| New Evidence That Form 1040 Is Fraudulent |
|
|
|
|
|
Gold
New Member
Cash: $ 1.05
Posts: 5
Joined: 20 Jun 2006
|
| New Evidence That Form 1040 Is Fraudulent |
 |
|
On May 12, 2006 the DOJ attorney dropped 3 counts of willful failure to file a 1040 Form and 3 felony counts of income tax evasion, with prejudice. Those charges were brought against Robert Lawrence 60 days earlier. DOJ's motion to dismiss "with prejudice" means the government can not charge Mr Lawrence with those crimes again.
Why would the DOJ attorney beg the court to dismiss and walk away with nothing to show for their effort? This unprecedented move came after Mr Lawrence's attorney announced what his client's defense would be based on. Apparently the DOJ attorneys did not want defense information brought to light in open court. This motion also appears to indicate that DOJ legal minds felt that acquittal in this case was likely or even assured.
The proposed defense, which is available to all US citizens, is very simple and yet provides substantial evidence that Form 1040 is a bootleg and fraudulent document. Such being the case makes filing that document strictly VOLUNTARY!
See all the juicy details here: http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTP2/UPDATES/Update2006-06-09.htm
Leo Gold
|
Tue Jun 20, 2006 3:49 pm |
|
|
coaster
Senior Advisor
Cash: $ 1318.80
Posts: 6496
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Location: Wisconsin
|
Interesting. But I think that the premise that Form 1040 is just a collection of information form is a little shakey. And the website is not exactly unbiased.
It's not advice that I can get behind. But I will suggest that anyone who views Form 1040 as a voluntary submittal should have enough funds to get a lawyer as savvy as Mr. Lawrence's.
Requiring payment of taxes IS constitutional and IS NOT voluntary. So, if not using Form 1040, you'd best submit your tax payments and calculations for arriving at same anyway, even if you do it on toilet paper. Although, I can guarantee you'll have the pleasure of an audit. 
~Tim~
Eye Candy : Why Whimsy
|
|
Tue Jun 20, 2006 4:44 pm |
|
|
Gold
New Member
Cash: $ 1.05
Posts: 5
Joined: 20 Jun 2006
|
|
|
|
You've missed the main point of the PRA defense: Without a *valid* OMB number, Form 1040 carries no legal weight IE: It doesn't have to be used or filed and instructions therein do not have to be obeyed. If one wishes to be a taxpayer funding corruption, that is a personal *choice*.
The defense is laid out very clearly for any US citizen to use at his/her discretion and without going to trial. The DOJ did not shy away from the attorney, they backed down and failed at their task to prosecute because of the valid substance of the defense, which they could not overcome.
A direct tax on the wages of an individual is most definitely unconstitutional and can not lawfully be required. That is the likely reason Form 1040 CAN NOT be assigned a valid OMB number.
A direct tax on an individual's wages would violate Article 1, section 2 and section 9 of the US Constitution:
Sec 2: "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included in this Union, according to their respective Numbers…"
Sec 9: "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."
That is why the Federal Income Tax is and has always been subject to voluntary assessment and payment. So said Chief Justice Warren in:
FLORA v US, 362 US 145 (1960):
“Our system of taxation is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint”
Meaning our system of taxation is not based on the seizure of property for non-payment of debt, but on voluntary compliance.
|
|
Tue Jun 20, 2006 7:29 pm |
|
|
coaster
Senior Advisor
Cash: $ 1318.80
Posts: 6496
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Location: Wisconsin
|
|
|
|
I disagree with the choice, the voluntary, and the unconstitutional. Ammendment 16 gives the power to tax income.
Form 1040 is a red herring. Voluntary compliance is a red herring. Law enforcement depends upon my voluntary compliance to not murder, rape, loot, steal, etc etc. I can choose to comply with the law or I can choose to disobey the laws. Of course, everyone has choice.
