Income Tax - Involuntary Servitude

[Carrie Moon]

Thanks Michael.. I appreciate your concern but I'm not directly going to court myself. I am familiar with these failed cases as are the people mentoring me. I am watching carefully as others do the trailblazing.. believe me if I were the one doing it we'd be in trouble! I'm a physician..escort, actress, singer.. not a lawyer. I know wherein my weaknesses lie.

 

[Aardvark154]

That's the thing about beliefs.. we all have different ones. I find it hard to believe that people don't know it's unlawful. I have not read the income tax act.. but people in these videos who have and have worked for the IRS etc claim not one person has been able to show them the law that states we have to pay it.

I'm not sure if you've watched any of these videos.. but unless we are both witnessing the same people's statements who are in the know (via these videos of course) then how do we know if we are talking about the same thing. Belief is one thing. Backing it up with facts is another.

In my heart of hearts.. I believe Ron Paul, Jordan Maxwell and the others I've presented. You don't have to agree with me or even watch the videos.. freedom is a choice and I choice freedom.. not only spiritually but financially.

Michael is being far more patient - please pay attention to what he is posting. Based on what you have posted, if you do not you have very a very strong likelyhood of being tried for Income Tax Evasion.

 

[Carrie Moon]

Michael is being far more patient - please pay attention to what he is posting. Based on what you have posted, if you do not you have very a very strong likelyhood of being tried for Income Tax Evasion.

You keep saying that others are being patient.. I know from our previous encounter on here your preference is to not only yell but your desire is to tie women up so you can forcibly vaccinate them.. so I guess I should ''appreciate your patience'' with me.

I will hopefully find as will others soon that we can all get a better system in our government and not pay as much in tax (and yes for me it's 50%).. until then we'll have to agree to disagree on whether it's in my heart of hearts that I owe 50%. You can pay it.. I will choose not to when it's proven I do not have to.

 

[Aardvark154]

Here.. hope this helps. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eZ4eH9Nodo
Jordan Maxwell...not the whole story but he's pretty much an expert on it.

You will probably think I'm being sarcastic - but this man is no expert. His remarks are variations on several themes of U.S. tax protesters.

He confuses the Uniform Commercial Code (which has been adopted as enacted legislation to a greater or lesser degrees by all 50 of the U.S. States) with the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods. And God knows where he gets the Idea that the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws and the American Law Institute based the UCC on Roman Catholic Canon Law.

Likewise he shows confusion about Civil Law and Common Law.

His major theme is a variation, I frankly had not previously heard, of the Admiralty Law is illegally taking over the courts argument. And then an breathtakingly inane statement about birth certificates based on the fact that they are printed on security paper and have serial numbers assigned to them.

 

[Carrie Moon]

I can't comment on all that you've said.. but I have taken my registration # from my birth certificate and found where it's traded on the stock market.

 

[Aardvark154]

I can't comment on all that you've said.. but I have taken my registration # from my birth certificate and found where it's traded on the stock market.

Do people have the same telephone numbers as other people with only the area codes being different? And if they live on another continent might not it be possible for the entire number be the same? Somehow I don't believe that it indicates a conspiracy that the number used for a birth certificate in "A" might also be used for a birth certificate in "B" or that a Stock Exchange might use the same number to indicate a particular company traded on the exchange.

Furthermore, even if this theory where true - it of course has some large logical holes: Who would purchase such a "stock" (the price on the exchange being set by the price willing buyer and willing seller agree to) when you might be hit by a bus tomorrow and the value of the "stock" go to nothing. Further how is this "stock" being listed on any exchange - it’s a fair bit more complicated than calling up and saying I'd like to list a stock.

 

[Aardvark154]

your preference is to not only yell

If posting in font size 4 was yelling what is your term for those who post in font size 7 (which is not unheard of in both the Lounge and Politics sections of Terb)?

your desire is to tie women up so you can forcibly vaccinate them..

In the context in which the comment was made, obviously a symbolic rather than a factual statement. However, are my feeling very strong on the issue and the opposite of yours - yes.

whether it's in my heart of hearts that I owe 50%. You can pay it.. I will choose not to when it's proven I do not have to.

