IRS actually fears man who doesn't file taxes

[Serpo]

THE POWER TO DESTROY IRS actually fears man who doesn't file taxes 'Would blow them out of the water if this became public knowledge' Published: 16 hours ago http://www.wnd.com/files/2012/07/jackmino_avatar.jpg Jack Minor (http://www.wnd.com/author/jackmino/) About | Email (jackminor@comcast.net) | Archive (http://www.wnd.com/author/jackmino/?archive=true) Jack Minor is a journalist and researcher who served in the United States Marine Corps under President Reagan. Also a former pastor, he has written hundreds of articles and been interviewed about his work on many TV and radio outlets.

http://www.wnd.com/wp-content/themes/worldnet-theme/_/images//feed.png Subscribe to feed (http://www.wnd.com/author/jackmino/feed)



http://www.wnd.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-print/images/print.png (http://www.wnd.com/2013/06/businessman-irs-fears-prosecuting-me/print/)
Text smaller
Text bigger

1757


http://www.wnd.com/files/2013/05/irs-2-340x161.jpg
Amid an unusual spotlight on IRS conduct, a Colorado businessman contends his case is one the government particularly wants to keep hidden, because it could cause the whole federal agency to self-destruct.
Jeff Maehr, a Colorado chiropractor who has engaged in a number of business ventures, including PureHealthSystems.com, admits he has refused to file federal income tax returns since 2002, but he says the IRS is afraid to press criminal charges against him.
“They don’t want this to go to court, because there is so much information there that would blow them out of the water if this became public knowledge,” Maehr claimed.
“They are scared to death to bring this in front of a jury and give it a public hearing,” he said. “Instead, they know the IRS goes through administrative processes and ignorant judges and courts who all play this little game.”
Maehr insists he is not a “tax protester.”
“It’s not that I’m unwilling to pay my taxes. In fact, I acknowledge the principle of taxes is constitutional,” Maehr said. “However, I only want to pay the taxes that I owe.”
As WND previously reported (http://www.wnd.com/2012/09/supremes-docket-income-tax-challenge), the U.S. Supreme Court docketed a case by Maehr in which he contended that while the government has constitutional authority to tax, the IRS has engaged in “unlawful, unconstitutional, unfair and biased” practices to declare salaries and wages to be income without any legal basis. Earlier this month, however, the high court declined to hear his case.
Maehr said there are questions he has asked the IRS that the agency has yet to answer.
“I am not talking about the answer given on their website, I am talking about a specific law or statute that defines income as wages,” he said. “They apparently cannot produce it, or they would’ve done so already.”
Maehr said that in 2007, the IRS attempted to gather the information from various sources such as PayPal and his mortgage company to prepare a $280,000 assessment it determined he owed for 2003 to 2006.
However, despite its claims, the IRS has made no apparent effort to hold Maehr accountable for refusing to pay.
Additionally, the agency has not attempted to go after Maehr for income from 2007 to 2011.
Maehr noted that the federal government’s unwillingness to prosecute him is particularly noteworthy because it has had no problem pressing charges against high-profile people such as actor Wesley Snipes.
Snipes was convicted and sentenced to three years in prison for failing to file tax returns for 1999 to 2001. The three years are a fraction of the time Maehr has refused to file.
However, Maehr says he has a paper trail that has prevented the IRS from going after him as it did Snipes.
“There are certain parameters they have to follow when attempting to prosecute somebody for willful failure to file,” Maehr said. “They have to be able to prove that I knew I had a duty to file and I didn’t file.
“However, my paper trail clearly shows that I do not believe I had a duty to file and the reasons for my believing that – and here’s where I have asked the questions, and I want them to answer and show me where that duty is in the law in the Internal Revenue Code.”
Maehr insisted that for the IRS to prosecute him, it would have to answer his questions in court.
“They would need to prove their case in court that wages are income and they can’t possibly make the case,” he said.
Circular logic?
Maehr asserts the courts and IRS are engaging in circular logic.
“The IRS attempts to argue in court cases that my argument is frivolous. However, in each of these instances there has never been any evidence entered into court,” he said. “They then turned around and cited previous rulings as to why my case is frivolous. Essentially they are saying it is frivolous simply because they say so.”
He said, for example, courts say his case is frivolous “because everybody knows that when you get some finances for working from somebody that’s income and that’s all profit.”
“However, they don’t want to look at the original intent of the law. They don’t want to look at the Constitution, indirect or direct taxation or any of the facts. Instead they simply ignore it all,” he said.
Maehr began researching the issue in 2002 and discovered legal cases indicating that the definition of income excludes wages and salaries.
Asking for help to clear up his confusion, Maehr asked the IRS to provide the statutory authority that wages were, in fact, income. Instead, he says the IRS simply pointed to its own statements to back up its assertions.
“I started writing some letters to the IRS and asking them some very basic questions,” Maehr explained. “I told them there appears to be this question and I would honestly like an answer since a particular law would say something, while on the other hand, they were saying something completely different.
“I simply asked them to please clarify their statements. However, it was always non-answers coming back, and finally they sent me a letter saying they were not going to respond to any of my questions anymore, and if I wanted to find an answer I would have to find it in the courts.”
So that is exactly what Maehr did.
However, he soon discovered that the courts were unwilling to address his claims, despite his clearly having standing.
A copy of a ruling from the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, before judges Michael Murphy, Bobby Baldock and Harris Hartz, was included in Maehr’s filing. The ruling appears to support Maehr’s argument, because the judges, without responding to his questions and challenges to the constitutionality of the issue, dismissed the claims as “frivolous” and ruled, without support its argument, that Maehr’s petition “contains no valid challenges.”
In his petition, Maehr cites a wide range of historical court and congressional statements that back up his assertions regarding taxes. For instance, Black’s Law Dictionary defines income tax as being “a tax on the yearly profits arising from property, professions, trades and offices.”
Maehr argues based on this and other references that wages are not “profits” but are instead the simple exchange of labor for money. To bolster his assertion, he notes that while businesses frequently pay taxes on their profits, they do not pay taxes on their expenses.
Likewise, the labor of an individual is the “expense” required to obtain the money, therefore it is not “profit,” and to declare otherwise would subject corporations such as Sears to “income taxes” on 100 percent of their cash register receipts, he argues.
The U.S. Supreme Court itself said an 1883 case, “It has been well said that, the property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable.”
In 1969, the high court ruled: “Whatever may constitute income, therefore, must have the essential feature of gain to the recipient. This was true when the 16th amendment became effective. … If there is no gain, there is no income. … [Income] is not synonymous with receipts.”
And a 1946 case stated, “Reasonable compensation for labor or services rendered is not profit.”
Despite these references and the refusal of other courts to consider the merits of his case, the Supreme Court likewise turned down his petition.
Maehr said while he understands that the Supreme Court typically refuses to hear about 95 percent of the cases it receives, he believes his case met the criteria established because it involves an important issue of interpretation of the Constitution and federal law that directly affects every American.
“Based on their own criteria this is exactly the type of case that they should hear. It involves a constitutional issue and addresses a large segment of the population. A lot of their previous cases over the years and decades have always focused on constitutional law issues and due process.”
“With them refusing to hear this case and considering all the facts, they have basically stated I don’t get due process rights through the courts and I am not allowed to defend myself against the IRS. They will not hear it, none of the courts are willing to hear the case and adjudicate it.”
Maehr says while the news is focused on the IRS targeting of conservative groups, critics of the agency are missing a golden opportunity.
“The recent scandals coming out about the IRS shows the whole agency is corrupt, and what’s amazing is issues such as mine are not being jumped on,” he said. “What they have done with the targeting of the conservative groups pales in insignificance when compared to forcing every man, woman and child to pay a tax that they are not legally and constitutionally liable for.”
http://www.wnd.com/2013/06/businessman-irs-fears-prosecuting-me/

