We The People


S

Steve

Excuse me if this may be a repeat, but I'm new to this newsgroup. Have any
of you ever checked out givemeliberty.org ? They claim that according to
our nation's constitution, the wages and salaries of ordinary Americans
cannot be taxed.

Before any of you slam me, I believe that taxes help support our country
(roads, military, schools, police, court system, etc.) and all of us should
do our part. On the other hand, I do not belive that those of us who are
paying taxes, should be picking up the slack for those who are not. We
should all pull our own weight when it comes to this.

I believe that if what is being said on that site is true, something should
be done to ensure all of us who live here should be paying their portion to
support this country.

Thanks,

Steve
 
F

Frank Keiser

Some people argue they believe the strangest things and sometimes juries
believe them, most of the time they don't.

The Miami Herald

August 21, 2003

Miami-Dade officer convicted of tax evasion
BY LARRY LEBOWITZ;

A federal jury on Thursday convicted a veteran Miami-Dade police officer on
income-tax evasion charges.

Ronald E. Young, 45, is facing a likely sentence of two to three years in
prison for refusing to pay approximately $80,000 in back taxes between 1997
and 2001.

Citing case law definitions of ''income'' dating back to 1917, Young said
the IRS has no constitutional authority to tax his wages.

The zero-income tactic has become the latest argument used by anti-tax
patriots, including crusading Las Vegas author Irwin Schiff.

Young, a 20-year veteran who most recently worked in the warrants division,
was convicted on three counts, representing his 1999, 2000 and 2001 tax
returns. Jurors acquitted him on the 1997 charges and couldn't reach
unanimity on the 1998 count.

The IRS warned Young in 1998 that his zero-income argument ''frivolous.''

Visiting U.S. District Judge Sterling Johnson will sentence Young on Nov. 7
in Miami. In addition to the prison term, Young could be ordered to repay
the taxes, plus penalties and accrued interest.

Another Miami-Dade police officer, William B. Oertwig Jr., a 28-year
veteran, goes on trial next week in Fort Lauderdale on similar tax-evasion
charges.
 
Ad

Advertisements

A

agent86

Excuse me if this may be a repeat, but I'm new to this newsgroup. Have any
of you ever checked out givemeliberty.org ? They claim that according to
our nation's constitution, the wages and salaries of ordinary Americans
cannot be taxed.
And they would be wrong.
Before any of you slam me, I believe that taxes help support our country
(roads, military, schools, police, court system, etc.) and all of us should
do our part. On the other hand, I do not belive that those of us who are
paying taxes, should be picking up the slack for those who are not. We
should all pull our own weight when it comes to this.
And that is why, if you read this group long enough, you'll find folks
like "We the People" get slammed a lot.
I believe that if what is being said on that site is true, something should
be done to ensure all of us who live here should be paying their portion to
support this country.
The IRS is working on it.....
 
D

Dan Evans

Excuse me if this may be a repeat, but I'm new to this newsgroup. Have any
of you ever checked out givemeliberty.org ? They claim that according to
our nation's constitution, the wages and salaries of ordinary Americans
cannot be taxed.
They're wrong.
I believe that if what is being said on that site is true,
It isn't.
something should
be done to ensure all of us who live here should be paying their portion to
support this country.
If you're worried about people using the nonsense at givemeliberty.org
to avoid paying taxes, you don't need to be.

Under some pressure from Congress, the IRS is increasing efforts to
identify these kinds of idiots and to make sure that they pay their
taxes (with interest and penalties, if necessary).

For example, the IRS now has a number of different civil actions aimed
at shutting down web sites that promote "illegal tax shelters" and
force the promoters to turn over the names of "customers" to the IRS
so their returns can be checked for noncompliance.


**Dan Evans
**I post information, not advice.
 
C

Criswell The Psychic Weatherman

Steve said:
Excuse me if this may be a repeat, but I'm new to this newsgroup. Have any
of you ever checked out givemeliberty.org ? They claim that according to
our nation's constitution, the wages and salaries of ordinary Americans
cannot be taxed.
The constitution gives Congress the power to lay and collect taxes. Congress
has passed laws taxing wages, among other forms of income. Courts up to and
including the Supreme Court have repeatedly held that wages are income.

"Every court which has ever considered the issue has unequivocally rejected the
argument that wages are not income." United States v.
Connor, 898 F.2d 942, 943-944 (3rd Cir. 1990).

