For anyone following along at home...
lets take a moment to revisit my prediction a while ago..
found in this post
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2800691#2800691
Quote:Of course, rather than discussing the actual law, Tryagain will post another diatribe he will steal from the internet without attribution. Richard will disappear for a week or so and then come back to claim no one has shown him the law. Neither of you will discuss the law as laid out here because to do so would put a rather large hole in your ignorant arguments.
It seems I was completely accurate... Neither Try or Richard have discussed the actual law.. Try has posted several things he has stolen from the internet and Richard has just claimed the IRS has never shown the law.
My new prediction..
My old prediction will continue. Neither Richard or Try will discuss the actual law as written in the next month if ever.
To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from many is called; research.
You should try it sometime.
February 15, 1791
(The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, ed. by H. E. Bergh, Vol. III, p. 145 ff.)
The bill for establishing a national bank, in 1791, undertakes, among other things,--
1. To form the subscribers into a corporation.
2. To enable them, in their corporate capacities, to receive grants of lands; and, so far, is against the laws of mortmain.
3. To make alien subscribers capable of holding lands; and so far is against the laws of alienage.
4. To transmit these lands, on the death of a proprietor, to a certain line of successors; and so far, changes the course of descents.
5. To put the lands out of the reach of forfeiture, or escheat; and so far, is against the laws of forfeiture and escheat.
6. To transmit personal chattels to successors, in a certain line; and so far, is against the laws of distribution.
7. To give them the sole and exclusive right of banking, under the national authority; and, so far, is against the laws of monopoly.
8. To communicate to them a power to make laws, paramount to the laws of the states; for so they must be construed, to protect the institution from the control of the state legislatures; and so probably they will be construed.
As a result of bankers meeting at Jekyll Island during the week of November 22, 1910, it was decided to setup a Central Bank. However public resentment against banks after the 1907 financial panic was such that the plan had to be disguised before being presented as the work of the National Monetary Commission which was to present a plan of action to congress.
Senator Nelson Aldrich had insisted that the officials should be appointive, not elected, and that Congress should have no role in their selection. This patent removal of the system from Congressional control meant that the Federal Reserve proposal was unconstitutional from its inception, because the Federal Reserve System was to be a bank of issue. Article 1, Sec. 8, Par. 5 of the Constitution expressly charges Congress with "the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof."
Warburg's plan would deprive Congress of its sovereignty and the systems of checks and balances of power set up by Thomas Jefferson in the Constitution would now be destroyed. Administrators of the proposed system would control the nation's money and credit, and would themselves be approved by the executive department of the government.
ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8 OF THE CONSTITUTION STATES THAT CONGRESS SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO COIN (CREATE) MONEY AND REGULATE THE VALUE THEREOF.
IN 1935 THE SUPREME COURT RULED THAT CONGRESS CANNOT CONSTITUTIONALLY DELEGATE ITS POWER TO ANOTHER GROUP.
Rothschild, a London Banker, wrote a letter saying "It (Central Bank ) gives the National Bank almost complete control of national finance. The few who understand the system will either be so interested in its profits, or so dependent on its favours, that there will be no opposition from that class... The great body of the people, mentally incapable of comprehending, will bear its burden without complaint, and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical (contrary) to their interests." [The bankers created the legislation for the FED]
In 1913, before the Senate Banking and Currency Committee, Mr. Alexander stated:
"But the whole scheme of a Federal Reserve Bank with its commercial-paper basis is an impractical, cumbersome machinery, is simply a cover, to find a way to secure the privilege of issuing money and to evade payment of as much tax upon circulation as possible, and then control the issue and maintain, instead of reduce, interest rates. It is a system that, if inaugurated, will prove to the advantage of the few and the detriment of the people of the United States. It will mean continued shortage of actual money and further extension of credits; for when there is a lack of real money people have to borrow credit to their cost."
THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK IS A PRIVATE COMPANY.
Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution states that Congress shall have the power to coin (create) money and regulate the value thereof. Today however, the FED, which is a privately owned company, controls and profits by printing money through the Treasury, and regulating its value.
