Tryagain wrote:Richard writes, "President Bush is coming down to my neck of the woods tomorrow..
Did you ask him if it's true that
Mussolini thought it was unnatural for a government to protect individual rights: "The maxim that society exists only for the well-being and freedom of the individuals composing it does not seem to be in conformity with nature's plans." "If classical liberalism spells individualism," Mussolini continued, "Fascism spells government."
The essence of fascism, therefore, is that government should be the master, not the servant, of the people. Think about this. Does anyone in America really believe that this is not what we have now? Are Internal Revenue Service agents really our "servants"?
Is compulsory "national service" for young people, which now exists in numerous states and is part of a federally funded program, not a classic example of coercing individuals to serve the state? Isn't the whole idea behind the massive regulation and regimentation of American industry and society the notion that individuals should be forced to behave in ways defined by a small governmental elite?
When the nation's premier health-care reformer recently declared that heart bypass surgery on a 92-year-old man was "a waste of resources," wasn't that the epitome of the fascist ideal-that the state, not individuals, should decide whose life is worthwhile, and whose is a "waste"?
The U.S. Constitution was written by individuals who believed in the classical liberal philosophy of individual rights and sought to protect those rights from governmental encroachment. But since the fascist/collectivist philosophy has been so influential, policy reforms over the past half century have all but abolished many of these rights by simply ignoring many of the provisions in the Constitution that were designed to protect them.
As legal scholar Richard Epstein has observed: "The eminent domain . . . and parallel clauses in the Constitution render . . . suspect many of the heralded reforms and institutions of the twentieth century: zoning, rent control, workers' compensation laws, transfer payments, progressive taxation." It is important to note that most of these reforms were initially adopted during the '30s, when the fascist/collectivist philosophy was in its heyday.
Current industrial policy interventions, Reich and Magaziner bemoaned, are "the product of fragmented and uncoordinated decisions made by [many different] executive agencies, the Congress, and independent regulatory agencies . . . There is no integrated strategy to use these programs to improve the . . . U.S. economy."
Government-business partnerships. A third defining characteristic of economic fascism is that private property and business ownership are permitted, but are in reality controlled by government through a business-government "partnership." As Ayn Rand often noted, however, in such a partnership government is always the senior or dominating "partner."
If this sounds familiar, it is because it is exactly the result of agricultural subsidies, the Export-Import Bank, guaranteed loans to "preferred" business borrowers, protectionism, the Chrysler bailout, monopoly franchising, and myriad other forms of corporate welfare paid for directly or indirectly by the American taxpayer.
Many American politicians who have advocated more or less total government control over economic activity have been more devious in their approach. They have advocated and adopted many of the same policies, but they have always recognized that direct attacks on private property, free enterprise, self-government, and individual freedom are not politically palatable to the majority of the American electorate. Thus, they have enacted a great many tax, regulatory, and income-transfer policies that achieve the ends of economic fascism, but which are sugar-coated with deceptive rhetoric about their alleged desire only to "save" capitalism.
American politicians have long taken their cue in this regard from Franklin D. Roosevelt, who sold his National Recovery Administration (which was eventually ruled unconstitutional) on the grounds that "government restrictions henceforth must be accepted not to hamper individualism but to protect it." In a classic example of Orwellian doublespeak, Roosevelt thus argued that individualism must be destroyed in order to save it.
It is time the people spoke.
Joe, I will get back to you on;
"Well, I suppose he's as solid as any college economics professor could be who thinks that the south should have seceded"
Needless to say; I think he has a point.
YOu know try, Im a bit intrigued from your unorthodox writing style.. Too bad you dont live close by else I imagine we could have quite a conversation over tea.
Richard eloquently wrote, "
I imagine we could have quite a conversation over tea."
Tea! Tea you say! You do have a good imagination. In this neck of the woods, moonshine is the standard tipple whilst debating
Who owns the Fed?
Hidden away in a sealed vault for 25 years
the proof!
