folks theres no need to worry, income taxes are illegal and you dont need to pay them, you only have to pay your attention to this here:
Video Rating: 4 / 5
FreeStateProject.org is where you can learn more about the migration trend so powerful….it is drawing people away from even relatively free states like Colorado. New Hampshire has no general sales or income tax; Colorado has both. Ron paul free state project new hampshire liberty manchester moving migration immigration high taxes taxed to death gun laws politics wyoming colorado denver less regulation ron paul manchester free state project colorado liberty new hampshire taxes wyoming gun laws
se7ensnakes
March 13, 2011 at 2:58 am
BE VERY SPECIFIC FOR THIS IS THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF THE CRIME!!!!
se7ensnakes
March 13, 2011 at 3:05 am
The “happening of an event” is the work you performed that has earn you the income. Okay now show me an IRS indictment that says: you are a taxpayer because you were sweeping the floor. Or you are a taxpayer because you were picking fruits. Or you are a taxpayer because you were doing surgery on someone to save their life. So no more mumbo jumbo, just show me a IRS indictment that says this, and please no generalities.
se7ensnakes
March 13, 2011 at 3:52 am
Sandego
1) We know that the income tax is an indirect tax.
2) We also know that an indirect tax is ” A tax laid upon the happening of an event.”.
What do we need to know?
what is in question?
1) In an IRS indictment, how did an individual become a taxpayer. What did he do?
2) Since we know that “earning income” is not the subject of the tax, because “earning income” is the tangible fruit. Then the subject of the tax is what work you perform to earn money. The “happening of an event is..
se7ensnakes
March 13, 2011 at 4:49 am
If the IRS claims that you earn income, they are claiming that the subject of the tax is income but that is the “tangible fruits” which is not the subject of the tax. The subject is the event. When you sweep a floor to earn money, the receipt of money is not the taxable event, it is the sweeping of the floor.
se7ensnakes
March 13, 2011 at 5:05 am
Amendment 6 – Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses. Ratified 12/15/1791.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation;…
This means that I need to know what i did to become a taxpayer. Did i work?
SadegoGG
March 13, 2011 at 5:20 am
@se7ensnakes
Please, in the future, reply to my most recent comment. That will ensure to me you actually read all of my comments, and it makes it easier for you to read further replies.
Also, if your going to debate me…please include Supreme Court cases (Actually read the entire thing so you don’t post anything out of context).
SadegoGG
March 13, 2011 at 5:59 am
@se7ensnakes
Did the court in Becraft, quoted above, mean to say that the income tax is a “non-apportioned direct tax” that need not be uniform? No, because the question of uniformity was not raised with the court. This is merely confusion in terminology, the court using the word “direct” to describe a tax that is imposed and collected by the government directly from citizens or residents of the United States, not that the income tax is a “direct tax” within the meaning of the Constitution.
SadegoGG
March 13, 2011 at 6:05 am
@se7ensnakes
Pollock Case by which alone such taxes were removed from the great class of excises, duties, and imposts subject to the rule of uniformity, and were placed under the other or direct class.”
Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916).
The court then went on to hold that the income tax satisfied the requirement of geographical uniformity imposed by the Constitution, even though the rate of tax was not uniform on all incomes.
SadegoGG
March 13, 2011 at 6:57 am
@se7ensnakes
thus destroying the two great classifications which have been recognized and enforced from the beginning, is also wholly without foundation since the command of the Amendment that all income taxes shall not be subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the taxed income may be derived forbids the application to such taxes of the rule applied in the
SadegoGG
March 13, 2011 at 7:54 am
@se7ensnakes
One of the questions raised in Brushaber was whether the 16th Amendment created a type of tax that need be neither apportioned nor uniform, and the court rejected that possibility, stating (in a rather convoluted sentence):
“[T]hat the contention that the Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax although it is relieved from apportionment and is necessarily therefore not subject to the rule of uniformity as such rule only applies to taxes which are not direct,
SadegoGG
March 13, 2011 at 8:15 am
@se7ensnakes
A final note:
Some courts have referred to the income tax as a “non-apportioned direct tax,” which is unfortunate because it suggests that the income tax is a “Capitation, or other direct, Tax” that does not need to be apportioned, a suggestion that was explicitly rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court in Brushaber. Under the Constitution, a “direct tax” must be apportioned, while an “indirect tax” must be uniform throughout the United States.
