A scoop for not paying tax :)

The thing is the IRS has addressed the issue of the 16th amendment and subsequent court decisions have affirmed the constitutionality of the amendment. Miller V US addresses "The Law that Never Was."

IRS response:

-D. Contention: The Sixteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution was not properly ratified, thus the federal income tax
laws are unconstitutional.
This argument is based on the premise that all federal income tax laws are unconstitutional because the Sixteenth Amendment was not officially ratified, or because the State of Ohio was not properly a state at the time of ratification. This argument has survived over time because proponents mistakenly believe that the courts have refused to address this issue.

The Law: The Sixteenth Amendment provides that Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on income, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. U.S. Const. amend. XVI. The Sixteenth Amendment was ratified by forty states, including Ohio, and issued by proclamation in 1913. Shortly thereafter, two other states also
ratified the Amendment. Under Article V of the Constitution, only
three-fourths of the states are needed to ratify an Amendment.

There were enough states ratifying the Sixteenth Amendment even without Ohio to complete the number needed for ratification. Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the income tax laws enacted subsequent to ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in Brushaber v.
Union Pacific R.R., 240 U.S. 1 (1916). Since that time, the courts have consistently upheld the constitutionality of the federal income tax.

Relevant Case Law:
Miller v. United States, 868 F.2d 236, 241 (7 th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) – the court stated, “We find it hard to understand why the long and unbroken line of cases upholding the constitutionality of the sixteenth amendment generally, Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company ...
and those specifically rejecting the argument advanced in The Law That Never Was, have not persuaded Miller and his compatriots to seek a more effective forum for airing their attack on the federal income tax structure.” The court imposed sanctions for them having advanced a “patently frivolous” position.

-17-
United States v. Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438, 1441 (9 th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1036 (1987) – stating that “the Secretary of State’s certification under authority of Congress that the sixteenth amendment has been ratified by the requisite number of states and has become part of the Constitution is conclusive upon the courts,” the court upheld Stahl’s conviction for failure to file returns and for making a false statement.

Knoblauch v. Commissioner, 749 F.2d 200, 201 (5 th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 830 (1986) – the court rejected the contention that the Sixteenth Amendment was not constitutionally adopted as “totally without merit” and imposed monetary sanctions against Knoblauch based on the frivolousness of his appeal. “Every court that has considered this
argument has rejected it,” the court observed.

United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d 457 (7 th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 883 (1986) – the court affirmed Foster’s conviction for tax evasion, failing to file a return, and filing a false W-4 statement, rejecting his claim that the Sixteenth Amendment was never properly ratified.

E. Contention: The Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct non-apportioned federal income tax on United States citizens. Some assert that the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct non-apportioned income tax and thus, U.S. citizens and residents are not subject to federal income tax laws.
The Law: The courts have both implicitly and explicitly recognized that the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes a non-apportioned direct income tax on United States citizens and that the federal tax laws as applied are valid. In United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10 th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 920 (1991), the court cited to Brushaber v. Union Pac.
R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 12-19 (1916), and noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that the “sixteenth amendment authorizes a direct nonapportioned tax upon United States citizens throughout the nation.”

Relevant Case Law:
In re Becraft, 885 F.2d 547 (9 th Cir. 1989) – the court affirmed a failure to file conviction, rejecting the taxpayer’s frivolous position that the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct non-apportioned income tax.

Lovell v. United States, 755 F.2d 517, 518 (7 th Cir. 1984) – the court rejected the argument that the Constitution prohibits imposition of a direct tax without apportionment, and upheld the district court’s frivolous return penalty assessment and the award of attorneys’ fees to the government “because [the taxpayers’] legal position was patently frivolous.” The
appeals court imposed additional sanctions for pursuing “frivolous
arguments in bad faith.”

Broughton v. United States, 632 F.2d 706 (8 th Cir. 1980) – the court rejected a refund suit, stating that the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes imposition of an income tax without apportionment among the states.