The US Treasury relies upon my voluntary submittal of the income tax that's legally due. If I don't report and if I don't pay it, they're not going to come and extract it from the point of a sword like in medieval times. But I can expect to be hauled into criminal court if and when they find out. What I'm not sure of if the government has the power to seize your assets when you don't pay your taxes. THAT I'll agree with you....I don't think they have the Constitutional authority to do. Or at the very least it's being done without due process. (Though there seems to be a pretty large shortage of due process in plenty of other areas, too, from the federal government these days.  )
I do agree about the corruption. Non-payment of taxes isn't the way to solve that. Voting the incumbents out of office at the end of every term; better yet one-term limits; banning lobbyists; changes in campaign funding .... there are more effective ways to clean up government.
~Tim~
Eye Candy : Why Whimsy
|
|
Tue Jun 20, 2006 7:43 pm |
|
|
Gold
New Member
Cash: $ 1.05
Posts: 5
Joined: 20 Jun 2006
|
|
|
|
The 16th Amendment gave Congress NO new power of any kind, it merely kept the, then current, Corporate Income Tax of 1909 in the category of *indirect Tax*. Congress has always had the power to levy an indirect (excise) tax on corporations, with "income" (corporate gain) as the basing factor. They have NEVER had the power to levy a DIRECT TAX on the income of individual citizens.
Again: Chief Justice Warren in:
FLORA v US, 362 US 145 (1960):
“Our system of taxation is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint”
If your opinion is at odds with a Supreme Court decision, which one do you think will prevail?
Labeling things not clearly understood as "red herrings" prevents ever gaining the necessary understanding. Form 1040 does not carry a valid OMB number rendering it legally worthless. US citizens can not, lawfully, be required to file a bogus document.
Withdrawing all support for a corrupt and immoral government could easily cure a substantial amount of corruption. Imagine Congress having substantially less funds to redistribute among the non-productive. Our welfare state could be replaced with honest trading of values.
Here's some US Supreme Court case decision cites for you peruse. I hope they'll help you reach more accurate conclusions.
EVANS v GORE, 253 US 245, 263 (1920):
"Does the Sixteenth Amendment authorize and support this tax and the attendant diminution; that is to say, does it bring within the taxing powers subjects theretofore excepted? The court below answered in the negative; and counsel for the government say: ‘It is not, in view of recent decisions, contended that this amendment rendered anything taxable as income that was not so taxable before’."
BOWERS v. KERBAUGH-EMPIRE CO., 271 U.S. 170, 174 (1926):
"The Sixteenth Amendment declares that Congress shall have power to levy and collect taxes on income, 'from whatever source derived' without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. It was not the purpose or effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power."
BRUSHABER v UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 US 1 (1916):
"The contention that the[16th] Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax although it is relieved from apportionment and is necessarily therefore not subject to the rule of uniformity as such rule only applies to taxes which are not direct, thus destroying the two great classifications which have been recognized and enforced from the beginning, is also wholly without foundation since the command of the Amendment that all income taxes shall not be subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the taxed income may be derived forbids the application to such taxes of the rule applied in the Pollock Case by which alone such taxes were removed from the great class of excises, duties, and imposts subject to the rule of uniformity, and were placed under the other or direct class."
"…the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes. And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it…"
In TAFT v. BOWERS, 278 U.S. 470, 481 (1929):
"Under former decisions here the settled doctrine is that the Sixteenth Amendment confers no power upon Congress to define and tax as income without apportionment something which theretofore could not have been properly regarded as income."
EISNER v MACOMBER, 252 US 189 (1920):
"The 16th Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the amendment was adopted."
"As repeatedly held, this did not extend the taxing power to new subjects…"
"…it becomes essential to distinguish between what is and is not ‘income’, as the term is there used.."
"…we find little to add to the succinct definition adopted in two cases arising under the Corporation Tax Act of 1909…(Stratton’s and Doyle)"
DOYLE v. MITCHELL BROS., 247 U.S. 179, 183 (1918):
"An examination of these and other provisions of the Act make it plain that the legislative purpose was not to tax property as such, or the mere conversion of property, but to tax the conduct of the business of corporations organized for profit upon the gainful returns from their business operations."
BOWERS v. KERBAUGH-EMPIRE, 271 U.S. 170 (1926):
"Income has been taken to mean the same thing as used in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, in the 16th Amendment, and in the various revenue acts subsequently passed."