SadegoGG
March 13, 2011 at 9:09 am
@se7ensnakes
The meaning of “direct tax” that has been consistently applied by the Supreme Court is much more sensible (as well as consistent with the known intent of the framers of the Constitution), because it focuses on what is being taxed (the value of property, but not transfers of property) rather than on how the tax is collected.
SadegoGG
March 13, 2011 at 10:06 am
@se7ensnakes
but if the U.S. were to impose a tax on employers for wages paid (or a tax on banks for the payment of interest, or on corporations for the payment of dividends), that would be an “indirect tax” and constitutional, even though the net effect would be exactly the same (i.e., the employees or depositors or shareholders would bear the burden of the tax through reduced wages and salaries, interest, or dividends).
SadegoGG
March 13, 2011 at 10:37 am
@se7ensnakes
Secora v. United States, 1997 WL 460162, at 6 (U.S.D.C. Neb.).
The meaning of “direct tax” urged by many tax protesters as a “tax imposed directly” would trivialize the Constitution, because it reduces the constitutional definition of “direct tax” to a mere question of how the tax is collected. So, if the U.S. were to impose a tax on employees for the wages they receive, that would be a “direct tax” according to the tax protester definition,
SadegoGG
March 13, 2011 at 10:59 am
@se7ensnakes
In re: Michael Fleming, 86 AFTR2d ¶2000-5138; No. 97-6342-8G3 (U.S.Bank.Ct. M.D.Fl. 8/9/2000).
“Congress may impose taxes on individuals in the states without apportionment among the several States, and ‘without regard to any census or enumeration,’ and ‘on incomes, from whatever source derived.’”
SadegoGG
March 13, 2011 at 11:47 am
@se7ensnakes
is authority for that and other arguments against the government’s power to impose income taxes on individuals.. ..”
Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990).
“It is generally agreed that Article I of the Constitution authorizes Congress to tax the income of individuals, and that the Sixteenth Amendment eliminated the requirement that such taxes be apportioned among the states.”
SadegoGG
March 13, 2011 at 12:42 pm
@se7ensnakes
“As the cited cases, as well as many others, have made abundantly clear, the following arguments alluded to by the Lonsdales are completely lacking in legal merit and patently frivolous: .. .. (3) the income tax is a direct tax which is invalid absent apportionment, and Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 15 S.Ct. 673, 39 L.Ed. 759, modified, 158 U.S. 601, 15 S.Ct. 912, 39 L.Ed. 1108 (1895),
SadegoGG
March 13, 2011 at 12:54 pm
@se7ensnakes
In re Becraft, 885 F.2d 547 (9th Cir., 1989).
“[W]e have rejected, on numerous occasions, the tax-protester argument that the federal income tax is an unconstitutional direct tax that must be apportioned. See, e.g., Lively v. Commissioner, 705 F.2d 1017, 1018 (8th Cir.1983) (per curiam)”
United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255 (8th Cir. 1993), cert. den. 510 U.S. 1193 (1994).
SadegoGG
March 13, 2011 at 1:12 pm
@se7ensnakes
We hardly need comment on the patent absurdity and frivolity of such a proposition. For over 75 years, the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts have both implicitly and explicitly recognized the Sixteenth Amendment’s authorization of a non-apportioned direct income tax on United States citizens residing in the United States and thus the validity of the federal income tax laws as applied to such citizens.”
