Former IRS Agent Admits: “Personal Income Tax is Actually Illegal”

[vaultdweller0013]

This is one of the regular conspiracy stories that comes up every once in a while.

What the guys testimony actually proves is that the IRS has hired some complete idiots.

Here's a Snopes article about it

http://www.snopes.com/business/taxes/voluntary.asp

It gets recycled by doodle brains who think they've stumbled upon a secret, and can't wait to share their unbelievable discovery with the world.

Talk about timely discoveries, the CNBC video clip, lower left, advertises Tim Russert on Meet the Press. Tim passed away in 2008.

" It gets recycled by doodle brains who think they've stumbled upon a secret, "

LOL

on the other hand it could mean that the majority of the sheeple still haven't woken up to the legalities?

in the documentary I referred to in the previous post I would hardly call some of the people that were interviewed or indeed the producer and director of that film a doodle brain

Ok, so you are awake. Endowed with this insight. You are not one of the 'Sheeple'.

Charged with this information, did you pay tax and file a return this year?

https://www.sovereignman.com/trends/why-im-proud-that-my-tax-bill-is-zero-19112/

He lives overseas so he can use the foreign earned income exclusion... nothing to see here really.

[shirtless]

Tax seems voluntary to big American corporations, why should people pay to a system that makes life harder .

[vaultdweller0013]

How can it be a conspiracy theory when all these people are doing is ask to see the law which purportedly exists ?

The law is The Internal Revenue Code, also known as Title 26 of the United States Code.

What I took from your video clip was that the law does not properly define income.

It says Gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items but that definition uses the word income again, and the proponents of there is nothing forcing you to pay tax are claiming that income does not include selling your labour (as I understood it).

Then there was the other question about whether Title 26 was actually constitutional, but I think it would be until a judge has ruled otherwise (but I am not a U.S. citizen or that familiar with U.S. law).

Again I am not American either but I believe most of us who have any interest in American affairs have at least a basic idea of Americas most important institutions - with one being of course the US Supreme Court.

I would welcome any American on this forum to explain to me how the decisions made in the Supreme Court can be brushed aside by lower courts? that would be like lower courts in England disregarding the decisions handed down by the House of Lords which just wouldn't and couldn't happen.

Federal Judge Kent Dawson started off the Irwin Schiff tax case by saying I will not allow the law in my courtroom and then he instructed the jury by saying you must follow the law as I give it to you .

How can the following dialogue during the trial between the defendant and Judge Dawson can make any sense whatsoever?it seems like Alice in Wonderland stuff to me.

Irwin Schiff but the Supreme Court said.

Judge Dawson irrelevant denied !

Irwin Schiff the Supreme Court is irrelevant?

Judge Dawson irrelevant denied !

What judge is saying is that in this case the lawyer's interpretation of the Supreme Court judgement is irrelevant in the jury trial. He is not saying that the Supreme Court's decision is irrelevant.

In an appeal, he could raise this with the appeals court, and if they found the trial judge erred in his interpretation, it would be sent back for retrial and the trial judge would instructed(forced) to follow the appeals court interpretation.

[55Jay]

He lives overseas so he can use the foreign earned income exclusion... nothing to see here really.

Not an American.

Won't answer the question.

Original analysis confirmed. Troll.

Edit: No, he's not a troll. He's just trolling.

Edited April 23, 2016 by 55Jay

[Asiantravel]

How can it be a conspiracy theory when all these people are doing is ask to see the law which purportedly exists ?

The law is The Internal Revenue Code, also known as Title 26 of the United States Code.

What I took from your video clip was that the law does not properly define income.

It says Gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items but that definition uses the word income again, and the proponents of there is nothing forcing you to pay tax are claiming that income does not include selling your labour (as I understood it).

Then there was the other question about whether Title 26 was actually constitutional, but I think it would be until a judge has ruled otherwise (but I am not a U.S. citizen or that familiar with U.S. law).

Again I am not American either but I believe most of us who have any interest in American affairs have at least a basic idea of Americas most important institutions - with one being of course the US Supreme Court.

I would welcome any American on this forum to explain to me how the decisions made in the Supreme Court can be brushed aside by lower courts? that would be like lower courts in England disregarding the decisions handed down by the House of Lords which just wouldn't and couldn't happen.

Federal Judge Kent Dawson started off the Irwin Schiff tax case by saying I will not allow the law in my courtroom and then he instructed the jury by saying you must follow the law as I give it to you .

How can the following dialogue during the trial between the defendant and Judge Dawson can make any sense whatsoever?it seems like Alice in Wonderland stuff to me.

Irwin Schiff but the Supreme Court said.

Judge Dawson irrelevant denied !

Irwin Schiff the Supreme Court is irrelevant?

Judge Dawson irrelevant denied !

What judge is saying is that in this case the lawyer's interpretation of the Supreme Court judgement is irrelevant in the jury trial. He is not saying that the Supreme Court's decision is irrelevant.

In an appeal, he could raise this with the appeals court, and if they found the trial judge erred in his interpretation, it would be sent back for retrial and the trial judge would instructed(forced) to follow the appeals court interpretation.

ok I can't find any reference to what happened next regarding an appeal. Irwin Schiff was then sentenced to 13 years in jail and died last year in jail.

and what about if the Judge purportedly lied to the jury.................................

