The PRA Part 2

[Shoonra]

If -- and I think it would be impossible -- a federal court anywhere supported the PRA argument, the case would undoubtedly wind up in the US Supreme Court, because there would then be contradictory holdings by the courts of different circuits (so far, all the federal courts have rejected the argument), and the Supreme Court would have to resolve the issue.

If this were to happen, I'd bet that Congress would rush through some remedial legislation, retroactively creating a PRA exception for IRS forms (at least up to now).

But, as I said, I don't think any of this will happen.

[freeindeed]

Originally Posted by PANICPASS

I support the PRA position. The reason I do not believe it will prevail is this:

The judges of what we know today, as our “court system” will sometimes rule, seemingly in direct contradiction to the Constitution, established rules of procedure, and legal precedent. The reason for such actions is based on “doctrines.” Judges consider the complaints before them under the “Chaos Doctrine.” Even if you are right, the judge must dismiss your complaint, if it would undermine, or destroy the fiat monetary system, and the banking system, which controls the “credit” economy, which operates on “debt.”

When a judge is presented with a “money” issue (challenging the whole banking system), he is sitting, as an administrative agent of the trustee of the 1933 bankruptcy, and must not rule in your favor, and must not allow this to go to a jury, because that would create “Chaos.” If you present the “money” issue as a challenge to the whole system, you will not be successful.

This Chaos Doctrine would apply to the IRS, as well.

The system will just institute another way to collect revenue. This is about getting rid of the IRS, not revenue. This is not about taxes. It is about penalties for not filing a bootleg form. You are making another assumption that this is about taxes and it is not. People just cannot let go of the wages are not income, or the 16th Amendment was never ratified and all the other failed arguments regarding taxes. Wrap your head around the PRA, which is about PENALTIES. Congress passed the PRA to protect the public and they made it clear the IRS is subject to the PRA. Albeit, you get rid of the penalties and the IRS has no more teeth. That means another way to collect revenue will have to be installed. What you think they can't do that? IT IS NOT ABOUT TAXES. IT IS ABOUT PENALTIES. I figure if I say it enough and large enough it will sink in. IT IS NOT ABOUT TAXES IT IS ABOUT PENALTIES

[freeindeed]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

If -- and I think it would be impossible -- a federal court anywhere supported the PRA argument, the case would undoubtedly wind up in the US Supreme Court, because there would then be contradictory holdings by the courts of different circuits (so far, all the federal courts have rejected the argument), and the Supreme Court would have to resolve the issue.

If this were to happen, I'd bet that Congress would rush through some remedial legislation, retroactively creating a PRA exception for IRS forms (at least up to now).

But, as I said, I don't think any of this will happen.

Take your BS somewhere else Shoonra. Every cite I have seen does not regard the "1040" form but only the instructions. Even Dawes shot down the "statute origin theory." Are we going to start this BS again.

What a laugh!! Congress specifically wrote the PRA so that there would be no question that the IRS is not exempt. Go away Shoonra, back to your library. I think you mother is calling you.

[Backbone]

Freeindeed - it has been my experience that it is very difficult for someone to wrap their mind around the one principle of the PRA dealing with penalties and not taxes. I was trying to explain this to someone today and went at it six different directions but they still did not get it. People for some reason can only think in taxes and can't link the significance to the lack of penalties. They think that the PRA/OMB is an attempt at the silver bullet and has something to do with not paying taxes. I finally gave up.

Originally Posted by freeindeed

The system will just institute another way to collect revenue. This is about getting rid of the IRS, not revenue. This is not about taxes. It is about penalties for not filing a bootleg form. You are making another assumption that this is about taxes and it is not. People just cannot let go of the wages are not income, or the 16th Amendment was never ratified and all the other failed arguments regarding taxes. Wrap your head around the PRA, which is about PENALTIES. Congress passed the PRA to protect the public and they made it clear the IRS is subject to the PRA. Albeit, you get rid of the penalties and the IRS has no more teeth. That means another way to collect revenue will have to be installed. What you think they can't do that? IT IS NOT ABOUT TAXES. IT IS ABOUT PENALTIES. I figure if I say it enough and large enough it will sink in. IT IS NOT ABOUT TAXES IT IS ABOUT PENALTIES

[PANICPASS]

It is about taxes, because if it wasn't, you would not have suggested, "the system will just have to institute another way to collect revenue." Inasmuch as you want to believe the case is not about taxes, the case does in fact challenge the whole tax system.

I'll be back to this thread when the appellate court makes its ruling. In the meantime, my crystal ball has better things to do.

[freeindeed]

Originally Posted by Backbone

Freeindeed - it has been my experience that it is very difficult for someone to wrap their mind around the one principle of the PRA dealing with penalties and not taxes. I was trying to explain this to someone today and went at it six different directions but they still did not get it. People for some reason can only think in taxes and can't link the significance to the lack of penalties. They think that the PRA/OMB is an attempt at the silver bullet and has something to do with not paying taxes. I finally gave up.

