I just saw the movie freedom to fascism 2 times in a row tonight…it was just so amazing. i have been researching the things it talks about for long before i even heard of this move, so i was obviusly very interested. This movie is a documentary, and award winning film maker Aaron Russo is trying to find out where it says in the irs tax code, or anywhere else that says we have to pay income tax. Btw, there is no law that states this, which is why millions of americans dont file thier 1040’s and get away with it as there is nothing to get away with. They are exercising their right. The movie deals with many other issues also. I strongly STRONGLY suggest you all check it out. Do it for your own good!
I am glad its out too. Of course, there is no media coverage for it…for obvious reasons, but i tell everyone i meet about it, and if everyone did that, maybe one day the truth will finally be revealed.
The reason there is no rule regarding income tax is probably because it was only supposed to be temporary. It was first introduced during the American Civil war. The same thing happened here in Canada, only we instituted it during World War I. Both were meant to be done for a short time to help fund the war, but Canada’s income tax collection simply continued after the War was over, and America’s collection of income tax began again in 1913, when your Congress ratified the 16th amendment, giving the government the right to tax income.
So there is probably not one specific law stating you have to pay tax but it is the congress’ right to collect it, so they can send the IRS after you if you don’t pay.
It should also be noted that the US is very very strict regarding the collection of taxes, even when compared to countries with higher tax rates (like Canada) who’s revenue agencies are actually very lenient. I’d be worried about this most of all if I lived in America and had to pay tax.
The 16th ammendment states they can collect taxes on income, and income is defined by the supreme court by gains or profits. The supreme court also ruled that after the 16th ammendment, there can be no other form of taxing besides direct and indirect. Income tax coes not fall under either of these categories. The irs tax code was written after 1913, when the 16th ammendment along with the ruling of no other form of taxation was ratified. The one thing congress decided was that if income tax did take place, it would neither be direct or indirect, so they agreed on having it be a direct tax that is aportioned among the people…and yet it isnt. The graduated income tax is only used to pay back our debt to the private bank of the federal reserve.
BEcause of this, congress ruled later that federal income tax was voluntary compliance. In the irs tax code, all it states is that if fedral income tax is mandatory, then we must pay a state income tax…and it isnt mandatory.
There is no law that states that we must pay an income tax, and even though the supreme courts ruled this to be true…people still go to prison when found guilty in lower courts for not paying thier income taxes.
Why cant they just show us the law that says we must pay an income tax, in plain english. They cant, because it doesnt exist.
Hmm, I wasn’t aware of that…that is unconstitutional, right?
Well in either case that’s even more cause for concern since the IRS should be following the rules congress lays down. If not, then someone has to change the rules, or change the IRS.
Then again, the USA are known for their dinamic legislation, what’s written in the law is only half of what’s a rule there—judges have quite some power over the law, especially if they’re judging something without precedents…
Actually, a direct quote from a judge when presiding ver an income tax case:“There is no room for law in my court room”
…wow, that makes a lot of sense. Judges have no right to make laws, or tell people waht the laws are. All they are supposed to do is speak directly from the constitution and bill of rights. Thier voice is the voice of Us documents. They have no voice of their own…At least they arent supposed to…
I don’t know about America but in England that is partly how new laws are made - judges making decisions and overruling previous decisions in court, or ‘case law’. Obviously there are Acts of Parliament made by the government as well. Decisions in cases set precedents for future cases until they are overturned.
This reminds me of something I figured out a while ago: if the American Revolution happened today, the rebels would be labeled terrorists and the UN would intervene and stop them.
no, that is how it works here too. But lower courts have to follow rulings set about by the supreme court…and they arent. But on the other hand, the judges arent really making a new law, they are simply stating that because for example “This man was found not guilty, then no one else can be found guilty for committing the same crime” An i mean if the next person does the exact same thing for example.
Exactly like the miranda rights. The judge didnt make that law up, simply the jury found the person not guilty, because the police didnt read them thier rights, so the judge said from now on, if cops dont tell you your rights, you cant be found guilty, depending on the case.
IF someone were to try and fight this. I’m pretty sure they would meet only silence and imprisonment. But it is a very interesting topic and I will take your advice. I will start talking with anyone and everyone about it and make sure to inform the populace. I know one can’t fight it, but in numbers maybe someone will start a petition or something along those lines.
I would suggest starting with freedomtofascism.com, and looking at what they have to offer. From there, you could always take waht they have to say and validate it with other sources.
So, yeah, start with thier website, and go from there, that is probably the easiest way.
this is a very important thing for people to learn about.
jurors do not have to rule based upon the law, but based upon their conscience. for instance, there was a man in California arrested for growing medical marijuana, but the prosecutors made the jury think he was a drug dealer, and they were told that they HAD to vote based upon how the state’s laws are, not on how they felt like voting.
so they had “no choice” but to convict him… only that’s a blatant lie, because of the inherent right of jury nullification. so after they found out the truth about him being a medical grower they got extremely upset, and furthermore after finding out about jury nullification.
the judge ended up giving him only 1 day in jail.
so even if someone is growing marijuana for recreation, if you don’t like the drug war you can find him not guilty, because in your eyes it’s no worse than brewing your own beer, especially if you aren’t selling it!
in fact everyone who grows instead of buying from the black market is helping to END the selling of illegal drugs.
but also for instance if someone is arrested for “sodomy” charges, even if “sodomy” is illegal you can find them not guilty.
or if someone has to use the restroom real bad in public and is going to be labeled a sex offendor for “indecent exposure” even though no one saw him but a police officer, you can find him not guilty.
Well that is pretty much what happened with this man whitey harrel. They talked about him in the movie, and had footage of his trial. The judge and prosecuter basically told the jury that they had to convict him of the crime and find him not guilty because he didnt pay his income taxes.
But one memeber of the jury, this lady they interviewed was smart and said “can you sho us the law please?” But they couldnt, because the law didnt exist, so whitey Harrel was found not guilty.
