|  |
|
| |
By: Ralf
Date: 5/1/00 5:56:58 AM
# Replies: 34
Seeing "IRS" next to the word "lawsuit" usually means you'll get to see how you look in prison orange. But maybe not this time. Maybe.
Check this out, then come back.
Dum de dum... hmmmm hmmmm hmmmm... Oh! Back so soon? Cool.
If the courts rule against the IRS, what'll you suppose will happen?
Will it be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court? Will it spawn copycat lawsuits all over the country? Will the IRS change its charter to one of mandatory compliance?
If the IRS has to give back the money they took, what'll happen to the country? If things like this get out of hand, and there's a tax revolt, what kind of automatic weapon should you buy?
AND WHAT ABOUT THOSE $1 DONATIONS TO THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION FUND?? Will the election of 2004 be a low-budget affair because nobody's filed any taxes since 2000?
Response #1
By: Gowan McGland
Date: 5/1/00 7:32:14 AM
I thought it was $3.
I believe it takes an Act of Congress to change the tax code and/or the charter of a government agency. It's unlikely it wouldn't pass since without taxes we'd pretty much have no money to run the government.
I have a feeling this guy is purposely ignoring or leaving something out. I'd wager that after :
"The mission of the Service is to encourage and achieve the highest possible degree of voluntary compliance with the tax laws and regulations and to maintain the highest degree of public confidence in the integrity and efficiency of the Service." Federal Register, Volume 39, #62 (11572), March 29, 1974.
There's some type of verbage that discusses penalties for non-compliance.
That's just me, though.
Response #2
By: sooz
Date: 5/1/00 8:17:29 AM
Richie's been saying "There's gonna be a tax revolt. The tea's gonna go overboard. It'll happen." I told him to go on and lead it if he wanted... I'm behind him. So far behind him, he can't find me...
Response #3
By: Seventh of Seven
Date: 5/1/00 1:19:38 PM
i don't think he's leaving anything out, he's just using lubing the federal register a bit in his interpretation. as it says, the income tax is based on "maximum voluntary compliance," i.e., that most people will send their money to the irs without having officers knock on every single door in america to collect. if everyone refused to send in their income tax, the system wouldn't work. it doesn't mean at all that it's voluntary whether or not you pay the tax.
the best way to protest the income tax, according to my favorite christian manifesto, Live More with Less, is to stop making money! that way you aren't supporting whatever fascist and un-gainly regime you happen to be living under.
Response #4
By: The Sorcerer
Date: 5/1/00 7:22:55 PM
First Point. The Federal Register shouldn't be confused with the US Code of Federal Regulations, which is a codification of the general and permanent rules published in the Federal Register by the Executive departments and agencies of the Federal Government (a.k.a The Law). The Federal Register contains alot of stuff that isn't actually the "Law of the Land" such as proposed rules, and public notices of Federal agencies and organizations, as well as Presidential Documents.
Second Point. The sections where he grabs the "voluntary" verbage out of the code is at the tail end of of Title 26 (Tax Code), in the section dealing with procedural matters of the Treasury Department publishing changes to the Tax Code, tax forms, and IRS issuing public bulletins. He appears to completely ignore all the other sections of the Tax Code that specifically oulines the details of the Code itself.
Your take is correct 7o7. The system is based on the premise that you will voluntarily comply with the LAW; otherwise you will be forced into compliance. The "voluntary" nature of the means of your compliance does not mitigate the penalties for not being in compliance with the law...and the law is very clear.
TITLE 26, Sec. 1.1-1 Income tax on individuals.
(a) General rule. (1) Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on
the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the
United States and, to the extent provided by section 871(b) or 877(b),
on the income of a nonresident alien individual. [stuff deleted here]
(b) Citizens or residents of the United States liable to tax. In
general, all citizens of the United States, wherever resident, and all
resident alien individuals are liable to the income taxes imposed by the
Code whether the income is received from sources within or without the
United States.
Response #5
By: Ralf
Date: 5/2/00 5:43:43 AM
So the "voluntary" in "voluntary compliance" doesn't mean optional.
So why have the word "voluntary" anywhere in the text at all?
BTW, I'm not suggesting we stop paying taxes. As much as I gripe about the Man, he does need some money to keep the roads clean and the cops fed. I mean, if we all stopped paying the Air Tax we'd all suffocate!