"In our view, petitioner's wages are taxable as gross income..."
Beard v. Commissioner, 793 F.2d 139, 140 (6th Cir. 1986), aff'g 82 T.C. 766
(1984);

"Wages are taxable income." Perkins v. Commissioner of Internal
Revenue, 746 F. 2d 1187, 1188 (6th Cir. 1984); Beerbower v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 787 F.2d 588 (6th Cir. 1986).

"Wages are income, and the tax on wages is constitutional." Coleman
v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68 (7th Cir. 1986), citing United States v.
Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1986); Lovell v. United States, 755
F.2d 517 (7th Cir. 1984); Granzow v. Commissioner, 739 F.2d 265,
267 (7th Cir. 1984);

You might want to read several sections of the tax protestor FAQ beginning
with this one
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#wagesincome
Before any of you slam me, I believe that taxes help support our country
(roads, military, schools, police, court system, etc.) and all of us should
do our part. On the other hand, I do not belive that those of us who are
paying taxes, should be picking up the slack for those who are not. We
should all pull our own weight when it comes to this.

I believe that if what is being said on that site is true, something should
be done to ensure all of us who live here should be paying their portion to
support this country.
Dick Simkanin is in jail. Irwin Schiff is enjoined. Thurston Bell is
enjoined. Larken Rose will soon get his wish to be prosecuted. Kuglin was
found not guilty of WILLFUL failure to file, but she still has to pay back
taxes, interest, and penalties.

The IRS and the DOJ are working on it.

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2003/January/03_tax_115.htm
Thanks,
Steve
"Although not raised in his brief on appeal, the defendant's entire case at
trial rested on his claim that he in good faith believed that wages are not
income for taxation purposes. Whatever his mental state, he, of
course, was wrong, as all of us are already aware. Nontheless, the defendant
still
insists that no case holds that wages are income. Let us now put that
to rest: WAGES ARE INCOME. Any reading of tax cases by would-be
tax protesters now should preclude a claim of good-faith belief that
wages--or salaries--are not taxable." United States v. Koliboski, 732 F.2d
1328, 1329 n.1 (7th Cir. 1984), (emphasis in original; convictions
for criminal failures to file affirmed).

"[W]e have [repeatedly] held that wages are within the definition of income
under the Internal Revenue Code and the Sixteenth Amendment, and
are subject to taxation. Denison v. Commissioner, 751 F.2d 241, 242
(8th Cir.1984) (per curiam), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1069, 105 S.Ct.
2149, 85 L.Ed.2d 505 (1985)." United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255
(8th Cir. 1993).

"Section 61 of the Internal Revenue Code imposes a tax on income, and
under the Tax Code, wages are income." Grimes v. Commissioner,
806 F.2d 1451, 1453 (9th Cir. 1986).

"Compensation for labor or services, paid in the form of wages or
salary, has been universally held by the courts of this republic to be income,
subject to the income tax laws currently applicable." United States
v. Romero, 640 F.2d 1014, 1016 (9th Cir. 1981).

"Irrefutably, wages earned in compensation for services are "income"
pursuant to the federal tax laws." Boubel v. United States, 86 AFTR2d
¸2000-5123, No. 1:99-cv-380 (U.S.D.C. E.D.Tenn. 6/22/2000).

"f anything in our tax law is clear, it is that: 'WAGES ARE
INCOME.' ... [A]ny contention to the contrary is patently frivolous...."" Hill
v.
United States, 599 F. Supp. 118, 120-22 (M.D. Tenn. 1984), (emphasis
in original), (quoting United States v. Koliboski, 732 F.2d 1328,
1329 n.1 (7th Cir. 1984)).
 
S

StaR

Excuse me if this may be a repeat, but I'm new to this newsgroup. Have any
of you ever checked out givemeliberty.org ? They claim that according to
our nation's constitution, the wages and salaries of ordinary Americans
cannot be taxed.

Before any of you slam me, I believe that taxes help support our country
(roads, military, schools, police, court system, etc.) and all of us should
do our part. On the other hand, I do not belive that those of us who are
paying taxes, should be picking up the slack for those who are not. We
should all pull our own weight when it comes to this.

I believe that if what is being said on that site is true, something should
be done to ensure all of us who live here should be paying their portion to
support this country.

Thanks,

Steve
Ah excuse me, you should get your facts straight before you post. It
is the international bankers that pay for the services you enjoy, not
the taxpayer. The statutory taxpayer simply "services" the debt
incurred when your corporate "government" borrows "money" from them to
provide these services, money that they create out of thin air and
then charge the corporate "government" interest for their wonderful
services. This is FACT and reality, a well over 6 TRILLION DOLLAR
reality.