" Yet in his second and biggest lie, Judge Dawson told the jury that "income" DOES include "salaries and wages"; yet he must have known full well that in 1954 Congress deliberately removed that source from the list in Section 61. For that lie alone, the entire trial should be reversed, the prisoners released and Lawyer Dawson disbarred. "

http://www.takelifeback.com/irwin/

[WorkingTourist]

" I would think that “starving the beast” is the least successful way of causing positive change. "

what? So you think feeding the beast is a successful way of causing positive change? where and when it will it happen?

So there are only those two choices when it comes to changing the system?

[Asiantravel]

" I would think that “starving the beast” is the least successful way of causing positive change. "

what? So you think feeding the beast is a successful way of causing positive change? where and when it will it happen?

So there are only those two choices when it comes to changing the system?

changing the system has to start with the IRS itself (Apart from the wasteful government itself)showing at least some respect and maybe even some frugality regarding other people's money but sadly at this stage there doesn't seem to be much evidence of that?

This Is What The IRS Spends Your Money On

" IRS staff blew through $49 million across 225 conferences between 2010 and 2012 "

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-06-04/what-irs-spends-your-money

Edited April 23, 2016 by Asiantravel

[Asiantravel]

He lives overseas so he can use the foreign earned income exclusion... nothing to see here really.

Not an American.

Won't answer the question.

Original analysis confirmed. Troll.

Edit: No, he's not a troll. He's just trolling.

Well if I’m a troll you must be a government sponsored shill because why are you more obsessed with my activities rather than some of the interesting legal arguments behind those who are challenging the status quo?

Or do you like to pay tax ?

When media mogul and Australia’s richest man Kerry Packer appeared before a parliamentary committee regarding his tax affairs in 1991 he told the panel of MPs

"I'm not evading tax in any way shape or form. Of course I'm minimising my tax. If anybody in this country doesn't minimise their tax they want their head read. As a government I can tell you you're not spending it that well that we should be paying extra."

Edited April 23, 2016 by Asiantravel

[55Jay]

He lives overseas so he can use the foreign earned income exclusion... nothing to see here really.

Not an American.

Won't answer the question.

Original analysis confirmed. Troll.

Edit: No, he's not a troll. He's just trolling.

Well if I’m a troll you must be a government sponsored shill because why are you more obsessed with my activities rather than some of the interesting legal arguments behind those who are challenging the status quo?

Or do you like to pay tax ?

When media mogul and Australia’s richest man Kerry Packer appeared before a parliamentary committee regarding his tax affairs in 1991 he told the panel of MPs

"I'm not evading tax in any way shape or form. Of course I'm minimising my tax. If anybody in this country doesn't minimise their tax they want their head read. As a government I can tell you you're not spending it that well that we should be paying extra."

You and your OP certainly seem obsessed about something.

Tell me now..... did you have any US tax liability or are you just running your suck hole to hear yourself talk?

[WorkingTourist]

changing the system has to start with the IRS itself (Apart from the wasteful government itself)showing at least some respect and maybe even some frugality regarding other people's money but sadly at this stage there doesn't seem to be much evidence of that?

This Is What The IRS Spends Your Money On

" IRS staff blew through $49 million across 225 conferences between 2010 and 2012 "

$49 million? Of the current presidential candidates, only John Kasich has received less than that in campaign funding.

The real problem is money in politics, all the companies and special interest groups that the elected people are in debt to.

I think you’re being manipulated when you get out the pitchfork for some wasteful conference spending by the IRS, it’s a distraction so that you don’t see the actual problem and it seems to work!

[thaihome]

My family living in a rural area of USA, and being in the automobile and farm equipment business...

I always like to be around there at the end of the year. All of these people coming in, spending money that they really do not have, to buy a new vehicle or other equipment they do not need, to keep from "paying taxes"....I guess paying interest is somehow better.

It truly does get into the realm of ridiculous...paying thousands of $$$ to avoid hundreds in taxes.

Actually a small business can deduct the entire amount in that year up to 500k. They also can deduct the interest as a business expense. It's a very smart move recommended by all tax experts.

TH

Spending money you do not have to buy equipment you do not need is not a "very smart move recommended by all tax experts".

Beyond that, most high-dollar equipment is amortized over several years.

Section 179https://www.irs.gov/publications/p946/ch02.html

I bet your family knows all about section 179 and depends on it for a good part of their business.

How do you know they don't "really have" the money?

TH

[vaultdweller0013]

How can it be a conspiracy theory when all these people are doing is ask to see the law which purportedly exists ?

The law is The Internal Revenue Code, also known as Title 26 of the United States Code.

What I took from your video clip was that the law does not properly define income.

It says Gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items but that definition uses the word income again, and the proponents of there is nothing forcing you to pay tax are claiming that income does not include selling your labour (as I understood it).

Then there was the other question about whether Title 26 was actually constitutional, but I think it would be until a judge has ruled otherwise (but I am not a U.S. citizen or that familiar with U.S. law).

Again I am not American either but I believe most of us who have any interest in American affairs have at least a basic idea of Americas most important institutions - with one being of course the US Supreme Court.

I would welcome any American on this forum to explain to me how the decisions made in the Supreme Court can be brushed aside by lower courts? that would be like lower courts in England disregarding the decisions handed down by the House of Lords which just wouldn't and couldn't happen.

Federal Judge Kent Dawson started off the Irwin Schiff tax case by saying I will not allow the law in my courtroom and then he instructed the jury by saying you must follow the law as I give it to you .