Response #6
By: sooz
Date: 5/2/00 10:30:36 AM
As mentioned somewhere (here? elsewhere? don't remember), most people don't mind paying their fair share. The problems come in when people believe there's:
* Unequal taxation - an unfair burden on one segment of society
* Over-taxation
* Taxation without representation
* Over-spending with said tax dollars
We all want our schools, roads and 911 to work. We just can't justify the $100 rolls of toilet paper.
Response #7
By: Ralf
Date: 5/2/00 1:34:07 PM
So THAT'S why they're instigating the new $1 coins: to make it harder for gov't procurement officers to wipe their ass with money?
Response #8
By: The Sorcerer
Date: 5/2/00 3:41:48 PM
Ralf Sez:
========================
So the "voluntary" in "voluntary compliance" doesn't mean optional.
So why have the word "voluntary" anywhere in the text at all?
========================
One answer: definition and context. One accepted definition of voluntary is "to act without compulsion". Compulsion being the application of legal enforcement. If you pay your taxes without having to be compelled to do so by legal action that's voluntary compliance. While it is possible to quibble that there are multiple definitions of "voluntary" (one of them being optional), the same can be said of most words...that is why the context of a sentence is important. Sparky The Tax Evader wants to pull the sentence with "voluntary" out of the context of the whole text of the statute so he can play the definition game. But when you put the statement back into the context of the entire text of the Tax Code it is clear that non-compliance with the law carries penalties and is not optional.
Sorc'(Rev)
Response #9
By: Ralf
Date: 5/2/00 7:23:09 PM
My point is that the word "voluntary" only muddles the meaning. Why did the framers of the statute think it was necessary to include a word so fraught with misunderstanding?
If I choose to comply I'm legal. If I choose to not comply I'm arrested. So where is the choice? Again: why is this "voluntary"?
It is assumed by our legal system that reasonable people obey laws. Therefore the threat of prosecution would seem to undermine any voluntary aspect of the law.
It would have been so easy to place verbiage in there like "taxes are compulsory and failure to pay will result in legal prosecution". Instead they chose to use a weasel phrase like "voluntary compliance". There must be a reason, else they were idiots. Were they?
Response #10
By: The Sorcerer
Date: 5/2/00 9:58:54 PM
The short answer:
The people who write these things come from a different culture, they don't talk the same language we do. As far as they would be concerned, there should be no misunderstanding of their use of the term "voluntary".
The long winded answer:
One thing to remember is that when all is said and done laws are basically written by lawyers and judges to be read by other lawyers and judges. People have coined the phrase "legalese" to refer to the unique writing style and phraseology that you find in these sorts of documents. Their wording may often seem strange to us because most of us are used to a more conversational style of language, even if it is in a written form like books or newspapers. After having spent alot of time reading statutes, Bills, Codes, etc I've stoped consciously noticing. But they choose their words differently, they express themselves differently...at least when writing out the verbiage of laws, Bills, Codes and the like. It's not for nothing that companies have lawyers to review and write all their contracts and such. Sometimes different sets of lawyers specifically to deal with different types of things like Federal Environmental Standards Codes, Interstate Commerce Codes, State Tax Codes, Federal Tax Codes, Maritime Codes if they operate ships, Copyright Law, etc.
You'll notice the same sort of thing in some other very specialized fields. Mathematicians, especially heavy theoretical mathematicians and physicists, have a unique style of expressing themselves that's almost cultural as well...even discounting all the numbers and symbols. You may remember seeing some of this in University classes if you took something like Differential Calculus or Numerical Analysis or even Linear Algebra if they spent the time covering the details and derivation of the proofs and theorems.
I'm betting it's probably the same in medicine. "Legalese" is probably just a more extreme example due to the nature and needs of the legal profession.
Make sense?
Sorc'(Rev)
Response #11
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 5/3/00 12:39:48 AM
But we so *want* taxes to be 'voluntary,' as in, 'here, I volunteer some money so we can have roads and someone will take my garbage away.'
Response #12
By: Ralf
Date: 5/3/00 5:57:13 AM
See, that's where I was going. The original authors of the Constitution had just fought a tax war and were VERY concerned about how taxes could and should be collected.
