RSS

Court Orders Defendant to Commit Perjury?

13 Jun

CrackingCode1First published in A.D. 2003, Cracking The Code is one of, perhaps the, premier book on how to avoid paying income taxes to the IRS.  Peter Eric Hendrickson is the book’s author.  His wife is Doreen Hendrickson.  He seems strong.  She does not.

I can imagine that, in court, Mr. Hendrickson would be a formidable opponent but Mrs. Hendrickson might be less focused, less confident, and more easily convicted of an offense.

According to Pete Hendrickson, tens of thousands of people have successfully used the strategy presented in his book to stop paying income taxes.  The IRS has not been pleased.  So far as I know, the IRS has never expressed its displeasure by charging Mr. Hendrickson with willful failure to file, tax evasion, etc.  However, the IRS has successfully prosecuted Mrs. Hendrickson for income tax evasion and caused her to be sentenced to 18 months in prison.

I don’t know what the IRS’s motivation was to prosecute Mrs. Hendrickson, but judging from the following video, her prosecution may have been, at least in part, retaliation against her husband for publishing Cracking the Code.

However, the following video is conspicuously silent concerning the details of the IRS’s grounds for charging and convicting Mrs. Hendrickson.  That silence suggests that Mrs. Hendrickson made a serious mistake that gave the IRS legitimate grounds to file charges and pursue conviction.

Instead of alleging some fault in the IRS’s grounds to prosecute Mrs. Hendrickson, the video focuses on a significant fault in the procedure used by the IRS and the trial court judge.  According to Solutions Institute,

 

 

“Doreen and Pete have been using this [Cracking The Code] method to avoid paying income tax since the release of Pete’s book, and it’s put them at odds with the IRS.  In the recent case, Doreen was given a new set of returns filled out by the federal government and ordered to sign them as being her own testimony. Because they were not her own words, she refused, and has now been sentenced to prison.”

.

Mrs. Hendrickson complains that she could not, in good conscience, sign an income tax return under penalties of perjury if she didn’t believe the words on the document to be true.  She therefore argues that her prosecution violates her right to free speech and the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

According to the Solutions Institute,

 

“Whether or not this method of avoiding taxation is valid, the case highlights a fundamental issue of free speech in today’s America. While the First Amendment supposedly validates one’s right to say, or not say, what they want, this case draws that principle into question. Doreen was not charged with tax evasion or falsifying returns; she was only charged with contempt of court for refusing to sign a document swearing something she doesn’t believe to be true.”

 

If the Hendricksons’ allegations are true and the IRS and the judge are trying to force Mrs. Hendrickson to sign an income tax return that she didn’t personally author and prepare, then the IRS and the courts have sunk to a new low in fascism.  They are essentially trying to force the defendant to sign a confession of guilt and testify against herself.

But, it’s my understanding that forcing someone to testify under penalty of perjury to facts that the affiant does not believe to be true constitutes “subornation of perjury”–a felony under 18 USC 1622 that can earn the perpetrator fines and up to five years in the slammer.

If so, why haven’t the Hendricksons charged the IRS and/or the trial court judge with subornation of perjury?

More, while the video alleges that Mrs. Hendrickson has been jailed for “contempt of court” rather than some violation of income tax laws, I doubt that this case started under the pretext of “contempt of court”.  The IRS had to allege some other ground (violation of income tax laws) to drag Mrs. Hendrickson into court in the first place where she might be subsequently charged with “contempt of court”.

The video implies that the IRS had no legitimate cause to charge Mrs. Hendrickson in the first place–but it never expressly says so.

Something’s wrong here.

By accident or intent, the video fails to provide details as to why Mrs. Hendrickson was prosecuted in the first place–and why Mr. Hendrickson has not, so far, been prosecuted.  These details are important because the Hendricksons have allegedly relied on the Cracking the Code strategy to avoid paying income taxes for most of 13 years.

