"trade Or Business" *** Key ***

[mrg]

Those "courts" are nothing more than BAR Association whorehouses and gaming casinos.

It is an organized criminal racketeering syndicate, and Lawdog and his Machievellian, Malthusian, brethren are cheap sleazy grifters--boot-licking lackeys for their Esquire drug trafficking, slave trafficking,
war financier/investor/profiteer owners, and cower beneath the linen covering their tables squabbling like pigeons and gulls over the best spot to gather the crumbs that fall to the ground.

The only force of "law" is at the end of the the barrel of guns wielded by the BAR Association's mercenary troops.

A so-called "jury trial" is hardly "a trial by a jury."

A "jury trial" is an odious "dog and pony show" (Tijuana-style donkey and prostitute show?) product of jury tampering by a BAR Association attorney in a cassock hornswoggling and hoodwinking ignorant citizens, and commandeering an armed force of corporate mercenary troops.

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/134044-post31.html

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/134046-post32.html


When Americans destroy your outlaw foreign BAR Association we will have cut off one of the heads of the dragon overseeing the usurpation of our republican forms of government.

The American Revolution succeeded, in its significant parts, despite the opposition of most of the colonial population, using pragmatic tactics rather than formal "accepted" norms of engagement.

The other jury instructions proffered by the defendant are equally inane. Thus we hold that the district court did not err in refusing the other instruction offered by Latham implying that 26 U.S.C. § 7343 defining "person" does not include natural persons. n2 Similarly, Latham's instruction which indicated that under 26 U.S.C. § 3401(c) the category of "employee" does not include privately employed <b>WAGE EARNERS</b> is a preposterous reading of the statute. It is obvious that within the context of both statutes the word "includes" is a term of enlargement not of limitation, and the reference to certain entities or categories is not intended to exclude all others.

U. S. v. Latham, 754 F.2d 747 (7th Cir. 1985) (emphasis added)

Now also by definition "wage earners" would be someone who creates trade or business. So what exactly is this trying to prove? Also considering it would not matter what "wages" include considering that "wages" is under the umbrella of "trade or business", which one cannot make legal "wages" without "trade or business".

Its the context of includes in the "trade or business" portion that needs to be pinned down. Seems to be that of exclusion to me. Or at least that of vagueness.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

LOL! You crack me up, kid.

The Supreme Court is mentioned BY NAME in article III of the Constitution.

Wake up, kid. Reality is calling.

Wake up kid: you are twisting words, and, to put it kindly, misrepresenting reality my dear boy.

Your claim that "The Supreme Court" "is mentioned BY NAME in article III of the Constitution" is but another pernicious exercise in deceitful sniveling rhetorical artifice of simpering courtesans.

"...one supreme Court..." was precisely what was mentioned kiddo, not "The Supreme Court" "by name."

There is no "The Supreme Court" mentioned, my boy, nor was there any "the supreme court of the United States" until Congress did "establish" such using their Power to "ordain and establish" "such inferior courts."

The Judiciary Act of 1789
September 24, 1789.

1 Stat. 73.

CHAP. XX. – An Act to establish the Judicial Courts of the United States.

What is invoked was NOT something to be "ordained and established" "as the Congress may from time to time."

You and your ill-conceived Tory Loyalist Esquire private monopoly trade-guild syndicated criminal racketeering scheme may have and publish your opinions as to "one supreme Court," but the fact that you and your cronies must maintain such a large standing army of corporate municipal mercenary troops to ram your ******uously bastardized BAR opinions down the throats and up the other end of the GI tract of the American domestic population, under force of arms, is a rather awkward affair in the free republican forms of government guaranteed by the document you have once again defamed and deceitfully wielded as an instrument of your pathetically third-rate attempts at propaganda.

That is your war of aggression.

What the Congress did, in fact, "establish" is, constitutionally, INFERIOR to that which was, as you so "delicately" frame it, "mentioned."

Marshall assumed Power not granted.

That assumption is "SCOTUS."

You ought to stop mixing up that off-brand BAR "grape Flavor Aid," my boy, unless you and your fellow pettifogging dilettantes are the only ones that are to drink it--in which case, go for it.

Please.

Lawdog's Lemonade Stand
Free Samples Available Now!

In a republic the administration of affairs is open to all CITIZENS©.

A court is a republican institution where affairs are administered.

You must administer your affairs of court yourself or waive this right.

MOST PEOPLE, myself included, thought that John signed the Great Charter of English Liberties and became good King John afterwards.

This is wrong.

As soon as John got the rebel barons to disband their armies he waged holy war against them for the rest of his life.

OUR CONSTITUTION FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA must be defended and we must defend it to the best of our ability.

When you invoke a court you must assert your jurisdiction to hold it and cannot let the judge usurp your judicial power.

This means you do not pay an attorney fee to him to conduct your court, you do not submit documents to him for his approval, you do not motion him to move your court, you deny everything he has tried to file and you strike anything that he has attempted to enter of record.

He will not like you.

You are not trying to make friends with him.

Without the judge you can eject attorneys and enter your own orders including a declaratory judgment if no other party appears for court in person.

If a few of us do this we can be hunted down and exterminated.

If thousands of us do this it may succeed.

I'm telling you how to fight but not promising victory.

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by mrg

When Americans destroy your outlaw foreign BAR Association we will have cut off one of the heads of the dragon overseeing the usurpation of our republican forms of government.

"When" this happens? LOL

Since this is the last time I plan to address you directly, mrg, you being not worthy of serious attention, let me make some things clear.

