No Income Tax Law (you don't have to pay)

Here is someone who beat a tax evasion case where the jury had to find her not guilty of a criminal act, her entire defense was built around the fact that their is no law:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34031

Secondly the website you provided cites Title 26 of the US Code which is more commonly referred to as the Internal Revenue Code, this is not law as it has never been enacted by congress, it is simply the IRC tax regulations.

 

How come that article doesn't talk about the illegal ratification of the 16th Amendment? Who are these folks shilling for? Oh, and did you watch the video I provided you? Probably not. The first half hour talks about the income tax. You might learn something.

 

"If you...examined [the 16th Amendment] carefully, you would find that a sufficient number of states never ratified that amendment."

--U.S. District Court Judge James C. Fox 2003

 

I did read it. Where is the law? I want to see the law. I don't care about what one person's interpretation of the income tax is. I want fact, not personal opinion.

As far as the video I provided, all you need to do is watch the first half hour. Hell, just watch the first 15 minutes and tell me all these former IRS agents are full of shit because they cannot find the law stating the income tax is mandatory.

 

There are a lot of people who dispute it. It doesn't make them right. Frankly, I think some of those law professors arguments are ridiculous.

 

Which arguments and why?

You are being deliberately evasive, abandoning arguments left and right, and simply ignoring counter arguments you can't respond to.

 

Oops you scared him away.

I've never seen a more half assed attempt to back up an argument. Links to stories that don't claim anyone got out of paying taxes, hours long videos which don't say what they are supposed to, fraudsters presented as reliable experts, flippant dismissal of any contrary arguments without any explanation.

 

No, he didn't scare me away. I just don't see the point in wasting time debating with people who don't get it, who grovel to the government and don't have a clue about what's constitutional and what isn't. These people need to wake up before I waste any more time trying to convince them of anything. Frankly, I could not care less what they think. If they want to think the income tax is constitutional when it directly contradicts the 5th Amendment, that's their choice.

I have seen you and Dirk do nothing except continuously defend the government and everything it does. You continuously defend big-business and big-government, but I have never seen you once stand up for the common man. In your mind, government corruption does not exist and we should all just go back to watching the football game and let the government worry about everything else.

 

I completely agree.............I give up trying to explain anything to someone who isn't open minded enough to want to see past the bullshit.

 

Interesting Article



http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/T/TAXES_BUSH?SITE=PASCR&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

GW Bush paid over $186,000 in Federal Income Tax in 2006 and Cheney paid over $464,000 in Federal Income Tax. My question is, if paying Federal Income Tax in optional, wouldn't you think the President and Vice President of the United States would know this and not pay in? Would this not fit their labels of money hungry silverspoon warmongers?

Or is this just more drivel spewed out by the elite controlled media to influence the gullible masses into helping fund the war machine and continue the downward spiral of the United States into its inevitable police state?

 

I'm right because I'm right because i'm right, and you are totally wrong! A typical Rat response.

This post addresses none of our questions, refutes none of the points we made, and refuses to acknowledge any of the problems with your theory we have pointed out. You demand people watch hour long videos, and after they do you refuse to respond to any questions or criticisms they make about it.

You are acting exactly like an indoctrinated, brainwashed chump. You don't understand your own arguments, you can't defend them, you won't defend them. You say something is true and then link to something that doesn't saying anything like what you claimed. When this is pointed out you pretend it didn't happen and just post something completely different.

The only people you are going to convince with stuff like this is people like Rob, who don't ask questions.

 

I'm pretty worn out right now, and i'll post a response to you later Dirk....

but Pepik, don't think that I do not ask questions, because I do, i'm probably one of the least trusting people you'll ever meet, while Matt and I share alot of the same views, I do not agree with him on every single thing.

 

Believe it or not there are actually rules to the course of an argument and they were developed for one specific reason: to establish the truth.

Logically speaking nobody has to prove you wrong. Even if you are right it doesnt fundamentally change the way the world will operate. Since the pretence would still obsfucate your evidence, why ? Why would I say that?
well simply because the world really is the way it is percieved to be. If you have evidence that contradicts that perception, then it is for you to prove that your perception is the correct one, else the world will get along just fine without you
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_argument

you may find this more fascinating
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_argument

 

I doubt that. I'm sure you don't trust the mainstream media, or mainstream politicians. But all that suspicion drops away when you look at conspiracy theories.

 

Dirk,
From what I have read you and Pepik seem to rely heavily on the IRC to refute this fact. I cannot counter that position because you believe the IRC code is legit when in fact it isn't. If you have specific questions I will try my best to give you detailed answers on why I believe what I believe, so have at it. I refuse to debate Pepik however, debating him is an excercise in futility as he selectively fact checks, edits sources to suit his own agenda, and presents circular arguments........i've been down this road with Pepik before.....and I don't see any point in wasting my time trying to give CPR to a plant.

 

No, I rely on the US code to show how the Federal Reserve System works.

Whether or not the IRC code is legitimate is a legal question, and you can make legal arguments. However, as I have said the existance of a legal argument is not proof that it is valid. Validity of legal arguments is decided by courts. The courts have, for a long time now, been consistently throwing out the arguments your tax protesters have been making. That's why your tax protesters pay their taxes.

I get accused of a lot of things... but fact checking? That's new.

Oh wait... was that too 'selective'?