For the Tax Protestors

[Mr. White]

I've grown weary of responding.

Here's a nice collection of responses to your dubious claims.

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html

[mdh]

And here's a response to your claims. One of the big guns at the IRS even speaks on it - listen clearly to his words and Aaron's responses. You'll catch on to the big picture mighty fast. ;)

http://www.freedomtofascism.com/

[ionlyknowy]

And here's a response to your claims. One of the big guns at the IRS even speaks on it - listen clearly to his words and Aaron's responses. You'll catch on to the big picture mighty fast. ;)

http://www.freedomtofascism.com/

I am sure that Mr. White has already seen this movie, as I have.

Mr. White and I have been arguing this for a while now... there are numerous threads on it.. here is one
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=123197

But alas, people will never learn. Even when presented with court opinions that directly contradict statements in a movie, people here seem to favor the movie.

See, when you make a movie, you can edit in and edit out whatever you want.
Give me a nonstop video of an event, and I can make it seem however I want. A few tricks, camera cuts away at opportunistic times, or you take something out of context.

We have seen the media do this to Ron Paul even. I recall at one of the debates he was discussing something with Mclame, and when they replayed the debate on commercials or reruns, they cut out a portion of RP's response.

Here are some more good websites to review before you endorse that movie.
http://www.fraudsandscams.com/answer.htm
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000001----000-.html


You like the freedom to facism movie right? Well in that movie they speak of a Supreme Court decision that defined wages, or income or some other argument made by tax protestors.. Do you have the name of it? I have asked this same question to everyone that pushes that movie on me or anyone else, and guess what? They never know the name of it!

If you really want to seek the truth of something, then be willing to research what people say. Because 9 times out of 10, it is not all truth.

A lot of people make videos of propaganda to make money or whatever, and the reason they become successful at it is because they state a bunch of truths, then a little lie.

So when you hear what they are saying, you hear all of the truths they speak about a topic, but then they throw in a little lie, which changes the whole meaning of what they are saying. That way you have to fact check EVERYTHING they say. If you only pick and choose what you fact check, then most of the time they will be truths. But it is that 1 little lie, which makes the entire conspiracy available.



You say show me the law? I say show me that Supreme Court case name.
I have access to a database to look up the opinion, and if you give me the name, I will post it in this thread for all to see, so you can validate yourself.

[hillertexas]

I am sure that Mr. White has already seen this movie, as I have.

Mr. White and I have been arguing this for a while now... there are numerous threads on it.. here is one
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=123197

But alas, people will never learn. Even when presented with court opinions that directly contradict statements in a movie, people here seem to favor the movie.

See, when you make a movie, you can edit in and edit out whatever you want.
Give me a nonstop video of an event, and I can make it seem however I want. A few tricks, camera cuts away at opportunistic times, or you take something out of context.

We have seen the media do this to Ron Paul even. I recall at one of the debates he was discussing something with Mclame, and when they replayed the debate on commercials or reruns, they cut out a portion of RP's response.

Here are some more good websites to review before you endorse that movie.
http://www.fraudsandscams.com/answer.htm
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000001----000-.html


You like the freedom to facism movie right? Well in that movie they speak of a Supreme Court decision that defined wages, or income or some other argument made by tax protestors.. Do you have the name of it? I have asked this same question to everyone that pushes that movie on me or anyone else, and guess what? They never know the name of it!

If you really want to seek the truth of something, then be willing to research what people say. Because 9 times out of 10, it is not all truth.

A lot of people make videos of propaganda to make money or whatever, and the reason they become successful at it is because they state a bunch of truths, then a little lie.

So when you hear what they are saying, you hear all of the truths they speak about a topic, but then they throw in a little lie, which changes the whole meaning of what they are saying. That way you have to fact check EVERYTHING they say. If you only pick and choose what you fact check, then most of the time they will be truths. But it is that 1 little lie, which makes the entire conspiracy available.



You say show me the law? I say show me that Supreme Court case name.
I have access to a database to look up the opinion, and if you give me the name, I will post it in this thread for all to see, so you can validate yourself.


My $.02 but my opinion on the subject is neither here nor there.

Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746.(1883)
"Among these unalienable rights, as proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant, the right of any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give them their highest enjoyment... It has been well said that, the property which every man has is his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property so it is the most sacred and inviolable..."

Redfield v. Fisher, 292 P. 813, 135 Or. 180, 294 P.461, 73 A.L.R. 721 (1931)
"The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the state; but the individuals' rights to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an excise cannot be imposed."

Edwards v. Keith, 231 F110, 113 (1916)
"The phraseology of form 1040 is somewhat obscure .... But it matters little what it does mean; the statute and the statute alone determines what is income to be taxed. It taxes only income 'derived' from many different sources; one does not 'derive income' by rendering services and charging for them... IRS cannot enlarge the scope of the statute."

Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930)
"The claim that salaries, wages, and compensation for personal services are to be taxed as an entirety and therefore must be returned by the individual who has performed the services which produce the gain is without support, either in the language of the Act or in the decisions of the courts construing it... It is to be noted that, by the language of the Act, it is not salaries, wages, or compensation for personal services that are to be included in gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal services."

Conner v. U.S., 303 F Supp. 1187 (1969)
"... whatever may constitute income, therefore, must have the essential feature of gain to the recipient. This was true when the 16th Amendment became effective, it was true at the time of Eisner v. Macomber Supra, it was true under Section 22(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1938, and it is likewise true under Section 61(a) of the I.R.S. Code of 1954. If there is not gain, there is not income ... Congress has taxed income not compensation."
"There is a clear distinction between `profit' and 'wages', or a compensation for labor. Compensation for labor (wages) cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law. The word `profit', as ordinarily used, means the gain made upon any business or investment- - - a different thing altogether from the mere compensation for labor."

Emanuel J. Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Company 247 US 179 (1918)
"Yet it is plain, we think, that by the true intent and meaning of the Act the entire proceeds of a mere conversion of capital assets were not to be treated as income. Whatever difficulty there may be about a precise and scientific definition of 'income' it imports, as used here, something entirely distinct from principal or capital either as a subject of taxation or as a measure of the tax; conveying rather the idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activities. As was said in Stratton's Independence vs. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415: 'Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined.'"

Merchant's Loan & Trust Company v. Smietanka 255 US 509 (1921)
"It is obvious that these decisions in principle rule the case at bar if the word 'income' has the same meaning as the Income Tax Act of 1913 that it had in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, and that it has the same scope of meaning was in effect decided in Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330, 335, where it was assumed for the purposes of decision that there was no difference in its meaning as used in the Act of 1909 and in the Income Tax Act of 1913. There can be no doubt that the word must be given the same meaning and content in the Income Tax Acts of 1916 and 1917 that it had in the Act of 1913. When to this we add that in Eisner v. Macomber, Supra, arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, with the addition that it should include 'profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets,' there would seem to be no room to doubt that the word must be given the same meaning in all of the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act and that what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by decisions of this court.”

Stanton v. Baltic Mining, 240 U.S. 103 (1916)
"... by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived, that is by testing the tax not by what it was -- a tax on income, but by a mistaken theory deduced from the origin or source of the income taxed. "

Burnet v. Harmel 287 US 103 (1932)
"before the 1921 Act this Court had indicated (see Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 207, 64L.ed 521, 9 A.L.R. 1570, 40 S. Ct. 189), what it later held, that 'income,' as used in the revenue acts taxing income, adopted since the 16th Amendment, has the same meaning that it had in the Act of 1909. Merchants; Loan & T. Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509, 519, 65 L.ed. 751, 755, 15 A.L.R. 1305, 41 S. Ct. 386; see Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe. 247 U.S. 330, 335, 62 L.ed. 114, 1147, 38 S. Ct. 540."

Staples v. U.S., 21 F Supp 737 U.S. Dist. Ct. ED PA, (1937)
"Income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment and the Revenue Act means, gain ... and, in such connection, gain means profit... proceeding from property severed from capital, however invested or employed and coming in, received or drawn by the taxpayer for his separate use, benefit and disposal."

Oliver v. Halstead, 196 VA 992; 86 S.E. Rep 2nd 85e9 (1955)
"There is a clear distinction between `profit' and `wages', or a compensation for labor. Compensation for labor (wages) cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law. The word `profit', as ordinarily used, means the gain made upon any business or investment -- a different thing altogether from the mere compensation for labor."

Central Illinois Public Service Co. v. United States, 435 U.S. 21 (1978)
"Decided cases have made the distinction between wages and income and have refused to equate the two in withholding or similar controversies.”
-Peoples Life Ins. Co. v. United States, 179 Ct. Cl. 318, 332, 373 F.2d 924, 932 (1967);
-Humble Pipe Line Co. v. United States, 194 Ct. Cl. 944, 950, 442 F.2d 1353, 1356 (1971);
-Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. United States, 194 Ct. Cl. 920, 442 F.2d 1362 (1971);
-Stubbs, Overbeck & Associates v. United States, 445 F.2d 1142 (CA5 1971);
-Royster Co. v. United States, 479 F.2d, at 390; Acacia:
-Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. United States, 272 F. Supp. 188 (Md. 1967).

Doyle versus Mitchell, 247 U.S. 179, (1918)
The idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activities. In other words, it (income tax) doesn't mean wages. It doesn't mean dividends. It doesn't mean alimony. It means a gain or a profit arising from corporate activity.

[sratiug]

I've grown weary of responding.

Here's a nice collection of responses to your dubious claims.

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html

Did you notice, Mr. White, that Ron Paul shares my view that any requirement to fill out a tax return is a violation of the 5th amendment?

[Mr. White]

Did you notice, Mr. White, that Ron Paul shares my view that any requirement to fill out a tax return is a violation of the 5th amendment?

Fantastic. The Supreme Court shares mine. Guess who's opinion means a damn under the Constitution?

“As the defendant’s income was taxed, the statute of course required a return. [Citation omitted.] In the decision [by the lower court] that this was contrary to the Constitution we are of opinion that the protection of the Fifth Amendment was pressed too far. If the form of return provided called for answers that the defendant was privileged from making he could have raised the objection in the return, but could not on that account refuse to make any return at all. We are not called on to decide what, if anything, he might have withheld. Most of the items warranted no complaint. It would be an extreme if not an extravagant application of the Fifth Amendment to say that it authorized a man to refuse to state the amount of his income because it had been made in crime. But if the defendant desired to test that or any other point he should have tested it in the return so that it could be passed upon. He could not draw a conjurer’s circle around the whole matter by his own declaration that to write any word upon the government blank would bring him into danger of the law.”

Sullivan v. United States, 274 U.S. 259, 263-264 (1927).

I agree with tax protestors on an ideological basis. The legal claims they make however, are removed from both context and reality. They are promulgated for 2 reasons: 1) to make a buck off of suckers, and/or 2) to get enough people to not pay income taxes that the system caves in.

Both purposes are disingenuous when advanced under fallacy and misinformation.

[sratiug]

Fantastic. The Supreme Court shares mine. Guess who's opinion means a damn under the Constitution?

“As the defendant’s income was taxed, the statute of course required a return. [Citation omitted.] In the decision [by the lower court] that this was contrary to the Constitution we are of opinion that the protection of the Fifth Amendment was pressed too far. If the form of return provided called for answers that the defendant was privileged from making he could have raised the objection in the return, but could not on that account refuse to make any return at all. We are not called on to decide what, if anything, he might have withheld. Most of the items warranted no complaint. It would be an extreme if not an extravagant application of the Fifth Amendment to say that it authorized a man to refuse to state the amount of his income because it had been made in crime. But if the defendant desired to test that or any other point he should have tested it in the return so that it could be passed upon. He could not draw a conjurer’s circle around the whole matter by his own declaration that to write any word upon the government blank would bring him into danger of the law.”

Sullivan v. United States, 274 U.S. 259, 263-264 (1927).