[Spectrism]

It always made sense to me that there is no profit in trading hours for dollars. If you ran your employment as a business, the labor would be an expense. The expense would negate the "income" which is wages to compensate fairly for labor expended.

[General of Darkness]

Salaries are equivalent exchange, there is no gain.

[midnight rambler]

According to the Brushaber v. Union Pacific case, the income tax is an excise tax on a corporate privilege or activity and the 'income' is merely used as a scale by which to gauge the tax rate. And of course the term 'income' is not defined in the IRC.

Oh, and BTW - one becomes liable for the 'income tax' the moment one signs a Form 1040.

[monty]

According to the Brushaber v. Union Pacific case, the income tax is an excise tax on a corporate privilege or activity and the 'income' is merely used as a scale by which to gauge the tax rate. And of course the term 'income' is not defined in the IRC.

Oh, and BTW - one becomes liable for the 'income tax' the moment one signs a Form 1040.

I think one becomes liable for "income" tax when he signs a W-4. Any other "income" not previously reported to the IRS on a W-2 or a 1099 that you list on a 1040 adds to your liability.

Sent from my iPad using Forum Runner

[7th trump]

According to the Brushaber v. Union Pacific case, the income tax is an excise tax on a corporate privilege or activity and the 'income' is merely used as a scale by which to gauge the tax rate. And of course the term 'income' is not defined in the IRC.

Oh, and BTW - one becomes liable for the 'income tax' the moment one signs a Form 1040.

No, one becomes liable for income taxes when one earns 3121(a) "wages" because 26usc 3111 says earning Social Security 3121(a) "wages" is an excise activity (participating in social security).
Participating in Social Security to gain benefits above and beyond trading your labor for cash is a privilege.......gainfully "employed".
The heart of Social Security is "employmnt" which is defined for the purpose of Social Security is at 26usc 3121(b).

If you read the two (2) controlling statutes listed in fine print on the bottom of the W4 they both go to Social Security.

[7th trump]

I think one becomes liable for "income" tax when he signs a W-4. Any other "income" not previously reported to the IRS on a W-2 or a 1099 that you list on a 1040 adds to your liability.

Sent from my iPad using Forum Runner
You got it Monty!
A W2, as a result of "employment", lists 3121(a) "wages" and 3401(a) "wages" both are one in the same.
A 1099 list money's earned from "self employment"

[palani]

Social Security 3121(a) "wages" is an excise activity

YAWN!!!!!

All evils start with social security? Gee ... then WHY DID THEY HAVE INCOME TAX BEFORE SOCIAL SECURITY CAME INTO EXISTENCE?

http://www.archives.gov/historical-docs/todays-doc/?dod-date=415

The 1040 form was created for the 1040 bonds. These are civil war bonds that matured between 10 and 40 years. Coincidentally the civil war also created fiat money in the form of notes to pay for said war.

Stop your revisionist history lectures. You might actually end up damaging someone with your full blinders on short sighted approach.

The reason you pay taxes are you accept script that are created by the continued military occupation of the United States.

[7th trump]

YAWN!!!!!

All evils start with social security? Gee ... then WHY DID THEY HAVE INCOME TAX BEFORE SOCIAL SECURITY CAME INTO EXISTENCE?

http://www.archives.gov/historical-docs/todays-doc/?dod-date=415

The 1040 form was created for the 1040 bonds. These are civil war bonds that matured between 10 and 40 years. Coincidentally the civil war also created fiat money in the form of notes to pay for said war.

Stop your revisionist history lectures. You might actually end up damaging someone with your full blinders on short sighted approach.

The reason you pay taxes are you accept paper notes that are created by the continued military occupation of the United States.

You really are stupid arent you palani.
So you show a picture of a 1040 from 1913....big deal........they had it back in 1862 also for uniformed officers and what not......not a big ass deal.
But then again you dont read statutes to understand them to actually see how the law works.
So if fiat currency was the reason behind paying income tax it would be in statutory form....but yet that evidence is nowhere to be found in Title 26......it doesnt exist!

