The scam known as Income Taxes

Originally posted by kozmo

Originally posted by MOOR45
Perfectly stated. I am tax exempt and plan to stay that way

MOOR, how did you do it? Have you been hassled by anyone? Please share your experiences with us. I am losing over 35% of my income on income taxes... illegally it would seem.

I simply file exempt. Without getting into any trouble because of legal obligations of non-disclosure, I can tell you what kind of citizen you proclaim legally gives you protection. But you yourself could simply file exempt and if need be you could base your argument on the IRS definition. Or you can claim that income tax is not determined in the Constitution as direct tax on your income. You are responsible for county taxes on say your home or business. However there is a way to circumvent that as well. It is all about what jurisdiction governs you.

Originally posted by kozmo
Instead of giving us the thumb's down

Not you, just the thread Just my opinion

Originally posted by elevatedone
would it be safe to assume that you work for the Feds ?

The Fed and the Feds are different (as those who bash the Fed often point out). I don't work for either, unless you consider posting stuff like this volunteer work

The Federal Government is a corporation. It carries out the day to day business of the nation. However, a person (also defined in Internal Revenue Code and Black's Law Dict 6thed.) can be a corporation. As a corporation your personal expenses are seen as money in excess of your day to day. Futhermore, as a citizen of this corporation, you are libel for the "benefits" you receive or supposedly receive! The Constitution and the Laws of the US need to be studied. Many former IRS agents have confirmed income tax is a hoax. Many city workers some who are cops, sanitation, etc have won these battles in court. They lost their job initially and all of those legally correct got those jobs back.

I just can't believe for even 1 minute that the government wouldn't have done somthing to cover it's behind while extorting money from us. The real question, I think, lies in the procedures... in the details. Example: Are the 14th and 16th Ammedments legal? Were they properly ratified? Does the IRS really have the authority to collect taxes on behalf of the Treasury Department and is that little set-up legal?

I've read through much of the stuff that HeirToBokassa has posted and there are definitely two very different views on this, very contradicatory views. However, I think it reaosnable to believe that the Judicial Branch in all of it's [lack] of wisdom and fairness, would immediately seek to remedy in favor of the government in almost every situation... after all, it's tax dollars that pay for these pseudo-legislators anyway.

The whole system makes me sick to my stomach. There is no "Checks and Balances." In fact, I'm convinced that they are all in cahoots with one another to screw the common man, as evidenced here... www.abovetopsecret.com...

With examples like that, how could one ever expect reasonable and fair justice on behalf of the common man?

The 14th and 16th amendments are not legal and were ratified by Congress, which is the standing committe. The Congress or The United States Government in Congress Assembled denoted the body that has dejure(true) legislative powers. As a matter of fact noe of those amendments were properly ratified. The body of the Constitution is the preamble and seven articles. Also still valid and never legally made void are the Articles of Confederation. Also look up the Articles of Association. Believe there are alot of things that people don't know about the government and it's true history.

Originally posted by MOOR45
The Constitution and the Laws of the US need to be studied. Many former IRS agents have confirmed income tax is a hoax. Many city workers some who are cops, sanitation, etc have won these battles in court. They lost their job initially and all of those legally correct got those jobs back.

This is the second time you've referred to someone winning their battles in court. Before anyone who reads this thread actually goes out and does something stupid, how about you actually cite these cases - hell, I'm not greedy cite one (who, where and when)

Sorry to go OT, but it's very related and I think the people interested in the IRS may be interested in this.

How do you "disappear" or completely make a new identity? Let's say "hypotheticallly"

God, never mind. I bet we can't even discuss this.

BRB...someone's at the door.

Originally posted by MOOR45
However, a person (also defined in Internal Revenue Code and Black's Law Dict 6thed.) can be a corporation. As a corporation your personal expenses are seen as money in excess of your day to day...

evans-legal.com...

Section 7701(a)(a) of the Internal Revenue Code states that:

The term "person" shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.

...
And the Internal Revenue Code (and other statutes) consistently uses the word "individual" to mean a natural person and not a corporation.

So this "argument" is nothing but grasping at straws, and is universally rejected but the courts.

also see evans-legal.com...

The 14th and 16th amendments are not legal...

evans-legal.com...