Court Rules Federal Reserve is Privately Owned
Case Reveals Fed's Status as a Private Institution
Below are excerpts from a court case proving the Federal Reserve system's status. As you will see, the court ruled that the Federal Reserve Banks are "independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations", and there is not sufficient "federal government control over 'detailed physical performance' and 'day to day operation'" of the Federal Reserve Bank for it to be considered a federal agency:
Lewis v. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (1982)
John L. Lewis, Plaintiff/Appellant,
v.
United States of America, Defendant/Appellee.
No. 80-5905
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 2, 1982.
Decided April 19, 1982.
As Amended June 24, 1982.
Plaintiff, who was injured by vehicle owned and operated by a federal reserve bank, brought action alleging jurisdiction under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The United States District Court for the Central District of California, David W. Williams, J., dismissed holding that federal reserve bank was not a federal agency within meaning of Act and that the court therefore lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. Appeal was taken. The Court of Appeals, Poole, Circuit Judge, held that federal reserve banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of the Act, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations.
Affirmed. 1.
United States
There are no sharp criteria for determining whether an entity is a federal agency within meaning of the Federal Tort Claims Act, but critical factor is existence of federal government control over "detailed physical performance" and "day to day operation" of an entity. . . .
2. United States
Federal reserve banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of a Federal Tort Claims Act, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations in light of fact that direct supervision and control of each bank is exercised by board of directors, federal reserve banks, though heavily regulated, are locally controlled by their member banks, banks are listed neither as "wholly owned" government corporations nor as "mixed ownership" corporations; federal reserve banks receive no appropriated funds from Congress and the banks are empowered to sue and be sued in their own names. . . .
3. United States
Under the Federal Tort Claims Act, federal liability is narrowly based on traditional agency principles and does not necessarily lie when a tortfeasor simply works for an entity, like the Reserve Bank, which performs important activities for the government. . . .
4. Taxation
The Reserve Banks are deemed to be federal instrumentalities for purposes of immunity from state taxation.
5. States Taxation
Tests for determining whether an entity is federal instrumentality for purposes of protection from state or local action or taxation, is very broad: whether entity performs important governmental function.
--------------
Lafayette L. Blair, Compton, Cal., for plaintiff/appellant.
James R. Sullivan, Asst. U.S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., argued, for defendant/appellee; Andrea Sheridan Ordin, U.S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., on brief.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
Before Poole and Boochever, Circuit Judges, and Soloman, District Judge. (The Honorable Gus J. Solomon, Senior District Judge for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation)
Poole, Circuit Judge:
On July 27, 1979, appellant John Lewis was injured by a vehicle owned and operated by the Los Angeles branch of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. Lewis brought this action in district court alleging jurisdiction under the Federal Tort Clains Act (the Act), 28 U.S.C. Sect. 1346(b). The United States moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court dismissed, holding that the Federal Reserve Bank is not a federal agency within the meaning of the Act and that the court therefore lacked subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm.
In enacting the Federal Tort Claims Act, Congress provided a limited waiver of the sovereign immunity of the United States for certain torts of federal employees. . . . Specifically, the Act creates liability for injuries "caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission" of an employee of any federal agency acting within the scope of his office or employment. . . . "Federal agency" is defined as:
the executive departments, the military departments, independent
establishments of the United States, and corporations acting
primarily as instrumentalities of the United States, but does not
include any contractors with the United States.
28 U.S.C. Sect. 2671. The liability of the United States for the negligence of a Federal Reserve Bank employee depends, therefore, on whether the Bank is a federal agency under Sect. 2671.
[1,2] There are no sharp criteria for determining whether an entity is a federal agency within the meaning of the Act, but the critical factor is the existence of federal government control over the "detailed physical performance" and "day to day operation" of that entity. . . . Other factors courts have considered include whether the entity is an independent corporation . . ., whether the government is involved in the entity's finances. . . ., and whether the mission of the entity furthers the policy of the United States, . . . Examining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve Banks, and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purpose of the FTCA, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations.
