The Rules

[iOWNme]

Everyone knows there has to be rules!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wex4UhLTbDM

[Horn]

Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of man will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint.

Alexander Hamilton


(http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/alexander_hamilton.html)

[Hatha Sunahara]

Very effective. I know Larken Rose is not worried about his 'message' but about the effectiveness of the delivery. Satire is a very effective method. I expect to see this authoritarian with the oversized head and pukish voice again. I can see it is really Larken himself with some image processing embellishments. This is the way I see authoritarians in my mind, and it is really refreshing to see someone who presents them that way in a video.


Hatha

[Ponce]

You have the rules of law that can be made ONLY by congress and then you have "the other law" that can be made by any one with a gun........I learned about this while searching about my land patent.

V

[iOWNme]

Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of man will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint.

Alexander Hamilton


There is no such thing as 'Government', stop imagining things. Funding something through FORCE and COERCION cannot ever make a virtuous, Reasoned and Just entity.

Alexander Hamilton had more contradictions inside his own head than a glass of dry water.

[iOWNme]

You have the rules of law that can be made ONLY by congress and then you have "the other law" that can be made by any one with a gun........I learned about this while searching about my land patent.

V

So 'Congress' can make Law? Where did they get that Right? Are their scribbles more important than my scribbles?

Right and Wrong exist in reality, therefore 'Government' cannot exist because all 'Government' is funded through PLUNDER, and PLUNDER is immoral hence all 'Government' has NO LEGITIMACY to it.

[7th trump]

So 'Congress' can make Law? Where did they get that Right? Are their scribbles more important than my scribbles?

Right and Wrong exist in reality, therefore 'Government' cannot exist because all 'Government' is funded through PLUNDER, and PLUNDER is immoral hence all 'Government' has NO LEGITIMACY to it.

Plunder????
How many times are you going to ignore the fact that every American paying federal taxes has volunteered themselves into a welfare program that imposes the federal income taxe on their labor?

I've shown you many times SUI the law, supporting court cases, regulations and host of other supporting documents that states nobody has to participate in the Social welfare program that renders your premise that taxation is mandatory plunder .....as complete bullshit!
This is why I'll never debate your silly ass because you are not willing to understand the root cause....and would rather bitch and moan and blame your ignorance on someone else.....you and Larkin are both dangerous to beleive in!

[7th trump]

So 'Congress' can make Law? Where did they get that Right? Are their scribbles more important than my scribbles?

Right and Wrong exist in reality, therefore 'Government' cannot exist because all 'Government' is funded through PLUNDER, and PLUNDER is immoral hence all 'Government' has NO LEGITIMACY to it.

YEAH!!....their scribbles are more important than your scribbles....thanks for pointing out and acknowledging you scribble!
Their scribbles are more important because they were elected to write law.....law which you do not fathum, comprehend or understand.
You arent elected so your scribbles are just that.....scribbles!

[chad]

Plunder????
How many times are you going to ignore the fact that every American paying federal taxes has volunteered themselves into a welfare program that imposes the federal income taxe on their labor?

I've shown you many times SUI the law, supporting court cases, regulations and host of other supporting documents that states nobody has to participate in the Social welfare program that renders your premise that taxation is mandatory plunder .....as complete bullshit!
This is why I'll never debate your silly ass because you are not willing to understand the root cause....and would rather bitch and moan and blame your ignorance on someone else.....you and Larkin are both dangerous to beleive in!

so, do you not pay federal income taxes then? what do you do every year, just not file?

[ximmy]

so, do you not pay federal income taxes then? what do you do every year, just not file?

7th trump doesn't work, he's poor and probably lives with his mom... and he derides anyone who does work and makes a decent living.

[7th trump]

so, do you not pay federal income taxes then? what do you do every year, just not file?
No, I do not!
There is no W3 generated by the employer to send to the government (reporting) when no W4 is in effect.
Look on the bottom of the last page on a W4. There it says in lue of the "Privact act and Paperwork Reduction Act" in small print the W4 is required by two statutes. One is 26usc 3402(f)(2) and the other 26usc 6109.



3402(f)(2)
(2) Exemption certificates
(A) On commencement of employment On or before the date of the commencement of employment with an employer, the employee shall furnish the employer with a signed withholding exemption certificate relating to the number of withholding exemptions which he claims, which shall in no event exceed the number to which he is entitled.

26usc 3402(f)(2) kicks in when you are involved in "employment"...."employment" is defined in the Social Security act and only applies within the purpose of the Act (state welfare). The defined term 3121(b) "employment" has no legal effect outside of participating in Social Security. So if you are working and getting paid without a W4 your earnings are not considered 3121(a) "wages" nor are they considered 3401(a) "wages".
The other statute is 6109 and regulation 26CFR 6109-1(d) specifically state and an individual doesnt have to participate in Social Security if that individual "wishes" not to participate.
So the law on their own forms tells you no one has to participate in Social Security.

Heres a bit of law to think about in regards to Social Security and box 3 on the W2.


(a) Old-age, survivors, and disability insurance
In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on the income of every individual a tax equal to the following percentages of the wages (as defined in section 3121 (a)) received by him with respect to employment (as defined in section 3121 (b))—

Box 3 on the W2 are 3121(a) "wages" earnings for the year.
3121(a) "wages" are only in respect to 3121(b) "employment" (Social Security).....meaning you can only earn 3121(a) "wages" when participating in Social Security. If you earn a living working for someone and not participating in Social Security those earnings are not 3121(a) "wages". Therefore box 3 on the W2 is "-0-".........nothing is reported to the government. And if nothing is reported to the government then the government has nothing to assess or base a tax on.

Heres the employer side of Social Security....26usc 3111


(a) Old-age, survivors, and disability insurance
In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on every employer an excise tax, with respect to having individuals in his employ, equal to the following percentages of the wages (as defined in section 3121 (a)) paid by him with respect to employment (as defined in section 3121 (b))—

The employer is only imposed that tax and additional taxes when an employee is participating in Social Security.....because 3121(a) "wages" are in RESPECT to 3121(b) "employment" ONLY!

The employer is not required to pay 11% of my gross into Social Security on my behalf either or required to pay other taxes on my behalf...........I'm more profitable to keep around.



Heres the statute with the W2 requirments.


(a) Requirement
Every person required to deduct and withhold from an employee a tax under section 3101 or 3402, or who would have been required to deduct and withhold a tax under section 3402 (determined without regard to subsection (n)) if the employee had claimed no more than one withholding exemption, or every employer engaged in a trade or business who pays remuneration for services performed by an employee, including the cash value of such remuneration paid in any medium other than cash, shall furnish to each such employee in respect of the remuneration paid by such person to such employee during the calendar year, on or before January 31 of the succeeding year, or, if his employment is terminated before the close of such calendar year, within 30 days after the date of receipt of a written request from the employee if such 30-day period ends before January 31, a written statement showing the following:
(1) the name of such person,
(2) the name of the employee (and his social security account number if wages as defined in section 3121 (a) have been paid),
(3) the total amount of wages as defined in section 3401 (a),
(4) the total amount deducted and withheld as tax under section 3402,
(5) the total amount of wages as defined in section 3121 (a),
(6) the total amount deducted and withheld as tax under section 3101,
[(7) Repealed. Pub. L. 111–226, title II, § 219(a)(3),Aug. 10, 2010, 124 Stat. 2403]
(8) the total amount of elective deferrals (within the meaning of section 402 (g)(3)) and compensation deferred under section 457, including the amount of designated Roth contributions (as defined in section 402A),
(9) the total amount incurred for dependent care assistance with respect to such employee under a dependent care assistance program described in section 129 (d),
(10) in the case of an employee who is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States, such employee’s earned income as determined for purposes of section 32 (relating to earned income credit),
(11) the amount contributed to any Archer MSA (as defined in section 220(d)) of such employee or such employee’s spouse,
(12) the amount contributed to any heal

Both 3121(a) and 3401(a) are identicle wages.