I agree with tax protestors on an ideological basis. The legal claims they make however, are removed from both context and reality. They are promulgated for 2 reasons: 1) to make a buck off of suckers, and/or 2) to get enough people to not pay income taxes that the system caves in.

Both purposes are disingenuous when advanced under fallacy and misinformation.

Here's another reason. To spread the revolutionary news that the supreme court is not infalliblle, as is obvious in your quoted decision, which is wrong.

The government has no legal requirement to tell you the truth. You have legal liability for anything you put on their form. The decision itself admits that the 5th amendment applies to the very situation under consideration, merely implying that the person in question used the wrong means to invoke his 5th amendment rights.

[pcosmar]

Fantastic. The Supreme Court shares mine. Guess who's opinion means a damn under the Constitution?


The Constitution doesn't mean a damn thing to the Supreme Court.

That has been proven over and over again.

[Danke]

The Constitution doesn't mean a damn thing to the Supreme Court.

That has been proven over and over again.

Before you give up on the Supremes. Make sure you look at these cases in their context. Not just blindly following the faulty logic and broad brush of the tax anti-honesty groupies. (usually propagated by those with a vested interest, CPAs, Tax Attorneys, etc.).

[pcosmar]

Before you give up on the Supremes. Make sure you look at these cases in their context. Not just blindly following the faulty logic and broad brush of the tax anti-honesty groupies. (usually propagated by those with a vested interest, CPAs, Tax Attorneys, etc.).

The Tax issue is a smaller issue to me.
I will change my view of the SCOTUS when I see them come out against the Patriot Act, Illegal wiretaps, And the NFA.
When they start telling the other branches that YOU CAN"T DO THAT.
Till then, they are part of the problem.

[sidster]

Mr White and Ionlyknowy watch "Theft by Deception" if you want to get
legal about this. Search on google videos.

[TXcarlosTX]

I've grown weary of responding.

Here's a nice collection of responses to your dubious claims.

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html


The Internal Revenue Code is not the law. It only defines a contract between the IRS and the individual.

Section 7806. Construction of Title.

(a) Cross references. The cross references in this title to other portions of the title, or other provisions of law, where the word "see" is used, are made only for convenience, and shall be given no legal effect.

(b) Arrangement and classification. No inference, implication, or presumption of legislative construction shall be drawn or made by reason of the location or grouping of any particular section or provision or portion of this title, nor shall any table of contents, table of cross references, or similar outline, analysis, or descriptive matter relating to the contents of this title be given any legal effect. The preceding sentence also applies to the sidenotes and ancillary tables contained in the various prints of this Act before its enactment into law.


26 USC 7806(b) says that Title 26 is not the law. In other words, "No inference, implication or presumption of legislative construction shall be drawn or made by reason of the location or grouping of any particular section or provision or portion of this title..." N.B. "legislative construction" means "law."

[TXcarlosTX]

TEXAS IS MY COUNTRY!!!!

united states is my republic

[TXcarlosTX]

i guess my point wins.... gracias mucho

[ionlyknowy]

The Internal Revenue Code is not the law. It only defines a contract between the IRS and the individual.

Section 7806. Construction of Title.

(a) Cross references. The cross references in this title to other portions of the title, or other provisions of law, where the word "see" is used, are made only for convenience, and shall be given no legal effect.

(b) Arrangement and classification. No inference, implication, or presumption of legislative construction shall be drawn or made by reason of the location or grouping of any particular section or provision or portion of this title, nor shall any table of contents, table of cross references, or similar outline, analysis, or descriptive matter relating to the contents of this title be given any legal effect. The preceding sentence also applies to the sidenotes and ancillary tables contained in the various prints of this Act before its enactment into law.


26 USC 7806(b) says that Title 26 is not the law. In other words, "No inference, implication or presumption of legislative construction shall be drawn or made by reason of the location or grouping of any particular section or provision or portion of this title..." N.B. "legislative construction" means "law."


Hehe, you're kinda funny :)

(b) says that you cant make any assumptions about the "arrangement" of the title. That is why it starts with the "Arrangement and classification".
So in essence it says, you cannot make any inferences about the legislative construction by the placement or order of the code. NOT THE CODE ITSELF.
Then it goes on to say you cannot take any DESCRIPTION of the law, (meaning something talking about what the actual code says) to be given any legal effect.

Look at it like this:

You have two different clauses:
1. "Arrangement and classification. No inference, implication, or presumption of legislative construction shall be drawn or made by reason of the location or grouping of any particular section or provision or portion of this title."


2. "nor shall any table of contents, table of cross references, or similar outline, analysis, or descriptive matter relating to the contents of this title be given any legal effect."

[TXcarlosTX]

Hehe, you're kinda funny :)

(b) says that you cant make any assumptions about the "arrangement" of the title. That is why it starts with the "Arrangement and classification".
So in essence it says, you cannot make any inferences about the legislative construction by the placement or order of the code. NOT THE CODE ITSELF.
Then it goes on to say you cannot take any DESCRIPTION of the law, (meaning something talking about what the actual code says) to be given any legal effect.

Look at it like this:

You have two different clauses:
1. "Arrangement and classification. No inference, implication, or presumption of legislative construction shall be drawn or made by reason of the location or grouping of any particular section or provision or portion of this title."


2. "nor shall any table of contents, table of cross references, or similar outline, analysis, or descriptive matter relating to the contents of this title be given any legal effect."


The Internal Revenue Code itself provides that nothing is to be inferred from the grouping or indexing of any particular section, 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7806(b), and this court has held that the title of a statute cannot limit the plain meaning of its text. Pike v. United States, 340 F.2d 487 (9th Cir. 1965). Therefore, the fact that Sec. 4161(a) is located in that part of the Code dealing with "recreational equipment" and "sporting goods" is of little significance.

[TXcarlosTX]

Sec. 7806 provides that nothing is to be inferred from grouping or indexing of any particular section. Nordby Supply Co. v United States (1978, CA9 Wash) 572 F2d 1377, cert den 439 US 861, 58 L Ed 2d 170, 99 S Ct 182.

[TXcarlosTX]

case law is kinda funny?

slam dunk!!!

[ionlyknowy]

My $.02 but my opinion on the subject is neither here nor there.

Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746.(1883)
"Among these unalienable rights, as proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant, the right of any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give them their highest enjoyment... It has been well said that, the property which every man has is his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property so it is the most sacred and inviolable..."

Redfield v. Fisher, 292 P. 813, 135 Or. 180, 294 P.461, 73 A.L.R. 721 (1931)
"The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the state; but the individuals' rights to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an excise cannot be imposed."

Edwards v. Keith, 231 F110, 113 (1916)
"The phraseology of form 1040 is somewhat obscure .... But it matters little what it does mean; the statute and the statute alone determines what is income to be taxed. It taxes only income 'derived' from many different sources; one does not 'derive income' by rendering services and charging for them... IRS cannot enlarge the scope of the statute."

Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930)
"The claim that salaries, wages, and compensation for personal services are to be taxed as an entirety and therefore must be returned by the individual who has performed the services which produce the gain is without support, either in the language of the Act or in the decisions of the courts construing it... It is to be noted that, by the language of the Act, it is not salaries, wages, or compensation for personal services that are to be included in gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal services."

Conner v. U.S., 303 F Supp. 1187 (1969)
"... whatever may constitute income, therefore, must have the essential feature of gain to the recipient. This was true when the 16th Amendment became effective, it was true at the time of Eisner v. Macomber Supra, it was true under Section 22(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1938, and it is likewise true under Section 61(a) of the I.R.S. Code of 1954. If there is not gain, there is not income ... Congress has taxed income not compensation."
"There is a clear distinction between `profit' and 'wages', or a compensation for labor. Compensation for labor (wages) cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law. The word `profit', as ordinarily used, means the gain made upon any business or investment- - - a different thing altogether from the mere compensation for labor."

Emanuel J. Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Company 247 US 179 (1918)
"Yet it is plain, we think, that by the true intent and meaning of the Act the entire proceeds of a mere conversion of capital assets were not to be treated as income. Whatever difficulty there may be about a precise and scientific definition of 'income' it imports, as used here, something entirely distinct from principal or capital either as a subject of taxation or as a measure of the tax; conveying rather the idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activities. As was said in Stratton's Independence vs. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415: 'Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined.'"

Merchant's Loan & Trust Company v. Smietanka 255 US 509 (1921)
"It is obvious that these decisions in principle rule the case at bar if the word 'income' has the same meaning as the Income Tax Act of 1913 that it had in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, and that it has the same scope of meaning was in effect decided in Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330, 335, where it was assumed for the purposes of decision that there was no difference in its meaning as used in the Act of 1909 and in the Income Tax Act of 1913. There can be no doubt that the word must be given the same meaning and content in the Income Tax Acts of 1916 and 1917 that it had in the Act of 1913. When to this we add that in Eisner v. Macomber, Supra, arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, with the addition that it should include 'profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets,' there would seem to be no room to doubt that the word must be given the same meaning in all of the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act and that what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by decisions of this court.”

Stanton v. Baltic Mining, 240 U.S. 103 (1916)
"... by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived, that is by testing the tax not by what it was -- a tax on income, but by a mistaken theory deduced from the origin or source of the income taxed. "

Burnet v. Harmel 287 US 103 (1932)
"before the 1921 Act this Court had indicated (see Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 207, 64L.ed 521, 9 A.L.R. 1570, 40 S. Ct. 189), what it later held, that 'income,' as used in the revenue acts taxing income, adopted since the 16th Amendment, has the same meaning that it had in the Act of 1909. Merchants; Loan & T. Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509, 519, 65 L.ed. 751, 755, 15 A.L.R. 1305, 41 S. Ct. 386; see Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe. 247 U.S. 330, 335, 62 L.ed. 114, 1147, 38 S. Ct. 540."

Staples v. U.S., 21 F Supp 737 U.S. Dist. Ct. ED PA, (1937)
"Income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment and the Revenue Act means, gain ... and, in such connection, gain means profit... proceeding from property severed from capital, however invested or employed and coming in, received or drawn by the taxpayer for his separate use, benefit and disposal."

Oliver v. Halstead, 196 VA 992; 86 S.E. Rep 2nd 85e9 (1955)
"There is a clear distinction between `profit' and `wages', or a compensation for labor. Compensation for labor (wages) cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law. The word `profit', as ordinarily used, means the gain made upon any business or investment -- a different thing altogether from the mere compensation for labor."

Central Illinois Public Service Co. v. United States, 435 U.S. 21 (1978)
"Decided cases have made the distinction between wages and income and have refused to equate the two in withholding or similar controversies.”
-Peoples Life Ins. Co. v. United States, 179 Ct. Cl. 318, 332, 373 F.2d 924, 932 (1967);
-Humble Pipe Line Co. v. United States, 194 Ct. Cl. 944, 950, 442 F.2d 1353, 1356 (1971);
-Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. United States, 194 Ct. Cl. 920, 442 F.2d 1362 (1971);
-Stubbs, Overbeck & Associates v. United States, 445 F.2d 1142 (CA5 1971);
-Royster Co. v. United States, 479 F.2d, at 390; Acacia:
-Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. United States, 272 F. Supp. 188 (Md. 1967).

Doyle versus Mitchell, 247 U.S. 179, (1918)
The idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activities. In other words, it (income tax) doesn't mean wages. It doesn't mean dividends. It doesn't mean alimony. It means a gain or a profit arising from corporate activity.



I read through what you have written here, and got a little curious, so I looked up one of the cases...

Conner v. U.S., 303 F Supp. 1187 (1969)
"... whatever may constitute income, therefore, must have the essential feature of gain to the recipient. This was true when the 16th Amendment became effective, it was true at the time of Eisner v. Macomber Supra, it was true under Section 22(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1938, and it is likewise true under Section 61(a) of the I.R.S. Code of 1954. If there is not gain, there is not income ... Congress has taxed income not compensation."
"There is a clear distinction between `profit' and 'wages', or a compensation for labor. Compensation for labor (wages) cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law. The word `profit', as ordinarily used, means the gain made upon any business or investment- - - a different thing altogether from the mere compensation for labor."




