Congress, IRS, DOJ, And Deception

[mnchicago]

Thank you, David.

This has been a learning experience for me as I went
down against an uncertain path against a scary IRS.

The more I learned, the more I saw how the IRS was
only a paper tiger, rolling over people by intimidation
and deception.

I learned they could not stand against the truth of who
they pretend to be

Truth is a mighty powerful elixir. It is what I seek.

This information, gathered from many sources, is offered
for anyone else who decides to choose for themself, for
there is always choice, and nothing is more potent than
informed choice.

My thanks to you and all the other participants on this
site.

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by mnchicago

Thank you, David.

This has been a learning experience for me as I went
down against an uncertain path against a scary IRS.

I know the feeling.

Originally Posted by mnchicago

The more I learned, the more I saw how the IRS was
only a paper tiger, rolling over people by intimidation
and deception.

I agree. Of course the paper tiger sprouts teeth from time to time.

Originally Posted by mnchicago

I learned they could not stand against the truth of who
they pretend to be

Unless they hurl more lies.

Originally Posted by mnchicago

Truth is a mighty powerful elixir. It is what I seek.

I agree.

Originally Posted by mnchicago

This information, gathered from many sources, is offered
for anyone else who decides to choose for themself, for
there is always choice, and nothing is more potent than
informed choice.

My thanks to you and all the other participants on this
site.

Thanks for the information.

[mnchicago]

What quatloser-types fail to comprehend is that they have
been duped, just like everyone else. What makes them more
dangerous is that they maintain core beliefs that they know
better than anyone else. They do not, in fact, they cannot
see themselves as fools, at times. Quite the contrary, they
ardently believe everyone else is a fool.

Enough about them.

It is important to realize that there really are two United
States: the Constitutional United States, composed of
the States of the Union. Its Citizens, spelled with a
capital C, are Citizens of their respective State.

The other "United States" is the one formed by Congress
via Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2. This was a loophole
in the Constitution, discovered and exploited by the
international bankers, that allowed Congress to form its
own "government," over which they had absolute power
and jurisdiction.

This is the federal "United States," with the District of
Columbia being either THE state, or the corporate "United
States" cited throughout the IRC. The other parts of
the federal "United States" are Puerto Rico, the Virgin
Islands, Guam, and Samoa.

I have already shown how Alaska and Hawaii, when they
were still Territories, were referred to as States. However,
as they were admitted as respective States of the Union,
Congress changed the code to drop any reference to them
as being a "State" of the "United States."

The inhabitants of the "United States" are "residents,"
"citizens," with a small c.

As an aside, whenever you are in court, and the judge
asks if you are a "United States citizen," never say yes.
If you do, you have submitted yourself to the federal
jurisdiction, and you are screwed.

A better response is to acknowledge yourself as a Citizen
of the State of ____________. In this instance, the
court does not obtain jurisdiction. It also makes sense to
add reservation of one's rights without prejudice, per UCC 1-308.

With this knowledge in hand, it becomes easier to understand,
when reading the IRC, (Internal Revenue Code), that a
"resident citizen" is one who lives within the federal
"United States." Bear in mind, these are statutory
definitions as they apply in the federal corporate "United
States."

Who is a resident alien?

One who lives within the federal "United States"
but has not become a "United States" "citizen."

Now, when you read the Publication number 519, United
States Tax Guide For Aliens, it takes on a totally
different interpretation/meaning:

"Introduction

For tax purposes, an alien is an individual who is not
a "United States" citizen. Aliens are classified as
nonresident aliens and resident aliens..."



Nowhere in the code is the word "individual" defined

Why?

Becuase the entire code is purposefully written to confuse
and deceive. When you read in the code about something
that applies to every "individual" who is a "United States"
citizen, to whom do you assume that applies?

We all think of ourselves as citizens. We all think we
live in the United States. We just didn't know there was
another Congressionally sponsored "United States" whose
"citizens" are not what we think them to be.

This may be an assult on one's senses, but keep track of
of the line of reasoning, and it all fits and makes sense.

Once you comprehend that you can be a Citizen of the
United States of the Union, or unknowingly become a
"United States" "citizen" of a federal municipality via a
pressumed UCC contract:

THEN you will begin to see the power of the IRS
and its tax code begin to unravel and melt away.

THEN you will begin to understand why so many people
lose in court cases against the IRS, why they never
stood a chance from the beginning.

Pay close attention to every word and that it may not
mean what you assume it means. The IRS counts on
your assumptions.

[mnchicago]

Can you guess who is a nonresident alien individual?

"The term nonresident alien individual means an
individual whose residence is not within the "United States,"
and who is not a citizen of the "United States."
26 CFR 1.871-2 (Emphasis added)

Aka a Sovereign State Citizen who was born in one of the
50 States of the Union.

What the IRS is going to learn is that they can fool most
of the people most of the time, but they cannot fool all of
the people all of the time.

[mnchicago]

Learn to discern what initially may seem to be "overly fine
points, or subtleties, because eventually, the more you
absorb how the deceit unfolds, the more obvious these
subtle deceits become.

Whatever you do, learn to ignore the quatloser-types of
information dispensed on this site by them. You do not
need them, in my opinion.