They foresaw the new country's government as funded by the donations of the wealthy. NOBODY would be taxed, ever. Of course, they also denied representation to all but wealthy white land-owners, an attitude which has prevaled for 224 years. So they weren't shining examples of unfettered altruism.
If I'm not mistaken, wasn't the current Income Tax originally a War Tax, enacted to help the Allies in WWII? It started out at 1% and was deemed necessary as an emergency measure, and would be repealed after the war.
(Let's see if we can tie all this together...)
Whether or not the definition of "voluntary" is the same for lawyers as for the rest of us is immaterial. It seems that the original intent of the law was quite different than it is now. Now it's seen as a right and requirement for citizens to pay taxes, where originally it was seen as a VOLUNTARY (my definition) CONTRIBUTION.
I not saying it's right or wrong (different argument) just saying it's different than what was originally intended. And that if they're going to use common english words like "voluntary" in legal documents and then assign different meanings, they should come up with new words that mean exactly what they say.
Response #13
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 5/3/00 12:37:02 PM
There are a ton of tax revolt/reform plans that are cooking around the nation. Hey, there was one in Houston in '97, it looks like. In fact, its very similar to WA state's Initiative 695, which was recently overturned on a technicality. 695 would have made it so that there would be a statewide election if any tax, fee, or fine were increased.
Anyway, Ralf. The government enacted while the founders was alive wasn't doing all kinds of social services which needed funding from somewhere. Neo-conservatives balk at it, but a lot of social good comes from the fact that we give money to the government, and it gives us services back. Whole economies live or die based on tax money.
I think the real issue isn't whether or not we should pay taxes (of course we should, if we expect the government to serve anything besides the whims of its big money corporate sponsors), but is instead whether the IRS should have the sweeping powers it does. If the word 'voluntary' is in the tax code (without the prefix 'in-'), then how can we justify having an IRS which can and will take away all your stuff, garnish your wages, and make your life a living hell?
Response #14
By: The Sorcerer
Date: 5/3/00 7:20:48 PM
Ralf Sez:
=======================
If I'm not mistaken, wasn't the current Income Tax originally a War Tax, enacted to help the Allies in WWII? It started out at 1% and was deemed necessary as an emergency measure, and would be repealed after the war
=======================
Actually no. The US has gone through a series of different national taxes dating back to a national sales tax on gold, silverware, jewelry, and watches in 1812 (there were still plenty of the founders around then). The abolished it in 1817 and went to relying on tariffs on imported goods. But in order to support the Civil War Congress enacted the first income tax in 1862 and established the office of Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The Commissioner was given the power to assess, levy, and collect taxes, and the right to enforce the tax
laws through seizure of property and income and through prosecution.
Later they tacked on additional sales and excise taxes and an "inheritance” tax.
In 1872, Congress eliminated the income tax again focused its taxation efforts on tobacco and booze. It had a short-lived revival in 1894 and 1895. In 1913, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution gave Congress legal authority to tax income and resulted in a revenue law that taxed incomes of both individuals and corporations.
I think those people who talk about how the tax was only a temporary thing to pay for a war are getting confused by the Civil War income tax. Amending the Constitution is not something you just do for a short period of time to pay for a war or something. It's a very long and serious process. Which is one of the reasons the Constitution has only been amended 27 times.
Sorc'(Rev)
Response #15
By: Ralf
Date: 5/4/00 6:02:50 AM
Thanks for the clarification. Civil War, WWII... I get them confused.
I believe the page that I cited wayyyy up there asserts that the current incarnation of the Income Tax law was never legally ratified. Due to a technicality (something to do with not getting enough votes from the state representatives?) the current law is invalid, and everything done to enforce it for 50+ years is thus illegal.
Assuming this is true, we're all due a massive income tax refund. Practically, however, this would be unreasonable and impossible, since as Homer points out, we get a lot of important services for our tax money. It'd be a shame to sell all our nuclear weapons to Iraq so we could pay each american a few million dollars in tax restitution. The folks who are demanding the US stop collecting income taxes are probably the same little kids who didn't want to eat their vegetables.
But I'd settle for a personal letter of apology from the IRS and a "Tax Holiday" chit I could use once to skip paying taxes for one year.
