NRA's Brief in Emerson

Oh, on taxes. It's (unfortunately) a bunch of crap. If you do not file a tax return, then that is EVASION (not "avoidance"), and results in a crime being committed. If, on the other hand, you file tax returns but cannot afford to pay the tax, and therefore do not, that is not criminal. The tax system being referred to as "voluntary" does not mean literally that you voluntarily decide whether to pay taxes or not. It means that you "volunteer" a return and file with the gov't, and volunteer the tax payments if self-employed, but if you do not, the law is clear that collection remedies can and will be employed. Any place that claims you can legally NOT pay taxes is either a total scam to get your money, or blissfully ignorant (yet perhaps earnest) individuals who have not obtained competent counsel. Now, as far as the argument that the income tax violates the Const. because the 16th Am was not properly ratified - my understanding (so far) is that it's a good argument in theory, but has never yet been upheld, and remains a gray area. I still intend to research this more, but you can rest assured that every savvy lawyer and accountant in the world would be avoiding taxes in this manner if we could get away with it. You can so forget about it. And I have absolutely NO financial interest (or any other type of interest) in pulling the wool over your eyes - that claim of theirs is aburd like all the rest. Sorry, charlies...

[This message has been edited by Futo Inu (edited January 24, 2000).]
 
On taxes, always remember that the guy who's running the court is paid from those taxes. So's the prosecutor. Unless you're wealthy, so's the defense attorney... They are not going to allow their paychecks to bounce no matter HOW solid your evidence and logic is. The government is not a supernatural demon which can be tamed by the right rituals, or an alien space probe to be destroyed by a logical contradition, it's a human institution, and is perfectly capable of responding to perfect logic with a "So what? You lose anyway!"

Back to guns. My greatest fear about the Supreme court and the Second amendment rests with the fact that the Court is NOT ignorant of the ultimate consequences of upholding that amendment; They know full well that while the Court has been practicing six decades of malign neglect, tens of thousands of laws in violation of the Second amendment have been adopted, and in some cases even enforced. And they know full well that the logical end of upholding the Second amendment is that those laws must be overturned.

Now, the "liberals" on the Court may have no scruples about overturning thousands of laws, and decades of legal precident, with the stroke of a pen, but the "conservatives" are another matter. They value stability as much as they value the Constitution, and may very well blink at the prospect of so changing this country's legal landscape, even if logic, evidence, and the law itself demand that they do. I fear they might not have the courage to rule honestly.

And this, frankly, is why they ought to be hearing from us. Politely, but in massive numbers. They have to be made to understand that if they do NOT uphold the Second amendment, they won't merely be maintaining the status quo. They'll be destroying the legal system's very legitimacy. They have to be made to understand that this is one issue where the consequences of a dishonest ruling are just too dire to afford. They have to be made to know FEAR.

Politely, of course.

------------------
Sic semper tyranus!
 
Hey Bookkie (have been reading over here for a while without realizing you and Strider were one in the same),

If GEE's real name is Ernest McGill, where the hell did he come up with G. Encycleheimer Ernst? I noticed that he even signs his letters to the "rabidly anti-gun" Washington Post this way. :rolleyes:

I figured this was his real name and he was some crazy Austrian immigrant or something.

------------------
"Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death" - Patrick Henry

[This message has been edited by frye (edited January 24, 2000).]
 
Yep, Strider and I are the same person. Had to go to an alias after GEE kicked me off his web site for calling his writtings propaganda. I started it out by stating the maxum that propaganda is a lie that is repeated often. I then posted something to the effect that this is GEE's propaganda everytime he posted about the NRA's armed citizen G******... Seems he could not stand the truth. It was shortly thereafter that Brett also got the ax. Don't know, but I think we were driving to many fence sitters to the other side from what he wanted. I know that I personally have e-mailed with two who visted there who are now pro-gun.

Futo Inu:

My point on taxes was intention. Avoidence is where a mistake is made and is non criminal in nature. Whereas EVASION is where one knowingly goes against the law to evade their taxes. This is criminal. If one purposefully fails to pay their taxes, knowing full well that they owe them and has the capacity to pay them, then this would be Evasion.

I fully agree with you on the issue of anti-irs.com. I have looked at their site, read the book etc. but to no avail. The real world says it will never stand up in court. I've studied the issue of the 16th amendment and agree that it was not properly ratified, BUT, no one will ever get it overturned in a court of law. The consequenses to our government would be terrible and thus no judge would ever rule to overturn it.

After all my research on the issue of the 2nd, I believe that the Emerson case is dang near our last hope. If the 5th overturns Emerson on the collective theory and the SC refuses to hear it, then it is all over. At this point I believe that all other courts will take the stand of the 9th in Hickman vs. Block and we won't even be able to bring a case to court.



------------------
Richard

The debate is not about guns,
but rather who has the ultimate power to rule,
the People or Government.
RKBA!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top