SadegoGG
March 13, 2011 at 2:11 pm
@se7ensnakes
36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 236.” (And the Brushaber decision upheld the constitutionality of an income tax under the 16th Amendment.)
More recent judges have rejected this argument as well:
“[Becraft’s] position can fairly be reduced to one elemental proposition: The Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct non-apportioned income tax on resident United States citizens and thus such citizens are not subject to the federal income tax laws. …
SadegoGG
March 13, 2011 at 2:45 pm
@se7ensnakes
In Tyee Realty Co. v. Anderson, 240 U.S. 115, 117 (1916), one of the appellants was an individual named Edwin Thorne, and he complained about the constitutionality of “a progressive tax on the income of individuals.” The Supreme Court denied the appeal saying that “we need not now enter into an original consideration of the merits of these contentions because each and all of them were considered and adversely disposed of in Brushaber v. Union P. R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, 60 L.Ed. __,
SadegoGG
March 13, 2011 at 3:01 pm
@se7ensnakes
Of the four justices who heard the case, two (William Paterson and James Wilson) were members of the Constitutional Convention that drafted the Constitution, and presumably knew what it meant.
In Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1880), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of an income tax against an individual, William H. Springer, finding that the income tax was a constitutional “duty or excise” and not a “direct tax.”
SadegoGG
March 13, 2011 at 3:58 pm
@se7ensnakes
That is a definition of “direct” and “indirect” that is frequently used by economists, but it is not the meaning of “direct” and “indirect” that has been applied by the U.S. Supreme Court.
In Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796), the Supreme Court was unanimous in its opinion that Congress could impose a tax on a citizen of Virginia for carriages held for personal use and that the tax was an excise or duty and not “direct.”
SadegoGG
March 13, 2011 at 4:04 pm
@se7ensnakes
One common mistake made by tax protesters is in assuming that the phrase “Capitation, or other direct, Tax” in the Constitution is a reference to any tax that is collected “directly” from the person on whom it is imposed, while “indirect” taxes such as “Duties, Imposts and Excises” are collected on goods during manufacture, or in transit, and the ultimate burden is passed along to someone else (usually the consumer).
SadegoGG
March 13, 2011 at 4:22 pm
@se7ensnakes
Although the meaning of “direct tax” has sometimes been questioned, it was always understood that taxes imposed by Congress could apply to, and be collected from, individual citizens, and that not every tax collected directly from the population was a “direct tax” within the meaning of the Constitution.
NoLongerFooled
March 13, 2011 at 5:17 pm
Good for him. Great stories.
RidleyReport
March 13, 2011 at 5:38 pm
@desicasyndicat the role we are playing in this drama is probably that of Slovenia in the Yugo War, or Estonia in the Soviet crackup. we’re not playing the role of Vietnam vs. Lyndon Johnson.
al2i
March 13, 2011 at 6:34 pm
I may not be able to move there,and in fact I have never even visited, but it is home, and the lovers of liberty there are my family.
MoneyIsSilver
March 13, 2011 at 6:41 pm
@IronicallyVague Come to southwest if you do…way more freedom in Durango than Denver
Z0mgZ0mbies
March 13, 2011 at 6:56 pm
The evolution continues!
jenip
March 13, 2011 at 7:46 pm
Welcome to NH!
desicasyndicat
March 13, 2011 at 8:27 pm
Unless William Wallace as portrayed by Mel Gibson is moving to Keene for freedom, I’m not interested. Also, film more around Mark’s Showplace in Bedford or Funspot. Hell. You people in New Hampshire need to riot and pillage until they name the town when Funspot is located, “Funspot, NH”.
OhMyGoog
March 13, 2011 at 9:25 pm
oooo hes cute too!
IronicallyVague
March 13, 2011 at 9:49 pm
Shoot, I was going to flee Arizona to Colorado 😛
Temple420org
March 13, 2011 at 9:51 pm
awesome!!!!!!!! I am coming soon to visit