17-08-2003 22:00									#31
	Support Apolyton

and for the record, I pay my taxes, and don't have a problem with it....the discussion was interesting to me tho, so....I figured I'd do a part to keep the thread alive...

-=Vel=-

	17-08-2003 22:01									#32
	Suffering from ads?

As Hersh point out Vel, the constitution includes articles outlining how it can be modified and ammended by the legislature an majority of states. ny consituttional ammendment is by definiton constitutional and fully a part of it, with all the power and validity of that document.

And as Hersh so amply pointed out, with the 16th ammendment, your arguement vs. the income tax (that of apportionment) was removed constitutionally.

	17-08-2003 22:01									#33
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by blackice http://www.gomemphis.com/mca/local_...2169609,00.html A link to the local news, I ask the jury is out on that one, MichaeltheGreat. While she has this one under wraps, the question still remains. Do you have to pay taxes in the USofA?

The quote about payment of taxes being unresolved at the end of the trial is meaningless. Collection and prosecution are distinct functions. The US Attorney's office prosecutes cases, it doesn't do tax collection. The IRS Collection division is the reverse. Neither the judge nor the jury has any authority to make a finding on tax liability, only on the statutory offense of tax evasion.

As I said in a previous post, all you need to do is start with Section 1 of the IRC, which is Title 26, U.S.C. The liability is clear enough. The reason there's no cutesie semantic language that "each person is obligated to pay income tax" is that each person isn't obligated to pay income tax. Unless they make enough income to be subject to the law. The IRS (and the Congress) isn't really interested in having people say "I found a dime on the street and begged for a hundred bucks last year, but didn't work and lived in a shelter, and here's my form 1040-EZR and a payment for zero."

quote: It would seem no one can answer that question. It would seem another court fight is on the horizon. She seems competent and determined to get an answer to that question, "where does it say she has to" I guess equally important in this news is the fact not one major news source carried it... You really have to ask why.

Several reasons: "tax evasion" is a crime of intent. If someone refuses to pay taxes because of a genuine, unshakeable belief that she doesn't have to, then you may have a case where a jury felt the government didn't prove she knowingly evaded a tax obligation.

Another reason is that she didn't get out of paying taxes, she just got out of jail time for not paying taxes. The first situation would be real interesting, the second isn't. It's sure not national news.

The third reason is that without really getting into the transcript, there's no way to know if this is inept prosecution, jury nullification, or simply a jury pool with people who can't understand concepts beyond the level of "Dick and Jane." In any event, it's not "pay no taxes" and it's not more then an odd curiousity in terms of legal significance.

	17-08-2003 22:09									#34
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Velociryx Quite so, but the SC has already ruled that "income" = Corporate profits. As I am not a corporate entity, then under the definition, I cannot have income to tax, true? Which would seem to put the "laws" governing my taxation on soggy ground. -=Vel=-

Wrong again. Courts don't rule on the general meaning of words in the English language. They rule on the meaning in the context of a particular legal issue before the courts. If you want to go by a law library for fun, check out the book series "Words and Phrases" - it rocks. Every word that has been the focus of litigation in the US is in there, and every meaning that has been applied based on the particular legal issue in which the word's meaning was contested is listed. So under "Income" you'd find dozens of entries, giving the meaning interpreted, the court and case cite, and the relevant statute or issue for which the meaning of the word was contested.

In the case you were referring to, income would be defined as meaning corporate profits as the term income was used in the particular statute being challenged. Since the statute is long dead, the meaning of the term income applied in that context is long dead along with it.

	17-08-2003 22:10									#35
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

GePap: I'm aware of that...I'm also aware of the fact that the SC has made the following statements re: the 16th Amendment to the Constitution:

Income = Corporate Profits

The 16th Does not grant any new taxation ability to the Congress.

""...the proposition and the contentions under it [the Sixteenth "Amendment"] ...would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another; that is, they would result in bringing the provisions of the Amendment exempting a direct tax from apportionment into irreconcilable conflict with the general requirement that all direct taxes be apportioned... This result instead of simplifying the situation and making clear the limitations on the taxing power, which obviously the Amendment must have intended to accomplish(,) would create radical and destructive changes in our constitutional system and multiply confusion."

This doesn't sound like constitutional removal to me....sounds like a paradox introduced with the introduction of the 16th.

	17-08-2003 22:12									#36
	Increase Your PM Length

Just deal with hersh quote Vel, and MtG's objections. They are doing a good enough job at this.

	17-08-2003 22:12									#37
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Velociryx Quite so, but the SC has already ruled that "income" = Corporate profits.

Read the cases you cite in full.