You also need to add these facts to make the above paragraph relevant:
"Soon after the destruction of their home, plaintiffs made a claim from their insurance carrier. After some negotiation, they accepted a total payment of $88,487.00 from the insurance company. Of this amount, $4,665.82 was earmarked to compensate plaintiffs for their out-of-pocket expenses incurred as a consequence [**3] of the fire, $4,200.00 of which was for reimbursement to plaintiffs for the rental payments paid by plaintiffs to rent the house used during the reconstruction of their burned home."

The court was talking about whether the COMPENSATION for their LOSS should be taxed and would be considered income.



I suspect many of the cases you have cited have similar errors. You cannot take two sentences out of context from cases, and apply it to totally separate facts.
ESPECIALLY a Federal District court ruling.


I also Shepardized (this is a term used to check to see if the law decided in the case has been over ruled) and the case was reversed in part upon appeal.


---------------

I dont want to go through all of the cases above. Because that would take me more than 24 hours.

I still ask the question, give me the Supreme Court case referred to in the Freedom to Facism movie, and I will look it up and post the entire opinion for all to see, so we can discuss.

[ionlyknowy]

case law is kinda funny?

slam dunk!!!

Not sure what you mean.

The posts you have posted neither help or hurt the argument for or against the income tax and it's legality.

Make sense?


All that it is saying is you cannot judge a book by it's title, or the way the paragraphs were placed. And you cannot take the table of contents as sufficient.

Neither helps nor hurts..

[Mr. White]

Thanks for filling in ionly. I'm coming to these boards less and less. Like pissing into the wind around here.

[qh4dotcom]

I've grown weary of responding.

Here's a nice collection of responses to your dubious claims.

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html

If you're happy about working 4 months every year to pay your tax bill and then watch the government waste your money.....and telling people that they are wrong if they protest....why are you here?

[mdh]

The Constitution doesn't mean a damn thing to the Supreme Court.

That has been proven over and over again.

The supreme court... that's the legislative branch, right? After all, what they do seems to be best described as legislating an awful lot of the time.

[Danke]

The Tax issue is a smaller issue to me.
I will change my view of the SCOTUS when I see them come out against the Patriot Act, Illegal wiretaps, And the NFA.
When they start telling the other branches that YOU CAN"T DO THAT.
Till then, they are part of the problem.

I hear ya. But understanding the true nature of the Income Tax is important for understanding the Constitutional limits on Federal power and jurisdiction. And that helps in the understanding of the areas that you brought up above.

An example is Executive Orders and who they really affect. As in the tax code, the key is looking at who is liable. And then why they and only they are liable. What creates the liability.

Most of us aren't effected by these Federal Laws unless we volunteer into activities under their realm of jurisdiction.

The Tax cases the tax dishonesty players aways try to use to convince one they are liable to pay an income tax are taken out of context, as to the activity that the Federal government is attaching influence over.

[Mr. White]

Jesus christ here we go again.

Here's the deal folks, the SCOTUS can only rule on cases and controversies which fall within its authority, the paramters for which would boggle your mind. One of the fundamental tenants of the SCOTUS is that it will only rule on the Constitutionality of issues as a LAST RESORT. That's after they even decide if it's within their ambit of authority. A large number of issues that people don't like are POLITICAL ISSUES, therefore the SCOTUS is extremely reluctant to interfere, despite MDH's cynical mindset otherwise. The SCOTUS spent the past 200 years feeling out the boundaries of the Constitution. Just because you disagree with what they've ruled doesn't make it unconstitutional, and just because you can quote 100 year old SCOTUS cases out of context doesn't make the income tax unconstitutional.

I'm sorry you don't like the income tax, I don't either, but I'm going to fight tooth and nail THE BLATANT FUCKING IGNORANCE OF LAW THAT PERVADES ON THESE BOARDS. Those of you who seem to want to continue spouting your ill-conceived bullshit about what you think the law actually is are doing nothing more than shooting yourself and this cause in the foot.

This board used to be about politics, now its become nothing more than a haven for hack-kneed armchair justices who want to reset 200 years of history to comport with their view of the world. If you think a Federal Circuit holding is binding to the Supreme Court, don't cite case law to me. If you can't tell me how McCulloch v. Maryland affected states' rights, don't bitch about the commerce clause. If you havn't read Ex parte Quirin, don't bitch to me about the PATRIOT Act or Gitmo in terms of constitutionality..

If you want to discuss these issues as POLITICAL problems to be addressed through LEGISLATION, I'm there with you. But stop saying constitutional this and unconstitutional that when you have no damn clue what your talking about. READ: If you've learned about the Constitution through a 2 hour youtube video, chances are you need to do more research.

[Mr. White]

I hear ya. But understanding the true nature of the Income Tax is important for understanding the Constitutional limits on Federal power and jurisdiction. And that helps in the understanding of the areas that you brought up above.

An example is Executive Orders and who they really affect. As in the tax code, the key is looking at who is liable. And then why they and only they are liable. What creates the liability.

Most of us aren't effected by these Federal Laws unless we volunteer into activities under their realm of jurisdiction.

The Tax cases the tax dishonesty players aways try to use to convince one they are liable to pay an income tax are taken out of context, as to the activity that the Federal government is attaching influence over.

I give you Exhibit A

[Peace&Freedom]

The anti-honesty side's contribution to this thread amounts to: No matter what proof you submit, no matter how many Supreme Court cases you cite, we will contentiously dismiss all of it, AND accuse the honesty side of being tedious for even bringing them up. The fact that they won't even concede the preponderance of these court cases clearly presents a fair impression there is a case the income tax does not apply to compensation for labor tells one all one needs to know about their lack of reasonability. They don't have to agree the honesty people have a CONCLUSIVE case, in order to grant they at least have A case. Their own absolutism refutes them.

The taxing authority of the federal government is highly limited, just as the general power of the federal government is strictly limited as per the Constitution. Why this fundamental point is considered a waste of time to accept remains a mystery.

[pcosmar]

THE BOTTOM LINE

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_irs.jpg

[Danke]

I give you Exhibit A

Care to elaborate?

Quatlloos loves your type. You might find a better home at that anti-liberty forum.

[Mr. White]

The anti-honesty side's contribution to this thread amounts to: No matter what proof you submit, no matter how many Supreme Court cases you cite, we will contentiously dismiss all of it, AND accuse the honesty side of being tedious for even bringing them up. The fact that they won't even concede the preponderance of these court cases clearly presents a fair impression there is a case the income tax does not apply to compensation for labor tells one all one needs to know about their lack of reasonability. They don't have to agree the honesty people have a CONCLUSIVE case, in order to grant they at least have A case. Their own absolutism refutes them.

The taxing authority of the federal government is highly limited, just as the general power of the federal government is strictly limited as per the Constitution. Why this fundamental point is considered a waste of time to accept remains a mystery.

preponderence of WHAT court cases? all I see is a preponderence of paragraph citations taken out of context, only one of which is less than 50 years old. Circuit court rulings are mixed in with SCOTUS rulings with equal weight given to both. Again, if you want to discuss what YOU think the Constitution means, or what a reasonable person thinks the Constitution means that's fine, but what the SUPREME COURT has said the Constitution means is far removed from this dim-witted misinformation your ilk seeks to propogate. I am open to the IDEA that the income tax is unconstitutional, but guess, what my opinion of unconstitutionality doesn't mean squat. There's a difference between personal opinion and force of law, and you can irresponsibly quote cases out of context all day long, you won't change a thing. During that time you will have missed countless opportunities to actually impact your fellow man and get things changed through legislation.

The taxing power of the Federal Government is limited by the Constitution as interpreted by the SCOTUS and the general power of the Federal Government is limited by the Constitution as interpreted by the SCOTUS. Just because you disagree with how they interpret it does not make their opinion less valid, nor does it make yours less valid, however, I'll submit that their udnerstanding far exceeds yours and for damn sure has more weight and authority. Deal with it.

Your tirade, however misguided, was a refreshing exercise in artful language, and that alone is appreciated.

[Mr. White]

I hear ya. But understanding the true nature of the Income Tax is important for understanding the Constitutional limits on Federal power and jurisdiction. And that helps in the understanding of the areas that you brought up above.

An example is Executive Orders and who they really affect. As in the tax code, the key is looking at who is liable. And then why they and only they are liable. What creates the liability.

Most of us aren't effected by these Federal Laws unless we volunteer into activities under their realm of jurisdiction.

The Tax cases the tax dishonesty players aways try to use to convince one they are liable to pay an income tax are taken out of context, as to the activity that the Federal government is attaching influence over.

To elaborate more per your request, you don't understand jurisdiction and your last paragraph is unintelligible drivel. You are the epitome of a tax protestor who has no clue what he's talking about and perpetuates the misunderstandings and misinformation distributed by individuals who hope to undermine the income tax through ignorance. That ignorance undermines any opportunity we have to change things legitimately through legislation.

As for "anti-liberty" your bullshit rhetoric is pointless. Being anti-ignorance isn't anti-liberty. Your welcome to say and do whatever you damn please, but I'm going to be battling your ignorance at every turn.

[Danke]

You crack me up. What are you doing on a Ron Paul forum?

Still can't point out specifically where I am mistaken can you? Just unsubstantiated attacks as your modus operandi. I am used to your types, but on a Ron Paul Forum?

[Mr. White]

You crack me up. What are you doing on a Ron Paul forum?

Still can't point out specifically where I am mistaken can you? Just unsubstantiated attacks as your modus operandi. I am used to your types, but on a Ron Paul Forum?

What affirmations of fact have you actually made? What support have you given? That's my point, you're empty rhetoric. This thread was started to provide people of your type with a compilation of common tax protestor arguments and legal responses to them. You butted in, mumbled something about jurisdiction and then mumbled something else about honesty. You've said nothing of substance for me to refute. THAT IS BOILER PLATE TAX PROTESTOR. Over the past month since I've started addressing your ilk on these forums I've seen your type come and go. You'll come in attack some random point, I'll refute it and you'll disappear. Forgive me if the entire process leaves me curt and annoyed.

What would you like to talk about? By all means you have the floor. Fabricate a coherent argument and let us discuss it.

[Broadlighter]

I like what Ron Paul says about the income tax. To paraphrase him, "..It presumes that the government owns you and your income."

If we want to 'secure the blessings of liberty' we should work through the legislative process to undo the tyranny of the income tax. However, one problem stands in the way and Michael Badarick covered it in his Constitution class and that is the definition of U.S. Citizenship that was adopted in the 14th Amendment. In a subtle sleight of hand, we handed over ourselves to the jurisdiction of Congress. Bad move. Congress is supposed to be under the jurisdiction of the people, not the other way around. If we can undo this, we can undo the income tax and perhaps the Federal Reserve System.

[Mr. White]

I like what Ron Paul says about the income tax. To paraphrase him, "..It presumes that the government owns you and your income."

If we want to 'secure the blessings of liberty' we should work through the legislative process to undo the tyranny of the income tax. However, one problem stands in the way and Michael Badarick covered it in his Constitution class and that is the definition of U.S. Citizenship that was adopted in the 14th Amendment. In a subtle sleight of hand, we handed over ourselves to the jurisdiction of Congress. Bad move. Congress is supposed to be under the jurisdiction of the people, not the other way around. If we can undo this, we can undo the income tax and perhaps the Federal Reserve System.

Agreed, resolve it through the political process.

