Dear Gordon, > I think this theory you put forth is widely held, but it > isn't based on anything like evidence. How can there be anything other than case history to back up my statement? Evidence is just a presentaion of (hopedully) facts, or proper recollection of events, but not fact. They have the ability to be agreed upon and become "factual", or at least, in a state of agreement as relates to the involved parties. The truth is that there is plent of evidence that supports this. You know enough to say "it is a Patriot's viewpoint," but I feel that by giving that a category and spinning it to fit a groups agenda, you miss the point of the evidence that exists. And it certainly does exist. I would hazard a guess and say more evidence exists to show that the income tax is not a law and that it is voluntary. It is certainly written in much of the IRS's own documentation this way. > > First, there is direct contradictory evidence on the > Department of Injustice web page regarding the arrest of > Dick Simkanin which I posted earlier. (Hey, do your own > archive hunt.) The DoJ jerk says that the tax rules are > not voluntary. He is mistaken. Rules and laws are two different things. Rules have lesser consequences than laws in most cases. > Second, I don't think the term "voluntary" means what you > suggest it means. You seem to think that once a person > volunteers for something poorly understood, they are stuck > with that choice. But, what you are proposing is not in > the common law tradition of contracting. Yes, voluntary > is an important criterion, so is knowledge and competence. Yes, you must first understand what you are getting into to have a solid contract and that point can be argued indefinitely in court, but this guy has been around and has been doing this for years. He understands tax law probably better than most people, or he would not have the forethought to even attempt to go against the IRS. He is not that innocent here, I am sure you will agree on that point. If this is the same person/company i think it is he has been doing this for at least 10 years. He has just become bolder over time. If you want to go down the road he is on without hassle you have to undocument yourself, un-register your Person and dissapear. This takes time and money. > > The four things in the subject header for this message > are the four things that are looked for in common law > agreements. If you enter into an agreement but you don't > know what you are getting into - if some essential disclosure > was withheld from you - you are not engaging in a contract. > Typically, fraud violates the "knowingly" criterion. What > they don't tell you is important. The IRS case law is full of "what they don't tell you". So is their documents, rules and regulations and let's not even consider employee training here... I think their own employees do not even understand much of it, or are even aware of it, much less business people. Would that exempt anyone? No. It is a losing argument. Try it in court sometime. :-) Taxes in the US are a birthright and one is born and bread with it ingrained into them like the sunrise. > > Yes, willingness is important - but if you find out something > about the deal later, you may withdraw your willingness. True. But then you have to fight it out in court in this case which is not a positive thing. If he is behind bars, that makes him guilty right? I mean he is not free to walk out right? he has to prove his innocence and currenly resides in a guilty state of being. That is a big price to pay to withdraw willingness. > Competence means that you have proper credentials for > contracting. He does. He is a business man with a staff and a history of profit. >In most jurisdictions this means you aren't > a minor child or certified imbecile. In previous > generations it might have eliminated women, wives, or > slaves, but those aren't widely viewed as deficits these > days. Well, I guess a slave would be deficient for > contracting, but most countries don't have much slavery > except for tax slavery. >In this regard, I think competence > might be a valid objection. I don't agree. I think it is a valid attempt to prove innocence, let us call it evidence to be submitted in this case. > Finally, there has to be consideration - an exchange of > value. One person putting up money isn't a valid exchange. > He has to get acceptable value in return. In the eyes of the government he does. He gets firemen in nice shiny red outfits, and police with nice badges to pick him up and take him places, and he gets pavement for the roads that the police drive on to take him to those places and etc... He also gets the slim chance that some rogue country whether by contract, or sheer glory and self imposed justice will not come here to drop shiny bombs painted with pretty ladies on them that he helped pay to build in the first place. > So, this whole theory of "voluntary compliance" is just > a bunch of nonsense. but they use it all the time to their benefit. It is the american way. Pay your taxes "points finger" and eat your hot dog consumer! I will tell you this much: if a person comes here and does not volunteer his name onto any document, then the IRS does not know he exists and therefore cannot be found guilty of breaking a law or a rule as he put it. Self entapment? anyone home? >If it isn't based on law, it isn't > proper. At best it is fraud, and that just isn't very good. I agree it is not proper. It is fraud. It is not very good. > > There is no actual law stating the the income tax is