common law? USA

Post Reply New Topic

Does anyone know anything about common law vs legal law? I had someone assert that the government is wrong in taking federal tax dollars from our paychecks, and that our constitution/bill of rights/amendments states that federal taxes are optional, and that a relative that this person has fought the IRS and now doesn't have to pay federal taxes. No one has provided me with any solid proof on this, and I suspect one of these people might be mentally...
incapacitated. Are their any aspies here that could clarify this, or give me any leads to research this? Thanks Spirited

I've never even heard of this.

Avoiding the payment of taxes through other than legal deductions will get you in a lot of legal trouble. Just ask Wesley Snipes. --> LINK TO CNN ARTICLE <--

You could do a search on the internet. I found this site rather quickly:
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html

It attempts to debunk the notion that taxes are optional.

.
There are no taxes in the Cayman Islands. Moving there is optional.

Have you been profoundly enlightened by this statement? That is the intent of it.

The only way to avoid federal income tax (while still remaining inside the U.S.)is to move to a U.S. commonwealth or territory. And that's just federal income tax, social security and any local taxes still apply.

It's really an extension of the American Revolutionary saying "No taxation without representation!" (oddly this does not apply to the nation's capital which has neither voting representatives nor federal income tax exempt status, the city's local government actively protests this)

My previous post ONLY simply demonstrated that there is a real option of not paying taxes.

You are responsible for knowing the rules.

You MAY be tax-exempt,
or you MIGHT not be required to file a tax return,
or
IF you don't owe any taxes,
THEN you don't have to have them deducted from your pay.
("or" can also mean "and" ; I'm using it as a logical function.)

To know this, you have to know the rules, and it would be legal,
and the IRS would agree and not challenge you,
because, for example, their own instructions for filing 1040's and such
include a section "Do I Have to File a Tax Return?",
and there they may tell you under what conditions the answer might be NO.

But if you aren't SURE whether you owe taxes then you probably do.
I haven't given ANY advice (nor information that is legally questionable).
Nothing I said here is relevant to tax protesters,
except that they can legally move to a country where there is no tax.

You have talked to a tax protestor and if you follow their advice, you could end up with some serious jail time as well as paying the federal government a lot of money to prosecute you. The IRS lists these on their site. The are called frivolous tax arguments and you can be fined if you try to use one in court.

Personally, the one I like best is that Ohio was not a state when the 16th amendment was ratified.

From what ive heard of the freeman movement (freeman-on-the-land in legalese IIRC) it IS possible, and there have been successes. However, its an extremely complicated area, and it wont be an easy ride - youll be fighting buerocracy for your rights every step of the way. Its sounds as much a lifestyle, philosophy, political movement as much as a simply a legal way of not paying tax - you have to be really dedicated/obssessed & accept that there is a certain amount of strife/hassle involved and possibly even a risks to your liberty if things dont work out.

There are a few well established religions that are so religious that their members are always obviously practicing their religion, they only wear formal clothes used for religious service, are typically only seen worshipping or doing religious things, they don't drift too far from their place of worship, and they live on tax-exempt religious land.

They don't pay taxes, but they rarely do anything that doesn't look like working for their god.

^ Why dont i understand.
Other adults understand things like that and even some children. Why dont I
My IQ assessed as being a bit above average.
What is wrong with me. Why do i always feel like I am dumb even on aspie planet. I should feel equal because i have autism to

Common law is law derived from earlier legal rulings. It is not formally legislated into law, but rather derived from rulings that arise when novel legal questions are tested in court. Such rulings are referred to as 'precedent' and they stand as law unless or until they are over-ruled by the introduction of legislative law, or a higher court ruling or (hopefully rarely) a court of the same level does not follow the decision (perhaps because someone forgot to argue the earlier ruling) and there ends up being contrary precedent from two courts of the same status.

You should probably challenge them to name the clause/section of the constitution/bill of rights/amendments that they believe sets out this right. Then you can check for yourself.

I assume you mean the "freeman" thing. I looked it up a little and have only a vague idea which seems to me to be that they avoid entanglements with the government (trouble and obligations) with a strong worldview that it is irrelevant to them, and when the government tries to compel them, they cleverly confuse it with it's own laws.

It must be a really interesting argument they have for the police when they drive without a license, but less so if they are arrested for protesting because they have to be let go because they don't commit a crime, although even that's no guarantee because the cops can make trouble where there is none.

It seems that one of their ideas is that they have not consented to be governed, and at least in the USA the founding documents say that the government does so with consent.

I can think of an example that I've noticed here, that many people have a rule-following "way" such that they would not do anything contrary to the EULA of Microsoft Windows. In my case, I never bought Windows, nor clicked I AGREE to a EULA, because I think EULA's are unreasonable in that they ask you to just smile and laugh it off even if Microsoft is responsible for making a mistake that crashes your computer and ruins your business! So, I am certainly NOT under any obligation whatsoever to a EULA. And I hold cause against damages from Microsoft and others which I never lost by agreeing to EULAs. And I have done things that other people have agreed with EULAs not to do. I also "cleverly account" that certain people who have attacked me under the false assumption that I agreed to a EULA are paying me compensation for violating my no-EULA-agreement policy and attacked me with things allowed by the EULAs. How could I have such ideas? Simply by holding my rights and power over my own equipment which I have had since before there was Windows and EULA's.

So basically, it seems to me, the freeman have simply said no when asked if they will follow a new rule, and they follow old rules that are still valid.

This is from my limited knowledge of the british scene, a major point is the difference between 'law' & 'statutes & acts' the law applies to everyone (hence 'common law'), however statutes & acts belong to a completely different category being based upon an 'assumed' contract between you & the state. Freemanism AFAIK is esentially asserting that you are 'free' from obligation to those contracts.

I might attempt to look into it properly myself, but im in the unfortunate position of claiming more £ from the state than i pay in taxes so its not really an option atm!

Thanks for all the info. I will check into the freeman crap, and also the web links. spirited

I believe DC gets a vote in the electoral college. Puerto Rico will never become a US state for just that reason- they want to avoid paying taxes, even though they get a good chunk of federal government money to keep them afloat.