IRS chose to duck the questions with jurisdiction and sovereign protection loopholes and have thus far prevented his arguments from being heard.

The courts have answered this question. It is settled law. There is no argument concerning the validity of the ratification that will survive a court challenge. NONE.

Quote:
Sixteenth Amendment not adopted: mentioning "The Law that Never Was" by Benson & Beckman: US v. Wm.J. Benson (7th Cir 1991) 941 F2d 598 [one of the authors of Law/Never] amended on other grounds 957 F2d 301; [ Benson convicted of tax evasion and sentenced to four years of prison followed by five years probation. US v. Benson (7th Cir 1995) 67 F3d 641 reh.den 74 F3d 152; it appears he violated the terms of his parole. Benson v. US (ND IL 1997) 969 F.Supp 1129]; M.D. Miller v. US (7th Cir 1988) 868 F2d 236; ("The validity of that process [adopting the 16th Amendment] and if the resulting constitutional amendment are no longer open questions.") US v. Sitka (2d Cir 1988) 845 F2d 43 at 47 cert.den 488 US 827; US v. Thomas (7th Cir 1986) 788 F2d 1250 cert.den 479 US 853 (the leading case; held that the Sec of State's 1913 proclamation of the adoption of the 16th Amendment is conclusive and "is now beyond review"); US v. House (WD Mich 1985) 617 F.Supp 237 aff'd (6th Cir 1986) 787 F2d 593(t)(used Benson as a witness, and thoroughly discussed his book); US v. Wojtas (ND IL 1985) 611 F.Supp 118; US v. Sato (ND IL 1989) 704 F.Supp 816 (the Constitutional provision that Congress will have exclusive authority over DC only means that no state govt has authority over DC but it does not limit Congress's authority to make laws, including tax laws, only to DC); O.L. Brown v. CIR (2/9/97) TC Memo 1987-78 (judge declined to buy a copy); Spoelman v. Hummel (WD Mich unpub 5/26/89); US v. Stahl (9th Cir 1986) 792 F2d 1438 cert.den 479 US 1036; Spoelman v. Hummel (WD Mich unpub 5/26/89); {Note: The argument in "The Law That Never Was" by Benson & Beckman is a 1913 legal memo worked up for the Sec. of State by the Solicitor of the State Dept regarding the ratifications received from state legislatures for the proposed 16th amendment, noticing that several of these notifications contained tiny typos in reprinting the text of the proposed amendment. The Solicitor advised that, as a state could not amend or change the proposed text but only vote for or against ratification, and that the proposed amendment was available to members of all the legislatures in a number of published copies - most without any typos, and it is not known whether these typos existed in the copies seen by the members of the legislatures before they voted (no state govt ever complained that its vote on ratification would have gone different without the typos), and certainly the ratifications of previous and undoubted amendments also had similar flaws, that the notification of favorable ratifying votes is binding on the Sec of State, etc., it is presumed that all the votes were taken on the correct and proper text and therefore the ratifications are all valid and sufficient to adopt the amendment. The Sec. of State agreed. Contrary to the claims made by Benson & Beckman, there is no evidence that any ratification of any amendment was ever invalidated because of some typo in repeating the proposed amendment, and in fact there is a distinct shortage of precedents for invalidating an Act of Congress because of a comparable typo distinguishing the bills adopted by the House and the Senate. The book was dealt with in detail in US v. Thomas (7th Cir 1986) 788 F2d 1250 cert.den 479 US 853, and one of the co-authors tried to revive the rejected argument simply because he had written that book in US v. Benson (7th Cir 1991) 941 F2d 598, both times the court held that the validity of the adoption of the 16th Amendment was "beyond review".}
Just because the IRS doesn't cite all the cases doesn't mean they didn't answer the question. Courts will not hear the challenge because it is settled. There is no reason for the IRS to answer a settled question if Schulz can't find a lawyer to tell him the exact same thing the courts and the IRS have said.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Dec, 2006 09:30 am
Setanta wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
parados wrote:
Burying an amendment in a jar isn't one of the ways to amend the constitution.

What if the buried amendment says that burying amendments in jars shall be a permissible way to amend the constitution?


It would still have been invalid until such time as it had been ratified, and therefore have amended the constitutionally acceptable manner of amending the constitution.

Next.

What if all of the necessary state ratifications are also in the jar?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, EVERYONE! - Discussion by OmSigDAVID
WIND AND WATER - Discussion by Setanta
Who ordered the construction of the Berlin Wall? - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
True version of Vlad Dracula, 15'th century - Discussion by gungasnake
ONE SMALL STEP . . . - Discussion by Setanta
History of Gun Control - Discussion by gungasnake
Where did our notion of a 'scholar' come from? - Discussion by TuringEquivalent
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 1.32 seconds on 09/27/2020 at 11:04:03