However theres this.
The amount of filed income tax returns doubled in 1940 as a result of the revised 1939 code. This 1939 code was revised for the purpose of adding chapter 21 (social security).
Hmmm........now why is a welfare program been added into the tax collection law Title?
Millions of Americans were not required to file an income tax 1040 before 1940........thats historically documented on the IRS website you twit.
And millions of Americans werent having any federal withholdings taken out before 1939 either to file for the tax year.

The W2 lists 3401(a) "wages" (box 1). These 3401(a) "wages" is what the government uses to compute the federal income tax from what you've earned.
3401(a) "wages" if read and properly understood reveals it consists of social security 3121(a) "wages".
Hmm.....the employers file a W3 with the Social Security Administration, not the IRS, listing 3121(a) "wages" and 3401(a) "wages" who then input this information into the government system.
Funny thing is signing a W4 kick starts the W3 "reporting" form.
The IRS gets all of its numistic information to assess the federal income taxes from........guess who palani.........thats right the Social Security Administration who received it from the employers via the W3 form.
Wow......... what does it say on the bottom of the W4?


Privacy Act and Paperwork Reduction Act Notice. We ask for the information on this
form to carry out the Internal Revenue laws of the United States. Internal Revenue Code
sections 3402(f)(2) and 6109 and their regulations require you to provide this information; your
employer uses it to determine your federal income tax withholding........

Hmmm........3402(f)(2) revolves around "upon commencement of employment" theres that pesky word again Palani......."employment". And where is "employment" defined.....ohhhhh thats right its defined for the purpose of Social Security and no other purpose.
Heck, even Title 26 (internal revenue) has it listed in its title so you cant go wrong.........but then theres people like palani who do get it wrong from not ever reading the pertainent statutes. Stupid is what stupid does I guess......

Then the W4 lists 6109.....well that just dandy because that same regulation further on down says a person doesnt have to participate in Social Security.
And if the person doesnt participate then that person isnt earning 3401(a) "wages" for the 3402 withholding and deductions to even take place.......therefore the W4 is not required because the person is not statutorily "employed" in the first place........hes working yes, but not "employed" for the purpose of receiving government handouts.

Nay....Social Security has nothing at all to do with taxes........nay nothing at all.


Gee palani...........explain yourself why Social Security is worthless when it has verbage saying those who participate fall within federal jurisdiction?

I see no other laws out there that has this jurisdictional verbage definijng "state" and "united states" in it.
Birth certificates and the laws relating to banks and frns dont have this jurisdictional language in there governing laws and what not.......only social security does and it touches everyone.
Why do you think the hospitals want the parents to sign the SS5 form for a ssn before taking the child home?
Ever wonder why the IRS can issue ssn?.....they're useless without a ssn.
They need to have a ssn to the assess the federal income tax....they dont give a fuck about the money itself as its only used to calculate the amount of taxes.
Without a ssn you cant even file a 1040.
Without a ssn you dont earn the "wages" the government can assess a tax to.
Sounds to me you have a lot of expalining and learning to do Palani.
You are not as smart as you think you are.....pretty stupid actually to ignore Social Security and its jurisdictional language!

[Ponce]

I am still working on my land patent and I found something in that article that would help..........

"The U.S. Supreme Court itself said an 1883 case, “It has been well said that, the property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable.”

First post of the day..........good morning to one and all.

V


V

[midnight rambler]

I am still working on my land patent and I found something in that article that would help..........

"The U.S. Supreme Court itself said an 1883 case, “It has been well said that, the property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable.”

First post of the day..........good morning to one and all.

V


V

Do you have a case cite for that Ponce?

[Spectrism]

No need to attack each other. Can we keep this a civil discussion. We all have much to learn. Point /counter-point will give us a sharper edge. The snakes who seek to entangle us in their convoluted regulations are the enemy.

[sirgonzo420]

Do you have a case cite for that Ponce?

Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746

according to: http://www.freedom-school.com/law/irs-cases.htm

[7th trump]

Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746

according to: http://www.freedom-school.com/law/irs-cases.htm

Federal income taxes are an "indirect" tax.....not a direct tax.
Reason being is Social Security is indirect.

[7th trump]

I am still working on my land patent and I found something in that article that would help..........

"The U.S. Supreme Court itself said an 1883 case, “It has been well said that, the property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable.”

First post of the day..........good morning to one and all.

V


V
I agree Ponce and that was an 1883 case....but it all changed with the advent of the 1939 code where it added chapter 21 (social security) into the mix.
We had millions of Americans who were not within the jurisdictional boundaries back then.
I remember my grandpa telling me back before Social Security was enacted he was driving the family truck around at the age of 9 into town to get supplies and nobody cared as long as the person was mature enough.
Today you cant get issued a privileged drivers license without disclosure of a ssn.

[Ponce]

I would love to post all the info that I now have to defend my land patent.........they cannot take away your "private property" for non payment of tax or debt......but that would be telling the other side what my plan of attack will be, they funny part of all this is that they themself have given me the ammo that I need for my to be case.

I would like to add that "Freedom-School" will sell you a kit to help you obtain your land patent for $500.00 but arter that you are on your own.........the kit that I donated to many here is all that your need in a simple form.

The water tax vote in Oregon did not pass but it is my understanding that they are going to try and imposed it.....now then....I have two water permits dating back to the 40's, do I still have to pay that tax law if it passes? and with my land patent?...they will have a fight in their hands even if it does not pass because of my property tax.

V

[Twisted Titan]

No need to attack each other. Can we keep this a civil discussion. We all have much to learn. Point /counter-point will give us a sharper edge. The snakes who seek to entangle us in their convoluted regulations are the enemy.


Nah. ..

Their Battles are the stuff of legend.