[7th trump]

7th trump doesn't work, he's poor and probably lives with his mom... and he derides anyone who does work and makes a decent living.

Another one of your attacks out of the blue ..........and I'll bet I'll be the bad guy if I respond in kind and respect as you do me.
You know where you can go Ximmy!

[Horn]

As far as I'm concerned you're all illegal aliens squatting on my land, that Alexander Hamilton founded only for me.

[ximmy]

Another one of your attacks out of the blue ..........and I'll bet I'll be the bad guy if I respond in kind and respect as you do me.
You know where you can go Ximmy!

The little horn that boasteth great things speaks!

[chad]

No, I do not!
There is no W3 generated by the employer to send to the government (reporting) when no W4 is in effect.
Look on the bottom of the last page on a W4. There it says in lue of the "Privact act and Paperwork Reduction Act" in small print the W4 is required by two statutes. One is 26usc 3402(f)(2) and the other 26usc 6109.



26usc 3402(f)(2) kicks in when you are involved in "employment"...."employment" is defined in the Social Security act and only applies within the purpose of the Act (state welfare). The defined term 3121(b) "employment" has no legal effect outside of participating in Social Security. So if you are working and getting paid without a W4 your earnings are not considered 3121(a) "wages" nor are they considered 3401(a) "wages".
The other statute is 6109 and regulation 26CFR 6109-1(d) specifically state and an individual doesnt have to participate in Social Security if that individual "wishes" not to participate.
So the law on their own forms tells you no one has to participate in Social Security.

Heres a bit of law to think about in regards to Social Security and box 3 on the W2.



Box 3 on the W2 are 3121(a) "wages" earnings for the year.
3121(a) "wages" are only in respect to 3121(b) "employment" (Social Security).....meaning you can only earn 3121(a) "wages" when participating in Social Security. If you earn a living working for someone and not participating in Social Security those earnings are not 3121(a) "wages". Therefore box 3 on the W2 is "-0-".........nothing is reported to the government. And if nothing is reported to the government then the government has nothing to assess or base a tax on.

Heres the employer side of Social Security....26usc 3111



The employer is only imposed that tax and additional taxes when an employee is participating in Social Security.....because 3121(a) "wages" are in RESPECT to 3121(b) "employment" ONLY!

The employer is not required to pay 11% of my gross into Social Security on my behalf either or required to pay other taxes on my behalf...........I'm more profitable to keep around.



Heres the statute with the W2 requirments.



Both 3121(a) and 3401(a) are identicle wages.

well, good for news for palani then, only a matter of time before you go to jail probably.

i'm curious, what do you do for a living then? you're a farmer in iowa, no? self employed or something?

[Ponce]

Juris? right or wrong I don't know, I only know what I read......I read that because a full members of congress passed the land patent law and ONLY congress can pass such a law (and signed by a president) that NO ONE not even congress or the US Supreme court can cancelled........it is only one of the very few laws in this nation that is above any other law and permanent.

I believe that MARTIAL LAW can cancel it but I am still searching for that one........the US Supreme Court has never gone against a land patent.

V

[palani]

well, good for news for palani then, only a matter of time before you go to jail probably.

I find no pleasure in anyone going to prison. Arguing a rational escape route from the system through statute interpretation is tough. If you are going to be head and shoulders in commerce then play by the commercial rules. My own plan is to avoid commerce like I do VD, herpes and the plague. When this door is closed there are other options that become viable while these other options are not available while commerce is in play.

[7th trump]

well, good for news for palani then, only a matter of time before you go to jail probably.

i'm curious, what do you do for a living then? you're a farmer in iowa, no? self employed or something?

Wont ever go to jail......the DoJ cant say I'm in the excise activty of earning "wages". You didnt read the statutes I provided did you?
The government through numerous court cases cited that the income tax is tax on an "excise".
How I know you didnt read the statutes I provided is because in 26usc 3111 it says earning 3121(a) "wages" in respect to 3121(b) "employment" the employer is taxed an excise because of it.
The excise is the EMPLOYEE earning 3121(a) "wages".....not the employer having employees.....did you ge that? ....Read it over again until you do.

The employer reports 3121(a) "wages" to the SSA via the W3 who the SSA then forwards that same W3 info onto the IRS.
When you file your return with the IRS they look at the W3 info they received from the SSA and match it up with the W2 thats attached to your 1040 for accuracy (so you dont defraud the government)....they should match if they dont your going to get a letter from the IRS.

Now to anwer why I will never go to jail is because legally I'm not in the "excise" activity of earning "wages" (not participating in Social Security to generate a W3 or W2) so the IRS has nothing in the governments system that says I have 3121(a) "wages"....reportable income that requires a 1040 to be filed every year that is.

So the only dumbass here................is your ignorant smart ass reply.......keep paying your taxes and dearly love your master and praise him for allowing you to be ignorant of your own enslavement.

I'm an electrician working for a large contractor.

[chad]

lol. you are going to jail sooner or later. as an aside, do you regularly insult and call names at everyone here who you disagree with? i have to admit, i normally ignore you, but when i do read what you post, i see a lot of name calling.

[ximmy]

lol. you are going to jail sooner or later. as an aside, do you regularly insult and call names at everyone here who you disagree with? i have to admit, i normally ignore you, but when i do read what you post, i see a lot of name calling.

7th trump is an angry young man... an unclean and hateful bird.

[BrewTech]

Their scribbles are more important because they were elected to write law.....law which you do not fathum, comprehend or understand.
You arent elected so your scribbles are just that.....scribbles!

Elected by who? I never knowingly hired anyone to tell me how to live.

[7th trump]

Elected by who? I never knowingly hired anyone to tell me how to live.
The people who voted that's who..........sheesh!

[Horn]

lol. you are going to jail sooner or later.

Chad we are supposed to be encouraging Tax Amnesia here, received by or thru boating accidents and other means.

Your repetative strategy of mentioning jail time is not joggin my memory at all.

[7th trump]

lol. you are going to jail sooner or later. as an aside, do you regularly insult and call names at everyone here who you disagree with? i have to admit, i normally ignore you, but when i do read what you post, i see a lot of name calling.
Wow you're not very bright are you?

Do you suppose the police issue speeding tickets for driving 55mph?
Sounds pretty stupid doesn't it?
Yes, it does sound pretty damn stupid for a cop to issue a speeding ticket for not speeding.
The tickets wouldn't stand in court either.....judge would throw them out and call the officer over for a little chit chat ass chewing.

So why then are you saying I'm going to jail for not filing a 1040 when the requirement to file a 1040 doesn't exist?
I ask because its no different than my scenario of a cop issuing speeding tickets for not speeding.

You gotta have 600.00 or more in boxes 1 and 3 on the W2 to be required to file a 1040.
I don't get a W2 because I don't even earn 600.00 or more of 3121(a) "wages" or 3401(a) "wages".....I fact, I earn "-0-" 3121(a) "wages" and "-0-" 3401(a) "wages"...but I made well over 70,000.00.....get it?
Or are you that blatantly stupid for allowing yourself to get that pathetically brainwashed?
You're a sheeple and you don't even know it ...or you're just that much of a coward to not learn how to defend yourself from what you call being robbed every pay period?
I'm not lying either way about you.....am I?
You're either a coward, or ignorant by choice (defined as "stupid").
Heck Chad...I did all the hard work for you and you still refuse to defend yourself..........that's a coward if I ever seen one.


stu·pid [stoo-pid, styoo‐]
adjective, stu·pid·er, stu·pid·est.

1. lacking ordinary quickness and keenness of mind; dull.
2. characterized by or proceeding from mental dullness; foolish; senseless: a stupid question.
3. tediously dull, especially due to lack of meaning or sense; inane; pointless: a stupid party.
4. annoying or irritating; troublesome: Turn off that stupid radio.
5. in a state of stupor; stupefied: stupid from fatigue.

Mental senseless sounds about right.