It’s possible that the IRS prosecution of Mrs. Hendrickson is purely retaliatory.  We need to see the details of the case to expose and confirm that retaliation.

It’s possible that the Hendricksons agreed to structure their financial affairs so that Mr. Hendrickson wrote the book and hosted seminars, while Mrs. Hendrickson received the income from the book and assumed personal liability for whatever taxes might be imposed on the book’s earnings.  Those who’ve relied on Cracking the Code to avoid paying income taxes need to see the details of the case in order to avoid structuring their finances in a similarly defective manner.

It’s also possible that, after ten years of studying Cracking the Code, the IRS found a “crack” in that strategy and used that “crack” to prosecute Mrs. Hendrickson.  If the IRS found a fatal flaw in Cracking The Code, those who’ve relied on that strategy need to see the details of the IRS charges against Mrs. Hendrickson in order to avoid making that same mistake, themselves.

The following video makes an effective, emotional appeal on Mrs. Hendrickson’s behalf.  We feel sympathy for her and her predicament.

But this is no game.  Sympathy’s not enough.  People who resist the IRS can wind up in the slammer.

It’s like being on a bomb disposal squad.  The first bomb-squad member to try to defuse a bomb reports his every step by radio so, if he cuts the blue wire and the bomb explodes, the next guy who tries to defuse the next bomb of the same sort will know, whatever you do, don’t cut the blue wire!   If he cuts the red wire, and the bomb explodes, the next guy on the next bomb will know that he must not cut either the blue or red wires.  Look for the green wire.  Through this process of attrition and sacrifice, we hopefully learn how to effectively defuse bombs without getting blown up.

Similarly, in order to defeat the IRS, those who are actually drawn into a courtroom confrontation with the IRS need to report every detail so the rest of us can learn how to better defuse that particular kind of “bomb”.  The following video doesn’t provide enough details to really inform us of much besides the fact that the IRS is a “bomb” that can explode.  Well, we already knew that.

I want the details of why the IRS charged Mrs. Hendrickson in the first place–and why they didn’t charge her husband.

I want the details of how Mrs. Hendrickson wound up in court.  I’ve said for years that if your case is going to court, you’ve already screwed up and lost.  When the plaintiff or prosecutor is the government, modern courtroom battles aren’t trials so much as sentencing hearings.  Generally, the only questions to be decided are How much will you be fined? and How long will you be imprisoned?   I’ve also said that if you’re going to stop prosecution by government agencies like the IRS, you have to stop them long before you ever get to court.  I want to know the details of how and why Mrs. Hendrickson failed to stop the IRS before arriving in court.

It may well be that all of the details that I’d like to see are available on some other website that I haven’t yet discovered.  My only comment is that those details are, by accident or intent, not provided in the following 13-minute video.

If I had to guess–and I’m only guessing–Mrs. Hendrickson failed to respond to the first IRS notice(s) with questions.  I strongly suspect that by failing to ask insightful questions in response to initial IRS notices, she may have allowed the courts to proceed against her under procedural due process (see, Notes and Notes#2).

If I had to guess–and I’m only guessing–Mrs Hendrickson failed to identify herself as one of the “people” of her State of the Union and thereby lay the foundation for claiming her right to be free from administrative process under administrative law.

I haven’t read Cracking the Code.  I’ve heard only praise for that book and its strategy.   It may well be that Pete Hendrickson’s book and his wife’s legal strategies are light years ahead of any of my own “guesses” concerning questions, citizenship and administrative law.

My only comment and criticism in this matter is that, while the following video inspires our sympathy for Mrs. Hendrickson and may even motivate us to support her, it does not provide enough details to help us.  It doesn’t tell the “bomb disposal squad” who are trying to defuse the IRS “bomb” whether they should cut the blue wire or the red one.

I don’t doubt that there’s an enormous amount to be learned from the charges, answers, paperwork, transcripts and over-all “details” of Mrs. Hendrickson’s case, defense and conviction.

