Deception Starts Here

[palani]

Ever wonder why the IRS has a hard time pointing out where in the tax code taxes are required to be paid or forms filed. Ever wonder why every state (haven't checked them all but I believe this is true) has a vehicle registration program but it is either for corporations or the state code has no statement requiring registration or they fail to define a key word in their motor vehicle code?

The key in my opinion is the 13th amenment. Taxes are a form of servitude as are any action that takes your time, money or property. If the statutes or codes are written in an ambiguous manner the ambiguity could be considered the remedy to separate voluntary from involuntary servitude.

A major war was fought 150 years ago strictly on the issue of involuntary servitude. The issue was won on the side that did not want slavery. Now how would it look if they turned around and started imposing slavery on everyone through statutes and agencies? It would make the government look pretty stupid wouldn't it?

A lot of people have asked of various agencies "where is the law, show me" and have received silence or jail time but never an answer. Yet it would be a simple matter for the legislative branch of government to issue a regulation that says "everyone who has a car has to register it". A statement like this is clear and unambiguous BUT violates the 13th amendment. A court of first impression would knock legislation like this clear out of the water.

So shouldn't the question be phrased instead "When did the U.S. enact involuntary servitude" when questioning questionable authority? Accompanied also by the statement "I refuse to volunteer".

I have never seen this topic discussed before on this board. If it has please point me to the thread.

[KaosTheory]

What if someone accuses you of murder and even writes an affidavit and sends it to the police. This someone also sends you a copy of the affidavit and for some reason, you decide to do nothing about it.

Then the police come and and question you and all you say is that the constitution forbids involuntary servitude or maybe that you are not a US citizen.

I imagine that the police will end up taking you in and processing you as a criminal.

Why? Because you did not rebut the accusation.

Now what if the company you work for sends an affidavit to the IRS saying that you were paid taxable income in the form of IRC section 3121 or 3401 "wages". Next the company sends you a copy of the affidavit (w-2 statement) and for some reason, you decide to do nothing about it.

Originally Posted by palani

Ever wonder why the IRS has a hard time pointing out where in the tax code taxes are required to be paid or forms filed. Ever wonder why every state (haven't checked them all but I believe this is true) has a vehicle registration program but it is either for corporations or the state code has no statement requiring registration or they fail to define a key word in their motor vehicle code?

The key in my opinion is the 13th amenment. Taxes are a form of servitude as are any action that takes your time, money or property. If the statutes or codes are written in an ambiguous manner the ambiguity could be considered the remedy to separate voluntary from involuntary servitude.

A major war was fought 150 years ago strictly on the issue of involuntary servitude. The issue was won on the side that did not want slavery. Now how would it look if they turned around and started imposing slavery on everyone through statutes and agencies? It would make the government look pretty stupid wouldn't it?

A lot of people have asked of various agencies "where is the law, show me" and have received silence or jail time but never an answer. Yet it would be a simple matter for the legislative branch of government to issue a regulation that says "everyone who has a car has to register it". A statement like this is clear and unambiguous BUT violates the 13th amendment. A court of first impression would knock legislation like this clear out of the water.

So shouldn't the question be phrased instead "When did the U.S. enact involuntary servitude" when questioning questionable authority? Accompanied also by the statement "I refuse to volunteer".

I have never seen this topic discussed before on this board. If it has please point me to the thread.

I don't have the reference as to thread name, but I have brought up the subject in the past and it was passed by.

However, because you have brought it up again, I submit the following.

"The troubling question is whether the new law meets the Constitutional requirement of certainty. Over sixty years ago the United States Supreme Court stated, in Connaly v. General Construction Company (1926) 359 U.S. 385, 46 S.Ct. 126, 127, 70 L.Ed. 322:

"That the terms of a penal statute creating a new offense must be sufficiently explicit to inform those who are subject to it what conduct on their part will render them liable to its penalties is a well- recognized requirement, consonant alike with ordinary notions of fair play and the settled rules of law; and a statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application violates the first essential of due process of law. International Harvester Co. v. Kentucky, 234 U.S. 216, 221 , 34 S. Ct. 853; Collins v. Kentucky, 234 U.S. 634, 638 , 34 S. Ct. 924 "

