I'm, wondering, given all the fraud relating to our tax dollars, how easy or difficult it would be to convict a citizen for tax evasion in today's environment. Especially if the defense is: I was so sickened by all the fraud and waste of my hard earned tax dollars, I did not want to any longer contribute to it.
In a jury trial, I think the odds are pretty good at least one juror would not convict on this basis. What do you think?
I think part of the op is that we need to wake up people to the tax issue. We shouldn't have an income tax and we didn't for most of the country's history. The globalists changed it in 1913 and it's only gotten worse since then. The IRS won't stand a chance if even a small % of us revolt.
No, that defense routinely fails jury trials, which only happen when a person makes enough money (high six figures) and is recalcitrant for enough years (about five) to warrant the jury trial. The ordinary person shouldn't engage knowing tax evasion in any case: he should use the administrative steps permitted to keep his record compliant with what he knows the laws to be. The IRS doesn't press to jury trial unless they believe they've correctly stacked the deck: others will be prosecuted by other means (including lying fees) or even by ignorance when the potential receipts are too small (which many small players mistake for victory but which is only the IRS biding its time on prosecution).
See my separate comment about moral steps of obedience and disobedience.
Just be careful what you say, if you're forced to correspond with the beaurocracy. Just like with an insurance company. They sit back and let you talk, incriminating yourself. Its a matter of jurisdiction, and they have none over a sovereign human man or woman. They have jurisdiction over your [ALL CAPS NAME] but nothing more. We are humans, not corporate entities. I will also not be filing this year, and I'll be talking to my HR rep here as well to get my paperwork fixed. Which will raise some eyebrows but I dont care.
They do seek to incriminate you, but the capitalized name is not the nexus of the scheme and is a distraction that allows them to scoop up people who argue it. The nexus is that income tax is in the nature of an excise, and excises do not apply to rights, which include the right to exchange labor for pay. Therefore it is necessary to reject suggestions that earnings were subject to excise if legally they were not. The details are easy to follow for those interested in asking questions.
Yes, the exchange for my labor is not income, its my property. The legal versus lawful argument is kind of where I was going. Interesting comment nonethel3ss. Thank you
I'm, wondering, given all the fraud relating to our tax dollars, how easy or difficult it would be to convict a citizen for tax evasion in today's environment. Especially if the defense is: I was so sickened by all the fraud and waste of my hard earned tax dollars, I did not want to any longer contribute to it.
In a jury trial, I think the odds are pretty good at least one juror would not convict on this basis. What do you think?
I think part of the op is that we need to wake up people to the tax issue. We shouldn't have an income tax and we didn't for most of the country's history. The globalists changed it in 1913 and it's only gotten worse since then. The IRS won't stand a chance if even a small % of us revolt.
No, that defense routinely fails jury trials, which only happen when a person makes enough money (high six figures) and is recalcitrant for enough years (about five) to warrant the jury trial. The ordinary person shouldn't engage knowing tax evasion in any case: he should use the administrative steps permitted to keep his record compliant with what he knows the laws to be. The IRS doesn't press to jury trial unless they believe they've correctly stacked the deck: others will be prosecuted by other means (including lying fees) or even by ignorance when the potential receipts are too small (which many small players mistake for victory but which is only the IRS biding its time on prosecution).
See my separate comment about moral steps of obedience and disobedience.
Just be careful what you say, if you're forced to correspond with the beaurocracy. Just like with an insurance company. They sit back and let you talk, incriminating yourself. Its a matter of jurisdiction, and they have none over a sovereign human man or woman. They have jurisdiction over your [ALL CAPS NAME] but nothing more. We are humans, not corporate entities. I will also not be filing this year, and I'll be talking to my HR rep here as well to get my paperwork fixed. Which will raise some eyebrows but I dont care.
They do seek to incriminate you, but the capitalized name is not the nexus of the scheme and is a distraction that allows them to scoop up people who argue it. The nexus is that income tax is in the nature of an excise, and excises do not apply to rights, which include the right to exchange labor for pay. Therefore it is necessary to reject suggestions that earnings were subject to excise if legally they were not. The details are easy to follow for those interested in asking questions.
Yes, the exchange for my labor is not income, its my property. The legal versus lawful argument is kind of where I was going. Interesting comment nonethel3ss. Thank you