US v. Sloan

[ray5450]

Please, comment on the significance/meaning of this ruling:


"All individuals, freeborn and nonfreeborn, natural and
unnatural alike, must pay federal income tax on their wages, regardless of whether they have requested, obtained or exercised any privilege from the federal
government. " United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499, 501 (7th Cir. 1991), cert. den. 112 US 940 (1992).

Originally Posted by ray5450

Please, comment on the significance/meaning of this ruling:


"All individuals, freeborn and nonfreeborn, natural and
unnatural alike, must pay federal income tax on their wages, regardless of whether they have requested, obtained or exercised any privilege from the federal
government. " United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499, 501 (7th Cir. 1991), cert. den. 112 US 940 (1992).

to understand this you must realize the legal definition of individual.

INDIVIDUAL : also Alter Ego
alter ego
n. a corporation, organization or other entity set up to provide a legal shield for the person actually controlling the operation. Proving that such an organization is a cover or alter ego for the real defendant breaks down that protection, but it can be difficult to prove complete control by an individual. In the case of corporations, proving one is an alter ego is one way of "piercing the corporate veil." In a lawsuit complaint, it might be stated (pleaded) that "the Hotshot Corporation was the alter ego of Joseph Snakeoil."

INDIVIDUAL : also company
company
n. any formal business entity for profit, which may be a corporation, a partnership, association or individual proprietorship. Often people think the term "company" means the business is incorporated, but that is not true. In fact, a corporation usually must use some term in its name such as "corporation," "incorporated," "corp." or "inc." to show it is a corporation.

INDIVIDUAL : also entity
entity
n. a general term for any institution, company, corporation, partnership, government agency, university or any other organization which is distinguished from individuals.

INDIVIDUAL : also
income tax
n. a tax on an individual's net income, after deductions for various expenses and payments such as charitable gifts, calculated on a formula which takes into consideration whether it is paid jointly by a married couple, the number of dependents of the taxpayers, special breaks for ages over 65, disabilities and other factors. Federal income taxes have been collected since 1913 when they were authorized by the 16th Amendment to the Constitution. Most states also assess income taxes, but at a substantially lower rate than that of the federal government.

Originally Posted by ray5450

Please, comment on the significance/meaning of this ruling:


"All individuals, freeborn and nonfreeborn, natural and
unnatural alike, must pay federal income tax on their wages, regardless of whether they have requested, obtained or exercised any privilege from the federal
government. " United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499, 501 (7th Cir. 1991), cert. den. 112 US 940 (1992).

Also i forgot to mention. it states you must pay federal income tax on wages.

Two things here.. taxes. there is no code that says it is manditory so this ruling is unconstitutional and wrong.

the second point is on wages. Income is not wages. wages are not profit. so since they do not exist as income or profit, there can not be a tax..

what is the tax on nothing....

[AndyK]

Originally Posted by handofdespair

Also i forgot to mention. it states you must pay federal income tax on wages.

Two things here.. taxes. there is no code that says it is manditory so this ruling is unconstitutional and wrong.

the second point is on wages. Income is not wages. wages are not profit. so since they do not exist as income or profit, there can not be a tax..

what is the tax on nothing....

Unconstitutional? What part of "cert. den." do you not understand?
Sloan filed a request for cert. with the Supreme Court following his loss in the 7th Circuit. Had there been any question as to the constitutionality of the decision, cert. would have been granted.

[weishaupt1776]

Originally Posted by ray5450

Please, comment on the significance/meaning of this ruling:


"All individuals, freeborn and nonfreeborn, natural and
unnatural alike, must pay federal income tax on their wages, regardless of whether they have requested, obtained or exercised any privilege from the federal
government. " United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499, 501 (7th Cir. 1991), cert. den. 112 US 940 (1992).

I agree, if you signed any wage statement "W" form, you gotta do it.

§*31.6011(b)-2(c)(2)(i)
26 C.F.R. §31.6011(b)-2***Employees' account numbers.
(c) Duties of employer with respect to employees' account numbers
(2) Employee who does not show account number card
(i) Employee who has not applied for account number. If the employee has not been assigned an account number and has not made application therefor with a district office of the Social Security Administration, the employer shall inform the employee of his duties under this section.

Weis is correct.

Admit that you have "wages" by signing a form, then pay what you owe.

Besides, I can never be construed as an individual, as individual connotes the singular.

Matthew 28:20

I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Revelation 3:20

Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.


Hebrews 13:5b

for He hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.

Henry Franklin

Quotes from the case with emphasis added:

"Consistent with this new-found conviction, Mr. Sloan did not pay any federal income taxes on his wages for the years 1981, 1982 and 1983 (a total tax due of approximately $8,000.00) and took the affirmative step of filing false W-4 forms to ensure that his "exemption" from the income tax continued."