Each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region. The stockholding commercial banks elect two thirds of each Bank's nine member board of directors. The remaining three directors are appointed by the Federal Reserve Board. The Federal Reserve Board regulates the Reserve Banks, but direct supervision and control of each Bank is exercised by its board of directors. 12 U.S.C. Sect. 301. The directors enact by-laws regulating the manner of conducting general Bank business, 12 U.S.C. Sect. 341, and appoint officers to implement and supervise daily Bank activities. These activites include collecting and clearing checks, making advances to private and commercial entities, holding reserves for member banks, discounting the notes of member banks, and buying and selling securities on the open market. See 12 U.S.C. Sub-Sect. 341-361.
Each Bank is statutorily empowered to conduct these activites without day to day direction from the federal government. Thus, for example, the interest rates on advances to member banks, individuals, partnerships, and corporations are set by each Reserve Bank and their decisions regarding the purchase and sale of securities are likewise independently made.
It is evident from the legislative history of the Federal Reserve Act that Congress did not intend to give the federal government direction over the daily operation of the Reserve Banks:
It is proposed that the Government shall retain sufficient power over
the reserve banks to enable it to exercise a direct authority when
necessary to do so, but that it shall in no way attempt to carry on
through its own mechanism the routine operations and banking which
require detailed knowledge of local and individual credit and which
determine the funds of the community in any given instance. In other
words, the reserve-bank plan retains to the Government power over the exercise of the broader banking functions, while it leaves to
individuals and privately owned institutions the actual direction of
routine.
H.R. Report No. 69 Cong. 1st Sess. 18-19 (1913).
The fact that the Federal Reserve Board regulates the Reserve Banks does not make them federal agencies under the Act. In United States v. Orleans, 425 U.S. 807, 96 S.Ct. 1971, 48 L.Ed.2d 390 (1976), the Supreme Court held that a community action agency was not a federal agency or instrumentality for purposes of the Act, even though the agency was organized under federal regulations and heavily funded by the federal government. Because the agency's day to day operation was not supervised by the federal government, but by local officials, the Court refused to extend federal tort liability for the negligence of the agency's employees.
Similarly, the Federal Reserve Banks, though heavily regulated, are locally controlled by their member banks. Unlike typical federal agencies, each bank is empowered to hire and fire employees at will. Bank employees do not participate in the Civil Service Retirement System. They are covered by worker's compensation insurance, purchased by the Bank, rather than the Federal Employees Compensation Act. Employees travelling on Bank business are not subject to federal travel regulations and do not receive government employee discounts on lodging and services.
The Banks are listed neither as "wholly owned" government corporations under 31 U.S.C. Sect. 846 nor as "mixed ownership" corporations under 31 U.S.C. Sect. 856, a factor considered is Pearl v. United States, 230 F.2d 243 (10th Cir. 1956), which held that the Civil Air Patrol is not a federal agency under the Act. Closely resembling the status of the Federal Reserve Bank, the Civil Air Patrol is a non-profit, federally chartered corporation organized to serve the public welfare.
But because Congress' control over the Civil Air Patrol is limited and the corporation is not designated as a wholly owned or mixed ownership government corporation under 31 U.S.C. Sub-Sect. 846 and 856, the court concluded that the corporation is a non-governmental, independent entity, not covered under the Act.
Additionally, Reserve Banks, as privately owned entities, receive no appropriated funds from Congress. . . .
Finally, the Banks are empowered to sue and be sued in their own name. 12 U.S.C. Sect. 341. They carry their own liability insurance and typically process and handle their own claims. In the past, the Banks have defended against tort claims directly, through private counsel, not government attorneys . . ., and they have never been required to settle tort claims under the administrative procedure of 28 U.S.C. Sect. 2672.
The waiver of sovereign immunity contained in the Act would therefore appear to be inapposite to the Banks who have not historically claimed or received general immunity from judicial process.
[3] The Reserve Banks have properly been held to be federal instrumentalities for some purposes. In United States v. Hollingshead, 672 F.2d 751 (9th Cir. 1982), this court held that a Federal Reserve Bank employee who was responsible for recommending expenditure of federal funds was a "public official" under the Federal Bribery Statute. That statute broadly defines public official to include any person acting "for or on behalf of the Government." . . . The test for determining status as a public official turns on whether there is "substantial federal involvement" in the defendant's activities. United States v. Hollingshead, 672 F.2d at 754. In contrast, under the FTCA, federal liability is narrowly based on traditional agency principles and does not necessarily lie when the tortfeasor simply works for an entity, like the Reserve Banks, which perform important activities for the government.