The following video is good but incomplete.  It’s worth your time.  But, most of the details that I’d like to see are missing:

video    00:12:51

 
177 Comments

Posted by on June 13, 2015 in Administrative Law, Income Tax, IRS, Notice

 

Tags: , , ,

177 responses to “Court Orders Defendant to Commit Perjury?

  1. BMan

    June 13, 2015 at 7:09 AM

    http://losthorizons.com/Newsletter/DoreenAssault/RegardingTheAssaultOnDoreen.htm#AllThatMattersNow

    You can follow the entire series of accusations, then recants from IRS officers. It takes some time to delve through all the links, but it does corroborate the Hendricksons’ assertions.

    Yes, initially, there was a request for them to return refunds, but the following testimony proves the officer lied.

    http://www.losthorizons.com/Newsletter/CriminalAssault/MadeInErrorNonsense.pdf

     
    • Adask

      June 13, 2015 at 8:25 AM

      Those links don’t work for me. Comodo Security claims that both links are to websites that are infected with malware.

      I don’t know if the websites are really infected, or if Comodo is lying to keep me off of those websites.

       
      • steve

        February 25, 2016 at 10:47 AM

        They did prosecute him. Pete did 2 1/2 years

         
  2. Phil Cali

    June 13, 2015 at 8:27 AM

    Al,

    Pete was convicted and served 2 years in prison. I believe he got out of prison about 2 years ago. Then they went after Doreen.

     
    • Adask

      June 13, 2015 at 10:12 AM

      Thanks. That helps me understand this a little more clearly.

       
    • Henry

      June 13, 2015 at 3:44 PM

      That’s the second time he went to prison.

      The first time Peter Hendrickson went to prison was in the early 1990s, after pleading guilty to one count of willful failure to file an income tax return and one count of conspiracy to place an incendiary device in the United States mail. (This incendiary device, a firebomb made with chemicals his future wife Doreen admitted stealing from the school where she worked, blew up and injured two people.) Pete only did 21 months in the slammer then, because he turned state’s evidence against his fellow bombers.

       
      • Toland

        June 13, 2015 at 5:23 PM

        This incendiary device… blew up and injured two people.

        Apparently someone cut the red wire when they should have cut the green wire.

        Although this first criminal conviction of Pete Hendrickson – for “failure to file” and posting a mail bomb – happened before the internet got big (1992), everyone active in the “tax resister”, “legal theory” and similar communities probably heard about it at the time. Maybe someone who fits this description will chime-in with extra details from their personal recollection.

         
      • Allen Curtis

        June 20, 2015 at 7:54 AM

        Henry,
        You say to Colin, > “Colin, now that you have mentioned your Harvard attendance for the record, it’s there for keeps to be twisted and misapplied as the need arises …………………………….”
        BY WHO Henry? Colin also has his QUATLOOS blog friends too ya know. It’s that Birds of a Feather kinda like minded thing.

         
      • Ira Misteree

        June 23, 2015 at 2:33 AM

        Henry,
        @ Do these definitions describe a constitution? Yep, as we’d expect since a constitution is the “organic and fundamental law of a nation”.
        But, for what purpose? For WHO? Which Constitution? Which United States?

         
    • Ira Misteree

      June 23, 2015 at 11:08 PM

      Phil Cali,
      @ You ignorant slut.
      That remark is uncalled for !! IF FOR NO OTHER REASON, people should pay attention to what Colin SAYS BECAUSE this is WHAT YOU WILL FACE IN THAT REAL OUTSIDE WORLD LIKE IT OR NOT. ALSO, I suggest that if ANYONE IS ALONE & YOU DO NOT HAVE ANY BACKING, DON’T ROCK THE BOAT. IF YOU DO YOU WILL BE A MARKED MAN, & YOU WILL BE HOUNDED AND ARRESTED & JAILED FOR ANY TRUMPED UP CHARGE THEY WANT TO COME UP WITH. THOSE PEOPLE ARE RUTHLESS !! IT’S AN UNBELIEVABLE NIGHTMARE WHAT YOU WILL GO THROUGH !! It’s best to find out what to do, & not to do, to protect yourself.
      BUT!! I don’t see how anybody can do anything that helps IF you are alone & “THEY” KNOW IT.