mandatory. > > That's not true either. That's what many call "patriot > mythology." There is a law stating that the income tax > is mandatory for taxpayers. However, that same law, when > you trouble yourself to read it, says that a taxpayer is > someone living in one of the territories of the USA, such > as the Virgin Islands or Puerto Rico. or someone who volunteers to be a taxpayer. Let me clarify. There is legislation stating it is mandatory, but it was never ratified into law. They just act like it was. If that is a patriots commonly held viewpoint then its good to see more people have joined the dance. I guess carrying a gun doesn't help my case here, but ... call it whatever you like. I have one for you... "label hippie" tanslation: pot smoking, logo wearing, tatle tale. ;-) > > So in effect, he has volunteered to withhold the "tax" > > Since he used an agency - an accounting firm - as the DoJ > admits, I think he has an out here. The accounting firm > advised him to withhold, and when he researched the deal > himself he found out that there wasn't any law behind this > advice. I think he has a valid option to reject this > notion that his behavior was "voluntary." only if he used a certified accountant. OOOH and this is more proof of competance. A tax incompetant would not be hiring certified accountants to help him. Yea maybe it is hard to figure out or he is just lazy or busy, but that is not the IRS's problem. Not that i agree with this, but it seems to be the evidence of the case. > > Basically, what the DoJ has said is: pay taxes and withhold > them from your employees, or we will come to your home and > arrest you. We won't charge you with any crime, so you'll > end up being our caged rat. If you resist in this process, > we'll kill you. TRUE --- bastards... bastards with more guns than myself. I shed a tear. > > > and has "volunteered" to fill out the forms which admints > > responsibility > > No, someone else, an accounting firm, filled out these > forms. > no he paid them to fill out the form. They didnt come to him and say: "hey, we filled this form out for you, sign here becasue we are feeling generous" WHAT? They are employees, or contractors at best. That makes him responsible. Using a certified accountant only protect you if they are acting in a criminal manner and the evidence has yet to be presented. > > and has also "voluntarily" paid it to the IRS. > > Nonsense. It is voluntary if there is fraud. You don't > want to admit that the IRS is defrauding employers. Putting > "voluntarily" in quotes makes it clear that you understand > that it isn't voluntary at all. you made my point. I said it is voluntary. I totally agree they are defrauding employers, by getting them to voluntaritly comply and also by forcing them to comply after they have volunteered and then either stopped volunteering, or publically withdrawing their volunteering status and that is when the actual physical harm and financial ruin tactics begin. Especially if he does it publically by announcing the fact. Nothing gets them going more that a outspoken public dissenter. Why? Becasue good things catch on. > > > So going back to get the funds will cause a problem > > It causes a problem because thieves don't like to give > back their ill gotten gains. There is nothing more to it. Obviously... > > > becasue he has signed his name admitting responsibility > > Again, this business of a signature admitting responsibility > is nonsense. Fraud voids the concept of a contract. He > admits nothing if he was defrauded. Fraud and coercion are > both valid claims against a "confession." David and Goliath. Let's see who wins. > > > in the first place and in the eyes of the IRS he has probably > > filed a false refund claim. > > Look you here, I'm not at all interested in what thieves > think. me neither when it comes down to it. > > > Once you disclose and sign you become responsible. > > Nonsense. You are saying that the IRS is allowed to > defraud anyone without law. didn't you say it was a law earlier? or a rule? >The IRS agents swear an > oath to uphold the constitution which says that nobody > can be deprived of property without due process of law. > > Get real. I agree here too, but the patriot act does away with much of this. And the IRS still does it all the time, law or not. It is left to the individual to sue to get it back, but this also removes the value of the items in the first place. Who wants to spend their homes' value to get their home back? > > The real world is that the IRS steals from taxpayers and > the courts are run by judges who are paid by tax dollars > collected by the IRS. exactly > > > The IRS words everything they have and say as voluntary > > although this is a very subtle thing designed to gloss > > over that fact. > > It isn't very subtle. Nor is arresting someone and > throwing him jail even though the prosecution can't come > up with a bill of particulars - identifying the law broken. again, my point exactly. > > Fighting them on this is not easy. > > That must be why you aren't doing it. Neither am I, for > that very reason. Dick Simkanin is, which is why I mentioned > it here. and look what is happening to him... It doesn't pay to be a volunteer does it? > > > Either way he will go broke paying for a proper defense > > unless she happens to be loaded. > > Thanks for the donation. http://101468.e-gold.com/ lol At least we agree on the premise, just not on the particulars. :-) Gordon H. www.katzglobal.com > > Regards, > > Jim --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.
