It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

FBI targets "Sovereign Citizens"

page: 6
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 06:27 AM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 


Continuing:

By ignoring the word prevention, government officials falsely claim that the purpose of the 16th Amendment was to "thereby to take an income tax out of the class of excises, duties, and imposts, and place it in the class of direct taxes.", just as you have falsely made this claim. Allow me to re-quote your false claim:




Pollack did not strike down a general income tax, it only struck down an unapportioned tax on income from rents and dividends and the like. Likewise, the 16th amendment did not authorize a general income tax, it only authorized an unapportioned tax on income from rents and dividends and the like.


Congress need no such authorization, so when you state:




Your attack about leaving out the direct tax provisions, etc, in my listing of pertinent areas of the Constitution is unjustified. I am pretty sure that I have already explained the issues around Pollock in earlier posts in this thread to another poster. Not my problem if you haven't read those posts, and the point of that section was not to show that Congress had the authority to levy an Income Tax, per se, but to show that Congress enacts law and the President executes the law.


You are indeed mistaken, and whatever you think you understand about the Pollack ruling, you have not demonstrated any correct understanding of that ruling in this thread. Which should be understandable for any person with a reasonable mind, since you have spent several posts misinterpreting and/or misstating what I have said:




You have totally misread that paragraph, dude. And you have your 'criteria' for success is totally and completely bass-ackwards. The claimants to 'sovereignty' have failed in every case. If they were claiming they didn't have to pay tax because of 'sovereignty' they lost and had to pay the tax. This is not a win for 'sovereignty'.


I have, of course, never confused the issue of sovereignty with taxation, and have expressly stated one has nothing to do with the other, but willfully or otherwise, you ignore those statements in order to reach your preconceived conclusions. You continue with your insistence of confusing the two issues by further stating:




These people are being fined for bringing frivolous claim after frivolous claim. Some are being jailed for fraud. How exactly is this a win for 'sovereignty'?


I have read plenty of the "taxpayer" arguments that cause so many problems for people who, much like you, misinterpret law. Your attempt to lump it all into one category is more than likely willful in an attempt to confuse, but anyone who understands law will not be confused, which is why statements such as this:




Just a humorous aside... Didn't you just criticize the IRS for contradicting itself in subsequent paragraphs in an earlier post? Can you see the irony here?


Reveals your own profound ignorance of law, but be amused, I understand, as I have heard, that ignorance is bliss. So, when you end by asking:




A general income tax on wages has always been legal. Always. Rents and dividends and the like have only been indirectly taxable income since the 16th amendment. What, then, is there to argue about?


I would make clear to you that the so called "income tax" is not a direct tax upon property but is an indirect tax on a specific activity, which has been why I, from the beginning, have asked you to point out which section of the code imposes a tax on some general activity that would be so all inclusive as to make "everyone" liable for this tax?

What is the subject of the tax that has made "everyone" liable for that tax? It can not be income, so what is it?




posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 08:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 





The Supreme Court emphatically disagrees with you. There are indeed, two rulings made by the same Court that disagree. One is Brushber v Union Pacific R.R.. Consider these passages:


The various propositions are so intermingled as to cause it to be difficult to classify them. We are of opinion, however, [240 U.S. 1, 11] that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes. And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it, as follows: (a) The Amendment authorizes only a particular character of direct tax without apportionment, and therefore if a tax is levied under its assumed authority which does not partake of the characteristics exacted by the Amendment, it is outside of the Amendment, and is void as a direct tax in the general constitutional sense because not apportioned.



How you can read that in order claim that the court is disagreeing with me I cannot comprehend. You even added bolding at the point that Justice White is specifically telling you that you are making an erroneous assumption. What is that erroneous assumption: that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes.

Justice White went on to clear up the erroneous assumption:




This is the text of the Amendment:

'The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.'

It is clear on the face of this text that it does not purport to confer power to levy income taxes in a generic sense, -an authority already possessed and never questioned, [240 U.S. 1, 18] -or to limit and distinguish between one kind of income taxes and another, but that the whole purpose of the Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from apportionment from a consideration of the source whence the income was derived. Indeed, in the light of the history which we have given and of the decision in the Pollock Case, and the ground upon which the ruling in that case was based, there is no escape from the conclusion that the Amendment was drawn for the purpose of doing away for the future with the principle upon which the Pollock Case was decided; that is, of determining whether a tax on income was direct not by a consideration of the burden placed on the taxed income upon which it directly operated, but by taking into view the burden which resulted on the property from which the income was derived, since in express terms the Amendment provides that income taxes, from whatever source the income may be derived, shall not be subject to the regulation of apportionment.


He then went on to express the holding of the Court:




From this in substance it indisputably arises, first, that all the contentions which we have previously noticed concerning the assumed limitations to be implied from the language of the Amendment as to the nature and character of the income taxes which it authorizes find no support in the text and are in irreconcilable conflict with the very purpose which the Amendment was adopted to accomplish. Second, that the contention that the Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax although it is relieved from apportionment and is necessarily therefore not subject to the rule of uniformity as such rule only applies to taxes which are not direct, thus destroying the two great classifications which have been recognized and enforced from the beginning, is also wholly without foundation since the command of the Amendment that all income taxes shall not be subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the taxed income may be derived [240 U.S. 1, 19] forbids the application to such taxes of the rule applied in the Pollock Case by which alone such taxes were removed from the great class of excises, duties, and imposts subject to the rule of uniformity, and were placed under the other or direct class....



Some of your quotes are from the recital of the petitioners arguments section and have nothing to do with the final holdings of the court except to explain what it is the court is responding to. The main holdings are in the above quote.

Other comments you posted are direct and complete validation of my comments and do not back up your contention in anyway that The Supreme Court emphatically disagrees with you. In fact just the opposite:



Moreover, in addition, the conclusion reached in the Pollock Case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class [240 U.S. 1, 17] of direct taxes on property, but, on the contrary, recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such unless and until it was concluded that to enforce it would amount to accomplishing the result which the requirement as to apportionment of direct taxation was adopted to prevent...

Second, that the contention that the Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax... is also wholly without foundation since the command of the Amendment that all income taxes shall not be subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the taxed income may be derived...

...there is no escape from the conclusion that the Amendment was drawn for the purpose of doing away for the future with the principle upon which the Pollock Case was decided...

...it was drawn with the object of maintaining the limitations of the Constitution and harmonizing their operation...

...the Amendment contains nothing repudiation or challenging the ruling in the Pollock Case that the word 'direct' had a broader significance...a condition which clearly demonstrates that the purpose was not to change the existing interpretation except to the extent necessary to accomplish the result intended


You assert:


The Court had made clear that the 16th Amendment did not "overturn" the Pollack ruling.

Well, OK, not quite. The 16th Amendment made Pollock redundant for the purpose of classification of income derived from property. And according to Justice White it didn't go any further than to change the existing interpretation except to the extent necessary to accomplish the result intended.

Your entire argument is a house of cards built on the foundation of a complete misreading of the words in the decision. Justice White is directly and explicitly telling you that you are making an erroneous assumption, and yet you quote that statement as if it somehow is an argument for your case.

In all particulars, the holdings of the SCOTUS in Brushaber v Union Pacific, are in complete 100% agreement with my assertion that Income Tax on indirect income has always been constitutional, that Pollock found that income derived from rents and dividends was direct and could not be taxed, and that the 16th Amendment specifically allowed income derived from rents and dividends to be included as taxable income and nothing more.

A summary at wikipedia for those who don't want to read Whites admittedly tortuous English: en.wikipedia.org...




