 Lots of betting options! Takes Visa cards like a hot knife through butter! Click Here To Sign Up Click Here For the Review |  Very generous signup bonuses! Best at processing credit cards! Click Here To Sign Up Click Here For The Review |  Tired of your credit card not working at sportsbooks? No problem here! Click Here To Sign Up Click Here For the Review |  Save BIG money by betting on games at -105 reduced odds! Click Here To Sign Up Click Here For the Review |
| Quick Site Links: NFL Football | College Football | NBA Basketball | College Basketball | MLB Baseball | NHL Hockey | Soccer | |
| More Site Links: Boxing | NASCAR | Golf | Horse Racing | Sportsbooks | Sports Betting | Sports Handicapping | Handicappers | Superbowl | |
| Online Poker: Poker | Texas Holdem | Omaha Poker | Poker Rooms | Poker Tournaments | |
| Casino Gambling: Slots | Blackjack | Video Poker | Craps | Roulette | Baccarat | Keno | Online Casinos | |
|
|||||||
| General Discussion Talk about current events, tell jokes, share videos etc. Anything non gambling related goes here. |
  |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
07-30-2007, 09:42 PM
|
||||
|
||||
IRS cannot prove a constitutional foundation for income tax!
THE POWER TO DESTROY
IRS loses challenge to prove tax liability Lawyer is acquitted after arguing income levy lacks legal foundation ---------------------------------------- Posted: July 26, 2007 1:00 a.m. Eastern By Bob Unruh © 2007 WorldNetDaily.com The Internal Revenue Service has lost a lawyer's challenge in front of a jury to prove a constitutional foundation for the nation's income tax, and the victorious attorney now is setting his sights higher. "I think now people are beginning to realize that this has got to be the largest fraud, backed up by intimidation and extortion and by the sheer force of taking peoples property and hard-earned money without any lawful authorization whatsoever," lawyer Tom Cryer told WND just days after a jury in Louisiana acquitted him of two criminal tax counts. And before you consign him to the legions of "tin foil hat brigades" who argue against paying taxes, and then want payment to explain how to do that, he addresses the issue up front. "These snake oil peddlers have conned millions of dollars out of many well-intended patriots and left a trail of broken lives in their wake. � These charlatans should be avoided, not only because they will lead you to bankruptcy and prison, but because by association they discredit those who are telling the truth," he said. The truth, he said, is where he comes in, with the launch of a new Truth Attack website that is intended to build on his victory, and create a coalition of resources to defeat – ultimately – the income tax in the United States. Although the legal citations in the case tend to run the length of paragraphs, Cryer told WND the underlying issue is not that complicated. Essentially, he argued that income is not necessarily any money that comes to a person, but rather categories such as profit and interest. He said the free exchange of labor for compensation has been upheld as a right by the Supreme Court, but that doesn't necessarily make the compensation income. If ever such an argument were to be presented widely, Cryer said, the income to the federal government would plummet. But not to worry, he said, the expenses could be reduced equally by eliminating programs, departments and agencies that also have no foundation in the Constitution. "The Founding Fathers intentionally restricted the taxing powers of the new federal government as a measure of restraint on its size. By exceeding that limited taxing authority the federal government has been able to obtain resources beyond its intended reach, and that money has enabled the federal government to exceed its authority," he said. For example, he said, the Constitution does not empower the federal government to regulate education, or employment, and agriculture, yet it does so. The jury in U.S. District Court in Louisiana voted 12-0 to find Cryer, of Shreveport, not guilty of failure to file income taxes for two years. He had been indicted in 2006 on charges of failing to pay $73,000 to the IRS in 2000 and 2001. The next step in his personal case will be up to the IRS and prosecutors, if they choose to continue the issue, he said. But for the rest of the nation, he's working with Save-a-Patriot, the Free Enterprise Society, Live Free Now and his own Lie Free Zone to spread the message of the truth. "There are three points that are important," he told WND. "There's no law making the average working man liable [for income taxes], there's no law or regulation that allows the IRS to contend that earnings are 100 percent profit received in exchange for nothing, and the right to earn a living through any lawful occupation is a constitutionally protected fundamental right, and it is exempt from taxation." Spokesman Robert Marvin in Washington's IRS office told WND the Internal Revenue Code provides for taxation on salaries or wages, but when pressed for a specific citation, or constitutional provision, he said, "I can't comment." Cryer's encounter with tax law began more than a decade ago when a friend told him the income tax was sham. Cryer started researching, hoping to keep his friend out of trouble. But his conclusions, after years of research, were exactly what his friend told him. He researched not only tax laws, but also the documents pertaining to the drafting of the U.S. Constitution as well as the first income tax. He said throughout his battle, he's offered at every turn to pay taxes if the IRS could show him the authorization, and that never has happened. "The Criminal Investigation Division and Department of Justice both responded only with 'your position is frivolous.' I had never stated a position, so how could they know whether it was frivolous?" he said. "Imagine my sending you a bill for $1,000 and when you call me and ask what the bill was for I simply said, 'that position is frivolous, just write the check and send it in.'" His acquittal, he said, was a precedent because it means "people can see and recognize the truth." He said multiple Supreme Court opinions have affirmed an individual's ownership of his or her own labor, and "exercising your fundamental rights" is not taxable. "It is definitely a trade. What most people receive in the form of wages, salaries or in my case fees that they personally earned for their labor is not received in exchange for nothing." He said there might be a profit that should be taxable, but there might not. "The IRS lets Wal-Mart sell a trillion dollars worth of goods, but they can back out their cost of goods [before being taxed,]" he said. "The IRS considers, in the case of a Wal-Mart wage earner, 100 percent of what he takes in is profit." "But he's using his life, energy and work lifespan, and depleting it as he goes," Cryer told WND. "[Working] is a God-given fundamental right that is protected under the Constitution and can't be taxed any more than exercising freedom of speech." While he waits to see what, if anything, the IRS and Justice Department will do next in his case, he's working to coordinate the groups that are battling taxation as unconstitutional. "I have started a campaign to unify [the work] and we've got a number of organizations that are sponsoring and supporting this campaign," he said. The goal is to get everyone "who is aware of the truth" organized so they can spread the word. He warned without a restoration of constitutional basics, the nation is lost. "Read your Constitution and you will see that the federal role does not include ANY authority to regulate or tax any citizen directly and that WE expressly reserved the right to rule and govern ourselves as States, not as mere political subdivisions," his website says. "The Constitution does not allow the government to run your lives, but the money it is stealing from millions of Americans is the fuel for its over-reaching and kibitzing. Take the money back and we and our states and communities can again be free," he said.
