Maybe you could invent a trumalosaur suit!!!!!!

LOL , I would buy a ticket for that show!

I met with Irwin Schiff on several occasions. He asked that question of the IRS and the government thousands of times, refused to file a complete return, wrote books espousing his theories eloquently and in detail, was prosecuted and convicted and died in a federal prison, I believe.

Or dressed up like one~

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVVgf...

" people call Alex Johnson a hysteric and a nut case, but......"
I have a disdain for labeling most often used by the controlling statists to halt examining of information, halt discussion , rendering opposing views as worthless. It results in prejudice.
When I hear denier or conspiracy theorist, or whistleblower or kook.... my interest is piqued.
Jones does what most in the main stream media won't do .. that is examine motives , methods and reasons for questionable policies among other tough topics.

Thanks for your reply. I agree that non-compliance holds significant risks, and I'm not planning anything like that myself, just curious.

People call Alex Jones a hysteric and a nut case, but he's entirely correct when he states that the Federal government is corrupt to its core. I was brought in to testify in a Federal Grand Jury, and in the preliminary interview I was told that I was to give false testimony or face everything the DOJ and IRS could throw at me to destroy my business. I refused, and reported the Prosecutor's attempt at suborning perjury to the presiding judge. In theory, that complaint should have brought the entire Grand Jury process to a halt, pending investigation. Instead, all that happened was a statement from the prosecutor saying that perhaps she had been "too passionate," and that she was sorry I had "misinterpreted" her request to "more clearly define" my testimony. She didn't dare put me on the stand, and the accused was railroaded into an indictment.

I'm repulsed enough by the American court system that I find it difficult to apply the word "law" to any action it takes. Judges should be term-limited, and not allowed to make a lifelong profession of their office. They should also be held accountable for their mistakes or deliberate malfeasance.

That story would be an awesome script for a movie.
Starring a man so huge so wise he's called a dinosaur!

The judge is not overruling the jury, but he/she is deciding what evidence may be presented to the trier of fact. That power has rested with the judge for the last 500 years or so. In the case at issue here, the defendant sought to have the jury here evidence regarding whether the initial ruling of the trial judge (which had already been affirmed by the appellate court) could be presented to the contempt trial jury. The judge ruled it inadmissible under the collateral bar rule. That's not really overruling the jury.

Yes, there is a federal statute mandating the payment of taxes on all income however derived. The tax protestors argue that this statute is vague or otherwise invalid or that the 16th Amendment was not validly enacted and therefore the statute itself is unconstitutional. These arguments have been repeatedly rejected and, sadly, many who have been bamboozled into following the advice of those who accept them have lost much money and, in some cases, years in prison. If you think, as I do, that taxation is theft and the state should have no right to coerce you into paying tribute then you ought to use your vote, agitate, educate and work towards its abolition. But one ought not simply refuse to comply while wishfully thinking the authorities will not enforce the law. They will and you may suffer significant injury.

You commented that hers was a "frivolous argument." Having read Larken Rose's Kicking the Dragon, I understand that many people have asked IRS employees to cite any law that requires the average person to pay income taxes, and no employee has been able to cite a law. They apparently just give vague arguments that "everyone knows" it's required. Out of curiosity, are you aware of any law that explicitly requires the payment of taxes?

Criminal contempt proceedings are jury trials (unless the parties waive the jury). Civil contempt proceedings are not. The difference for purposes of this discussion is negligible. The judge serves as the gatekeeper regarding what evidence is admitted in both situations. The collateral bar rule applies in both cases.

I agree that "victimless crimes" are just NOT crimes and people who perpetrate them should be left alone. PERIOD.

As a juror, I would just not believe that a person had in fact committed a victimless crime. The evidence was just not without reasonable doubts....

Sort of. It would be more accurate to say that this protects the rulings of all judges who enter affirmative injunctions unless they lack jurisdiction or their orders are timely overturned or stayed. For example: Let's say your neighbor builds a wall on your side of your adjoining property. You sue to get him to take down the wall. The judge agrees and enters an injunction mandating that the neighbor take down the wall within 90 days. Instead of seeking immediate appellate review of the ruling the neighbor just thumbs his nose at the judge. The judge finds the neighbor in contempt. At the contempt hearing the neighbor wishes to argue that the original ruling was incorrect. The judge refuses to hear that evidence and the neighbor is held in contempt. On appeal the court rules that the collateral bar rule applies and affirms. Is that a judge becoming a dictator? I guess in a way.

Right there with you. 😢

It's what juries are for.

This is a poorly written article for several reasons. First, it labels the collateral bar rule as obscure or otherwise illegitimate. It is a well understood doctrine affirmed by the Supreme Court. In essence it states that when faced with a court order one cannot violate the order and then defend against contempt with impunity unless the underlying order is reversed or stayed by an appellate court. Here the defendant was ordered to file an amended valid tax return for the relevant years. She did not do so and did not get a reversal from the appellate courts. In fact, her appeals had all been lost. Therefore she was not privileged to violate the court order and was barred from attacking the underlying order collaterally. There is no disturbing new precedent being made here. In fact, had the 6th Circuit reversed that would have been the new precedent. Second, the article does not clearly give the factual background that gave rise to all of this. The defendant and her husband were involved in filing tax returns that refused to recognize as income her earnings because they asserted that only government employees' earnings are subject to federal tax. This is a frivolous argument and was rejected as such by this court. The order by the court mandated the filing of compliant returns. The defendant's deliberate failure to do so gave rise to the contempt proceedings. If she fails to do so again she may be subject to additional orders and, possibly, new contempt proceedings. This can go on indefinitely. See the sad case of Irwin Schiff.

This falls into the class of "freemen on the land" legal hackers, only it appears here that the "hacks" have had more legitimacy and effect than those used by the freemen. Hence the government's desperate reaction.

Most developed countries have a small contingent of "sovereignty" hackers, who attract the most vigorous persecution, since they are attacking the prison which is used to keep the population docile.

Since the sole purpose of any government is to protect the individual citizen from force and fraud...
AND in this particular case, it is the government indulging in BOTH force and fraud...

What does that say for our future in the USA?