[edit on 26/4/2010 by rnaa]



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 





You are indeed mistaken, and whatever you think you understand about the Pollack ruling, you have not demonstrated any correct understanding of that ruling in this thread. Which should be understandable for any person with a reasonable mind, since you have spent several posts misinterpreting and/or misstating what I have said:


Clearly, you understand neither Pollock or Brushaber as demonstrated in your previous post and my previous reply. And since Justice White in Brushaber actually agrees with my assertions about the effect of Pollock, and disagrees with yours, I guess you have some catching up to do on the definition of the meaning of the word 'understanding'.

Justice Whites wording in Brushaber is rather tortuous I agree, but it can be parsed rather straightforwardly by someone who understands English and its punctuation. I know punctuation is rather old fashioned, but then the decision was written almost 100 years ago.

The first trick it to distinguish where he is reciting the petitioners claims, and where he is responding to those claims. The recitation is not the "holding"; the response to the claim is the "holding". This is a common failing from people trying to turn the meaning of a decision on its head. You really should try to avoid common mistakes.



Reveals your own profound ignorance of law, but be amused, I understand, as I have heard, that ignorance is bliss.


So I guess you really can't see the irony in your statement:



The law is always self evident and requires no explanation... Conversely there are literally hundreds of thousands of statutes, codes and ordinances currently on the books, most require some sort of explanation...


Which is it? Always self evident requiring no explanation, or most require some sort of explanation? That is a pretty much a binary choice.



I would make clear to you that the so called "income tax" is not a direct tax upon property but is an indirect tax on a specific activity,


That is perfectly clear to me all along and, in fact is what I have been saying all along. That has been the case since the ratification of the Constitution. Except that originally taxes on some classes of 'income' are actually direct taxes on property, not indirect taxes on a specific activity. An oversight not noticed by the original authors of the Constitution (though the author of the direct tax apportionment provision sought to have it removed). Thus the motivation for the 16th amendment.

Before the ratification of the 16th Amendment it income tax could not be applied to rental income or dividend income according to Pollock, but other forms of income, wages for example, could be taxed without raising a Constitutional issue. After the 16th Amendment it rents and dividend income could be taxed as indirect taxes. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

No new powers were granted. Certain taxes were moved from one classification to another. Period. This was confirmed by Brushaber.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 





Some of your quotes are from the recital of the petitioners arguments section and have nothing to do with the final holdings of the court except to explain what it is the court is responding to. The main holdings are in the above quote.


This is a lie on your part, as I have quoted the ruling directly and no other source at all. This a canard you have adopted from the get go in an lame attempt to lump me in with "taxpayer arguments", but it is a lie. In fact, when you quote Brushaber in the second block, you disingenuously end off with an ellipses. This is what you conveniently left out in order to reach your own conclusions:




This must be unless it can be said that although the Constitution, as a result of the Amendment, in express terms excludes the criterion of source of income, that criterion yet remains for the purpose of destroying the classifications of the Constitution by taking an excise out of the class to which it belongs and transferring it to a class in which it cannot be placed consistently with the requirements of the Constitution. Indeed, from another point of view, the Amendment demonstrates that no such purpose was intended, and on the contrary shows that it was drawn with the object of maintaining the limitations of the Constitution and harmonizing their operation.


And the paragraph finally ends as such:





We say this because it is to be observed that although from the date of the Hylton Case, because of statements made in the opinions in that case, it had come to be accepted that direct taxes in the constitutional sense were confined to taxes levied directly on real estate because of its ownership, the Amendment contains nothing repudiation or challenging the ruling in the Pollock Case that the word 'direct' had a broader significance, since it embraced also taxes levied directly on personal property because of its ownership, and therefore the Amendment at least impliedly makes such wider significance a part of the Constitution,-a condition which clearly demonstrates that the purpose was not to change the existing interpretation except to the extent necessary to accomplish the result intended; that is, the prevention of the resort to the sources from which a taxed income was derived in order to cause a direct tax on the income to be a direct tax on the source itself, and thereby to take an income tax out of the class of excises, duties, and imposts, and place it in the class of direct taxes. [240 U.S. 1, 20] We come, then, to ascertain the merits of the many contentions made in the light of the Constitution as it now stands; that is to say, including within its terms the provisions of the 16th Amendment as correctly interpreted. We first dispose of two propositions assailing the validity of the statute on the one hand because of its repugnancy to the Constitution in other respects, and especially because its enactment was not authorized by the 16th Amendment.


So, when you state:




Well, OK, not quite. The 16th Amendment made Pollock redundant for the purpose of classification of income derived from property. And according to Justice White it didn't go any further than to change the existing interpretation except to the extent necessary to accomplish the result intended.


It is just more empty rhetoric from you. I mentioned earlier that there were two SCOTUS rulings regarding the Constitutionality of the 16th Amendment. You then continue with your false assumptions of what I have been contending by stating:




Your entire argument is a house of cards built on the foundation of a complete misreading of the words in the decision. Justice White is directly and explicitly telling you that you are making an erroneous assumption, and yet you quote that statement as if it somehow is an argument for your case.


Which is not true, but then go on to state:




In all particulars, the holdings of the SCOTUS in Brushaber v Union Pacific, are in complete 100% agreement with my assertion that Income Tax on indirect income has always been constitutional, that Pollock found that income derived from rents and dividends was direct and could not be taxed, and that the 16th Amendment specifically allowed income derived from rents and dividends to be included as taxable income and nothing more.


This is more disingenuous rhetoric. First, Pollack did not find that income as a direct tax could not be taxed, what it found was that the income Revenue Act of 1894 functioned as a direct tax and as such subject to the rule of apportionment, and that this revenue act did not abide by this rule. Further, the 16th Amendment makes no reference to "taxable income" and says what it says and does not say what it does not say. What both Brushaber and Stanton v Balitic Mining Co. make clear about the 16th Amendment is that it prevents the courts from viewing any future tax on income not apportioned as a direct tax and must necessarily be viewed as an indirect tax.

It was all ready established by the Constitutionality of the Revenue Act of 1864, which was passed as a "duty" tax on income, and no Amendment was required in order to grant Congress the authority to tax income indirectly, regardless of the source from which that income is derived.

You continue to frame my questions, and then refutations of your erroneous arguments as some sort of contention I have made about the income tax. All I have been doing is asking you the same question over and over again, and I will quote myself from the last post I made to ask the question again:




I would make clear to you that the so called "income tax" is not a direct tax upon property but is an indirect tax on a specific activity, which has been why I, from the beginning, have asked you to point out which section of the code imposes a tax on some general activity that would be so all inclusive as to make "everyone" liable for this tax?

What is the subject of the tax that has made "everyone" liable for that tax? It can not be income, so what is it?


This is the issue of law I am challenging and time and time again, you avoid this question, pretending I have said something I did not say in order to avoid the question. This is your game, but in now way is the SCOTUS in disagreement with anything I have said.

[edit on 26-4-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 




This is a lie on your part, as I have quoted the ruling directly and no other source at all.

Yes, you have quoted only from the ruling. The ruling contains both a summarization of the petitioners claim and the courts response to that claim. Some of your quotes are from the summary of the claim, not what the court is finding.



This must be unless it can be said that although the Constitution, as a result of the Amendment, in express terms excludes the criterion of source of income, that criterion yet remains for the purpose of destroying the classifications of the Constitution by taking an excise out of the class to which it belongs and transferring it to a class in which it cannot be placed consistently with the requirements of the Constitution. Indeed, from another point of view, the Amendment demonstrates that no such purpose was intended, and on the contrary shows that it was drawn with the object of maintaining the limitations of the Constitution and harmonizing their operation.


