Ron Paul praises the criminal element...

http://www.etaxes.com/tax_scams.html

More hilarity from another of Russo's starz:

Larken Rose moved to the top of this list on August 12, 2005 as he was convicted by a Federal jury in Philadelphia of five counts of willful failure to file federal income tax returns. Rose dropped to the #2 spot so Irwin Schiff could rightfully regain the top spot when he was convicted on October 24, 2005.

As Quatloos profoundly states "Not being smart enough to come up with any unique theory of his own, Larken has simply latched on to the “861” or “Income Can’t Be Defined” arguments that end up with the conclusion that only foreigners are required to pay income tax. Larkin’s argument has been exploded more times than a pack of Blackcats at a 4th of July festival (see below) but this hasn’t stopped Larken from marketing his video for $20".

A self delusional nut case claims " that the actual federal income tax statutes and regulations do not show the income of most Americans to be taxable". Believes that everyone else in the world is wrong about taxes, except of course for himself and the few nut cases that believe as he does. He has been a prolific poster on the misc.taxes newsgroup. That has not been a particularly wise course of action as he has consistently proven himself to be a complete and total boob.

Even Irwin Schiff finds his arguments to be bogus saying "Larken Rose couldn't be more wrong". How would you like to have a slug like Schiff think you're a bozo?!
 
More on voluntary compliance:

Undeterred by his stint in the slammer, Schiff went back to court. The court dismissed Schiff’s notion that the U.S. tax system is voluntary and no income tax is "legally required."

To the extent that income taxes are said to be "voluntary," however, they are only voluntary in that one files the returns and pays the taxes without the IRS first telling each individual the amount due and then forcing payment of that amount. The payment of income taxes is not optional, [citations omitted] however, and the average citizen knows that the payment of income taxes is legally required.
 
Quote from ratboy88:

let's see what one of the criminal authors of the criminal code says:


sheldon cohen at the 00:06:00 mark tells us what he thinks of the supreme court !!!!!!!!! lmaoooooooooooooo eat those pancakes teriaki !!!


the head of the IRS says the supreme court is not applicable !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
More...

You really are dumb, you know that Rat?

Cohen says that Russo's SC .... ARGUEMENT...... is not applicable.

And why is that? Find that answer and maybe you'll get it
 
Quote from Haroki:

You really are dumb, you know that Rat?

Cohen says that Russo's SC .... ARGUEMENT...... is not applicable.

And why is that? Find that answer and maybe you'll get it
More...

i'm stupid yet you can't spell argument. LOL LOL LOL... i noticed you fk'ed it up several times before.

i'm stupid but you ask what the indians had to do with the Boston Tea Party.

im stupid but you are the one that fell for the pancake theory that has thoroughly been dismissed by your own side.

what does all this say about harioki? i think we know the answer to that riddle !!!!!!!!!

you can find shill sites all day but show me the law.... show me the law.... why can't the IRS commissioners answer the question???? they never have.... never will... it doesn't exist.
 
Joseph Banister explained why, as a special agent of the Criminal Investigation Division of the IRS, he undertook, at his own expense, and on his own time, a two year research effort to prove that those people who were claiming that the 16th amendment had not been legally ratified and that there is no law that requires one to file or pay the income tax, and that there is no law that requires employers to withhold from their workers, were all wrong. Banister explained that he reached the conclusion, instead, that those claims were correct. He submitted his 90 page report to his superiors in the San Jose office of the IRS with the request that the report be passed up through the chain of command and that he be provided with the IRS's answer to his conclusions. Instead of getting answers, Joe was asked to resign, which he did in February of 1999.Banister's report can be viewed for free on his web site at http://www.freedomabovefortune.com
 
why does teriaki hate freedom so much... he hates the united states and every post he makes seems to directly conflict with the well being of the people of this once great Republic.

he supports the terrorist that caused 9/11 and he supports illegal foreign banks that hate this country and want to enslave her.

he doesn't even know simple US history and has trouble grasping fake pancake theories. who is hkerioki? maybe he is a disinfo shill. i've never seen someone hate this country so much except for zzzZZ.
 
whitey harrell beat these thug klannish:

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/aroN2uRbIMc"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/aroN2uRbIMc" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
 
Quote from 2cents:

i know..... am ex-top tier american/swiss IB, ex-top tier US/UK audit & management consulting firm... the level of stuff one can get exposed to in terms of unethical behaviour / outright fraud while working in these environments is just unfathomable... cause its all based on trust... and it works 99% of the time... but boy, this lil' 1% abandon all hope if u ever look in there...


just one small example: in an internal review i did at my top-tier IB once, i came across so-called orphan entities http://www.sfmlimited.com/SPVs/spvs_channelislands_jersey.htm and a number of bogus "charity" entities used to handle MD's PAs (managing directors' personal accts, ie personal trading...)

what whistle do u reckon one shld blow in such a situation? am not american, was HK-based at the time, everybody else in the tree-up was aware............... corruption? nahhhhhhhhh......... 'verybody does it, its just, there's this grey line, ya know.... its nut technically illegal ya see........................ what? unethical? and who says that?????????? if its not technically illegal, its not technically illegal, GIT IT!!!? we've got a legal opinion from A&O on that, thats completely watertight, move on pal....


anyway... its all smoke & mirrors once one starts toeing that "grey" line.......
More...

thanks for sharing that. i guess there's no real recourse against systematic corporate cheating. everyone gets in bed and....

it's easy to see how there wasn't anything to do about it. frustrating
 
LMAOOOOOO

Now Rat has to resort to personal attacks to try and make his point. Truly the last gasp for the defeated.

Tell you what Rat, since I'm feeling sorry for you. I'll help you a little. Remember I keep asking you whether or not the SC has ever overturned a conviction? Guess what? They have !!

Can you find it?
 
Ok, here’s the law for all you mouth breathers. Follow the bouncing ball:
.
According to the United States Statutes at Large , ( The United States Statutes at Large, commonly referred to as the Statutes at Large and abbreviated Stat., is the official source for the ----laws---- and resolutions passed by United States Congress. ) the Internal Revenue ----Code---- of 1954, the predecessor to the current 1986 code, was enacted by the Eighty-Third Congress of the United States with the phrase "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled" and was "approved" ----(signed into law)---- at 9:45 A.M., Eastern Daylight Time, on August 16, 1954, and published as volume 68A of the United States Statutes at Large. Section 1(a)(1) of the enactment states: "The provisions of this Act set forth under the heading ----'Internal Revenue Title'---- may be cited as the 'Internal Revenue Code of 1954'. Section 1(d) of the enactment is entitled ----"Enactment of Internal Revenue Title Into Law"----, and the text of the ----Code---- follows, beginning with the statutory Table of Contents.

Internal Revenue Code sections 1 (26 U.S.C. § 1) (relating to individuals, estates and trusts) impose an income tax on "taxable income" (with section 1(a), for example, expressly using the phrase "****[t]here is hereby imposed on the taxable income of [ . . . ]****"

§ 1. Tax imposed

(a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses
****There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of****—
(1) every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who makes a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013, and
(2) every surviving spouse (as defined in section 2 (a)),
a tax determined in accordance with the following table:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top