How can there be anything other than case history to back up my statement?
I don't know. In a country based upon the rule of law, as Nixon claimed in his farewell address, one would think that no private property would ever be taken without due process of...law. So, where is the law requiring the withholding that everyone does to payroll?
I don't find any case history to support your claim, either.
the evidence that exists. And it certainly does exist.
Where?
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.
I've reviewed the laws, and find no law requiring income tax or withholding.
I submit that means that it is fraud.
There is no such thing as voluntary participation in fraud. A fraud necessarily compels its "participants" with willful non-disclosure of vital facts, making them into victims.
It is certainly written in much of the IRS's own documentation this way.
I'm satisfied that the IRS perpetrates fraud repeatedly. I don't see why one should rely upon such documents to establish the truth of any matter.
He is mistaken.
Yet, he is an officer of the court and in a position of considerable authority. One might even say that he is an authoritarian.
Rules and laws are two different things.
Yes. Legislation and laws are also different.
Rules have lesser consequences than laws in most cases.
Not really. Tax rules are treated as though their violation were a felony in most cases. Some of these rules carry long prison terms. The 21 count indictment against Dick Simkanin places him in jeopardy of 135 years in prison and nearly $7 million in fines if convicted. I don't think those are lesser consequences. Dick isn't that young, and life extension treatments aren't often available in prison.
Yes, you must first understand what you are getting into to have a solid contract and that point can be argued indefinitely in court,
Actually, that point can be argued for a time in court. Courts tend to be really narrow minded about listening to arguments from defendants, especially ones that relate to constitutional issues.
but this guy has been around
So, you know Dick Simkanin? He's been around you?
and has been doing this for years.
Why shouldn't he be "doing this" - not withholding taxes from his payroll - for years? One either acts consistent with law and morality, or one does not.
He understands tax law probably better than most people,
I don't think that's much of an accomplishment. Most of the high school seniors in the USA in 2000 could not identify the ocean due east of the USA. As I recall it was a multiple choice question, there were three choices available - Pacific, Atlantic, Indian - and only 20% of the seniors correctly identified Atlantic. One would expect that if they had all been guessing, about a third would have gotten it right.
or he would not have the forethought to even attempt to go against the IRS.
I think you are trying to establish intent here. It is clear that Dick Simkanin took deliberate actions to behave morally and ethically given the absence of a law compelling him to withhold funds from his payroll.
He is not that innocent here, I am sure you will agree on that point.
No, I would not agree at all. I think you are abusing the term "innocent." The fact that Dick put some forethought into his position doesn't mean he was guilty of criminal behavior. He took a carefully chosen moral position and acted accordingly. I happen to think his position is correct, and therefore he is innocent of the charges brought against him. Not guilty is the way I'd "vote" if I were on the jury. (But, since I won't vote, I'm not on juries.)
If this is the same person/company i think it is he has been doing this for at least 10 years.
You are badly mistaken. He is reputed to have begun this activity in 1999. That's from the DoJ press release.
He has just become bolder over time.
What does that mean, Gordon? It implies that you agree with the fraudulent tax system, and that you oppose any who are willing to stand on principle and refuse to participate. Is that your position?
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.
Nonsense. None of these things are true.
Of course, none of them apply to Dick, either. He is not unwilling to face the hassle. He did what he did very deliberately knowing that he'd have to deal with the trouble the government would bring.
It is very easy to stop using identification and state issued numbers. It takes very little time. There is no process of unregistration that works, though there is a great deal of patriot mythology about that, as well.
The word appear has two Ps and thus disappear has them, as well, and only the one S.
It costs nothing to stop using government issued ID, although it may constrain some of the things a person does. For example, one would use e-gold and an intermediary like Cambist.net to issue checks, since one cannot get USA banks to let one sign on a banking account without an SSN.
The IRS case law is full of "what they don't tell you".
Name one such case, please.
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.
On the contrary, a number of IRS employees, including several commissioners of the IRS since 1950 have come forward to point out that the Internal Revenue Code is inconsistent with the constitution.
Would that exempt anyone? No. It is a losing argument.
What, you mean that ignorance of the law is no excuse? Of course. But, obedience to the law is also no excuse. Read the law. It isn't that hard. There is no law requiring withholding.
Try it in court sometime. :-)
You seem to be amused that you have substituted my argument with a straw man of your own, then set the straw man on fire. Village idiots are capable of similar feats of humor.
Taxes in the US are a birthright
No. One inherits a birthright. Nobody inherits a tax liability, and any claim to the contrary is fraud.
and one is born and bread
You mean "bred" as in "breeding" or the raising up process.
with it ingrained into them like the sunrise.
