|
My purse got stolen from my car at the Avalon lot (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| TSG |
I don't think Karen parked in the Valet. I think it was the same parking lot I parked in, on Argyle. Either her friend didn't lock the door right and/or someone was watching and saw her put her purse in the trunk and maybe the trunk didn't close properly.
Sucks that stuff like that happens and sometimes it's not the money that matters but the other things you have of sentimental value or things that can't be replaced.
I never ever take my purse when going out. If and when I do take my purse, it's because it's getting off the car with me.
Hopefully those RED envelopes have an evil spell for anyone that acquired them the wrong way.... STEALING! :whip: |
|
|
| Orbital32 |
| quote: | Originally posted by gehzumteufel
lol whered you get that? i have only heard that on ONE thing and that was this video that was on google video about how personal income tax is illegal. |
I was involuntary volunteered (won't get into that :p) to do taxes at one point. Actually i was literally rated one of the best volunteers in the country! (no joke, i received a certificate from the IRS) But illegal income has to be reported. There are many people who gain illegal profits. They don't list where the "gains" game from, but they will list the money made. In the occupation line you can legally list "5th Amendment." They do this since there are times when the authorities can prosecute easliliy for the "income" that was not claimed.
Authorities CANNOT use the income tax return as grounds to prosecute or gain a search warrant. Its illegal to NOT produce an income tax return, its illegal to NOT pay income on illegal activities. |
|
|
| Orbital32 |
actually found a link :D
| quote: | In Garner v. United States, 424 U.S. 648 (1976) the defendant was convicted in connection with a conspiracy to "fix” sporting contests and to transmit illegal bets. During the trial the prosecutor introduced, as evidence, the taxpayer's Federal income tax returns for various years. In one return the taxpayer had showed his occupation to be “professional gambler.” In various returns the taxpayer had reported income from “gambling” or “wagering.” The prosecution used this to help contradict the taxpayer's argument that his involvement was innocent. The taxpayer tried unsuccessfully to keep the prosecutor from introducing the tax returns as evidence, arguing that since the taxpayer was legally required to report the illegal income on the returns, he was being compelled to be a witness against himself. The Supreme Court agreed that he was legally required to report the illegal income on the returns, but ruled that the privilege against self-incrimination still did not apply. The Court stated that "if a witness under compulsion to testify makes disclosures instead of claiming the privilege, the Government has not 'compelled' him to incriminate himself."
Sullivan and Garner are viewed by some legal scholars as standing, in tandem, for the proposition that on a required Federal income tax return a taxpayer would probably have to report the amount of the illegal income, but might validly claim the privilege by labeling the item "Fifth Amendment" (instead of "illegal gambling income," "illegal drug sales," etc.) |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_...ome_tax_returns |
|
|
| gehzumteufel |
| personal income tax is still technically illegal. |
|
|
| Orbital32 |
not according to the 16th amdendment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixtee...es_Constitution
| quote: | The U.S. Constitution provides (in part):
The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises [ . . . ] but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States [ . . . ][1]
The Constitution also provides (in part):
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers [ . . . . ][2]
The Constitution further provides:
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.[3]
The power to impose taxes (whether deemed direct or indirect taxes) is granted by Article I, section 8, clause 1. Indirect taxes (or "excises," in the parlance of the text of the Constitution) are required to be geographically uniform, according to Article I, section 8, clause 1 and the court decisions interpreting that provision (see Knowlton v. Moore[4] and Flint v. Stone Tracy Co.[5]).
Until the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, all direct taxes were required to be apportioned among the states according to each state's population, per Article I, section 2, clause 3 and Article I, section 9, clause 4. This essentially meant that the dollar amount of direct taxes imposed on the taxpayers in any given state was required to bear a relationship to the total dollar amount of direct taxes imposed in the entire nation that was equal to the ratio of that state's population to the total population of the nation. |
|
|
|
| Junior Chavez |
| quote: | Originally posted by Orbital32
if you find out who did, report them to the IRS for tax evasion. :) Hell, they got capone with that! |
taxes have been optional since WWII.
Fact: There is no law in the history of the united states of america that states INCOME is a taxable item. The IRS till this day has not won ONE single case versus the thousands of citizens that took their disputes to the supreme court. |
|
|
| Orbital32 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Junior Chavez
taxes have been optional since WWII.
