Quatloos is a Marxist Front!

[Famspear]

Gold, part of your confusion about how the law works may be based on limited exposure to law.

Look, if your argument were legally valid, then lots and lots of laws would be unconstitutional. The Federal Bankruptcy laws require that a debtor disclose things that might incriminate the debtor. That doesn't make the law itself invalid. It works the same here as anywhere else: YOU SIMPLY DECLINE TO ANSWER THE QUESTION, CITING THE FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE. That doesn't mean that the law is invalid, or that you aren't required to file a schedule of assets and liabilities with the Bankruptcy Court, or a statement of financial affairs. It just means that ON THE SPECIFIC QUESTION OR QUESTIONS, you claim the privilege.

Think, man.

[Judge Roy Bean]

...

Think, man.

Famspear, remember that dogs chase cars; doesn't mean they'd be able to drive.

[Famspear]

...

Think, man.

Famspear, remember that dogs chase cars; doesn't mean they'd be able to drive.

Yeah, but we can hope......

[LPC]

If I am in fact breaking the law, as you claim, then please show me the law, that Congress wrote, showing clearly that I am required by law to file a 1040..

It took me all of thirty seconds to find the law online that requires me to file a tax return. What's your problem, no one ever bother to show you how Google works?

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html ... -000-.html

No, it doesn't state "Form 1040" precisely, but so what?

The regulations state "Form 1040" precisely:

Treas. Reg. § 1.6012-1(a)(6) provides that "Form 1040 is prescribed for general use in making the return required under this paragraph."

[Brandybuck]

Please answer my reply to Operative which is directly above your post.

You made a demand: show me the law. I provided a link for you. So did other people. But you ignore it by CHANGING THE F*CKING SUBJECT!

[Imalawman]

Tps demand respect, but there is no natural law that requires anyone to pretend to respect a ludicrous assertion. I forget who said it on here, but it was said that arguing with a TP is like making the statement that the sky is blue only to have someone claim that, in fact, the sky is actually a water buffalo. Now, we could agree to disagree about the shade of blue or the degree of cloudiness - those disagreements I would respect. But when someone makes a statement so outlandish as to go beyond the realm of reason, I have no compulsion to pretend that their statement is anything but stupid, idiotic, and naive.

Unfortunately, GSE, most of your arguments I find similar to claiming the sky is a water buffalo.

[Prof]

Tps demand respect, but there is no natural law that requires anyone to pretend to respect a ludicrous assertion. I forget who said it on here, but it was said that arguing with a TP is like making the statement that the sky is blue only to have someone claim that, in fact, the sky is actually a water buffalo. Now, we could agree to disagree about the shade of blue or the degree of cloudiness - those disagreements I would respect. But when someone makes a statement so outlandish as to go beyond the realm of reason, I have no compulsion to pretend that their statement is anything but stupid, idiotic, and naive.

Unfortunately, GSE, most of your arguments I find similar to claiming the sky is a water buffalo.

It is not a water buffalo. It's turles, turtles all the way down.

[Evil Squirrel Overlord]

Well done Quatloosers! You have distracted another protester long enough for me to slip Communist propaganda pamphlets in the "free information" rack at the Motel 6. Long live the revolution!

[SteveSy]

EDIT: In other words, Gold, if you're worried that you might incriminate yourself on a federal income tax return, that's not a legally valid excuse for not filing the return, or for lying on the return. If you earned $100,000 in illegal drug sales, simply report the income and label it "FIFTH AMENDMENT."

I see the legal logic in that. However doesn't that defeat the purpose of the fifth to begin with?
The government could, using the same reasoning, create a list for everyone to fill out that asks a laundry list of questions that provide evidence of guilt for a slew of federal crimes. If the person refuses to answer, asserting his constitutional privilege, then its obvious the government should investigate that area. They now have probable cause because the only way you can assert that privilege is if in fact you have done something that might be considered illegal lol. If he answers it correctly then file charges immediately. I seriously doubt that people who created the constitution would have agreed a form requiring, under threat of punishment, all of the people's financial information would have been constitutional. I'm quite sure it would have been considering extremely tyrannical, considering not even the British would have attempted to something like that on a colony wide scale.

IMO, and I realize you won't agree, but the entire purpose of the 4th and 5th amendment was to protect against things like the 1040. The British used to go around demanding to see the books and records of merchants in order to tax them or find evidence of black market activity. The colonists despised this activity and its the very reason the 4th reads like it does. Are we supposed to believe a form directed to every citizen demanding the same thing, under threat of imprisonment, would have been considered ok? Whatever.....I've got some nice beach front property in Arizona to sell you at a cheap price if you do think so.

No sense in quoting the Supreme Court. I realize what they said, but on a common sense level its pretty clear to at least me and a few others things like the 1040 are clearly unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court has also provided us with case like Dredd Scott, Wickard v. Filburn, the forced internment of American's with Japanese ancestry, and a slew of others. I'm not so confident they'll defend our constitutional rights when needed.

[Judge Roy Bean]

...

No sense in quoting the Supreme Court. I realize what they said, but on a common sense level its pretty clear to at least me and a few others things like the 1040 are clearly unconstitutional.

Unfortunately, "common sense" does not apply to taxation; it's a political animal.

[Randall]

GASE:
Have you been shown the law that requires you to pay sales taxes?
Do you pay them?

Have you been shown the law that requires you pay to property (real and/or personal) taxes?
Do you pay them?