You are making my point. Justice White is justifying the second major finding

that the contention that the Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax although it is relieved from apportionment and is necessarily therefore not subject to the rule of uniformity as such rule only applies to taxes which are not direct, thus destroying the two great classifications which have been recognized and enforced from the beginning, is also wholly without foundation since the command of the Amendment that all income taxes shall not be subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the taxed income may be derived [240 U.S. 1, 19] forbids the application to such taxes of the rule applied in the Pollock Case by which alone such taxes were removed from the great class of excises, duties, and imposts subject to the rule of uniformity, and were placed under the other or direct class.
which occurred immediately before it. That finding is exactly the opposite of what you are trying to squeeze out of it, and yes, I left off the justification in the interests of brevity.

The justification Justice White makes here is that the amendment doesn't make any reference to income derived from wages, the tax on which have never been classed as a direct tax, or anything else except the sources ruled to be direct by Pollock. It does not reclassify taxes previously understood to be indirect to be direct, nor does it create some other third class. All it does is reclassify those sources of income ruled out of bounds by Pollock to bring them in bounds, thus harmonizing the Constitution with respect to recognizing that rental income is income in exactly the same way as wages from labor.




And the paragraph finally ends as such:


Yes, it does, what is your point? What is the point of quoting all that text unless you are going to give an opinion of what it says?.

Well I'll correct your oversight: What Justice White is saying here is that just as the 16th Amendment doesn't affect taxable status of wages, neither does it affect the taxable status of any asset previously in the direct taxation class except the specific items listed in the Amendment. It does exactly what it is meant to do and nothing else. Period. Of course that is exactly the opposite of what you want it to mean, but too bad.



So, when you state:



Well, OK, not quite. The 16th Amendment made Pollock redundant for the purpose of classification of income derived from property. And according to Justice White it didn't go any further than to change the existing interpretation except to the extent necessary to accomplish the result intended.


It is just more empty rhetoric from you.


Sorry, you are wrong still. It is a correct paraphrase of Justice White's words.



I mentioned earlier that there were two SCOTUS rulings regarding the Constitutionality of the 16th Amendment. You then continue with your false assumptions of what I have been contending by stating:


Your entire argument is a house of cards built on the foundation of a complete misreading of the words in the decision. Justice White is directly and explicitly telling you that you are making an erroneous assumption, and yet you quote that statement as if it somehow is an argument for your case.

Which is not true, but then go on to state:


OK, then your entire argument is a house of cards built on the foundation of a complete misreading of the words of several decisions including Pollock, Bushaber, and others. You are disengeniously misreading and obsfuscating these decisions to squeeze a meaning out of them that is exactly the opposite of what they actually mean.




... First, Pollack did not find that income as a direct tax could not be taxed, what it found was that the income Revenue Act of 1894 functioned as a direct tax and as such subject to the rule of apportionment, and that this revenue act did not abide by this rule. Further, the 16th Amendment makes no reference to "taxable income" and says what it says and does not say what it does not say. What both Brushaber and Stanton v Balitic Mining Co. make clear about the 16th Amendment is that it prevents the courts from viewing any future tax on income not apportioned as a direct tax and must necessarily be viewed as an indirect tax.

OK, I mis-worded part of my response here. Pollock found that a tax on property rental and dividends was a essentially a tax on property as defined in the Constitution, and therefor such a tax is a direct tax, and therefore must be apportioned. It did not make any ruling what-so-ever on an Income Tax on any other classification of income, such as wages. That a tax on wages is an indirect tax was not under challenge, and Pollack only voided that part of the 1894 act which dealt with the direct taxes. I assume the act was written in such a way that the offending provisions could not be cut out with out destroying the viability of the entire thing, or Congress acted to withdraw it en toto just on account.



It was all ready established by the Constitutionality of the Revenue Act of 1864, which was passed as a "duty" tax on income, and no Amendment was required in order to grant Congress the authority to tax income indirectly, regardless of the source from which that income is derived.

The 'regardless of the source' part is patently false. You have just spent two days arguing about Pollock and you can make such an absurd statement?



This is the issue of law I am challenging and time and time again, you avoid this question, pretending I have said something I did not say in order to avoid the question. This is your game, but in now way is the SCOTUS in disagreement with anything I have said.


You are right SCOTUS is not disagreeing with you. You are twisting SCOTUS into something that doesn't represent anything to do with the actual findings of the court.

And I'm not ignoring your question, I'm trying to find out what it is. I mean I read your words, but what exactly are you asking? You have spent two days arguing over Pollock and Bushaber, and have admitted that Congress has the authority to levy taxes. Really, your question is absurd and you know it. Are you trying to say that Congress has not acted to levy such a tax? What then is Title 26? Are you trying to say that Title 26 is poorly written? That is beyond question, but what part of it in particular do you claim removes you or any other person from its reach? I have tried to find your argument over the last few days, and every time I pin you down, you say 'that's not it'. Well I'm not a Buddhist looking for 'it'.

So what exactly is your argument?



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 


First of all, you must stop mis-representing what I am saying.




The 'regardless of the source' part is patently false. You have just spent two days arguing about Pollock and you can make such an absurd statement?


It is just not true that I have spent two days arguing about the Pollack decision. I only mentioned Pollack to clarify this ruling was the reason the 16th Amendment was passed and then only made mention of it again when you "mis-worded" the crux of that ruling. The irony of your false claim above can be seen in this statement:




Your attack about leaving out the direct tax provisions, etc, in my listing of pertinent areas of the Constitution is unjustified. I am pretty sure that I have already explained the issues around Pollock in earlier posts in this thread to another poster. Not my problem if you haven't read those posts, and the point of that section was not to show that Congress had the authority to levy an Income Tax, per se, but to show that Congress enacts law and the President executes the law.


But the first time I even mentioned Pollack was yesterday at 11:58 pm and here is what I said:




This willful obfuscation has everything to do with the SCOTUS decision that struck down the entire income portion of the Revenue act of 1894 as unconstitutional--the remainder of that revenue act still stands to this day. The SCOTUS ruling that ruled that income tax as unconstitutional is known as Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co..

The 16th Amendment was a direct response to the Pollack ruling, but before explaining that significance, let me remind you why I am giving you this crucial history lesson;...


As you can see from this statement I have made no arguments as to the merits, or lack, of regarding Pollack, and only mention it as historical reference. The only other time I mention Pollack is to correct your "mis-wording" of the crux of that ruling. This is hardly me spending two days arguing Pollack. It is this clear willingness to misrepresent the truth that make your assertions that I am "misinterpreting" case law dubious at best. In fact you state:




You are right SCOTUS is not disagreeing with you. You are twisting SCOTUS into something that doesn't represent anything to do with the actual findings of the court.


Merely accusing me of your own errors. You finish your last post with these remarks:




And I'm not ignoring your question, I'm trying to find out what it is. I mean I read your words, but what exactly are you asking? You have spent two days arguing over Pollock and Bushaber, and have admitted that Congress has the authority to levy taxes. Really, your question is absurd and you know it. Are you trying to say that Congress has not acted to levy such a tax? What then is Title 26? Are you trying to say that Title 26 is poorly written? That is beyond question, but what part of it in particular do you claim removes you or any other person from its reach? I have tried to find your argument over the last few days, and every time I pin you down, you say 'that's not it'. Well I'm not a Buddhist looking for 'it'.

So what exactly is your argument?