The FED began with approximately 300 people or banks that became owners (stockholders purchasing stock at $100 per share - the stock is not publicly traded) in the Federal Reserve Banking System. They make up an international banking cartel of wealth beyond comparison. The FED banking system collects billions of dollars in interest annually and distributes the profits to its shareholders. The Congress illegally gave the FED the right to print money (through the Treasury) at no interest to the FED. The FED creates money from nothing, and loans it back to us through banks, and charges interest on our currency. The FED also buys Government debt with money printed on a printing press and charges U.S. taxpayers interest. Many Congressmen and Presidents say this is fraud.
Who actually owns the Federal Reserve Central Banks? The ownership of the 12 Central banks, a very well kept secret, has been revealed:
Rothschild Bank of London Warburg Bank of Hamburg Rothschild Bank of Berlin Lehman Brothers of New York Lazard Brothers of Paris Kuhn Loeb Bank of New York Israel Moses Seif Banks of Italy Goldman, Sachs of New York Warburg Bank of Amsterdam Chase Manhattan Bank of New York.
These bankers are connected to London Banking Houses which ultimately control the FED. When England lost the Revolutionary War with America (our forefathers were fighting their own government), they planned to control us by controlling our banking system, the printing of our money, and our debt.
The individuals listed below owned banks which in turn owned shares in the FED. The banks listed below have significant control over the New York FED District, which controls the other 11 FED Districts. These banks also are partly foreign owned and control the New York FED District Bank.
First National Bank of New York James Stillman National City Bank, New York Mary W. Harnman
National Bank of Commerce, New York A.D. Jiullard
Hanover National Bank, New York Jacob Schiff
Chase National Bank, New York Thomas F. Ryan Paul Warburg William Rockefeller Levi P. Morton M.T. Pyne George F. Baker Percy Pyne Mrs. G.F. St. George J.W. Sterling Katherine St. George H.P. Davidson J.P. Morgan (Equitable Life/Mutual Life) Edith Brevour T. Baker
How did it happen? After previous attempts to push the Federal Reserve Act through Congress, a group of bankers funded and staffed Woodrow Wilson's campaign for President. He had committed to sign this act. In 1913, a Senator, Nelson Aldrich, maternal grandfather to the Rockefellers, pushed the Federal Reserve Act through Congress just before Christmas when much of Congress was on vacation (Reference 3, 4, 5). When elected, Wilson passed the FED. Later, Wilson remorsefully replied (referring to the FED), "I have unwittingly ruined my country".
Now the banks financially back sympathetic candidates. Not surprisingly, most of these candidates are elected. The bankers employ members of the Congress on weekends (nickname T club -out Thursday...-in Tuesday) with lucrative salaries. Additionally, the FED started buying up the media in the 1930's and now owns or significantly influences most of it.
Presidents Lincoln, Jackson, and Kennedy tried to stop this family of bankers by printing U.S. dollars without charging the taxpayers interest. Today, if the government runs a deficit, the FED prints dollars through the U.S. Treasury, buys the debt, and the dollars are circulated into the economy. In 1992, taxpayers paid the FED banking system $286 billion in interest on debt the FED purchased by printing money virtually cost free. Forty percent of our personal federal income taxes goes to pay this interest. The FED's books are not open to the public. Congress has yet to audit it.
Congressman Wright Patman was Chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on Banking and Currency for 40 years. For 20 of those years, he introduced legislation to repeal the Federal Reserve Banking Act of 1913.
Congressman Henry Gonzales, Chairman of a banking committee, introduces legislation to repeal the Federal Reserve Banking Act of 1913 nearly every year. It's always defeated, the media remains silent, and the public never learns the truth. The same bankers who own the FED control the media and give huge political contributions to sympathetic members of Congress.
THE FED FEARS THE POPULATION WILL BECOME AWARE OF THIS FRAUD AND DEMAND CHANGE
I predict Parados will disagree with all these facts
..To be continued!
Hmm.. a long post that has nothing to do with the income tax law, much of it plagerized. (You need to look up the word Try. Copying other people's work word for word without giving them credit is not research. Researchers are capable of attribution when they use quotes.)