Take your pick of what you want to be identified as Chad......or just keep ignoring me....either way I don't care.

[BrewTech]

The people who voted that's who..........sheesh!
Since they can't be named, or held accountable, then they don't exist.

[7th trump]

Since they can't be named, or held accountable, then they don't exist.
Yeah sure whatever..........if you believe that then you also believe in a tooth fairy as well.
This place is turning into a mental asylum!
Its no wonder why you're each so individually tricked out your protections of the Bill of Rights with such ease?
You're asleep dreaming you're awake.

Any wonder why the government is arming itself against you people....?
I said it before and I'll say it again....you people are dangerous to just be next to when the shit hits the fan.

[woodman]

7th, I am curious how you are able to make a living without paying income tax. If what you are doing is an above board method of skirting the income tax, then why isn't it more prevalent? I am not calling you wrong, or making any judgement at all. I just can't understand how a nation of people is being forced to pay income tax upon their labor and according to you, it is easily circumvented. I really don't have the time right now to try to understand all the legalese from the tax sode that you posted but what I seem to be getting from it is that you simply make no claim on a w-2 for withholding, and since there is no with holding, you are not taxed on earnings. What is different about your earnings than any one else's? Is it the same? You get paid by check and redeem for federal reserve notes? I really want to understand your claims.

[7th trump]

7th, I am curious how you are able to make a living without paying income tax. If what you are doing is an above board method of skirting the income tax, then why isn't it more prevalent? I am not calling you wrong, or making any judgement at all. I just can't understand how a nation of people is being forced to pay income tax upon their labor and according to you, it is easily circumvented. I really don't have the time right now to try to understand all the legalese from the tax sode that you posted but what I seem to be getting from it is that you simply make no claim on a w-2 for withholding, and since there is no with holding, you are not taxed on earnings. What is different about your earnings than any one else's? Is it the same? You get paid by check and redeem for federal reserve notes? I really want to understand your claims.

Pm'd you Woodman.

[Cebu_4_2]

Pm'd you Woodman.

Just when it started getting interesting.

[chad]

typical "i don't pay taxes" retard thread. quote a bunch of stuff, post links to some legal code, be really vague, lay out no specifics, dodge/deflect/answer a question which a question when asked, name call, pretend you don't see posts you don't like, and if all else fails, stop posting in thread "until the next time."

i've never seen one person EVER post a step-by-step example of how they avoid taxes. it is always the insane rambling, name calling, "i laid it out for you" with vauge legal references, links to some guy's blog, etc. people who don't pay taxes and know how to avoid the system seem to always be very mentally challenged and not able to respond to simple questions.

challenge to 7th trump: jus post simple step-by-step instructions for everyone to see. if you really o not pay taxes every year, and there is no danger of anything ever happening to you because of it, please post exactly what you do of he benefit of everyone here.

prediction: 7th trump will not do this and instead call me more names, or he will abandon this thread only to return and call me, palani, and ximmy names in a later thread.

[7th trump]

typical "i don't pay taxes" retard thread. quote a bunch of stuff, post links to some legal code, be really vague, lay out no specifics, dodge/deflect/answer a question which a question when asked, name call, pretend you don't see posts you don't like, and if all else fails, stop posting in thread "until the next time."

i've never seen one person EVER post a step-by-step example of how they avoid taxes. it is always the insane rambling, name calling, "i laid it out for you" with vauge legal references, links to some guy's blog, etc. people who don't pay taxes and know how seem to always be very mentally challenged.
Mentally challenged huh?
Trying to lay it out for you, but I guess your mental inability to comprehend the simple analogy of understanding why 3121(a) "wages" are reported and non 3121(a) "wages" are not reported completely escapes you?
Its a simple concept that a third grader can understand. Maybe since you're in the business of being a salesman is a clue to your intellectual ineptness.
Being a salesmen is not a very brainy job you know. And every salesman I came across become salesmen because they are either to lazy or failed elsewhere in making an honest living.

[chad]

Mentally challenged huh?
Trying to lay it out for you, but I guess your mental inability to comprehend the simple analogy of understanding why 3121(a) "wages" are reported and non 3121(a) "wages" are not reported completely escapes you?
Its a simple concept that a third grader can understand. Maybe since you're in the business of being a salesman is a clue to your intellectual ineptness.
Being a salesmen is not a very brainy job you know. And every salesman I came across become salesmen because they are either to lazy or failed elsewhere in making an honest living.

again, please follow simple instructions. third grade level would be fine.

[iOWNme]

YEAH!!....their scribbles are more important than your scribbles....thanks for pointing out and acknowledging you scribble!
Their scribbles are more important because they were elected to write law.....law which you do not fathum, comprehend or understand.
You arent elected so your scribbles are just that.....scribbles!

Can a man delegate a Right he does not have as an individual?

This time dont resort to name calling and try and set aside your religious belief system, and answer this question using reason, logic and evidence.

[iOWNme]

No, I do not!
There is no W3 generated by the employer to send to the government (reporting) when no W4 is in effect.
Look on the bottom of the last page on a W4. There it says in lue of the "Privact act and Paperwork Reduction Act" in small print the W4 is required by two statutes. One is 26usc 3402(f)(2) and the other 26usc 6109.



26usc 3402(f)(2) kicks in when you are involved in "employment"...."employment" is defined in the Social Security act and only applies within the purpose of the Act (state welfare). The defined term 3121(b) "employment" has no legal effect outside of participating in Social Security. So if you are working and getting paid without a W4 your earnings are not considered 3121(a) "wages" nor are they considered 3401(a) "wages".
The other statute is 6109 and regulation 26CFR 6109-1(d) specifically state and an individual doesnt have to participate in Social Security if that individual "wishes" not to participate.
So the law on their own forms tells you no one has to participate in Social Security.

Heres a bit of law to think about in regards to Social Security and box 3 on the W2.



Box 3 on the W2 are 3121(a) "wages" earnings for the year.
3121(a) "wages" are only in respect to 3121(b) "employment" (Social Security).....meaning you can only earn 3121(a) "wages" when participating in Social Security. If you earn a living working for someone and not participating in Social Security those earnings are not 3121(a) "wages". Therefore box 3 on the W2 is "-0-".........nothing is reported to the government. And if nothing is reported to the government then the government has nothing to assess or base a tax on.

Heres the employer side of Social Security....26usc 3111



The employer is only imposed that tax and additional taxes when an employee is participating in Social Security.....because 3121(a) "wages" are in RESPECT to 3121(b) "employment" ONLY!

The employer is not required to pay 11% of my gross into Social Security on my behalf either or required to pay other taxes on my behalf...........I'm more profitable to keep around.



Heres the statute with the W2 requirments.



Both 3121(a) and 3401(a) are identicle wages.


So what your saying is "There has to be rules".

LOL

[iOWNme]

Juris? right or wrong I don't know, I only know what I read......I read that because a full members of congress passed the land patent law and ONLY congress can pass such a law (and signed by a president) that NO ONE not even congress or the US Supreme court can cancelled........it is only one of the very few laws in this nation that is above any other law and permanent.

I believe that MARTIAL LAW can cancel it but I am still searching for that one........the US Supreme Court has never gone against a land patent.

V


Dont see the inherent contradiction in looking through the scribbles of 'politicians' in order to see if you can own your land or not? Do you think Right and Wrong exist regardless of what any 'Law' says?

Their 'Law' only exists between your ears.

[iOWNme]

Since they can't be named, or held accountable, then they don't exist.

100% correct. Lysander Spooner pointed this out 150 years ago. He called them 'A secret band of robbers and murderers'.

You are trying to use reason logic and evidence while 7th relies on his belief system because 'Government' is a religion. And you can see how violently he lashes out when anyone says that his God does not exist.

This is what a STATIST does. They hail about liberty and freedom, but once backed into a corner, they start to actually defend the oppressive tyrannical Empire they live under. Which is why i say 7th has Stockholm Syndrome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome).