You are certainly correct about people not being able to see this. That is very evident from PANICPASS' post. This is why people lose in court, because they see this as being about taxes. The real PRA issue is missed. It is all about penalties and being penalized for filing bootleg forms, which under the PRA is fraud. Of course with you I am speaking to the choir. Oh well, Lindsey knows what he is doing and we will soon see what happens with the apellate court.

BTW Backbone, glad to have you on the forum

[dawgwise]

Originally Posted by PANICPASS

It is about taxes, because if it wasn't, you would not have suggested, "the system will just have to institute another way to collect revenue." Inasmuch as you want to believe the case is not about taxes, the case does in fact challenge the whole tax system.

I'll be back to this thread when the appellate court makes its ruling. In the meantime, my crystal ball has better things to do.

To apply a penalty upon someone for not filing the wrong (bootleg) form is really an odd thing wouldn’t you think?
The charge is that somebody DIDN'T FILE THE WRONG FORM!
Now that sounds like the correct thing to do to me, to not file the wrong form, yet people are being penalized for not filing the wrong form. That is what the case is about, as I understand it. Right or wrong, agree or disagree with the PRA that is what the case is about.

In a general sense I can understand what PANICPASS is printing (quoted above) for in a general sense someone could see the issue as taxation because the 1040 form is a tax form...WAIT...STOP RIGHT THERE…wasn't it stated that the 1040 is Not a tax form? If the 1040 were not a tax form, the case is NOT about taxation...hmmm....

FYI - on the penalty protestor site is the recent (April) 2006 Revenue Bulletin wherein they plainly cite the 1980 (the 1980) PRA as “their” issue.

Lindsey Springer cites the 1995 (the 1995) as “his” issue.

Two different PRA’s with distinct and different wording.

Until it’s final outcome, the issue remains:
People are Penalized for NOT FILING THE WRONG FORM!

[freeindeed]

Originally Posted by PANICPASS

It is about taxes, because if it wasn't, you would not have suggested, "the system will just have to institute another way to collect revenue." Inasmuch as you want to believe the case is not about taxes, the case does in fact challenge the whole tax system.

I'll be back to this thread when the appellate court makes its ruling. In the meantime, my crystal ball has better things to do.

I will try to put this another way. The IRS says you must give them infomation so they collect that information on a "1040." Under the PRA that collection of information (1040 form) has to be approved before it can be used to collect the infomation from the public. There are strict guidlines that must be followed. The PRA says that if those strict guidlines are not met then you cannot be penalized for not filing the collection of information (1040) because it is "bootleg." The IRS 1040 form does not meet those standards for approval, yet the IRS requires you to file it and if you don't that is willful failure to file. They threaten if you do not you will go to jail, for what? Not filing the form. People are going to jail for not filing the form, which is a penalty for not doing something that you are not required to do by the IRS' own admission. Remember the PRA says there can be no PENALTY for not submitting a collection of information (1040) that is bootleg. So it has nothing to do with a tax. It has everything to do with the collection of information (1040) that is bootleg. If the PRA says you do not have to file a bootleg collection of information (1040) you cannot be jailed (PENALIZED) for not doing so.

If the above does not clarify what the PRA is about then I am at a loss to explain it.

[dawgwise]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

If -- and I think it would be impossible -- a federal court anywhere supported the PRA argument, the case would undoubtedly wind up in the US Supreme Court, because there would then be contradictory holdings by the courts of different circuits (so far, all the federal courts have rejected the argument), and the Supreme Court would have to resolve the issue.

If this were to happen, I'd bet that Congress would rush through some remedial legislation, retroactively creating a PRA exception for IRS forms (at least up to now).

But, as I said, I don't think any of this will happen.

Ahh...more words on ETHICS - It's the ethical thing to do, make laws retroactive to cover our butts.
Ruin lives based on non-law and gloat that we can retroactively fix it so their lives remain ruined.

Ex Post Facto

"Guilty as charged! It is the ruling of this court that even though you didn't have to file the wrong form we hold that because you didn't file the wrong form you are nonetheless guilty for it is the opinion of the court that Congress screwed up and therefore you are held liable for their screwup, so screw you."

Thanks a bunch for the "I'd bet" portion of the post...you failed to mention HOW MUCH YOU LAYING ON THE LINE...IS IT WORTH YOURS OR THE LIFE OF SOMEONE YOU LOVE? PLACE YOUR BET!

[dawgwise]

Would everyone please quit not filing the wrong forms?
Would everyone please begin to not file the wrong forms"
Would everyone please not file the wrong form?
Would everyone please not care what form they file?
Would everyone please volunteer to FILE the not wrong form, even if it is the wrong form?

Now that you have not filed the wrong form -
YOU ARE GUILTY AS CHARGED.