You again twist and turn and obfuscate first by claiming you are not ignoring my question, but end by asking me what exactly is my argument? What kind of game is this you are playing? You want desperately for the burden of proof to be placed upon me, and so when you ask me what exactly is my "argument", please understand how that appears to be some sort of trap where you can then place burden of proof upon me.

If you don't know the answer to the question, why not be honest and say so? There is nothing at all crafty about asking what the subject of the tax is and where specifically in the code a tax has been laid upon that specific activity that would make "everyone" liable for an income tax. The only portion of the code you posted in all of this is Section 61, and when you posted it, you did so pretending I asked you a question I did not.

If you are not avoiding my question, you are avoiding admitting you don't know the answer. If I am one who has been made liable for this tax, then there should be some section of the code that explains to me how I became liable for that tax. Where is that section? What is so hard to understand about that?



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 





Which is it? Always self evident requiring no explanation, or most require some sort of explanation? That is a pretty much a binary choice.


You are asking me this question based on this remark I made to another poster:




The law is always self evident and requires no explanation. No one needs explained to them why murder, rape, and theft is against the law. Conversely there are literally hundreds of thousands of statutes, codes and ordinances currently on the books, most require some sort of explanation, and what is that explanation? Lo and behold it is the same explanation that these anti-sovereignty people offer...its for your own good.


Yet when you ask the question of me I just quoted in this post, you take my words and edit them so my statement appears as such:




The law is always self evident and requires no explanation... Conversely there are literally hundreds of thousands of statutes, codes and ordinances currently on the books, most require some sort of explanation...


There is deceit in this, and I don't understand why you think such a thing helps to make your case. I can only assume from your question that your are equating statutes, codes and ordinances as law. While you clearly read this post made in reply to another poster, I am willing to believe that you missed this post, where I made this statement:




Legislation is not law, but merely serves as evidence of law. All law is universal and all people subject to it. If legislation is disobeying that law, it must not be allowed to function as law.


I am willing to believe you might have missed this statement of mine simply because I missed your question I quoted at the top of this post and didn't read until just now. What I have just quoted from my own words is your answer.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 01:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 




But the first time I even mentioned Pollack was yesterday at 11:58 pm and here is what I said:


OK, so maybe I'm guilty of hyperbole. Please respond to the content of the discussion. You claim to understand Pollock, yet you think that

It was all ready established by the Constitutionality of the Revenue Act of 1864, which was passed as a "duty" tax on income, and no Amendment was required in order to grant Congress the authority to tax income indirectly, regardless of the source from which that income is derived.
And while we are being pedantic, can't spell his name correctly?



If I am one who has been made liable for this tax, then there should be some section of the code that explains to me how I became liable for that tax. Where is that section? What is so hard to understand about that?


True, I cannot personally point you to chapter and verse any closer that Title 26 USC 1 which I have already done and you have ignored.

Check that. Caught myself just before I posted. I just looked it up, a quick google on Title 26 and a couple of clicks on index links and didn't have any trouble whatsoever finding TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter A > PART I > § 1

The actual law uses language like:



There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of—
...every married individual...
...every surviving spouse...
...every head of a household...
...every individual...


What is so difficult about that? Are you none of the above? What exact classification are you claiming that is not mentioned here? How can I give you an answer if you won't tell me what it is that distinguishes you from everyone else who fits into those categories? Maybe your category is listed somewhere else?

I repeat, what exactly is your argument?

The courts have consistently found that it exists for everyone who has tried to find some unnamed classification for themselves. Here are just a few examples:




  • US v. Gerads (8th Cir 1993) 999 F2d 1255 cert.den 510 US 1193; ("Federal tax obligations are imposed by federal statute and are not voluntary.")
  • US v. Sloan (7th Cir 1991) 939 F2d 499 cert.den 502 US 1060 ("Like moths to a flame, some people find themselves irresistibly drawn to the tax protester movement’s illusory claim that there is no legal requirement to pay federal income tax. And, like the moths, ... because he acted upon [that claim he] now faces four months in a federal prison; there can be little doubt that he had been burned.")
  • Alaska Computer Brokers v. Morton (D Alaska unpub 9/6/95) 76 AFTR2d 6458, 95 USTC para 50510; Hodges v. CIR (7/6/98) TC Memo 1998-242; the IRC, at 26 USC 1, says clearly that a tax is "imposed on the taxable income of every individual", which pretty much negatives the notion that income tax is either voluntary or contractual or applicable only to certain special populations.
  • Carter v. Rubin (ND Calif unpub 12/28/95) 77 AFTR2d 1291 ("These assertions are based on fundamental misconceptions of the established relationship of the citizen to the US govt under the Federal Constitution. It the the govt which decides for the people, not an individual who decides for himself, when a person shall be tax exempt, accusations of perjury notwithstanding. Likewise, it is the govt which decides for the people, not the individual who decides for himself, when a person is in fact a citizen of the US."); "If you think paying taxes is voluntary, you may end up doing volunteer time in federal prison."








Legislation is not law, but merely serves as evidence of law. All law is universal and all people subject to it. If legislation is disobeying that law, it must not be allowed to function as law.

I am willing to believe you might have missed this statement of mine simply because I missed your question I quoted at the top of this post and didn't read until just now. What I have just quoted from my own words is your answer.


You are right, I missed that part of your post. I appologize.

That is a very strange, and wholly non-standard, definition of law. Is that the basis of your argument? That the law is not a law?

Especially since, the Constitution defines the stuff that the Legislative branch does as making law:




  • Article 1 Section 1: All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representative
  • Article 1 Section 7 Clause 1: Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approves, he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.



Pretty much a slam dunk there, I think. Trying to argue points by using private, personal, definitions of words that no one else could possibly understand is a loser's tactic.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 





OK, so maybe I'm guilty of hyperbole. Please respond to the content of the discussion. You claim to understand Pollock, yet you think that

"It was all ready established by the Constitutionality of the Revenue Act of 1864, which was passed as a "duty" tax on income, and no Amendment was required in order to grant Congress the authority to tax income indirectly, regardless of the source from which that income is derived."

And while we are being pedantic, can't spell his name correctly?


Uhm, okay. I am not really sure what you are getting at here. It seems to me that we both agreed the Springer Court upheld the Constitutionality of the Revenue Act of 1864. Are you saying that is wrong?




Check that. Caught myself just before I posted. I just looked it up, a quick google on Title 26 and a couple of clicks on index links and didn't have any trouble whatsoever finding TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter A > PART I > § 1

The actual law uses language like:


Thank you for posting that link. Of course, I hope you understand that saying things such as; "uses language like" doesn't really help, and that the rules of statutory construction require that each and every word be given significance. Let's take a look at this language:




1. Tax imposed

(a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of—

(1) every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who makes a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013, and (2) every surviving spouse (as defined in section 2 (a)),


Just relying upon the language provided here, and in the context of your own language, that being:




What is so difficult about that? Are you none of the above? What exact classification are you claiming that is not mentioned here? How can I give you an answer if you won't tell me what it is that distinguishes you from everyone else who fits into those categories? Maybe your category is listed somewhere else?


I can only assume that you are arguing that a tax has been imposed upon "(a) married individuals filing a joint return" and all other "categories" that follow. But let's look at that, for a second...why would the code impose a tax upon people who have clearly all ready been made liable? It stands to reason that if one has a filing requirement they are all ready liable to begin with. Are you arguing that above and beyond the the liability they clearly all ready have, this section of the code is imposing yet another tax? And if so, what has that tax been imposed upon?

