yeah right... i have to watch the movie to be "educated"
how about this....
how about you guys look at a point for point analysis of the same movie that strikes down every fucking point the film makes with actual facts, case law and law???
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#law
Statutory Fallacies
Many tax protester arguments are not based on a claim that the Internal Revenue Code is unconstitutional, but that it is not a law or is somehow written in such a way as to be inapplicable or unenforeceable. These arguments often look like constitutional arguments (and are sometimes argued so badly that it difficult to tell whether the argument is constitutional or statutory), but are somewhat different.
The Internal Revenue Code is not law.
The arguments that the Internal Revenue Code is not a valid statute are all strange, and take several different forms.
One form of argument is simply that the Internal Revenue Code was never enacted. This is easily disproved by checking the records of the U.S. Congress. The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 was passed by both houses of Congress as House Resolution 8300, and was signed by President Eisenhower on August 16, 1954, at about 9:45 a.m., becoming Public Law 83-591, 68A Stat. 3. The Internal Revenue Code is now known as the ?Internal Revenue Code of 1986? as a result of changes made by Public Law 99-514, 100 Stat. 2085 (10/22/1986). More recent amendments to the Internal Revenue Code (as well as other public laws) can be found on-line through the ?Thomas? web site maintained by the Library of Congress.
A brief note about citations to statutes: Public Laws are numbered consecutively within each session of Congress, each session lasting two years. The Congress that convened in January of 2001 was the 107th, so the first bill passed by that Congress and signed by the President was P.L. 107-1, the second was P.L. 107-2, and so forth. All public laws are published in the U.S. Statutes at Large, usually abbreviated ?Stat.?, so a citation to ?68A Stat. 3? refers to page 3 of volume 68A of the U.S. Statutes at Large. The U.S. Statutes at large can be found at most law libraries, so the text of the original Internal Revenue Code of 1954, and published proof of its enactment, can be found at any law library with a copy of the U.S. Statutes at Large.
The other argument is more subtle and more complicated. Many of the statutes of the United States have been ?codified,? or reorganized into more orderly collections of statutes known as the ?United States Code,? which is divided by subject matter into ?titles.? As part of this codification, many statutes that were enacted separately have been reenacted together as part of the United States Code, so that the Code itself became ?positive law.? For example, the statutes relating to federal courts have been organized and reenacted as Title 28 of the United States Code. So, when referring to a provision of Title 28, it is usually not necessary to worry about when or how it was enacted; all you need to do is refer to the right section of Title 28. For convenient reference, the Internal Revenue Code has been published as Title 26 of the United States Code but, technically speaking, has never been enacted as part of the United States Code. This is explained in the printed volumes of the United States Code, which states that Title 26 is evidence of the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, but that Title 26 itself is not ?positive law,? even though the revenue laws enacted by Congress (such as Public Law 83-591 enacted in 1954, or Public Law 99-514 enacted in 1986), all of which can be found in the U.S. Statutes at Large, are ?positive law.?
The distinction between Title 26 of the United States Code and ?positive law? is purely technical and would never be important to anyone unless the U.S. Government Printing Office made a typographical error in printing Title 26 of the United States Code, so that the United States Code did not accurately reflect the revenue laws enacted by Congress. If a typographical error did occur, then the courts would look to the U.S. Statutes at Large to determine the text of the relevant statute, instead of Title 26 of the United States Code.
So, the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code have been enacted by Congress as positive law, and the fact that the Internal Revenue Code as not been reenacted or codified as part of the United States Code is irrelevant.