Aaron Russo Tribute - Freedom To Facism edit by Dario Busch

http://dariobusch.com YOU DONT HAVE TO PAY FEDERAL INCOME TAX BECAUSE THERE IS NO LAW THAT SAYS YOU HAVE TO. With Aarons permision, here is a quick edit (under 10 minutes) that covers the principals of america freedom to facism tax cut federal reserve irs nwo amero nau cfr war.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• america
• freedom
• to
• facism
• tax
• cut
• federal
• reserve
• irs
• nwo
• amero
• nau
• cfr
• war
• dario
• busch
• wisdom
• community
• advice
• dating
• personals
• random
• video
• blog

[hitlerscow]

@Godsmack0Believe your argument would be more compelling if you spelled supreme correctly

[RetSquid]

@Godsmack0Believe

Nice try, but wrong.

Here is what SCOTUS really said:

"It is clear on the face of this text that it does not purport to confer power to levy income taxes in a generic sense,***AN AUTHORITY ALREADY POSSESSED AND NEVER QUESTIONED.***

Brushaber v. UPRR Company

[Godsmack0Believe]

1894: Congress tried an act on income tax to the surpriem court, and the surpriem court said it is Unconstitutional, and when the Surpriem court says its unconstitutional, and then Congress tried AGAIN in 1913, they got the same answer, and if they dont have in 1894, and they didnt get it in 1913, then its unconstitutional, end of story, simple as that. Says THE SURPRIEM COUR

[RetSquid]

@Godsmack0Believe

No, it is absolutely madatory, it is the law that you have to pay income tax.

Any assertion that the payment of income taxes is voluntary is without merit. It is without question that the payment of income taxes is not voluntary. [citations omitted] The assertion that the filing of an income tax return is voluntary is, likewise, frivolous.

United States v. Hartman, 915 F.Supp. 1227 (M.D.Fla. 1996)

[Godsmack0Believe]

In a way your right but at the same time it is VOLUNTARY, Not mandetary.

[RetSquid]

@Godsmack0Believe

1) Correct, Congress ALREADY had the power to tax incomes.  [Bowers, Collector v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170, 173-174 (1926).]

2) The 16th WAS ratified. [U.S. v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. den. 107 S.Ct. 187 (1986)]

3) WHAT "previous Amendment"??? (Hint: there isn't one)

[Godsmack0Believe]

Actually no, the 16th Amendment did not give Congress any new Taxing Powers. This was ruled in a supreme court decision. Not to mention after a full investigation it was not properly ratified. And even it it was the 16th Amendment does not trump the previous Amendment concerning Income taxes. The Amendment would first have to be repealed.

[RetSquid]

@Godsmack0Believe

Wrong, the Constitution ALLOWS it, so it is Constitutional.

[Godsmack0Believe]

Its not constitutional. The constitution doesnt demand it, therefore they are violating the constitution

[RetSquid]

@DavidStar717

You are wrong, laws and statutes are the same thing.

This is Title 26, the Internal Revenue Code, it is law passed by Congress and is listed in the Statutes at Large. It imposes an income tax and compels people to pay it.