Back in #20 I said that so long as you are taking legal deductions and exemptions to reduce your taxes, fantastic! In which case you don't owe 50 percent, you owe what you owe. But some of your statements make it sound like you are hiding income which is an altogether different story.

 

[Carrie Moon]

Since I am a card carrying member of the Illuminati I am bound to discredit his statements.

You are what???? which family a Rothchild?

It has absolutely nothing to do with the legality of Canadian tax laws.

It does not apply in any other country. In Canada there are several pieces of federal and provincial legislation that cover the same general areas but they are very different between our countries.

There is a huge difference between Canada and the United States as to how the powers of government are divided between the federal / states and the federal / provincial because of fundamental differences between our forms of government.

and if there is some evidence in support of his ideas or the theories that you are espousing please post the evidence so that it may be considered.

I certainly will Michael as I find better.. but I will go out and enjoy the sunshine today for now. I have a link somewhere that shows that Canada is incorporated in the US. I was shocked to see it.. amoung several other things in the last few months. I'll look for it later.

People only see what they are prepared to see.
Ralph Waldo Emerson

 

[Carrie Moon]

Please provide one example of where it has been successful.

I can't.. the people I know personally doing this are doing it privately not publically.. yet.

 

[nottyboi]

If by regulation you mean regulation to protect the life, freedom, and personal property of individuals from theft and fraud then I agree with this kind of regulation.

A company that establisheds a monopoly, without theft of property or life from its competitors, must be offering its customer an exceptional deal. If the company stops providing this exceptional deal then I expect that it will lose its monopoly.

Government does not enforce monopolies by providing an exceptional deal but rather by threat of loss of freedom for competitors.

Ok this is utter rubbish. Companies can establish monopolies by crushing competitors on small local markets by offering low prices and by funding those losses by monopolies in other areas. Even countries try to do it. Have you not heard of the term "dumping"? Microsoft was 100% guilty of highly anti-competitive practices, sure they did some great things, but what was the cost to the consumer and to businesses? Governments do establish some monopolies as a means of serving some thin markets. There are also some industries that may justify a natural monopoly. When capitalists sceram about the evils of socialism and use the USSR as an example, we can always point to socialist countries like Sweden, Norway, Canada, the USA (yes the USA IS socialist) and failed free markets like Somalia and the myriad of other 100% unregulated basket case countries out there. THAT is the real face of laissez faire capitalism.

 

[markvee]

Ok this is utter rubbish. Companies can establish monopolies by crushing competitors on small local markets by offering low prices and by funding those losses by monopolies in other areas. Even countries try to do it. Have you not heard of the term "dumping"? Microsoft was 100% guilty of highly anti-competitive practices, sure they did some great things, but what was the cost to the consumer and to businesses?

I think that competitors developing better and cheaper operating systems will continue to erode Microsoft's market share.

Governments do establish some monopolies as a means of serving some thin markets.

Private companies are "crushing" competitors when they try to establish monopolies, but government is "serving" when it establishes a monopoly. Suppose I decide to open a business in a field where government has declared a monopoly; I go to jail; this is crushing competition.

There are also some industries that may justify a natural monopoly. When capitalists sceram about the evils of socialism and use the USSR as an example, we can always point to socialist countries like Sweden, Norway, Canada, the USA (yes the USA IS socialist) and failed free markets like Somalia and the myriad of other 100% unregulated basket case countries out there. THAT is the real face of laissez faire capitalism.

I think it is easier to label individual policies as socialist or laissez fair capitalist than it is to label entire geographic regions. Some people will argue whether USA is socialist or laissez faire capitalist (to some it depends on whether there is a Republican or Democrat in the White House). As you have countered USSR with Norway, I could counter Somalia with Hong Kong. Also, you could point to Canada being arguably socialist and having great Human Development Index or whatever, and I could counter that this quality of life is being purchased with debt at the expense of future generations.

