| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
catfish
Validated Poster
Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Posts: 430
|
 Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 1:53 am Post subject: Freedom to fascism |
 |
|
Kind of off topic but very good film about the Federal Reserve. It seems there is no law that requires Americans to pay income tax:
Freedom to Fascism
_________________
Govern : To control
Ment : The mind |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 9:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Yes, if you believe in CD you'll believe anything. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 10:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
"What I say is show me the Law: SHOW ME THE LAW!"
Federal Reserve is pawned matey, get with the programme
Or "show me the law!"
"But...but mommy! Daddy couldnt tell a Lie that big! Could he???" (wipes tear)
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catfish
Validated Poster
Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Posts: 430
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 12:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | | Yes, if you believe in CD you'll believe anything. |
There's folk in the US who have found in court that they don't have to pay federal income tax because there is no law that requires them to.
_________________
Govern : To control
Ment : The mind |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 1:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forgive my laughter, but when I see a Co-incidence theorist act just like the stereotype of a Conspiracy theorist, you bet I'm gonna call it becuase it is hilarious. Still if critics want to spout from ignorance its their own problem
Watch Aaron Russo's masterpeice and learn something
Any credible attempts at de-bunking can be debated, but I tell you now: there wont be any (same as "Press for Truth")
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 1:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Income tax is constitional. Is this some kind of package deal, buy into one conspiracy, get one free?
And how is the Federal Reserve pawned? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 1:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here's what you do:
1) View the film. Take notes
2) Challenge the films POV. Try to find contrary evidence. Debate it
3) Find that the inevitable result is "OMFG its true! I dont have to file taxes!"
(In terms of a direct tax on your income if you are a US citizen)
4) Be that little bit wiser
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catfish
Validated Poster
Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Posts: 430
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 2:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | | Income tax is constitional. |
Prove it.
_________________
Govern : To control
Ment : The mind |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 2:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
U.S. Constitution--Section 8:
| Quote: | The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
<snip> |
It's the first power of Congress.
U.S. Constitution--Amendment XVI:
| Quote: | | 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. |
U.S. Code of law--Title 26 (Internal Revenue Code):
http://uscode.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sup_01_26.html
See Subtitle A for specifics on income taxes imposed by Congress.
See Subtitle F for definitions of tax crimes and penalties, and powers granted to law enforcement by Congress. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr-Bridger
Validated Poster
Joined: 22 Apr 2006
Posts: 186
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 3:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You can tell you havent watched it then !
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
No mention of tax on labour there ???? The 16th admendment is what allows some americans to say they dont have to pay a income tax read up more
I recommend watching the Money Masters for a history of the Federal reserve and The bank of England.
_________________
www.infodvds.co.uk
www.cornwall911truth.info |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 3:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
XVI ammendment: Not Legal! Never legally ratified. Check it
If that was NOT the case: why have some people got off Tax Evasion charges using this defense?
Any critic who will actually watch this film and demonstrate that by coming back with credible observations will be guarenteed my respect
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 3:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mr-Bridger wrote: | You can tell you havent watched it then !
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
No mention of tax on labour there ???? The 16th admendment is what allows some americans to say they dont have to pay a income tax read up more |
An amendment specifically clarifying that Congress may impose a federal income tax among the taxes it may impose is an argument that we don't have to pay an income tax? WTF? How does that work? Unless and until the amendment is invalidated by the courts as unconstitutional or is repealed by further amendment, then it is no less valid than those included in the Bill of Rights (I through X), the abolition of slavery (XIII), women's right to vote (XIX), the two-term limit on the presidency (XXII), or the prohibition against poll taxes (XXIV).