You and your trailer park buddies aren't going to overthrow the existing government and other social institutions. That's your adolescent power fantasy, nothing more. Most people grow out of such fantasies upon reaching adulthood.

There is no BAR Asssociation (BAR not being an acronym for British Accredited Registry or anything of that nature, despite what your trailer park buddies have told you), but I can assure you that neither the courts nor the legal profession are afraid of you and your lunatic fringe friends. You're mainly a source of laughter for us. Sometimes you're a nuisance (like when you file bogus liens on people), but that's as far as it goes.

People like you are deeply unhappy with your lives, for whatever reason, and prefer blaming others rather than accepting responsibility for your own choices in life. Since you have a suspicious, paranoid mindset, you have convinced yourself there must be a conspiracy that is keeping you down. Yes, it's a conspiracy why you have a crappy job, live in a crappy part of town, etc.

You happen to have latched onto lawyers as the focus of your hatred. They are the ones conspiring to keep you and all the "real patriots" down. Some people like you blame the Freemasons for everything, or the Jews. It's symptomatic of your paranoid delusions, nothing more.

The only oath I took when I became an attorney was to support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Georgia. I have never taken an oath to England, the Queen of England, or any other foreign institution. My only loyalty is to this country. My conscience is clear.

In all seriousness, you should seek help from a mental health professional. At this point only a psychiatrist or psychologist can pull you back from the abyss.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

My conscience is clear.

What conscience?

[palani]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

... when I became an attorney ...

Did you mean to say "when I expatriated the human race and sought gainful employment exploiting others"? Honestly examine what you produce and assess whether you are worth your salt.

Fraus est celare fraudem.

It is a fraud to conceal a fraud.

[weishaupt1776]

Alright, ad hominem attacks towards one's character is not going to be tolerated toward Lawdog OR FROM Lawdog

Hate on the Game, not the players

This thread will be shutdown if this persists

[yebliker]

It doesn't make sense for the code to point out specific occupations that are taxable, if you also believe that every source of money is taxable (meaning all pay).

If a term is defined, that means that the definition given is the whole definition- otherwise nothing has been defined. Look up the word "define", and you see that it means, among other things, "limit". To say that "includes" would also refer to other things not mentioned, would make the code void for vagueness.

"Within the term defined" still limits the list to the class of "profits, gain, and income", and by using those three words together, the code defines a class- all three things mean the same.

A "term defined" is different from a common usage word, and the definition limits the intention. Otherwise, you are just listing examples, and not defining anything.

Pete Hendrickson covers this topic very well in "Cracking the Code", still the best book I've read on the subject of the Internal Revenue Code.

[mertensv16]

Originally Posted by yebliker

To say that "includes" would also refer to other things not mentioned, would make the code void for vagueness.

Oh, please. When the Code says that "the term 'State' includes the District of Columbia where such construction is necessary to carry out the provisions of this title", is there any ambiguity at all that the term "State" also has its normal meaning of the 50 states?

A "term defined" is different from a common usage word, and the definition limits the intention. Otherwise, you are just listing examples, and not defining anything.

No, you're simply adding something to the normal definition of a word. For example, the District of Columbia is not a state. But in many provisions of the Code, it might be necessary or desireable to have a shorthand term to be used to encompass both the 50 states and D.C. That's what Section 7701(a)(10), quoted above, does.

Pete Hendrickson covers this topic very well in "Cracking the Code", still the best book I've read on the subject of the Internal Revenue Code.

Except that Hendrickson's theory that "includes" in the withholding sections limits their applicability to governmental employees and corporate officers has been termed "inane" and "preposterous" by the courts. If you really think about it, it also defies common sense. Why would Congress want to limit the income tax to governmental employees and corporate officers? Isn't Congress after all the tax money it can get? Why would Congress deliberately exclude the income of private sector workers from its evil, greedy clutches?

Hendrickson's inane answer is that Congress has to, because it can constitutionally tax only activities that result from the exercise of a federal privilege. The problem, of course, is that this isn't and never has been the law. A constitutional excise tax need not involve any privileged activity whatsoever (it might in a given case, but it certainly doesn't have to) -- the gift tax and the income tax on illegally-acquired income are the prime examples.

Moreover, even when privileges are involved, they may be state-created privileges, not those created by the federal government. For example, most corporations are state-chartered. So how does Hendrickson explain the taxation of an activity relating to a state-created privilege (e.g., being a corporate officer)? How does he explain the federal taxation of the value of property passing as a result of the state-created "privilege" of inheritance (by this term I mean both property passing under a will and by a state's intestacy law)?

[mrg]

Originally Posted by weishaupt1776

Of course "my boy" Esquire Lawdog and his professional colleagues practicing at their "law" are far above any personal reproach.

We all know and acknowledge that don't we?

I sincerely, humbly, and truly apologize to Esquire Lawdog, especially for that which has no ring of truth to it.

How is "it" a "Game?"

To pettifogging dillitantes it is, perhaps a "game;" a Grande Olde Game indeed!!

I can go to a certain ye olde BAR and grille on La Salle street at "happy hour" and observe pettifoggers laughing about their "game."

(Try the ribs--the best in town!)


That kind of "game?"


In fact, I can stand in the halls of "just us" (where "the only justice is in the halls," as Lenny Bruce observed), and listen to them talk their "game."

So who's here playing games?

Me?

I am not "playing" any "game."

Hate?

Cold as ice.

Hate gets in the way.

Treason is treason.

War is war.

The King's Esquires started it, and their minions perpetuate it.

This is about all the Law that is left:

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

That which they pledged, they were for real about.

So am I.

Try me.

You want Esquires watching your back if/when TSHTF?