This is why it is ever so important to pay attention to the language and not cherry pick language from it, even if you think that supports your argument. It is unclear to me why the code would bring up "married individuals filing joint returns" before actually speaking to what that tax has been imposed upon, and what it has been imposed upon is "taxable income".

What is "taxable income"? How can I possibly move forward and decide which "category" I belong to if I don't know what "taxable income" is?




I repeat, what exactly is your argument?


You can repeat this all you want, it still won't force me into making any argument at all, other than I don't see where I've been made liable for anything yet, unless I am one who is earning "taxable income", but how could I possibly know if I am earning "taxable income" if I am don't know what "taxable income" is?




How can I give you an answer if you won't tell me what it is that distinguishes you from everyone else who fits into those categories?


While I have become fond of you, my friend, it is not due to your crafty ways. Why do you need me to make any argument at all in order to answer my questions? If I asked you what a horse was, would you require of me an argument as to what I thought a horse was first, before you could answer the question of what a horse is? Do you truly not see the pretzel logic in that?

What is taxable income?




The courts have consistently found that it exists for everyone who has tried to find some unnamed classification for themselves.


I don't know what you mean by this. Why would anyone try to find an unnamed "classification"? For clarification sakes, there are two "classifications" of taxation; direct and indirect. I am assuming you meant "category" rather than "classification" when making this assertion, but it makes no sense at all to look to the code to find an "unnamed" classification or category. It stands to reason that the Code only deals with that which has been named.




Pretty much a slam dunk there, I think.


Really? Is that what you think? Thank God for referee's as it is clear you didn't even come close to touching the rim with that shot. Air Ball!




Trying to argue points by using private, personal, definitions of words that no one else could possibly understand is a loser's tactic.


My point exactly! So, drop the looser arguments and tell me what "taxable income" means and how that explains how that has made me liable for a tax.




That is a very strange, and wholly non-standard, definition of law. Is that the basis of your argument? That the law is not a law?


Really? Non-standard definition? Hmmm.... Here, it must be clarified first that the quote of mine that you mined from a reply I made to Unity99, has nothing at all to do with the issues of taxation, and I have made this point all ready. That said, no; I am not arguing that law is not law, quite the opposite, I am arguing that law is law.

You go on to cite the Constitution, obviously in an attempt to refute my assertion that legislation is not law but merely evidence of it, but you seem to ignore the reality of judicial review. Is it your argument that judicial review is unconstitutional? Are you arguing that all the legislation that has been struck down by the Courts is an illegal act? Hmmmmm.....



[edit on 27-4-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 12:19 PM
link   
I'm not worried about them because i know that they are all going to hell for what they have done to this world, putting blame on others, money grubbing bastards, i cant wait till our country rises up to the call and puts them out of power so we can start over and actually have a thriving planet, first things first all the elite should be taken out of power and we could actually put there money to good use and help the weak and starving people of the world. I cant wait for the sheeple to wake up and realize how foolish they have been to let this continue. They are dooming themselves for eternity....



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 12:33 PM
link   
[edit on 27-4-2010 by asala]



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 12:33 PM
link   
[edit on 27-4-2010 by asala]



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 12:38 PM
link   
[edit on 27-4-2010 by asala]



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 




Uhm, okay. I am not really sure what you are getting at here. It seems to me that we both agreed the Springer Court upheld the Constitutionality of the Revenue Act of 1864. Are you saying that is wrong?


No you are not wrong, as far as that goes, Springer did uphold the 1864 act. But Springer did not address income derived from property rental and dividends, it addressed only personal income from wages and Government Bonds.

Pollock addressed income from property rental and dividends. And rejected an unapportioned tax on that income. That is what the 16th amendment addressed. That and nothing more.

This ground has been covered ad infinitum, please stop being so dense. It is an unattractive discussion tactic.



Thank you for posting that link. Of course, I hope you understand that saying things such as; "uses language like" doesn't really help, and that the rules of statutory construction require that each and every word be given significance. Let's take a look at this language:


Again you persist with the 'thick as a brick' tactic.

I quoted the exact wording of the LAW (with ellipses excising the fine detail for brevity - the actual meaning is clear) which imposes income tax on 4 classifications of American income earners. All those words are defined in that LAW.

You want strict construction?


  • There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of—
    What do you strictly construct this introductory phrase to mean? Is it written is Swahili? Does it mean that something is being imposed on computer programs or blue cheese? Does it mean that something is going to be imposed on non-taxable income? Does it meant that nothing is being imposed? Does it mean that it is hearsay evidence that something is being imposed? Is it a legal 'word of art' that somehow actually means that we are going to land a man on the moon before the end of the decade? Is it just a fnord?
  • ...every married individual...every surviving spouse...every head of a household...every individual...
    What do you strictly construct this enumeration to mean? Does it mean that a married individual does not have attributes that the LAW wants to treat differently from unmarried individuals? How do you strictly construct the words here to mean something other than what every other reader of English would understand clearly?






What is so difficult about that? Are you none of the above? What exact classification are you claiming that is not mentioned here? How can I give you an answer if you won't tell me what it is that distinguishes you from everyone else who fits into those categories? Maybe your category is listed somewhere else?

I can only assume that you are arguing that a tax has been imposed upon "(a) married individuals filing a joint return" and all other "categories" that follow.


Again with the disingenuous false assumptions, again with the 'thick as a brick tactic'. I am arguing nothing here, I am asking what category of 'entity' you are that is none of the 3 sub-categories (married, surviving spouse, head of household) nor the over all category (individual).

The law is saying that an income tax is being imposed on those folks. How can it be made more plain for you? Strict construction please, what are you that isn't listed here. Are you not an individual?



But let's look at that, for a second...why would the code impose a tax upon people who have clearly all ready been made liable? It stands to reason that if one has a filing requirement they are all ready liable to begin with. Are you arguing that above and beyond the the liability they clearly all ready have, this section of the code is imposing yet another tax? And if so, what has that tax been imposed upon?


Strict construction please. Where does the wording of the code impose a tax 'upon people'. It is not imposing a tax on people, it is imposing a tax on people's incomes. Taxing people is a poll tax which is a direct tax and must be apportioned among the states according to population.



I don't know what you mean by this. Why would anyone try to find an unnamed "classification"? For clarification sakes, there are two "classifications" of taxation; direct and indirect. I am assuming you meant "category" rather than "classification" when making this assertion, but it makes no sense at all to look to the code to find an "unnamed" classification or category. It stands to reason that the Code only deals with that which has been named.


The 'Thick as a brick' tactic again. Do you own 'Jethro Tull' shares or something? For clarification sake, there are four "classifications" of individuals that income tax is being imposed upon: 3 sub-categories (married, surviving spouse, head of household) and the 1 super category (individual) that includes everyone else. And you know that that is exactly what I meant. What category do you place your self in that is not included in one of those categories?



My point exactly! So, drop the looser arguments and tell me what "taxable income" means and how that explains how that has made me liable for a tax.

Your obtusness is getting boring, you know that?. "taxable income" is defined in TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter B (and I'm sure you are aware of that, being such a tax expert).

I am not going to recite the tax code nor argue insane minutia in this thread anymore. I'm done with that. You asked for the LAW, knowing full well what it was and how to find it I am sure, and I allowed you your little phyric victory. It is now your turn to explain why you think you and anyone else is not subject to that LAW, is not liable for tax on your income, cannot be forced to pay your tax liability, or what ever other 'word of art' you use to describe your particular tax cheat philosophy. And please show examples of where your stratagem has succeeded.

Unless you can start explaining your argument, I'm finished with you. This is not a court of law where I can fine you for frivolous waste of the courts time, like others of your mindset have been on numerous occasions.