| Quote: | | I recommend watching the Money Masters for a history of the Federal reserve and The bank of England. |
I recommend more reading, less watching. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 3:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: | | XVI ammendment: Not Legal! Never legally ratified. Check it |
 It was ratified in 1913.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt16_user.html#amdt16_hd7
| Quote: | The ratification of this Amendment was the direct consequence of the Court’s decision in 1895 in Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co.,1 whereby the attempt of Congress the previous year to tax incomes uniformly throughout the United States2 was held by a divided court to be unconstitutional. A tax on incomes derived from property,3 the Court declared, was a “direct tax” which Congress under the terms of Article I, Sec. 2, and Sec. 9, could impose only by the rule of apportionment according to population, although scarcely fifteen years prior the Justices had unanimously sustained4 the collection of a similar tax during the Civil War,5 the only other occasion preceding the Sixteenth Amendment in which Congress had ventured to utilize this method of raising revenue.6
During the interim between the Pollock decision in 1895 and the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913, the Court gave evidence of a greater awareness of the dangerous consequences to national solvency which that holding threatened, and partially circumvented the threat, either by taking refuge in redefinitions of “direct tax” or, and more especially, by emphasizing, virtually to the exclusion of the former, the history of excise taxation. Thus, in a series of cases, notably Nicol v. Ames,7 [p.1954]Knowlton v. Moore,8 and Patton v. Brady,9 the Court held the following taxes to have been levied merely upon one of the “incidents of ownership” and hence to be excises: a tax which involved affixing revenue stamps to memoranda evidencing the sale of merchandise on commodity exchanges, an inheritance tax, and a war revenue tax upon tobacco on which the hitherto imposed excise tax had already been paid and which was held by the manufacturer for resale. |
| John White wrote: |
If that was NOT the case: why have some people got off Tax Evasion charges using this defense? |
What people? Cite cases, please.
| John White wrote: |
Any critic who will actually watch this film and demonstrate that by coming back with credible observations will be guarenteed my respect |
Any Truther who will actually check the facts of claims made in the videos they watch will be guaranteed my respect.
Last edited by chipmunk stew on Fri Oct 20, 2006 3:51 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 3:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Unless and until the amendment is invalidated by the courts as unconstitutional or is repealed by further amendment |
Nope. This can only apply to a legal amendment. Illegal ammendmants hold the obligations of no citizens
The IRS, run by a cartel of private banks whose identity is not even known, is nothing more than a giant scam, the theft of the USA from under the noses of its people
One can run from that, but one cannot hide
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 3:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chipmunk stew wrote: | | John White wrote: | | XVI ammendment: Not Legal! Never legally ratified. Check it |
It was ratified in 1913.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt16_user.html#amdt16_hd7
| Quote: | The ratification of this Amendment was the direct consequence of the Court’s decision in 1895 in Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co.,1 whereby the attempt of Congress the previous year to tax incomes uniformly throughout the United States2 was held by a divided court to be unconstitutional. A tax on incomes derived from property,3 the Court declared, was a “direct tax” which Congress under the terms of Article I, Sec. 2, and Sec. 9, could impose only by the rule of apportionment according to population, although scarcely fifteen years prior the Justices had unanimously sustained4 the collection of a similar tax during the Civil War,5 the only other occasion preceding the Sixteenth Amendment in which Congress had ventured to utilize this method of raising revenue.6
During the interim between the Pollock decision in 1895 and the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913, the Court gave evidence of a greater awareness of the dangerous consequences to national solvency which that holding threatened, and partially circumvented the threat, either by taking refuge in redefinitions of “direct tax” or, and more especially, by emphasizing, virtually to the exclusion of the former, the history of excise taxation. Thus, in a series of cases, notably Nicol v. Ames,7 [p.1954]Knowlton v. Moore,8 and Patton v. Brady,9 the Court held the following taxes to have been levied merely upon one of the “incidents of ownership” and hence to be excises: a tax which involved affixing revenue stamps to memoranda evidencing the sale of merchandise on commodity exchanges, an inheritance tax, and a war revenue tax upon tobacco on which the hitherto imposed excise tax had already been paid and which was held by the manufacturer for resale. |
| John White wrote: |
If that was NOT the case: why have some people got off Tax Evasion charges using this defense? |
What people? Cite cases, please.
| John White wrote: |
Any critic who will actually watch this film and demonstrate that by coming back with credible observations will be guarenteed my respect |
Any Truther who will actually check the facts of claims made in the videos they watch will be guaranteed my respect. |
Really? How many states ratified it?
(Case pawned m'lud)
| Quote: | | What people? Cite cases, please. |
do yer own work. Be good for you
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 3:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: | | Quote: | | Unless and until the amendment is invalidated by the courts as unconstitutional or is repealed by further amendment |
Nope. This can only apply to a legal amendment. Illegal ammendmants hold the obligations of no citizens
The IRS, run by a cartel of private banks whose identity is not even known, is nothing more than a giant scam, the theft of the USA from under the noses of its people
One can run from that, but one cannot hide |
Drifting ever further into Kookyville, John. Unless and until it is invalidated by the courts as unconstitutional, it is, by definition, legal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 3:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | The IRS, run by a cartel of private banks whose identity is not even known, is nothing more than a giant scam, the theft of the USA from under the noses of its people |
You probably mean the Federal Reserve, but you're still wrong.