[iOWNme]

Yeah sure whatever..........if you believe that then you also believe in a tooth fairy as well.
This place is turning into a mental asylum!

You have no idea how many members here have pm'd me privately to tell me that i helped them in their journey to understanding self ownership and the non aggression principle. How many members here have pm'd you for your service here?



Any wonder why the government is arming itself against you people....?
I said it before and I'll say it again....you people are dangerous to just be next to when the shit hits the fan.

All you have is a label for us. It makes you feel superior to be able to put a label on 'those' people and to mark them as 'dangerous'. The only people on planet earth who advocate for the non initiation of violence, self ownership and morality are supposedly the 'dangerous' ones? Dangerous to WHO?

What about the people who advocate for the monopoly on violence of 'Government'? Are they dangerous?

[7th trump]

So what your saying is "There has to be rules".

LOL

No, I'm not saying there has to be rules....thats your current state of mind....I happen to beleive you're in a state of denial and disbeleif......basically fustrated from lack of understanding.
If anything, I'm telling you how to identify the rules and avoid them. The US Constitution does have protections of an over reaching government.....you just dont want to beleive it. You dont beleive it because you dont beleive theres two classes of citizens here in the USofA.
I'm saying the government has implimented some legislation that if you fall within this legislation they have the authority of the US Constitution to extract income taxes from you.......does it have to be written like this?....no but thats how they wrote the New Deal legislation....it was intended to help Americans from a depression while generating revenue all at the same time.
I'm saying learn their rules to avoid the extractions.
So far you and a couple of others on this board beleive I'm a proponent of rules and laws....a statist is what you call me......I'm not that....what I am is someone who has researched the statutes to understand how they are implimented to understand how to avoid them.
Somehow you are stuck that nobody has any authority over anybody else. However you think its wrong as the US Constitution does allow those elected to make law, rules and regulation to better our society.
I'll agree with you that some of these legislative acts arent anything but laws with hidden revenue intentions......but theres not one legislative revenue "ACT" that is mandatory participation.

How many times have you read of a tax-protester going to prison for beleiving in the founding fathers idea of freedom being imposed taxes and wanting to be left alone?
Many!
What I found most significant in my tax law research (16 years) was none of these tax protester guru's ever researched the mechanism of "reporting". Theres nothing out there written about the "who's", "whats", "whens", and "hows" of "reporting".All the tax protester guru's out there focus'ed on how to file a 1040 to get out of paying taxes.....doesnt make sense! None of these guru's ever researched what causes "reporting" or WHO they are reporting to".
In my 16 years of research what I found was if the law requires work activities to be "reported" then its taxable income and it will require a 1040 to be filed....file the 1040 and walk away.
My research has identified what causes earnings to be "reported" to the government.....Social Security is that reason.
In fact, Social Security dictates what earnings the government can deduct and withhold from.
It never dawned on any of the suckers (myself included at one time) using these tax protesters information was focused on FILING a tax return...sounds a bit backwards doesnt it for a tax protester to teach his pupils how to file a tax return?
And every one of the high profile tax protesters are either currently serving time or has served time. Take a look at your buddy Larkin Rose for example....he went to prison over filing tax returns also. His arguement was the 861 arguement (26usc 861) that only "foreign source income" was taxable.
Ok fine and dandy....but what about the W2 Larkin Rose?
The W2 reports 3121(a) "wages" and 3401(a) "wages"....which are not foreign souces of income....they are domestic sources of income...income even from domestic companies doing bussiness over seas kind of income.
Not one of them ever focused on where it counts.....the reporting!

[palani]

you can see how violently he lashes out when anyone says that his God does not exist.


Freedom of religion? 7th_strumpet might have and hold whatever god(s) he likes. He chooses statutes to follow explicitly their law. Why not? It certainly is within his right to choose to worship whoever he likes.

While I disagree with him that statutes need to be followed explicitly I do occasionally find reason within statutes and these reasons may be examined and relied upon. If 7th has a message perhaps it is the intensity by which he believes in his message and how vehemently he attacks people who challenge him. If his method works (as flawed in logic as it may be) he may very well succeed simply based upon his willingness to quickly go on the offensive. This next begs the question ... If you are going to adopt this approach yourself are you going to have to adopt the same methods as he and be as abrasive and offensive as he is in your own defense?

[chad]

question for 7th trump: so you're an electrician. do you belong to an electrician's union?

[Horn]

i've never seen one person EVER post a step-by-step example of how they avoid taxes.

Wouldn't that would be self incriminating, chad?

Its a lifestyle choice that those who have chosen can't be that happy with, satisfied possibly. But definitely not the stuff of Hollywood Superman movies that they would wish, and it probably deserves to be.

[7th trump]

Freedom of religion? 7th_strumpet might have and hold whatever god(s) he likes. He chooses statutes to follow explicitly their law. Why not? It certainly is within his right to choose to worship whoever he likes.

While I disagree with him that statutes need to be followed explicitly I do occasionally find reason within statutes and these reasons may be examined and relied upon. If 7th has a message perhaps it is the intensity by which he believes in his message and how vehemently he attacks people who challenge him. If his method works (as flawed in logic as it may be) he may very well succeed simply based upon his willingness to quickly go on the offensive. This next begs the question ... If you are going to adopt this approach yourself are you going to have to adopt the same methods as he and be as abrasive and offensive as he is in your own defense?

Hey palani....show me one instance where I mention statutes need to be explicitly followed?
If you follow them then your earnings will become bonified 3121(a) "wages" and these "wages" are taxable.
I say the exact opposite...I promote in order for your earnings not to become 3121(a) "wages" you need to learn how they become 3121(a) "wages" (box 3 and box 1 on the W2).

You dont make sense palani.
Riddle me this palani..........why is it my earnings do not constitute 3121(a) "wages", when by your accusations, I explicitly follow Social Security statutes?
Hey Palani what are 3121(a) "wages" if you are all knowledgable in avoiding taxes?

Heres a question for you palani....whats the difference between "lawful money" and 3121(a) "wages"?
Have fun with that one because "lawful money" can be and are 3121(a) "wages".
3121(a) "wages" can be anything in payment as far as the purpose of Social Security is concerned.

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—

It include the cash value of all renumeration in any medium (buckets of manure is a medium if thats what you agree to being renumerated in)........lawful money is no different...its another medium of renumeration for employment.
So

[palani]

why is it my earnings do not constitute 3121(a) "wages", when by your accusations, I explicitly follow Social Security statutes?

I have made no accusations. And I PRESUME you use IRS statutes because you have reported in the past that you do not participate in social security. You worship one statute god and not another. Big deal. Whichever one you obey you are still less than pure.

[Ponce]

Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
i've never seen one person EVER post a step-by-step example of how they avoid taxes.
================================================== =============

Chad? this is the way that a friend of mine did it, he know lives in Brazil, I think.........1= he went to talk to the owner of one of those cashing checks places 2= he gave the guy $10,000 cash as collateral 3= the owner cashed all his checks for 1.5% 4= when my friend decided to retired the owner gave him back his $10,000...............and this are the steps that he took.

He only told me AFTER he retired and he wanted me to do the same thing but I am an HONESTTTTTTTTTT person so that I didn't do it, I haven't heard of him in the past 17 years so that I don't know where he is now.

V

[7th trump]

I have made no accusations. And I PRESUME you use IRS statutes because you have reported in the past that you do not participate in social security. You worship one statute god and not another. Big deal. Whichever one you obey you are still less than pure.

Again palani you make no logical sense what so ever............how on earth can I use IRS statutes if I dont participate in Social Security?

Your replies are nothing but deflections.
What are you scared of?

