Republicans’ Ex-Spokesman Calls For Armed Rebellion Over Obamacare

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

The federal tax evasion statute is an example of an exception to the general rule under U.S. law that "ignorance of the law or a mistake of law is no defense to criminal prosecution."[16] Under the Cheek Doctrine (Cheek v. United States[17]), the United States Supreme Court ruled that a genuine, good faith belief that one is not violating the federal tax law (such as a mistake based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the tax law itself) would be a valid defense to a charge of "willfulness" ("willfulness" in this case being knowledge or awareness that one is violating the tax law itself), even though that belief is irrational or unreasonable. On the surface, this rule might appear to be of some comfort to tax protesters who assert, for example, that "wages are not income."[18] However, merely asserting that one has such a good faith belief is not determinative in court; under the American legal system the trier of fact (the jury, or the trial judge in a non-jury trial) decides whether the defendant really has the good faith belief he or she claims. With respect to willfulness, the placing of the burden of proof on the prosecution is of limited utility to a defendant that the jury simply does not believe.

en.wikipedia.org...

Playing dumb might be a better defense than what you stated. Only because the prosecutor could easily argue that "by this title " is referring to all taxes in context since the law is ONLY about taxes. They could then use previous rulings to back their claims. The jury would have confirmation bias that the expert, (the IRS tax attorney) knows what they are talking about and you probably don't.

Originally posted by RealSpoke

The only way this would work would be if the whole entire country stopped filing,

if the law enforcement officers ordered to arrest all of the tax evaders stood down as well

reply to post by frazzle

I don't think they can even demand that you have a social security number. According to some "experts", it never was a law that you must have a SS # to work and the only thing the law says about it is if you don't have a number FICA can't be withheld anything from your pay.

You appear to be correct. 26 C.F.R. § 301.6109-1provides:

If the person making the return, statement, or other document does not know the taxpayer identifying number of the other person, and such other person is one that is described in paragraph (b)(2)(i), (ii), (iii), (vi), (vii), or (viii) of this section, such person must request the other person's number. The request should state that the identifying number is required to be furnished under authority of law. When the person making the return, statement, or other document does not know the number of the other person, and has complied with the request provision of this paragraph (c), such person must sign an affidavit on the transmittal document forwarding such returns, statements, or other documents to the Internal Revenue Service, so stating.

The employer is again instructed what to do in the event an employee refuses to supply a "tax identification number", and that instruction is to first request and with that request state that identifying number is required by law to be furnished, but if that "request" fails, the employer then simply signs a signed affidavit swearing they complied with the request provision but failed to obtain the "identification number".

An armed revolt will never work in this day and age, somewhere since 9/11 we thought it would be brilliant (or just didn't think at all) to allow local and state law enforcement to buy military toys that the military outgrew. Now we have tanks, hummers and all other sorts of cool toys that will make our guns completely noneffective.

Granted not every department has tanks but most have something that will at most allow us to take a few with us. Not to mention the way things are going, it wouldn't be two seconds before we see Posse Comitatus violated. Passive resistance, rejection, defiance, non violence and boycott is the only way. Their exuberant existence depends on us to be compliant, so stop. The more of the middle class that disappears the more they are going to try to force us to keep the money flowing where they want it flowing to.

Get your money out of the system
Shop local
Open a lemonade stand in front of your City Hall or Capitol Building... without a permit.

The Brittish Monarchy didn't think salt and cloth production in the hands of the people would mean a whole lot, but ultimately it freed India. Small things matter when they are the right small things.

reply to post by Kali74


The US couldn't beat "insurgents" in Afghanistan, could they really defeat us?

I think a armed revolt is a horrible idea myself, but just throwing ideas out there.

reply to post by RealSpoke


Do you really think Americans are prepared to build IED's and we certainly don't have access to rocket launcher's etc (wonder how insurgents got those). We aren't and even if we were...why? Why destroy everything when we could just pull the rug out from under them?

Lemons are still relatively cheap lol. And think about it, you set up your stand and the cops come harass you, maybe even arrest you. There might be a few people that walk by think ha ha dumb hippy. But, I think plenty more are going to have something nagging at them about it and eventually are going to ask themselves, why. They're going to think about how crappy the economy is and wonder why it isn't okay for someone to try to make any money they can. Well hopefully they will.

reply to post by yourmaker


Cops thrive on arresting people, it is very unlikely that the majority of them would stop arresting. Most cops hold the US vs. THEM mentality and power trip.

They are even screened for low IQs and dumb people tend to not be political.

www.federaljack.com...

reply to post by RealSpoke


The argument I made is not "playing dumb", nor is it admission of dumb, but is in fact a good faith argument. I have never met a single soul who could effectively explain the inexplicable tautological circumlocution of bizarre definitions that are generally used to "show" how I, probably you and many, many, others were made liable.

