Larkin Rose, after studying the tax code believes that the law itself exempts most American's from paying taxes.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
How many Americans have had to endure the intrusive and frightening interrogation known as an IRS "audit"? Well it turns out that while sticking its nose in everyone else's business, the IRS has been less than honest itself. More specifically, the IRS has been caught cheating...
to the tune of about a trillion dollars a year.

The IRS is quite experienced at using intimidation, demonization, and harassment tactics, but what can be done when the "enforcers" are the ones breaking the rules? Click below to see how at least one man is standing up to the IRS.

http://www.861.info/message.html

Sincerely,

The 861 Evidence Team
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Even if you don't agree with this, the very fact that the law is this complicated makes the law unconstitutionally vauge. And while we know the government doesn't follow their own laws, and that if sufficient people understand this fraud (assuming Larkin is correct) they can always simply change the law. But hopefully, if enough people get indignent about this enough, we could work to completely abolish the IRS -- and not replace it with anything. It's really not that impractical or radical either. I say a report recently that said if the income tax was abolished government would only shrink to about Clinton era levels.

Anyway, enjoy. And I would encourge people to show this message to their friends, family, etc. Preferablly normal people (not geeks like me who spend much of their time in internet political forums). Take a look, and let me know what you think.

Thanks,

Tracy Saboe

This defense has been brought up multiple times. I don't think it has ever been used succesfully.


Amendment XVI.

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.

I do wish, however, that Bush would go ahead with that plan he had to simpliy the Tax Code

But..but..that would mean normal, everyday Americans could understand it!

That my friends is the government's worst nightmare.

__________________
Proudly a "South Park Republican"

No, it hasn't. But this one has:


http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTP2/UP...2006-06-09.htm

That wouldn't be the same Robert Lawrence who lost this case, would it?
http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/lawrencejudg.pdf

Why do I suspect there is less here than meets the eye?

And I love the claim that the Paperwork Reduction Act magically invalidates the income tax.

__________________
Man up.

Then why don't you explain why the government asked to court to rule against it WITH PREJUDICE? It's going to be funny to try and watch you spin this. I've argued it numerous times in other forums and nobody can touch it. Will your claim be it was "just an accident" - as others have tried??? LOL. Then why was it done WITH PREJUDICE, meaning the government can NEVER try him again on that issue??????

ROTFL. That wasn't the issue. Nice Straw Man. Again, you need to read more closely.

The truth is going to come out:

http://www.freedomtofascism.com

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

If I get the time, I'll try to dig up the court proceedings. Since this is crackpot BS, it's not high on my priority list.

If you want to help, feel free to point me to the full court record. I promise I'll read it. All I've seen so far is the request to dismiss the charges, which is lacking in any sort of context.

But what I really want to see is this: You stop paying your taxes, call up the IRS and confess, let them charge you, and then try the exact same legal tactic. If you're so confident it's valid, you shouldn't have a problem, right?

And be sure to call the media so it can be the trial of the century, and you can have your victory in such a huge public glare that the Feds can't just bury it or coerce you or any of the other excuses people use.

Somehow I suspect you won't.

__________________
Man up.

Context couldn't be a big issue here - either they have him, or they don't. If they don't have him - if they screwed up on some technicality, then there's no reason on heaven and earth to ask for a ruling WITH PREJUDICE. They just fix whatever their problem was and then try the case again - but now they can't do that - they can't EVER try him again. I think they were afraid, precisely for the reasons stated in the story. It was a problem they couldn't fix.

Nothing that anyone tells you on the issue is going to make any difference. You love the income tax. You absolutely love it and you love the government. This is not an intellectual argument for you - it's an emotional one. You think that the people in government are actually honest, but usually the contrary is true.

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

Context is everything in law. If the case was a winner, you shouldn't be afraid of examining it in context. It's a reasonable request.

Irrelevant even if it were true. I argue as much for the other readers of this thread as for any effort to change your particular mind.

That might be a defensible statement if I was using emotional arguments. You have; I'm not. I'm debating this on the merits. Quit impugning my motives and respond in kind.

__________________
Man up.

I'm not afraid - I'm telling you or anyone else - EXAMINE IT IN IT'S TOTALITY. PLEASE.

No, you argue for your love of the income tax and collectivism - the ability of the majority and the government to do anything they want.

Your motives are emotional. So why not be honest about it? Now you're getting upset when I point this out - more emotions...as I said...

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer