UCC! OK, So Who Is Not Paying Taxes Then?

[trooper2ls]

The U.C.C. is a double edged sword. Many here have eluded to successful "wins" using U.C.C. law. But when you play in the box, you play by their rules. If you play outside the box then their rules do not apply.

The U.C.C. and Blacks Law are constantly changing so you really have to know your stuff to have any success and even then.. one slip .. and you have free room and board.

My opinion only. What exactly are you trying to accomplish as an end goal? You need to really look at the big picture with that in mind and form your plan based on that. Every person has a different situation. Each state has little variations of the way the game is played and then you have the issue of the courts also.

..J

[mrg]

Originally Posted by heyday

It is my understanding that federal judges are indeed paying federal income taxes, Constitutional prohibitions not withstanding.

And what might that tell one about the constitutional status of such so-called "judges," on the one hand, and/or the "constitution" on the other?

[netwrkranger]

Doesn't a person contractually agree to pay taxes when registering for an SSN?

Also, doesn't a person admit to being liable for taxes upon completing a W-4?

-netwrkranger

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by heyday

It is my understanding that federal judges are indeed paying federal income taxes, Constitutional prohibitions not withstanding.

You might desire to check into the lawsuit filed by the federal judges in regard to the taking of taxes from their payroll. That act was outlawed, as it was determined by (guess who ?) the judiciary, to be a violation of the Constitution by diminishing their pay while in good behavior.

Jerry

[ezrhythm]

Originally Posted by netwrkranger

Doesn't a person contractually agree to pay taxes when registering for an SSN?

Also, doesn't a person admit to being liable for taxes upon completing a W-4?

-netwrkranger

It is all about presumptions! ...because there is NO law stating one is subject to income tax. Applying for an SSN and signing a W4 (without attaching an affidavit rebutting) adds evidence to that presumption.

[phreeman2003]

i.e. by true name DBA LEGAL NAME All Rights Reserved.
Or, is there/do you have a sample type affidavit?

[Charlie Blue]

Originally Posted by ezrhythm

It is all about presumptions! ...because there is NO law stating one is subject to income tax. Applying for an SSN and signing a W4 (without attaching an affidavit rebutting) add evidence to that presumption.

I've read all posts in this thread to which many are powerfully informative but, ezrhythm, I wonder if you can expound on your statement a little more.

For the record, I stopped filing since '87 on the premise that there's no law requiring me to do so. In the early 90's, the I.R.S. letters started coming, then the fake levy but there was never any lien. The levy didn't do much except, when I stood my ground to the IRS, the company I worked for laid me off, obviously because they were scared (I'm in the construction field and that job was finishing up in a few months anyway, plus the company went out of business about a year or two afterwards). Other than that, there was nothing except occasional letters from the I.R.S. to which I responded to.

I didn't know anything about UCC until the late 90's.

[netwrkranger]

It is citizenship and SSN that create a nexus of liability by taxation . The 14th Amendment of the Constitution says that the debts and liabilities of the US will not be questioned i.e. section 4 of the 14th Amendment

I pretty much consider the UCC King's Law i.e. government. Although, I have read that the UCC is a descendant of Lex Mercantoria and the Negotiable Instrument Law.

I also have heard/read that the UCC is copyrighted by the Vatican (unsubstantiated).

Regards,
netwrkranger

[mertensv16]

Originally Posted by Jerry Pitts

You might desire to check into the lawsuit filed by the federal judges in regard to the taking of taxes from their payroll. That act was outlawed, as it was determined by (guess who ?) the judiciary, to be a violation of the Constitution by diminishing their pay while in good behavior.

Jerry

You're a bit behind the times. True, the Supreme Court held in Evans v. Gore, 253 U.S. 245 (1920) that a tax on federal judges' income was unconstitutional, but that case was overruled in O'Malley v. Woodrough, 307 U.S. 277 (1939). The bottom line is that federal judges, like everyone else, are liable for income tax.

[trooper2ls]

I file every year (though I believe it to be a scam).

I pay no federal income taxes or social security tax because .. on paper .. I do not have enough income.

Common law pure trusts are the key.. own nothing and control everything.

..J