Your silence, Palani, in answering my other questions is defening.
Do you not answer because you do not know and understand?
If so then why are you even replying as if you do know.....are we to expect more of your famous bullshit replies where you try your damnest in not answeringwith deflective questions ?
I mean come on Mr guru....either you know or you dont and silence is form of saying you have no clue.
My personal opinion about your deflective answers is you dont want to jepardize your creditability of admitting you actually dont know shit about the subject.....thats what your scared of isnt it palani?
And look at Chad giving you all the thank you's......that agreeing to your ignorance of the subject.......the blind leading the blind into a ditch.....pat each other on the back while you both trip into a ditch. What are friends for right palani?

[chad]

Again palani you make no logical sense what so ever............how on earth can I use IRS statutes if I dont participate in Social Security?

Your replies are nothing but deflections.
What are you scared of?

speaking of deflections, do you participate in any type of union as a result of being an electrician?

[palani]

how on earth can I use IRS statutes if I dont participate in Social Security?

Liar. You use IRS statutes all the time. YOU CITE THEM!

[7th trump]

Liar. You use IRS statutes all the time. YOU CITE THEM!

Me citing statutes to teach those how their earnings become 3121(a) "wages" is not me obeying the statutes. I do not earn 3121(a) "wages" therefore I do not follow the IRS statutes.
The IRS statutes say if you earn 3121(a) "wages" you will be imposed multiple income tax impositions. I do not earn 3121(a) "wages" therefore grasshopper how can I logically be following the IRS statutes?

God damn palani, you're leading everyone here into beleiving you're some sort of retard.......logically...this is easy stuff! Why are you confused...if not dazed?
This is third grade logic.....WTF?

[palani]

The IRS statutes say if you earn 3121(a) "wages" you will be imposed multiple income tax impositions. I do not earn 3121(a) "wages" therefore grasshopper how can I logically be following the IRS statutes?
YOU AREN'T PAYING ARE YOU? Your 3121(a) statute says 'if this happens you must pay'. You don't pay therefore are following the statute.

logically...this is easy stuff! Why are you confused
It is what YOU are missing that makes you confused.

We meet at Pikes Peak for a discussion. I casually suggest that you do not jump off a cliff. You take my suggestion (obey my law?) and don't take a leap. If you cannot see this then you have no eyes to see.

[Horn]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bw3tYiAFVfg

[chad]

still waiting for an answer to my question. are you a member of a union as a result of being an electrician?

[7th trump]

speaking of deflections, do you participate in any type of union as a result of being an electrician?

I did reply and for some reason I didnt hit the submit.
Yes I am a union member....IBEW local 145 out of Rock Island Ill.

Why?
It doesnt matter if I am or not a union member. Theres no legal significants to union membership from each and everyones individual choice to participating in Social Security to being a member of AAA or the Boy Scouts of America or the Girl Scouts for that matter......this is an individual Bill of Rights issue.
When I talked with the company I work for we reveiwed the law and it was clear the employer was not on any hook for tax liability and could be sued and loose.....not to mention the employer is wealthier now.
The employer can be sued on Constitutional grounds if they denied me my right not to participate....and I havent had the opportunity to explain the constitutional side of this which is the reason why Social Security is voluntary in the first place.

[7th trump]

YOU AREN'T PAYING ARE YOU? Your 3121(a) statute says 'if this happens you must pay'. You don't pay therefore are following the statute.

It is what YOU are missing that makes you confused.

We meet at Pikes Peak for a discussion. I casually suggest that you do not jump off a cliff. You take my suggestion (obey my law?) and don't take a leap. If you cannot see this then you have no eyes to see.

There you go folks.......read palani's reply.....its a window into his delusions.
Palani........I dont pay Canadian taxes either......does that mean I'm obeying or following canadain tax laws?
Any bets that palani will not answer this question posed him?
Of course I dont obey or follow canadian tax laws............your logic is twisted, confusing and demented....try again!
3121(a) "wages" are in respect to 3121(b) "employment" and these 3121(a) "wages" do not encompass earnings outside of 3121(b) "employment". My earnings are outside of Social Security...... Social Security Act as a whole doesnt apply......therefore I cannot be obeying Social Security statutes in the way you suggest......like I say your lost in the law!

You are the one confused palani..........and you inject lies where confusion has blocked your reasoning.

[chad]

I did reply and for some reason I didnt hit the submit.
Yes I am a union member....IBEW local 145 out of Rock Island Ill.

Why?
It doesnt matter if I am or not a union member. Theres no legal significants to union membership from each and everyones individual choice to participating in Social Security to being a member of AAA or the Boy Scouts of America or the Girl Scouts for that matter......this is an individual Bill of Rights issue.
When I talked with the company I work for we reveiwed the law and it was clear the employer was not on any hook for tax liability and could be sued and loose.....not to mention the employer is wealthier now.
The employer can be sued on Constitutional grounds if they denied me my right not to participate....and I havent had the opportunity to explain the constitutional side of this which is the reason why Social Security is voluntary in the first place.

okay, so we've established that you are a statist rule follower (submitter to dues being deducted from your income and redirected to the union system) when it suits you, but the REST of the time you don't submit to the system. you only submit to it when you have to for work.

i can never take seriously anything you post ever again, as it appears you love the system as long as it works in your favor.

thanks for answering my question, though.

[ximmy]

God damn palani,

Your a blasphemer 7th trump. Pretending to lead others to truth. Bold and arrogant you are, heaping abuse on your fellow persons. A brute beast, good only to be caught and destroyed.

[chad]

yeah, way to curse people using the lord's name mr. quoter of the bible 100 times a week.

[monty]

I stopped paying income taxes in 2007. I retired in 2003 and bought truck. I became self employed. I soon found most of what I was earning was goig to the government in self employment taxes, income tax and medicare taxes. Reading all the tax protesters etc, on the internet I discovered Peter Hendrickson's website. I ordered his book, I read it several times. I looked up the statutes and read the ones that I felt were relevent to my situation. I decided my earings weren't income profits or gains under the relevant tax law. I had formed an LLC in Nevada and had filed a form 1065 for the LLC in 2007 for the tax year 2006. After I decided that my earnings were not from a "trade or business that is a function of a public office" I filed ammended 1040X returns for 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007. I recieved refunds for all but 2004, I was 4 months outside the 3 year window the IRS reulations allow for filing an amended return for the tax year 2004.

When I didn't file a form 1065 for 2007 I recieved one onf the IRS form letters saying I had not filed and they believed i owed them money. I could either file and pay them or they would assess me. Or I could offer an explanation why I didn't owe them money by answering the questions on the form letter and returning it to IRS. One of the check boxes was "I have no employees who receive taxable wages". I checked that box and in the comments section I wrote "XXXX XXXX, LLC has no employees who receive taxable wages. XXXX XXXX, LLC is not engaged in a "Trade of Business" that is a function of a public office.None of the payments received from the payor by the payee can be construed as gains, profits or income under relevant tax law.

Since I haul for highway contractors many of them insist I fill out a form W-9 of they will hold up my pay. I usually give them my EIN for the LLC and let them fill out the form. If they request that I fill out the form I line out the words US Person and subsititute Nevada Person since my LLC was chartered by the state of Nevada. The instructions for a W9 say it is to be signed only by a US Person, US Citizen or resident of the United States, the United States being Washington, DC in the Title 26 Definitions. MY LLC is not a US Citizen or a resident of the United States or a US Person as defined by Title 26. I would be commiting perjury if I signed the W-9 form stating my LLC is a "US Person' when in fact it is not.

Now when I receive a Form 1099 I make a corrected Form 1099 and return it to IRS with a 1096 transmittal form and a statement that I am not engaged in a trade or business that is a funtion of a public office, showing $0.00 taxable income.