Example:

It has been averred by quatloser-types that "every
individual having for the taxable year gross income
which equals or exceeds the exemption amount..."
(IRC 6012(1)(A)

From their biased perspective, the above has emphasis on
every individual...

That is what the IRS wants them, and us, to believe.

But wait!

The term individual is not defined in the code.

Well, sort of. Waaaaay near the end of the code, chapter
79, where it is stated, (not defined) that an
individual is a nonresident alien if such individual
is neither a citizen of the "United States" nor a resident
of the "United States."

Referring back to IRC 6012 (1)(A), quoted above, gross
income was mentioned.

Gross income happens to be defined in section 61:
"Gross income means all income from whatever
source derived..."

We'll deal with whatever source at another time.

As it turns out, the "income" tax is not imposed on gross
income."

Nice try, IRS.

Since there is no tax imposed on gross income, then
the code does not apply to one who is not a taxpayer.

Now we can re-read 6012(1)(A) as, every individual
having for the taxable year, gross income...blah,
blah, blah..."

There is also a definition for Taxable year!

26 USC 441(b)"

"(b) Taxable year - for purposes of this subtitle,
the term taxable year means -
(1) the taxpayer's annual accounting period, if it
is a calendar year for a fiscal year."
(Emphasis added)

Say what?!

A taxable year is the taxpayer's annual
accounting period.

Let's see, if I am not a taxpayer, as defined by the
code, then I do not have a taxable year.

Ahhhhhhhh, so the every individual referenced in
6012(1)(A) refers only to those who have a
taxable year!

And who is the only one who has a taxable year?

That's right, a taxpayer.

So! Every individual does not mean everybody
as the IRS and quatloser minions would hope you
will believe.

By deduction, (factually speaking), every individual =
every taxpayer.

Sounds to me like we be breakin' the code!

[mrg]

I am just curious: exactly where in the actual "statute" that has been put into "code" is the term "income" specifically and precisely defined?

And, what is the exact quotable statutory wording of the precise and clearly structured definition of the one single term?

If anyone can show me this, I would be grateful for the precise factual specific info.

[mnchicago]

Upon reflection, when I was first confronting the IRS against
bogus, and literally, fictional assessments, my heart was
always in my throat.

Justin Garriott said to me, "Make them bear the burden of proof!
They will do everything they can to intimidate you.
Stand up to them."

I sort of understood his enthusiastic stance, but I didn't
share his resolve in going up against them.

I kept on reading all the information/publications they were
sending me, and then, all of a sudden, there it was!
"Dear Taxpayer....."As a taxpayer, etc, etc

Whoa!

Everything was prefaced by that single noun, taxpayer.
Everything that followed, daunting as it was, was all
predicated on that initial classification.

It occurred to me, what if I didn't agree to being a taxpayer?
Then all the other stuff that followed didn't mean anything!

That tiny little insight was the key. THE key!

Pay attention to all IRS literature. Even the tax forms
mailed out each year starts out: "Dear Taxpayer..."
Seems innoucous enough, but there is your contract.

Now, every time you see whatever, that begins with
taxpayer as the intro, stop right there. Make'em
prove it.

It took me three years before I discovered the States of
the Union United States, and the federal municipal
"United States" where there is only statutory law, all
subject to UCC

AndyK was right. It is all about contracts. (He just
didn't know how right he was). And it is all about
jurisdiction.

Take away the power to contract, via UCC 1-308. don't
accept the federal jurisdiction....and you are home free.

[AndyK]

Originally Posted by mnchicago

Upon reflection, when I was first confronting the IRS against
bogus, and literally, fictional assessments, my heart was
always in my throat.

Justin Garriott said to me, "Make them bear the burden of proof!
They will do everything they can to intimidate you.
Stand up to them."

I sort of understood his enthusiastic stance, but I didn't
share his resolve in going up against them.

I kept on reading all the information/publications they were
sending me, and then, all of a sudden, there it was!
"Dear Taxpayer....."As a taxpayer, etc, etc

Whoa!

Everything was prefaced by that single noun, taxpayer.
Everything that followed, daunting as it was, was all
predicated on that initial classification.

It occurred to me, what if I didn't agree to being a taxpayer?
Then all the other stuff that followed didn't mean anything!

That tiny little insight was the key. THE key!

Pay attention to all IRS literature. Even the tax forms
mailed out each year starts out: "Dear Taxpayer..."
Seems innoucous enough, but there is your contract.

Now, every time you see whatever, that begins with
taxpayer as the intro, stop right there. Make'em
prove it.

It took me three years before I discovered the States of
the Union United States, and the federal municipal
"United States" where there is only statutory law, all
subject to UCC

AndyK was right. It is all about contracts. (He just
didn't know how right he was). And it is all about
jurisdiction.

Take away the power to contract, via UCC 1-308. don't accept the federal jurisdiction....and you are home free.

That should definitely work.

[mnchicago]

mrg:

Income is not defined in the code. Don't bother looking
for it. Nor can congress give it a definition. The court
have tendered various dictionary definitions.

Just my POV

[AndyK]

Originally Posted by mnchicago

mrg:

Income is not defined in the code. Don't bother looking
for it. Nor can congress give it a definition. The courts have tendered various dictionary definitions.

Just my POV

None of which have ever been overruled. But who cares about facts?