Like Godzilla vs King Kong

[Hatha Sunahara]

This is the same argument that Pete Hendrickson made in Cracking the Code http://www.losthorizons.com/Cracking_the_Code.htm. Hendrickson spent some time in jail for his clashes with the IRS.

I think 7th Trump expects this guy (Maehr) to spend some time in jail too.

What's clear to me is the corruption demonstrated by the legal system in its complicity with this IRS fraud. This fraud is too big to allow any law to interfere with it. I can't imagine a better example of corruption than this.


Hatha

[Spectrism]

This is the same argument that Pete Hendrickson made in Cracking the Code http://www.losthorizons.com/Cracking_the_Code.htm. Hendrickson spent some time in jail for his clashes with the IRS.

I think 7th Trump expects this guy (Maehr) to spend some time in jail too.

What's clear to me is the corruption demonstrated by the legal system in its complicity with this IRS fraud. This fraud is too big to allow any law to interfere with it. I can't imagine a better example of corruption than this.


Hatha

This is my concern too. It won't matter how well you fashion your argument or how much of a paper trail you assemble. When they own the courts and the public mind control media, they can throw you into prison and declare that justice was done.

Having said that, I expect the day will soon arrive for me to be the one standing against them. Very soon we will step over the line where I will go no further.

[govcheetos]

Always appreciate a good discussion with both palani's and 7th Trump's views. It would be cool though if everyone could tone it back a notch on the personal ;) insults.

Here's my contribution which I feel has to be read and pondered over.

http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthread.php?65797-Carpe-Libertas&highlight=carpe+libertas

[Ponce]

One advantage that I have is that SS is my only income so that if they take me to court THEY will be the ones that will have to pay for all the expenses......after all would they try to hurt the little guy for lack of money? booooooooo boooo boooooooooooo........for one thing as a patentee of my private property they would have to take me to a "Cout of Law" where all presedences in my case will be all that is admissable.

I am sure that they would not like to open the gates of hell upon themselves by being stupid.....Ponce<--------- controls the gates of hell.

V

[palani]

This fraud is too big to allow any law to interfere with it.


Hatha

Fraud is a common law concept and government in general has turned a blind eye to common law. The prefer not to discuss fraud. Now instead a phrase has been constructed "material misrepresentation of material matters of fact" to replace the simple concept of "fraud".

[palani]

You really are stupid arent you palani.
So you show a picture of a 1040 from 1913....big deal........they had it back in 1862 also for uniformed officers and what not......not a big ass deal.
But then again you dont read statutes to understand them to actually see how the law works.
So if fiat currency was the reason behind paying income tax it would be in statutory form....but yet that evidence is nowhere to be found in Title 26......it doesnt exist!

However theres this.
The amount of filed income tax returns doubled in 1940 as a result of the revised 1939 code. This 1939 code was revised for the purpose of adding chapter 21 (social security).
Hmmm........now why is a welfare program been added into the tax collection law Title?
Millions of Americans were not required to file an income tax 1040 before 1940........thats historically documented on the IRS website you twit.
And millions of Americans werent having any federal withholdings taken out before 1939 either to file for the tax year.

The W2 lists 3401(a) "wages" (box 1). These 3401(a) "wages" is what the government uses to compute the federal income tax from what you've earned.
3401(a) "wages" if read and properly understood reveals it consists of social security 3121(a) "wages".
Hmm.....the employers file a W3 with the Social Security Administration, not the IRS, listing 3121(a) "wages" and 3401(a) "wages" who then input this information into the government system.
Funny thing is signing a W4 kick starts the W3 "reporting" form.
The IRS gets all of its numistic information to assess the federal income taxes from........guess who palani.........thats right the Social Security Administration who received it from the employers via the W3 form.
Wow......... what does it say on the bottom of the W4?



Hmmm........3402(f)(2) revolves around "upon commencement of employment" theres that pesky word again Palani......."employment". And where is "employment" defined.....ohhhhh thats right its defined for the purpose of Social Security and no other purpose.
Heck, even Title 26 (internal revenue) has it listed in its title so you cant go wrong.........but then theres people like palani who do get it wrong from not ever reading the pertainent statutes. Stupid is what stupid does I guess......

Then the W4 lists 6109.....well that just dandy because that same regulation further on down says a person doesnt have to participate in Social Security.
And if the person doesnt participate then that person isnt earning 3401(a) "wages" for the 3402 withholding and deductions to even take place.......therefore the W4 is not required because the person is not statutorily "employed" in the first place........hes working yes, but not "employed" for the purpose of receiving government handouts.

Nay....Social Security has nothing at all to do with taxes........nay nothing at all.


Gee palani...........explain yourself why Social Security is worthless when it has verbage saying those who participate fall within federal jurisdiction?

I see no other laws out there that has this jurisdictional verbage definijng "state" and "united states" in it.
Birth certificates and the laws relating to banks and frns dont have this jurisdictional language in there governing laws and what not.......only social security does and it touches everyone.
Why do you think the hospitals want the parents to sign the SS5 form for a ssn before taking the child home?
Ever wonder why the IRS can issue ssn?.....they're useless without a ssn.
They need to have a ssn to the assess the federal income tax....they dont give a fuck about the money itself as its only used to calculate the amount of taxes.
Without a ssn you cant even file a 1040.
Without a ssn you dont earn the "wages" the government can assess a tax to.
Sounds to me you have a lot of expalining and learning to do Palani.
You are not as smart as you think you are.....pretty stupid actually to ignore Social Security and its jurisdictional language!

Life is too short to invest much of it in dribble like this. Do you even bother to read it yourself? Your "theory" is way too complicated when you can't sum it up in one sentence.

[iOWNme]

Do you want to know what i figured out after years and years of researching the income tax? I figured out that i was nothing more than the best educated prisoner in the concentration camp.