Playing 'Devil's Advocate' in a debate among friends over a beer can be useful to keep the publican's till ringing. Disingenuousness in this venue is just contemptible.

I enjoy arguing (perhaps you could tell), but a battle of wits is only enjoyable when the opponent is more than half capable.



[edit on 27/4/2010 by rnaa]

[edit on 27/4/2010 by rnaa]



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 





I enjoy arguing (perhaps you could tell), but a battle of wits is only enjoyable when the opponent is more than half capable.


Yes, I most wholeheartedly agree. However, when it comes to law and legal issues, I find my opponents are often like you...no where near capable. Remember how this discourse began, for example, I took a comment you made:




That doesn't make you any less liable for paying taxes in the country where you reside, citizen or not.


And I agreed with this statement, only following that agreement with very valid questions:




No truer words could be said about taxes and liability. If a person is indeed liable for a tax, then they must pay that tax. Of course, for many, "sovereign", or otherwise, there is the very valid question about the so called "Personal Income Tax", and how it is one has been made liable for a tax under that particular revenue law. While the IRC can be quite clear when it wants to be about who is liable and why, this clarity is reserved for a few specific activities named as the subject of the tax, but for the remainder of people who are told they are liable for this tax, the question remains; where in the Code have they been made liable?


Your thickheaded response was to supply information and a source link to the Anti-Defamation League. Imagine that, the entire foundation of your argument is based upon what the ADL told you to think. I let this go, choosing not to point out all that is wrong with the very agenda driven ADL, and simply responded by saying:




You just proved my point, didn't you? Do you honestly believe a judge, even the SCOTUS, can simply invent liability that doesn't all ready exist by statute? Do you have any idea what the subject of this so called "Personal Income Tax" is, or do you just cut and paste case law citations without even considering what you are posting.

Can you supply an actual statute from the IRC that makes a dishwahser, a plumber or a shoe salesman liable for this tax? Good luck.


And while you love to say, ad nauseum:




Again with the disingenuous false assumptions


Your own disingenuous false assumptions began with first linking the ADL's propaganda as source material, as if I had anything at all to do with any of that nonsense, but continue with your disingenuous tactics by answering my question with a question:




Can you supply an actual case where someone has tried this on an gotten away with it? Someone who wasn't, for example, already operating under Tax Exempt status on a Religious or Non-profit basis? Good luck.


Tried what, I wonder? What the hell are you talking about here? It is nothing more than false assumptions framed in a disingenuous question. I asked you why you were answering questions with questions and you answer with yet another false assumption:





Because the burden of proof in on you. I'm pretty sure that is still part of the Constitution and the (un)Patriot Act hasn't overridden it: innocent until proven guilty. You are accusing (or are supporting/defending those who do, lets not play games) the Government of a criminal act. Prove it.


Burden of what proof? What assertion had I made, other than if a person is indeed liable for a tax then they owe a tax? I also made the assertion that very valid questions arise from the Code. The entirety of argument you have offered only demonstrates that point. And true to your own arrogance you take an attitude that the valid questions need not be answered and instead attack the questioner for using:




'thick as a brick tactic'


Apparently pretending that anyone with the intelligence even slightly higher than a brick could understand the Code. Of course, from the get go, you made perfectly clear you had no real understanding of the Code and instead relied upon the ADL to tell you what to think, you attack the questioner as if this tactic would have any validity in a court of law. You've made sweeping generalizations such as:




I listed dozens of cases that unambiguously said the claims these people are making DO NOT HOLD WATER.


Yet when I called you on this generalization and suggested you hadn't even read the case law you are referring to here, this is your reply:




True, I have not read each of the cases quoted.


So, we are expected to believe that you are correct that the dozens of cases you listed "unambiguously" refute my questions, let's be clear here, you have no idea if those cases are ambiguous or not. Even so, this is your arrogance in a nutshell:




I don't have to 'find' a statute to prove you wrong, but I have demonstrated that others have already done that and tested them in a court of law.


You don't have to point to the actual law? Okay. You have demonstrated nothing but your own ignorance. You are seemingly ignorant to the fact that virtually all case law is narrow in its scope, and when case law deigns to expand beyond the narrow facts of the case, as in Citizens United, for example, the case law itself still remains narrow in its scope. Each case is determined on the merits of the arguments being made in the case. Of course, you are so arrogant in you presumptions, I have no doubt you will attempt to refute that assertion I just made.

Even though I have simply asked questions of you, you stupidly claim:




Since the burden of proof is on you, it is you that needs to prove your case.


As if questions are not a valid challenge of jurisdiction. So, when I make clear that when jurisdiction is being challenged the burden of proof belongs with the court party asserting it, you state:




We understand your argument, jurisdiction has to be established before a court can look at a case. That's why Orly Taitz is doomed to failure and her continued screaming has just gone past the tipping point of boredom.


Apparently arguing that, in spite of the case law I not only cited, and provided links to, but unlike you have read and quoted, you make the disingenuous remark above, which amounts to nothing more than...well if I may use your own phrase:




Twaddle


If you think for one second that as a litigator you can just cavalierly dismiss a challenge of jurisdiction without proving on record such jurisdiction exists, then you are fool. Then you either, stupidly or disingenuously attempt to prove jurisdiction for tax law rather than show how you have any jurisdiction in regards to this tax law, as if this is all you would have to do in a court of law. You have attempted to play a game of deceit and misdirection, only finally pointing to a section in the code most recently. When challenged on this, you make arrogant remarks such as this:




Again you persist with the 'thick as a brick' tactic.


Merely accusing of me employing your own tactics, pretending you are paying strict attention to construction regarding taxable income, then true to your own ignorance, turn around and state:




Strict construction please. Where does the wording of the code impose a tax 'upon people'. It is not imposing a tax on people, it is imposing a tax on people's incomes.


Apparently satisfied that taxable income is the same as income. Well, so much for strict construction. You love to make remarks such as this:




OK, then your entire argument is a house of cards built on the foundation of a complete misreading of the words of several decisions including Pollock, Bushaber, and others.


But remarkably, in the very same post you then ask:




So what exactly is your argument?


Then accuse me of being "thick as a brick". You make this assertion:




Your obtusness is getting boring, you know that?. "taxable income" is defined in TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter B (and I'm sure you are aware of that, being such a tax expert).


Pretending as if the link you provided offers a definition for taxable income, all the while prancing and preening and pretending you pay strict attention to construction, yet skipping this definition merely based upon your own assumptions of what it is you think I know. This sort of nonsense isn't working for you here, and it certainly won't work in a court of law.

You want to pretend that the Code is unambiguous in its intent by providing a section that imposes a tax on taxable income, skipping past the definition of this phrase straight away to a link that provides a computation of taxable income that itself offers several links, including the definitions of gross income and adjusted gross income, as if this somehow clears everything up and explains why you are so comfortable stating:




It is not imposing a tax on people, it is imposing a tax on people's incomes.


Desperately attempting to frame me as being "thick as a brick" while you make clear yourself, you have no clue what all of this means. If a tax has been imposed upon income, and what you provided, albeit selectively, why then does the Code begin with imposing a tax upon taxable income which would be defined as either gross income, or adjusted gross income, typically ignoring the fact that if one is liable for this tax, they must then decide whether they fall into the category of gross income, or adjusted gross income.

Continuing...



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 


Continuing...