"The primary position taken by Mr. Sloan is that he has been unable to learn from any authoritative source -- the tax code, the Internal Revenue Service, or the federal courts -- the exact statutory provision which imposes upon him a legal duty to file a federal tax return."

[Henry's Note: Yet he "filed" forms, albeit false, even though he could find no authority requiring him to do so. Duh. If you ain't required, you ain't required.]

"In fact, in order to make plain his position Mr. Sloan states categorically that "I DO NOT 'misunderstand the law.' I am not raising a constitutional challenge to the taxing statutes." [This would be why the words "cert. den." appear.]

[Henry's Note: This guy appears to be constantly contradicting himself, which is what happens when one argues.]

"Finally, the act of filing a false Form W-4 constitutes an affirmative act of evasion or attempting to evade."


[So, this guy was obviously mixed up in the head.]

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by HenryBowman

Quotes from the case with emphasis added:

"Consistent with this new-found conviction, Mr. Sloan did not pay any federal income taxes on his wages for the years 1981, 1982 and 1983 (a total tax due of approximately $8,000.00) and took the affirmative step of filing false W-4 forms to ensure that his "exemption" from the income tax continued."

"The primary position taken by Mr. Sloan is that he has been unable to learn from any authoritative source -- the tax code, the Internal Revenue Service, or the federal courts -- the exact statutory provision which imposes upon him a legal duty to file a federal tax return."

[Henry's Note: Yet he "filed" forms, albeit false, even though he could find no authority requiring him to do so. Duh. If you ain't required, you ain't required.]

"In fact, in order to make plain his position Mr. Sloan states categorically that "I DO NOT 'misunderstand the law.' I am not raising a constitutional challenge to the taxing statutes." [This would be why the words "cert. den." appear.]

[Henry's Note: This guy appears to be constantly contradicting himself, which is what happens when one argues.]

"Finally, the act of filing a false Form W-4 constitutes an affirmative act of evasion or attempting to evade."


[So, this guy was obviously mixed up in the head.]

This is why I don't file any forms with the IRS. It is difficult to understand the traps associated wíth them.

However, I use non-IRS documents for any communication that may be necessary, such as disavowing the W-?, rebutting false claims, and presumptions, etc.

Of course, I understand that many may see fit to file IRS forms for numerous reasons. Whatever the case, I hope that everyone will take precautions to dispel any presumptions that may be attached to the forms.

In any case, I will continue my resistance, and I hope that Sloan will continue his resistance to this state sponsored insanity.

Sloan may be ignorant to all of the, thousands and thousands of pages, laws, codes, regulations, etc. In any event, Sloan's signature is void if he was mislead, or not told, about the voluntarily nature of the document(s), I know that I was mislead in this regard.

[Livefire]

"The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assesment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers." (emphasis mine)

Economy Plumbing and Heating Co. v. United States, 470 F. 2d 585 (1972)

Ya just gotta know who and what you are I suppose!

[Glenn]

Fron the case of :

939 F.2d 499

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Lorin G. SLOAN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 90-3154.
United States Court of Appeals,
Seventh Circuit.
Argued June 14, 1991.
Decided Aug. 9, 1991.
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc
Denied Sept. 10, 1991.
Andrew B. Baker, Jr. (argued), Asst. U.S. Atty., Dyer, Ind., for plaintiff-appellee.
Lorin G. Sloan (argued), pro se.

I Quote from the above case:

“The indictment cited the statute he was accused of violating (26 U.S.C. s 7201) and identified the specific tax (the income tax) he was obligated to pay.”

I am confused! The indictment cited the statute Mr. Sloan was accused of violating as 26 U.S.C. s 7201, if you look below you may see that this is incorrect and a reversible point.

From http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/about.html

NOTE: Of the 50 titles, only 23 have been enacted into positive (statutory) law. These titles are 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 23, 28, 31, 32, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 44, 46, and 49. When a title of the Code was enacted into positive law, the text of the title became legal evidence of the law. Titles that have not been enacted into positive law are only prima facie evidence of the law. In that case, the Statutes at Large still govern. (emphasis added)

I fail to see Title 26 as a positive or statutory law, so would that not mean the court, the court of appeals, and also the supreme court were all in error? By up holding the internal revenue charges? As they pursued charges that lacked standing? and also achieved a conviction by stating bogus or faults law without stating the Statute at Large that governed the charge(s).

Did they not fail to state a claim inwhich relief could be granted.

On the other hand he did file false documents. Bad, Bad Boy thats a No No No

Glenn