Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

$300,000.00 Reward....

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 08:31 PM
Original message
$300,000.00 Reward....
Details here!

"Freedom Law School is offering $100,000 to the first person who can demonstrate any of the three propositions listed below. The winner can collect up to $300,000 if he or she can prove all of the propositions below."

Who'll be the one to collect the cash? :shrug:
I'll predict no one!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
whistle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 08:35 PM
Response to Original message
1. You forgot the three propositions...so I'll list the freaking things
Freedom Law School is offering $100,000 to the first person who can demonstrate any of the three propositions listed below. The winner can collect up to $300,000 if he or she can prove all of the propositions below.

1. Show what statute written by the Congress of the United States requires Americans to file an income tax “CONFESSION” (return) and pay an income tax.

2. How can Americans file an income tax “CONFESSION” (return) without giving up their 5th amendment right not to give any information to the government that may be used to prosecute them.

3. Prove that the 16th amendment to the United States Constitution, which, according to the IRS and modern American courts permitted the income tax to exist was, lawfully added to the United States Constitution.

Now, this site is exposed!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kelvin Mace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 09:47 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Can I have my $300,000 in cash? I don't want to declare it on my tax return
Show what statute written by the Congress of the United States requires Americans to file an income tax “CONFESSION” (return) and pay an income tax.

The 16th Amendment establishes the income tax. Congress then adjusted the tax code to set up the infrastructure for filing and collecting taxes. A tax return is NOT a confession, it is a document detailing your income, deductions and taxes owed. If you have illegal income, you could argue that the requirement to declare it violates your 5th amendment right to self-incrimination. I'd love to sit in on that case.

You need to understand that the tax code IS the law. Violating the tax code is violating the law. The tax code REQUIRES you to pay taxes you owe.

The IRS has a very nice, easy to understand page that refutes all these silly claims.

http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=106498,00.html

2. How can Americans file an income tax “CONFESSION” (return) without giving up their 5th amendment right not to give any information to the government that may be used to prosecute them.

Again, you would only violate your 5th Amendment right if you declared illegal income (drug proceeds, embezzled funs, etc). I can find nothing addressing this issue.

3. Prove that the 16th amendment to the United States Constitution, which, according to the IRS and modern American courts permitted the income tax to exist was, lawfully added to the United States Constitution.

From The Straight Dope:

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_127.html

It all started when Ohio was preparing to celebrate the 150th anniversary of its admission to the Union in 1953. Researchers looking for the original statehood documents discovered there'd been a little oversight. While Congress had approved Ohio's boundaries and constitution, it had never passed a resolution formally admitting the future land of the Buckeyes. Technically, therefore, Ohio was not a state.

Predictably, when this came to light it was the subject of much merriment. One senator joshingly suggested that his colleagues from Ohio were drawing federal paychecks under false pretenses.

But Ohio congressman George Bender thought it was no laughing matter. He introduced a bill in Congress to admit Ohio to the Union retroactive to March 1, 1803. At a special session at the old state capital in Chillicothe the Ohio state legislature approved a new petition for statehood that was delivered to Washington on horseback. Congress subsequently passed a joint resolution, and President Eisenhower, after a few more jokes, signed it on August 7, 1953.

But then the tax resisters got to work. They argued that since Ohio wasn't officially a state until 1953, its ratification of the 16th Amendment in 1911 was invalid, and thus Congress had no authority to enact an income tax.

Baloney, argued rational folk. A sufficient number of states voted for ratification even if you don't count Ohio.

OK, said the resisters, but the proposed amendment had been introduced to Congress by the administration of William H. Taft. Taft had been born in Cincinnati, Ohio, in 1857. The Constitution requires that presidents be natural-born citizens of the United States. Since Ohio was not a state in 1857, Taft was not a natural-born citizen, could not legally be president, and could not legally introduce the 16th Amendment. (Presumably one would also have problems with anything done by presidents Grant, Hayes, Garfield, B. Harrison, McKinley, and Harding, who were also born in Ohio.)

Get off it, the rationalists replied. The 1953 resolution retroactively admitted Ohio as of 1803, thereby rendering all subsequent events copacetic.

Uh-uh, said the resisters. The constitution says the Congress shall make no ex post facto law. That means no retroactive admissions to statehood.

Uh, we'll get back to you on that, said the rationalists.

A call to the IRS elicited the following official statement: "The courts have . . . rejected claims that the Sixteenth Amendment . . . was not properly ratified. . . . In Porth v. Brodrick, 214 F.2d 925 (10th Circuit 1954), the court dismissed an attack on the Sixteenth Amendment as being 'clearly unsubstantial and without merit,' as well as 'far fetched and frivolous.'"

Just one problem. The Porth decision didn't specifically address the Ohio argument. It just sort of spluttered that attacks on the 16th Amendment were stupid.


The answer was later updated to address the shortcomings in the first column:

1. In previous cases having nothing to do with the Ohio argument we upheld the constitutionality of the 16th Amendment, so too bad for you, Bobo.

2. Since 1803 everybody had assumed that Ohio was a state, and we don't feel like upsetting the apple cart now.

AND

1. The ban on ex post facto laws refers only to criminal matters. Case law, 1798. Ohio's retroactive admission to the union was OK.

2. Persons born in U.S. territories--not just in states--are U.S. citizens. (For example, Puerto Rico.) So Taft was a natural-born citizen and could legally serve as president.

3. Even if he wasn't, so what? Presidents don't introduce constitutional amendments; members of Congress do.

4. Ohio was a state even without the 1953 resolution. The statehood admission process was somewhat casual in 1803; it required no formal resolution of admission.


The long and short is: Tons of case law reject the claim that the 16th isn't a legal amendment. If you disagree, hire a lawyer and file a suit. Many have, all have failed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 10:12 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. Nope, sorry...
Edited on Wed Jun-13-07 10:17 PM by wildbilln864
"Many have tried, all have failed."
Wrong! link
Many have succeeded!

snip/
This defeat at the hands of one of the most visible figures in the anti-income tax movement dealt a serious blow to the IRS’s image of invincibility. It demonstrated that even in the 21st century, there are David’s, like Banister, who can beat the IRS Goliath.

The question remains: If Banister is correct in his belief that the IRS consistently misapplies the law, who is going to hold the IRS, and officials like Everson, accountable?

/end snip!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kelvin Mace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-14-07 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. The web site you link to
are the same loonies asking the questions in the first place. Hardly an objective source. The trial in question does not seem to me to be overturning the income tax.

The trial in question was a criminal prosecution of which the defendant was acquitted of criminal offenses, not a ruling on what the defendant believed. The jury decided there was not enough evidence to convict him of the charges, which were conspiracy to defraud the United States and willfully aiding, assisting counseling and procuring the filing of a false amended income tax return. While Bannister was acquitted, his client, Walter Thompson, was convicted and he got six years for filing false tax returns. This would kind of blow a hole in the idea that Banister's acquittal was some kind of ruling in favor of anti-tax arguments.

Banister was disbarred and had his CPA license revoked.

So, again we see that trying to claim what these people are claiming generally results in having people say things to you like, "Will the prisoner please stand for sentencing?"

Ironically, some in the anti-tax community consider Banister a plant.

http://www.ottoskinner.com/articles/banister.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selatius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 09:52 PM
Response to Original message
3. Isn't that Pat Robertson's law school?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karlrschneider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. No, his outfit is called Regent
...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EstimatedProphet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-14-07 03:35 PM
Response to Original message
7. Again?


the whole anti-tax movement is really run by people who want to get all the stuff the government provides for free, and can't tolerate the idea that the "lazy people" get anything at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 09:28 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC