Americas Elite triumph again.

[HawktimusPrime]

http://www.mintpressnews.com/political-prisoner-dies-iin-us-jail-for-protesting-taxation/210498/

Maryland — Last week, political prisoner Irwin Schiff died behind bars at the age of 87. He was serving multiple sentences related to his work protesting and challenging tax laws. Throughout his life, Schiff authored many books and ran for political office on several occasions. His final book, The Federal Mafia: How the Government Illegally Imposes and Unlawfully Collects Income Taxes, became the only non-fiction book to be banned in America.

At the age of 87, Schiff was sentenced to 14 years in prison, and sadly, he just died just before his planned release.

In a recent statement, son Peter Schiff explained how his father’s condition worsened while he was in custody:

“The unnecessarily cruel twist in his final years occurred seven years ago when he reached his 80th birthday. At that point the government moved him from an extremely low security federal prison camp in New York State where he was within easy driving distance from family and friends, to a federal correctional institutes, first in Indiana and then in Texas. This was done specially to give him access to better medical care. The trade off was that my father was forced to live isolated from those who loved him. Given that visiting him required long flights, car rentals, and hotel stays, his visits were few and far between. Yet while at these supposed superior medical facilities, my father received virtually no medical care at all, not even for the cataracts that left him legally blind, until the skin cancer on his head had spread to just about every organ in his body.

 

[cigaretteman]

Thanks Aegon, or should I call you Pepsi?

http://iowa.forums.rivals.com/threa...ent-of-federal-income-taxes-dies-at-87.48494/

 

[HawktimusPrime]

http://www.givemeliberty.org/NoRedress/Update06-30B-03.htm

In short, Judge George banned Schiff’s book as “false commercial speech” without any specific analysis or any in-court evidentiary examination establishing the “falsity” of Schiff’s actual speech and by blithely ignoring the substantial body of established Supreme Court constitutional law protecting free expression and publication.

With only an unsubstantiated claim of criminal speech asserted by a government witness (via a written declaration), Judge George summarily dismissed the content of Schiff’s book as “largely autobiographical, containing in large part Schiff’s anti-tax and anti-government diatribes and theories.” Of course, it appears to be lost on the court that this is the exact type of speech protected by the First Amendment and -- even when intertwined with “commercial” speech -- requires the highest level of examination and legal justification to censor.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

Thanks Aegon, or should I call you Pepsi?

http://iowa.forums.rivals.com/threa...ent-of-federal-income-taxes-dies-at-87.48494/

Call me Coke. I'm just glad other people took notice of this be honest.

 

[Nat Algren]

A true patriot. Cruel and unusual punishment was delivered to a dangerous man.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

A true patriot. Cruel and unusual punishment was delivered to a dangerous man.

It was clearly an example made by the elite. People want to pretend that folks are allowed to just come out and challenge the true agendas. They are wrong...wrong, wrong.

 

[NoleSoup4U]

Banning books? What are we, the Nazi's? So much for the freedom of speech. Strike one more from the Bill of Rights.

 

[Huey Grey]

I stopped reading after the claim that this is the only non-fiction book banned in America. What a load of crap.

 

[Huey Grey]

Banning books? What are we, the Nazi's? So much for the freedom of speech. Strike one more from the Bill of Rights.

Giving fraudulent tax advice is not protected under the 1st amendment.

 

[NoleSoup4U]

I stopped reading after the claim that this is the only non-fiction book banned in America. What a load of crap.

That's too bad. You might have learned something.

 

[NoleSoup4U]

Giving fraudulent tax advice is not protected under the 1st amendment.

That's kind of my point.

 

[Huey Grey]

That's kind of my point.

If giving fraudulent tax advice is not covered under freedom of speech, then why did you make it out to be?

 

[NoleSoup4U]

If giving fraudulent tax advice is not covered under freedom of speech, then why did you make it out to be?

My point is that it SHOULD be covered under free speech. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean that you should be allowed to censor it.

 

[Huey Grey]

That's too bad. You might have learned something.

Perhaps you should have read further...

"Mr. Schiff and his associates, the judge wrote, knew that they ''are offering fraudulent tax advice'' and that the book is false commercial speech which ''is not protected by the First Amendment.''

''The First Amendment does not shield criminal conduct in tax schemes,'' the judge wrote in his 35-page opinion.

He ruled that the record in the two criminal tax prosecutions of Mr. Schiff, which resulted in prison sentences, established that he knew that his tax advice was inaccurate.

The judge said that Mr. Schiff, his girlfriend, Cindy Nuen, and Lawrence N. Cohen, an employee of Mr. Schiff's Freedom Books, told clients that by filing returns with zero income they could escape both taxes and prosecution when they knew that was not true.