How can the following dialogue during the trial between the defendant and Judge Dawson can make any sense whatsoever?it seems like Alice in Wonderland stuff to me.

Irwin Schiff but the Supreme Court said.

Judge Dawson irrelevant denied !

Irwin Schiff the Supreme Court is irrelevant?

Judge Dawson irrelevant denied !

What judge is saying is that in this case the lawyer's interpretation of the Supreme Court judgement is irrelevant in the jury trial. He is not saying that the Supreme Court's decision is irrelevant.

In an appeal, he could raise this with the appeals court, and if they found the trial judge erred in his interpretation, it would be sent back for retrial and the trial judge would instructed(forced) to follow the appeals court interpretation.

ok I can't find any reference to what happened next regarding an appeal. Irwin Schiff was then sentenced to 13 years in jail and died last year in jail.

and what about if the Judge purportedly lied to the jury.................................

" Yet in his second and biggest lie, Judge Dawson told the jury that "income" DOES include "salaries and wages"; yet he must have known full well that in 1954 Congress deliberately removed that source from the list in Section 61. For that lie alone, the entire trial should be reversed, the prisoners released and Lawyer Dawson disbarred. "

http://www.takelifeback.com/irwin/

Section 61? You mean:

(a) General definition

Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:

See where it says "all income" and "including (but not limited to)"? Now, unless you can point out where salaries are "otherwise provided in this subtitle" to be explicitly excluded, then this means salaries are included.

[KonaRain]

Ur is capital Your..sorry I rarely use that! I've known some tax rebels, but I don't encourage it. And that soverign stuff I don't know.. Kudos to the guy above who pays US taxes.

Aloha

[mgjackson69]

Tax seems voluntary to big American corporations, why should people pay to a system that makes life harder .

Another myth perpetuated by those wishing to villify "Big Business"

[suzannegoh]

Tax seems voluntary to big American corporations, why should people pay to a system that makes life harder .

Another myth perpetuated by those wishing to villify "Big Business"

That's what I don't get about the Bernie Sanders movement. If American multinational companies were put out of business, would that really be a good thing for the American public? If Americans don't like it the way it is now, with American multinationals doing most of their manufacturing overseas, they aren't going to like any better when everything they buy is from overseas companies who manufacture overseas.

[mgjackson69]

Tax seems voluntary to big American corporations, why should people pay to a system that makes life harder .

Another myth perpetuated by those wishing to villify "Big Business"

That's what I don't get about the Bernie Sanders movement. If American multinational companies were put out of business, would that really be a good thing for the American public? If Americans don't like it the way it is now, with American multinationals doing most of their manufacturing overseas, they aren't going to like any better when everything they buy is from overseas companies who manufacture overseas.

"Bernie" conveniently does not address what will happen when all "big business" leaves USA...no tax revenue, no jobs....

Either that, or he really is that ignorant about economics

[55Jay]

I certainly "mind" paying US taxes as I haven't lived there since 1998. I just about reached time qualification to apply for citizenship in another country. I ended up leaving 1 year before I hit the bell, but I did look into it seriously. Certainly makes sense for some. In my case, I stood to lose more than I gained, so it would of amounted to a meek political statement.

So, I maintain my forced contract, minimize exposure best I can, and pay the club membership dues each year; aware that my dues may be misused and abused by a poor management system.

I'm a sheeple who's aware of the issues, alternatives, and have made a decision to stay the course. There's a difference between that, and being a sheeple who is unaware and doesn't want to know.

A more reasonable, viable target is ACA's lobbying effort on tax reform and, specifically, residence based taxation. I follow that. FWIW (not much probably) have made my comments for the record on both expat banking issues and RBT vs. CBT. That is how change will be made and it's a hard slog because no politician likes the idea of less slop in the trough.

Still more effective than moving back to the States, exposing myself to more taxes and privilege to live there fees, and go on a half-baked martyr's crusade against the IRS, in and out of court and probably jail.

Guys like AsianTravel promote the crusade, copy and paste krap they dig up on the internet and bounce around like stupid cheerleaders from the safety of their keyboard. They've got no skin in this game but they love whipping others who do, into a froth.

[WorkingTourist]

I certainly "mind" paying US taxes […] In my case, I stood to lose more than I gained, so it would of amounted to a meek political statement.

You mind paying U.S. taxes, but you’re not willing to renounce your citizenship because the pros outweigh the cons.

So wouldn’t the conclusion be that the tax you pay is a fair price for the benefits it buys you?

[55Jay]

I certainly "mind" paying US taxes […] In my case, I stood to lose more than I gained, so it would of amounted to a meek political statement.

You mind paying U.S. taxes, but you’re not willing to renounce your citizenship because the pros outweigh the cons.

So wouldn’t the conclusion be that the tax you pay is a fair price for the benefits it buys you?

Principal of the matter aside, that's pretty much it in a nutshell, covered in the other para you elected to snip out.

"So, I maintain my forced contract, minimize exposure best I can, and pay the club membership dues each year; aware that my dues may be misused and abused by a poor management system."

I'm not under any patriotic delusion, it just is what it is.

[Asiantravel]

I certainly "mind" paying US taxes as I haven't lived there since 1998. I just about reached time qualification to apply for citizenship in another country. I ended up leaving 1 year before I hit the bell, but I did look into it seriously. Certainly makes sense for some. In my case, I stood to lose more than I gained, so it would of amounted to a meek political statement.