You are indeed a one trick pony Tryagain.
parados wrote:Richard Saunders wrote:parados wrote:Meanwhile.. lets ignore the law that you say is the problem..
The problem is you can't show me what you think is in the law nor can you answer when I point out what is actually in the law.
Show me where the law states there is an "income tax". The law imposes a tax on taxable income. "taxable income" is defined in the law.
Again, if it were that simple, the IRS would say so.. The fact that theyre mum on this shows me theres something fishy.
We could go on arguing the vagueness of the laws all day. The IRS is going through a lot of trouble to just not show people the laws which require them to pay...
The fact that you refuse to discuss the law says there is something fishy..
The fact that when I point out the specific problems with your argument you change the topic says there is something fishy...
The fact that you say the IRS is "mum" when the IRS prints all kinds of brochures and documents that answer all kinds of specific questions is fishy...
Your argument stinks to high heaven.
I have read the laws enough to know its all so trickily worded.. For every argument you posit I could show you a way to refute it..
It is for this very same reason I think the IRS should take an official position and quite simply explain the law - if they can.. But the fact that they dont seems to be because they cant.
Quote:February 15, 1791
(The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, ed. by H. E. Bergh, Vol. III, p. 145 ff.)
The bill for establishing a national bank, in 1791, undertakes, among other things,--
1. To form the subscribers into a corporation.
2. To enable them, in their corporate capacities, to receive grants of lands; and, so far, is against the laws of mortmain.
3. To make alien subscribers capable of holding lands; and so far is against the laws of alienage.
4. To transmit these lands, on the death of a proprietor, to a certain line of successors; and so far, changes the course of descents.
5. To put the lands out of the reach of forfeiture, or escheat; and so far, is against the laws of forfeiture and escheat.
6. To transmit personal chattels to successors, in a certain line; and so far, is against the laws of distribution.
7. To give them the sole and exclusive right of banking, under the national authority; and, so far, is against the laws of monopoly.
8. To communicate to them a power to make laws, paramount to the laws of the states; for so they must be construed, to protect the institution from the control of the state legislatures; and so probably they will be construed.
As a result of bankers meeting at Jekyll Island during the week of November 22, 1910, it was decided to setup a Central Bank. However public resentment against banks after the 1907 financial panic was such that the plan had to be disguised before being presented as the work of the National Monetary Commission which was to present a plan of action to congress.
Senator Nelson Aldrich had insisted that the officials should be appointive, not elected, and that Congress should have no role in their selection. This patent removal of the system from Congressional control meant that the Federal Reserve proposal was unconstitutional from its inception, because the Federal Reserve System was to be a bank of issue. Article 1, Sec. 8, Par. 5 of the Constitution expressly charges Congress with "the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof."
Warburg's plan would deprive Congress of its sovereignty and the systems of checks and balances of power set up by Thomas Jefferson in the Constitution would now be destroyed. Administrators of the proposed system would control the nation's money and credit, and would themselves be approved by the executive department of the government.
The above is plagerized word for word from SECRETS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE The London Connection by Eustace Mullins published in 1952.
We might as well try to find some of the authors you so blatantly steal from.
parados wrote:For anyone following along at home...
lets take a moment to revisit my prediction a while ago..
found in this post
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2800691#2800691
Quote:Of course, rather than discussing the actual law, Tryagain will post another diatribe he will steal from the internet without attribution. Richard will disappear for a week or so and then come back to claim no one has shown him the law. Neither of you will discuss the law as laid out here because to do so would put a rather large hole in your ignorant arguments.
It seems I was completely accurate... Neither Try or Richard have discussed the actual law.. Try has posted several things he has stolen from the internet and Richard has just claimed the IRS has never shown the law.
My new prediction..
My old prediction will continue. Neither Richard or Try will discuss the actual law as written in the next month if ever.
I have discussed the law with you in the past.. It is a waste of time because it is so obtuse and vague. I have also tried to explain the real problem of the income tax which is the federal reserve.. But you dont seem to be able to understand that so im really left with nothing to discuss other than the fact that the IRS will not show anybody the law..