''That Schiff has no misunderstanding of the falsity of the claim that income tax is voluntary,'' the judge wrote, ''is further evidenced by his many losses in civil tax cases.''

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/17/business/judge-tells-tax-adviser-to-stop-selling-book.html

 

[NoleSoup4U]

Perhaps you should have read further...

"Mr. Schiff and his associates, the judge wrote, knew that they ''are offering fraudulent tax advice'' and that the book is false commercial speech which ''is not protected by the First Amendment.''

''The First Amendment does not shield criminal conduct in tax schemes,'' the judge wrote in his 35-page opinion.

He ruled that the record in the two criminal tax prosecutions of Mr. Schiff, which resulted in prison sentences, established that he knew that his tax advice was inaccurate.

The judge said that Mr. Schiff, his girlfriend, Cindy Nuen, and Lawrence N. Cohen, an employee of Mr. Schiff's Freedom Books, told clients that by filing returns with zero income they could escape both taxes and prosecution when they knew that was not true.

''That Schiff has no misunderstanding of the falsity of the claim that income tax is voluntary,'' the judge wrote, ''is further evidenced by his many losses in civil tax cases.''

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/17/business/judge-tells-tax-adviser-to-stop-selling-book.html

You're right...

You're too close-minded to have learned anything from that. My bad, brutha.

 

[Huey Grey]

My point is that it SHOULD be covered under free speech. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean that you should be allowed to censor it.

Why should willfully fraudulent tax advice be protected under the 1st amendment? This is like arguing that whatever schemes Bernie Madoff roped his clients into should be covered as free speech.

 

[Huey Grey]

You're right...

You're too close-minded to have learned anything from that. My bad, brutha.

Close minded? Why would I have an open mind to clearly criminal cases of tax evasion?

 

[NoleSoup4U]

Close minded? Why would I have an open mind to clearly criminal cases of tax evasion?

Just let it go, dude. I don't want you to turn out like that guy from the movie 'Scanners.'

 

[NoleSoup4U]

Why should willfully fraudulent tax advice be protected under the 1st amendment? This is like arguing that whatever schemes Bernie Madoff roped his clients into should be covered as free speech.

You really don't understand the difference between "words" and "actions"?

 

[Huey Grey]

Just let it go, dude. I don't want you to turn out like that guy from the movie 'Scanners.'

Or you can just admit that you are clearly wrong to claim that tax evasion is covered under the 1st amendment.

 

[NoleSoup4U]

Or you can just admit that you are clearly wrong to claim that tax evasion is covered under the 1st amendment.

Fine. The point of this post has nothing to do with the fact that not paying income tax is illegal. The point of this post is about how terribly corrupt the income tax is, and how it's just another way to hammer the poor and middle class, who can't create and abuse tax loops to abuse the system, while the rich, who have many more resources, can do just that.

It's also an argument about how someone else should not be allowed to dictate how much of your hard work you should be allowed to keep, and that the fruits of your labor should not be robbed from you at gunpoint.

 

[Huey Grey]

You really don't understand the difference between "words" and "actions"?

Both Madoff and Schiff presented themselves as financial professionals giving advice over investments and taxes. Both also clearly crossed the line in giving fraudulent and criminal advice in these areas. Both also were prosecuted for giving criminal advice and both served prison sentences for this fraud. If you want to pretend that this is like "To Kill a Mockingbird," that's your business. It clearly is not. It's straight up ridiculous to claim that openly instructing clients to commit tax evasion is excusable simply because they are "words."

 

[Huey Grey]

Fine. The point of this post has nothing to do with the fact that not paying income tax is illegal. The point of this post is about how terribly corrupt the income tax is, and how it's just another way to hammer the poor and middle class, who can't create and abuse tax loops to abuse the system, while the rich, who have many more resources, can do just that.

It's also an argument about how someone else should not be allowed to dictate how much of your hard work you should be allowed to keep, and that the fruits of your labor should not be robbed from you at gunpoint.

It's ironic that you will openly use the Constitution to suit you needs in one area (freedom of speech), but ignore the Constitution when it doesn't suit you (being able to tax). Seems like you will cherry pick what you will and will not support in the Constitution.

 

[NoleSoup4U]

Both Madoff and Schiff presented themselves as financial professionals giving advice over investments and taxes. Both also clearly crossed the line in giving fraudulent and criminal advice in these areas. Both also were prosecuted for giving criminal advice and both served prison sentences for this fraud. If you want to pretend that this is like "To Kill a Mockingbird," that's your business. It clearly is not. It's straight up ridiculous to claim that openly instructing clients to commit tax evasion is excusable simply because they are "words."

