Flashback: Danny Riley demonstrates in a clear and concise fashion that there is no liability clause in the IRC.
Casey Lee Cobb | Show The Law | July 24th 2007
Casey Lee Cobb | Show The Law | July 24th 2007
In order to be a subject to a lawful tax one must be liable for said tax. The “Income Tax” is the only tax that is missing the parameters that establish who is liable.
This is one of the many reasons that people commonly refer to the so called income tax “law”, as the law that never was. The reason that the code could not be written in such a way as to establish liability on the average American is because the imposition of such a tax on an American would be 100% un-constitutional.
The reason the internal revenue code is vague wordy and complex is largely for one main purpose, which is to deceive Americans into thinking that their contributions to the IRS are actually mandatory, and not voluntary as the Internal Revenue Service clearly admits in its own literature for legal purposes.
So the moral of this story is this; if you’re a giant corporation committing fraud on a massive scale, always leave yourself an out, so you can blame the fraud on someone else’s ignorance and not your own mischievous weaved web of word witchery.
I remember the exact day that I first learned of this particular deception, I immediately called up 5 tax attorneys asking them for the law that would make me liable for the income tax. Each and every single one of them weaseled their way out of the question.
One even went so far as to say, I like the way our system works, then he went on to talk about how great capitalism is, and that he is content despite the fact that he knows of no law that establishes liability. Thank goodness we have attorneys out there like Tom Cryer who fought the IRS’s unconstitutional tax and won! Slowly but surely people are beginning to wake up, educate yourself watch “America: From Freedom to Fascism.”