"That the trustee was such a 'taxable person' is clear"

MERCHANTS' LOAN & TRUST CO. v. SMIETANKA, 255 U.S. 509 (1921)

The SC only used the definition of corporate "income" from a statute to determine that person's "income" in a statute lacking a definition, in concreto that capital gains are income.

	17-08-2003 22:16									#38
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Hey, I agree with 'em...I'm just tossing stuff out there....and that looks like a checkmate to me, Hersh and MtG...

-=Vel=-

	17-08-2003 22:17									#39
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Velociryx The 16th Does not grant any new taxation ability to the Congress.

I pointed out the error before. Your claim is only in so far correct as the power laready existed:

"It is clear on the face of this text [16th amendment] that it does not purport to confer power to levy income taxes in a generic sense, - an authority already possessed and never questioned"

It only removed the requirement of apportionment.

	17-08-2003 22:18									#40
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

It's no fun without the real "taxes = theft" and "constitutional amendments aren't amendments and are unconstitutional" crowd to play, though.

I'm already

	17-08-2003 22:19									#41
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat I'm already

Repetitio non delectat.

	17-08-2003 22:20									#42
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Well, the libertarians aren't in the house, so what can one do?

	17-08-2003 22:22									#43
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Ok Vel, where did you find that stuff? That is some brilliant example for how not to use legal method, I might be able to use that...

	17-08-2003 22:22									#44
	Increase Your PM Length

dp

	17-08-2003 22:35									#45
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by HershOstropoler Repetitio non delectat.

	17-08-2003 23:19									#46
	Put an end to popups!

Hersh, et al.

I must confess to a slight bit of duplicity with the earlier posts, and my reasons for doing so will be made clear below….

There’s a certain….comfortable predictability about ‘poly in general, and the OT in particular, and that is, as soon as anyone makes ANY sort of statement, you can rest assured that someone will come along to refute it.

I could post that the sky was blue, and before many minutes had passed, as sure as I am sitting here typing now, someone would crawl out of some corner of ‘poly’s OT to post a contrary statement.

Every time. Guaranteed.

When I first saw the topic, it had sunk to page four, and….that was a pity, cos it’s a good topic.

I think, given the number of colorful Cap/Com debates I’ve participated in, and my positions IN those debates, and given the number of times I’ve gone rounds with DF and others about the subject of taxation, that my position is fairly clear, and in support of our current system, so….I decided it’d be fun to play Devil’s Advocate…see things from the other team’s perspective.

Trouble was, most of the mainstream stuff I was finding on the ‘net was decidedly NOT in favor of their arguments, so I had to go further afield to….shall we say, more “libertarian” oriented sites.

Came across a BEAUTY of a site, hawking a “kit” which purported to legally “break the paper chains” that the IRS has us all by the short and curly’s with, and figured it’d be fun to post here to see the reaction and response from “my side,” because I do not have a legal background, and though the essay in question didn’t sit right with my brain, I could not say why….I’m happy to report that ‘poly’s predictability worked exactly as hoped, and I got my answer….

I’m 100% certain you’ll have a field day with the essay as a whole, Hersh, and you’ll find the link to it (complete with its eventual sales pitch) below….enjoy, and thank you, 'poly OT...a marvellous and successful experiment!

http://www.futuregate.com/taxbuster/guide_1.html

-=Vel=-

	18-08-2003 00:01									#47
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

I assumed you were quoting some site, but thought you really believed waht you found there. Bastard.

Btw, that's a true jewel. "Individual sovereign citizens"

	18-08-2003 00:16									#48
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

The cutest part that is that the moron running the site claims that:

quote: The 14th amendment created a citizenship of the United States (Corporate U.S. - Federal Government), a separate and distinctly different citizenship. Now the Federal government could extend a citizenship and according to the Supreme court it is only necessary that one be born or naturalized in the United States to be a Federal Citizen.

apparently based on this language:

quote: Amendment XIV Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Note the term "citizens of the United States" - this funky concept that was just created in the 14th Amendment in the 1860's, riiiiiiiight?

The same term "citizen of the United States" (maybe there's a quibble that in the singular form applied to a single "person" it magically has a different meaning from the plural when applied to "all persons"

From Article 1, Section 2: "No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen."

From Article 2, Section 1: "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President;"

So the same exact concept of national citizenship, using the same exact words, appears twice in the original body of the Constitution, ratified in 1787.

	18-08-2003 07:56									#49
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Nahhh Hersh....I may sometimes (often?) take curious and unusual routes to where I'm going, but even when it looks like I'm bumbling, I usually have a plan...

-=Vel=-