Oh they will say look at this brochure, they will say contact a qualified professional, they will say that theyve paid theyre taxes ever since they had their first job; everything except cite the law that requires anybody to pay it.. Ive seen a few letters from Senators that even admit that there is no law requiring people to pay... One cannot look at it objectively and NOT think there is something suspicious with the IRS's position..
Richard Saunders wrote:
I have read the laws enough to know its all so trickily worded.. For every argument you posit I could show you a way to refute it..
It is for this very same reason I think the IRS should take an official position and quite simply explain the law - if they can..
Oh, you could, but you won't?
Quote:But the fact that they dont seems to be because they cant.
Let's start with something simple here Richard..
Show me the place in the law that imposes a tax on "income" since you claim the law doesn't define "income".
I'm guessing "You can, but you won't."
Richard Saunders wrote:
I have discussed the law with you in the past.. It is a waste of time because it is so obtuse and vague.
Please refresh my memory where you actually discussed the law as written. I don't recal you ever doing that.
Quote: I have also tried to explain the real problem of the income tax which is the federal reserve.. But you dont seem to be able to understand that so im really left with nothing to discuss other than the fact that the IRS will not show anybody the law..
Oh, I understand your position all right. It is an ill informed position. You refuse to accept that many things can cause inflation. You refuse to accept any standard economic theory.
Quote:
Oh they will say look at this brochure, they will say contact a qualified professional, they will say that theyve paid theyre taxes ever since they had their first job; everything except cite the law that requires anybody to pay it..
Really? This is on the IRS website
Quote:The Law: The requirement to pay taxes is not voluntary and is clearly set forth in section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code, which imposes a tax on the taxable income of individuals, estates, and trusts as determined by the tables set forth in that section.
It seems the IRS clearly states that section 1 is the section that requires you to pay taxes. So, they have cited the law. Funny, that is the same section I posted here earlier and you claimed the IRS has never cited it to anyone.
Quote:Ive seen a few letters from Senators that even admit that there is no law requiring people to pay... One cannot look at it objectively and NOT think there is something suspicious with the IRS's position..
No, one can't look at it objectively if one denies facts when presented with them. Fact, the income tax law requires you to pay income tax. Fact the IRS lists Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code as being the section that requires you to pay it. Now, what part of "they never cite the law" are we supposed to believe from you?
parados wrote:Richard Saunders wrote:
I have discussed the law with you in the past.. It is a waste of time because it is so obtuse and vague.
Please refresh my memory where you actually discussed the law as written. I don't recal you ever doing that.
Quote: I have also tried to explain the real problem of the income tax which is the federal reserve.. But you dont seem to be able to understand that so im really left with nothing to discuss other than the fact that the IRS will not show anybody the law..
Oh, I understand your position all right. It is an ill informed position. You refuse to accept that many things can cause inflation. You refuse to accept any standard economic theory.
Quote:
Oh they will say look at this brochure, they will say contact a qualified professional, they will say that theyve paid theyre taxes ever since they had their first job; everything except cite the law that requires anybody to pay it..
Really? This is on the IRS website
Quote:The Law: The requirement to pay taxes is not voluntary and is clearly set forth in section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code, which imposes a tax on the taxable income of individuals, estates, and trusts as determined by the tables set forth in that section.
It seems the IRS clearly states that section 1 is the section that requires you to pay taxes. So, they have cited the law. Funny, that is the same section I posted here earlier and you claimed the IRS has never cited it to anyone.
Quote:Ive seen a few letters from Senators that even admit that there is no law requiring people to pay... One cannot look at it objectively and NOT think there is something suspicious with the IRS's position..
No, one can't look at it objectively if one denies facts when presented with them. Fact, the income tax law requires you to pay income tax. Fact the IRS lists Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code as being the section that requires you to pay it. Now, what part of "they never cite the law" are we supposed to believe from you?
Parados, obviously its just not that simple. When people in court say "show me the law and ill pay it" and the IRS doesnt over and over again what does that say?