The argument that the 16th Amendment was not ratified is best explained (and refuted) by this quotation from U.S. v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. den. 107 S.Ct. 187 (1986):
...
"Although Thomas urges us to take the view of several state courts that only agreement on the literal text may make a legal document effective, the Supreme Court follows the "enrolled bill rule." If a legislative document is authenticated in regular form by the appropriate officials, the court treats that document as properly adopted. Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649, 36 L.Ed. 294, 12 S.Ct. 495 (1892). The principle is equally applicable to constitutional amendments. See Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 66 L.Ed. 505, 42 S.Ct. 217 (1922), which treats as conclusive the declaration of the Secretary of State that the nineteenth amendment had been adopted. In United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d. 457, 462-463, n.6 (7th Cir. 1986), we relied on Leser, as well as the inconsequential nature of the objections in the face of the 73-year acceptance of the effectiveness of the sixteenth amendment, to reject a claim similar to Thomas's. See also Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 83 L. Ed. 1385, 59 S. Ct. 972 (1939) (questions about ratification of amendments may be nonjusticiable). Secretary Knox declared that enough states had ratified the sixteenth amendment. The Secretary's decision is not transparently defective. We need not decide when, if ever, such a decision may be reviewed in order to know that Secretary Knox's decision is now beyond review."

Just when I thought I was getting out of paying my taxes I hear I am forced to pay. I have to place additional research into this. I am a slave to the government.

While waiting for Moor45 to cite a case that proves his theory, I did some research on how the courts are handling these types of cases. Turns out that in addition to finding against these individuals - the courts are also instituting penalties for wasting the court's time.

Madge v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-370, 80 T.C.M. (CCH) 804 (2000) - after having warned the taxpayer that continuing with his frivolous arguments - that he was not a taxpayer, that his income was not taxable, and that only foreign income was taxable - would likely result in a penalty, the court imposed the maximum $25,000 penalty.

McAfee v. United States, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7131, at *4 (N.D. Ga., Apr. 4, 2001) - after losing the argument that his wages were not income and receiving a $500 penalty, the taxpayer returned to court to try to stop the government from collecting that penalty by garnishing his wages. The court stated that "bringing this ill-considered, nonsensical litigation before this court for yet a second time is nothing but contumacious foolishness which wastes the time and energy of the court system," and imposed a $1,000 penalty.

United States v. Rempel, 87 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1810, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8518, at *5 (D. Ak. Feb. 14, 2001) - the court warned the taxpayers of sanctions and stated: "It is apparent to the court from some of the papers filed by the Rempels that they have at least had access to some of the publications of tax protester organizations. The publications of these organizations have a bad habit of giving lots of advice without explaining the consequences which can flow from the assertion of totally discredited legal positions and/or meritless factual positions.

I read that the reason individuals pay taxes is because they are 1) in the social security system, and 2) receive mail directly to your house, which is a priviledge of the US corporation, not a right in the constitution.

Case: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. AUSTIN GARY COOPER, Case No. 89-109-CR-HOEVLER

We are co-surety or co-debtors of the Unites States' obligation to the Federal Reserve, thats why we use Money that makes you pay more for the more you have.

There is also the point of defining yourself separately from the ALL-CAPS trade name that appears on all of your official documents. Since the ALL-CAPS name doesn't fit into normal english, it defines an artificial entity, separate from your True Name with capital letters only at the beginning. Once you define that you are separate from this ALL-CAPS, you can place a debt on your ALL-CAPS name for all of its money and possessions, making them owned under your True Name rather than your ALL-CAPS NAME.

There are some other steps, but if you stop those two services I showed above and regain legal control over your ALL-CAPS NAME, then you won't have to pay income tax to the US Corporation.

[edit on 14-7-2004 by Jamuhn]

OK. Income taxes AND the IRS are mandated by the Constitution.

16th 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.


The IRS is accordingly justified under the 'nessecary and proper' clause of Article I.

Time to turn off the shortwave.

-koji K.

www.taxableincome.net...

www.freerepublic.com...

That's why you renounce these illegal laws, including the 14th. You become a citizen within the state you live in, rather than a citizen of the US Corporation.

Originally posted by Bleys

Originally posted by MOOR45
The Constitution and the Laws of the US need to be studied. Many former IRS agents have confirmed income tax is a hoax. Many city workers some who are cops, sanitation, etc have won these battles in court. They lost their job initially and all of those legally correct got those jobs back.

This is the second time you've referred to someone winning their battles in court. Before anyone who reads this thread actually goes out and does something stupid, how about you actually cite these cases - hell, I'm not greedy cite one (who, where and when)

Relax I am currently travelling and can not reply the way I want to so I will find some. And if you look yourself they are many cases that people have fought and won.

[edit on 7/15/2004 by MOOR45]

Originally posted by HeirToBokassa

Originally posted by MOOR45
However, a person (also defined in Internal Revenue Code and Black's Law Dict 6thed.) can be a corporation. As a corporation your personal expenses are seen as money in excess of your day to day...

evans-legal.com...

Section 7701(a)(a) of the Internal Revenue Code states that:

The term "person" shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.