Palani and 7th can argue all day long about SATANS Laws. I choose to not waste my time, because i decided to actually take on the responsibility of being a human being. This means i must figure out Right from Wrong on my own, and act accordingly. I dont need Lawyers, attorners, Judges, State Reps, medicine men or voodoo doctors to tell me that stealing is wrong.

IMO- People like 7th and palani do nothing but LEGITIMIZE this evil system by learning all of its rules and regulations. I will do nothing of the sort, because the issue is one of PRINCIPLE, not Legal.

NO amount of researching and studying is going to alter MORALITY.

[palani]

[/B]Palani and 7th can argue all day long about SATANS Laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1861


The Revenue Act of 1861, formally cited as Act of August 5, 1861, Chap. XLV, 12 Stat. 292, included the first U.S. Federal income tax statute (see Sec.49). The Act, motivated by the need to fund the Civil War [1], imposed an income tax to be "levied, collected, and paid, upon the annual income of every person residing in the United States, whether such income is derived from any kind of property, or from any profession, trade, employment, or vocation carried on in the United States or elsewhere, or from any other source whatever [ . . . .]”[1] Rates under the Act were 3% on income above $800 (adjusted for inflation: $18,875 in as of 2009 dollars [2]) and 5% on income of individuals living outside the country. The Revenue Act of 1861 was signed into law by Abraham Lincoln. This Act introduced Federal income tax as a flat rate tax.

[palani]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1913


Revenue Act of 1913
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The United States Revenue Act of 1913 also known as the Tariff Act, Underwood Tariff, Underwood Act, Underwood Tariff Act, or Underwood-Simmons Act (ch. 16, 38 Stat. 114, October 3, 1913), re-imposed the federal income tax following the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment and lowered basic tariff rates from 40% to 25%, well below the Payne-Aldrich Tariff Act of 1909. It was signed into law by President Woodrow Wilson on October 3, 1913, and was sponsored by Alabama Representative Oscar Underwood.

Where is the SOCIAL SECURITY?

England enacted an income tax around 1810 and then it lapsed for 30-40 years before being re-instituted. Seems like lots of what England does the U.S. of A. soon copies.

[Horn]

This is where the rubber meets the road,

I've informed Ponce, but he has yet to setup our branch of dividians on Silver Island.

[Ponce]

But for those who are fighting here all the time for nothing....I mean you and you and you, anyone else?

V

[iOWNme]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1861


Yes Palani, stealing was immoral and wrong way back in 1861. Thanks for the 'old skool' version of Satans Laws.

How about you stop posting legal mumbo jumbo and reply with what YOU PERSONALLY THINK about any and all 'income tax'. I dont care what words politicians have religiously and ceremonially scribbled on paper over recorded human history. Im interested in what you personally advocate: Is stealing wrong, or can stealing be turned into a virtue using the correct 'Lawful' rituals?

I dont want to see anything fro you except for a freaking answer! Yes or No!


:)

[7th trump]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1913



Where is the SOCIAL SECURITY?

England enacted an income tax around 1810 and then it lapsed for 30-40 years before being re-instituted. Seems like lots of what England does the U.S. of A. soon copies.

Wow...desperate are we palani?
For all that matters, you are thinking like Pete Hendrickson himself does which landed his ass in the grey bar hotel for three years on his second stint.
Hendrickson thought, and still thinks, Social Security as a irreverent "pet theory". He thought the original revenue Act of 1861 remained intact (it does) and not amended to include only government employees to this day.
But to his ego-stupidity the revenue act of 1939 introduced chapter 21 (social security) into title 26.
The government put it in title 26 to let everyone know that participation in Social security is an excise taxable activity (see 26usc 3111) causing the participant to earn 3121(a) "wages" which are the purpose of obtaining government benefits.
3121(a) "wages" are also in the definition to 3401(a) "wages which is for the purpose of withholding and deduction at source.................chapter 24.
And who really cares about the revenue act of 1913...duh!
Social Security was enacted in 1935 and didn't hit see the light of a revenue act until the 1939 revenue act that amended the original 1861 act, as did all the amending acts afterwards..............can you even comprehend palani or is this an attempt to obfuscate?
I mean this is easy to follow that a child can understand.....why cant you?
Never mind palani.........you don't read the law to understand it anyway!
You're nothing but a old broken street sign pointing in what ever direction the wind blows.
Tomorrow you'll post something totally different which is nothing more than just another way of saying the same damn thing over and over and over.
I mean really how many different ways can you say we have a problem and everyone needs to do something....but the problem is you don't know what the "something" is to do.
You are like a barking dog chasing the car down the street and when the dog finally catches the car it doesn't know what to do with it because you're lost in the law.

[7th trump]

Yes Palani, stealing was immoral and wrong way back in 1861. Thanks for the 'old skool' version of Satans Laws.

How about you stop posting legal mumbo jumbo and reply with what YOU PERSONALLY THINK about any and all 'income tax'. I dont care what words politicians have religiously and ceremonially scribbled on paper over recorded human history. Im interested in what you personally advocate: Is stealing wrong, or can stealing be turned into a virtue using the correct 'Lawful' rituals?

I dont want to see anything fro you except for a freaking answer! Yes or No!


:)

Good luck with that "yes or no" answer from palani.
All you are going to get from him is a slick lawyer response saying your an idiot if you cant read my mind.

[7th trump]

One advantage that I have is that SS is my only income so that if they take me to court THEY will be the ones that will have to pay for all the expenses......after all would they try to hurt the little guy for lack of money? booooooooo boooo boooooooooooo........for one thing as a patentee of my private property they would have to take me to a "Cout of Law" where all presedences in my case will be all that is admissable.

I am sure that they would not like to open the gates of hell upon themselves by being stupid.....Ponce<--------- controls the gates of hell.