Generally speaking, most people are referred to 26 USC § 1 - Tax imposed

The title alone (Tax imposed) makes it seem clear and easy enough to understand, no? Well, click into that link and read it in its entirety and come back and tell me you actually need to "play dumb" in order to convince I or a jury that you are making this argument in good faith.

For those who don't want to read that section in its entirety, then read this:

(a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of—

Presumably the tax has been imposed upon taxable income, although many read this and wind up thinking the tax is being imposed upon "married individuals filing joint returns" which is silly and such a belief, again, would not be "playing dumb" just simply dumb, but it does raise the question as to why Congress felt compelled to, before speaking directly to what the subject of the tax is, naming persons who file jointly. Since this is the section generally used to "show" how it is I, or possibly you, were made liable, why would they first speak to "married individuals filing joint returns"? Wouldn't it be fairly presumed that "married individuals filing joint returns" all ready know they're liable and if they do why would they be turning to a statute used to "show" how they were made liable.

So, what is "taxable income"? 26 USC § 63 - Taxable income defined:

(a) In general Except as provided in subsection (b), for purposes of this subtitle, the term “taxable income” means gross income minus the deductions allowed by this chapter (other than the standard deduction). (b) Individuals who do not itemize their deductions In the case of an individual who does not elect to itemize his deductions for the taxable year, for purposes of this subtitle, the term “taxable income” means adjusted gross income, minus— (1) the standard deduction, and (2) the deduction for personal exemptions provided in section

So, at this point, what we can know is that a tax has been imposed upon "taxable income" which is defined as either "gross income minus the deductions allowed..." or "adjusted gross income minus -" those deductions allowed. Of course, if one is not liable for the tax, the deductions are moot, are they not? Surely someone who earns "gross income" or "adjusted gross income" are those who should worry about what deductions they are allowed, but this does not effectively explain how I, or probably you, were made liable for the tax.

So, what is "gross income"? 26 USC § 61 - Gross income defined

(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:

What follows are 15 different and various possibilities of "gross income" earned. Now, some will argue this is how you know you're liable, because when you go from tax imposed upon taxable income to taxable income defined as gross income and gross income defined as "all income" you know that if you earn income you are liable, but does that make sense? Really RealSpoke, does that make sense? Doesn't it raise the question as to why Congress just didn't impose a tax on income and be done with it?

So, what is "adjusted gross income"? 26 USC § 62 - Adjusted gross income defined

(a) General rule For purposes of this subtitle, the term “adjusted gross income” means, in the case of an individual, gross income minus the following deductions:

What follows are various professions listed many of them speaking to a mysterious taxable year which is "the taxpayerannual accounting period" and a taxpayer, of course, is anyone subject to any applicable revenue laws, of course, and if you were to ask any IRS agent to define a horse they would naturally tell you that a horse is a horse, of course, of course!

Now, after that informative session, do you truly need to "play dumb" regarding the tax code, or do you actually understand all of that?

reply to post by Kali74


Well the US "patriot insurgents" could be supported and given arms by a foreign government. This would give us arms, money, and technology we wouldn't otherwise have.

Lemons are still relatively cheap lol. And think about it, you set up your stand and the cops come harass you, maybe even arrest you.

People already did this and no one cared. It got some media coverage but that's about it. In order for civil disobedience to work the government would have to do something that pissed the entire country off enough to protest. I really couldn't imagine what the gov could do that would work....people are so apathetic and only interested in their personal lives nowadays.

reply to post by RealSpoke


One example isn't enough. People do care, most just can't articulate why. So, you add a little info to your lemonade stand. You get others involved etc etc. Lay the ground work at least, pretty soon it won't be just a few people here and there needing a channel to empower themselves with. Better with lemons than guns.

reply to post by Kali74

Better with lemons than guns.

Indeed! If life gives you lemons, make lemonade. If government gives you headaches about licensing schemes regarding that lemonade, challenge the jurisdiction and shift the headache to where it belongs, and enjoy your lemonade.

What the speaker doesn't understand is that rebellion is almost impossible. You will be labeled a terrorist and killed and / or held in prison for the rest of your life.

This isnt the 1700s.

The only thing that will work is mass protest , however , most people are to ignorant or lazy to protest or afraid of being labeled weird / extremist.

The states need to start getting involved. The States give the government power and the people give the state its power.

If my State's government decided to Rebel or Part from the Union , i definitely would be sticking with my state , with a firearm.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Since you appear to have the IRS code handy, could you maybe find the part where it says exactly WHO is liable? As I said before (somewhere) the only ones I can remember being named were officers of corporations and government employees. Wish I could remember the rest of it.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by RealSpoke

 

One example isn't enough. People do care, most just can't articulate why. So, you add a little info to your lemonade stand. You get others involved etc etc. Lay the ground work at least, pretty soon it won't be just a few people here and there needing a channel to empower themselves with. Better with lemons than guns.