[Deborah K]

You have to look at the Constitution and understand the difference between direct and indirect taxes and apportionment. You also need to understand what the definition of income was during 1913 when the 16th amendment was supposedly ratified. Income was defined as capital gains or profits. Today that is called 'unearned income'. Back then, it was unheard of for the average person to consider their wages as income. The average Joe Blow didn't earn income, only the wealthy did. While there were many species of income taxes - wages, or money earned through one's labor, was not one of them.

The purpose of the 16th amendment was to overturn Pollock v. Farmer's Loan and Trust (1895). But by writing the 16th amendment in an ambiguous way (thank you Senator Aldrich, related by marriage to the Rockefellers- he didn't write it but he manipulated the process), and through clever wordsmithing, Congress through the years figured out how to get people to accept a tax on their wages (WWII) which is wholly unconstitutional.

Whenever there appears to be a conflict regarding the Constitution, we should look to the intent of the framers. The annals of congress are filled with the words that were spoken during this era. Clearly the intention was NOT to tax a man's wages. But we are here through our own complacency and now we need to fix this problem.

"Our job as the citizens of this nation is to see to it that the government stays within the boundaries imposed by the Constitution, including the 16th Amendment. If we fail at this task, who will do it for us? .......... Like it or not, the right political environment is sometimes necessary to get the Supreme Court to rule correctly." Phil Hart, Congressman and author of Constitutional Income: Do you have any?

[Danke]

What affirmations of fact have you actually made? What support have you given? That's my point, you're empty rhetoric. This thread was started to provide people of your type with a compilation of common tax protestor arguments and legal responses to them. You butted in, mumbled something about jurisdiction and then mumbled something else about honesty. You've said nothing of substance for me to refute. THAT IS BOILER PLATE TAX PROTESTOR. Over the past month since I've started addressing your ilk on these forums I've seen your type come and go. You'll come in attack some random point, I'll refute it and you'll disappear. Forgive me if the entire process leaves me curt and annoyed.

What would you like to talk about? By all means you have the floor. Fabricate a coherent argument and let us discuss it.

Still can't specifically refute anything I have posted. Nice. Now run along little man.

[Mr. White]

Still can't specifically refute anything I have posted. Nice. Now run along little man.

What have you posted? Please provide a summary.

[Mr. White]

You have to look at the Constitution and understand the difference between direct and indirect taxes and apportionment. You also need to understand what the definition of income was during 1913 when the 16th amendment was supposedly ratified. Income was defined as capital gains or profits. Today that is called 'unearned income'. Back then, it was unheard of for the average person to consider their wages as income. The average Joe Blow didn't earn income, only the wealthy did. While there were many species of income taxes - wages, or money earned through one's labor, was not one of them.

The purpose of the 16th amendment was to overturn Pollock v. Farmer's Loan and Trust (1895). But by writing the 16th amendment in an ambiguous way (thank you Senator Aldrich, related by marriage to the Rockefellers- he didn't write it but he manipulated the process), and through clever wordsmithing, Congress through the years figured out how to get people to accept a tax on their wages (WWII) which is wholly unconstitutional.

Whenever there appears to be a conflict regarding the Constitution, we should look to the intent of the framers. The annals of congress are filled with the words that were spoken during this era. Clearly the intention was NOT to tax a man's wages. But we are here through our own complacency and now we need to fix this problem.

"Our job as the citizens of this nation is to see to it that the government stays within the boundaries imposed by the Constitution, including the 16th Amendment. If we fail at this task, who will do it for us? .......... Like it or not, the right political environment is sometimes necessary to get the Supreme Court to rule correctly." Phil Hart, Congressman and author of Constitutional Income: Do you have any?

I reject the notion that one should look to the intent of the Framers when interpreting an amendment made 125ish years later. That's the purpose of the amendment process: to allow change. As for the rest, I'm not quite sure what you are alluding to. Are you saying the income Tax is unconstitutional? The SCOTUS has upheld it. What more would you like? I do appreciate the well-thought out response. As for the correct political environment for the Supreme Court to rule, it's politically motivated holdings which got us here in the first place. We can change the situation much quicker through legislation than through attempting to influence the opinions of Justices.

[Deborah K]

I reject the notion that one should look to the intent of the Framers when interpreting an amendment made 125ish years later. That's the purpose of the amendment process: to allow change. As for the rest, I'm not quite sure what you are alluding to. Are you saying the income Tax is unconstitutional? The SCOTUS has upheld it. What more would you like? I do appreciate the well-thought out response. As for the correct political environment for the Supreme Court to rule, it's politically motivated holdings which got us here in the first place. We can change the situation much quicker through legislation than through attempting to influence the opinions of Justices.


The 16th amendment isn't even 100 years old yet. I wasn't alluding to anything. I was clearly stating the facts and the history regarding the 16th amendment. The 16th does not negate, nor was it intended to negate Artcle I section 8 of the Constitution where direct and indirect taxes and apportionment are determined. I am NOT saying that income tax is unconstitutional because it is not, I am saying that wages are not income as defined by those who wrote the 16th amendment, and a direct taxation on wages is unconstitutional.

Your rejection of the idea that we should look to the intention of the framers puts us right were we are, allowing the government to reinterpret and thus subvert the Constitution with each generation as if it is some passing fad. In order for a constitutional system to work, all the written laws of the land must be in harmony with each other and abided by. If the Supreme Law of the land, the Constitution, can be subverted and reinterpreted then what is the point of having it in the first place? All we will have is a warlord type of power system, and the law is determined by whoever has the most power, not by the written word.

The Supreme Court does not have more power than the other three branches. Their only function is to determine the constitutionality of a law. It was the intent of the framers that Congress (the legislative branch) be the most powerful because it represents the will of the people, not some appointed panel of judges. But I agree with your last statement that this should be done legislatively not through the judicial system. Yet, that is what is meant by the right political environment, in other words, when Congress has spoken and legislated correctly on the subject.

[Danke]

I am NOT saying that income tax is unconstitutional because it is not, I am saying that wages are not income as defined by those who wrote the 16th amendment, and a direct taxation on wages is unconstitutional.



Careful. Most private sector worker's pay is not income with regards to the Income Tax. But wages as defined in the code (IRC) are considered income, and taxable. The Income Tax existed before the 16th Amendment, it was not created by the 16th Amendment. I am not sure what you mean by "wages are not income as defined by those who wrote the 16th amendment." It was defined later by the Supremes.

[TXcarlosTX]

Internal Revenue Code
(Title 26, United States Code)
is not Law

26 USC 7806
COMMENTS

26 USC 4161(a) says that a manufacturer must pay a 10% tax on artificial lures.

26 USC 7806(b) says that Title 26 is not the law. In other words, "No inference, implication or presumption of legislative construction shall be drawn or made by reason of the location or grouping of any particular section or provision or portion of this title..." N.B. "legislative construction" means "law."

26 USC 4161(a) says lures must be taxed. Nordby supply Co. applied 26 USC 7806(b) to invalidate the lure tax.

The Internal Revenue Code is not the law. It only defines a contract between the IRS and the individual.
TITLE 26, UNITED STATES CODE SERVICE.

Section 7806. Construction of Title.

(a) Cross references. The cross references in this title to other portions of the title, or other provisions of law, where the word "see" is used, are made only for convenience, and shall be given no legal effect.

(b) Arrangement and classification. No inference, implication, or presumption of legislative construction shall be drawn or made by reason of the location or grouping of any particular section or provision or portion of this title, nor shall any table of contents, table of cross references, or similar outline, analysis, or descriptive matter relating to the contents of this title be given any legal effect. The preceding sentence also applies to the sidenotes and ancillary tables contained in the various prints of this Act before its enactment into law.

CITATION

1. Location or grouping of section

Fact that 26 USCS Sec. 4161(a) is located in part of Code dealing with recreational equipment and sporting goods is of little significance in determining applicability of tax to lures used in commercial fishing since Sec. 7806 provides that nothing is to be inferred from grouping or indexing of any particular section. Nordby Supply Co. v United States (1978, CA9 Wash) 572 F2d 1377, cert den 439 US 861, 58 L Ed 2d 170, 99 S Ct 182.

TITLE 26, UNITED STATES CODE SERVICE.

Section 4161. Imposition of tax.

(a) Rods, creels, etc. There is hereby imposed upon the sale of fishing rods, creels, reels, and artificial lures, baits, and flies (including parts or accessories of such articles sold on or in connection therewith, or with the sale thereof) by the manufacturer, producer, or importer a tax equivalent to 10 percent of the price for which so sold.

[BarryDonegan]

With all due respect to everyone in this discussion, there is court precedent to uphold both arguments. Different courts rule different ways, and fighting for an outcome in court is at one's own risk. there is currently enough case precedent in American law to build a case to defend yourself from paying the income tax on wages, however it is not guaranteed to work and in some courts you will find yourself facing serious jail time.

however, the OP's webpage produced is a very very bad reference for why the taxes themselves are legitimate. even the language on the page is guilty of poor logic.. ad hominems and language such as "The IRS is not required to respond to every kook or misfit looking for an argument."

This is not language which constitutes a credible argument. Disagreement with the I.R.S. does not constitute the definition of kook, typically kook is a smear term for someone who disagrees with establishment thinking.

The bottom line is, people tend to confuse U.S. Code or IRS code for legislative law, they are not. They are a combination of many things, including UCC law which is supernational, and much of the precedent of our court system is built on the English court system, a flaw which in and of itself needs serious review. Legal reform was something which has been attempted in American history many times and failed due to intervention from people who stood to gain from keeping it in their pockets.

There is no such thing as a clearly defined law that will always be interpreted the same way. Every judicial system is different, and the people in the court room are all human and are going to oftentimes hand down decisions based on other factors, such as the convincing quality of the lawyer presenting it, or personal ethical concerns.

Because of this, you need to give the judicial branch as little room to breath in legislative documents as possible by making the definitions super clear, if theres any room for redefinition, lawyers will do exactly that.


it is for this very reason that I think all lovers of liberty should stop using the term PERSON in any contracts. That word has been abused to the level that it has such flexible meaning that you can justify the opposite of what you intended via simply using a different one of the interpretations of the definition.

[Danke]

Barry, I can't disagree with what you wrote. But stick to Supreme Court rulings (especially avoid administrative courts, tax courts) and then show how private sector receipts with no federal connection fall under the Income Tax.

[Mr. White]

With all due respect to everyone in this discussion, there is court precedent to uphold both arguments. Different courts rule different ways, and fighting for an outcome in court is at one's own risk. there is currently enough case precedent in American law to build a case to defend yourself from paying the income tax on wages, however it is not guaranteed to work and in some courts you will find yourself facing serious jail time.

however, the OP's webpage produced is a very very bad reference for why the taxes themselves are legitimate. even the language on the page is guilty of poor logic.. ad hominems and language such as "The IRS is not required to respond to every kook or misfit looking for an argument."

This is not language which constitutes a credible argument. Disagreement with the I.R.S. does not constitute the definition of kook, typically kook is a smear term for someone who disagrees with establishment thinking.

The bottom line is, people tend to confuse U.S. Code or IRS code for legislative law, they are not. They are a combination of many things, including UCC law which is supernational, and much of the precedent of our court system is built on the English court system, a flaw which in and of itself needs serious review. Legal reform was something which has been attempted in American history many times and failed due to intervention from people who stood to gain from keeping it in their pockets.

There is no such thing as a clearly defined law that will always be interpreted the same way. Every judicial system is different, and the people in the court room are all human and are going to oftentimes hand down decisions based on other factors, such as the convincing quality of the lawyer presenting it, or personal ethical concerns.

Because of this, you need to give the judicial branch as little room to breath in legislative documents as possible by making the definitions super clear, if theres any room for redefinition, lawyers will do exactly that.


it is for this very reason that I think all lovers of liberty should stop using the term PERSON in any contracts. That word has been abused to the level that it has such flexible meaning that you can justify the opposite of what you intended via simply using a different one of the interpretations of the definition.