"It is a well-settled rule of statutory interpretation that a statute is to be construed to avoid rendering it unconstitutional, if such interpretation does not do violence to the statute's language. Also a statute is to be read in the light of the problem that it was designed to solve. People v. Plywood Manufacturers of California (1955) 137 Ca2d Supp. 359, 364. "

http://usff.com/hldl/courtcases/CalvWoods.html



Jerry

[palani]

KaosTheory posted

Now what if the company you work for sends an affidavit to the IRS saying that you were paid taxable income in the form of IRC section 3121 or 3401 "wages". Next the company sends you a copy of the affidavit (w-2 statement) and for some reason, you decide to do nothing about it.

I guess I would call it ignorance of the legal process or possibly failure to recognize that the form you receive is part of the process. However, this statement does not get mailed certified or registered so, unless you acknowledge receiving one of these, where is the proof that you did receive it?

jerry

The case cites you bring up are from the Judicial branch of government. The legislative branch is going to try to get away with as much loot as it can so these 'elected representatives' can build their estates. That is a good case cite though. Just wish they would follow it.

How do you "not do violence to the statute's language"? I don't even know what this means. Is there a crime of assault and battery on statute's language now?

"A statute is to be read in the light of the problem that it was designed to solve"? Does this require a match?

I think maybe the guy who wrote these two sentences is guilty of reading too many statutes.

[KaosTheory]

Originally Posted by palani

KaosTheory posted


I guess I would call it ignorance of the legal process or possibly failure to recognize that the form you receive is part of the process. However, this statement does not get mailed certified or registered so, unless you acknowledge receiving one of these, where is the proof that you did receive it?

The key word is "presumption". It doesn't matter if you got your copy or not. The IRS got their copy and that is all that matters. The w-2 is treated as evidence of taxable gains and is all they need to get the administrative ball rolling.

[palani]

To constitute such a presumption, a previous experience of the connexion between the known and inferred facts is essential, of such a nature that as soon as the existence of the one is established, admitted or assumed, an inference as to the existence of the other arises, independently of any reasoning upon the subject. It follows that an inference may be certain or not certain, but merely, probable, and therefore capable of being rebutted by contrary proof.

From Bouviers 1856 Law Dictionary
http://www.jusbelli.com/Bouvier/bouv...president.html

However, my only point in starting this thread is that the involuntary servitude issue is key to understanding why legislation is written in a devious manner. You presume the issue being legislated refers to you. You believe that state and federal legislators have all the degrees of freedom required to mandate everything that they require. Now it would seem that they are missing the actual ability to mandate anything without making it 'voluntary'. Now this would seem to be a major handicap in writing any kind of code since they have to attach all kinds of paper that is meaningless to confuse the issue.

Of course, the above paragraph does not apply to corporations since there is no concept of involuntary servitude that deals with artificial persons.

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by KaosTheory

The key word is "presumption". It doesn't matter if you got your copy or not. The IRS got their copy and that is all that matters. The w-2 is treated as evidence of taxable gains and is all they need to get the administrative ball rolling.

It would be wise to rebut the "presumption".

[PANICPASS]

BobT12 wrote:

It would be wise to rebut the "presumption"

And "what if" you didn't rebut the presumption?

What if you send an Affidavit of Probable Cause [for various crimes] to IRS employees you believe committed a crime against you and they never rebutted that Affidavit? What are the chances anything is going to happen to them for not rebutting your Affidavit?

[PANICPASS]

And besides, IRS doesn't rebut anything, so why should we have to, or feel we have to? They never have rebutted anything, and they most likely never will.

[UGA Lawdog]

If you want to know where in the law it says federal income taxes must be paid, sections 1, 61 and 63 of title 26 of the U.S. Code is a good place to start.

And there are plenty of places on the web, with citations to statutes and case law, that explain the ins and outs of federal income taxes.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf

and

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html

are good places to start. However, it's my experience that people like you don't like, and in many cases refuse to accept, the answers.


The Lawdog