Words

Actions

You don't see the different between talking about something and actually doing something?

 

[Huey Grey]

Words

Actions

You don't see the different between talking about something and actually doing something?

Your doctor knows that you have cancer, yet tells you that you don't need any treatment, even though he clearly knows that this might kill you. Just words, right?

 

[NoleSoup4U]

It's ironic that you will openly use the Constitution to suit you needs in one area (freedom of speech), but ignore the Constitution when it doesn't suit you (being able to tax). Seems like you will cherry pick what you will and will not support in the Constitution.

Maybe you can show me where I invoked the constitution in this thread? If you want to go down this road, than the constitution always allowed for taxes to be levied, just not an income tax like system, because the founders realized how extremely tyrannical something like that is and how easily it could be abused by the rich. The original constitution allowed for an excise tax and non-protective tariffs.

 

[NoleSoup4U]

Your doctor tells you that you have cancer, when he clearly knows you don't, and tells you that you need to undergo expensive and detrimental treatment to cure this non-existent cancer. Just words, right?

You realize that "treatment" is an action, right? He's obviously trying to defraud you, just like Madoff.

Now, if he wrote a book about cancer that was wrong, or talked in general about it, that's his right.

 

[Huey Grey]

Maybe you can show me where I invoked the constitution in this thread?

In your very first post. Or are you unaware that the Bill of Rights is in the Constitution?

"Banning books? What are we, the Nazi's? So much for the freedom of speech. Strike one more from the Bill of Rights."

 

[Huey Grey]

You realize that "treatment" is an action, right? He's obviously trying to defraud you, just like Madoff.

Now, if he wrote a book about cancer that was wrong, or talked in general about it, that's his right.

Sorry, no matter how bad you want it to be, being able to give criminal advice on how to commit tax evasion is not a right.

 

[NoleSoup4U]

In your very first post. Or are you unaware that the Bill of Rights in in the Constitution?

"Banning books? What are we, the Nazi's? So much for the freedom of speech. Strike one more from the Bill of Rights."

I stand corrected.

Regardless, you were wrong in your post. I don't mind all taxes, just the income tax and protective tariffs off the top of my head.

 

[Huey Grey]

I stand corrected.

Regardless, you were wrong in your post. I don't mind all taxes, just the income tax and protective tariffs off the top of my head.

Then that's your personal problem. Because being able to tax income is a clear Constitutional right.

 

[NoleSoup4U]

Sorry, no matter how bad you want it to be, being able to give criminal advice on how to commit tax evasion is not a right.

Nobody is arguing that. We're arguing about whether or not it should be. You don't think it shouldn't be because it isn't a right you agree with it.

 

[NoleSoup4U]

Then that's your personal problem. Because being able to tax income is a clear Constitutional right.

Well, I'm not going to get into how it was ratified and all that. It doesn't really matter because we don't follow the constitution anymore anyway.

The bottom line is that it's theft. It may be theft that you agree with, but it's still theft.

 

[naturalmwa]

I stand corrected.

Regardless, you were wrong in your post. I don't mind all taxes, just the income tax and protective tariffs off the top of my head.

Why tariffs? Isn't that the original plan? What would you suggest replace the taxes you don't like?

 

[Huey Grey]

Well, I'm not going to get into how it was ratified and all that. It doesn't really matter because we don't follow the constitution anymore anyway.

The bottom line is that it's theft. It may be theft that you agree with, but it's still theft.

I'm curious why you consider income taxes theft, but not other kinds of taxes?

 

[NoleSoup4U]

Why tariffs? Isn't that the original plan? What would you suggest replace the taxes you don't like?

Because you are only taxed on what you buy, not what you make.

 

[Huey Grey]

Because you are only taxed on what you buy, not what you make.

They're still taxes, though. The government is still forcing you to use part of your paycheck to pay for taxes. How is one theft, but not the other? If you're being forced to pay taxes, you're being forced to pay taxes.

 

[NoleSoup4U]

I'm curious why you consider income taxes theft, but not other kinds of taxes?

Choosing to buy something that is taxed is your choice. The income tax is forcibly taken from you. That's also why I'm against inflation as a tax.

 

[naturalmwa]

Because you are only taxed on what you buy, not what you make.

So you're against sales tax too? And don't income taxes tax what you make, but you're against them too. Could you list what taxes you are for?

 

[Huey Grey]

Choosing to buy something that is taxed is your choice. The income tax is forcibly taken from you. That's also why I'm against inflation as a tax.

But consumption taxes are being forcibly taken away from you, too. At some point, you will have to buy stuff. And if you argue that if you really don't have to buy anything if you don't want to, then what's the point of having a job?