Freedom To Fascism - Part 1

UNDER CONSTRUCTION

Analysis

Freedom to Fascism

"The income tax is not legal because it would be a direct tax and is not apportioned as the constitution demands"

False The 16th amendment changed the constitution to remove the apportionment requirement.[1]

Freedom to Fascism

John Turner - IRS Agent: I really expected, of course there is a law that you can point to in a law book or code that requires you to file a tax return, of course there is … 3 and a half months later I could not find the statute that clearly made a person liable, at least not me,

(Similar quotes from Joe Bannister[3] and Sherry Jackson, also former IRS agents.)

True … that John Turner, IRS agent, apparently couldn't find the tax law that imposes an income tax

False … that the law does not exist

True …that anyone else could easily find it by just looking it up on the internet under the U.S. Code Title 26 [2]

TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter A > PART I > § 1
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of
…every married individual…
…every surviving spouse…
…every head of a household…
…Unmarried individuals…

Web Skeptic At this point, the viewer may be confused by the contradiction. How can this be?

The portion of the film is advocating the beliefs of a group sometimes called "tax protesters". However, a more accurate term would be "tax law deniers". Protesting taxes is a long American tradition and protected under the 1st amendment which guarantees the "right to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

"Tax Law Deniers" refuse to even acknowledge the law exists. Or, if it does exist, it is invalid for a number of arguments. The general arguments for and against are well-document elsewhere. One of the most organized explanations can be found at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester]

Freedom to Fascism

Sherry Jackson: "…We-the-people foundation… offered a reward of $50,000 to anyone that could prove the law..

True and so far it has never paid.

Explanation: The reward, offer by a Bill Conklin, had a catch: the sole arbiter would be … Bill Conklin. When sued in court, the court ruled in Conklins favor that, regardless of other merits, including that phrase in the rewards protects Conklin from ever having to pay. It's a no-lose arrangement for Conklin. [4]

Freedom to Fascism

:

References:

Joe Banister

Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License