First, that film is full of misinformation, misquotes and misinterpretations. I haven't watched the entire thing because after 15 to 20 falsehoods, I didn't feel like wasting any more of my time.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/31/movies/31russ.html?ex=1184299200&en=82a554814c554ed4&ei=5070
Irwin Schiff, one of the people in the film has been convicted for the THIRD time. By the time he gets out of jail, if he doesn't get released early for health reasons, he'll be 88 years old and will STILL HAVE TO PAY HIS TAXES.
Vernice Kuglin, while she wasn't convicted of criminal charges, still ended up having to pay taxes and penalties.
Amazingly, the transcripts to the Kuglin trial and verdict are on Irwin Schiff's website. Here is a short excerpt from that transcript that Schiff and Russo probably don't want you to read.
In U.S. v. Kuglin, CR-03-20111, near the end of the transcripts, pg. 776,
THE COURT: So anything else from the United States?
MR. MURPHY (Federal lawyer): Just one thing, to put Ms. Kuglin on notice, she has got to pay taxes, I think the court
ought to instruct her that that is the law. She has got to file returns and --
MR. BECRAFT (Lawyer for defense): Your Honor, that is going to be cleaned up totally.
THE COURT: Okay. Well, Mr. Murphy is not incorrect that it is the law, and I think what he's also saying is there will still be civil penalties.
MR. BECRAFT: I expect probably 90-day letters to be coming pretty quick.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. BECRAFT: And there's going to be civil proceedings, and she is going to being take responsibility -- she is going to be doing things to respond to all of that like file returns, Your Honor.
So, as anyone can plainly see, Kuglin was acquitted by a jury of her peers of "Willful failure to file", but that she still has to pay her income taxes. If I remember correctly, she had approximately $930,000 in income over a six year period and she ended up paying a little over $500,000 in taxes and penalties. It would have been cheaper for her to just pay her taxes in the first place.
Everyone here should read the excellent tax protestor faq online at http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html Daniel Evans covers every point made by tax protestors. Another good site is http://www.quatloos.com
Title 26 is the codification of the Internal Revenue Code. http://www2.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sup_01_26.html
You can read the actual Internal Revenue Code in the U.S. Statutes at large available at Federal Depository Libraries. The basis for today's tax laws is the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 which was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Eisenhower. Amendments and modifications to the IRC have all been passed by Congress and signed by a President.
Also, the whole bit about the Federal Reserve is wrong also. You can read the law concerning the Federal Reserve in the U.S. Code Title 12, Chapter 3. http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title12/chapter3_.html
The quote attributed to Woodrow Wilson, that starts with "I am a most unhappy man..." is probably false. Parts of the quote are taken out of context from Wilson's book, "The New Freedom". You can read it for yourself at the Project Gutenberg, http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/14811
Another quote taken completely out of context was a quote by President Clinton. Here it is as the film quotes it.
“We can’t be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans…”
Here is the real quote from Clinton,
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=46264
"You know, we can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans to legitimately own handguns and rifles—it's something I strongly support—we can't be so fixated on that that we are unable to think about the reality of life that millions of Americans face on streets that are unsafe, under conditions that no other nation—no other nations—has permitted to exist."
As anyone can clearly see, Clinton's quote has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do about taxation.
It is a favorite tax protestor ploy to take quotes and statements out of context. Especially quotes from court cases. Therefore, don't take someone's word what a court case says, look it up for yourself and read them. Anyone can read Federal Appellate and Supreme Court opinions at http://www.findlaw.com You have to register as a law professional, but it is free.
One last thing, in the U.S. Judicial system it is not allowed, with some minor exceptions, for either the plaintiff or defense to show the jury the law. They are only allowed to put forth their version of the facts. It is the judge's responsibility to inform the jury what is in the applicable law. This is to prevent the jury from MISINTERPRETING the law. However, Title 26 of the U.S. Code is the prima facie law covering income taxes.
2007-07-11 14:10:40
·
answer #1
·
answered by NGC6205 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
It is believed that no direct law exist only implied by other laws of government taxation but you still have to pay income tax. If you dont the government can go after you which you dont want. Trust me others have tried this argument ( former IRS employees and lawyers) but lost. Check out a documentry named IRS it was put out a while back by either national geographic or the history channel. It's pretty good.
2007-07-11 12:36:53
·
answer #2
·
answered by utcreed 1
·
2⤊
2⤋
ummm try looking up US Law Title 26 Sections 1 , 61, and 63 which impose the tax upon you.
section 1 "There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual . . "
2007-07-11 12:32:52
·
answer #3
·
answered by sociald 7
·
6⤊
2⤋
That's the trailer and here's the website:
http://freedomtofascism.com/
I watched a significant portion of the tax part and I must say, you'd have a bit of trouble trying to dispute with the guy who created the video
2007-07-11 12:30:44
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
2⤋
Taxes are illegal.
But if you refuse paying, you'll end like David Koresh.
Government is a well armed mafia. They offer you protection (from themselves), but it will cost you.
You mess with them at your own risk.
2007-07-11 12:39:49
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
4⤋
Amendment 14
It is linked to privilege of citizenship and the responsability of sharing in the expense of that privilege.
2007-07-11 12:32:39
·
answer #6
·
answered by ? 2
·
2⤊
4⤋
who knows for sure...all we can do is ride this runaway frieght train until it slams into something like a revolution with armies
2007-07-11 12:34:39
·
answer #7
·
answered by captainamerica 3
·
1⤊
3⤋
There isn't one. But they don't need one, they have tanks and fairly useful crowd control.
2007-07-11 12:31:36
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
3⤋