[Santa]

Eeeek! "Someone's" going to HELL.... :o

[iOWNme]

I stopped paying income taxes in 2007. I retired in 2003 and bought truck. I became self employed. I soon found most of what I was earning was goig to the government in self employment taxes, income tax and medicare taxes. Reading all the tax protesters etc, on the internet I discovered Peter Hendrickson's website. I ordered his book, I read it several times. I looked up the statutes and read the ones that I felt were relevent to my situation. I decided my earings weren't income profits or gains under the relevant tax law. I had formed an LLC in Nevada and had filed a form 1065 for the LLC in 2007 for the tax year 2006. After I decided that my earnings were not from a "trade or business that is a function of a public office" I filed ammended 1040X returns for 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007. I recieved refunds for all but 2004, I was 4 months outside the 3 year window the IRS reulations allow for filing an amended return for the tax year 2004.

When I didn't file a form 1065 for 2007 I recieved one onf the IRS form letters saying I had not filed and they believed i owed them money. I could either file and pay them or they would assess me. Or I could offer an explanation why I didn't owe them money by answering the questions on the form letter and returning it to IRS. One of the check boxes was "I have no employees who receive taxable wages". I checked that box and in the comments section I wrote "XXXX XXXX, LLC has no employees who receive taxable wages. XXXX XXXX, LLC is not engaged in a "Trade of Business" that is a function of a public office.None of the payments received from the payor by the payee can be construed as gains, profits or income under relevant tax law.

Since I haul for highway contractors many of them insist I fill out a form W-9 of they will hold up my pay. I usually give them my EIN for the LLC and let them fill out the form. If they request that I fill out the form I line out the words US Person and subsititute Nevada Person since my LLC was chartered by the state of Nevada. The instructions for a W9 say it is to be signed only by a US Person, US Citizen or resident of the United States, the United States being Washington, DC in the Title 26 Definitions. MY LLC is not a US Citizen or a resident of the United States or a US Person as defined by Title 26. I would be commiting perjury if I signed the W-9 form stating my LLC is a "US Person' when in fact it is not.

Now when I receive a Form 1099 I make a corrected Form 1099 and return it to IRS with a 1096 transmittal form and a statement that I am not engaged in a trade or business that is a funtion of a public office, showing $0.00 taxable income.


I have decided you owe me money. You can either pay me or you can look through all of my 'rules' and see if I may allow you can keep your money for yourself. Dont worry, i used psuedo-religious ceremonies to make my 'rules' legitimate, and i used 'magic ink' on my parchment to not only make it look official, but to actually alter human morality. My rules are 60,000 pages long, and if I decide you read them wrong or interpreted them wrong I have an army of mindless robot enforcers who will come extract your wealth by FORCE.

I expect to see the money you owe me by next week. If i dont see the money, Im going to call my robots!




What? You dont think you owe me money? And your not even going to look at my 'rules'? Why not?





Can you see how utterly INSANE it is for you to look through the scribbles of 'politicians' in order to see if you can keep what you earn? If you wouldnt go along with me in my scenario, why do you go along with 'Government'? Didnt I elect them to represent me? How can you say you will not obey me, but you will obey them, when i am the one who elected them?


The entire belief in 'Government' is a contradiction soup of dry water and square chicken eggs.

[Horn]

I stopped paying income taxes in 2007

Thanks Monty,

Gold and Silver to me were always considered a corporate disposable expenditure.

Actually they are a required form of eating in my religion too. A small thin film is painted on the naked soles of my feet every morning so I can do business gracefully. :)

[mick silver]

what rules . every thing i do is a lose no gain

[Horn]

what rules . every thing i do is a lose no gain

mickcoins are being reviewed currently for capital gains.

Better not use them too much.

[palani]

I dont pay Canadian taxes either......does that mean I'm obeying or following canadain tax laws? Have they sent you an invitation to pay their taxes?




3121(a) "wages" are in respect to 3121(b) "employment" and these 3121(a) "wages" do not encompass earnings outside of 3121(b) "employment". My earnings are outside of Social Security...... Social Security Act as a whole doesnt apply......therefore I cannot be obeying Social Security statutes in the way you suggest......like I say your lost in the law! When you touch shit do you have the notion you can come away without smelling?


you inject lies where confusion has blocked your reasoning.
My suggestion that you not jump off a cliff was in the form of a contract OFFER. By silently accepting my OFFER and NOT jumping you engaged me in a CONTRACT. What you SHOULD have done was countered such as 'WOULD IT BE OK IF I JUST ADMIRED THE VIEW FROM HERE?'

Your behavior is how you are judged. Your behavior really sucks. Stay away from statutes unless you want to be ruled by them. Learn how to recognize an offer and how to cancel that offer.

'Are you AWOL from Ft Eustis?' The fact that you are not in the Army has no bearing on the question. If you are NOT AWOL from Ft Eustis you will have a paper showing you are on leave or on detached duty or such like. Your response to the question should be 'Do I need to have leave papers if I am not in the Army?' See how that works? If you had made a statement 'I am a civilian' then it is off to trial for you and you will lose. The facts are entirely on the moon. It is the behavior that is judged ... the person ... the action.... the word ... the representation.

[Bigjon]

We don't need no stinkin gov.

http://signalinea.com/tales-from-my-ukrainian-maid/

Most Westerners have no real conceptual understanding of what is happening in Ukraine beyond the Pro-EU, Pro-Russia surface story.

At the highest level this is just about pipelines, fracking and Gazprom ensuring thier monopoly on the european gas market. And these things are just pieces of an overall strategy on the part of the West (what i call the banking cartel countries) to encircle Russia with an eventual Empire vs Empire struggle in mind.

But here’s what it’s about for the people of Ukraine.

Say you own a business in Ukraine.. It can be a donut shop, factory, whatever..

One day a few guys come and tell you that it’s probably a good idea to sell it to them for $10,000. You protest and say that not only are you not interested in selling the business but that it’s worth 100x more and being that your family built it up over the past 50 years you would never think of selling it. The guys tell you they are from The Family ( the Viktor Yanukovych crime family). You now understand the severity of your situation and you go to the police to ask for help. At the police station the police see that you are in a bad spot and seize the opportunity to relieve you of any valuables you may have with you. They take your car and cash and throw you in jail until you can come up with $1000. The next day 10 guys come in to your place of business, break your arms and legs and insist you sign the sales contract now to avoid them further hassle in obtaining your profitable business. This time the contract states that you will sell the business for $1. You sign. The police and entire judicial system are owned by the Yanukovych family so really that’s the end of the story.

The tactic above is how one extended family in just a few years has seized most of the assets in this country of 145 million people.

Viktor Yanukovych has gone from pot bellied petty ex-con who couldn’t stay out of prison for more than a few years at a time to a respectable coiffed haired head of state maintaining some of the largest private residences in the world and currently constructing another pleasure palace that would even make Ceaușescu envious. The rest of the peices you can figure out for yourself. His son, the “dentist” lives in a $100,000,000 mansion and the rest of the 500 or so extended family members are living just as well. Not to mention the asset holders who are allowed to live the lavish life of a billionaire if they front the family’s stolen factories, mines, media empires. In Ukraine you can go from obscurity to billionaire practically overnight.

See the case of this 27 year old who has somehow acquired many billion dollar mining companies and media empires in a 4 year time span. The guy must be pretty smart eh..

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...gated-him.html

What got me writing this article was a conversation i had with my Ukrainian maid and my general shock at her acceptance of the way things work there. She told me two quick stories just in passing that she had seen just in the past 2 years in her town.

Her neighbor’s son on his 18th birthday leaves the house and goes to the police station to get his license and in his pocket is the $100 bribe that is expected to be paid to get this done. He never returns home. A few months later his family learns that being his birthday the police suspected he had more money on him than the $100. So he was beaten to extract the rest. They beat a little too hard so the boy died. No body was found and the police involved in the beating are known to have committed this crime..and it’s not a big deal. There is no recourse for the victims family..that’s just the way it goes sometimes.

Another story..