...
And the Internal Revenue Code (and other statutes) consistently uses the word "individual" to mean a natural person and not a corporation.

So this "argument" is nothing but grasping at straws, and is universally rejected but the courts.

also see evans-legal.com...

The 14th and 16th amendments are not legal...

evans-legal.com...

The argument that the 16th Amendment was not ratified is best explained (and refuted) by this quotation from U.S. v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. den. 107 S.Ct. 187 (1986):
...
"Although Thomas urges us to take the view of several state courts that only agreement on the literal text may make a legal document effective, the Supreme Court follows the "enrolled bill rule." If a legislative document is authenticated in regular form by the appropriate officials, the court treats that document as properly adopted. Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649, 36 L.Ed. 294, 12 S.Ct. 495 (1892). The principle is equally applicable to constitutional amendments. See Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 66 L.Ed. 505, 42 S.Ct. 217 (1922), which treats as conclusive the declaration of the Secretary of State that the nineteenth amendment had been adopted. In United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d. 457, 462-463, n.6 (7th Cir. 1986), we relied on Leser, as well as the inconsequential nature of the objections in the face of the 73-year acceptance of the effectiveness of the sixteenth amendment, to reject a claim similar to Thomas's. See also Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 83 L. Ed. 1385, 59 S. Ct. 972 (1939) (questions about ratification of amendments may be nonjusticiable). Secretary Knox declared that enough states had ratified the sixteenth amendment. The Secretary's decision is not transparently defective. We need not decide when, if ever, such a decision may be reviewed in order to know that Secretary Knox's decision is now beyond review."

The IRS mentions individual as a natural person correct. But the term contadicts itself because the legal term of person can mean a coporation. You wrote that yourself. That case you provided, is only an opinion of that court as to what the amendment is taken at length. Most courts will uphold them if you do not know what you are talking about. Secretary Knox fails to mention that it is not about how many states voted on the issue but if it was ratified with THE CONGRESS ASSEMBLED. There is a difference. Congress the informal name of the Congress is a standing committee. Only when the Congress is assembled can a amendment be truly ratified. A law can be passed under what is know as color of law. Thjis means it has the apperance of law but is no legal or lawful in nature. Or defacto. I have never had a problem with the IRS. It's the idiots who file 99 dependents and go to court arguing the amendments alone without enough research that take a dive. Oh and I will post the info if I can find a black's law dictionary to post certain terms. Legal terms are always superior when dealing with legal issues so you need to get one and learn these terms on your own. Black's Law Dictionry 4th -7th edition. Also get 1-3rd but you need 4 6 and 7 especially. Terms were added and taken out but still have relevance. If a =a in colloquial terms a can = e in legal terms. Trust me I'm not going anywhere people. We'll finish this. But get a copy of all the versions of the constitution and see how it applies to you. I myself am outside the jurisiction of the Federal Corporate government because of cancelling the power of attorney that they impose on you the minute your birth certificate is signed. Believe me I am not the only one who knows this. Talk to you after vacation!

[edit on 7/15/2004 by MOOR45]

Ok people I am very interested to know about all this, and by the way I owed taxes so I am on a monthly payment program it is anyway to get away from this. Some lawyers claim pennies on the dollar for taxes owed. Does it works.?

And no where does the Constitution mention the IRS. It says Congress. To have the IRS collect taxes there would have to be an amendment. Treasury dept is under the executive branch of govt. Congress is legislative. The IRS is a private corporation. How can a private corporation collect taxes? If that is the case the Treasury (enforcers/executive) should collect directly. Not a private company under a government office without the Congress passing an amendement. Next I'm gonna break down the 14th and 16 th for you without links. I study law to enhance my knowledge of where we live. I suggest you all start to do this. It is imperative. Anyway, I'm running late! See you in the sun!

Is that the IRS isn't based in the US, it's based in Puerto Rico. So, to build on what MOOR is saying... How can a private corporation, OUTSIDE of the United States have the aurthority to collect taxes?

Now, I've said it before and I'll say it again, I'm sure that government has covered it's behind to make it appear that the collection of taxes is on the up and up. But I am convinced that the illegality of this sytem is lost in the details... i.e. the passage and ratification of the 14th and 16th Ammendments, the structure of the collection machanism, the granted authorities who oversee the collection of said taxes and the intentional vagueness of the laws that govern taxation. Is there a Constitutional Law expert in the house?

Well first of all I'd like to say for some people like myself taxes are the best thing since sliced cheese! In fact I look forward to tax time at the end of the year, I wish it came 2-3 times a year for that matter. I think we pay in about $600-$800 a year max and some how always come out with a $3000-$5000 return. Now I know this isn't the case for everyone but hey the grass is definitely greener on my side of the fence.