I'll start with something simple... The US Code IS the product of Congress and has the force of law, because it IS law... The Uniform Commercial Code is a code of accepted practices and has been adopted in various forms into the laws of all 50 states. It has nothing to do with Federal law.

This is the kind of stuff I grow tired of discussing. If your basic premise and claim to knowledge is fundamentally wrong, I am not taking the time to research your more complicated and dubious claims.

[BarryDonegan]

Here's the deal folks, the SCOTUS can only rule on cases and controversies which fall within its authority, the paramters for which would boggle your mind. One of the fundamental tenants of the SCOTUS is that it will only rule on the Constitutionality of issues as a LAST RESORT.

The problem with this perception, is that it assumes that the current Supreme Court and past supreme courts have all operated within Constitutional parameters. They have not always done that.

Bottom line is, flexible living-breathing constitutional interpretation was itself ruled against many times in majority decisions, and in other cases it was not.

concepts such as a "penumbra" of related concepts inferred by the Constitution have watered down the merit of Constitutional law in the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court often contradicts itself, and most of the judicial rules that we operate on are not themselves party to or composed by the Constitution. In reality, America does not have Constitutional rule at all. The minute the U.S. Constitution was applied to English common law, it vanished into thin air. Most of the intended results of the rules established were undermined by it shortly after its adoption. This is why as a caveat, the framers warned us that the Republic would be difficult to keep.

I think that if you realize that the Constitution was drafted as a document to limit republican government to the preservation of liberty, and realize now that all the agents pursuant to it are now professional legislators with ties to lobbying interest, it is clear that something being "legal" does not make it "constitutional". Just because there is court precedent to support something, does not make it legal. Future court precedent being used in lieu of Constitutional ammendments to de facto amend the Constutition without the proper due process is not described in the Constitution as valid rule of law. This means that court precedent which undermines the construction of the Constitution is not Constitutional. It may be legal, but legal and Constitutional are not the same thing.

Currently it is legal in America to search without warrants, then detain someone for up to 90 days without trial, because the U.S. Government does it, and no one has successfully prevented them from doing it. Legal and legitimate power are determined by possession of the power, not by ethical consistency.

and to danke, i would agree with that advice, except that having solid court precedent alone does not ensure a successful outcome in court. If you hope to protest taxes, you HAVE to be willing to go to jail. It is a critical mass of people who are willing to make a sacrifice like that that causes the people to re-evaluate whether or not it is a fair system.

[BarryDonegan]

I'll start with something simple... The US Code IS the product of Congress and has the force of law, because it IS law... The Uniform Commercial Code is a code of accepted practices and has been adopted in various forms into the laws of all 50 states. It has nothing to do with Federal law.

This is the kind of stuff I grow tired of discussing. If your basic premise and claim to knowledge is fundamentally wrong, I am not taking the time to research your more complicated and dubious claims.

I never said that the U.S. Code is not law, it is definately law, but it is a compilation of voted on legislation and court precedent, which includes many laws not specifically voted on by congress. While the specific text is itself approved by congress, it contains much legislation that is created by court precedent and not legislative vote.

U.S. Code takes the majority of its language from Uniform Commercial Code. When you apply Uniform Commercial Code to the Constitution, you get weird judicial nonsense like the personhood of the corporation, which undermine the purpose of a bill of rights. When you can apply the Bill of Rights to a government, and use that as justification to limit the rights of the individual man and woman on the street, you have undermined the purpose, period and point blank.

I suggest everyone take a long hard look at the influence of the U.C.C. and english court system on our own. It contains a lot of legislation that has never been voted on by a legislative body on an item-by-item type basis, which are fundamentals of how we interpret law in america.

The bar system itself is terribly perverse and contradicts the very concept of individual liberty.

[Mr. White]

The problem with this perception, is that it assumes that the current Supreme Court and past supreme courts have all operated within Constitutional parameters. They have not always done that.

Bottom line is, flexible living-breathing constitutional interpretation was itself ruled against many times in majority decisions, and in other cases it was not.

concepts such as a "penumbra" of related concepts inferred by the Constitution have watered down the merit of Constitutional law in the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court often contradicts itself, and most of the judicial rules that we operate on are not themselves party to or composed by the Constitution. In reality, America does not have Constitutional rule at all. The minute the U.S. Constitution was applied to English common law, it vanished into thin air. Most of the intended results of the rules established were undermined by it shortly after its adoption. This is why as a caveat, the framers warned us that the Republic would be difficult to keep.

I think that if you realize that the Constitution was drafted as a document to limit republican government to the preservation of liberty, and realize now that all the agents pursuant to it are now professional legislators with ties to lobbying interest, it is clear that something being "legal" does not make it "constitutional". Just because there is court precedent to support something, does not make it legal. Future court precedent being used in lieu of Constitutional ammendments to de facto amend the Constutition without the proper due process is not described in the Constitution as valid rule of law. This means that court precedent which undermines the construction of the Constitution is not Constitutional. It may be legal, but legal and Constitutional are not the same thing.

Currently it is legal in America to search without warrants, then detain someone for up to 90 days without trial, because the U.S. Government does it, and no one has successfully prevented them from doing it. Legal and legitimate power are determined by possession of the power, not by ethical consistency.

and to danke, i would agree with that advice, except that having solid court precedent alone does not ensure a successful outcome in court. If you hope to protest taxes, you HAVE to be willing to go to jail. It is a critical mass of people who are willing to make a sacrifice like that that causes the people to re-evaluate whether or not it is a fair system.

I heartily agree to your statements regarding the unfortunate difference between what is legal v. what is constitutional however, under the statements you have made, all we are left with is the law provided by Congress and the interpretations of the SCOTUS. Anyattempt to circumvent these two authorities by the "my interpretation is more correct" method espoused by others on this forum lacks authority. Therefore, as I have stated time and again, our only recourse is legislation.

[Mr. White]

I never said that the U.S. Code is not law, it is definately law, but it is a compilation of voted on legislation and court precedent, which includes many laws not specifically voted on by congress. While the specific text is itself approved by congress, it contains much legislation that is created by court precedent and not legislative vote.

U.S. Code takes the majority of its language from Uniform Commercial Code. When you apply Uniform Commercial Code to the Constitution, you get weird judicial nonsense like the personhood of the corporation, which undermine the purpose of a bill of rights. When you can apply the Bill of Rights to a government, and use that as justification to limit the rights of the individual man and woman on the street, you have undermined the purpose, period and point blank.

I suggest everyone take a long hard look at the influence of the U.C.C. and english court system on our own. It contains a lot of legislation that has never been voted on by a legislative body on an item-by-item type basis, which are fundamentals of how we interpret law in america.

The bar system itself is terribly perverse and contradicts the very concept of individual liberty.

I'm confused by your statements and need further info. You say Congress approves of certain court precedent language but did not legislate it by vote? Could you provide an example? As for the UCC again can you provide an example? I need a section to refer to. Again, the UCC itself is not law nor does it have the force of law, it is a collection of trade theories, adopted in various ways by states (much like the Model Penal Code).

[Danke]

and to danke, i would agree with that advice, except that having solid court precedent alone does not ensure a successful outcome in court. If you hope to protest taxes, you HAVE to be willing to go to jail. It is a critical mass of people who are willing to make a sacrifice like that that causes the people to re-evaluate whether or not it is a fair system.

Wise advise. But I don't feel I am "protest[ing]"

I am abiding by the law as written. I know misinformation is common, and trial by jury has become a joke. Your words are well heeded.

[Mr. White]

Wise advise. But I don't feel I am "protest[ing]"

I am abiding by the law as written. I know misinformation is common, and trial by jury has become a joke. Your words are well heeded.

Trial by jury applies to the criminal act of failing to file or filing fraudalntly, that is governed by entirely different rules and vindication in the cirminal system does not equate with vindication in the Civil. Tax Protestors occasionally get off on the criminal side, but NONE get off on the civil.

[Danke]

Trial by jury applies to the criminal act of failing to file or filing fraudalntly, that is governed by entirely different rules and vindication in the cirminal system does not equate with vindication in the Civil. Tax Protestors occasionally get off on the criminal side, but NONE get off on the civil.

Thanks for that tid bit Whity, you are so enlightening.

[Mr. White]

Thanks for that tid bit Whity, you are so enlightening.

you never did give me that summary of what it was you were claiming that I was supposed to refute.

[Danke]

you never did give me that summary of what it was you were claiming that I was supposed to refute.


Seeing that you replied to my previous posts, you should have plenty of material. Is it that had to lay off the ad hominem attacks, such as "ignorance" "Tax Protester", etc and respond with something substantive?

[BarryDonegan]

I'm confused by your statements and need further info. You say Congress approves of certain court precedent language but did not legislate it by vote? Could you provide an example? As for the UCC again can you provide an example? I need a section to refer to. Again, the UCC itself is not law nor does it have the force of law, it is a collection of trade theories, adopted in various ways by states (much like the Model Penal Code).

A specific example is tough because, truly, its hard to find anything which is not an example of this. Take, for example, this concept. All laws have definitions, and the US code has definitions. These definitions are not identical, and sometimes the legislation may not define a word which the US Code does later, this, de facto, radically changes the law to mean the opposite without a vote to that fact. Many people view Roe v. Wade this way.(in terms of court precedent) Essentially, the court precedent overrulled all laws about the subject, despite a very long term legislative record to back it up. Look at Scalias dissent about sodomy laws after Roe v. Wade(in my opinion he did this as a sortof protest against the justification for overreaching on that issue). The only Constitutional justification for legal ruling is very limited, this clearly oversteps that, in the sense that a medical abortion by a 3rd party was by no means discussed nor inferred to in the Constitution. In this case, the Supreme Court is taking additional power, and when the legislative and executive branch obeyed, they gained it until further challenges.

A lot is in the interpretations and definitions. Code is assembled by legal experts, and court precedent which de facto creates a law is included in code. This is why in this court system, precedent is necessary for proving legality in many cases.

As a result, when it comes to law and the practice of law, the team of people assembling the law books and the judges interpreting it, can sometimes redefine it entirely. The fact that the U.S. Code contains definitions, undermines the laws voted on in the first place.

This is why legislative and judicial law is not singularly trustworthy. When it offends the morality of the community, or ethics of the community, there are other institutions which are designed to stop it.

So, basically, when people claim that the IRS is unconstitutional, they mean that it defies the intent[, which there is a strong argument to that. It is also, questionably legal, in some situations, in that, in some cases, you can get out of it legally. This is not neccessarily advisable as a general rule, because you will often find yourself in trouble with the law if you do this.

But the tax protest movement has, as a goal, resistance in mind. We have to remember that all people are flawed, and therefor we have to leave room for these flaws.

A great example of this, is the Bill of Rights and its application to slaves. The founding fathers definately used slaves, and as a result a strict constructionist would argue that they did not intend that the bill of rights be applied to their slaves. However, the paradigm shift which caused the end of slavery, inevitably inspired by the Bill of Rights itself, and people noticing that the slave practice was in dissonance with this, that caused a reevaluation of the Constitutional intent.

I think that applying the Constitution to free slaves was something a Thomas Jefferson who was born in 1820 would have been a fan of, but extending these to limited-liability corporations which are not sentient beings at all?

Inevitably, public support for a law is not that complicated to get... but public support for a Constitutional ammendment requires a major crisis; the fastest way to generate a crisis like this is via massive civil unrest.

This is why non compliance with laws that one finds wicked or against the foundation of the system itself is one of the most important keys to the creation of legislation.

The IRS and 16th ammendment themselves, along with the establishment of the federal reserve took advantage of major economic crises in order to become law. These crises were themselves caused by limited liability corporations and the banking community, with the intent of getting this legislation passed.

for a short version, which actually answers only your question, MR WHITE, the US CODE is a marriage of the laws of congress, judicial precedent, and the definitions of all the language in the code. When the methodology of recording legislative code consists of across the board redefinition of words, you de facto rewrote every law in the code. Personhood of the corporation is and always will be my favorite example of this. Never did America vote on extending the protections of the bill of rights to non sentient entities, in a way which undermines individual rights, yet this definition is in the code as a result of court precedent and has more effect on public law than nearly anything ever voted on.