HELVERING v. EDISON BROS. STORES, 8 Cir. 133 F2d 575 (1943):
"The Treasury cannot by interpretive regulation make income of that which is not income within the meaning of the revenue acts of Congress, nor can Congress, without apportionment, tax that which is not income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment."
SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. v. LOWE, 247 U.S. 330, 335 (1918):
"We must reject in this case, as we have rejected in cases arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, the broad contention submitted on behalf of the government that all receipts, everything that comes in, are income within the proper definition of the term 'gross income'. Certainly the term 'income' has no broader meaning in the Income Tax Act of 1913 than in that of 1909, and for the present purpose we assume there is no difference in its meaning as used in the two acts."
COPPAGE v. STATE OF KANSAS, 236 U.S. 1, 23 -24 (1915):
"The court held it unconstitutional, saying: 'The right to follow any lawful vocation and to make contracts is as completely within the protection of the Constitution as the right to hold property free from unwarranted seizure, or the liberty to go when and where one will. One of the ways of obtaining property is by contract. The right, therefore, to contract cannot be infringed by the legislature without violating the letter and spirit of the Constitution. Every citizen is protected in his right to work where and for whom he will. He may select not only his employer, but also his associates."
|
|
Wed Jun 21, 2006 12:55 am |
|
|
coaster
Senior Advisor
Cash: $ 1318.80
Posts: 6496
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Location: Wisconsin
|
|
|
|
Well, there's no way I have the time or energy, or even the inclination to counterpoint. I'm not a lawyer. But I do know that isolated quotations, facts, even court rulings, can be used to support just about any contention.
Direct/indirect: who cares -- it's just semantics. The 16th ammendment says: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived" It doesn't say anything about method. That's left up to Congress. Saying that we don't have to pay income taxes because there's something not quite right about the way it's done is a good way to land in jail.
And because the Supreme Court says something doesn't make it gospel, either. They've reversed themselves before. And look at some of their egregiously idiotic and ill-advised rulings, like the recent one on eminent domain.
We're here to provide realistic, pragmatic and workable financial advice, not recruit cannon fodder for an idealistic tax revolution, even though it might be high time for such. We're here to make the best of the way things are. And getting ahead doing it that way. And that's what I understand. And so the only position I can stand behind here is: pay your damn taxes, according to IRS code, and using IRS forms. And use the IRS code to its full extent to pay the least amount of tax legally possible.
~Tim~
Eye Candy : Why Whimsy
|
|
Wed Jun 21, 2006 1:18 am |
|
|
Gold
New Member
Cash: $ 1.05
Posts: 5
Joined: 20 Jun 2006
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court decisions along with the Constitution are "law of the land". They supercede all code and statutes. Ignorance of those facts has produced a land of "taxpayers" who place Title 26 above actual law. Ignorance of the law in American society is the accepted behavior. That will change as word of the PRA defense spreads.
When the Constitution says that no direct tax may be levied unless apportioned among the States in proportion to census, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT IT MEANS. It should behoove any salient individual to know the difference between Direct and Indirect Taxes. Here's how the Code of Federal Regulations defines each:
Direct tax. ``Direct tax'' means a tax on wages, profits, interests, rents, royalties, and all other forms of income, a tax on the ownership of real property, or a social welfare charge.
Indirect tax. ``Indirect tax'' means a sales, excise, turnover, value added, franchise, stamp, transfer, inventory, or equipment tax, a border tax, or any other tax other than a direct tax or an import charge.
To further clarify: "Direct Taxes bear upon persons, upon possession and the enjoyment of rights; Indirect Taxes are levied upon the happening of an event." Knowlton v. Moore, 178 US 41, 47 (1900).
Semantics has nothing to do with two separate classes of taxation. Knowing the difference makes it crystal clear that Congress lacks the authority to impose a direct tax on the wages of American citizens. No law degree is required to understand those FACTS. A fifth grade education should suffice.
Now, the 16 Amendment says "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived". The supreme court decisions I posted yesterday explain that the meaning of the term "INCOME" means "corporate gain".