[4, 5] The Reserve Banks are deemed to be federal instrumentalities for purposes of immunity from state taxation. . . . The test for determining whether an entity is a federal instrumentality for purposes of protection from state or local action or taxation, however, is very broad: whether the entity performs an important governmental function. . . . The Reserve Banks, which further the nation's fiscal policy, clearly perform an important governmental function.
Performance of an important governmental function, however, is but a single factor and not determinative in tort claims actions. . . . State taxation has traditionally been viewed as a greater obstacle to an entity's ability to perform federal functions than exposure to judicial process; therefore tax immunity is liberally applied. . . . Federal tort liability, however, is based on traditional agency principles and thus depends upon the principal's ability to control the actions of his agent, and not simply upon whether the entity performs an important governmental function. . . .
Brinks Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 466 F.Supp. 116 (D.D.C.1979), held that a Federal Reserve Bank is a federal instrumentality for purposes of the Service Contract Act, 41 U.S.C. Sect. 351. Citing Federal Reserve Bank of Boston and Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, the court applied the "important governmental function" test and concluded that the term "Federal Government" in the Service Contract Act must be "liberally construed to effectuate the Act's humanitarian purpose of providing minimum wage and fringe benefit protection to individuals performing contracts with the federal government." Id. 288 Mich. at 120, 284 N.W.2d 667.
Such a liberal construction of the term "federal agency" for purposes of the Act is unwarranted. Unlike in Brinks, plaintiffs are not without a forum in which to seek a remedy, for they may bring an appropriate state tort claim directly against the Bank; and if successful, their prospects of recovery are bright since the institutions are both highly solvent and amply insured.
For these reasons we hold that the Reserve Banks are not federal agencies for purposes of the Federal Tort Claims Act and we affirm the judgement of the district court.
AFFIRMED.
It is clear from this that in some circumstances, the Federal Reserve Bank can be considered a government "instrumentality", but cannot be considered a "federal agency", because the term carries with it the assumption that the federal government has direct oversight over what the Fed does. Of course it does not, because most people who know about this subject know that the Fed is "politically independent."
The only area where one might disagree with the judge's decision is where he states that the Fed furthers the federal government's fiscal policy, and therefore performs an important governmental function. While we would like to think that the federal government and the Fed work cooperatively with each other, and they may on occasion, the Fed is by no means required to do so. One example is where Rep. Wright Patman, Chairman of the House Banking Committee, said in the Congressional Record back in the '60s, that depending on the temperament of the Fed's Chairman, sometimes the Fed worked with the government's fiscal policy, and other times either went in the complete opposite direction, or threatens to do so in order to influence policy.
The common claim that the Fed is accountable to the government, because it is required to report to Congress on its activities annually, is incorrect. The reports to Congress mean little unless what the Chairman reports can be verified by complete records. From its founding to this day, the Fed has never undergone a complete independent audit. Congress time after time has requested that the Fed voluntarily submit to a complete audit, and every time, it refuses.
Those in the know about the Fed, realize that it does keep certain records secret. The soon-to-be-former Chairman of the House Banking Committee, Henry Gonzales, has spoken on record repeatedly about how the Fed at one point says it does not have certain requested records, and then it is found through investigation that it in fact does have those records, or at least used to. It would appear that the Fed Chairman can say anything he wants to to Congress, and they'll have to accept what he says, because verification of what he says is not always possible.
I am sorry, due to time restrictions, I cannot answer individual questions. However I will do my best to clear up any ambiguities in previous pages.
Is the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") an organization within the U.S. Department of the Treasury?
Answer: No. The IRS is not an organization within the United States Department of the Treasury. The U.S. Department of the Treasury was organized by statutes now codified in Title 31 of the United States Code, abbreviated "31 U.S.C."