[BarryDonegan]

Wise advise. But I don't feel I am "protest[ing]"

I am abiding by the law as written. I know misinformation is common, and trial by jury has become a joke. Your words are well heeded.

ironically, the three of us represent different but similar viewpoints.

I disagree that you are abiding by the law as written by not paying the income tax, because i disagree with the concept that there are clearly defined laws in America. I think legislation is open ended and generally speaking any lawyer, general, politician, or judge can change laws at will based on the amount of resistance people are willing to give to stop them.

i agree that there are LAWS which you are obeying if you refuse to pay the income tax, but it is not the de facto general, common application of the law. You will have to have a court battle, and in many cases, around half or so, the law upholds the opposite.

Basically, this is currently a heavily contested issue, and as tax protest increases, the rulings will begin to change in favor of the illegality of the tax. If the majority of americans believe it is illegal, then it will no longer be punishable by jailing. If it is not punishable by jail, it doesn't have the strength to remain a law.

While i agree with Mr. White that most IRS dispute cases will not work out in civil court, it is also true that the IRS will not sue in civil court unless it stands to benefit them financially, which means, that in many cases, it is still uninforceable. There are many cases where after the criminal suit fails, the IRS never actually gets around to pursuing their civil suit.

[Mr. White]

A specific example is tough because, truly, its hard to find anything which is not an example of this. Take, for example, this concept. All laws have definitions, and the US code has definitions. These definitions are not identical, and sometimes the legislation may not define a word which the US Code does later, this, de facto, radically changes the law to mean the opposite without a vote to that fact. Many people view Roe v. Wade this way.(in terms of court precedent) Essentially, the court precedent overrulled all laws about the subject, despite a very long term legislative record to back it up. Look at Scalias dissent about sodomy laws after Roe v. Wade(in my opinion he did this as a sortof protest against the justification for overreaching on that issue). The only Constitutional justification for legal ruling is very limited, this clearly oversteps that, in the sense that a medical abortion by a 3rd party was by no means discussed nor inferred to in the Constitution. In this case, the Supreme Court is taking additional power, and when the legislative and executive branch obeyed, they gained it until further challenges.

A lot is in the interpretations and definitions. Code is assembled by legal experts, and court precedent which de facto creates a law is included in code. This is why in this court system, precedent is necessary for proving legality in many cases.

As a result, when it comes to law and the practice of law, the team of people assembling the law books and the judges interpreting it, can sometimes redefine it entirely. The fact that the U.S. Code contains definitions, undermines the laws voted on in the first place.

This is why legislative and judicial law is not singularly trustworthy. When it offends the morality of the community, or ethics of the community, there are other institutions which are designed to stop it.

So, basically, when people claim that the IRS is unconstitutional, they mean that it defies the intent[, which there is a strong argument to that. It is also, questionably legal, in some situations, in that, in some cases, you can get out of it legally. This is not neccessarily advisable as a general rule, because you will often find yourself in trouble with the law if you do this.

But the tax protest movement has, as a goal, resistance in mind. We have to remember that all people are flawed, and therefor we have to leave room for these flaws.

A great example of this, is the Bill of Rights and its application to slaves. The founding fathers definately used slaves, and as a result a strict constructionist would argue that they did not intend that the bill of rights be applied to their slaves. However, the paradigm shift which caused the end of slavery, inevitably inspired by the Bill of Rights itself, and people noticing that the slave practice was in dissonance with this, that caused a reevaluation of the Constitutional intent.

I think that applying the Constitution to free slaves was something a Thomas Jefferson who was born in 1820 would have been a fan of, but extending these to limited-liability corporations which are not sentient beings at all?

Inevitably, public support for a law is not that complicated to get... but public support for a Constitutional ammendment requires a major crisis; the fastest way to generate a crisis like this is via massive civil unrest.

This is why non compliance with laws that one finds wicked or against the foundation of the system itself is one of the most important keys to the creation of legislation.

The IRS and 16th ammendment themselves, along with the establishment of the federal reserve took advantage of major economic crises in order to become law. These crises were themselves caused by limited liability corporations and the banking community, with the intent of getting this legislation passed.

for a short version, which actually answers only your question, MR WHITE, the US CODE is a marriage of the laws of congress, judicial precedent, and the definitions of all the language in the code. When the methodology of recording legislative code consists of across the board redefinition of words, you de facto rewrote every law in the code. Personhood of the corporation is and always will be my favorite example of this. Never did America vote on extending the protections of the bill of rights to non sentient entities, in a way which undermines individual rights, yet this definition is in the code as a result of court precedent and has more effect on public law than nearly anything ever voted on.

Where in the US Code is there a law which Congress did not vote on? The judiciary applies the written law to the situation they are confronted with and with the authority they have to do so. Laws are man-made, they cannot address all possible situations. Under the Constitution, the judicial branch is deemed the interpreter of the law. When the Constitution needs interpreting only the Supreme Court may do so.

There are no words in the United States Code which were not passed by the Legislature. The judiciary is an imperfect system which does what it can with those words.

I approve whole-heartedly civil disobedience. I share the tax protestor ideology that the income tax is unfair and unjust. I take issue when the tax protestor movement attempts to advance its agenda with dishonest representations of the law. It serves no purpose other than alienate those with a greater understanding of the law who could benefit the movement.

EDIT: I read your reply to Danke and now udnerstand your viewpoint completely. If we're viewing the judiciary as merely another arm of affecting change, go for it. Exploit the weakness whcih led to the situatuon in whcih we find ourselves. Unfortunately few seem to be as honest as you. If you wish to muddy the waters, do so, but I find it as equally at-odds with the mantra on these boards as my viewpoint is. You can't muddy the water and expect the Constitution to come through shining and the rest of this bunch seems to think you can.

[Danke]

i agree that there are LAWS which you are obeying if you refuse to pay the income tax, but it is not the de facto general, common application of the law. You will have to have a court battle, and in many cases, around half or so, the law upholds the opposite.



I am not sure I follow. I pay any income tax I am liable to pay.

I understand the law and to whom it applies.

[Peace&Freedom]

The IR code (Title 26) is PRIVATE law, not positive enacted law. Positive law is binding on all, while private law is binding only on those party to it by contract. According to the government's definition, only enacted positive law is real evidence of US law. From the US House of Representatives:

About the Office and the United States Code

The Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the U.S. House of Representatives prepares and publishes the United States Code pursuant to section 285b of title 2 of the Code. The Code is a consolidation and codification by subject matter of the general and permanent laws of the United States.

The Code does not include regulations issued by executive branch agencies, decisions of the Federal courts, treaties, or laws enacted by State or local governments. Regulations issued by executive branch agencies are available in the Code of Federal Regulations. Proposed and recently adopted regulations may be found in the Federal Register.

Certain titles of the Code have been enacted into positive law, and pursuant to section 204 of title 1 of the Code, the text of those titles is legal evidence of the law contained in those titles. The other titles of the Code are prima facie evidence of the laws contained in those titles. The following titles of the Code have been enacted into positive law: 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 23, 28, 31, 32, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 44, 46, and 49.
-------
From GPO Access:

"NOTE: Of the 50 titles, only 23 have been enacted into positive (statutory) law. These titles are 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 23, 28, 31, 32, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 44, 46, and 49. When a title of the Code was enacted into positive law, the text of the title became legal evidence of the law. Titles that have not been enacted into positive law are only prima facie evidence of the law. In that case, the Statutes at Large still govern."
-------
Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1162

Positive law. Law actually and specifically enacted or adopted by proper authority for the government of an organized jural society. See also Legislation.
-------
1 USC 204 Definition of what is legal evidence of US law:

(a) United States Code. -

The matter set forth in the edition of the Code of Laws of the United States current at any time shall, together with the then current supplement, if any, establish prima facie the laws of the United States, general and permanent in their nature, in force on the day preceding the commencement of the session following the last session the legislation of which is included: Provided, however, That whenever titles of such Code shall have been enacted into positive law the text thereof shall be legal evidence of the laws therein contained, in all the courts of the United States, the several States, and the Territories and insular possessions of the United States.
-------
The Internal Revenue code does not have the force of law, as it is not positive law, and is at best prima facie evidence. Title 26 lacks authority of real US law, as codes only have the force of law if published and promulgated by the Secretary of the Treasury in the Federal Register in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. §553. All regulations promulgated in the Federal Register are “legislative regulations”.

[TXcarlosTX]

if your in there tax, civil ect court you will have a greater chance of getting defeated, you need to have a game plan. going to court is basically civilized warfare. court of record please!!!


from the definitions below, that a
court of record is a court which must meet the following
criteria:

1. generally has a seal
2. power to fine or imprison for contempt
3. keeps a record of the proceedings
4. proceeding according to the common law (not statutes or codes)
5. the tribunal is independent of the magistrate (judge)

Note that a judge is a magistrate and is not the tribunal.
The tribunal is either the sovereign himself, or a fully
empowered jury (not paid by the government)
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426

COURT. ...

INTERNATIONAL LAW

The person and suite of the sovereign; the place where the
sovereign sojourns with his regal retinue, wherever that may be.
....

CLASSIFICATION

Courts may be classified and divided according to several
methods, the following being the more usual:

COURTS OF RECORD and COURTS NOT OF RECORD. The former being
those whose acts and judicial proceedings are enrolled, or
recorded, for a perpetual memory and testimony, and which have
power to fine or imprison for contempt. Error lies to their
judgments, and they generally possess a seal. Courts not of
record are those of inferior dignity, which have no power to fine
or imprison, and in which the proceedings are not enrolled or
recorded. 3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas
Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal 225;
Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v.
Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E. 229, 231.

A "court of record" is a judicial tribunal having attributes
and exercising functions independently of the person of the
magistrate designated generally to hold it, and proceeding
according to the course of common law, its acts and proceedings
being enrolled for a perpetual memorial. Jones v. Jones, 188
Mo.App. 220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Metc. Mass.,
171, per Shaw, C.J. See, also, Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y.
406, 155 N.E. 688, 689.

....
----------------------------------------------------------------
Webster's New Practical Dictionary, 386 (1953)
G. & C. Merriam Co., Springfield, Mass.

MAGISTRATE

A person holding official power in a government; as: a The
official of highest rank in a government (chief, or first,
magistrate). b An official of a class having summary, often
criminal, jurisdiction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Merriam-Webster On-Line Dictionary

MAGISTRATE

an official entrusted with administration of the laws

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 1103

MAGISTRATE

Person clothed with power as a public civil officer. State
ex rel. Miller v. McLeod, 142 Fla. 254, 194 So. 628, 630.

A public officer belonging to the civil organization of the
state, and invested with powers and functions which may be either
judicial, legislative, or executive. But the term is commonly
used in a narrower sense, designating, in England, a person
intrusted with the commission of the peace, and, in America, one
of the class of inferior judicial officers, such as justices of
the peace and police justices. Martin v. State, 32 Ark. 124; Ex
parte White, 15 Nev. 146, 37 Am.Rep. 466; State v. Allen, 83 Fla.
655, 92 So. 155, 156; Merritt v. Merritt, 193 Iowa 899, 188 N.W.
32, 34.
....

The word "magistrate" does not necessarily imply an officer
exercising any judicial functions, and might very well be held to
embrace notaries and commissioners of deeds. Schultz v.
Merchants' Ins. Co., 57 Mo. 336.

Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 1602, 1603

SUIT

Old English Law

The witnesses or followers of the plaintiff. 3 Bl. Comm.
295. See Secta.

