Is There Valid Law Authorizing Income Taxes? - Page 12

coadie · #**111** 04-15-2009, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron

Have you watched them?
How can you issue a statement on something you haven't seen?
I can't comment on "Gone with the wind" cuz I have never seen it, nor have I read the book--and don't intend to.

Try watching, you may learn something?

[B]I did watch one. It to me is clear that the prosecuting attorney didn't or may not have cited the code, rule and articles in the "complaint" which is the original court filing. he can amend that and appeal. It will most likely not fly and get this case over turned . she is emotional and has not shown there is not a law.
also in rules of evidence, you are not required to submit the law as a piece of evidence.

I did not watch the case and do not even know if this video is edited or worse. We just have a person claim to be a juror talk. Really didn't learn any law or facts in the video. She did make a big dishonest claim that you didn't catch. she accused an agent of not having a lot of files with him. If one goes to the witness stand, they go with nothing. Nothing. She didn't know that. Evidence gets introduced by the 2 attornes and not someone on the witness stand.

You watch too much television.

Pressing-On · #**112** 04-15-2009, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron

What is funny is being married to someone from the Philippines when she gets thoroughly annoyed with me (which rarely happens) her native tongue springs up!

Good girl! It's best when you guys have no idea what we are actually saying. LOL!

Is this thread hijacked?

Digging4Truth · #**113** 04-15-2009, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Good girl! It's best when you guys have no idea what we are actually saying. LOL!

Is this thread hijacked?

Yep...

But it wasn't a change for the worse.

Ron · #**114** 04-15-2009, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Good girl! It's best when you guys have no idea what we are actually saying. LOL!

Is this thread hijacked?

Like I told D4T, it is refreshing to discuss something other than "I'm Apostolic & you're not" threads we have been so used to.

Hijack away!

Ferd · #**115** 04-15-2009, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron

The law stated that one would only have to file a State Income Tax filling if a federal one was required as well.

They went looking for that law & came up empty.

Thanks for taking a boo at it anyways Ferd!

Ron IF and it is a huge IF the court were unable to provide the documentation as conveyed in the video, that is NO PROOF that the law exists or does not exist.

It only proves that one court in one case (if you believe this actually happened as there is yet no evidence that it did) was incapable of supplying this particular jury with the information.

Can a judge be an idiot? of course. can a procecutor be an idiot. also possible.

does that mean there is no Federal law? surely you dont think this is proof of anything do you?

Ferd · #**116** 04-15-2009, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron

Like I told D4T, it is refreshing to discuss something other than "I'm Apostolic & you're not" threads we have been so used to.

Hijack away!

Apostolics pay there taxes!

there how is that?

Pressing-On · #**117** 04-15-2009, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Digging4Truth

Yep...

But it wasn't a change for the worse.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron

Like I told D4T, it is refreshing to discuss something other than "I'm Apostolic & you're not" threads we have been so used to.

Hijack away!

You know you just gave me permission! Although, I didn't really need it!

Pressing-On · #**118** 04-15-2009, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ferd

Apostolics pay there taxes!

there how is that?

Baron1710 · #**119** 04-15-2009, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coadie

[B]I did watch one. It to me is clear that the prosecuting attorney didn't or may not have cited the code, rule and articles in the "complaint" which is the original court filing. he can amend that and appeal. It will most likely not fly and get this case over turned . she is emotional and has not shown there is not a law.
also in rules of evidence, you are not required to submit the law as a piece of evidence.

I did not watch the case and do not even know if this video is edited or worse. We just have a person claim to be a juror talk. Really didn't learn any law or facts in the video. She did make a big dishonest claim that you didn't catch. she accused an agent of not having a lot of files with him. If one goes to the witness stand, they go with nothing. Nothing. She didn't know that. Evidence gets introduced by the 2 attornes and not someone on the witness stand.

You watch too much television.

No he can't amend and appeal. You can amend the complaint prior to trial but you can't amend a complaint once a trial is complete, it is Res Judicata.

And an appeal cannot consider new evidence.

It may be true that a prosecuting attorney botched a case but that in and of it self proves nothing.

Baron1710 · #**120** 04-15-2009, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ferd

Ron IF and it is a huge IF the court were unable to provide the documentation as conveyed in the video, that is NO PROOF that the law exists or does not exist.

It only proves that one court in one case (if you believe this actually happened as there is yet no evidence that it did) was incapable of supplying this particular jury with the information.

Can a judge be an idiot? of course. can a prosecutor be an idiot. also possible.

does that mean there is no Federal law? surely you dint think this is proof of anything do you?

I don't think the judge was an idiot, its not his job to make the prosecutor's case.