So, I maintain my forced contract, minimize exposure best I can, and pay the club membership dues each year; aware that my dues may be misused and abused by a poor management system.

I'm a sheeple who's aware of the issues, alternatives, and have made a decision to stay the course. There's a difference between that, and being a sheeple who is unaware and doesn't want to know.

A more reasonable, viable target is ACA's lobbying effort on tax reform and, specifically, residence based taxation. I follow that. FWIW (not much probably) have made my comments for the record on both expat banking issues and RBT vs. CBT. That is how change will be made and it's a hard slog because no politician likes the idea of less slop in the trough.

Still more effective than moving back to the States, exposing myself to more taxes and privilege to live there fees, and go on a half-baked martyr's crusade against the IRS, in and out of court and probably jail.

Guys like AsianTravel promote the crusade, copy and paste krap they dig up on the internet and bounce around like stupid cheerleaders from the safety of their keyboard. They've got no skin in this game but they love whipping others who do, into a froth.

" There's a difference between that, and being a sheeple who is unaware and doesn't want to know ".

From what you have written here it seems then you have given the matter at least some thought.

So isn’t it a bit disingenuous of you to deny the opportunity to the sheeple who are ” unaware and don’t want to know “to learn and discuss some of the issues involved and get the opportunity to consider BOTH sides of the argument?

If the US government and even the US judiciary make it virtually impossible for opposing views to be adequately considered in public how will many of the sheeple who are ” unaware and don’t want to know “ ever learn exactly what are the issues being argued in the first place?

There are obviously some pertinent issues here which keep being buried or are being brushed aside like former IRS Commissioner Sheldon Cohen in that interview in Post number 10 where he abruptly finishes the interview because the questions get too hard. Maybe other Americans are put off from asking these difficult questions when they get the kind of reaction you gave referring to them as “ doodle brains “. Your profile says one of your interests is personal finance so why do you so readily criticise those that show curiosity regarding so many unanswered questions involved in this matter?

For example I thought the USA represented free speech 1st amendment and all that and yet the government found it necessary to officially ban Irwin Schiff’s book in a way that is more reminiscent of Nazi Germany or Communist Russia .

If you read the legal analysis regarding the grounds for banning this book it seems to me you could drive a bus through it

Judge Bans Schiff Book on Income Tax

http://www.givemeliberty.org/NoRedress/Update06-30B-03.htm

Edited April 24, 2016 by Asiantravel

[suzannegoh]

I certainly "mind" paying US taxes as I haven't lived there since 1998. I just about reached time qualification to apply for citizenship in another country. I ended up leaving 1 year before I hit the bell, but I did look into it seriously. Certainly makes sense for some. In my case, I stood to lose more than I gained, so it would of amounted to a meek political statement.

So, I maintain my forced contract, minimize exposure best I can, and pay the club membership dues each year; aware that my dues may be misused and abused by a poor management system.

I'm a sheeple who's aware of the issues, alternatives, and have made a decision to stay the course. There's a difference between that, and being a sheeple who is unaware and doesn't want to know.

A more reasonable, viable target is ACA's lobbying effort on tax reform and, specifically, residence based taxation. I follow that. FWIW (not much probably) have made my comments for the record on both expat banking issues and RBT vs. CBT. That is how change will be made and it's a hard slog because no politician likes the idea of less slop in the trough.

Still more effective than moving back to the States, exposing myself to more taxes and privilege to live there fees, and go on a half-baked martyr's crusade against the IRS, in and out of court and probably jail.

Guys like AsianTravel promote the crusade, copy and paste krap they dig up on the internet and bounce around like stupid cheerleaders from the safety of their keyboard. They've got no skin in this game but they love whipping others who do, into a froth.

" There's a difference between that, and being a sheeple who is unaware and doesn't want to know ".

From what you have written here it seems then you have given the matter at least some thought.

So isn’t it a bit disingenuous of you to deny the opportunity to the sheeple who are ” unaware and don’t want to know “to learn and discuss some of the issues involved and get the opportunity to consider BOTH sides of the argument?

If the US government and even the US judiciary make it virtually impossible for opposing views to be adequately considered in public how will many of the sheeple who are ” unaware and don’t want to know “ ever learn exactly what are the issues being argued in the first place?

There are obviously some pertinent issues here which keep being buried or are being brushed aside like former IRS Commissioner Sheldon Cohen in that interview in Post number 10 where he abruptly finishes the interview because the questions get too hard. Maybe other Americans are put off from asking these difficult questions when they get the kind of reaction you gave referring to them as “ doodle brains “. Your profile says one of your interests is personal finance so why do you so readily criticise those that show curiosity regarding so many unanswered questions involved in this matter?

For example I thought the USA represented free speech 1st amendment and all that and yet the government found it necessary to officially ban Irwin Schiff’s book in a way that is more reminiscent of Nazi Germany or Communist Russia .

If you read the legal analysis regarding the grounds for banning this book it seems to me you could drive a bus through it

Judge Bans Schiff Book on Income Tax

http://www.givemeliberty.org/NoRedress/Update06-30B-03.htm

That book by Irwin Schiff is currently on Amazon so whatever was going on in that court case must have been worked out. I'm not sure what the legal objection to this book was, but not all speech is protected, for instance false commercial speech is not protected, nor is yelling "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire. If you would like to buy a copy of the book and see if his advice saves you more in taxes than what it will eventually cost you in lawyer's fees, you can find it here:

http://www.amazon.com/Federal-Mafia-Illegally-Unlawfully-Collects/dp/0930374096

Edited April 24, 2016 by suzannegoh

[suzannegoh]

Tax seems voluntary to big American corporations, why should people pay to a system that makes life harder .

