Cracking The Code is Successful!

[AndyK]

Start with 26USC 1 and 60 through 63.

They are the heart of the matter.

You can find them at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/caseco...section_1.html

and

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/caseco...rts/i/toc.html

There are regulations associated with these, but you said "the law"

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by AndyK

So the entire purpose of this site is for true believers to stroke each others' egos and blindly follow without question or investigation?

If that's the case, why not just rename it Sui Lemmings?

No, but you can find a website already following the philosophy and purpose you described:
www.quatloos.com

[KaosTheory]

"The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of tax."

F. Morse Hubbard, Treasury Department legislative draftsman. House Congressional Record March 27th 1943, page 2580



"...the requirement to pay [excise] taxes involves the exercise of privilege."

United States Supreme Court, Flint vs. Stone Tracy Co. 220 U.S. 107 (1911)

[KaosTheory]

Originally Posted by freeindeed

Bob,

AndyK has not once had any documentation to support his claims. There has been ample documentation to show he is blowing smoke. One piece of documentation was the letter from the Congressman regarding the notice of levy under section 6331(a). Has he given an answer in that thread? NO and he never will except maybe to distort.

Just curious, is this the congressman you were referring to?

Quoting Congressman Dennis H. Hertel in a letter to constituent December 30, 1985
regarding the missing paragraph from form 668-W Notice of Levy on Wages.

“Levy may be made upon the accrued salary of or wages of any officer, employee or elected official of the United States, District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia, by serving a notice, etc”


Section 6331 IRC ….”does not provide authority to levy wages of private citizens in the private sector. The omission of this section from the IRS Form 668-W may be misleading to some employers, as you have suggested.”

[David Merrill]

The 6331(a) missing clause argument is garbage because if you are arguing it, you are a federal employee/citizen of the United States. Just the same, at a glance it looks like it has merit:

[freeindeed]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

The 6331(a) missing clause argument is garbage because if you are arguing it, you are a federal employee/citizen of the United States. Just the same, at a glance it looks like it has merit:

Thanks David, I was about to repost it myself. I also agree with your anology. I am certainly NOT a US citizen and they can have the 6331(a) argument to themselves.

[PANICPASS]

David Merrill wrote:
The 6331(a) missing clause argument is garbage because if you are arguing it, you are a federal employee/citizen of the United States. Just the same, at a glance it looks like it has merit:


If you're not supposed to argue about it then they should put the paragraph back in; otherwise the missing paragraph is fraud by ommission. It doesn't matter what the paragraph says. The fact that it's omitted is what's important.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by freeindeed

Thanks David, I was about to repost it myself. I also agree with your anology. I am certainly NOT a US citizen and they can have the 6331(a) argument to themselves.

Thank you. That happens to be the argument that got me involved with whatever you want to call all this; through Al Carter and his AIR - American Institute of the Republic - the "Al" no doubt of the Are You Lost at Sea? era.

I may have barely evaded an argument with Mutt regarding the same issue - that to validate any Title 42 U.S.C. action period but specifically under §§1983-1986 you declare yourself citizen of the US too.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by PANICPASS

David Merrill wrote:
The 6331(a) missing clause argument is garbage because if you are arguing it, you are a federal employee/citizen of the United States. Just the same, at a glance it looks like it has merit:


If you're not supposed to argue about it then they should put the paragraph back in; otherwise the missing paragraph is fraud by ommission. It doesn't matter what the paragraph says. The fact that it's omitted is what's important.

Okay...

The thing is that there are a lot of other paragraphs omitted too. Since the IMFIRS is collecting taxes, they would of course leave the paragraphs out that confuse their mission. It is up to you to get a look at the pertinent codes in full; especially since the Notice is only one page long. I have a bible that is about one inch tall - you need a microscope to read it. The print on the backside of the levy is pretty small already.

I saw and wish I had kept an official looking order to judges from the CID (Criminal Investigation Division) of the IRS. It told them that if they were not responsibly collecting taxes in their courtrooms, they were subject to audit and investigation as taxpayers. Well, there you have it folks, you need to recuse any taxpayers from the bench whether they willingly recognize the conflict of interest or not.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by AndyK

So, the law is BS?

Is 26USC6331 valid law or is it BS?

It is not "law" at all.

It is BS.

You apparently have no idea what "law" is.

Here is a picture of your "law."



FDR (and Churchill) was singing his praises and busily adopting his political and economic solutions to the world wide depression (Germany was first to recover from the "bankster's holidays) until the maritime commerce started to be hampered.

Thank you sir, I will have no more.