       
      • Phil Cali

        June 24, 2015 at 5:43 PM

        Ira Misteree,

        Thank you for your well-guided words. I have ALREADY (twice) had 10’s of K’s of $ stolen from me by the lawbreakers er… makers. I’m NOT advocating arguing what I have posted IF I have submitted a W-4 Form. I learned this the hard way. If I work under a 1099 arrangement and do not have any withholding then all bets are off. Consider the regulations I have posted. They are pretty clear as to WHAT sources and WHOM is liable to those sources for “income” tax.

        The problem arises when you volunteer yourself to those Subtitle C tax terms (W-4) that in my opinion supersede even Subtitle A criteria (‘Gross Income’ = non-resident alien or American citizen working for foreign-based corp or partnership) because you are now saying that “wages” (now a LEGAL term, not just common-world meaning) is your pay for labor based on some ‘privilege’ you are receiving in addition to SS/Medicare which comes from Employment taxation (Subtitle C). What that ‘privilege’ is, is irrelevant. You volunteered to be a GovCo ‘supporter’ at that point. So now “wages” is construed as ‘compensation for services’ of which some ‘benefit’ is to be bestowed by GovCo on you of which is basically NO benefit above the SS/Medicare that is part of Subtitle C.

        “Wages” is not taxed as “income” under Subtitle C (Employment tax) but IS under Subtitle A (“income” tax). And it’s only thru Subtitle C withholding of the “wages” that magically becomes “income” under Subtitle A. It’s a brilliant but devious and coercive effort by GovCo putting the pressure on the private companies to make you sign the W-4 Form. Companies are basically forced to withhold your income portion relative to Subtitle A ONLY because of the tax terms that instantly apply (“wages” “employee”, “employer”, “employment”) once you sign the W-4 Form. Those terms are really for SS/Medicare (Subtitle C) but they built the Subtitle A (income tax) withholding into Subtitle C so they could nail you right there without much recourse after the fact. It’s insidious.

        Finally for all who saw where the ‘C’ word guy mentions that I aped some stuff (not much) from Larken Rose, well the truth is that I read and discovered the Sec 861 regulations ON MY OWN as a tip from a well-respected person I ‘know’ who confirmed my research. He challenged me to study the regulations to see what was there. Then about a MONTH after that time he sent me a copy of Mr Rose’s book which not only confirmed my research but he wrote the book in such a manner that a 12th grader could understand the complexities. It is brilliant, and in my opinion, spot on. They put him in jail because they can’t have too many people knowing this stuff and they made a martyr out of him.

        Why do you think there are so few 1099-offfered contracts to independent contractors out there? Because the companies sending those 1099’s DO NOT require a W-4 Form therefore DO NOT WITHHOLD your SS/Medicare and “income” amounts from your pay. There is NO explicit contract with GovCo and by extension, none with you either.

        Good day to you.

         
  3. palani

    June 13, 2015 at 8:42 AM

    In Oz the truth is viewed as a lie and lies are mistaken as the truth. Just as in Equity a win is considered a loss and the goal is a controlled loss. When considering law there is also color of law to consider. My original Bouviers 1855 law dictionary has plain brown covers. My original 1862 Bouviers law dictionary has covers and page edges that are gilded and marbled. My view is that black letter law needs no such embellishments. The 1862 version, published during the (un)civil war, was gilded and colorized because if the publisher had given his true thoughts he would have been convicted of treason. I have no run into any law books prior to this that considered it necessary to gild the cover.