V

Honestly Ponce the government isn't scared of you and they'll just deduct the cost from your SS whether you like it or not because this is how the government looks at people involved in Social Security.
Title 5, section 552(a) or "5USC 552(a)"
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/552a
(13)

(13) the term “Federal personnel” means officers and employees of the Government of the United States, members of the uniformed services (including members of the Reserve Components), individuals entitled to receive immediate or deferred retirement benefits under any retirement program of the Government of the United States (including survivor benefits).
You are "federal personnel" subject to Congress's statutes and regulations and penal codes.......land patents are worthless because you are within a jurisdiction that land patents hold no meaning and have no teeth.
Sorry, but the SSA is a federal agency that administers the federal retirement program called Social Security. SS is one of "any retirement program of the government of the United States".

You know some people try to discredit me in regards to Social Security but I'm here to tell you that Social Security is the nations problem.
Roosevelt and his communist cronies came to the aid of the American people by lying to them by capitalizing on "we are the government and we are here to help you."
Taxation is not a help.
Neither is stripping the Bill of Rights and replacing them with Civil Rights.
And neither is making the People into "federal personnel".
And now Obamacare...which is an extension of Social Security because its codified in the Act as an amendment to the Act.

[7th trump]

Life is too short to invest much of it in dribble like this. Do you even bother to read it yourself? Your "theory" is way too complicated when you can't sum it up in one sentence.

Dribble and theory huh?

You really don't read any law do you palani!
Is it to much for you to comprehend?

[Ponce]

Thanks 7th but is going to be a state case and not a Federal Case, unless it reaches the Supreme Court........in wich case I would be sure to win because other cases like mine has gone to them but for the wrong reasons ........besides, there are already many presedences of case that all the need to do is to be reafirmed.

V

[palani]

I dont want to see anything fro you except for a freaking answer! Yes or No!

I will answer your question with a yes or no but first I expect you to respond in like manner to this question:

HAVE YOU STOPPED BEATING YOUR WIFE?

Yes or No answers only accepted ... because if you answer YES then that means you admit to beating her at one time or NO which may be interpreted as I AM STILL BEATING HER ONCE IN A WHILE.

[palani]

the problem is you don't know what the "something" is to do.

I have given you the remedy I follow many times. I DON'T ACCEPT FRNs (or any paper money). I am not saying this remedy works for others. I am not trying to convince others to follow the same route. There could be a better remedy out there but I have yet to find it. I suppose once a better remedy comes up I would be agreeable to looking at it and deciding if it is better. You certainly haven't proposed any that I may class as a better remedy. The thing is when I apply my remedy there IS no income and there is no need to investigate code or write intimidating letters to bureaucrats. Seems I am in complete agreement with them and there is no argument.

The reason I discuss this with you is because your remedy (avoid social security while working for a wage) is as faulty as the 'law' you rely upon to remove yourself from the system.

As a person in another forum stated 'ALL PROPERTY IS OWNED BY THE STATE'. To him this is a fundamental principle to which this guy has no objection. So under this principle you may send in a 1040 with payment or not. Either way the state owns you, your labor and everything you believe is held under old principles of law called PRIVATE PROPERTY but which YOU no longer subscribe to.

You have perhaps heard of CLOSET GAYS? You, my friend, are nothing but a CLOSET COMMUNIST because you subscribe to these NEW MODERN THEORIES OF LAW. In the meantime I am trying to assist you in your struggle with the system by showing you there is no need to be a CLOSET COMMUNIST.

[palani]

All you are going to get from him is a slick lawyer response saying your an idiot if you cant read my mind.

See ... I don't need to respond to any posts ... my sock puppet 7th will step in and tell you in advance of what my response would be without my involving myself at all.

[7th trump]

I will answer your question with a yes or no but first I expect you to respond in like manner to this question:

HAVE YOU STOPPED BEATING YOUR WIFE?

Yes or No answers only accepted ... because if you answer YES then that means you admit to beating her at one time or NO which may be interpreted as I AM STILL BEATING HER ONCE IN A WHILE.

Told ya ole palani will answer in slick lawyer tongue maneuver......why is beyond me.

palani is no help to anyone....and as you can see he's no help to himself either.
Everything must be confusing to him....as he answers in confusion.
Why he's frightened that someone will interpret a simple answer of "yes or no" the wrong way.....and at the same time to wants everyone to think he's on top of his game..........who knows with the old broken sign.

If I were you SUI I'd make palani look like the fool he is attempting to make you into and answer "I'm not married".
Palani has nothing to offer....if he did palani wouldn't hesitate to tell you.

[palani]

If I were you SUI I'd make palani look like the fool he is attempting to make you into and answer "I'm not married".

Sorry but that would be a NON RESPONSIVE answer, sock puppet. The specs are YES or NO.

[Spectrism]

Have I stopped beating my wife?

No.


That does not mean I am beating her. It could also mean that I never started. And it could mean that I don't have a wife to stop beating. And what does "beating" mean? I beat her at various games and puzzles frequently. I beat her in foot races. I beat her in world knowledge. I beat her at lifting heavy objects or doing certain chores. Some beatings she likes. Anyway, it is preferable not to skip a beat.

[7th trump]

Sorry but that would be a NON RESPONSIVE answer, sock puppet. The specs are YES or NO.

No, its a deliberate question you set up for Sui to fail at so you dont have to answer Sui's question..........you fail!
Sui didnt stipulate you can answer in the way you did.......Sui asked you for a "yes or no" answer!

You fail all the time just as a broken sign post never give the correct direction.
Your slick lawyer double speak isnt working palani.

[7th trump]

Thanks 7th but is going to be a state case and not a Federal Case, unless it reaches the Supreme Court........in wich case I would be sure to win because other cases like mine has gone to them but for the wrong reasons ........besides, there are already many presedences of case that all the need to do is to be reafirmed.

V
The "state of Oregon" is not the same politically as the union state "Oregon" and is nothing more than an extention of the federal government.
You are still in the jurisdiction of the federal government and will be treated as such.
Just to let you know before hand........I commend you on your attempt.

[7th trump]

Have I stopped beating my wife?