Perhaps a more accurate term for the 'Income Tax' would be the "Corporate Excise Tax' ?? We could (and have) already argued these points before.
An income tax can be almost anything; im sure you realize that. The IRS code is written intentionally to be deceptful. If it was just that simple they would have cited it by now.
They would if they could but they cant so they wont.
Richard Saunders wrote:
Parados, obviously its just not that simple. When people in court say "show me the law and ill pay it" and the IRS doesnt over and over again what does that say?
Perhaps a more accurate term for the 'Income Tax' would be the "Corporate Excise Tax' ?? We could (and have) already argued these points before.
An income tax can be almost anything; im sure you realize that. The IRS code is written intentionally to be deceptful. If it was just that simple they would have cited it by now.
They would if they could but they cant so they wont.
No it isn't that simple because the people that say "Show me" refuse to see no matter what they are shown. You have proven that here by refusing to deal with the law itself. In court, the government has no responsibility to show something that people refuse to see. The government only has to prove their case to REASONABLE people. That has been done time and again. The income tax law exists. It requires people to pay it. The law is clear if you want to discuss it. I have cited the exact parts but you have not addressed any of it. Your refusal to discuss the law itself speaks volumes to your argument. Cite where you did discuss the law if you feel you did. (You can't even do that.) Your "corporate excise tax" argument ignores the where the law imposes a tax on "individuals." Do you NOT understand the difference between an individual and a corporation? Yet you want us to take you seriously?
But when it comes to tax protestors such as yourself these are the same people that argue that judges don't have the right to try their cases. As one judge said to one of those idiots.
Quote:Well, perhaps you don't believe I am a judge. But the man behind you is a federal marshall. He thinks I'm a judge. The bailiffs think I am a judge. The appeals court and the Supreme Court think I am a judge. And the warden at the penitentiary thinks I am a judge. As long as they think so, it doesn't really matter that you don't.
For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism.
C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la querre.
And your point is
No, I always yawn when I am interested in your reply.
Just for the record; every word you and I speak, has been spoken by someone somewhere before. They are all in the dictionary, only the order changes
Get over it.
In what other ways is the IRC deliberately vague, and what are the real implications for the average American?
There are numerous other ways in which the IRC is deliberately vague. The absence of any legal definition for the term "income" is a classic deception. The IRS enforces the Code as a tax on everything that "comes in," but nothing could be further from the truth. "Income" is decidedly NOT everything that "comes in."
More importantly, the fact that this vagueness is deliberate is sufficient grounds for concluding that the entire Code is null, void and unconstitutional, for violating our fundamental Right to know the nature and cause of any accusation, as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment in the Bill of Rights.
Whether the vagueness is deliberate or not, any statute is unconstitutionally void if it is vague. If a statute is void for vagueness, the situation is the same as if it had never been enacted at all, and for this reason it can be ignored entirely.
Has Title 26 of the United States Code ("U.S.C.") ever been enacted into positive law, and what are the legal implications if Title 26 has not been enacted into positive law?
Another, less obvious case of deliberate deception is the statute at IRC section 7851(a)(6)(A), where it states that the provisions of subtitle F shall take effect on the day after the date of enactment of "this title". Because the term "this title" is not defined anywhere in the IRC, least of all in the section dedicated to definitions, one is forced to look elsewhere for its meaning, or to derive its meaning from context.
Throughout Title 28 of the United States Code -- the laws which govern all the federal courts -- the term "this title" clearly refers to Title 28. This fact would tend to support a conclusion that "this title", as that term is used in the IRC, refers to Title 26 of the United States Code. However, Title 26 has never been enacted into positive law, as such.
Even though all federal judges may know the secret meaning of "this title", they are men and women of uncommon intelligence. The U.S. Supreme Court's test for vagueness is violated whenever men and women of common intelligence must necessarily guess at the meaning and differ as to the application of a vague statute. See Connally et al. v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 (1926). Thus, federal judges are applying the wrong test for vagueness.