Also, I don't really agree with the concept of "I'll past links to websites, videos, copy and paste random things, and you have to go through it all, figure out what I'm trying to say and then refute it."
Wouldn't it make more sense for you to present an argument in your own words and then let people debunk it in their own words?
Also, don't you think there is a danger here that people are going to realise that the 911 truth movement is not just everyday people who were "suddenly awakened", but actually the same types of personalities who believed JFK was a conspiracy, the federal reserve is a conspiracy, chemtrail are affecting our brains, UFOs landed at area 51, AIDS was a government plot, there is a global elite of bankers that control the world... etc?
I'll bet a lot of people here are hiding just how many "alternative" views they hold. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 4:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chipmunk stew wrote: | | John White wrote: | | Quote: | | Unless and until the amendment is invalidated by the courts as unconstitutional or is repealed by further amendment |
Nope. This can only apply to a legal amendment. Illegal ammendmants hold the obligations of no citizens
The IRS, run by a cartel of private banks whose identity is not even known, is nothing more than a giant scam, the theft of the USA from under the noses of its people
One can run from that, but one cannot hide |
Drifting ever further into Kookyville, John. Unless and until it is invalidated by the courts as unconstitutional, it is, by definition, legal. |
Stating a law has been passed is not the same as a law being passed
XVI ammendment was never ratified, ergo it is by definition, not legal.
Its not my fault, so dont cry to me about it. All you have to do is prove that the required number of States ratified it
You cant: no-one can. Becuase the facts are that it was not
Which is why Aaron Russo's campaign is spreading like wildfire
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 4:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | | Quote: | | The IRS, run by a cartel of private banks whose identity is not even known, is nothing more than a giant scam, the theft of the USA from under the noses of its people |
You probably mean the Federal Reserve, but you're still wrong. |
Prove it. Come back when you can
(Btw, IRS is the enforcement arm of the federal Reserve: which is not Federal )
| Quote: | | Also, I don't really agree with the concept of "I'll past links to websites, videos, copy and paste random things, and you have to go through it all, figure out what I'm trying to say and then refute it." |
Yeah yeah standard JREF piffle, sorry mate, doesnt work here. I have to put myself out: so do you
| Quote: | | Wouldn't it make more sense for you to present an argument in your own words and then let people debunk it in their own words? |
Yeah, and I do. but I wont invest serious energy into arguing with people who dont know the subject matter. I'm just playing on this thread, becuase I know how out of their depth critics are here
| Quote: | Also, don't you think there is a danger here that people are going to realise that the 911 truth movement is not just everyday people who were "suddenly awakened", but actually the same types of personalities who believed JFK was a conspiracy, the federal reserve is a conspiracy, chemtrail are affecting our brains, UFOs landed at area 51, AIDS was a government plot, there is a global elite of bankers that control the world... etc?
I'll bet a lot of people here are hiding just how many "alternative" views they hold. |
Check out the thought Police! 
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr-Bridger
Validated Poster
Joined: 22 Apr 2006
Posts: 186
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 4:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States
The taxes mentioned in the consitiution relate to gains tax but not income on labour. I can`t understand the arguing as it has been proven in US courts.
_________________
www.infodvds.co.uk
www.cornwall911truth.info |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 5:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mr-Bridger wrote: |
The taxes mentioned in the consitiution relate to gains tax but not income on labour. I can`t understand the arguing as it has been proven in US courts. |
I can: wounded ego
How could a critic possibly be so wrong about something so fundamental in their lives?
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 5:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | John White wrote: | | XVI ammendment: Not Legal! Never legally ratified. Check it |
It was ratified in 1913.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt16_user.html#amdt16_hd7
| Quote: | The ratification of this Amendment was the direct consequence of the Court’s decision in 1895 in Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co.,1 whereby the attempt of Congress the previous year to tax incomes uniformly throughout the United States2 was held by a divided court to be unconstitutional. A tax on incomes derived from property,3 the Court declared, was a “direct tax” which Congress under the terms of Article I, Sec. 2, and Sec. 9, could impose only by the rule of apportionment according to population, although scarcely fifteen years prior the Justices had unanimously sustained4 the collection of a similar tax during the Civil War,5 the only other occasion preceding the Sixteenth Amendment in which Congress had ventured to utilize this method of raising revenue.6
During the interim between the Pollock decision in 1895 and the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913, the Court gave evidence of a greater awareness of the dangerous consequences to national solvency which that holding threatened, and partially circumvented the threat, either by taking refuge in redefinitions of “direct tax” or, and more especially, by emphasizing, virtually to the exclusion of the former, the history of excise taxation. Thus, in a series of cases, notably Nicol v. Ames,7 [p.1954]Knowlton v. Moore,8 and Patton v. Brady,9 the Court held the following taxes to have been levied merely upon one of the “incidents of ownership” and hence to be excises: a tax which involved affixing revenue stamps to memoranda evidencing the sale of merchandise on commodity exchanges, an inheritance tax, and a war revenue tax upon tobacco on which the hitherto imposed excise tax had already been paid and which was held by the manufacturer for resale. |
| John White wrote: |
If that was NOT the case: why have some people got off Tax Evasion charges using this defense? |
What people? Cite cases, please.