Another myth perpetuated by those wishing to villify "Big Business"

That's what I don't get about the Bernie Sanders movement. If American multinational companies were put out of business, would that really be a good thing for the American public? If Americans don't like it the way it is now, with American multinationals doing most of their manufacturing overseas, they aren't going to like any better when everything they buy is from overseas companies who manufacture overseas.

"Bernie" conveniently does not address what will happen when all "big business" leaves USA...no tax revenue, no jobs....

Either that, or he really is that ignorant about economics

Bill Maher, Mr Liberal himself and an outspoken Bernie supporter, came up with an interesting stat on his show this week. I think that the data might have come from the Cato Institute, but according to Maher two-thirds of Bernie supporters say that they would not be willing to pay an additional $1000 per year in taxes in order to have free healthcare and free college tuition. And yet we are to believe that the reason to vote for Bernie is not just to get free stuff.

[55Jay]

I certainly "mind" paying US taxes as I haven't lived there since 1998. I just about reached time qualification to apply for citizenship in another country. I ended up leaving 1 year before I hit the bell, but I did look into it seriously. Certainly makes sense for some. In my case, I stood to lose more than I gained, so it would of amounted to a meek political statement.

So, I maintain my forced contract, minimize exposure best I can, and pay the club membership dues each year; aware that my dues may be misused and abused by a poor management system.

I'm a sheeple who's aware of the issues, alternatives, and have made a decision to stay the course. There's a difference between that, and being a sheeple who is unaware and doesn't want to know.

A more reasonable, viable target is ACA's lobbying effort on tax reform and, specifically, residence based taxation. I follow that. FWIW (not much probably) have made my comments for the record on both expat banking issues and RBT vs. CBT. That is how change will be made and it's a hard slog because no politician likes the idea of less slop in the trough.

Still more effective than moving back to the States, exposing myself to more taxes and privilege to live there fees, and go on a half-baked martyr's crusade against the IRS, in and out of court and probably jail.

Guys like AsianTravel promote the crusade, copy and paste krap they dig up on the internet and bounce around like stupid cheerleaders from the safety of their keyboard. They've got no skin in this game but they love whipping others who do, into a froth.

" There's a difference between that, and being a sheeple who is unaware and doesn't want to know ".

From what you have written here it seems then you have given the matter at least some thought.

So isn’t it a bit disingenuous of you to deny the opportunity to the sheeple who are ” unaware and don’t want to know “to learn and discuss some of the issues involved and get the opportunity to consider BOTH sides of the argument?

If the US government and even the US judiciary make it virtually impossible for opposing views to be adequately considered in public how will many of the sheeple who are ” unaware and don’t want to know “ ever learn exactly what are the issues being argued in the first place?

There are obviously some pertinent issues here which keep being buried or are being brushed aside like former IRS Commissioner Sheldon Cohen in that interview in Post number 10 where he abruptly finishes the interview because the questions get too hard. Maybe other Americans are put off from asking these difficult questions when they get the kind of reaction you gave referring to them as “ doodle brains “. Your profile says one of your interests is personal finance so why do you so readily criticise those that show curiosity regarding so many unanswered questions involved in this matter?

For example I thought the USA represented free speech 1st amendment and all that and yet the government found it necessary to officially ban Irwin Schiff’s book in a way that is more reminiscent of Nazi Germany or Communist Russia .

If you read the legal analysis regarding the grounds for banning this book it seems to me you could drive a bus through it

Judge Bans Schiff Book on Income Tax

http://www.givemeliberty.org/NoRedress/Update06-30B-03.htm

[Asiantravel]

I certainly "mind" paying US taxes as I haven't lived there since 1998. I just about reached time qualification to apply for citizenship in another country. I ended up leaving 1 year before I hit the bell, but I did look into it seriously. Certainly makes sense for some. In my case, I stood to lose more than I gained, so it would of amounted to a meek political statement.

So, I maintain my forced contract, minimize exposure best I can, and pay the club membership dues each year; aware that my dues may be misused and abused by a poor management system.

I'm a sheeple who's aware of the issues, alternatives, and have made a decision to stay the course. There's a difference between that, and being a sheeple who is unaware and doesn't want to know.

A more reasonable, viable target is ACA's lobbying effort on tax reform and, specifically, residence based taxation. I follow that. FWIW (not much probably) have made my comments for the record on both expat banking issues and RBT vs. CBT. That is how change will be made and it's a hard slog because no politician likes the idea of less slop in the trough.

Still more effective than moving back to the States, exposing myself to more taxes and privilege to live there fees, and go on a half-baked martyr's crusade against the IRS, in and out of court and probably jail.

Guys like AsianTravel promote the crusade, copy and paste krap they dig up on the internet and bounce around like stupid cheerleaders from the safety of their keyboard. They've got no skin in this game but they love whipping others who do, into a froth.

" There's a difference between that, and being a sheeple who is unaware and doesn't want to know ".

From what you have written here it seems then you have given the matter at least some thought.

So isn’t it a bit disingenuous of you to deny the opportunity to the sheeple who are ” unaware and don’t want to know “to learn and discuss some of the issues involved and get the opportunity to consider BOTH sides of the argument?