     
  4. mrtideman

    June 13, 2015 at 12:21 PM

    Thank you Alfred. And the Court Watchers here in the video of: Brian Wright, Janice Daniels, Gina Brim, Pete Traos and of course Peter and Doreen and their daughter Katie. I went to the inmate locator at: http://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ and found of where to write to Doreen at: Doreen M. Hendrickson, Reg. No. 48564-039, FPC Alderson, Federal Prison Camp, Glen Ray Rd. Box A, Alderson, WV 24910 Tel. 304-445-3300 e-mail: ALD/ExecAssistant @ bop dot gov to her keepers there in what is NOT an FCI of there being no course with #x-number of classes in the subject of “contempt of court” for her to reform to what is the truth is that from what I’ve read years ago, see: http://www.bafirm.com/articles/gen/federal_contempt.html for the details (just found) is that Federal contempt of court is LIMITed to up to only LESS than six (6) months when you are tried and sentenced by only the judge, of in this case: Judge Victoria Robert of who appointed her!? and when? what law school did she graduate from, and who taught the course there on the constitution? The reason I ask is that her appeal ought to include this reprimand against ALL these people of including the President who appointed her and confirmed by #___ U.S. Senators, names being: _______ of whoever as to get a copy of to review their confirmation either voluntarily, or be told to by way of her impeachment in the House, of a copy of this going to my Federal Rep. to please look into this to DO so start the process IF her own Federal Rep(s) will not do so, of who is he or she or them? ____________ Yours truly, Joe / Joseph S. Haas, P. O. Box 3842, Concord, N.H. 03302, e-mail: JosephSHaas at hotmail dot com * a victim of State adaptation of such contempt B.S. too in that a State judge here sentenced me to 5 months and 29 days for contempt (by buying up “land”/ real estate too $cheap, of original charge of “Champerty” in res than rem) by him/ Judge Js.D.O’Neill, III of Laconia, N.H. adopting this crap when he knew or should have known by his N.H. RSA Chapter 92:2 oath to honor the N.H. Constitution that limits contempt to only 10-days in this state by Articles 22+23 of the N.H. Constitution, Part 2 as applicable to the judiciary that used to be under the General Court or Legislature of they branched out to be their own branch of a supposed co-equal branch, so HOW the heck can they give MORE time than the creator who created them!? of actually supposed to be the LEAST powerful of the three branches by The Federalist Paper #___. Plus see my Federal case on this injustice of over the limit too for when I spent 62 days in contempt of Judge Wm. RE. Johnson back in 1984 (for supposedly not paying the 10% = $100 tax on the $1,000 fine for simple assault of the Town Tax Collector that I did pay to the clerk who STOLE the money, then he (Paul A. Gruber) was indicted for another crime and fired) of thus 62-10 = 52 days over the lawful limit, of I made a Federal case of that to the U.S. Supremes by Writ of Certiorari but that was denied, reference a photocopy of then legal counsel of Stephen Merrill for Gov. John Sununu, who later became the governor himself, of he wrote to my Dad over in Maine back then as legal counsel that of that I was: “sentenced but not convicted”, of thus sentenced by judge, but not convicted by jury, and so a violation of the 13th Amendment that somehow these Federal judges have by their lies as liars re-defined the word all for every crime, of thus only some of if under a 6-month sentence by them it somehow NOT a crime but a “petty offense” and so not enTITLEd to a trial by jury that I find which deviation therefrom the law is utter hogwash! and which Law EnFORCEment by U.S. Marshals should have been involved of to say that when she did “surrender” to the threshold of the door that they NOT that of to PUSH her in, but “protect” her rights by putting a BLOCK between her and the BOP person who wanted to PULL her in, or did she go voluntarily OVER the threshold on her own power?! Is Peter reading this and can get this over to her for his wife’s benefit? And does she have enough $money in commissary? Money Order #__________ I can send to Federal Bureau of Prisons, Doreen M. Hendrickson, Reg. No. 48564-039, P. O. Box 474701, Des Moines, Iowa 50947-0001 to pre-pay for any postage stamps and e-mails etc at still 5-cent an electronic minute to read and 15-cents per paper printout? A copy of this to some State Reps who might revive an old Article 32 Petition (by Rep. Roland E,. Hemon of Dover RIP who by mistake put his seat # down instead of his District # by House Rule 36 for the House Speaker to have processed by then House Rule 4 to the appropriate committee, but that he/ Gene Chandler of Bartlett did NOT!) on this 62 days unlawful incarceration of me by way of an H.R./ House Resolution for $money damages, as based on the Veronica Silva case of the mid 1980s in the N.H. State Board of Claims in that she got $1,250 per day for every day unlawfully imprisoned up to the then max of $25,000 for her twenty (20) days, of since increased to $50,000 max, of thus Doreen here ought to get at least $2,500 per day too of IF they keep her past the 6-months of thus May 15th + 6 months, of she ought to be out of there by Nov. 15th. and in November 2016 the following year for the General Election (past the September Primary) of when the changing of the guard can take place, of that of since the current U.,S. Attorney _______ (name please) and his cohorts of: __________ (appointed under a Democrat President) will not act like a Bufford Pusser in that “Walking Tall” movie of to arrest the judge for subornation of perjury, then to vote Republican of to appoint a different U.S. Attorney who will pre-scribe that they will not violate the constitution either, but in this case to back up their words in writing in ink to paper of to do what they say they will do that of which is right!