Modern Law
A generic term, of comprehensive signification, and applies
to any proceeding by one person or persons against another or
others in a court of justice in which the plaintiff pursues, in
such court, the remedy which the law affords him for the redress
of an injury or the enforcement of a right, whether at law or in
equity. See Kohl v. U.S., 91 U.S. 375, 23 L.Ed. 449; Weston v.
Charleston, 2 Pet. 464, 7 L.Ed. 481; Syracuse Plaster Co. v.
Agostini Bros. Bldg. Corporation, 169 Misc. 564 7 N.Y.S.2d 897.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 1677

TRIBUNAL

The seat of a judge; the place where he administers justice.
The whole body of judges who compose a jurisdiction; a judicial
court; the jurisdiction which the judges exercise. See Foster v.
Worcester, 16 Pick. (Mass.) 81.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Webster's New Practical Dictionary, 707 (1953)
G. & C. Merriam Co., Springfield, Mass.

TRIBUNE
1. In ancient Rome, a magistrate whose special function was
to protect the interests of plebeian citizens from the patricians.
2. Any defender of the people.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Merriam-Webster On-Line Dictionary

COURT

1. the residence of a sovereign or similar dignitary
2: a sovereign and his officials and advisers as a
governing power
3: an assembly of the retinue of a sovereign
4: an open space enclosed by a building or buildings
5: a space walled or marked off for playing a game (as
tennis or basketball)
6: the place where justice is administered; also: a judicial
body or a meeting of a judicial body

[Anti Federalist]

Mr White wrote:


Where in the US Code is there a law which Congress did not vote on?

And also:


There are no words in the United States Code which were not passed by the Legislature.

Umm, huh?

I have, sitting in front of me, 14 volumes of maritime related Codes of Federal Regulations, (it's my line of work) and that's just one small aspect of the volumes of CFRs out there regulating almost every aspect of our lives.

I know whole books of CFRs have been added over the years, by nothing more than regulating body fiat, in this case the USCG, through the process of "Notice of Proposed Rule Making".

Congress did not vote on each and every one of these rules. The only thing they voted on was to give plenipotentiary powers to the subordinate agency, whether it be the ATF or IRS or the USCG or what have you, to run amok and pass any "rules" they pretty much please.

Your bile's backing up on you. What's the problem? You an ex-IRS agent or something?

[TXcarlosTX]

TAX COURT IS A COURT OF RECORD
IT IS NOT AN ADMINISTRATIVE COURT



Tax Court is a court of record. It is not an administrative court unless you permit it to quit being a court of record.

Here is what the Internal Revenue Code designates:

26 USC 7441: Status. "There is hereby established, under article I of the Constitution of the United States, a court of record to be known as the United States Tax Court. The members of the Tax Court shall be the chief judge and the judges of the Tax Court."

[TXcarlosTX]

man... im good

[BarryDonegan]

The judicial branch is definately allowed to interpret laws, but for congress to include judicial interpretation as future law, is not systemically allowed by the constitution.

For my example, look at the bill of rights and the concept of corporate personhood.

The Bill of Rights is Constitutional legislation. It creates limitation of what the congress can pass laws pertaining to.

The Fourteenth Ammendment was written, with this language:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

This was written because prior to that, courts were upholding that citizens of lets say, the state of tennessee, were not getting protected by the Bill of Rights because they were not party to it, they were only party to their state constitution. I can't remember right offhand the case precedent, but it was the City of Baltimore vs. someone.

Munn v. Illinois upheld that the state had the right to regulate corporate businesses. Corporations derive their existance from government licensing and regulation and different from a private business in that way. This was an example of the 14th ammendment failing as a protection for a corporation. This was a good 6 or 7 years later than the 14th ammendment.

It was not until much later did the courts decide to redefine the meaning of PERSON to mean ARTIFICIAL PERSON as well, despite the fact that courts had always used the term ARTIFICIAL PERSON to mean ARTIFICIAL PERSON, not just the term PERSON alone. When you reapply corporations to having the same rights as the people, then it also applies to the GOVERNMENT ITSELF. This, conceptually, took what was supposed to be another level of protection against tyrrany, basically applying the Bill of Rights to more situations, and somehow was used to limit them even more.

This, in practice, changed the law without a vote, because the definition of PERSON is now applied across the entire US CODE to mean ARTIFICIAL PERSON. That redefines every law that contains the word PERSON to mean something totally incongruent with the intent of the law.

This is what i mean by not voted on. If congress was forced to systemically vote on all the laws they pass, then they would have to seriously cut down the amount of legislation they keep on the books. Once this adoption of PERSON happened in court, it became a part of law, despite the fact that it was never voted on.

[BarryDonegan]

Mr White wrote:



And also:



Umm, huh?

I have, sitting in front of me, 14 volumes of maritime related Codes of Federal Regulations, (it's my line of work) and that's just one small aspect of the volumes of CFRs out there regulating almost every aspect of our lives.

I know whole books of CFRs have been added over the years, by nothing more than regulating body fiat, in this case the USCG, through the process of "Notice of Proposed Rule Making".

?

These are the specific examples you were looking for. Any code or rule which was created by a body which Congress delegated to create codes are de facto laws which were never voted on by congress. the IRS itself is a regulatory agency which creates laws never voted on by congress.

[Mr. White]

Mr White wrote:



And also:



Umm, huh?

I have, sitting in front of me, 14 volumes of maritime related Codes of Federal Regulations, (it's my line of work) and that's just one small aspect of the volumes of CFRs out there regulating almost every aspect of our lives.

I know whole books of CFRs have been added over the years, by nothing more than regulating body fiat, in this case the USCG, through the process of "Notice of Proposed Rule Making".

Congress did not vote on each and every one of these rules. The only thing they voted on was to give plenipotentiary powers to the subordinate agency, whether it be the ATF or IRS or the USCG or what have you, to run amok and pass any "rules" they pretty much please.

Your bile's backing up on you. What's the problem? You an ex-IRS agent or something?

The Code of Federal Regulations is not the United States Code... it's comprised of Agency regulations which have the force of law, and to which I never referred...

[Mr. White]

These are the specific examples you were looking for. Any code or rule which was created by a body which Congress delegated to create codes are de facto laws which were never voted on by congress. the IRS itself is a regulatory agency which creates laws never voted on by congress.

I never stated that all codes which have the force of law were passed by the legislature... I claimed the US Code has the force of law and contains nothing which was not passed by legislature.

[BarryDonegan]

I am not sure I follow. I pay any income tax I am liable to pay.

I understand the law and to whom it applies.

the problem is when the judge, jury, and lawyers have a different viewpoint on the law, in a courtroom, when your sitting in it.

Sometimes you go into that situation, and the law is totally undermined. Thats how reality works, unfortunately. Thats why the court is not a perfect system, and it requires checks and balances such as the second ammendment.

[BarryDonegan]

I never stated that all codes which have the force of law were passed by the legislature... I claimed the US Code has the force of law and contains nothing which was not passed by legislature.

I'm trying to explain that the court precedent and the definitions are not passed by a vote specifically. They are simply signed off on without thought, after being approved by the people assembling the code. This is too important to be compiled into one book. It's ok to have definitions on the specific law itself, which were voted on by congress, but when you remove the definitions section from a law, and instead reapply a general definitions to a section of code, you have rewritten the law without reintroducing the law and voting again with the new definition.

do you understand what i mean?

like when legislature votes on a law, it contains definitions, and some words are undefined, when a section of code contains definitions, and applies them to a group of laws, the specific laws are changed in application, without a new vote. generally these definitions come from current trends in court precedent. court precedent should never appear in US CODE, nor should anything drawn from it. The Court is supposed to uphold its own definitions in a case by case basis, not to be recompiled and turned into law. That gives court precedent the appearance of law. Roe V. Wade has totally worked that way, it became law, without a vote, because of one court case. It should be retried in every single case until the legislature has an opportunity to vote. That gives the sophistication of the issue more debate.

The accidental result of allowing Roe v. Wade to become de facto legislation, is that it gave too broad of a judgement only based on a single case. This is definately not a sane system.

[Danke]

the problem is when the judge, jury, and lawyers have a different viewpoint on the law, in a courtroom, when your sitting in it.

Sometimes you go into that situation, and the law is totally undermined. Thats how reality works, unfortunately. Thats why the court is not a perfect system, and it requires checks and balances such as the second ammendment.

I hear ya loud and clear. Kinda undermines the concept of "the rule of law' though.

[Mr. White]

The judicial branch is definately allowed to interpret laws, but for congress to include judicial interpretation as future law, is not systemically allowed by the constitution.

For my example, look at the bill of rights and the concept of corporate personhood.

The Bill of Rights is Constitutional legislation. It creates limitation of what the congress can pass laws pertaining to.

The Fourteenth Ammendment was written, with this language:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

This was written because prior to that, courts were upholding that citizens of lets say, the state of tennessee, were not getting protected by the Bill of Rights because they were not party to it, they were only party to their state constitution. I can't remember right offhand the case precedent, but it was the City of Baltimore vs. someone.

Munn v. Illinois upheld that the state had the right to regulate corporate businesses. Corporations derive their existance from government licensing and regulation and different from a private business in that way. This was an example of the 14th ammendment failing as a protection for a corporation. This was a good 6 or 7 years later than the 14th ammendment.

It was not until much later did the courts decide to redefine the meaning of PERSON to mean ARTIFICIAL PERSON as well, despite the fact that courts had always used the term ARTIFICIAL PERSON to mean ARTIFICIAL PERSON, not just the term PERSON alone. When you reapply corporations to having the same rights as the people, then it also applies to the GOVERNMENT ITSELF. This, conceptually, took what was supposed to be another level of protection against tyrrany, basically applying the Bill of Rights to more situations, and somehow was used to limit them even more.

This, in practice, changed the law without a vote, because the definition of PERSON is now applied across the entire US CODE to mean ARTIFICIAL PERSON. That redefines every law that contains the word PERSON to mean something totally incongruent with the intent of the law.

This is what i mean by not voted on. If congress was forced to systemically vote on all the laws they pass, then they would have to seriously cut down the amount of legislation they keep on the books. Once this adoption of PERSON happened in court, it became a part of law, despite the fact that it was never voted on.

Gotcha, they changed the application. I derive perverse entertainment form the fact that we defined our discussion about differing definitions in terms of our own differing definitions.

Mind if I PM you for some networking?

[Danke]

like when legislature votes on a law, it contains definitions, and some words are undefined, when a section of code contains definitions, and applies them to a group of laws, the specific laws are changed in application, without a new vote.

But then it should be challenged all the way up to the Supremes (if they will hear it...).

Example:
"Wages" are defined in the code, and it doesn't apply to most of our private sector earnings. Many don't realize that when siting court cases.

[BarryDonegan]

I hear ya loud and clear. Kinda undermines the concept of "the rule of law' though.

remember, that when Thomas Jefferson said that the tree of liberty requires the blood of patriots and tyrants, he wasn't kidding. and he didn't mean just during the Revolutionary War.

The Rule of Law is not alive in the United States at all today.

Our legal system is now so complex that it is gameable, meaning that people who are good at gaming it can make anything they want legal. This is reality, this is why I believe it may be time to establish a new court system.

[BarryDonegan]

But then it should be challenged all the way up to the Supremes (if they will hear it...).

Example:
"Wages" are defined in the code, and it doesn't apply to most of our private sector earnings. Many don't realize that when siting court cases.

that won't change the fact that someone can submit different precedent in a different case. Supreme Court rulings also get overtuned and overturned and overturned, and sometimes in court you will not get your case high enough to be ruled on in that way.

the MOST important way to enforce a law, or have a law work the way you want, is to have all of the people agree with you. If juries won't convict for something, it is not a law.

It is incredibly difficult to put someone away for sodomy laws these days for that type of reason... they are still usable though when the state does not have statutory rape laws, for example, and the sodomy participant is under the age of 18.