If the US government and even the US judiciary make it virtually impossible for opposing views to be adequately considered in public how will many of the sheeple who are ” unaware and don’t want to know “ ever learn exactly what are the issues being argued in the first place?

There are obviously some pertinent issues here which keep being buried or are being brushed aside like former IRS Commissioner Sheldon Cohen in that interview in Post number 10 where he abruptly finishes the interview because the questions get too hard. Maybe other Americans are put off from asking these difficult questions when they get the kind of reaction you gave referring to them as “ doodle brains “. Your profile says one of your interests is personal finance so why do you so readily criticise those that show curiosity regarding so many unanswered questions involved in this matter?

For example I thought the USA represented free speech 1st amendment and all that and yet the government found it necessary to officially ban Irwin Schiff’s book in a way that is more reminiscent of Nazi Germany or Communist Russia .

If you read the legal analysis regarding the grounds for banning this book it seems to me you could drive a bus through it

Judge Bans Schiff Book on Income Tax

http://www.givemeliberty.org/NoRedress/Update06-30B-03.htm

That book by Irwin Schiff is currently on Amazon so whatever was going on in that court case must have been worked out. I'm not sure what the legal objection to this book was, but not all speech is protected, for instance false commercial speech is not protected, nor is yelling "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire. If you would like to buy a copy of the book and see if his advice saves you more in taxes than what it will eventually cost you in lawyer's fees, you can find it here:

http://www.amazon.com/Federal-Mafia-Illegally-Unlawfully-Collects/dp/0930374096

just look the first customer review on Amazon

By Sean Glazier on August 23, 2005

Irwin Schiff is correct and amazon is brave for still having a link to this book still up. This book is banned material in all forums and this includes amazons selling of it. read the court order banning the book at [...] . Schiff is under is prosecution (persecution is more like it) by the Feds because they of course want to keep us all slaves. And we are slaves no matter how you want to justify it. (paying a "fair share" is a socialist term) Serfs in feudal England were considered slaves and they got to take home more than we do now. The Federal Government operates outside the Law and the courts are clearly simply ignoring the facts. Go to his site and read the motions and decisions rendered so far and see for your self how the court behaves. There is of course one reviewer here who is clearly a Federal Agent. Do note that according to the Patriot Act, once you purchase this book, the government will know about it and you will be on thier hit list. So if you can get it through other means.

it is still banned in USA even today

6. The Federal Mafia by Irwin Schiff (Restricted in the U.S.)

This particular case is an oddity as it's incredibly hard to ban a book in the U.S., even compared to the rest of the industrialized world. Censorship fights in the U.S. usually revolve around a media outlet refusing to acknowledge a particular view or a local school yanking offensive books from library shelves. Federal bans are nearly unheard of, but in 2004, a federal appeals court upheld an injunction against Irwin Schiff and his associates selling The Federal Mafia, a tome Schiff wrote while in prison for tax evasion, arguing that the federal income tax is illegal.

Rather than just sending Schiff back to jail for his continued crimes, the judge banned him from selling the text, which, to put it mildly, has some free speech implications. While not a full ban (Schiff and his cohorts got around it by offering the book for free), the case stands out in the otherwise “anything goes” approach of U.S. law to book publishing.

http://airshipdaily.com/blog/01212014-11-books-banned-today

[Asiantravel]

I certainly "mind" paying US taxes as I haven't lived there since 1998. I just about reached time qualification to apply for citizenship in another country. I ended up leaving 1 year before I hit the bell, but I did look into it seriously. Certainly makes sense for some. In my case, I stood to lose more than I gained, so it would of amounted to a meek political statement.

So, I maintain my forced contract, minimize exposure best I can, and pay the club membership dues each year; aware that my dues may be misused and abused by a poor management system.

I'm a sheeple who's aware of the issues, alternatives, and have made a decision to stay the course. There's a difference between that, and being a sheeple who is unaware and doesn't want to know.

A more reasonable, viable target is ACA's lobbying effort on tax reform and, specifically, residence based taxation. I follow that. FWIW (not much probably) have made my comments for the record on both expat banking issues and RBT vs. CBT. That is how change will be made and it's a hard slog because no politician likes the idea of less slop in the trough.

Still more effective than moving back to the States, exposing myself to more taxes and privilege to live there fees, and go on a half-baked martyr's crusade against the IRS, in and out of court and probably jail.

Guys like AsianTravel promote the crusade, copy and paste krap they dig up on the internet and bounce around like stupid cheerleaders from the safety of their keyboard. They've got no skin in this game but they love whipping others who do, into a froth.

I am intrigued why since my original post it upsets you so much? I mean no one is forcing you to read this thread surely?

[WorkingTourist]

That a book is banned is certainly concerning, but the argument is that it promotes fraudulent (tax evasion) schemes, so I could maybe follow a judge here, but rather than ban the book, they should have required some amendment to make it clear that Schiff is not a tax expert and the book only express personal opinions that are not shared with the IRS etc. Though maybe Schiff could have published the book if he had made such amendments.

Regardless, I don’t get the point of the continuation of this thread.

As pointed out in previous posts, there is a law that says you should pay taxes, and the people who claim otherwise have lost in court and some are even in prison for tax fraud, i.e. breaking the law (that they claim does not exist).

But let us just assume that there is no law that says you should pay tax (even though we know there is), then what?