 

Check out details of those that have blazed this trail before.

Irwin Schiff is a name I recall plainly... he authored the book How Anyone Can Stop Paying Income Taxes (which I think is now out of print). Prison time didn't seem to change his tune much; put 'Irwin Schiff' into the www.amazon.com search under 'books' and his junk will pop up.

This link tells of his fate and that of his pals. Not for me, man.

 

This is a spurious argument, anecdotally presented, which omits key facts as noted in the previous post.

Why is it that not one smart CPA or smart lawyer espouses the non-applicability of the 16th Amendment.
Well, because it's just so much tax protest BS.

And another thing,
When you use this as a defense to willful failure to file and pay,
DO NOT ARGUE YOUR INCORRECT VERSION OF THE LAW WITH THE JUDGE! One lady got an extra 8 mos. in jail for this.

The tax protest arguments are very convincing, but they are just plain incorrect.
OK, so go ahead anyway. My tile guy asked me the other day for my opinion of Pure Contract Constitutional Trusts.
He was told he could avoid all tax and keep his marital assets away from his wife through a series of trusts."It's some foreign trustee. You don't even know who it is," he said.

It's a seductive sell. But it has succeeded exactly zero times.

Read: www.quatloos.com for an expose of tax scams.

 

Prison doesn't change the HISTORY TRUTH. Do you think that if government has cheated the law he would recognize it ?!!!

Of course they sent him to prison if he is a threat as banks sent to prison Humpich (www.humpich.com) the french guy who demonstrated that Credit Card system is falsiable very easily (in a few minutes !!!) if one knows what he has discovered: he was filmed on a french national television to be able to make such a card in a few minutes - without stealing a true card number of course - and be able to get any sum of money he want from the distributors !!! This concerns all the banks in the world and instead of thanking him and change the system they sent him to jail !!! If he was unhonest he should have shut up his mouth and exploit his discovery instead ! No they sent to jail because he was too honest :

It is remarkable that such a terrific news has been contained inside France since when you look at Yahoo http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=humpich there is almost only french articles !

The economic consequence of this falsiable system is that fiat money in all currencies could have been produced by any person or organisation that has discovered that. When you know how many scientific researchers work for maffia well you can imagine how they use that and to what purpose ! Any military strategist knows that fiat money is one of the first tool to make sabotage of a country. That's what for example BCCI tried: introducing fiat money in United States through his banking activity. So it is even of national security importance to change the system. They don't want to !

:confused

 

i don't care what anyone says, our tax system is fucked up!!!!

 

To show you what ridiculous argument and attack they use:

http://www.parodie.com/monetique/laposte.htm

The french post (who is a government company so who uses tax money people so that you can see that governement doesn't even take the defense of the truth) has attacked the company that hosts Laurent Pelé's parodic site that has related Humpich's story for using this picture of a credit card http://www.parodie.com/shop/cbcraquee.gif !!!

They tried to impress the hosting company who refused to sack the site since it is just parody.


This demonstrate that they are annoyed by this security problem but take another pretext to attack any site they judge annoying SINCE THEY CAN'T REFUTE THE ESSENTIAL POINT !

In fact at the end the bank cartel had given up so they just wanted to harass people !

 

Here's what Humpich declared:

«Je pouvais gagner un peu d'argent honnêtement, beaucoup d'argent malhonnêtement. J'ai eu affaire à des bandits et j'ai tout perdu.»

I could earn only a few money honestly, but I could earn a huge money unhonestly. I had to cope with bandits [the bank] and I have lost everything.

 

Harry,

For you the word "gullible" isn't in the dictionary?

 

This is a lesson: never be honest with INSTITUTIONAL bandits ! So when you use the word scam , think a bit of this story for who are capable of real scam and have the power and credibility with us although facts can demonstrate the contrary !

 

Go for it. You've got principle on your side. If you get access to ET once you are behind the wall, let us know how it is all working out.