The Yanukovych clan comes to her town which has an economy that is largely based upon the output and jobs of a certain factory. They are interested in acquring this factory and all it’s assets. The group that owns the factory and distribution network isnt interested in selling. A week later the owners and members of thier families have thier arms and legs broken, some barely surviving. The companies are sold for almost nothing (some saying no money actually changed hands at all) soon after. Guys from Donetsk are all brought in to fill the managerial positions and soon after only the lowest level jobs are filled by locals. Wages are then reduced to a point where many employees just stop going to work. Quality of the end products and consistency then suffered so much that the commercial clients bought elsewhere. This volume was then replaced by government contracts and this is what the factory subsists on today.

This is why you can see shirtless men walking into police bullet fire today in central Kiev. And why Yanukovych is now calling in the military to deal with them.

With the Olympics commencing Putin will not chance backing up Yanukovych. If the Ukrainians want to give this guy the boot then it needs to be now.

http://signalinea.com/tales-from-my-ukrainian-maid/

[7th trump]

Have they sent you an invitation to pay their taxes?



When you touch shit do you have the notion you can come away without smelling?


My suggestion that you not jump off a cliff was in the form of a contract OFFER. By silently accepting my OFFER and NOT jumping you engaged me in a CONTRACT. What you SHOULD have done was countered such as 'WOULD IT BE OK IF I JUST ADMIRED THE VIEW FROM HERE?'

Your behavior is how you are judged. Your behavior really sucks. Stay away from statutes unless you want to be ruled by them. Learn how to recognize an offer and how to cancel that offer.

'Are you AWOL from Ft Eustis?' The fact that you are not in the Army has no bearing on the question. If you are NOT AWOL from Ft Eustis you will have a paper showing you are on leave or on detached duty or such like. Your response to the question should be 'Do I need to have leave papers if I am not in the Army?' See how that works? If you had made a statement 'I am a civilian' then it is off to trial for you and you will lose. The facts are entirely on the moon. It is the behavior that is judged ... the person ... the action.... the word ... the representation.
palani....you giving me a suggestion to not jumping off the cliff is just that a "suggestion", not some cocky pock idea you believe its a contract.
Have you ever looked up the definition to "contract"?
Both parties have to be in know.....you walking up to anyone and saying don't jump off the cliff is not any "knowingly entering a contract"....its just common talk.
Hahahahaha....theres not one case of your silly idea that merely giving a suggestion" (your words) is a contract.....what the fuck are you smoking palani?
And no palani.......a simple "I'm not enlisted in the army" is a sufficient enough answer. Its obvious you cant decipher the subject from the object here....I notice the punch line of your silly attempt is "not in the Army"!
Why you dress up your silly notions to try and pass them off as sophisticated legal bullshit is beyond me?

Yep I couldn't agree more palani........the action of earning 3121(a) "wages" is a behavior that you are indeed participating in Social Security.
3121(a) "wages" are in respect to 3121(b) "employment".............is enough said ...and you cant get around that fact.
You're wrong again as usual.

[7th trump]

I stopped paying income taxes in 2007. I retired in 2003 and bought truck. I became self employed. I soon found most of what I was earning was goig to the government in self employment taxes, income tax and medicare taxes. Reading all the tax protesters etc, on the internet I discovered Peter Hendrickson's website. I ordered his book, I read it several times. I looked up the statutes and read the ones that I felt were relevent to my situation. I decided my earings weren't income profits or gains under the relevant tax law. I had formed an LLC in Nevada and had filed a form 1065 for the LLC in 2007 for the tax year 2006. After I decided that my earnings were not from a "trade or business that is a function of a public office" I filed ammended 1040X returns for 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007. I recieved refunds for all but 2004, I was 4 months outside the 3 year window the IRS reulations allow for filing an amended return for the tax year 2004.

When I didn't file a form 1065 for 2007 I recieved one onf the IRS form letters saying I had not filed and they believed i owed them money. I could either file and pay them or they would assess me. Or I could offer an explanation why I didn't owe them money by answering the questions on the form letter and returning it to IRS. One of the check boxes was "I have no employees who receive taxable wages". I checked that box and in the comments section I wrote "XXXX XXXX, LLC has no employees who receive taxable wages. XXXX XXXX, LLC is not engaged in a "Trade of Business" that is a function of a public office.None of the payments received from the payor by the payee can be construed as gains, profits or income under relevant tax law.

Since I haul for highway contractors many of them insist I fill out a form W-9 of they will hold up my pay. I usually give them my EIN for the LLC and let them fill out the form. If they request that I fill out the form I line out the words US Person and subsititute Nevada Person since my LLC was chartered by the state of Nevada. The instructions for a W9 say it is to be signed only by a US Person, US Citizen or resident of the United States, the United States being Washington, DC in the Title 26 Definitions. MY LLC is not a US Citizen or a resident of the United States or a US Person as defined by Title 26. I would be commiting perjury if I signed the W-9 form stating my LLC is a "US Person' when in fact it is not.

Now when I receive a Form 1099 I make a corrected Form 1099 and return it to IRS with a 1096 transmittal form and a statement that I am not engaged in a trade or business that is a funtion of a public office, showing $0.00 taxable income.
Yep been down that CtC road myself......you must be one of the lucky few who didn't post your refund check on Petes website?
If you did the IRS would be crawling all over you by now......everyone of those suckers who posted their refunds on Petes site have all been sent letters for the money back. Some are financially ruined because Pete (their hero) wouldn't take down the refund checks after being asked and the IRS got all the names and amounts and matched them up in the system and have filed SFR's on them. They all came tumbling down one by one as the horror stories came in....all pete did was ban these poor souls from his website and wouldn't offer any help to them....now Pete is despised for throwing his people under the bus.
One guy got over 50,000.00 in penalties not including the interest starting from day 1....plus has to pay the initial refund back.

I noticed you didn't inform the readers here that Pete himself went to prison over this scam....why not?
This isn't the first time Pete went to prison either.....his first time was for a mail bomb where he snitched out his accomplice for a lesser sentence.

[Ponce]

Only when you live by your own rules can you call yourself "FREE"...........good rules are the ones used to be organized and not to mandated. The same as the church, you don't need a "preacher" to tell you when you have done wrong, you yourself should know.

V

[Neuro]

Wow you're not very bright are you?

Do you suppose the police issue speeding tickets for driving 55mph?
Sounds pretty stupid doesn't it?
Yes, it does sound pretty damn stupid for a cop to issue a speeding ticket for not speeding.
The tickets wouldn't stand in court either.....judge would throw them out and call the officer over for a little chit chat ass chewing.

So why then are you saying I'm going to jail for not filing a 1040 when the requirement to file a 1040 doesn't exist?
I ask because its no different than my scenario of a cop issuing speeding tickets for not speeding.

You gotta have 600.00 or more in boxes 1 and 3 on the W2 to be required to file a 1040.
I don't get a W2 because I don't even earn 600.00 or more of 3121(a) "wages" or 3401(a) "wages".....I fact, I earn "-0-" 3121(a) "wages" and "-0-" 3401(a) "wages"...but I made well over 70,000.00.....get it?
Or are you that blatantly stupid for allowing yourself to get that pathetically brainwashed?
You're a sheeple and you don't even know it ...or you're just that much of a coward to not learn how to defend yourself from what you call being robbed every pay period?
I'm not lying either way about you.....am I?
You're either a coward, or ignorant by choice (defined as "stupid").
Heck Chad...I did all the hard work for you and you still refuse to defend yourself..........that's a coward if I ever seen one.


stu·pid [stoo-pid, styoo‐] adjective, stu·pid·er, stu·pid·est.


1. lacking ordinary quickness and keenness of mind; dull.
2. characterized by or proceeding from mental dullness; foolish; senseless: a stupid question.
3. tediously dull, especially due to lack of meaning or sense; inane; pointless: a stupid party.
4. annoying or irritating; troublesome: Turn off that stupid radio.
5. in a state of stupor; stupefied: stupid from fatigue.

Mental senseless sounds about right.