Oh, and check this out:
http://www.sightings.com/general/abreaktax.htm
Response #16
By: The Sorcerer
Date: 5/4/00 10:33:26 AM
Ralf Sez:
==========================
I believe the page that I cited wayyyy up there asserts that the current incarnation of the Income Tax law was never legally ratified. Due to a technicality (something to do with not getting enough votes from the state representatives?) the current law is invalid, and everything done to enforce it for 50+ years is thus illegal.
==========================
Yeah, I remember the theory about the amendment. I remember writing a paper about it back in College when I was still a PoliSci & History major. I'll have to pull it back out and remind myself what it said.
Personally I'm all for less taxes and a smaller Federal Government; part of my Republican ideals I suppose. But we do need a reliable method of funding the "necessary" elements of the Federal Government.
Sorc'(Rev)
Response #17
By: sooz
Date: 5/4/00 11:48:10 AM
Why is everyone typing like this?
Response #18
By: Da Sissop
Date: 5/4/00 2:02:19 PM
Oh cause Ralf neglected to close an italics block. I feexed it.
Response #19
By: Ralf
Date: 5/4/00 2:11:41 PM
Doh!
Response #20
By: The Sorcerer
Date: 5/4/00 5:35:20 PM
Ralf: I followed up the link to this groups account of their meeting in Washington. While they played up their success, it really just sounds like they got the polite Washington blow-off.
But to follow on what I was looking for earlier, and they made some reference to it, there was a court case in 1986 that addressed the issue of the 16th Amendment not being valid. The case involved a Tax Protester that tries to use the arguments in W. Benson & M. Beckman's book "The Law That Never Was" to justify not paying income tax. Here is a segment from that court decision that is worth reading.
U.S. v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. den. 107 S.Ct. 187 (1986):
"Thomas is a tax protester, and one of his arguments is that he did not need to file tax returns because the sixteenth amendment is not part of the constitution. It was not properly ratified, Thomas insists, repeating the argument of W. Benson & M. Beckman, The Law That Never Was (1985). Benson and Beckman review the documents concerning the states' ratification of the sixteenth amendment and conclude that only four states ratified the sixteenth amendment; they insist that the official promulgation of that amendment by Secretary of State Knox in 1913 is therefore void.
"Benson and Beckman did not discover anything; they rediscovered something that Secretary Knox considered in 1913. Thirty-eight states
ratified the sixteenth amendment, and thirty-seven sent formal instruments of ratification to the Secretary of State. (Minnesota notified the Secretary orally, and additional states ratified later; we consider only those Secretary Knox considered.) Only four instruments repeat the language of the sixteenth amendment exactly as Congress approved it. The others contain errors of diction, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. The text Congress transmitted to the states was: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." Many of the instruments neglected to capitalize "States," and some capitalized other words instead. The instrument from Illinois had "remuneration" in place of "enumeration"; the instrument from Missouri substituted "levy" for "lay"; the instrument from Washington had "income" not "incomes"; others made similar blunders.
"Thomas insists that because the states did not approve exactly the same text, the amendment did not go into effect. Secretary Knox considered this argument. The Solicitor of the Department of State drew up a list of the errors in the instruments and--taking into account both the triviality of the deviations and the treatment of earlier amendments that had experienced more substantial problems--advised the Secretary that he was authorized to declare the amendment adopted. The Secretary did so.
"Although Thomas urges us to take the view of several state courts that only agreement on the literal text may make a legal document effective, the Supreme Court follows the "enrolled bill rule." If a legislative document is authenticated in regular form by the appropriate officials, the court treats that document as properly adopted. Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649, 36 L.Ed. 294, 12 S.Ct. 495 (1892). The principle is equally applicable to constitutional amendments. See Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 66 L.Ed. 505, 42 S.Ct. 217 (1922), which treats as conclusive the declaration of the Secretary of State that the nineteenth amendment had been adopted. In United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d. 457, 462-463, n.6 (7th Cir. 1986), we relied on Leser, as well as the inconsequential nature of the objections in the face of the 73-year acceptance of the effectiveness of the sixteenth amendment, to reject a claim similar to Thomas's. See also Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 83 L. Ed. 1385, 59 S. Ct. 972 (1939) (questions about ratification of amendments may be nonjusticiable). Secretary Knox declared that enough states had ratified the sixteenth amendment. The Secretary's decision is not transparently defective. We need not decide when, if ever, such a decision may be reviewed in order to know that Secretary Knox's decision is now beyond review."