Accordingly, the provisions of subtitle F have never taken effect. ("F" is for enforcement!) This subtitle contains all of the enforcement statutes of the IRC, e.g. filing requirements, penalties for failure to file and tax evasion, grants of court jurisdiction over liens, levies and seizures, summons enforcement and so on.
In other words, the IRC is a big pile of Code without any teeth; as such, it can impose no legal obligations upon anyone, not even people with false teeth!
(No offence intended Parados)
Quote:Just for the record; every word you and I speak, has been spoken by someone somewhere before. They are all in the dictionary, only the order changes
Get over it.
Oh. so that is your excuse for plagerism? Sorry but when you put together 50-75 words exactly as someone else did and you took those words from them it is called plagerism. I see no reason to get over it. If you can't deal with reality, then you are the one that needs to "Get over it."
But the rest of your argument is a repeat of what you couldn't support the first time. That tends to be the problem when you plagerize instead of thinking for yourself. You can't make any sustained argument or answer any rebuttal because you don't understand what it is you are stealing.
1. You haven't told us where "income" is required to be defined in the code since the tax is based on "taxable income" which is defined in the code.
2. You haven't told us which part of the constitution requires laws to be "positive".
3. Since there is no "positive" law clause in the constitution, you can't claim something is unconstitutional because it isn't positive.
4. You argue that "this title" is vague and then turn around and show it isn't vague when used in Title 28. (All laws have titles. This title would refer to the title of the law that contains the phrase.)
5. You argue that "This title" is vague yet you understood its meaning in Title 28. It isn't that "this title" is vague. It is you trying to create vagueness where none occurs.
6. Your argument that F is not in force is subverted by your own understanding of "this title" in Title 28.
But I am not sure that any of the argument you just made were your own so I don't expect you will answer my points.
parados wrote:Richard Saunders wrote:
Parados, obviously its just not that simple. When people in court say "show me the law and ill pay it" and the IRS doesnt over and over again what does that say?
Perhaps a more accurate term for the 'Income Tax' would be the "Corporate Excise Tax' ?? We could (and have) already argued these points before.
An income tax can be almost anything; im sure you realize that. The IRS code is written intentionally to be deceptful. If it was just that simple they would have cited it by now.
They would if they could but they cant so they wont.
No it isn't that simple because the people that say "Show me" refuse to see no matter what they are shown. You have proven that here by refusing to deal with the law itself. In court, the government has no responsibility to show something that people refuse to see. The government only has to prove their case to REASONABLE people. That has been done time and again. The income tax law exists. It requires people to pay it. The law is clear if you want to discuss it. I have cited the exact parts but you have not addressed any of it. Your refusal to discuss the law itself speaks volumes to your argument. Cite where you did discuss the law if you feel you did. (You can't even do that.) Your "corporate excise tax" argument ignores the where the law imposes a tax on "individuals." Do you NOT understand the difference between an individual and a corporation? Yet you want us to take you seriously?
But when it comes to tax protestors such as yourself these are the same people that argue that judges don't have the right to try their cases. As one judge said to one of those idiots.
Quote:Well, perhaps you don't believe I am a judge. But the man behind you is a federal marshall. He thinks I'm a judge. The bailiffs think I am a judge. The appeals court and the Supreme Court think I am a judge. And the warden at the penitentiary thinks I am a judge. As long as they think so, it doesn't really matter that you don't.
Parados, we will simply have to disagree on it.. I maintain that the IRS is lying because of their failure to show the law time after time and you maintain that they are not lying because they dont have to show it.
Thats fine. I can disagree without being disagreeable.
Richard Saunders wrote:
Parados, we will simply have to disagree on it.. I maintain that the IRS is lying because of their failure to show the law time after time and you maintain that they are not lying because they dont have to show it.
Thats fine. I can disagree without being disagreeable.
I showed you that the IRS lists the law on their website but you still claim they never show the law. This isn't a case of the IRS not showing anyone the law. This is a case of you being dishonest with yourself if not with everyone else.
parados wrote:Richard Saunders wrote:
Parados, we will simply have to disagree on it.. I maintain that the IRS is lying because of their failure to show the law time after time and you maintain that they are not lying because they dont have to show it.