BOWERS v. KERBAUGH-EMPIRE, 271 U.S. 170 (1926):
"Income has been taken to mean the same thing as used in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, in the 16th Amendment, and in the various revenue acts subsequently passed."
That means that the term "income" carries the same definition (established in the Corporate Tax Act of 1909) in subsequent tax acts and the 16th Amendment. Therefore when one reads the term "income" in the 16th Amendment it means "corporate gain"!
To add more weight to the mountain of evidence already presented, you should realize that there could not exist 2 contradicting sections of the Constitution. If the 16th Amendment meant what you think it says, it would contradict Article 1, sections 2 & 9. That condition could not be allowed to exist.
In order for Congress to ever have authority to impose a direct tax on individual income, Article 1, sections 2 & 9 of the US Constitution would have to be repealed. That has not and will not ever happen!
You may be here to provide self-serving financial advise to anyone who'll listen, but I'm here to present the facts exposing Federal Income Tax as a scam! Those who wish to remain taxpayers are free to do so. But, now the readers of this thread have been made aware that there are other viable options, which could easily improve their financial condition.
|
|
Wed Jun 21, 2006 7:53 pm |
|
|
tss4
Contributing Member
Cash: $ 8.45
Posts: 42
Joined: 31 Jul 2005
|
So Gold, have you stopped paying your taxes and for how long? How's that working out for you?
|
|
Sun Jun 25, 2006 1:08 pm |
|
|
Gold
New Member
Cash: $ 1.05
Posts: 5
Joined: 20 Jun 2006
|
I pay everything I owe and not one cent more. That's been working just fine for me since 1996.
|
|
Sun Jun 25, 2006 3:30 pm |
|
|
coaster
Senior Advisor
Cash: $ 1318.80
Posts: 6496
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Location: Wisconsin
|
And you're using IRS Form 1040?
~Tim~
Eye Candy : Why Whimsy
|
|
Sun Jun 25, 2006 4:57 pm |
|
|
Toto
Preferred Member
Cash: $ 26.60
Posts: 133
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Location: Newport Beach
|
| HOGWASH |
|
|
This kind of hogwash shouldn't be allowed to be posted on a reputable financial site. How do we go about getting this removed?
My name is Toto and I am a stockoholic! 
|
|
Sun Jun 25, 2006 6:30 pm |
|
|
coaster
Senior Advisor
Cash: $ 1318.80
Posts: 6496
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Location: Wisconsin
|
Mr. Gold has the opportunity to express his opinions as long as it's done in accordance with forum rules. There have been no rules violations in this thread. To delete this thread in any other case would constitute censorship, which is the prerogative of the site owner/administrator, and only the site owner/administrator.
Frankly, it's so obviously "hogwash", as you describe it, that's exactly the reason it should remain. So it's there for everyone to see.
~Tim~
Eye Candy : Why Whimsy
|
|
Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:16 pm |
|
|
tss4
Contributing Member
Cash: $ 8.45
Posts: 42
Joined: 31 Jul 2005
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gold
I pay everything I owe and not one cent more. That's been working just fine for me since 1996.
Hard to take you serious when you don't practice what you preach.
|
|
Tue Jun 27, 2006 12:47 am |
|
|
lpstong
Member
Cash: $ 4.25
Posts: 21
Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Location: California
|
I find it incredible that one would suggest and back with a case not to pay your taxes because of wording.
I know there has been many cases of tax invasion and people sent to jail. Richard Hatch went to jail for tax invasion. Why didnt he get off and use the same excuse?
I smell a sweet deal that was made behind doors that the DOJ made with the case stated.
Taxes are a pain. But I also see it as a duty. To pay for the many things we use in this country so freely. Fair pay - fair share.
Maximum Page Ranking
|
|
Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:12 pm |
|
|
fultron
Preferred Member
Cash: $ 3.50
Posts: 103
Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Location: NJ
|
I just found this thread today, pretty bizarre.
quote:
Originally posted by Gold
I pay everything I owe and not one cent more.
Who would pay more than they owe??
Saving Money
|
|
Wed Aug 23, 2006 8:48 pm |
|
|
|