It is easier to label individual policies than geographic regions. I can label the income tax as communist because "a heavy progressive or graduated income tax" is the second plank of the Communist Manifesto as a quick glance at wikipedia will confirm. But I don't think that simply being in the Communist Manifesto is what makes income tax bad. Apart from the fact that we were lied to about its purpose (to pay for World War I - Lying in private business is called fraud, for which people can go to jail. What is it called in government?), there are many arguments to be made against the income tax:
1) Filing income tax returns represents an invasion of privacy.
2) The tax code is complex.
3) This complexity means that much productivity is wasted in conforming to and applying the code.
4) If the government revenue agency does not agree with my return, the agency can presume my guilt of owing more and proceed to garnish my wages or seize my assets, and I must prove my innocence.
5) A heavy progressive income tax discourages productivity in excess of that needed for sustenence (It discourages productivity for savings). I think that production and saving should be encouraged rather than consuming and borrowing.

 

[Tangwhich]

Please provide one example of where it has been successful.

There's at least two that I'm aware of.
Harrell in Illinois and someone in Tenessee I think it was.

http://freedomlaw.com/harrell.html

 

[red]

this thread would be funny if the consequences weren't so severe.

 

[Aardvark154]

There's at least two that I'm aware of.
Harrell in Illinois and someone in Tenessee I think it was.

http://freedomlaw.com/harrell.html

First point they aren't in Canada. Secondly the case you cite was an Illinois State case dealing with the Illinois State Income Tax

Third Mr. Harrell has a terrible "batting average" In Illinois he has subsequently been found quilty of three counts of Willful Failure to File an Illinois Income Tax Return. Harrell was sentenced to two years probation, a fine of $2,500, payment of all court costs, and payment of his unpaid taxes for the tax years 1996, 1997, and 1998, plus penalties and interest.

The Illinois Statute was rewritten in 2007, it could be that it was just very poorly drafted although I suspect Jury Nullification may have played a role.

As it now reads
35 ILCS 5 § 201. Tax Imposed.

(a) In general. A tax measured by net income is hereby imposed on every individual, corporation, trust and estate for each taxable year ending after July 31, 1969 on the privilege of earning or receiving income in or as a resident of this State. Such tax shall be in addition to all other occupation or privilege taxes imposed by this State or by any municipal corporation or political subdivision thereof.


Federaly, his case history reflects what the truth is rather than the nonsense found on Youtube and the Web generally. Although frankly he is lucky that thus far he has only recieved financial penalties.

First in Harrell v. United States (U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois. 1991), Harrell alleged that he was a nonresident alien not subject to U.S. federal income tax, and that the two notices of levy served on his employer were invalid because the underlying assessment was never properly signed by an assessment officer for the international branch of the IRS. The court described the allegations as "somewhat obtuse" and dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction because the anti-injunction act prevents courts from restraining the assessment or collection of taxes and Harrell had not filed the refund claim that is a necessary prerequisite for a suit for refund of taxes paid.

Harrell then filed a "quiet title" action against the United States, seeking to prevent a levy on his wages, and again describing himself as a "nonresident alien." As the court noted, "Different case — same result," and dismissed the suit for lack of jurisdiction. On appeal to the 7th Circuit (13 F.3d 232 December 30, 1993) the Court of Appeals described the claim that "Congress has no constitutional authority over citizens of the states of the United States" as frivolous and "frivolousness is an independent jurisdictional basis for dismissing a suit".

Harrell then filed a suit against the Internal Revenue Service under 26 U.S.C. section 7433(a), which allows a civil action for damages against the United States if, in connection with any collection of federal tax, any officer or employee of the Internal Revenue Service "recklessly or intentionally disregards" any provision of the Internal Revenue Code, or any regulation. The court dismissed the suit because Harrell had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by 26 U.S.C. section 7433(d)(1), and imposed a penalty against Harrell of $500 for filing a frivolous lawsuit. Harrell appealed, and the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the suit and imposed an additional $1,000 penalty against Harrell for filing a frivolous appeal.