The only mention of the IRS anywhere in 31 U.S.C. §§ 301‑310 is an authorization for the President to appoint an Assistant General Counsel in the U.S. Department of the Treasury to be the Chief Counsel for the IRS. See 31 U.S.C. 301(f) (2).
At footnote 23 in the case of Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281 (1979), the U.S. Supreme Court admitted that no organic Act for the IRS could be found, after they searched for such an Act all the way back to the Civil War, which ended in the year 1865 A.D.
The Guarantee Clause in the U.S. Constitution guarantees the Rule of Law to all Americans (to be governed by Law and not by arbitrary bureaucrats). See Article IV, Section 4. Since there was no organic Act creating it, IRS is not a lawful organization.
An interesting but completely bogus argument...
Quote:
TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 80 > Subchapter A > § 7801
§ 7801. Authority of Department of the Treasury
(a) Powers and duties of Secretary
(1) In general
Except as otherwise expressly provided by law, the administration and enforcement of this title shall be performed by or under the supervision of the Secretary of the Treasury.
Quote:
TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 80 > Subchapter A > § 7802
§ 7802. Internal Revenue Service Oversight Board
(c) General responsibilities
(1) Oversight
(A) In general
The Oversight Board shall oversee the Internal Revenue Service in its administration, management, conduct, direction, and supervision of the execution and application of the internal revenue laws or related statutes and tax conventions to which the United States is a party.
(B) Mission of IRS
As part of its oversight functions described in subparagraph (A), the Oversight Board shall ensure that the organization and operation of the Internal Revenue Service allows it to carry out its mission.
Quote:(2) the term "Federal law enforcement community" means the heads of the following departments or agencies:
(A) the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
(B) the Drug Enforcement Administration,
(C) the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice,
(D) the Internal Revenue Service,
Not only does the law authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to enforce the tax laws it creates a commissioner of Revenue and recognizes that the IRS exists.
Ah Parados, I would like to say how wonderful it is to see you; but then I would like to go to Coney Island and both remain a dream.
Parados wrote, "An interesting but completely bogus argument..." Then proceeded to give examples. Well, I for one give them credence and a certain merit.
If the IRS is not an organization within the U.S. Department of the Treasury, then what exactly is it?
Answer: The IRS appears to be a collection agency working for foreign banks and operating out of Puerto Rico under color of the Federal Alcohol Administration ("FAA"). But the FAA was promptly declared unconstitutional inside the 50 States by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of U.S. v. Constantine, 296 U.S. 287 (1935), because Prohibition had already been repealed.
In 1998, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit identified a second "Secretary of the Treasury" as a man by the name of Manual Díaz-Saldaña. See the definitions of "Secretary" and "Secretary or his delegate" at 27 CFR 26.11 (formerly 27 CFR 250.11), and the published decision in Used Tire International, Inc. v. Manual Díaz-Saldaña, court docket number 97‑2348, September 11, 1998. Both definitions mention Puerto Rico.
When all the evidence is examined objectively, IRS appears to be in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1951 and 1961 et seq. ("RICO"). Think of Puerto RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act); in other words, it is operating under false and fraudulent pretenses. See also the Sherman Act and the Lanham Act.
Tryagain wrote:
If the IRS is not an organization within the U.S. Department of the Treasury, then what exactly is it?
That is a mighty big "IF".... and the "IF" only works if you completely IGNORE what the law says..
Quote:TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 80 > Subchapter A > § 7801
§ 7801. Authority of Department of the Treasury
(a) Powers and duties of Secretary
(1) In general
Except as otherwise expressly provided by law, the administration and enforcement of this title shall be performed by or under the supervision of the Secretary of the Treasury.
The IRS is under the Secretary of the Treasury. The Secretary is given the power by law.
parados wrote:Tryagain wrote:
If the IRS is not an organization within the U.S. Department of the Treasury, then what exactly is it?
That is a mighty big "IF".... and the "IF" only works if you completely IGNORE what the law says..