You pretend that adjusted gross income doesn't come with even more terms that require definition, such as taxpayer, which is not just defined once, but twice, and pretending that code hasn't defined terms such as taxable year, and maybe you are hoping that people will not do their due their due diligence in understanding the law, and not read these definitions. After all, taxpayer is defined as:




(14) Taxpayer The term “taxpayer” means any person subject to any internal revenue tax.


www4.law.cornell.edu...

and defined again:




(b) Taxpayer Notwithstanding section 7701 (a)(14), the term “taxpayer” means any person subject to a tax under the applicable revenue law.


www.law.cornell.edu...

and that taxable year is defined as:




(b) Taxable year For purposes of this subtitle, the term “taxable year” means— (1) the taxpayer’s annual accounting period, if it is a calendar year or a fiscal year;


All the while you cajole, kick and scream empty rhetoric accusing me as being "thick as a brick", ignoring the reality that the definitions provided for taxpayer make clear that a "taxpayer" is someone who "subject to a tax", pretending that what you have provided explains how it is a person became a taxpayer to begin with.

Abbot and Costello's Who's on First is infinitely easier to understand than this silly game you've offered. Where it should be fairly easy for anyone not "thick as a brick" that Who's on first, What's on second, and I don't know's on third; offering the same semantic nonsense as law, we are expected to understand that taxable income is defined as being either a) gross income or b) adjusted gross income and if it is adjusted gross income, you are one who doesn't itemize his deductions in a taxable year, which is defined as the taxpayers "annual accounting period", and that taxpayer is defined as any person subject to a tax and we are expected to understand from all of this how your contention that "everyone" is subject to this tax, and if we don't understand, we are just pretending to be "thick as a brick".

It is suspicious that you conveniently skipped over the definition for taxable income, and went straight away to links providing definitions for gross income and adjusted gross income and seemingly want to pretend that the term taxpayer, defined not once, but twice, has no significance. You smugly offer your arguments as if tautology and circumlocution of definition is more than enough to make this all clear. I suppose if I did ask you to define horse, you would offer; A horse is a horse of course, of course! and then roll your eyes and pfffft and declare me "thick as brick".

You declare that:




I am not going to recite the tax code nor argue insane minutia in this thread anymore.


Apparently unaware of the fact that it is the Code itself that offers this "insane minutia", and in order to make "everyone" liable for this tax you don't have to make any valid arguments and all you need to do is attack the one challenging the jurisdiction to make such a claim, accusing that challenger as being...what is your phrase again? Oh that's right; "thick as a brick". You concede defeat by saying:




You asked for the LAW, knowing full well what it was and how to find it I am sure, and I allowed you your little phyric victory.


Pretending that this victory is Phyrric victory and has somehow exhausted my resources and left me in a state where I "will surely loose the war", but conceding defeat none the less. You then, typically and demonstrative of your arrogance, assert:




It is now your turn to explain why you think you and anyone else is not subject to that LAW, is not liable for tax on your income, cannot be forced to pay your tax liability, or what ever other 'word of art' you use to describe your particular tax cheat philosophy. And please show examples of where your stratagem has succeeded.


Pretending these are claims I have made, and stupidly ignoring my original statement:




No truer words could be said about taxes and liability. If a person is indeed liable for a tax, then they must pay that tax. Of course, for many, "sovereign", or otherwise, there is the very valid question about the so called "Personal Income Tax", and how it is one has been made liable for a tax under that particular revenue law. While the IRC can be quite clear when it wants to be about who is liable and why, this clarity is reserved for a few specific activities named as the subject of the tax, but for the remainder of people who are told they are liable for this tax, the question remains; where in the Code have they been made liable?


So clear is the Code when it wants to be that when it offers in Section 5005:




(a) General The distiller or importer of distilled spirits shall be liable for the taxes imposed thereon by section 5001(a)(1). (b) Domestic distilled spirits (1) Liability of persons interested in distilling Every proprietor or possessor of, and every person in any manner interested in the use of, any still, distilling apparatus, or distillery, shall be jointly and severally liable for the taxes imposed by law on the distilled spirits produced therefrom. Read more: vlex.com...


There is no denying that anyone who is distilling or importing distilled spirits shall be liable for a tax. There is no tautology or circumlocution of definitions offered in this section, just clear, concise language that makes clear who has been made liable for a tax, unlike your claim that imposing a tax upon taxable income makes it clear how shoemakers, or restaurateurs, or carpenters, or a myriad of other occupations have been made liable for a tax. Even so, I have never claimed that shoemakers, restaurateurs, or carpenters were not liable for this tax and have merely asked you how it was they were made liable, and for this question you attack me for being "disingenuous" and "thick as a brick".




Unless you can start explaining your argument, I'm finished with you. This is not a court of law where I can fine you for frivolous waste of the courts time, like others of your mindset have been on numerous occasions.


Stubbornly clinging the same tired tactic, you one last time hope to lead me into to some sort of trap where you think I will make some wild ass assertion, in fact, so desperate are you in this tactic, you will mine remarks I said wholly unrelated to the issue of taxation and attempt to lump it in with the issue, but this just won't happen. So, while you admit that you love to argue, perhaps you should be done with this, since you clearly have no idea what your talking about, rely upon the ADL to supply you with legal counsel, prance and preen and attack your challenger for merely asking questions, but can't answer these simple questions.

If this was a court of law, and you were a judge, we would not even be in any "fact finding" portion of the trial, and at best, (for you) would be in an evidentiary hearing to determine if indeed you or the prosecution have jurisdiction. As such, it would be difficult for you indeed, to fine me for making "frivolous arguments" since I am not making any and am clearly challenging the jurisdiction. Of course, your the enlightened one who thinks that this burden of proof belongs to me, as if a negative could be proved.

It matters not to me that I am faced with dealing with a half wit, you are the half wit who is insisting that "everyone" has has been made liable for this tax, which is so ludicrous on the face of that argument, I have never even bothered to point out that the several newborn children born today have certainly not been made liable for a tax, which discounts "everyone" but I suppose you would simply declare this more disingenuous behavior and that I am being "thick as brick".

You are fortunate that this is not a court of law, and that you are not a judge, because even though you clearly worship at the alter of the priest class lawyer set and believe that a judge can do any thing he or she pleases, this is just not the case and a judge is as every bit as bound by the law as I am. Perhaps you believe that a judge has the legal authority to act under color of law, simulate legal process, and maliciously prosecute people, but this belief is wholly without foundation. The law is the law and all people subject to it, including you.

You have allowed your rage to imbalance you, which is not at all a good idea given you never had any sure footing to begin with. If you are going to insist that "everyone" is liable for this tax, then the burden of proof lies with you not me, and you can pretend otherwise, but it remains pretense.



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 






Your obtusness is getting boring, you know that?. "taxable income" is defined in TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter B (and I'm sure you are aware of that, being such a tax expert).


Pretending as if the link you provided offers a definition for taxable income,


Gee, I don't have any trouble finding a definition for taxable income there. The link is fully navigable with a few mouse clicks. Are you using the printed Cliff Notes version or something?

Source: TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter B > PART I > § 63


§ 63. Taxable income defined

(a) In general
Except as provided in subsection (b), for purposes of this subtitle, the term “taxable income” means gross income minus the deductions allowed by this chapter (other than the standard deduction).


Oh, sorry, I promised not to cite minutiae, didn't I. Just helping you out with the mouse clicking thing.

That is of course, the basic definition and there are other complications, (see subsection (b) ), I never claimed the darn thing was well written or uncomplicated. But it is there. Exactly where I 'pretended' it was. I gotta get better at pretending. Cornell has at made it easy for you to navigate it through it. Why is that too hard for you?