Harrell failed to file income tax returns for 1989 and 1990. The IRS determined deficiencies for both years, and Harrell filed a petition in the Tax Court, contending that he was a citizen of the "sovereign State of Illinois" and that the wages he had received were not taxable by the United States. The Tax Court warned Harrell his argument was frivolous and that if he persisted with the argument the court would impose damages against him under section 6673. He did not heed the warning and, noting that Harrell had already lost the cases cited above, the court imposed damages of $3,000 against Harrell Affirmed by the 7th Circuit 72 F.3d 132.

In LaRue v. Collector of Internal Revenue He was one of several plaintiffs who attempted another action for damages under section 7433, contending that they were exempt from federal income tax because Illinois was not "State" as defined in the Internal Revenue Code. The District Court dismissed the complaint and imposed sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 on everyone else who had signed the complaint, including Harrell.


Harrell also did not file income tax returns for 1991, 1992, and 1993, and the IRS issued additional notices of deficiencies. Harrell petitioned the Tax Court again Gaylon L. Harrell v. Commissioner, this time claiming that he did not receive income but payments "traded for labor of equal value from which there can be no taxable gain." The Tax Court affirmed the deficiencies in a motion for summary judgment, noting that "there is nothing in petitioner's filings but tax protester rhetoric, unsupported assertions, and legalistic gibberish."

After a hearing during which Harrell both repeated his argument that the monies he received were for labor of equal value and not taxable, and argued that Federal Reserve Notes are not "money" within the meaning of the Constitution, the Tax Court then affirmed that Harrell was liable for an addition to tax for fraud under section 6651(f), and the Tax Court imposed a penalty of $10,000 for frivolous arguments.

Of course all the above penalties are in addition to taxes owed, and failure to file a return and the normal penalities associated with those.

 

[Aardvark154]

this thread would be funny if the consequences weren't so severe.

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm put in mind of John C. Mellencamp's "Authority".

 

[canada-man]

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution, is known as the Taxing and Spending Clause.[1] It is the clause that gives the federal government of the United States its power of taxation. Component parts of this clause are known as the General Welfare Clause[2] and the Uniformity Clause.



The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

 

[Aardvark154]

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution, is known as the Taxing and Spending Clause.[1] It is the clause that gives the federal government of the United States its power of taxation. Component parts of this clause are known as the General Welfare Clause[2] and the Uniformity Clause.



The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

True enough, however you ignore the XVI Amendment

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

Of course the above applies only to the U.S. Federal Income Tax, not to state Income Taxes since they were not impacted by Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution.

 

[Carrie Moon]

I'm sorry I should have been clearer.
I am looking for a single example from Canada and am looking for a situation where one of these theories of not having to pay tax was brought to the attention of CRA or a Canadian court and CRA or the court agreed.

I am not looking for someone who is simply not filing or is under-reporting income and is getting away with it because they have yet to be caught.

I know what you meant. I will provide you with that info when I have it.

 

[someone]

I'm sorry I should have been clearer.
I am looking for a single example from Canada and am looking for a situation where one of these theories of not having to pay tax was brought to the attention of CRA or a Canadian court and CRA or the court agreed.

Although the Canadian constitution gives the federal government the power to levy direct taxes(e.g. income taxes) and indirect taxes (e.g. commodity), it only gives the provinces the power to levy direct taxes. Thus, in theory, provinces should not be allowed to have sales taxes. Apparently, there was a court case over this and the supreme court ruled that provincial sales taxes were really direct taxes as the retailer was acting as an agent of the government. I have always been curious about this decision (but have never gotten off my ass to actually research it) as it effectively means that the distinction in the constitution between direct and indirect taxes is meaningless as the collector of indirect taxes could always be argued to be an agent of the government.

 

[someone]

Thanks for your response MichaelZzzz. However, I guess my point is that, given that reasoning, when would a tax ever legally be an indirect tax? It seems to make the constitutional distinction (never mind the way the terms are used by economists) meaningless.

Edit: I read some of the link. It seems to suggest that the tax is only indirect if the incidence is passed backwards rather than forward. I am not sure I buy the logic, but I guess that is it. Thanks for the link.