Or you could have a potato salad stand and demonstrate the uses of a raw potato and a potato gun. Two birds.

Not using the potato gun to shoot the birds, of course, or they'd arrest you for cruelty to animals.

reply to post by frazzle

Since you appear to have the IRS code handy, could you maybe find the part where it says exactly WHO is liable?

I am sorry, but I do not know what part you are referring to. For my own purposes, it has always been Section 1 regarding "taxable income" that I have been referred to in my questions of liability.

That said, I just found this:

26 USC § 11 - Tax imposed

(a) Corporations in general A tax is hereby imposed for each taxable year on the taxable income of every corporation.

But again we are confronted with "taxable income" so are corporations liable? I just don't know. Here's the deal, my ability to research and provide applicable statutes and codes does not mean I understand the tax code, only shows I've done my due diligence in attempting to understand it.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

The argument I made is not "playing dumb", nor is it admission of dumb, but is in fact a good faith argument.

I knew it wasn't, you misunderstood what I was saying. I said playing dumb *might* be a better defense than the "no one understands the tax law" argument. I said that because of this supreme court ruling that I quoted in my last post below.

The federal tax evasion statute is an example of an exception to the general rule under U.S. law that "ignorance of the law or a mistake of law is no defense to criminal prosecution."[16] Under the Cheek Doctrine (Cheek v. United States[17]), the United States Supreme Court ruled that a genuine, good faith belief that one is not violating the federal tax law (such as a mistake based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the tax law itself) would be a valid defense

Really RealSpoke, does that make sense?

No

Doesn't it raise the question as to why Congress just didn't impose a tax on income and be done with it?

Because most citizens follow it without any question?

If you did go to court and argue your defense though couldn't it be ruled just like Cheek v. USA was? Minus the constitutionality and enter your defense.

They do not arise from innocent mistakes caused by the complexity of the Internal Revenue Code. Rather, they reveal full knowledge of the provisions at issue and a studied conclusion, however wrong, that those provisions are invalid and unenforceable.

We do not believe that Congress contemplated that such a taxpayer, without risking criminal prosecution, could ignore the duties imposed upon him by the Internal Revenue Code and refuse to utilize the mechanisms provided by Congress to present his claims of invalidity to the courts and to abide by their decisions. There is no doubt that Cheek, from year to year, was free to pay the tax that the law purported to require, file for a refund and, if denied, present his claims of invalidity, constitutional or otherwise, to the courts. See 26 U.S.C. 7422. Also, without paying the tax, he could have challenged claims of tax deficiencies in the Tax Court, 6213, with the right to appeal to a higher court if unsuccessful. 7482(a)(1). Cheek took neither course in some years, and, when he did, was unwilling to accept the outcome. As we see it, he is in no position to claim that his good-faith belief about the validity of the Internal Revenue Code negates willfulness or provides a defense to criminal prosecution under 7201 and 7203. Of course, Cheek was free in this very case to present his claims of invalidity and have them adjudicated, but, like defendants in criminal cases in other contexts who “willfully” refuse to comply with the duties placed upon them by the law, he must take the risk of being wrong

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Kali74


I agree with you. If a armed revolution were to happen it would be TPTBs wet dream. They could pass authoritarian laws and have a field day with taxpayers money in the name of homeland security. It would make the "terrorist" threat real again to the non-political slugs that watch the MSM and do no research of their own.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


No problem, thanks for the answer, I was just looking for the easy way out. Somewhere around here I probably have a hard copy of that clause and I guess its a good time to try to find it while everybody's riled up about this "new tax".

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Kali74

 

Better with lemons than guns.

Indeed! If life gives you lemons, make lemonade. If government gives you headaches about licensing schemes regarding that lemonade, challenge the jurisdiction and shift the headache to where it belongs, and enjoy your lemonade.

This gives me pause to think. I reside in Ga. one of the 26 States that sued to opt out of Obamacare, and won. I wonder, in not paying taxes, if I were brought up on charges, if I could use my States' previous legal standing on the issue, as a kind of platform to base my stance on. I also wonder if my State could be called as a witness on my behalf.

So much to think about. I also started my own little company last year. It's totally off the books...so far.

Des

reply to post by RealSpoke


Here's a guy who got it right.

Tax activist wins in federal court

Ex-IRS agent says Congress has no power to collect levy on income

A former IRS agent who believes citizens are not required to pay federal income taxes was acquitted today on charges he attempted to defraud the government.

A leading figure in the “tax honesty” movement, Banister was taken into custody Nov. 19 by IRS agents and released on $25,000 bond after pleading not guilty.

A jury in the U.S. District Court in Sacramento found him not guilty on a charge of conspiracy to defraud the government and on all three counts of aiding and assisting the filing of false tax returns for a client.

www.wnd.com...