Fact: There is no law in the history of the united states of america that states INCOME is a taxable item. The IRS till this day has not won ONE single case versus the thousands of citizens that took their disputes to the supreme court. |
| quote: | This statute is an example of an exception to the general rule under U.S. law that "ignorance of the law or a mistake of law is no defense to criminal prosecution." Under the Cheek Doctrine (Cheek v. United States[15]), the United States Supreme Court ruled that a genuine, good faith belief that one is not violating the Federal tax law (such as a mistake based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the tax law itself) would be a valid defense to a charge of "willfulness" ("willfulness" in this case being knowledge or awareness that one is violating the tax law itself), even though that belief is irrational or unreasonable. On the surface, this rule might appear to be of some comfort to tax protesters who assert, for example, that "wages are not income."[16] However, merely asserting that one has such a good faith belief is not determinative in court; under the American legal system the trier of fact (the jury, or the trial judge in a non-jury trial) decides whether the defendant really has the good faith belief he or she claims. With respect to willfulness, the placing of the burden of proof on the prosecution is of limited utility to a defendant that the jury simply does not believe.
A further stumbling block for tax protesters is found in the Cheek Doctrine with respect to arguments about "constitutionality." Under the Doctrine, the mistaken belief that the Sixteenth Amendment was not properly ratified and the mistaken belief that the Federal income tax is otherwise unconstitutional are not treated as beliefs that one is not violating the "tax law" — i.e., these errors are not treated as being caused by the "complexity of the tax law."
In the Cheek case the Court stated:
Claims that some of the provisions of the tax code are unconstitutional are submissions of a different order. They do not arise from innocent mistakes caused by the complexity of the Internal Revenue Code. Rather, they reveal full knowledge of the provisions at issue and a studied conclusion, however wrong, that those provisions are invalid and unenforceable. Thus, in this case, Cheek paid his taxes for years, but after attending various seminars and based on his own study, he concluded that the income tax laws could not constitutionally require him to pay a tax.
The Court continued:
We do not believe that Congress contemplated that such a taxpayer, without risking criminal prosecution, could ignore the duties imposed upon him by the Internal Revenue Code and refuse to utilize the mechanisms provided by Congress to present his claims of invalidity to the courts and to abide by their decisions. There is no doubt that Cheek, from year to year, was free to pay the tax that the law purported to require, file for a refund and, if denied, present his claims of invalidity, constitutional or otherwise, to the courts. See 26 U.S.C. 7422. Also, without paying the tax, he could have challenged claims of tax deficiencies in the Tax Court, 6213, with the right to appeal to a higher court if unsuccessful. 7482(a)(1). Cheek took neither course in some years, and, when he did, was unwilling to accept the outcome. As we see it, he is in no position to claim that his good-faith belief about the validity of the Internal Revenue Code negates willfulness or provides a defense to criminal prosecution under 7201 and 7203. Of course, Cheek was free in this very case to present his claims of invalidity and have them adjudicated, but, like defendants in criminal cases in other contexts who "willfully" refuse to comply with the duties placed upon them by the law, he must take the risk of being wrong.[17]
The Court ruled that such beliefs — even if held in good faith — are not a defense to a charge of willfulness. By pointing out that arguments about constitutionality of Federal income tax laws "reveal full knowledge of the provisions at issue and a studied conclusion, however wrong, that those provisions are invalid and unenforceable," the Supreme Court may have been impliedly warning that asserting such "constitutional" arguments (in open court or otherwise) might actually help the prosecutor prove willfulness.[18]
|
what was that again? |
|
|
| Junior Chavez |
[[ LINK REMOVED ]]
The 16th Amendment states that income is a direct item and is not Aportioned.
Here's a Partial list of items that are taxed according to the constitution...
Accounts Receivable Tax
Automobile Registration Tax
Building Permit Tax
Capital Gains Tax
CDL License Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Court Fines (Indirect Taxes)
Dog License Tax
Estate Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax
(42 Cents Per Gallon)
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax Interest Expense (Tax on the money)
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges (Tax on top of tax)
IRS Penalties (Tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Local Income Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Parking Meters
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Septic Permit Tax
Service Charge Taxes
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Taxes (Truckers)
Sales Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
Road Toll Booth Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Tax
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Non-Recurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Toll Bridge Tax
Toll Tunnel Tax
Traffic Fines
Trailer Registration Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax
All these are Aportioned taxes and are legal according to the constitution.
"The Federal Reserve Act" was not rightfully passed. but don't be alarmed... there is nothing to see here... watch mtv... ride dirt bikes and consume alcohol... go back to sleep. :) |
|
|
| Orbital32 |
| how about citing a google video... cite court cases? hmmm? |
|
|
| Junior Chavez |
| hehe, yeah let's cite google. that'll re-write history. :) |
|
|
| gerard6975 |
| quote: | Originally posted by lex400sc
on a lower note, i lost a couple grand in cash over the weekend. happy new year indeed :( |
did you lose the moolah at the tables in vegas? |
|
|
|
|