No.


That does not mean I am beating her. It could also mean that I never started. And it could mean that I don't have a wife to stop beating. And what does "beating" mean? I beat her at various games and puzzles frequently. I beat her in foot races. I beat her in world knowledge. I beat her at lifting heavy objects or doing certain chores. Some beatings she likes. Anyway, it is preferable not to skip a beat.

Awesome!
Hahahahaha.....

[palani]

Sui asked you for a "yes or no" answer

SUI gave me an offer. I chose to counteroffer. You on the other hand are performing tortuous interference with contract negotiations.

[7th trump]

I have given you the remedy I follow many times. I DON'T ACCEPT FRNs (or any paper money). I am not saying this remedy works for others. I am not trying to convince others to follow the same route. There could be a better remedy out there but I have yet to find it. I suppose once a better remedy comes up I would be agreeable to looking at it and deciding if it is better. You certainly haven't proposed any that I may class as a better remedy. The thing is when I apply my remedy there IS no income and there is no need to investigate code or write intimidating letters to bureaucrats. Seems I am in complete agreement with them and there is no argument.
Telling people not to use frns in an attempt to skip over reporting to the government is not remedy.......you're defrauding the government which can land people in the clinker.
Why do I say its defrauding the government?
Your advice is defrauding the government because participants of Social Security must report all income. I'm not advocating for the government here. All I'm saying is your advice has the potential of landing someone in prison because you gave what you beleive is remedy when in fact is illicit advice that has possible legal ramifications.
When you participate in SS the money you are pay is classified as 3121(a) "wages".
Heres the definition to 3121(a) "wages":

a) Wages
For purposes of this chapter, the term “wages” means all remuneration for employment, including the cash value of all remuneration (including benefits) paid in any medium other than cash; except that such term shall not include—

By advising people to not use frn's to get around "reporting" is defrauding the government.
Gold and Silver ,or "specie" as you call it, is any medium...for all it matters to Social Security if you want paid in dirt its still a medium and needs to be assessed in cash value....but nonetheless its still 3121(a) "wages" for the purpose of Social Security.
My point is your illicit advice cannot defend a person in court. If anything it'll convict them.


The reason I discuss this with you is because your remedy (avoid social security while working for a wage) is as faulty as the 'law' you rely upon to remove yourself from the system.
You clearly dont read the law to understand it. If you read the law you'd see the common denominator to reporting to the government begins with Social Security.......its the any medium thing palani........your "income" advice isnt remedy at all.


As a person in another forum stated 'ALL PROPERTY IS OWNED BY THE STATE'. To him this is a fundamental principle to which this guy has no objection. So under this principle you may send in a 1040 with payment or not. Either way the state owns you, your labor and everything you believe is held under old principles of law called PRIVATE PROPERTY but which YOU no longer subscribe to.

I have no problem understanding that persons logic....what I cant figure out why you cant understand Social Security puts the participating individuals in that jurisdiction where the state owns everything. Surely you can understand my reasoning a person needs to stay out of participating and Social Security is a major sickness to this nation?


You have perhaps heard of CLOSET GAYS? You, my friend, are nothing but a CLOSET COMMUNIST because you subscribe to these NEW MODERN THEORIES OF LAW. In the meantime I am trying to assist you in your struggle with the system by showing you there is no need to be a CLOSET COMMUNIST.
I dont know............maybe my attempt at identifying the cause of this nations freeloading communistic tenticles exposes you as a fraud. You actions are of a broken sign post blowing in the wind.
You cant fix something if you dont understand it to know whats wrong.........but then again I consider the source.
Social Security is not mandatory. Fixing this is understanding how to unbecome a slave.

A founder once said .............."you have rights if you can keep them".
Do you understand the significants of that quote palani?
Thats the playbook of those opposed to freedoms this country offers use to take this country from within.
Social Security is the ball.

[palani]

Telling people not to use frns in an attempt to skip over reporting to the government is not remedy.......you're defrauding the government which can land people in the clinker.

Avoiding fraud inherent with paper money is defrauding the government?

Next you know you will be convicted of failing to pay the proper amount to a highwayman who chooses to rob you at gunpoint.

Again .... I suspect your thoughts are exceeding the capacity of your brain.

[7th trump]

SUI gave me an offer. I chose to counteroffer. You on the other hand are performing tortuous interference with contract negotiations.
You forgot to throw in the all cap name theory with the contract theory.
It just sounds better when you keep them both together in the same sentence.

[7th trump]

Avoiding fraud inherent with paper money is defrauding the government?

Next you know you will be convicted of failing to pay the proper amount to a highwayman who chooses to rob you at gunpoint.

Again .... I suspect your thoughts are exceeding the capacity of your brain.

No actually I think you want to beleive in a conspiracy where the truth fits. I looked through the Constitution, and the only thing I could find was:

"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."

This doesn't prohibit the printing of unbacked paper money by the federal government in replacement of Treasury notes?
Matter of fact, by you beleif system even US Treasury note are illegal.....but you say Treasury note are lawful.


Hmmmm.... a major set back for palani....no!
I've been holding that one back for a while now to spring it on you palani....I guess today is a good day as any.

[palani]

You forgot to throw in the all cap name theory with the contract theory.

I conditionally accept your all cap name theory upon proof of claim that SUPERMAN exists.

[palani]

This doesn't prohibit the printing of unbacked paper money by the federal government in replacement of Treasury notes? Matter of fact, by you beleif system even US Treasury note are illegal.....but you say Treasury note are lawful.
Legal, illegal or lawful ... I avoid conflict by not handling any of them and I avoid fraud by not attempting to pass military script off as money.

