End of the IRS??

[F. Marc de Piolenc]

Hey folks - you need to keep in mind that the "not ratified" argument is
not what will be discussed, and for obvious reasons. The IRS is not
competent to comment on whether their marching orders were or were not
properly ratified by the People. It is the actual content of their
statutory authority that is in question.

What WILL be discussed is the simple fact that, to make the current
internal revenue code constitutional (two previous attempts having been
overturned by the courts), those framing it simply omitted to require
people to do any action that government had no authority to require.
Instead, taxes are collected from multitudes who don't owe them by
suckering them into "voluntary" self-assessment. Once they have declared
themselves "taxpayers" - usually by declaring themselves "US citizens"
(federal subjects who have no Constitutional or Common Law protection)
on an SSN application - the courts use tricks of equity contract law
(which apparently doesn't require knowing consent) to force them to file
information returns and pay tax. Various strategies for undoing the
damage have been tried with varying degrees of success. Irwin Schiff is
the most successful of the strategists, having successfully practiced
what he preaches for decades.

The best strategy for most individuals is not to rely on courts (staffed
by beneficiaries of the fraudulent tax), but simply to drop out of the
system. Nobody pays any attention to notices of SSN revocation, but if
you simply stop using the one assigned you - that does work. Few
employers have the courage to refuse an IRS Notice of Levy, however
obviously illegal it is - so employ yourself. And so on. As time passes,
Atlas shrugs; the smartest and most productive get out first, leaving
sheeple as both beneficiaries and sole contributors to the fraudulent
system that they inhabit. It has been happening in my lifetime: people
who, forty years ago, would have had no choice but corporate employment
with all the liabilities that implies, now would not consider working
for anyone but themselves.

Hang 'em high? Why bother. Make 'em ineffectual!

Marc de Piolenc

Petro wrote:
> 
> On Monday, January 7, 2002, at 09:00 PM, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> 
> > I've never quite understood how the
> > amendment-not-ratified-properly-in-1913
> > argument is supposed to play out.