Quote:TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 80 > Subchapter A > § 7801
§ 7801. Authority of Department of the Treasury
(a) Powers and duties of Secretary
(1) In general
Except as otherwise expressly provided by law, the administration and enforcement of this title shall be performed by or under the supervision of the Secretary of the Treasury.
The IRS is under the Secretary of the Treasury. The Secretary is given the power by law.
YOu know this is a funny topic.. nothing on it for months and now that you guys are posting.. I have a question.. I just got an email that some guy Tom Cryer beat the IRS in court on July 9th. Do either of you two know anything about this??
RON PAUL 2008!
Richard wrote,
"You know this is a funny topic.. nothing on it for months and now that you guys are posting"
I only started again because I thought Parados was on vacation!
MAJOR IRS DEFEAT:
Tom Cryer
"Not Guilty" of Wilfull Failure to File
Quote:
July 11, 2007 NOT GUILTY!
At the start of the trial the DOJ withdrew the felony charges, leaving two counts of willful failure to file.
The Constitution and the law were allowed into the courtroom. Although Cryer was able to tell the jury what he read, he was not allowed to show the jury what he read. Cryer was also able to tell the jury what he did not read in the law because he could not find it in the law - the law that made him liable to file and pay the federal income tax.
Tom did a good job of explaining to the jury what he read in the Brushhaber, Stanton and Eisner Supreme Court cases about the legal meaning of the word "income" and what he read in the Internal Revenue Code - everything but the law that required him to file.
Tom had asked the IRS to show him the law that made him liable but the IRS did not respond.
Larry Becraft's closing arguments were "flawless."
Compared to the judges in the Simkanin and Schiff cases, Cryer's judge was "Cinderella."
The first domino has fallen; RIP - IRS
Go RON PAUL!
Found not guilty of "willful failure".
Not absolved from having to pay his taxes.
You guys are so predictable. When someone isn't found criminally liable of failing to pay you predict the downfall of the IRS but you fail to note that the taxpayer STILL was required to pay his taxes and loses his ability to make the same argument in the future.
Let's check out Mr unpredictable
"Not absolved from having to pay his taxes."
At the start of the trial the DOJ withdrew the felony charges. They could not prove he should pay taxes, so they withdrew the charge rather than loose!!!
Found not guilty of "willful failure".
If you don't have to file; how can you pay?
"
you fail to note that the taxpayer STILL was required to pay his taxes and loses his ability to make the same argument in the future."
Where did you come up with that?
For the record, and contrary to whatever Parados has written; a winning argument may be used by others.
As a full transcript will not be available for some time, the full implications of the judgement will not be known for sometime. Whilst waiting
.
By what legal authority, if any, has the IRS established offices inside the 50 States of the Union?
Answer: After much diligent research, several investigators have concluded that there is no known Act of Congress, nor any Executive Order, giving IRS lawful jurisdiction to operate within any of the 50 States of the Union.
(However, if there is; I am sure we will hear from him)
Their presence within the 50 States appears to stem from certain Agreements on Coordination of Tax Administration ("ACTA"), which officials in those States have consummated with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. A template for ACTA agreements can be found at the IRS Internet website and in the Supreme Law Library on the Internet.
However, those ACTA agreements are demonstrably fraudulent, for example, by expressly defining "IRS" as a lawful bureau within the U.S. Department of the Treasury. (See Answer to Question one.)
Moreover, those ACTA agreements also appear to violate State laws requiring competitive bidding before such a service contract can be awarded by a State government to any subcontractor. There is no evidence to indicate that ACTA agreements were reached after competitive bidding processes; on the contrary, the IRS is adamant about maintaining a monopoly syndicate.
Tryagain wrote:Let's check out Mr unpredictable
"Not absolved from having to pay his taxes."
At the start of the trial the DOJ withdrew the felony charges. They could not prove he should pay taxes, so they withdrew the charge rather than loose!!!
Found not guilty of "willful failure".
If you don't have to file; how can you pay?
"
you fail to note that the taxpayer STILL was required to pay his taxes and loses his ability to make the same argument in the future."
Where did you come up with that?
For the record, and contrary to whatever Parados has written; a winning argument may be used by others.
