Definition of Income

[rottweiler]

Bump.

Show you the law? OK.

Originally Posted by rottweiler

http://www.1215.org/schulz.htm

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by BOBT12

It's called standing on what you believe defence. Cryer was tried in Tax Court? I don't think so.

LOL - That's a good one. Guess the merger between the two took place during some double secret handshake. Too bad they forgot to tell the jury.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by rottweiler

Bump.

Show you the law? OK.

Looks "OK" to me.

I've read that one a few times before, never hurts to read it again.

Thanks.

[rottweiler]

Originally Posted by mrg

Looks "OK" to me.

I've read that one a few times before, never hurts to read it again.

Thanks.

Amazing huh? We have been mistakingly looking for code citations when the law is hidden in plain sight right in the accusatory court papers.

How did Irwin Schiff put it? If you can show me the law in Title 26 that makes me liable I will pay you $50,000. Why did it have to be in Title 26? Because he would lose $50,000 without that limitation. Not only that but Title 26 is not substantive law!

"Show me the law" and the "define income" are red herrings when we realize the government declares the law and defines it in their accusatory court papers.

It is like the cattle asking the rancher for the keys to the gate even though it has always been unlocked.

[jeagas68]

Originally Posted by mertensv16

First of all, the word "labor" appears at least 40 times in the Code. Go here and search for yourself:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/ustax/TaxSearch.html

Second, 15 USC 17 deals with antitrust law, not taxation, and whether labor unions are subject to antitrust has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the income one earns from laboring can be taxed.

Ok, should have been more specific; It is not in the list of taxable sources in dealing section 861. and associated references.

On the other, I have applied it successfully, it is not someting I pulled out of a hat. The subtitles for that section are as follows:
TITLE 15 - COMMERCE AND TRADE
CHAPTER 1 - MONOPOLIES AND COMBINATIONS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE
When I trade labor for frns, that is trade and Excise taxes from a Monoply in Restraint of trade applies.

Furthermore everything is in commerce:
27 CFR 72.11
Commercial crimes. Any of the following types of crimes (Federal or State): Offenses against the revenue laws; burglary; counterfeiting; forgery; kidnapping; larceny; robbery; illegal sale or possession of deadly weapons; prostitution (including soliciting, procuring, pandering, white slaving, keeping house of ill fame, and like offenses); extortion; swindling and confidence games; and attempting to commit, conspiring to commit, or compounding any of the foregoing crimes.
Addiction to narcotic drugs and use of marihuana will be treated as if such were commercial crime.

Remember: Equality under the law is Paramount

[mertensv16]

Originally Posted by jeagas68

It is not in the list of taxable sources in dealing section 861. and associated references.

Section 861 doesn't list taxable sources. Please don't buy into the tired and discredited Section 861 argument that has been consistently rejected by the courts and that chiefly appeals only to the con artists who peddle it. Incidentally, neither Larken Rose nor Tom Clayton, who have probably pushed this piece of nonsense more than anyone else, believed in it enough to argue its merits at their own trials for tax evasion.

When I trade labor for frns, that is trade and Excise taxes from a Monoply in Restraint of trade applies.

Furthermore everything is in commerce:
27 CFR 72.11

Taxation creates no monopoly nor any restraint of trade. That argument isn't just absurd, it's weird.

And 27 CFR doesn't deal with the income tax.

[jeagas68]

Originally Posted by mertensv16

Section 861 doesn't list taxable sources. Please don't buy into the tired and discredited Section 861 argument that has been consistently rejected by the courts and that chiefly appeals only to the con artists who peddle it. Incidentally, neither Larken Rose nor Tom Clayton, who have probably pushed this piece of nonsense more than anyone else, believed in it enough to argue its merits at their own trials for tax evasion.



Taxation creates no monopoly nor any restraint of trade. That argument isn't just absurd, it's weird.

And 27 CFR doesn't deal with the income tax.

Well wherever that sources list is, labor is not there, I don't even use the tax code anymore. I gave up the Larken Rose 861 crap a long long time ago, and have used other information since then until finding that the Internal Revenue Service was just another Corporation doing business with the U.S. Federal Corporation. I have made acknowledgement of these facts to the State DOR because they are also a federaly incorporated entity and they were freaken scrambling to get out of the way, I never seen them release a Garnishment on Wages so quickly.

Yes I know this taxation an monopoly stuff is weird, but you know how the saying goes:
"If you keep doing the same thing and getting the same results you must change direction".

Another thing is when I got the State DOR to release the garnishment I created my own legal language, I did not use a singal State statute believe it or not. I will put this creation in another post sometime.

Silver Dollar

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by rottweiler

How did Irwin Schiff put it? If you can show me the law in Title 26 that makes me liable I will pay you $50,000. Why did it have to be in Title 26? Because he would lose $50,000 without that limitation. Not only that but Title 26 is not substantive law!

JG: Sigh...
Anecdote it may be, but I have no evidence to refute it -
[] All the people I personally know, who were hassled / incarcerated on tax charges had 2 things in common: 1) open, interest bearing bank account, and 2) active Social Security Account and number.
[] All the people I personally know, myself included, who were LEFT ALONE, despite filing foolish boilerplate, asserting all manner of goofy "patriot" arguments, picketing the local IRS office, parading on local TV, and acting in a contrarian manner had 2 things in common: 1) no interest bearing account nor 2) active Social Security Account and number.

I can only deduce that in the 'signature card' one agrees to abide by the rules of the "BANK". And that "BANK" is under the administration of the U.S. governor, who is the Secretary of Treasury. And no instrumentality of the Federal Reserve Banking system will contract, for usury, with an unnumbered American.

In short, 'voluntary compliance' is based upon a voluntary agreement to be a so******t and usurer.

Student exercise:
Ask your local bank branch to provide you a copy of the "rules" you agreed to.
You might find the "small print" that absolves "the Bank" of any liability to defend their agreement, while the undersigned accepts full liability for any mistakes made.

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by jeagas68

Another thing is when I got the State DOR to release the garnishment I created my own legal language, I did not use a singal State statute believe it or not. I will put this creation in another post sometime.

Silver Dollar

Considering you can't even properly spell the word "single"....

No, I don't believe you for a second. Not a word.

And I suspect you won't provide proof of your miraculous win, either.

[jeagas68]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Considering you can't even properly spell the word "single"....

No, I don't believe you for a second. Not a word.

And I suspect you won't provide proof of your miraculous win, either.

Well excuse me, you must live on another planet where typos never happen, milk don't get spilled and other such accidents never happen. Sorry, I live on a imperfect planet most call Earth.

Then don't believe me, I am not holding a gun to your head.

Negative people like you with eyes wide shut is why other people usually will not post proof of claim. How many frns are you willing to put on the table that I will not? If not any then your word is not even worth the dirt under my feet to give you that pleasure.