I see. So, there is no escaping taxes. Death, taxes, and the weather, say you and Mr. Ben Franklin, Esquire, are inevitable?
True. But then you have to fight it out in court in this case which is not a positive thing.
What do you mean? What's wrong with having one's day in court? Are you saying that the courts are unjust and capricious? They are certainly not objective since the judges are paid with tax dollars.
If he is behind bars, that makes him guilty right?
What an asinine statement. How disgusting. You seem to be some kind of pervert. Of course being arrested doesn't make one guilty. Anyone can be arrested.
I've been arrested, twice, each time for crimes I didn't commit. One time I was facing 675,000 counts of felony gambling promotion of a lottery, each count of which carries a 3 year sentence and a $10,000 fine. The other time I faced a Class A misdemeanor of unlawful carry handgun. Both times the charges were dismissed because they were not valid - I didn't commit these so-called crimes.
I mean he is not free to walk out right?
I think his latest detention hearing hasn't established his liberty, correct.
he has to prove his innocence
False. The government has to prove his guilt, and do so beyond a reasonable doubt. And you know it.
and currenly resides in a guilty state of being.
Horse feathers. Currently has a T. He isn't guilty until he's proven guilty. His liberty is being constrained, and I think a habeas corpus writ would get him released.
That is a big price to pay to withdraw willingness.
I see. So, you are too much of a coward to pay this price for freedom? Okay. Understood.
There was a time when the Judenrat told the Jews in Germany to continue to display willingness, to mark their luggage before it went on the train so they could get it when they arrived at the "relocation camps." But, "arbeit macht frei" was just a lie.
He does. He is a business man with a staff and a history of profit.
He also has a history of being enslaved by government to pay taxes through extortion and fraud. He is therefore arguably a slave and thus incompetent to contract.
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.
Ya know, you are not the judge.
The moderator is going to break in here, sooner or later. So, if you want to move this discussion to dgc-chat, I'll be willing to discuss it a bit further.
In the eyes of the government he does.
Yes, but we've already established that they are frauds.
He gets firemen in nice shiny red outfits,
No. Federal taxes do not pay for those. I think Bedford still has a volunteer fire department.
and police with nice badges to pick him up and take him places,
Local police are not paid for by Federal taxes.
What does he get for withholding funds from his payroll? He doesn't get the FICA benefits - instead he matches the FICA payments if he's like you and unwilling to stop displaying willingness.
and he gets pavement for the roads
Roads in Texas are built with corruptly allocated contracts.
that the police drive on to take him to those places and etc...
I haven't seen any exchange of value thus far.
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.
You mean, nobody from foreign countries has ever come to the USA, stolen four airplanes, and flown three of them into buildings - killing thousands? The USA government has taken Dick Simkanin's tax money and has protected him from foreign invaders? And done a good job? There was just a report issued which suggests that many in the government don't agree that a good job was done.
but they use it all the time to their benefit.
So what? HYIP operators use Ponzi schemes to their benefit. Doesn't make it right.
It is the american way.
See, Dick and I are Texans. Must be why we don't get it.
Pay your taxes "points finger" and eat your hot dog consumer!
Make me, pervert.
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.
The IRS and the DoJ have stated publicly the position that failure to file tax returns is also a violation of the law. One is damned if one does, and damned if one doesn't.
Self entapment?
Entrapment has an R.
anyone home?
Evidently you think these games of fraud and deceit are fun. So, you seem like a pervert to me.
I agree it is not proper. It is fraud. It is not very good.
Then why are you making perverse arguments in defense of this behavior?
or someone who volunteers to be a taxpayer.
No, actually, there is no such provision in the law. You could look it up.
Let me clarify. There is legislation stating it is mandatory, but it was never ratified into law.
Legislation isn't ratified. Legislation is passed by Congress and signed into law by the president, in the case of federal legislation. Treaties are ratified.
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'm a bit confused why you like people to be confused.
I guess carrying a gun doesn't help my case here,
I have nothing against you carrying a gun.
but ... call it whatever you like. I have one for you... "label hippie" tanslation: pot smoking, logo wearing, tatle tale. ;-)
You know, that word "translation" has an R. And, I am completely baffled by your sentence which uses it.
only if he used a certified accountant.
You mean, certified by some agency which acts to restrict the market for accountants by raising barriers to entry?
OOOH and this is more proof of competance.
Competence. And no, it isn't. Just the opposite.