     
  5. Californian

    June 13, 2015 at 1:26 PM

    How can you possibly crack anyone’s code. Why would anyone bother, as it is a code, not a law. Someone just took a law and codified it.
    Who wrote the law, which is rolled up somewhere? Will they swear under oath the law applies to me? Of course not. Most likely, they are dead anyway.
    Besides, i doubt there is a law, but merely an Act of Congress. And we all know an Act is just that, an act, a thing done, a legal document.
    An act does not apply to me, that i can guarantee. I don’t have to become an actor in their act.
    Of course, i was duped by a bunch of dumbells who came before me into this non-sense about codes. I read these moronic codes for a couple years, wasting my life.
    Anyone who uses the code to beat to code should go to jail. Thank the good Lord above, i came to my senses before i did something as stupid as them.
    Just read any code or act. The first line will read something like; this act shall be know as the penal code. Translation, this thing done in the future be known as the penal code.
    An act is not a law.
    Shall is not a command word.
    If you then read a bit more into the code, they refer to person’s. I thought i was a person, until I remembered i was a man.
    Lucky me, i only wasted 2 years and 3000 hours of studying BS codes that never applied to me. That no man would testify the act applied to me. Besides, they would laugh me out of the room.
    Oh, you have been using that free education we gave you? Shame on you. We can’t tell you what to do.. You can’t? No, of course not…It’s just an act! it’s a silly game we play for fun. And dumb asses fall for it everyday. You deserve to waste you life away and wind up in jail for trying to crack codes if you think you are a person and not a man.
    Have you not read your KJV Bible? You are a man, silly, created in the image of God. Oh yeah, that’s right, i forgot. Exactly. We are just trying to remind you, who you are.
    Have you also forgot what the Declaration of Independence reads; we are all equal, did you forget?
    Yes, i suppose so. I was afraid to speak up.

     
    • Spade Koolie

      June 17, 2015 at 9:37 PM

      Californian,
      @ You are a man, silly, created in the image of God.
      Some “people” apparently do not believe they are of/from Mankind. Kind after kind. See Psalm 8

       
  6. Pete Hendrickson

    June 13, 2015 at 3:47 PM

    This is Pete Hendrickson. Read the entire fully-documented backstory and details of the two trials to which my wife was subjected (the first trial having ended in a hung jury)– featuring, among other unprecedented things, an instruction to her two juries that the unlawfulness or unconstitutionality of the orders she was charged with criminally resisting was not to be considered a defense– at http://losthorizons.com/Documents/SelectedCuts.htm#3.