__________________
I have 3 rules: 1) Never get less than 12 hours sleep 2) Never play poker against a guy that has the same name as a city. 3) Never date chicks that have tattoos of daggers.  
|
|
07-30-2007, 11:10 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Read this last week!
That is why Ron Paul gets my vote!  Do away with the IRS! Funny I was watching Fox News trying to slam Ron Paul on his views of the IRS! Which they always do because Rudy and the Neo-Cons are hugh finacial backers! Forgot who it was but (Think it was Neil) anyways he was saying if it wasn't for the IRS, Ron Paul wouldn't be standing in the federal building he was in! Ron Paul came back at him and said Really the IRS wasn't even around when this building was built!!! We built these buildings on good old loans. Neil started back peddling and tried to hook em again and Ron just kept putting him back in his place! Fox news is so Bias its a ****en Joke! Not to mention the IRS is a joke! Its about time people started realizing this!!!! WHen are people going to start waking up and realizing we are getting ****ed in every hole. Why is it when you talk politics nobody has a clue what is going on today! Everyone wants to keep there head in the ground and just go on like nothing is happing! Why is this???? I have no idea it just blows my mind!
__________________
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
|
|
07-31-2007, 04:57 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
07-31-2007, 02:54 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
A good old fashioned conservative is what we need. The neo-cons blow and the democrats are just as bad!!!
__________________
I have 3 rules: 1) Never get less than 12 hours sleep 2) Never play poker against a guy that has the same name as a city. 3) Never date chicks that have tattoos of daggers.
|
|
07-31-2007, 07:46 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
The 16th was unlawfully enacted, but it should not exist in the first place.
The Claremont Institute - Repeal the 16th Amendment Repeal the 16th Amendment By Larry P. Arnn, Grover Norquist Posted April 15, 2003 It is time to repeal the 16th Amendment, the constitutional provision that authorizes the federal income tax. As its critics predicted when the amendment was passed in 1913, the income tax has become "a terror and torment to the honest citizen." It is absurdly complicated, inefficient and intrusive. Overzealous bureaucrats and politicians frequently abuse it. The income tax has another major fault: It undermines the Constitution's arrangements for limiting government. The Internal Revenue Service simply has no proper place in our constitutional system. The Founders who designed our Constitution sought to balance the power of the federal government against the states in order to keep both in check. The national government was thus originally prohibited from collecting taxes from individuals. Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution states: "No capitation, or other direct Tax, shall be laid unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration." This meant that the federal government could collect revenue from the states according to population, but had to leave the methods of collection to them. The federal government was to collect revenue in other, less intrusive ways (tariffs, excise taxes, consumption taxes) so as to limit the amount of money it could raise by its own authority. For many of the Founders, the very idea of taxing individuals (as opposed to objects, as with a sales tax) was highly offensive. These "capitations" or "head taxes" were regarded as options of last resort, only to be imposed in war or other emergency. The first federal income tax was imposed during the Civil War; it was soon repealed. Not until the 1890s did Congress assess a peacetime income tax. The Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional in 1895. Referring to the explicit prohibition against direct taxation in Article I, the court argued that the income tax would excessively enhance federal power in relation to state power. The court explained that the rule against direct federal taxation was intended to "promote prudence and economy in expenditure," and, quoting Alexander Hamilton, to ensure that "the abuse of this power of taxation [would be] provided against with guarded circumspection." The Supreme Court's ruling was nullified when an overwhelming majority in Congress and three-fourths of the state legislatures ratified the 16th Amendment. The votes came amid a frenzy of "soak the rich" rhetoric, which overwhelmed considerations of broader constitutional interests. But experience has taught us that the rich are hard to tax, because it is easy for them to put their money where it does not yield much income. Anyway, most of the money in America belongs to the middle class. Lacking access to sophisticated shelters, we are easy to tax. Although the first income tax in 1913 was very limited--it applied to just 2% of the labor force, and its highest rate was 7%--it prepared the way for the federal government's almost unlimited access to revenue. It thus provided an almost unlimited ability to fund programs that are properly state matters--crime fighting, education, welfare--and to pressure the states into conforming to a national standard in matters that should reflect regional differentiation, like speed limits and drinking ages. The new welfare block grants to states are certainly a step in the right direction of getting the federal government out of the business of making everything its business. But wouldn't it be better just to keep all that money in the states in the first place? The federal government collected more than $600 billion in personal incomes taxes in 1996--about half its total revenue-but it spent more than that on welfare, health, education, transportation and housing programs. All these matters properly should be left to the states. Repealing the income tax would still leave many areas in which the federal government could collect revenue for its proper functions, like defense, while limiting its ability to overreach.
