I read this article. I don't buy all of the claims from the NY Times.
However, from what I have read, whether the tax is strictly legal or not,
the tax courts will not give you a chance to bring any of that evidence
fairly to a jury.
In other words, don't expect the courts to allow you not to pay the tax.
That's like going into a lion's den and telling him that assault is illegal.
Behalf Of acreem@...
Good analogy about the lion's den. The headline ("Facts Refute . . .")
is a little pretentious under the circumstances; but the relevant point,
as you say, is that the facts don't matter. Russo's movie thus seemed
to me a waste of time, until I saw it. It then occurred to me that the
movie might possible work as a vehicle for changing the present state of
affairs: If enough people see it and are outraged by it, then we might
start to see juries deciding differently. For the present, that sort of
tax resistance seems to me painfully self-destructive.
I haven't seen Russo's movie yet, though I've heard of it, and I do find the
subject matter interesting. There's a free video BBC TV series on the net
called the Money Masters. Fascinating 3 part, 3 hour series on the history
of international bankers, including the history of central banking in the
US. In my opinion, it was very interesting and mind-blowing information.
Jeff Schwartz