Re: Prosecution for fraud

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Supreme Law Firm Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Common Right Group on September 11, 1997 at 13:15:00:

In Reply to: Prosecution for fraud posted by Toney A on September 10, 1997 at 08:45:32:

Do not assume: That you are one made liable per IRC 6001, 6011, etc.; that you are SUBJECT TO the so-called income tax; that you know the difference between TAX LIABILITY and being LIABLE FOR A TAX, or that there is no difference; that you have TAXABLE INCOME as that term is defined in the law; that you have GROSS INCOME or ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME as defined by law; that you have a TAXABLE YEAR as defined by law; that you are a TAXPAYER as that term is defined by law; that you are one required to KEEP BOOKS AND RECORDS; that you know whether the 'income tax' is on PEOPLE, PROPERTY or ACTIVITIES; that all activities are taxable; that INCOME is the subject matter of the so-called 'income tax'; that you are required to obtain, retain, or divulge any Social Security Number to anyone for any purpose - other than Social Security; that you are REQUIRED BY LAW to affix your signature to any document whatsoever; that you have not committed perjury by the very act of signing a 1040 or W4 form UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY; that you know what the sixteenth amendment did and did not do; that anyone, including accountants, employers, revenue agents, et alii, have the authority to make a deterination as to whether you are LIABLE FOR A TAX, or even knows the tax laws.
Class action suits may not be a good idea for a couple of reasons. When one joins in a class action, if the action loses, each plaintiff is barred from bringing the same action on his own, and, class actions are really cumbersome and expensive to manage, even with multiple parties sharing the cost. One bobble or error by the attorney managing the case and everybody loses.
There was such an action brought in Salt Lake City, Utah, in 1994. The case was 94C427S. It got dismissed with thousands of participants hanging on it. It didn't ask for monetary damages, only injunctive relief. The error was in bringing suit against IRS instead of CIR (Commissioner of Internal Revenue).
Your thought is great, but needs re-thought.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup




Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Supreme Law Firm Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]