| John White wrote: |
Any critic who will actually watch this film and demonstrate that by coming back with credible observations will be guarenteed my respect |
Any Truther who will actually check the facts of claims made in the videos they watch will be guaranteed my respect. |
Really? How many states ratified it? |
38.
| Quote: | (Case pawned m'lud)
| Quote: | | What people? Cite cases, please. |
do yer own work. Be good for you |
Your assertion. Your work to back it up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr-Bridger
Validated Poster
Joined: 22 Apr 2006
Posts: 186
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 5:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
According to the two volume work by Bill Benson and Red Beckman , "The Law That Never Was" the 16th amendment, which created the IRS, was never properly ratified, not even by one state! These gentlemen traveled the then 48 states to verify that fact. So in a very real sense the income tax isn't legal, as many have proclaimed
In December 1913 while many members of Congress were home for Christmas, the Federal Reserve Act was rammed through Congress and was later signed by President Wilson. At a later date, Wilson admitted with remorse, when referring to the Fed."I have unwittingly ruined my country".
_________________
www.infodvds.co.uk
www.cornwall911truth.info
Last edited by Mr-Bridger on Fri Oct 20, 2006 5:08 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 5:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mr-Bridger wrote: | The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States
The taxes mentioned in the consitiution relate to gains tax but not income on labour. I can`t understand the arguing as it has been proven in US courts. |
Cases? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 5:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mr-Bridger wrote: | | According to the two volume work by Bill Benson and Red Beckman , "The Law That Never Was" the 16th amendment, which created the IRS, was never properly ratified, not even by one state! These gentlemen traveled the then 48 states to verify that fact. So in a very real sense the income tax isn't legal, as many have proclaimed |
And yet, all these corporations, lower-tax lobbyists, obscenely wealthy individuals, and libertarians who try to exploit any loophole they can to avoid paying taxes have not noticed? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 5:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mr-Bridger wrote: | | According to the two volume work by Bill Benson and Red Beckman , "The Law That Never Was" the 16th amendment, which created the IRS, was never properly ratified, not even by one state! These gentlemen traveled the then 48 states to verify that fact. |
How did they go about this verification?
| Quote: | So in a very real sense the income tax isn't legal, as many have proclaimed
In December 1913 while many members of Congress were home for Christmas, the Federal Reserve Act was rammed through Congress and was later signed by President Wilson. At a later date, Wilson admitted with remorse, when referring to the Fed."I have unwittingly ruined my country". |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr-Bridger
Validated Poster
Joined: 22 Apr 2006
Posts: 186
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 5:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: | XVI ammendment: Not Legal! Never legally ratified. Check it
|
Neither was the amendment that freed the slaves. Does that mean...? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 5:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: | | Quote: | | Unless and until the amendment is invalidated by the courts as unconstitutional or is repealed by further amendment |
Nope. This can only apply to a legal amendment. Illegal ammendmants hold the obligations of no citizens
The IRS, run by a cartel of private banks whose identity is not even known, is nothing more than a giant scam, the theft of the USA from under the noses of its people
One can run from that, but one cannot hide |
And yet they STILL don't collect enough money to cover the nation's debts! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr-Bridger
Validated Poster
Joined: 22 Apr 2006
Posts: 186
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 5:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
And yet they STILL don't collect enough money to cover the nation's debts!
As of March 6, 2006, the national debt stands at 8.2 trillion dollars. The American taxpayers have paid the FED banking system $173,875,979,369.66 in interest on that debt in just five short months, from October, 2005, through February, 2006.
_________________
www.infodvds.co.uk
www.cornwall911truth.info |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