StaR
 
Ad

Advertisements

S

sussmanbern

Amen. Thank God somebody knows how to read. It is clear from the
plain text of the Sixteenth Amendment, from the Congressional debates
on proposing the 16th Amendment, from the newspaper reports and
editorials while the 16th Amendment was being ratified by the States,
and by the Congressional debates on adopting the income tax laws after
the adoption of the 16th Amendment, that the clear, unambiguous, and
deliberate intention of the Sixteenth Amendment was to effectuate a
tax upon income, which meant, for the vast majority, a tax upon their
salaries, paychecks, earnings, etc. (and not just on rents, royalties,
dividends, etc., which were then received by only a rather small
portion of the population). In other words, the Sixteenth Amendment
was, from the very beginning, intended to tax salaries, wages, and the
like from just about everyone with a job. In fact the entire effort
behind amending the Constitution would have been pretty much wasted if
it had not accomplished this. The introduction of the income tax made
possible the drastic reduction of a very high tariff on imports, which
was seriously impeding America's growth as an international trading
partner.

I would like to mention another argument, admittedly not broached on
this thread, promoted by booklets like The Law That Never Was, that
claim that the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified or adopted.
This is become of tiny - almost microscopic - variants in the one
sentence (30 word) text of the proposed amendment in documents sent to
the US Secretary of State reporting ratifications from the various
state legislatures. This quibbling, it should be emphasized, comes
from non-lawyers and has been repeatedly and consistently and very
emphatically rejected by several courts. Yes, there were tiny
variants. In most instances they are very obvious typos and it is
obvious what was intended, and in the remaining cases they are less
obvious typos arising from very common copying errors. We don't know
when these variants were introduced - that is, we don't know for sure
if the two chambers of a State legislature saw the proposed text in
its original form or with the typos; it is Very possible that the
legislature voted on the correct form and the typists working up the
document for the US State Dept introduced the errors. Whether or not
you want to believe that, there is the undeniable fact that (a) prior
to any of the state ratifications the text of the proposed amendment
was made general available to the public nationwide, including members
of state legislatures, in its correct form, via official publications
like Statutes at Large as well as newspaper reports, and (b)
afterward (after ratification or the announcement of the adoption of
the amendment) absolute NO state legislature, nor even one member of
one state legislature, stepped forward to say that the vote for the
proposed amendment was a mistake because some typo was misleading or
confusing; NOT EVEN ONE, EVER.

I might add that this was done, of course, in 1913, long before
word processors, even before xerox, at a time when typewriters were
non-electric and cumbersome (and before that chalkdust correction
paper) and copying machines were also very disappointing. If we start
looking at the documentation for earlier amendments -- say, the Second
Amendment, to pick one at random -- I daresay we would find a lot of
variants in the handwritten documents about its ratification.
 
A

Anthony

AllYou! said:
I've never read more bullshit in one paragraph in years. Let's take this on
several levels, assuming from time to time that some of your assertion might
be valid.

First, where do you think these bankers get their money?

Second, do they just give it? Do they ever want it back?

Third, are these bankers paid for this service?

Fourth, is all government spending based upon borrowed money?

Let's just start with those.
First = They print it out of thin air! An even charge interest!

second= "NO" The American people pay it back!

Third = Trillion times over and over! Off the backs of the American people!

Fourth = "Yes"
 
A

AllYou!

Anthony said:
"AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message

First = They print it out of thin air! An even charge interest!
Bankers just print money? So if I open a bank, I can just print as much
money as I want? So why haven't you opened a bank?
second= "NO" The American people pay it back!
OK, so it's the American people who eventually pay for the services provided
by this money. So, already, the original contention collapes.
Third = Trillion times over and over! Off the backs of the American
people!

Again, you agree that the American people pay for the spending oftheir
government. Isn't that the way it should be?
Fourth = "Yes"
So where does all the money collected in taxes go?
 
A

Anthony

AllYou! said:
Bankers just print money? So if I open a bank, I can just print as much
money as I want? So why haven't you opened a bank?
I need a printing machine!
OK, so it's the American people who eventually pay for the services provided
by this money. So, already, the original contention collapes.
YES!!!!
people!

Again, you agree that the American people pay for the spending oftheir
government. Isn't that the way it should be?
The problem is this money does not fund the government it goes back
to the privately owned fed! Thats why our country is going down the
rat hole!
So where does all the money collected in taxes go?
above
 
Ad

Advertisements

A

AllYou!

You admit that your argument is worth shit, then continue to argue. You're
a moron.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Similar Threads

We the People 3
people helping people 0
Power to the People 1
Are we back on? 1
Paying People 3
Loans to People 2
pay people overseas 2
Investing for other people... 5

Top