Sorc'(Rev)
Response #21
By: Ralf
Date: 5/5/00 4:10:20 AM
Well, that settles it. Thank you.
Response #22
By: The Sorcerer
Date: 5/5/00 9:56:40 AM
My pleasure! I don't often get to exercise this hobby to useful and practical ends. *grin*
BTW. Looks like some people have already tried you're idea about the confusion over the use of the term "voluntary" in the text of the code as an argument about paying income tax. When I was looking up the court decision I posted above I ran across at least 15 cases where that claim was rejected! There is something to be said for persistence I suppose. :)
Sorc'(Rev)
Response #23
By: rorschach
Date: 5/10/00 11:41:13 AM
two things that Homer mentioned "stuck".... they were:
Neo-conservatives balk at it, but a lot of social good comes from the fact that we give money to the government, and it gives us services back. Whole economies live or die based on tax money.
Now, personally I do not feel that all of the "services" that the government "provides" are worthwhile, or even good for society. AFDC, Food Stamps, Welfare, Medicaid, are a few that come to mind... how can it be good for society if the government essentially pays someone not to work? or to have more kids than they can take care of? or to not bother to get enough education to survive on thier own? If these people should starve due to thier own stupidity I would WELCOME that. the government should NOT be in the business of polluting the gene pool. It is polluted enough! If the government wants to do something for society then it should mandate 4 year college degree programs AND PAY FOR THEM just like they do for high school and throw anyone who chooses not to go all four years but cannot get a job otherwise into the clink! Anyone who has a kid while on welfare looses parental rights to the kid, and gets INVOLUNTARILY sterilized. If you can't take care of it, you shouldn't have it. If you can't show enough intelligence to realize it, then you have no business perpetuating the genes for stupidity. Enough for THAT soap box....
And as far as the $100 toilet paper rolls go, people like to latch onto that sort of thing but there is something many people don't think about that accounts for at least some of that. The departments of Defense and Energy, CIA, NSA, FBI, and even the Department of Agriculture for christ's sake, all have "black" budget items. Items that the mere knowledge that the projects exist is a security threat.
the money has to come from somewhere, and to disguise just how much money goes into these things, only a fraction of the total amount is actually acknowledged as being "black", the rest gets buried as either ficticious or inflated line items in other budgets. Many times, the congress-critter that "finds" these tidbits KNOW this is the case but use it to kill budget items that they don't like in a way that makes them look good in front of the tax slaves. At least 80% of the time it is about leverage, not governmental waste. I'm not saying waste doesn't exist, but it is wholesale waste, like food stamps, not $600 toilet seats.
Response #24
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 5/10/00 8:40:24 PM
I was going to put more disclaimer in there somewhere, but decided not to in the interest of flow and poetry (or something).
Basically, yah, there's stuff that the government does with money that's just STUPID, and can only be justified if one has been indoctrinated into the world of professional bureaucracy, and then there's the stuff that falls under ideological differences, such as welfare and foreign aid and whatever, but you probably can't argue against the benefit of paved roads, funded medical research, environmental regulations, etc. Well, maybe you'd argue against environmental regulations, but since Ken Nordine is on the CD player, I can't concentrate enough to make a better arguement.
Hopefully you get the idea.
Response #25
By: Ralf
Date: 5/11/00 5:27:14 AM
Absolutely.
The basic idea of representational government is good, but becomes flawed with scale. Is it really possible that one or two guys can accurately represent the interests of millions of people? That's even assuming they're honestly trying and not mired in beltway banditry.
Perhaps it's time for distributed representation? Technology allows us to communicate and organize information over vast distances like never before.
Maybe we can make mob rule work!
Response #26
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 5/11/00 3:04:01 PM
I've come to dislike the initiative system, because it leads to talk radio politics. Mob rule (or rule by stupid people who think they're smart, even though they have the attention span of a gnat) is a painful place to try to get anything done.
Basically, it's like Ghandi sez: You've got to become the change you want. Bitching and moaning about taxes or spending or whatever only amounts to setting yourself up for when the next charismatic politician comes along with the right words to say. You've got to exercise your civic action and civil disobedience muscles or you're part of the problem.
