Show Me The Law?

[KarenM]

Originally Posted by mrg

So what is the statutory definition of income?

If a law doesn't provide a statutory definition of a term, the common-usage English language definition applies.

There have been many court cases where the decision quotes from one or more dictionaries to provide the common, primary definition of a word at issue.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by KarenM

According to precisely what codified interpretive prima facie evidence of the rendering of a lawful Act of Congress enacted, in pursuance of "...this Constitution for the united States of America," upon the passing of a Bill as a presentment to a House of Congress?

Surprise, surprise!!

What, precisely, and with particularity, falls, in law, (or the "at law" presumed "practice" thereof) within the class of "the" "common-usage English language definition?"

How, precisely, does quoting a PARTIAL passage concerning a certain specific and particular inscribed symbolization of vocalized ideation from a gaggle of diction-ar-ies, provide for a knowledgeable, comprehensively analytical application of a definitive evaluative synthesis to the totality of the expression encompassed within the TERM(S) to which the particular rhetorical "word" embodies?

Because some private trade guild Tory Loyalist BAR Association bastard attorney dressed in the cassock of religious clergy, enthroned behind an altar six feet above the assembled congregation, and plying his trade (if one has been duped or forced by arms into PAYING for his SERVICE), along with his brethren, at the sides of the room where "court" (the administration of affairs, in our forms of republican government) is held, opines that it is so?





Opinion:

bas·tard

Pronunciation: \ˈbas-tərd\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, probably of Germanic origin; akin to Old Frisian bost marriage, Old English bindan to bind
Date:14th century

1: an illegitimate child

2: something that is spurious, irregular, inferior, or of questionable origin

Merriam Webster's Online Dictionary

Why, and, lawfully, HOW, would a statutory definition upon which the subsequent definitions of (presumably, perhaps?) statutorily DEFINED terms to which that very undefined term is attached DEPENDS, be OMITTED from, and/or, left UNDEFINED in a particular codified interpretive prima facie evidence of the rendering of a lawful Act of Congress enacted upon the passing of a Bill as a presentment to a House of Congress, which is, arguably, incomprehensibly voluminous and rife with, again, arguably, incomprehensible statutory DEFINITION?

They FORGOT to put it in there?

Why, precisely, and with particularity, would one CHOOSE to actually, apparently, BELIEVE, and forward the belief that mere opinion of a private trade guild Tory Loyalist BAR Association bastard attorney dressed in the cassock of religious clergy, enthroned behind an altar six feet above the assembled congregation, and plying his trade, along with his brethren, at the sides of the room where court (administration of affairs, in our forms of republican government) is held, CONSTITUTES a "decision?"
















Might this have ANYTHING to do with "rend-er-ing" opinion as "DECISION," and decision as RULING:

[Shoonra]

Usually the court will, to find the common usage meaning of a term, refer to a general English dictionary. If the term is used in a particular context, such as engineering, lthe court may refer to a dictionary of engineering terms. The courts do not do this in a vacuum but allow both sides to discuss the definition before making a decision.

Once, to decide whether an Act of Congress dealing with farm produce that treated fruit differently than vegetables, the Supreme Court actually held that, in common usage, the tomato was a vegetable rather than (correctly) a fruit.

[clipper]

Since no one has mentioned this yet I will table this.

This source:

Deciphering The Federal Income Tax

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7521758492370018023&q=Theft+by+dec eption&total=44&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&pl index=0

lays out the case that the power to tax is laid only upon "income from specific sources."

By the IRS regs. set out in IRC Section 861, they determine "income from specific sources" as being income from originating outside the US or non-resident aliens doing business in the U.S. NOT resident citizens income from within the U.S.

Could it be that simple?

Thoughts or rebuttals?

Anyone have experience with this argument?

Best
Clipper

[KarenM]

Larken Rose has a great deal of experience with §861.

After years of not filing income tax based on his interpretation of §861, his latest experience was being released from prison for cirminal evasion.

If you want a few years free room and board, courtesy of Uncle Sam, it's an excellent approach.

[clipper]

Sheer thuggery of the IMF not withstanding, on what premise KarenM?

This is from their own codes from what is determinable.

[mrg]

"Tax Protester" Political Prisoners.

Originally Posted by KarenM

Larken Rose has a great deal of experience...courtesy of Uncle Sam...

Courtesy of "Uncle Sam," or "Uncle Bernie's," private trade guild Loyalist Tory BAR Association bastard Attorneys with LICENSE to "practice" ("fiddle about") "at law," in service to the District, Territories, Possessions, Property, and Holdings of the Great Whore of Babylon, under whose skirts and petticoats both "agent" "Uncle" "Sam," and quisling "double agent" conspirator "Uncle Bernie" "fiddle about?"



British East India Company





The barbed wire and razor wire are NOT there to keep "intruders" OUT.

I'm your wicked Uncle Bernie
I'm glad you won't see or hear me
As I fiddle about
Fiddle about
Fiddle about !