[BarryDonegan]

Gotcha, they changed the application. I derive perverse entertainment form the fact that we defined our discussion about differing definitions in terms of our own differing definitions.

Mind if I PM you for some networking?

feel free to network with me! I'm down to talk to anyone about liberty and trying to make these things a reality.

[Danke]

remember, that when Thomas Jefferson said that the tree of liberty requires the blood of patriots and tyrants, he wasn't kidding. and he didn't mean just during the Revolutionary War.

The Rule of Law is not alive in the United States at all today.

Our legal system is now so complex that it is gameable, meaning that people who are good at gaming it can make anything they want legal. This is reality, this is why I believe it may be time to establish a new court system.

Yep. "Ignorance of the Law" really falls on deaf ears when the common man can't be expected to have read the volumes upon volumes of laws on the books and understand them, let alone so called professionals (lawyers) that can't all agree and argue over it in court. And if they deviate from standard/acceptable practice, they get sanctioned or disbarred. What a system. But lucrative for some.

[BarryDonegan]

This was the reason they passed the first 13th ammendment, which disappeared after the war of 1812.

[mutter]

TAX COURT IS A COURT OF RECORD
IT IS NOT AN ADMINISTRATIVE COURT



Tax Court is a court of record. It is not an administrative court unless you permit it to quit being a court of record.

Here is what the Internal Revenue Code designates:

26 USC 7441: Status. "There is hereby established, under article I of the Constitution of the United States, a court of record to be known as the United States Tax Court. The members of the Tax Court shall be the chief judge and the judges of the Tax Court."
Why do you think administrative courts dont have recorders? what should have caught your attention is that it is an article one court not an article three court. Non Congressional subjects have no business in an article One court.

[mutter]

I read through what you have written here, and got a little curious, so I looked up one of the cases...

Conner v. U.S., 303 F Supp. 1187 (1969)
"... whatever may constitute income, therefore, must have the essential feature of gain to the recipient. This was true when the 16th Amendment became effective, it was true at the time of Eisner v. Macomber Supra, it was true under Section 22(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1938, and it is likewise true under Section 61(a) of the I.R.S. Code of 1954. If there is not gain, there is not income ... Congress has taxed income not compensation."
"There is a clear distinction between `profit' and 'wages', or a compensation for labor. Compensation for labor (wages) cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law. The word `profit', as ordinarily used, means the gain made upon any business or investment- - - a different thing altogether from the mere compensation for labor."




You also need to add these facts to make the above paragraph relevant:
"Soon after the destruction of their home, plaintiffs made a claim from their insurance carrier. After some negotiation, they accepted a total payment of $88,487.00 from the insurance company. Of this amount, $4,665.82 was earmarked to compensate plaintiffs for their out-of-pocket expenses incurred as a consequence [**3] of the fire, $4,200.00 of which was for reimbursement to plaintiffs for the rental payments paid by plaintiffs to rent the house used during the reconstruction of their burned home."

The court was talking about whether the COMPENSATION for their LOSS should be taxed and would be considered income.



I suspect many of the cases you have cited have similar errors. You cannot take two sentences out of context from cases, and apply it to totally separate facts.
ESPECIALLY a Federal District court ruling.


I also Shepardized (this is a term used to check to see if the law decided in the case has been over ruled) and the case was reversed in part upon appeal.


---------------

I dont want to go through all of the cases above. Because that would take me more than 24 hours.

I still ask the question, give me the Supreme Court case referred to in the Freedom to Facism movie, and I will look it up and post the entire opinion for all to see, so we can discuss.

I completley disagree with your logic of why this case is not applicable. the point is that they are talking about what "wages" are and are not. The case doesnt specifically have to be about any type of pay being wages. what this demonstrates is that there is somethings that are paid that do not constitute "wages" under the code.
Step one is to remove the BS presumptions the IRS is allowed to operate under. Chief of which is the inference that all that comes in is 'income'.

[mutter]

I've grown weary of responding.

Here's a nice collection of responses to your dubious claims.

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html

Hee hee Dan Evans. You mean the guy who works for teh IRS? the same guy who uses term tricks. I ve found more lies and errors in his stuff than the IRS spews forth!

[Danke]

Hee hee Dan Evans. You mean the guy who works for the IRS? the same guy who uses term tricks. I've found more lies and errors in his stuff than the IRS spews forth!

Ain't that the truth!

[dude58677]

Mr. White's argument is moot and if a defendent is on a jury and are accused of tax evasion, you vote not guilty because it is in your conscience. It is known as jury nullification and has a tradtion dating back to the Magna Carta. As a jury member you have a right to vote regarding your morals.

[Weston White]

The court was talking about whether the COMPENSATION for their LOSS should be taxed and would be considered income.

Incorrect, what was stated by the Judge still holds true, the Judge was defining a term as used in an Act, that fact does not change because of the subject of the case. Additionally, as to your "shepardizing" unless the Judges definition was ruled to be incorrect... so what if the case was overturned, the same definition still applies as so stated... and yes correctly... see: 1909 Corporate Excise Tax Act.

[Weston White]

I am open to the IDEA that the income tax is unconstitutional, but guess, what my opinion of unconstitutionality doesn't mean squat.

That Federal Income Tax is not unconstitutional, who said that now? It is simply being misrepresented, as much through force as by fear, nothing more and nothing less.

[asgardshill]

I have access to a database to look up the opinion, and if you give me the name, I will post it in this thread for all to see, so you can validate yourself.

Do you have LEXIS-NEXIS access? Sure wish I still did (here, anyway) (winsome sigh)

[Weston White]

I reject the notion that one should look to the intent of the Framers when interpreting an amendment made 125ish years later. That's the purpose of the amendment process: to allow change. As for the rest, I'm not quite sure what you are alluding to. Are you saying the income Tax is unconstitutional? The SCOTUS has upheld it. What more would you like? I do appreciate the well-thought out response. As for the correct political environment for the Supreme Court to rule, it's politically motivated holdings which got us here in the first place. We can change the situation much quicker through legislation than through attempting to influence the opinions of Justices.

Entirely incorrect, first of it is 95-years not 125ish. Secondly, when referring to Constitutional Law, it must be read in light of and with respect to the intentions beset by our Nations Framers, unlike when reading prescribed Book Law, which is to be read in context. Thirdly, nothing can be added to the Bill of Rights through the Amendment process if it is in perpetual conflict with the Constitution; Amendments are for the purposes of either giving or taking away rights, they are stipulations; they cannot alter the Articles, Sections, or Clauses as contained within the Constitution. Engaging an action that against Fundamental Law is a crime because it is unconstitutional, therefore, if the 16th Amendment actually meant what the IRS so desires for it to, then it is Void as it was conceived in Treason against the United States of America. 19 (18 of the several states) enumerated powers were granted to the Congress, they can never be altered. To do so would violate the contract between the "United States" and the several states of the Union.

However, this is not the case, clearly the 16th Amendment was created to prevent a specific class of Indirect Tax from ever again being labeled as a Direct Tax. It is through the dumbing down of society that our Nations people no longer understand such basic legal processes. Therefore, the 16th Amendment is not unconstitutional.

Read up on the Magna Carta, of which our Nations Constitution (as was the originating Articles of the Confederation) was inspired by, read the Declaration of Independence, read the Preamble to the Constitution, read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, clearly the intent was to insure a nation of free people with rights to private property both in personal and real, to name a few. Then go read the Communist Manifesto, compare and relate the 10-planks to our Declaration of Independence, you will (or should) quickly realize that we are currently living in a pseudo-Communist County; with repression run rabid.

“For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:”

“He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.”

“In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.”

Sounds familiar, huh?

Though if you would like perhaps you might render a logical explanation as to why up until WWII less then 8% of our Nations people filed for the Federal Income Tax, which was "imposed" over 30-years earlier? Because the truth was obscured in so called "patriotism".

[Danke]

Two Mr. Whites! :D

I don't think you will be hearing from the former. The tax honesty deniers (IRS Shills) usually pop up and then disappear when they find out they have an educated audience.

[Weston White]

I never stated that all codes which have the force of law were passed by the legislature... I claimed the US Code has the force of law and contains nothing which was not passed by legislature.

Title 26 is not apart of Positive Law:

TITLE 1 > CHAPTER 3 > § 204
TITLE 1—GENERAL PROVISIONS
CHAPTER 3—CODE OF LAWS OF UNITED STATES AND SUPPLEMENTS; DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CODE AND SUPPLEMENTS
§ 204. Codes and Supplements as evidence of the laws of United States and District of Columbia; citation of Codes and Supplements

In all courts, tribunals, and public offices of the United States, at home or abroad, of the District of Columbia, and of each State, Territory, or insular possession of the United States—
(a) United States Code.— The matter set forth in the edition of the Code of Laws of the United States current at any time shall, together with the then current supplement, if any, establish prima facie the laws of the United States, general and permanent in their nature, in force on the day preceding the commencement of the session following the last session the legislation of which is included: Provided, however, That whenever titles of such Code shall have been enacted into positive law the text thereof shall be legal evidence of the laws therein contained, in all the courts of the United States, the several States, and the Territories and insular possessions of the United States.
(b) District of Columbia Code.— The matter set forth in the edition of the Code of the District of Columbia current at any time shall, together with the then current supplement, if any, establish prima facie the laws, general and permanent in their nature, relating to or in force in the District of Columbia on the day preceding the commencement of the session following the last session the legislation of which is included, except such laws as are of application in the District of Columbia by reason of being laws of the United States general and permanent in their nature.


Could this be the reason as to why?

On February 10th, 1939 through H.R. 2762 Public, No 1, the IRC was officially Repealed.

Chapter 2 At Sec 4.
“…all such laws and parts of laws codified herein, to the extent they relate exclusively to internal revenue, are repealed, effective, except as provided in Sec. 5.”
…Section 5.
“Continuance of Existing Law.–Any provision of law in force on the 2nd day of January 1939 corresponding to a provision contained in the Internal Revenue Title shall remain in force until the corresponding provision under such Title takes effect.”

Although, confusion is likely to come into play upon observing the Internal Revenue
Act of 1954 as stated within this Act itself:

Public Law 591-Chapter 736, approved August 16th, 1954, The Internal Revenue Code of 1954: Bill H.R. 8300, an Act to Revise the Internal Revenue Laws.
On the eleventh line down it states: “To revise the internal revenue laws of the United States.”


Repelled Acts cannot be later revised into a new Code. A new Act must be enacted through the correct process.

[Knightskye]

I know I'm bumping this ridiculous thread, but I just have to say:

Troll.

[Weston White]

I'm confused by your statements and need further info. You say Congress approves of certain court precedent language but did not legislate it by vote? Could you provide an example? As for the UCC again can you provide an example? I need a section to refer to. Again, the UCC itself is not law nor does it have the force of law, it is a collection of trade theories, adopted in various ways by states (much like the Model Penal Code).

The U.S.C. is only prima facie evidence of the law, not the law itself, the U.S.C. is "broadly authorizing Statutes".

The subject of the U.S.C. and the CFR is the federal government and its instrumentalities, unless specifically stated otherwise.

Furthermore, the IRS is geographically restricted to operate within Internal Revenue Districts [U.S.C. Title 26 Section 7621], and much of the IRC is applicable only to those within American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and the District of Columbia [U.S.C. Title 26 Section 7701(a)(9), Section 3121(e)(2)].

[Danke]

I know I'm bumping this ridiculous thread, but I just have to say:

Troll.

To whom are you referring?

I myself was surprised it was resurrected as some of the key players are not posting here anymore (and did only so briefly, trolls?).

[Weston White]

Two Mr. Whites! :D

I don't think you will be hearing form the former. The tax honesty deniers (IRS Shills) usually pop up and then disappear when they find out they have an educated audience.

lol, not sure which is funnier your sig or your post.