As a full transcript will not be available for some time, the full implications of the judgement will not be known for sometime. Whilst waiting
.
By what legal authority, if any, has the IRS established offices inside the 50 States of the Union?
Answer: After much diligent research, several investigators have concluded that there is no known Act of Congress, nor any Executive Order, giving IRS lawful jurisdiction to operate within any of the 50 States of the Union.
(However, if there is; I am sure we will hear from him)
Their presence within the 50 States appears to stem from certain Agreements on Coordination of Tax Administration ("ACTA"), which officials in those States have consummated with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. A template for ACTA agreements can be found at the IRS Internet website and in the Supreme Law Library on the Internet.
However, those ACTA agreements are demonstrably fraudulent, for example, by expressly defining "IRS" as a lawful bureau within the U.S. Department of the Treasury. (See Answer to Question one.)
Moreover, those ACTA agreements also appear to violate State laws requiring competitive bidding before such a service contract can be awarded by a State government to any subcontractor. There is no evidence to indicate that ACTA agreements were reached after competitive bidding processes; on the contrary, the IRS is adamant about maintaining a monopoly syndicate.
It would be so simple for the IRS to just show a law wouldnt it?
I mean you even got Ed Brown up there in New Hampshire saying "Just show me the law and Ill pay it."
IF there really were a law it would seem to much easier to just go and show the person the law rather than risk people getting shot at and/or killed.....
To date I have still not seen any IRS official go on the record and say "Here is the law..." or "Here is the statute that requires you to pay.."
They always dodge the question.
Tryagain wrote:Let's check out Mr unpredictable
Not only are you precictable you don't understand the law or the English language it seems.
Quote:
"Not absolved from having to pay his taxes."
At the start of the trial the DOJ withdrew the felony charges. They could not prove he should pay taxes, so they withdrew the charge rather than loose!!!
They dropped the felony tax evasion charges but kept the failure to file charges. (Tax evasion requires a "willful" evasion. Title 26 7201) That doesn't mean they couldn't prove he should pay taxes. In fact it appears Cryer never argued he didn't owe the taxes in court. He only argued that he wasn't criminally negligent in not paying them. He argued that he believed he didn't have to pay them. That is a far cry from he was absolved from having to pay them.
Quote:
Found not guilty of "willful failure".
If you don't have to file; how can you pay?
He was found not guilty of WILLFUL failure. Because the jury found he didn't willfully fail but rather he truthfully thought he didn't have to doesn't absolve him from having to file or having to pay taxes. He is still liable for his taxes and all penalties and he will still have to file tax returns for those years.
Quote:
"
you fail to note that the taxpayer STILL was required to pay his taxes and loses his ability to make the same argument in the future."
Where did you come up with that?
Cryer can no longer make the legal argument that "he didn't know." It would be like arguing you didn't know theft was against the law even after you had been arrested, tried and acquitted of the crime. No reasonable person could be expected to buy his "he didn't know" argument in the future .
Quote:
For the record, and contrary to whatever Parados has written; a winning argument may be used by others.
Yes, it can but you can't go beyond how the case actually ruled. Cryer was not absolved of his taxes. He was only found not guilty of willful failure to file. He now has the option to file or be charged again. Next time he won't be able to make the same arguments in court because he has been put on notice that he must file.
Quote:
As a full transcript will not be available for some time, the full implications of the judgement will not be known for sometime. Whilst waiting
.
Whilst waiting you will just post more mumbo jumbo that has no meaning..
Richard Saunders wrote:
It would be so simple for the IRS to just show a law wouldnt it?
I mean you even got Ed Brown up there in New Hampshire saying "Just show me the law and Ill pay it."
IF there really were a law it would seem to much easier to just go and show the person the law rather than risk people getting shot at and/or killed.....
To date I have still not seen any IRS official go on the record and say "Here is the law..." or "Here is the statute that requires you to pay.."
They always dodge the question.
Ed Brown who was convicted of tax evasion and sentenced to 5 years in jail. Ed Brown who after his conviction is holed up in his house, has armed himself and declared he will die before going to jail. That nut case?