Your mother left me here to mind you
Now I'm doing what I want to
Fiddling about
Fiddling about
Fiddle about!

Down with the bedclothes
Up with the nightshirt!
Fiddle about
Fiddle about
Fiddle about !

You won't shout as I fiddle about
Fiddle about
Fiddle about
Fiddle about !
Fiddle, fiddle, fiddle.

The Who

WHOOOOOOOOSH click here

(Photo Courtesy King John circa 1213)

[KarenM]

The "specific sources" argument ignores the specific language of the 16th Amendment "...from whatever source derived..."

Section 861 is applicable, if you actually read it, to determing what foreign-source is taxable.

Finally, it §861 WERE a silver bullet to slay the tax collector, wouldn't it make sense that people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet (who have millions of dollars to spend on high-priced lawyers to keep their tax bills low) would have found out about it long before a medical transcriptionist did?

In August 2005, a Philadelphia jury convicted Larken Rose on five counts of willful failure to file federal income tax returns based on the frivolous section 861 argument. Mr. Rose was sentenced in federal district court to 15 months imprisonment, and must pay a fine of $10,000, as well as all taxes, interest and penalties that he owes to the IRS.

For the IRS' official view, see their revenue ruling

I'm merely posting an informational, factual response to your inquiry, not supporting the IRS. So it would be nice if others refrained from casting aspersions me for doing that.

[David Merrill]

That whole Show Me the Law issue is nonsense.

There is only one purpose to having a government, Constitution and Constitutional Republic to begin with:

To protect property rights.

That is so fundamental, and was so fundamentally understood that they did not even write it into the federal constitution except that No state shall abrogate the obligations of contract. It is inherent in the federal constitution that the federal government will never have that power, never had.

If you endorse private credit from the Fed, then you bought into the irrecusable obligation to file a Return of Income. That is the contract you signed.

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...ublicMoney.wmv
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...06869308133588



Regards,

David Merrill.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by KarenM

The "specific sources" argument ignores the specific language of the 16th Amendment "...from whatever source derived..."

Section 861 is applicable, if you actually read it, to determing what foreign-source is taxable.

Finally, it §861 WERE a silver bullet to slay the tax collector, wouldn't it make sense that people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet (who have millions of dollars to spend on high-priced lawyers to keep their tax bills low) would have found out about it long before a medical transcriptionist did?

Did you, write that last bit yourself Fräulein Bernie?

Haven't I have seen those exact words (or at least that precise analogy), somewhere else?

Did you, yourself, perhaps write and post it elsewhere as well?

Why, precisely would you not suppose, perhaps, that Übermenschen like Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and their ilk, more than likely, have plenty of other ways to defeat taxpaying (unlike the underclass), than having to wager upon "861" in front of some puffed up black robed LICENSED private trade guild Tory Loyalist BAR Association bastard attorney, sitting on the bank behind a sacrificial altar six feet above everyone else, in a foreign chancery's brothel that the victim/target has been shanghaied into?

How is it that fallacious logical analogous rhetoric is not but part and parcel of the cheap propagandist's crude ad hominem artifice?

Are you further saying that a "medical transcriptionist" is a less intellectually and cognitively competent researcher on gaming rules than "high priced 'lawyers'" (you can't say "Attorney," now can you Fräulein Bernie?)?

Isn't it more than likely that "high priced" (as well as cheap) attorneys are far more likely to "deal" rather than "wager?"

Much less RESEARCH; I mean isn't that what "law" "librarians" are for?

Didn't the so called Supreme Court scribble something about the 16th not delegating any powers of taxation other than what was originally delegated?

How, precisely, is it not by mean practice that the lower so-called "courts" basically ignore poor old "SCOTUS" and, further, do not allow one to deliver the so called "law" itself, physically, into the very hands of their so called "juries" either?

So did you say that you do not support the agenda of the IMF's Federal Reserve offshore Collection Agency dba IRS?

You watched, read, listened, and studied very carefully the posted video right?

Who, other than yourself, was/is saying that "861" or ANYTHING else is a SILVER BULLET?

Again, how, precisely, do I not see the not-so-subtle crass legerdermain of the lower level propagndist at work there?

And, speaking of propaganda, why would one lead another to some scare-tactic brainwashing outlet of the IRS under color of some ad hoc supposed "official view?"



Further, isn't it rather compelling, that when you purport to indicate that:

The "specific sources" argument ignores the specific language of the 16th Amendment "...from whatever source derived..."

that you, for some reason, omit a key term, that has no definition in an encoded prima facie evidence of a rendering of an alleged Act of "Congress" lawfully enacted upon presentment of a negotiable Bill, that runs into the millions of words and is rife with tedious "definitions," many of which use that same undefined term to define that same term in a certain associative context?



Now why would you want to go and do that?

Not more legerdermain?

No "now you see it now you don't" hanky panky?

No "fiddling about?"

No?

Didn't SCOTUS (whom the "districts," apparently, selectively refuse to acknowledge) have something to say about that word somewhere?