A tax incompetant would not be hiring certified accountants to help him.
Of course he would. Most of the tax incompetents in the country do.
Yea maybe it is hard to figure out or he is just lazy or busy, but that is not the IRS's problem.
You know, you seem to be a pretty unpleasant person, calling Dick Simkanin lazy.
Not that i agree with this, but it seems to be the evidence of the case.
Again, I have to say you sound like a pervert when you make arguments you don't agree with. What's up with that?
TRUE --- bastards... bastards with more guns than myself.
It isn't the number of guns, it is where one puts the bullets. It isn't the size of the bullet, but where one puts it.
I shed a tear.
Again, you sound like a pervert when you offer crocodile tears with no real sympathy. I gather you had no sympathy for the women and children butchered at Mt. Carmel by the government you willingly pay taxes to?
no he paid them to fill out the form.
Not clear. He may have contracted with them to identify his actual tax liabilities. If they failed to properly identify these, by supposing that there was a law requiring withholding, then they were either committing an error or perpetrating fraud.
They didnt come to him and say: "hey, we filled this form out for you, sign here becasue we are feeling generous"
Yes, they probably did tell him to sign the forms, and failed to identify whether there was a law requiring that he do so.
WHAT? They are employees, or contractors at best.
Contractors. Which is exactly my point.
That makes him responsible.
Not at all. The contractor is potentially liable for a failure to uphold the terms of the contract.
Using a certified accountant only protect you if they are acting in a criminal manner and the evidence has yet to be presented.
You don't think it criminal to falsely represent that withholding is required when there is no law requiring it?
Let me guess, you are a CPA as well as a pervert.
you made my point. I said it is voluntary.
So, you were lying at that point?
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.
So, is that wrong? Isn't it mistaken to call it volunteering if one cannot stop volunteering? You remind me of that Bill Clinton and his mandatory volunteer programs for high school students.
Especially if he does it publically by announcing the fact.
Now you are going to assert that there is something wrong with him telling other people that no law exists requiring withholding? I gather you haven't heard of the First Amendment?
Nothing gets them going more that a outspoken public dissenter. Why? Becasue good things catch on.
I gather that you express enthusiasm for the beating of dissenters either because you are an authoritarian or a pervert, or both.
David and Goliath. Let's see who wins.
You'll recall who won the contest between David - the wise shepherd boy - and Goliath - the giant authoritarian Philistine. I gather you are rooting for Goliath so you can be sure to be on the winning side. Which, as I see it, makes you a pervert.
me neither when it comes down to it.
Then why are you defending the position of the thieves? What's wrong with you? It is decadent and perverse to defend thieves when you don't agree with them.
didn't you say it was a law earlier? or a rule?
Look you. If you aren't willing to keep up, I'm not going to make things easy for you. Go look it up.
I agree here too, but the patriot act does away with much of this.
Here I must take severe objection. It isn't "the patriot
act." It is the USA PATRIOT act, and those words are in
all caps because they have nothing to do with the USA and
nothing to do with patriotism. They are in all caps because
they are an acronym: Uniting and Strengthening America by
Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct
Terrorism. USA PATRIOT. Look it up. Here:
http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism_militias/ 20011031_eff_usa_patriot_analysis.php
It is a bad mistake to use the term "the patriot act" because that act has nothing to do with patriotism to the constitutional republic. The act's title was deliberately generated to make this USA PATRIOT acronym, so that people would call it "the patriot act" in a misguided idea about what it means to be patriotic. Which is typical Congressional obfuscation and perversion - decadence of the first degree.
And the IRS still does it all the time, law or not.
Which means, what? You enthusiastic?
It is left to the individual to sue to get it back,
Why sue? That's silly. Suits operate in civil court.
Simkanin's approach makes him guilty in your book, but I've already satisfied myself that you are a pervert.
His approach gains him the protections of the accused in criminal court.
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?
Isn't that clever? I gather that's part of your rooting for the IRS?
again, my point exactly.
I'm a bit baffled. My point is that there is no bill of particulars in Dick's case. And that's also your point? How so?
and look what is happening to him...
I have been.
It doesn't pay to be a volunteer does it?
What do you mean? It sounds like you are being cynical as well as perverse.
At least we agree on the premise, just not on the particulars.
I think you are badly mistaken if you think that I understand your position, let alone agree with any of it.
It sounds to me like you want people not to stand up against the IRS. Yet, you agree that they are frauds and thieves.
What, then, do you propose?
Regards,
Jim http://www.houstonspacesociety.org/
--- 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.