Thats fine. I can disagree without being disagreeable.
I showed you that the IRS lists the law on their website but you still claim they never show the law. This isn't a case of the IRS not showing anyone the law. This is a case of you being dishonest with yourself if not with everyone else.
The IRS lists a bunch of things on their website but nowhere are they going to tell you or cite you the law in question. Go email them. Ask them which law requires you to pay income tax..They will not answer you.
Or Call them up on the phone and they'll tell you its voluntary.. Its a big con.. They cant cite a law because if they do then theyll be on the hook and their position will probably get ripped to shreds.
Like I said before you can believe all you want that they are good honorable people who dont HAVE to show anybody any law; but I will maintain they are deceitful and illegal because they refuse to show the law.
And I will maintain that you are deceitful since you refuse to discuss the law and you refuse to acknowledge where the IRS does cite the law.
So to recap...
Someone asks "cite me the law". The answer is given as Title 26 also known as the Internal Revenue code. (IRC)
That person says.. NO, I want you to cite the specific part of the law, the answer is given Section 1 of the IRC
The person then says.. NO, you have to point to the word "liable" in the law. The response is "The title of Chapter 1, Subchapter A is determination of liability".
The person says That doesn't make "liable" part of the code"
This is not the case of a reasonable person looking for an answer Richard. This is the case of acting like a 2 year old because you don't want to pay taxes. This is why your argument is now considered frivolous by the court. You refuse to accept the answer when given and change your question then claim your original question was never answered even though it was. The IRS only has to cite the totality of IRC in response to your question. (They have done this time and again.) They are not your personal attorney. You can show no legal basis why the IRS must answer your question or it invalidates the code. Your question was answered here and instead of dealing with the answer you changed and said "No, you can't tell me, they have to tell me." You were told. Your arguments will always be childish. Either grow up and discuss the law or go back to sucking your thumb.
Parados wrote, "The above is plagerized word for word
"
You do make I laugh; I find it impossible to take seriously a miss-spelt allegation.
The word is:
You are fixated by the author, when you should address the content. You ask others to prove a negative, which you should know is impossible. It is not my intention to convince you of anything; only to inform.
For example:
"As a result of bankers meeting at Jekyll Island during the week of November 22, 1910"
Are you seriously suggesting any casual reader would reasonably believe I was there?
Allegations, more allegations and personal insults: the last refuge of a lost cause.
There is a popular belief within certain members that you are attempting to turn this collection of works (probably the largest on the web) into some kind of joke.
My professional advice is: You should seek immediate medical attention.
(I mean that in a good way)
Rep. Louis T. McFadden (R. Pa.) rose from office boy to become cashier and then President of the First National Bank in Canton Ohio. For 12 years he served as Chairman of the Committee on Banking and Currency, making him one of the foremost financial authorities in America. He fought continuously for fiscal integrity and a return to constitutional government. The following are portions of Rep. McFadden's speech, quoted from the Congressional Record, pages 12595-12603:
"THE FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD, A GOVERNMENT BOARD, HAS CHEATED THE GOVERNMENTOF THE UNITED STATES AND THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OUT OF ENOUGH MONEY TO PAY THE NATIONAL DEBT.
The depredations and the iniquities of the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks acting together have cost this country ENOUGH MONEY TO PAY THE NATIONAL DEBT SEVERAL TIMES OVER."
About the Federal Reserve banks, Rep. McFadden said, "They are private credit monopolies which prey upon the people of the United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; the rich and predatory money lenders. This is an era of economic misery and for the reasons that caused that misery, the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks are fully liable."
On the subject of media control he state, "Half a million dollars was spent on one part of the propaganda organized by those same European bankers for the purpose of misleading public opinion in regard to it."
Rep. McFadden continued, "Every effort has been made by the Federal Reserve Board to conceal its power but the truth is the Federal Reserve Board has USURPED THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES. IT CONTROLS EVERYTHING HERE AND IT CONTROLS ALL OUR FOREIGN RELATIONS. IT MAKES AND BREAKS GOVERNMENTS AT WILL.
