http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7521758492370018023&q=Income taxes The title explains it. It is a very long video, but the proof is in the first 40 minutes.(Please leave this thread in Free thoughts i feel that is the best way to get it watched)
That doesn't prove anything, it just proves that a biased decision was made. The United States Constitution guarantees a criminal defendant both the right to have a jury decide his case and a right to have the prosecutor prove to that jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, every element of the charged offense. To preserve these guarantees, the trial court is required to properly instruct the jury on each and every element of the crime. Larken Rose was charged with five counts of willful failure to file federal income tax returns. The offense has three elements*: 1. The person must have a legal duty to perform. 2. The person must fail to perform the legal duty. 3. The person must know that he failed to perform the legal duty. Did the prosecutor prove that Larken Rose had a legal duty to perform? No, he did not. The judge told the jury that he would give them the law, thereby relieving the prosecutor of his legal obligation to prove the first of the three key elements of the offense. Did the prosecutor prove that Larken Rose failed to perform the legal duty? No, he did not. Not having proved the first element, the second element begs the question. However, Larken Rose conceded that he did not perform the action that the prosecutor merely claimed (but didn't prove) was a legal duty. Larken Rose went to great lengths to explain to the government many times over the years what he was doing and precisely why. Did the prosecutor prove that Larken Rose knew that he failed to perform the legal duty? No, he did not. This, too, begs the question, since the prosecutor did not prove the first element, and no legal duty was established. Was Larken Rose allowed to present to the jury the material he relied on, using a level of detail that was commensurate with the complexity of the material? No, he was not. The videotaped material he presented was greatly abbreviated by the court, and the jury was prevented from hearing any of it. Did the judge properly instruct the jury regarding the prosecutor's obligation to prove the three elements of the alleged offense? No, he did not. Instead, the judge improperly preempted the prosecutor's obligation to prove to the jury that Larken Rose had a legal duty to perform and merely proclaimed that it was true. The jury, being none the wiser after the jury instructions were read, had no idea that the prosecutor had failed to prove Larken Rose's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Moreover, they had no idea that they didn't need to agree with Larken Rose--or believe his position was reasonable--in order to find him not guilty. Unknown to them, what they had to do was judge whether the prosecutor had proved all three elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Left with nothing to deliberate but their lunch menu, the unwitting jury quickly came to an impossible conclusion: guilty on all counts. "Without truth, there can be no justice. Without justice, there can be no peace." http://www.phxnews.com/fullstory.php?article=28589
Actually no. In cases challenging the constitutionality of legislation the burden rests upon those challenging. The court begins with the presumption that the law is constitutionally valid. The prosecution merely need reference the law, it does not need to establish that the person has a legal duty to pay taxes; it then would be up to the defense to prove the law is unfitting or invalid. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review#Judicial_review_in_the_United_States http://www.answers.com/topic/rational-basis-test In reply to your points: 1. Given that the defense was not able to demonstrate the law was unconstitutional legal duty is established merely by referencing the law. 2. Obviously the defendant was not claiming that he performed and that the prosecution was in error regarding non-compliance but instead was claiming that compliance was not obligatory. Having lost point 1, this becomes merely an admission of guilt. 3. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. This is an age-old judicial precedent. What’s left to deliberate? ~Raithere
If taxes were ruled unconstitutional, the union would collapse. So the system does everything in it's power to keep the scam going. They'd never let some freedom-loving simpleton bring the empire down. Not sure about the states, but here in Canada, income taxes were a war measure that was permanently retained. Kind of like the patriot act.. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
the reason you all will lose a case, on not paying income taxes.... is because you are involved in contracts with the fed... and you are recieveing benefit.... and if you are benefiting, then you agreed to pay your share... you cant recieve benefits... and then refuse to pay your share. you have to give up... 1)social security. 2) medicare. 3) the use of all federally insured banks.... 4) give up all ideas of gaining interest on money in savings.. 5) give up all fed regulated insurance 6) give up 14th ammedment citizenship. 7) and stop using a zip code.... 8) and stop using federal rexerve notes. you must... only work as an independant contractor.... and you must never put your money into a bank.... ever. do all of that... and you dont have to pay income tax. you must use credit unions.. with only state insurance. it can be done... but they will hunt, and haunt you for it. -MT
If getting fucked up the ass is your idea of 'benefiting', then yes. Most of money one puts into the system ends up evaporating or is spent on programs that I disapprove of- military, public education, healthcare, etc. Not only that, they wrack up debt under my name!! Government is controlled by the elite, and force-fed to the rest via taxes.
One of the major planks in the Libertarian Party platform is the unconstitutionality of the income tax. Of course much of the rest of the platform is the unconstitutionality of about 95% of the laws that have been passed since Franklin Roosevelt started using the Constitution as toilet paper.