Yeah. that guy really follows the law. The law has been shown time and again but when shown the tax protester idiots just refuse to believe it and make up their own rules of what they think the law should say before they will accept it is real.
Parados I have to admire your tenacity and single mindedness in your efforts to prove the American public must by law pay personal income tax; Contrary to the ideals of the founding fathers and the constitution.
Richard wrote, "It would be so simple for the IRS to just show a law wouldnt it?
To date I have still not seen any IRS official go on the record and say "Here is the law..." or "Here is the statute that requires you to pay.."
They always dodge the question."
As always Richard you are one step ahead of the pack
Check this out!!!
IRS Commissioner Dodges Income Tax Question
http://youtube.com/watch?v=pu0iSxAKxT0
Why dodge the question if there really is a law?
Tryagain wrote:Parados I have to admire your tenacity and single mindedness in your efforts to prove the American public must by law pay personal income tax; Contrary to the ideals of the founding fathers and the constitution.
Let's play your game...Show me where it is contrary to the ideals of the founding fathers and the constitution.. I bet you can't find a single place where it states "income tax is not allowed." Go ahead and dodge the question if you feel you must.. :wink:
Quote:
Richard wrote, "It would be so simple for the IRS to just show a law wouldnt it?
Title 26 has been shown to you repeatedly... Ignoring the law doesn't make it not exist. Making up what you think the law should say doesn't make the law not exist.
Quote:Quote:
To date I have still not seen any IRS official go on the record and say "Here is the law..." or "Here is the statute that requires you to pay.."
They always dodge the question."
Then you haven't been paying much attention.. Title 26.. It's right there..
Quote:
As always Richard you are one step ahead of the pack
Check this out!!!
IRS Commissioner Dodges Income Tax Question
http://youtube.com/watch?v=pu0iSxAKxT0
Why dodge the question if there really is a law?
Actually, the video shows them directing you to the IRS.gov website which directs you to Title 26 of the tax code. Too bad you guys can't read or follow directions.
parados, Most people who think we don't have to pay income taxes never worked for wages/salary. If the company doesn't withhold income taxes as defined in the IRS code (based on each worker's W-4, Employee's Withholding Allowance Certificate), the officers of the company become liable for all taxes. If the company doesn't have the money to pay it, the IRS can take possession of their personal bank accounts and other assets.
It just isn't going to happen, unless you're a fool. Some people do learn the hard way.
cicerone imposter wrote:parados, Most people who think we don't have to pay income taxes never worked for wages/salary. If the company doesn't withhold income taxes as defined in the IRS code (based on each worker's W-4, Employee's Withholding Allowance Certificate), the officers of the company become liable for all taxes. If the company doesn't have the money to pay it, the IRS can take possession of their personal bank accounts and other assets.
It just isn't going to happen, unless you're a fool. Some people do learn the hard way.
Yes, but some people have convinced their employees to declare themselves "exempt" on their W-4's which absolves the company of any liability since they are only following what the individuals have told them to do.
That's correct; the employer must accept what the employee claims on their Form W-4. The employee must have at least 90 percent of their tax liability paid through payroll withholding. If it's less, the employee will be charged with penalties and interest.
Parados, I understand your interpretation of title 26 and mine are opposite. MY question is why no IRS official ever goes on record to say what it is... Its like they do not want to committ to a position or cite a statute.
Mark Everson, Nina Olsen, Sheldon Cohen.. all dont cite any statute.
That video is a good example. He talks about how there is a 'fundamental construct' and how it is "understood" that we have to pay taxes.. Why doesnt he just say Title 26 Section 1 makes you liable to pay taxes ????
In court, when asked to show the law, why does the IRS choose to remain silent and lose their court case rather than stating...Title 26 section whatever makes you required to pay, or requires you to file.
Now I know you might say that the IRS isnt
required to tell anybody.. But do you think it makes sense that they would choose to lose a court case rather than cite a law??? It simply does not make any sense to me.
However, I think we can all agree on one thing.
The Founding Fathers never invisioned a land where people would pay 50% of their income to the government in taxes.