Have you been shown the law that requires you to pay gas taxes when you buy gas?
Do you pay them?

Have you been show the law that requires you to stop at stop signs?
Do you stop?

Have you been shown the law that makes murder a crime?
Who have you killed?

[Evil Squirrel Overlord]

EDIT: In other words, Gold, if you're worried that you might incriminate yourself on a federal income tax return, that's not a legally valid excuse for not filing the return, or for lying on the return. If you earned $100,000 in illegal drug sales, simply report the income and label it "FIFTH AMENDMENT."

I see the legal logic in that. However doesn't that defeat the purpose of the fifth to begin with?
The government could, using the same reasoning, create a list for everyone to fill out that asks a laundry list of questions that provide evidence of guilt for a slew of federal crimes. If the person refuses to answer, asserting his constitutional privilege, then its obvious the government should investigate that area.

Actually no. Invoking the fifth is not reason for probable cause. I'm sure someone can find the cases.

[ASITStands]

GASE:
Have you been shown the law that requires you to pay sales taxes?
Do you pay them?

Have you been shown the law that requires you pay to property (real and/or personal) taxes?
Do you pay them?

Have you been shown the law that requires you to pay gas taxes when you buy gas?
Do you pay them?

Have you been show the law that requires you to stop at stop signs?
Do you stop?

Have you been shown the law that makes murder a crime?
Who have you killed?

Too much common sense! Cannot compute.

[SteveSy]

Actually no. Invoking the fifth is not reason for probable cause. I'm sure someone can find the cases.

Even if that is true, there's no doubt they would consider that reason for further investigation, even if not legally cited as the reason. Let's try and stay in tandem with reality.

[Imalawman]

Actually no. Invoking the fifth is not reason for probable cause. I'm sure someone can find the cases.

Even if that is true, there's no doubt they would consider that reason for further investigation, even if not legally cited as the reason. Let's try and stay in tandem with reality.

Reality?! When was the last time the IRS or, hell, any fed. agency, sent out a letter asking for information, randomly, received a 5th amendment response and then proceeded to investigate intensely? I suggest that is not a realistic hypothetical.

Your aversion to the requirement to report income leaves only one alternative - not to have the income tax. It would be wholly unenforceable without the requirement that everyone must report their income - no matter the source. Here's another thought - quit breaking the law and you won't have to put down the 5th amendment on your tax return.

[grixit]

"purview"

[MSA]

Actually no. Invoking the fifth is not reason for probable cause. I'm sure someone can find the cases.

Even if that is true, there's no doubt they would consider that reason for further investigation, even if not legally cited as the reason. Let's try and stay in tandem with reality.

Irony, thy name is SteveSy.

[Evil Squirrel Overlord]

The "signing under penalty of perjury" language is NOT the sole parvenue of the IRS. It appears on insurance applications, loan applications, credit card applications - and almost nobody worries about it there.

It is, for lack of a better term, CYA language. And, it seems that the only folks who get their panties in a bunch over such language are those who either have blatantly lied, or are planning to do so.

And those who are masters at scamming the system, never worry about such trifles. After all, when they get caught they will have plausible denial.

[SteveSy]

Actually no. Invoking the fifth is not reason for probable cause. I'm sure someone can find the cases.

Even if that is true, there's no doubt they would consider that reason for further investigation, even if not legally cited as the reason. Let's try and stay in tandem with reality.

Reality?! When was the last time the IRS or, hell, any fed. agency, sent out a letter asking for information, randomly, received a 5th amendment response and then proceeded to investigate intensely? I suggest that is not a realistic hypothetical.

I doubt many people invoke the 5th on their tax return, to do so would guarantee investigation. Instead they just lie. btw, what does randomness have to do with it? Are you saying the colonists would have been perfectly happy if the British asked for the books and records of everyone instead of a few? I can see them arguing now, I want my books and records demanded too you evil bastards, its just not fair you're only doing some people!

Your aversion to the requirement to report income leaves only one alternative - not to have the income tax. It would be wholly unenforceable without the requirement that everyone must report their income - no matter the source. Here's another thought - quit breaking the law and you won't have to put down the 5th amendment on your tax return.

The British could have said the same thing. Quit breaking the law and you won't have anything to worry about. As far as the notion that it would be wholly unenforceable so what? The same could be said about many laws that the government could make that would require unconstitutional acts to easily enforce them. There are many ways to tax people and articles, the government does just about all of them. Pretending that the world would end if they couldn't lay an income tax efficiently is nonsense. Civilization survived and flourished under government rule without an income tax for centuries. We as a nation became an economic powerhouse during the industrial revolution without an income tax. Ever since we adopted it we have slowly eroded our industrial base to where we are no longer a production and surplus nation but a consumption and debtor nation.

[Evil Squirrel Overlord]

Reality?! When was the last time the IRS or, hell, any fed. agency, sent out a letter asking for information, randomly, received a 5th amendment response and then proceeded to investigate intensely? I suggest that is not a realistic hypothetical.

I doubt many people invoke the 5th on their tax return, to do so would guarantee investigation.

We've hear this before haven't we. Repeating it must make it true.

Are you saying the colonists would have been perfectly happy if the British asked for the books and records of everyone instead of a few? I can see them arguing now, I want my books and records demanded too you evil bastards, its just not fair you're only doing some people!

I'm more concerned about what the Ugandans would have done.