It can only be because you don't want to find the answers. You just want to continue to pretend that the crap you have been fed by the various tax frauds you listen to are credible. Please don't tell me you've paid money to attend these frauds lectures, or worse bought their books and tapes.



There is no denying that anyone who is distilling or importing distilled spirits shall be liable for a tax. There is no tautology or circumlocution of definitions offered in this section, just clear, concise language that makes clear who has been made liable for a tax, unlike your claim that imposing a tax upon taxable income makes it clear how shoemakers, or restaurateurs, or carpenters, or a myriad of other occupations have been made liable for a tax. Even so, I have never claimed that shoemakers, restaurateurs, or carpenters were not liable for this tax and have merely asked you how it was they were made liable, and for this question you attack me for being "disingenuous" and "thick as a brick".


Are your shoemakers, restaurateurs, carpenters, or you "individuals" or not "individuals"?

Why won't you answer that question?

There is no tautology or circumlocution of definitions in TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter A > PART I > § 1 either (except of course with the overly complicated definitions). All individuals are liable for the tax on their income.

You just spent a lot of time dredging up a lot of ancient history and spread it across two posts, just so you can avoid addressing that question and hoping no one will notice. Because if you did answer it you wouldn't have anything else to argue about.

Well don't worry cause no one else is reading this anyway, so I'm the only one who noticed.

I have invited you several times to put forward your case and cite something you consider a successful challenge. Now is your best chance, you know. If you wait until May, your guru may very well be in jail.



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 





It can only be because you don't want to find the answers. You just want to continue to pretend that the crap you have been fed by the various tax frauds you listen to are credible. Please don't tell me you've paid money to attend these frauds lectures, or worse bought their books and tapes.


Sure that must be it. I have spent so much time in this useless thread just so I could not find answers. That makes sense, if you're "thick as a brick", but not too much sense, if you're sane and rational.

You keep speaking to "crap" and various arguments made by I don't know who in an attempt to lump me in with I don't who. I have certainly spent some time reading the Code in an attempt to understand it, but typical of those who enforce this Code, instead of answering questions honestly, you immediately go on the attack and begin to accuse me of making arguments that have been made by I don't know who. I have heard of Ed Brown and his wife but have paid little attention to them. I have heard of Joe Bannister "the former gun carrying IRS agent", but I don't pay attention to anything this guy has to say, nor do I give any credence to the organizations that clamor to that man as if he is some sort of hero.

You are making these claims with no evidence to support them. I have spoken directly to the code and that is it, and what I have spoken to is the very real questions that arise when attempting to understand the code.




Are your shoemakers, restaurateurs, carpenters, or you "individuals" or not "individuals"?

Why won't you answer that question?


What the hell do you mean why won't I answer that question? When before now have you even asked that question. More deceit from you. What does "individuals" have to do with it? Is this just one more term that needs defining, and if so, how will that explain how shoemakers, carpenters, or restaurateurs were made liable to begin with?

You claimed a slam dunk after providing the tax imposed upon taxable income as being the clear and irrefutable evidence that "all" people who earn income are liable for this tax, now suddenly "individuals" comes into play. I have no doubt that very few people are paying attention to this thread, and I don't care. You have failed to show how playing this stupid game in a court of law will show jurisdiction over a shoemaker, a carpenter or a restaurateur, not to mention the myriad other occupation conspicuously missing from the code.




There is no tautology or circumlocution of definitions in TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter A > PART I > § 1 either (except of course with the overly complicated definitions). All individuals are liable for the tax on their income.


First of all, tautology means needless repetition of an idea, especially in words other than those of the immediate context, without imparting additional force or clearness. So, when the Code provides:




1. Tax imposed

(a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of—

(1) every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who makes a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013, and (2) every surviving spouse (as defined in section 2 (a)),


Tax imposed is pretty damn straight forward, but it is followed with a) Married individuals filing returns and surviving spouses, before finally getting to the damn point, which is a tax is hereby imposed on the taxable income of- then listing a whole bunch of stuff that can have no bearing until we know what taxable income is. The tautology is in beginning with a) Married individuals filing joint returns...

The only reason one would even be looking at this section is to find out what the tax is imposed upon and how that relates to them, and the nonsense about those filing has nothing to do with it, since it follows that those who are filing have all ready been made liable and would not need to look at this section to find this out. It is tautological regardless of your pouty protestations.

You do, of course, claim that the Code does engage in "overly complicated definitions" seemingly not at all understanding why the Code does so. If each and every word of a statute, code, or ordinance is to be given significance then surely those who crafted this code had a damn good reason for their tautology, and of course, the circumlocution of definition is quite visible.




I have invited you several times to put forward your case and cite something you consider a successful challenge. Now is your best chance, you know. If you wait until May, your guru may very well be in jail.


And I have responded several times by answering that my case is the Code brings up valid question as to liability and exactly who is and who isn't subject to the law. You have dismissed these questions instead attempting to answer arguments made by someone else who hasn't even made those arguments in this thread. This is how outrageous you have been.

You can point to gray skies and declare them blue all you want. The louder and longer you point to gray skies and declare them blue the more insane you appear to be.

[edit on 28-4-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 




What the hell do you mean why won't I answer that question? When before now have you even asked that question. More deceit from you. What does "individuals" have to do with it? Is this just one more term that needs defining, and if so, how will that explain how shoemakers, carpenters, or restaurateurs were made liable to begin with?


I rest my case. You are pretending to be ignorant, but I am not a jury that needs convincing of that.

The question was asked many times, probably in every post since I pointed you to Title 26. You spent yesterday rehearsing your misunderstanding of many of my posts, so you do have the capability of finding the things you want to pretend you don't understand. And you are equally willing to ignore the things that bring you unraveled.

Have a nice vacation behind bars if persist with this nonsense to its obvious conclusion. Be sure to introduce this entire unedited thread as evidence at your trial.



First of all, tautology means needless repetition of an idea, especially in words other than those of the immediate context, without imparting additional force or clearness. So, when the Code provides:


By your definition, there is no tautology involved. The headings are providing direct visual clues, making the document easier to read, that is providing additional clearness. Please stop, I'm not a jury, you don't have to convince me of your ignorance.





1. Tax imposed

(a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of—

(1) every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who makes a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013, and (2) every surviving spouse (as defined in section 2 (a)),



Tax imposed is pretty damn straight forward, but it is followed with a) Married individuals filing returns and surviving spouses, before finally getting to the damn point, which is a tax is hereby imposed on the taxable income of- then listing a whole bunch of stuff that can have no bearing until we know what taxable income is. The tautology is in beginning with a) Married individuals filing joint returns...

The only reason one would even be looking at this section is to find out what the tax is imposed upon and how that relates to them,


And the words you quoted are immediatly followed by the tax table applicable to 'Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses'. What is hard about that? Don't you want to find the correct section of the code that applies to you? The headings are your friend, they help you navigate the document, Cornel has even hyperlinked them for you. Would you also like me to explain how the big hand on the clock works, did you miss school that week?

Again, I ask are you a married individual, a surviving spouse individual, a head of household individual, or simply an individual? Or none of the those?

I understand you tactic, and it is unworthy. I am not a jury, and feigning ignorance has no place in this forum whose very motto is "Deny Ignorance". Your guru may fool a jury once, but he is going to jail in the near future, and deservedly so.



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 


I am not at all "feigning ignorance". Hell Einstein couldn't understand it. Einstein!




“The hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax.”


~Albert Einstein~

Want to know where I read that?

www.irs.gov...=110483,00.html

Your a real piece of work! Play your silly games, I could care less, and will continue to "deny ignorance".




top topics



 
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join