Rather than do a major cover up, wouldn’t you think the federal government would simply rectify it by passing the required law?

And do you really think that Americans are better off if nobody pays any taxes?

I just don’t get your motivation for even discussing this, to me we could just as well discuss if the moon landing was fake.

[55Jay]

I certainly "mind" paying US taxes as I haven't lived there since 1998. I just about reached time qualification to apply for citizenship in another country. I ended up leaving 1 year before I hit the bell, but I did look into it seriously. Certainly makes sense for some. In my case, I stood to lose more than I gained, so it would of amounted to a meek political statement.

So, I maintain my forced contract, minimize exposure best I can, and pay the club membership dues each year; aware that my dues may be misused and abused by a poor management system.

I'm a sheeple who's aware of the issues, alternatives, and have made a decision to stay the course. There's a difference between that, and being a sheeple who is unaware and doesn't want to know.

A more reasonable, viable target is ACA's lobbying effort on tax reform and, specifically, residence based taxation. I follow that. FWIW (not much probably) have made my comments for the record on both expat banking issues and RBT vs. CBT. That is how change will be made and it's a hard slog because no politician likes the idea of less slop in the trough.

Still more effective than moving back to the States, exposing myself to more taxes and privilege to live there fees, and go on a half-baked martyr's crusade against the IRS, in and out of court and probably jail.

Guys like AsianTravel promote the crusade, copy and paste krap they dig up on the internet and bounce around like stupid cheerleaders from the safety of their keyboard. They've got no skin in this game but they love whipping others who do, into a froth.

I am intrigued why since my original post it upsets you so much? I mean no one is forcing you to read this thread surely?

Annoyed is a better word. Annoyed at the prospect of yet another wannabe town crier, championing a misguided crusade by cut/pasting well-trodden stock content from TOLFA-esque web sites; sites that cultivate and spoon feed willing key board crusaders. Especially from those in the cheap seats. That would be you, mate.

Others have unpacked your regurgitated claims. You've followed a predictable pattern. A bit like arguing with religious windbags. We quickly find ourselves back at the beginning. God Did It.

.

Like the religious pimps, you are potentially hurting someone with the content you are peddling here. That is why it demands a vigorous challenge and calling out, which includes revealing your effort as anything but virtuous championing of 'truth' for the good of the uninformed public.

[Asiantravel]

I certainly "mind" paying US taxes as I haven't lived there since 1998. I just about reached time qualification to apply for citizenship in another country. I ended up leaving 1 year before I hit the bell, but I did look into it seriously. Certainly makes sense for some. In my case, I stood to lose more than I gained, so it would of amounted to a meek political statement.

So, I maintain my forced contract, minimize exposure best I can, and pay the club membership dues each year; aware that my dues may be misused and abused by a poor management system.

I'm a sheeple who's aware of the issues, alternatives, and have made a decision to stay the course. There's a difference between that, and being a sheeple who is unaware and doesn't want to know.

A more reasonable, viable target is ACA's lobbying effort on tax reform and, specifically, residence based taxation. I follow that. FWIW (not much probably) have made my comments for the record on both expat banking issues and RBT vs. CBT. That is how change will be made and it's a hard slog because no politician likes the idea of less slop in the trough.

Still more effective than moving back to the States, exposing myself to more taxes and privilege to live there fees, and go on a half-baked martyr's crusade against the IRS, in and out of court and probably jail.

Guys like AsianTravel promote the crusade, copy and paste krap they dig up on the internet and bounce around like stupid cheerleaders from the safety of their keyboard. They've got no skin in this game but they love whipping others who do, into a froth.

" There's a difference between that, and being a sheeple who is unaware and doesn't want to know ".

From what you have written here it seems then you have given the matter at least some thought.

So isn’t it a bit disingenuous of you to deny the opportunity to the sheeple who are ” unaware and don’t want to know “to learn and discuss some of the issues involved and get the opportunity to consider BOTH sides of the argument?

If the US government and even the US judiciary make it virtually impossible for opposing views to be adequately considered in public how will many of the sheeple who are ” unaware and don’t want to know “ ever learn exactly what are the issues being argued in the first place?

There are obviously some pertinent issues here which keep being buried or are being brushed aside like former IRS Commissioner Sheldon Cohen in that interview in Post number 10 where he abruptly finishes the interview because the questions get too hard. Maybe other Americans are put off from asking these difficult questions when they get the kind of reaction you gave referring to them as “ doodle brains “. Your profile says one of your interests is personal finance so why do you so readily criticise those that show curiosity regarding so many unanswered questions involved in this matter?

For example I thought the USA represented free speech 1st amendment and all that and yet the government found it necessary to officially ban Irwin Schiff’s book in a way that is more reminiscent of Nazi Germany or Communist Russia .

If you read the legal analysis regarding the grounds for banning this book it seems to me you could drive a bus through it

Judge Bans Schiff Book on Income Tax

http://www.givemeliberty.org/NoRedress/Update06-30B-03.htm

Well perhaps we do agree on something because as an outsider in my view American citizens are indeed being played like a violin

[55Jay]

I certainly "mind" paying US taxes as I haven't lived there since 1998. I just about reached time qualification to apply for citizenship in another country. I ended up leaving 1 year before I hit the bell, but I did look into it seriously. Certainly makes sense for some. In my case, I stood to lose more than I gained, so it would of amounted to a meek political statement.