Take your pick of what you want to be identified as Chad......or just keep ignoring me....either way I don't care.
7th Trump is banned for one day, for making repeated blatant personal insults in this thread, he was warned and offered a way of remedy his actions. He choose not to. Certainly others in the thread have been insulting as well, but none as blatant as 7th Trump, and I did warn someone else too... Spend your day wisely 7th Trump, remember I can conjure bans from thin air in endless amounts, but it is an instrument I would rather not use, that's why I banned the worst offender here (IMHO of course). But others who may have engaged in personal insults consider this a warning. :)

[palani]

Have you ever looked up the definition to "contract"?
Both parties have to be in know Under Law your statement is correct. We are not under Law though and contracts under the 'new' system were restated on or around 1938.



.a simple "I'm not enlisted in the army" is a sufficient enough answer.
That response does not address the question though. You were not asked if you were in the Army. In the example you were specifically asked if you were AWOL from Ft Eustis. Your answer is not responsive and would be thrown out.

[iOWNme]

Im going to keep this thread on topic.

I would like to hear from anyone who thinks that without 'Laws' man would be a violent and immoral animal.

Anyone?

[Neuro]

Im going to keep this thread on topic.

I would like to hear from anyone who thinks that without 'Laws' man would be a violent and immoral animal.

Anyone?
I think the number of people being violent and immoral, would be fairly constant, the difference would be that they wouldn't be world leaders... However the main problem is that the majority doesn't have any problem turning these psychopaths into leaders, they prefer strong leaders and they believe their lies that others than themselves are their enemy. Certainly we would be better off not having them administer "Law" to us.

[chad]

Im going to keep this thread on topic.

I would like to hear from anyone who thinks that without 'Laws' man would be a violent and immoral animal.

Anyone?

the only law we need is to have violent people who would do violence to others removed from the herd. and even then, we probably don't need a law for it- the ordinary people could handle that one on their own.

[Bigjon]

Well I think 7trump explained why we pay income taxes in plain (enough for me) english.

Listen to George Gordon, who will make it perfectly clear.
http://www.georgegordon.org/audio/radio/mp3/0114a-32.mp3

http://www.georgegordon.org/audio/radio/bigpage.html

[Horn]

Everyone has different interpretations of what is immoral, a mistaken act of running a red light could be considered violent.

Who's to know if it isn't just a repetitive motion to win the race against other members of the herd?

Laws are written, the problem is they don't stop writing them once starting.

[monty]

Yep been down that CtC road myself....

I noticed you didn't inform the readers here that Pete himself went to prison over this scam....why not?
This isn't the first time Pete went to prison either.....his first time was for a mail bomb where he snitched out his accomplice for a lesser sentence.

All this information is posted on his website. The IRS is trying to imprison his wife as well.

I think most of the readers here know Pete Hebdrickson went to prison. I did not post my refund checks on his website. Did you read his trial transcript? Do you believe he got a fair trial? I don't. I am not defending Pete hendrickson advocating anyone follow Pete Hendrickson's method, By you not signing a W-4 and participating in Social Security and me not signing a W-9, I fail to see the difference between my method and your method. I have a business you work for a contractor, otherwise there is no difference. I do continue to receive my Social Security pension. What I gotout of Peter Hendrickson's book is exactly what you continue to preach . . . . If you volunteer to participate in the Social Security Sytem you have volunteered to pay income tax . . . .

[monty]

the only law we need is to have violent people who would do violence to others removed from the herd. and even then, we probably don't need a law for it- the ordinary people could handle that one on their own.

I agree with your assesment here. I believe a great deal of violence comes from poverty which triggers the survival instinct and results ins stealing and killing for food and creature comforts.

[Ponce]

Two days ago I received a document from the forest service that I was supposed to sign stating that my property was in no danger of catching fire.....I sent it back saying "I have a PRIVATE PROPERTY because I have a LAND PATENT, to sign this document is to give you the right to oversea my PRIVATE PROPERTY and I will not do so"...let see what they will do because I know that I am right, according to the superior law of LAND PATENT........once you cooperate with them you then become part of them.

V

[Jewboo]

I believe a great deal of violence comes from poverty which triggers the survival instinct and results in stealing and killing for food and creature comforts.




http://michellepictures.com/files/2009/11/President-Barack-Obama-Speaker-Nancy-Pelosi-General-Colin-Powell-Gursharan-Kaur-India-State-Dinner.jpg






:) these folks politely pass the food around and freely share

[7th trump]

All this information is posted on his website. The IRS is trying to imprison his wife as well.

I think most of the readers here know Pete Hebdrickson went to prison. I did not post my refund checks on his website. Did you read his trial transcript? Do you believe he got a fair trial? I don't. I am not defending Pete hendrickson advocating anyone follow Pete Hendrickson's method, By you not signing a W-4 and participating in Social Security and me not signing a W-9, I fail to see the difference between my method and your method. I have a business you work for a contractor, otherwise there is no difference. I do continue to receive my Social Security pension. What I gotout of Peter Hendrickson's book is exactly what you continue to preach . . . . If you volunteer to participate in the Social Security Sytem you have volunteered to pay income tax . . . .

Yes Monty, I do beleive Pete got a fair trial. Mr. Hendrickson's "government employee" premise is wrong (actually its half correct.....or "backwards" for a lack of a better word).
What I'm not happy about is the governments lack thereof in explaining why Pete was wrong. In the end the DoJ simply pulled out the signed W4 convincing the jury he earned 3401(a) "wages" without ever addressing Petes theory to settle any doubts for Mr. Hendrickson or everyone else.
If anything, the way the government handled the case they left more doubt in its authority to impose taxes fueling Mr. Hendrickson as a bullied victim of an over stepping government.
If theres anyone on this forum, you Monty, should know Mr. Hendrickson's theory from reading his book "Cracking the Code" solely rests on just one term..........26usc 7701 "includes".
Being the brutally honest person that I am I can only follow Pete's "includes" interpretation up to a certain point. That point is where Pete attempts to rewrite the revised 1939 3401(a) "wage" definition to mirroring the original 1862 Act that only government employees are imposed "wage" taxes.
A lot has changed since 1862 and changes (revisions) were made to the Revenue Code to reflect new revenue legislation enacted down through the years. Today the 26usc 3401(a) "wage" definition encompasses not just government employees earnings (as it was in the 1862 act) but also private sector earnings...specifically 26usc 3121(a)"wages" beginning with the 1939 code.
Mr. Hendrickson despite any and all revisions made to the Revenue code over several decades beleives that 26usc 7701 "employee" term remains the same as it did in the 1862 Act, which in fact, specifically targeted government employee's leaving out private sector employee's.....then...........but it all changed since the enactment of Social Security in 1935 and incorporated into the revised 1939 revenue code as chapter 21.

If you dont beleive me that Social Security is not incorporated into 26usc 3401(a) "wages" you need to look at 3401(a) "wages" to see that it is.


3401
(a) Wages
For purposes of this chapter, the term “wages” means all remuneration (other than fees paid to a public official) for services performed by an employee for his employer, including the cash value of all remuneration (including benefits) paid in any medium other than cash; except that such term shall not include remuneration paid—
(1) for active service performed in a month for which such employee is entitled to the benefits of section 112 (relating to certain combat zone compensation of members of the Armed Forces of the United States) to the extent remuneration for such service is excludable from gross income under such section; or
(2) for agricultural labor (as defined in section 3121 (g)) unless the remuneration paid for such labor is wages (as defined in section 3121 (a));

What 3401(a)(2) is saying is labor thats defined as 3121(g) (social security) its not deemed 3401(a) "wages" to be imposed the income tax unless the worker doing this 3121(g) labor decides to turn 3121(g) labor into 3121(a) "wages" (participating in Social Security) which will then be 3401(a) "wages" to be imposed the federal income tax.

Social Security is dictating what are, and are not, 26usc 3401(a) "wages"." Mr. Hendrickson has it backwards....social security is not just another added tax as a result of earning 3401(a) "wages" from being mislabeled a government employee!
3401(a) "wages" are a result of participating in Social Security and earning 3121(a) "wages".