__________________
I have 3 rules: 1) Never get less than 12 hours sleep 2) Never play poker against a guy that has the same name as a city. 3) Never date chicks that have tattoos of daggers.
|
|
07-31-2007, 07:47 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Measure would repeal 16th Amendment
Congressman seeks end to income tax, clarifies duties of government A proposed constitutional amendment by Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, speaks for itself: "Three years after the ratification of this amendment, the sixteenth article of amendments to the Constitution of the United States shall stand repealed and thereafter Congress shall not levy taxes on personal incomes, estates, and/or gifts." The 16th Amendment, ratified in 1913, allowed the federal government to levy a tax on all incomes. House Joint Resolution 45, dubbed the "Liberty Amendment," would strip the federal government of that authority. "America existed for nearly 140 years without an income tax," Paul concluded. "The federal government generally adhered to its strictly enumerated constitutional functions during that time, operating with modest excise revenues. When Congress introduced the 16th Amendment, it opened the door to the era of big government. This amendment would close that door." Many Americans believe they are overtaxed, and investigations into the Internal Revenue Service in recent years have shown the agency to be abusive in the exercise of its authority to collect taxes. The tax code increasingly faces grass-roots legal challenges, and interest in flat-tax and national sales tax proposals is at an all-time high, giving Paul's proposal enormous popularity among disgruntled taxpayers and those simply weary of big government. While there have been several legal challenges to the veracity of the 16th Amendment's ratification, all such challenges have been rejected by the courts. Plaintiffs argue then-Secretary of State Philander Knox committed fraud when he declared the amendment had been properly approved by the appropriate number of states. The Texas congressman criticized his colleagues' frequent manipulation of the massive tax code through various exemptions, credits, deductions and the like. "America clearly is ready for sweeping tax reform, yet Congress remains focused on rewarding certain constituencies by forever making complex small changes to the existing tax laws. The Liberty Amendment is an attempt to eliminate the system altogether, forcing Congress to find a simple and fair way to collect limited federal revenues. Most of all, the Liberty Amendment is an initiative aimed at reducing the size and scope of the federal government," he wrote. If approved, the measure will accomplish that goal through more than elimination of the federal income tax, which is the last of four sections in the bill. Comprised of only four sentences in all, the resolution's first section prohibits the federal government from engaging in any business "except as specified in the Constitution." The measure also states that all "activities" of the U.S. government that violate the Constitution will "be liquidated and the properties and facilities affected shall be sold" within three years of the resolution's adoption. Critics of HJR 45, however, believe the government is acting within the boundaries of the Constitution by providing public education, welfare services, foreign aid and numerous other programs. But Paul says the sweeping nature of such programs has made government too involved in the lives of individuals. "The income tax has given government a claim on our lives," Paul stated. "It has enabled government to expand far beyond its proper limits, invade our privacy and penalize our every endeavor. The Founding Fathers never intended an income tax, and they certainly would be dismayed to know that Americans today give more than a third of their income to the federal government." In order for HJR 45 to take effect, according to the text of the measure, the resolution must be adopted by three-fourths of the states in the Union within seven years of the date Congress adopts it. The most recent constitutional amendment, which was proposed by the First Congress on Sept. 25, 1789, and was first adopted by Maryland in December of that year, was ratified on May 18, 1992. It provided that congressional pay raises could not take effect until after the next election. WorldNetDaily: Measure would repeal 16th Amendment
__________________
I have 3 rules: 1) Never get less than 12 hours sleep 2) Never play poker against a guy that has the same name as a city. 3) Never date chicks that have tattoos of daggers.
|
|
08-01-2007, 12:01 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Spread the word!!! Get it out there RON PAUL 2008!!!!
__________________
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
|
|
08-01-2007, 12:03 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Kevin won't let me post a link in my signature! LOL Only if he knew what Ron Paul stood for and the internet! This site would be a hugh Ron Paul Backer!!!!!
BB
__________________
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
|
|
08-01-2007, 04:01 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
    
|
|
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:23 PM.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.0.0 RC8