No man and no body of men is more entrenched in power than the arrogant credit monopoly which operates the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks. These evil-doers have robbed this country of more than enough money to pay the national debt. What the Government has permitted the Federal Reserve Board to steal from the people should now be restored to the people."
"Our people's money to the extent of $1,200,000,000 has within the last few months been shipped abroad to redeem Federal Reserve Notes and to pay other gambling debts of the traitorous Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks. The greater part of our monetary stock has been shipped to foreigners. Why should we promise to pay the debts of foreigners to foreigners? Why should American Farmers and wage earners add millions of foreigners to the number of their dependents? Why should the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks be permitted to finance our competitors in all parts of the world?" Rep. McFadden asked.
"The Federal Reserve Act should be repealed and the Federal Reserve banks, having violated their charters, should be liquidated immediately.
FAITHLESS GOVERNMENT OFFICERS WHO HAVE VIOLATED THEIR OATHS SHOULD BE IMPEACHED AND BROUGHT TO TRIAL", Rep. McFadden concluded.
Richard wrote, "That's fine. I can disagree without being disagreeable."
Amen to that brother; I predict it will fall on deaf ears!!!
Your post has nothing to do with the topic of this thread Try.
It says nothing about the income tax.
What are you the IRS thread cops? They tell me free speech is guaranteed by the Constitution; perhaps you have heard of it!
Let us pause for breath for a moment to checkout what Parados thinks proves the case for paying an unlawful tax:
"Well, perhaps you don't believe I am a judge. But the man behind you is a federal marshall. He thinks I'm a judge. The bailiffs think I am a judge. The appeals court and the Supreme Court think I am a judge. And the warden at the penitentiary thinks I am a judge. As long as they think so, it doesn't really matter that you don't."
What links all the people mentioned?
Pull up a chair and let me tell you
They are all on the State payroll, part of the system. They run things to their advantage; they are not gonna change things.
You may well have been on that gravy train, but it is about to hit the buffers!
"Your post has nothing to do with the topic of this thread Try.
It says nothing about the income tax."
On the contrary my dear Parados, it starts to expose all!
You may not care that the interest rate for the US is set by the private London Company that is the FED.
The interest rate determines the level of debt, and that level sets the Tax rate. Jeeze, it's like talking to a baby.
But why does no one care that after 200 years England still pulls the strings and is still involved with the tax that created a nation?
If the media is unbiased, independent and completely thorough, why haven't they discussed the FED? Currently, half the states have at least a grass roots movement in action to abolish the FED, but there's no press coverage. In July, 1968, the House Banking Subcommittee reported that Rockefeller, through Chase Manhattan Bank, controlled 5.9% of the stock in CBS. Furthermore, the bank had gained interlocking directorates with ABC.
In 1974, Congress issued a report stating that the Chase Manhattan Bank's stake in CBS rose to 14.1% and NBC to 4.5% (through RCA, the parent company of NBC). The same report said that the Chase Manhattan Bank held stock in 28 broadcasting firms. After this report, the Chase Manhattan Bank obtained 6.7% of ABC, and today the percentage could be much greater. It only requires 5% ownership to significantly influence the media. This is only one of 300 wealthy shareholders of the FED. It is believed other FED owners have similar holdings in the media. To control the media, FED bankers call in their loans if the media disagrees with them.
Rockefeller also controls the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the sole purpose of which is to aid in stimulating greater interest in foreign affairs and in a one world government. Nearly every major newscaster belongs to the Council on Foreign Relations. The Council on Foreign Relations controls many major newspapers and magazines. Additionally, major corporations owned by FED shareholders are the source of huge advertising revenues which surely would influence the media. It can be no wonder why groups such as FED-UP(tm) receive minimal, if any, press attention.
How do taxpayers stop financing those whose purpose it is to destroy us? First, expose their activity, and then demand change.
I think a good first step would be for Parados to apologize to Richard for his derogatory tone and order in a round of beers.
I predict he will decline on both accounts.