Do you believe the federal government is able to enter contracts? Except they might refer to them as treaties instead of contract but that is the subject of another thread. If I suspect fraud and need to investigate this fraud wouldn't I send a letter to Treasury? If they know of any fraud (and even if they don't) aren't they required to respond to my inquiry? What happens when they don't respond? Isn't this agreement with ALL my assertions in my letter to them? Doesn't this then raise a curtain of estoppel and laches against anyone at Treasury or any of their MANY agents from later coming back to me stating my actions are fraudulent? After all, didn't I give them an opportunity to respond and they chose to go silent?

This of course is all hypothetical as far as you are concerned but my correspondence is on file at the county recorders office should the need ever arise as to what events took place.

You, on the other hand, have a constitution to refer to that you are not even a party of and LOTS of code to examine so that you may draw whatever conclusion you like on any given day. Good luck with that .... when the wind blows from another direction 7th trump will be there to follow it to where ever it takes him.

[Ares]

7th - and Palini

I think both of you are correct, which is why it makes the process for redemption all more confusing. In my personal life, I have been redeeming lawful money for the last year.. The IRS returned every penny I paid into income tax last year. However, I still owed for social slavery and medislave. I believe that's where 7th social security interpretation comes into play, because even though I redeemed lawful money, the IRS agreed with me and returned my income tax, but at the same time the process did not exempt me from social slavery or medislave. What was taken was still owed, and was not returned.

I think if we could work out a compromise of utilizing both processes of redeeming lawful money, and have 7th Trump detail the paper work and process filing to no longer contribute to social slavery and medislave it would benefit everyone here. I've been through the process of redeeming lawful money and know what a 1040 must look like before being submitted as well as evidentiary paperwork to go with it. I could write up a how to, and walk someone through setting up a U.S. district court miscellaneous case file. Which you can also use as an evidence repository against the state or other political adversaries.

[7th trump]

Legal, illegal or lawful ... I avoid conflict by not handling any of them and I avoid fraud by not attempting to pass military script off as money.

Do you believe the federal government is able to enter contracts? Except they might refer to them as treaties instead of contract but that is the subject of another thread. If I suspect fraud and need to investigate this fraud wouldn't I send a letter to Treasury? If they know of any fraud (and even if they don't) aren't they required to respond to my inquiry? What happens when they don't respond? Isn't this agreement with ALL my assertions in my letter to them? Doesn't this then raise a curtain of estoppel and laches against anyone at Treasury or any of their MANY agents from later coming back to me stating my actions are fraudulent? After all, didn't I give them an opportunity to respond and they chose to go silent?

This of course is all hypothetical as far as you are concerned but my correspondence is on file at the county recorders office should the need ever arise as to what events took place.

You, on the other hand, have a constitution to refer to that you are not even a party of and LOTS of code to examine so that you may draw whatever conclusion you like on any given day. Good luck with that .... when the wind blows from another direction 7th trump will be there to follow it to where ever it takes him.

What fraud?
The Constitution doesnt forbid the printing of script.
All the Constitution says is that "states", not the federal government, can only accept gold ans silver as payment of debt.....so your bases are incorrect to begin with.

Furthermore, just because the you say the 1040 tax form is from 1040 bonds from the Civil Wa era, which you havent verified, doesnt mean frns are millitary script.
You assume quite a lot palani. You go from one theory to the next to the next and quite frankly I dont think you even realize it.
Its like your brain is on autoconspiracy mode.

[palani]

What fraud? The Constitution doesnt forbid the printing of script. All the Constitution says is that "states", not the federal government, can only accept gold ans silver as payment of debt


The Congress shall have Power ...To coin Money

You see ... they only have the power to COIN money. COINed money doesn't come from a printing press. It comes from a MINT.

As to the STATES only accepting gold or silver ... that would be YOU wouldn't it? After all, states derive their power from the people so the people are the STATEs. You exchanging your labor for paper money violates this simple contractual rule so what makes you think you can forget this little infraction of yours and complain about minor little infractions the Feds commit daily as well?

If you were living in a glass house I expect you to not be throwing stones around.

[7th trump]

You see ... they only have the power to COIN money. COINed money doesn't come from a printing press. It comes from a MINT.

As to the STATES only accepting gold or silver ... that would be YOU wouldn't it? After all, states derive their power from the people so the people are the STATEs. You exchanging your labor for paper money violates this simple contractual rule so what makes you think you can forget this little infraction of yours and complain about minor little infractions the Feds commit daily as well?

If you were living in a glass house I expect you to not be throwing stones around.
Oh sure but the current coins the mint stamps are not gold or silver and the states are accepting them as legit currency.

Heres a historical list of fiat paper from the beginning of the Unites States.
http://www.ronscurrency.com/rhist.htm

Yeah...when was the fed chartered to print frn's?....oh that rights 1913, well over a 100 years after the first paper was printed.
Seems your premise is still wrong.
Your playing cpnspiracy semantics palani. Frn's are the obligation of the united states government...not obligations of the federal reserve banks you twit.
Whole different legal aspect on who's obligations they are.
By not reporting what you dont earn while participating you are defrauding the law you said you would obey.........social security!

[palani]

Oh sure but the current coins the mint stamps are not gold or silver and the states are accepting them as legit currency. Right. Voluntarily even. Breaking their own compact/treaty.




Yeah...when was the fed chartered to print frn's?....oh that rights 1913, well over a 100 years after the first paper was printed.
Seems your premise is still wrong.
So it is a crime if I commit a murder but must be ok if I can convince someone else to do it for me? Same principle.



Frn's are the obligation of the united states government...not obligations of the federal reserve banks you twit.
Whole different legal aspect on who's obligations they are.
WHICH United States government? The obligations of the ORIGINAL United States government has been established at $346,681,016 and this limit has been fixed since 1878 and been unchanging. The obligations of the PRESENT United States government resides somewhat north of 15 Trillions and this DOES NOT INCLUDE THE $346,681,016 of the ORIGINAL United States government.

By not reporting what you dont earn while participating you are defrauding the law you said you would obey.........social security! What are you going on about? In your world being a PAUPER is a crime? Now isn't that a HOOT!!!