I applaud whoever's suing the IRS!
Response #27
By: Zane T. Dark
Date: 5/11/00 9:34:27 PM
Me too, but if they look this way, I'll start acting like I'm trying to get my hands to dry under one of those hot air blowers...
Response #28
By: Ralf
Date: 5/12/00 6:02:33 AM
Civil disobedience is almost a last resort, just before outright revolt.
What about coming up with something so compellingly wonderful that people will drop the old ways and adopt the new ways?
More carrot, less stick, please.
Response #29
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 5/12/00 7:22:00 PM
Civil disobedience isn't a last resort by any means (necessary. er... wait. nevermind.). You jaywalk to raise awareness of how silly street crossing laws are, or something. Then you fight the ticket, and hope you can get some press.
Or, say, form a human chain around the meeting of the Trade Federation so they can't get in. Don't become violent when the cops come to get you. Civil disobedience.
Response #30
By: Ralf
Date: 5/13/00 5:28:35 AM
But watch out for that evil Lord Palpatine and his talking dog, Darth.
Response #31
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 5/13/00 10:37:27 AM
The lapdog of the capitalist swine!
Response #32
By: Zane T. Dark
Date: 5/18/00 9:33:50 PM
Jar Jar for President!
You set up the motercade, I'll seed the grassy knoll.
Response #33
By: Ralf
Date: 5/19/00 4:51:34 AM
Fade in: 20th century fox logo & fanfare
Voiceover: "A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away..."
Cut to: POD RACER screams by overhead. Camera tilts down to reveal POD RACEWAY on planet COISSANT. Bleachers are empty; this is obviously a test run, not a race.
Sfx: Screaming POD RACER; fades to distance. Chirping insect noises.
Cut to: POD RACER INTERIOR. Camera zooms in tight on face of ANNAKIN SKYWALKER, intensely focused on his driving. POD RACER engines can be heard shrieking in the background.
Voiceover: "A young Jedi apprentice grows up."
Cut to: BLEACHERS. LORD PALPATINE stands, one foot on a seat, other arm around shoulders of QUEEN AMADALA. As the POD RACER screams by, he smirks and raises a thumbs-up.
Voiceover: "A Dark Lord lays dark plans."
Cut to: ANNAKIN SKYWALKER, extreme closeup. ANNAKIN slowly smiles, still intent on the controls. Pod racer shifts into higher gear, shudders (camera shakes) and engine noise ascends another octave.
Voiceover: "And a dreaded enemy..."
Cut to: ROADWAY, extreme closeup, speeding towards us. (POV is front bumper of car at 75 MPH; camera tilted down 60 degrees.) Camera tilts up slowly, slowly...
Voiceover: "...returns..."
Cut to: ANNAKIN, grinning broadly.
Cut to: PALPATINE and AMADALA, heads turned, watching intently.
Cut to: ROADWAY again, camera tilts up to reveal JAR-JAR BINKS, immobilized between two glowing steel posts, spread-eagle such that he is upright, presenting a full-on target for ANNAKIN.
Cut to: Extreme closeup, JAR-JAR BINKS face. Eyes wide with terror, JAR-JAR emits a kind of wordless keening as--
Cut to: Telephoto SIDEVIEW of JAR-JAR & POSTS (stage left), and POD RACER (entering stage right). Extreme slow motion. POD RACER enters shot and inches towards JAR-JAR, a shockwave of displaced air clearly visible around the prow. For two agonizing seconds the POD RACER approaches JAR-JAR, and makes it to within 10 feet of the POSTS.
Voiceover: "...for a brief cameo."
Cut to: BLACKNESS.
SFX: JAR-JAR screaming, POD RACER revving. Various impact sounds via foley (hammers impacting beef carcass, breaking florescent tubes, anvils crashing through plate glass, fabric ripping, ripe tomatoes dropped from 6 feet, crunching celery, wet spaghetti dropped on tile floor, etc.)
Subtitle: Coming Summer of 2003.
Fade out.
Response #34
By: Roxanne
Date: 5/19/00 8:55:55 AM
A Pantless Ralf Production
of
An Oliver Stone Film
"J-J B"
starring Kevin Costner