So, I maintain my forced contract, minimize exposure best I can, and pay the club membership dues each year; aware that my dues may be misused and abused by a poor management system.

I'm a sheeple who's aware of the issues, alternatives, and have made a decision to stay the course. There's a difference between that, and being a sheeple who is unaware and doesn't want to know.

A more reasonable, viable target is ACA's lobbying effort on tax reform and, specifically, residence based taxation. I follow that. FWIW (not much probably) have made my comments for the record on both expat banking issues and RBT vs. CBT. That is how change will be made and it's a hard slog because no politician likes the idea of less slop in the trough.

Still more effective than moving back to the States, exposing myself to more taxes and privilege to live there fees, and go on a half-baked martyr's crusade against the IRS, in and out of court and probably jail.

Guys like AsianTravel promote the crusade, copy and paste krap they dig up on the internet and bounce around like stupid cheerleaders from the safety of their keyboard. They've got no skin in this game but they love whipping others who do, into a froth.

" There's a difference between that, and being a sheeple who is unaware and doesn't want to know ".

From what you have written here it seems then you have given the matter at least some thought.

So isn’t it a bit disingenuous of you to deny the opportunity to the sheeple who are ” unaware and don’t want to know “to learn and discuss some of the issues involved and get the opportunity to consider BOTH sides of the argument?

If the US government and even the US judiciary make it virtually impossible for opposing views to be adequately considered in public how will many of the sheeple who are ” unaware and don’t want to know “ ever learn exactly what are the issues being argued in the first place?

There are obviously some pertinent issues here which keep being buried or are being brushed aside like former IRS Commissioner Sheldon Cohen in that interview in Post number 10 where he abruptly finishes the interview because the questions get too hard. Maybe other Americans are put off from asking these difficult questions when they get the kind of reaction you gave referring to them as “ doodle brains “. Your profile says one of your interests is personal finance so why do you so readily criticise those that show curiosity regarding so many unanswered questions involved in this matter?

For example I thought the USA represented free speech 1st amendment and all that and yet the government found it necessary to officially ban Irwin Schiff’s book in a way that is more reminiscent of Nazi Germany or Communist Russia .

If you read the legal analysis regarding the grounds for banning this book it seems to me you could drive a bus through it

Judge Bans Schiff Book on Income Tax

http://www.givemeliberty.org/NoRedress/Update06-30B-03.htm

Well perhaps we do agree on something because as an outsider in my view American citizens are indeed being played like a violin

Being informed is superior to being opinionated.

The irony here is that you yourself have played like a violin by the purveyors of these kinds of websites.

You may be too obstinate to realize it, but I'm sure they would thank you for spreading their bogus material just a bit further for them, at your expense. You are the clever one though. Well done, mate.

[Asiantravel]

" There's a difference between that, and being a sheeple who is unaware and doesn't want to know ".

From what you have written here it seems then you have given the matter at least some thought.

So isn’t it a bit disingenuous of you to deny the opportunity to the sheeple who are ” unaware and don’t want to know “to learn and discuss some of the issues involved and get the opportunity to consider BOTH sides of the argument?

If the US government and even the US judiciary make it virtually impossible for opposing views to be adequately considered in public how will many of the sheeple who are ” unaware and don’t want to know “ ever learn exactly what are the issues being argued in the first place?

There are obviously some pertinent issues here which keep being buried or are being brushed aside like former IRS Commissioner Sheldon Cohen in that interview in Post number 10 where he abruptly finishes the interview because the questions get too hard. Maybe other Americans are put off from asking these difficult questions when they get the kind of reaction you gave referring to them as “ doodle brains “. Your profile says one of your interests is personal finance so why do you so readily criticise those that show curiosity regarding so many unanswered questions involved in this matter?

For example I thought the USA represented free speech 1st amendment and all that and yet the government found it necessary to officially ban Irwin Schiff’s book in a way that is more reminiscent of Nazi Germany or Communist Russia .

If you read the legal analysis regarding the grounds for banning this book it seems to me you could drive a bus through it

Judge Bans Schiff Book on Income Tax

http://www.givemeliberty.org/NoRedress/Update06-30B-03.htm

Well perhaps we do agree on something because as an outsider in my view American citizens are indeed being played like a violin

Being informed is superior to being opinionated.

The irony here is that you yourself have played like a violin by the purveyors of these kinds of websites.

You may be too obstinate to realize it, but I'm sure they would thank you for spreading their bogus material just a bit further for them, at your expense. You are the clever one though. Well done, mate.

Ha ha hilarious!

I didn’t even express any opinion or make any statement when I made the original post which was simply a link to the article from the former IRS agents interview but since then you have been virtually wetting your pants to try to silence me accusing me of one stage of being a troll.

My motivation for posting so many links to websites was merely to stimulate discussion and to show that what must be so obvious even to blind Freddy i.e. there are overwhelmingly far more questions than answers regarding this matter including the dubious conduct of some members of the American judiciary and that is what some of the websites that you criticise so harshly are trying to emphasise. Whereas apologists like you just keep making excuses.

But in the end one doesn’t need to go any further than to listen to what former US Presidential candidate Ron Paul ( who was Chairman of the House subcommittee that oversees the Federal Reserve and IRS) says about this matter for any unbiased person to realise the American people are being seriously screwed. And I think it’s pretty safe to say Ron Paul would certainly know a lot more about the realities of the IRS than you would!

But no need for you to tell me - he’s probably another “ doodle brain “ in your eyes.