    You’ll also find links to the clarifying, similarly-unique and revealing documented details of the trial to which I was subjected on that page, and much else that will be of interest to anyone with a passion for liberty and the rule of law.

    Actually, though, why don’t you all start out at http://losthorizons.com/BulletinBoard.htm and see about 1,200 100% income tax refunds– Social Security and Medicare withholdings included– which are just a representative sampling of the hundreds of thousands of such previously unprecedented events in American history.

    These have been accumulating for the past 12 years from the federal and 35 state governments, and total in the billions of dollars. Some have been secured only after considerable resistance by the relevant government– fully documented case studies of such particularly-telling events are also posted. All in all, this will give you a good idea of why the government is willing to step so far into the cesspool as to launch a unique assault on the First Amendment (and due process, when you consider that she was ordered (as I was, btw) to adopt the ‘fact” allegations of her government opponent in a legal contest over who owes money to whom).

    P.S. There is no malware on losthorizons.com. Comodo has been falsely reporting this for years. You can check at any of the websites offering scanning services if you feel the need.

     
    • Adask

      June 13, 2015 at 4:04 PM

      I’m not surprised about Comodo giving a false “no go” report. But it did, and I have to warn my readers, etc.

      Thanks for the clarifications.

       
      • Allen Curtis

        June 19, 2015 at 4:50 PM

        Adask,
        @ That’s why he can write so fast. He’s been so well-trained, that he need not pause to think.
        timmy will be angry at me for saying this, but nevertheless, Colin did say previously, on another thread, that he writes faster than he listens. He was referring to your Radio Program. Anyway, even if we listen we still, may not “hear” or grasp, or, understand, excuse me, no comprende.

         
      • Allen Curtis

        June 19, 2015 at 6:37 PM

        Adask,
        @ The truth is that the term “taxpayer” is much more narrow than “anyone” who is reasonable would suggest.
        In case there is any misunderstanding, Mr.,Title of Nobility,Esquire Colin said, “anyone.” I agree with your questions, & I wonder if Mr. Colin will respond? :-) D

         
      • Adask

        June 19, 2015 at 6:42 PM

        I don’t wonder how he’ll respond. How does he always respond? By telling us (or at least implying) that we’re nuts and that, by the Grace of Harvard, he sees all and knows all. It’s actually kinda funny.

         
      • Allen Curtis

        June 20, 2015 at 1:17 AM

        Adask,
        @ It’s actually kinda funny.
        I don’t know who makes me laugh the loudest & hardest, he, or, you & Jethro. We can laugh AT somebody, or, we can laugh with somebody. I’m with you & Jethro. :-) D

         
      • Les Moore

        June 24, 2015 at 6:39 PM

        @ by the Grace of Harvard
        But remember, we are UNDER GRACE, i.e., the grace of Harvard, et.al. LAW graduates. They do eventually become Judges, & many make up the very best CON-gress that money can buy. :-(

         
    • Phil Cali

      June 13, 2015 at 5:05 PM

      And some of those CTC filers with ‘victories’ will be subjected to CP2000 notices to pay up. Not to mention non-victories that ended up with 5K frivolous return penalties like myself and others. Pete does not tell the entire story of the hurt that can be exacted upon such filings because that would hurt his credibility and book sales. Just saying.

       
      • Pete Hendrickson

        June 14, 2015 at 3:13 PM

        And those that stick it out will end up with IRS surrenders, Phil, many of which episodes can be seen, fully documented, at http://losthorizons.com/EveryWhichWayButLoose.htm.

        Just saying…

        Obviously, NOT ONE such surrender by the tax agency, after what sometimes is years of argument and intense scrutiny of the filing, would EVER happen unless the filer (and the information of which he/she is relying) was 100% correct. The most recent such case I have posted was a Dr. in Pennsylvania who knocked down a $120,000 IRS liability allegation against his very considerable earnings and finally got his “Sorry to have troubled you; we agree, your earnings don’t qualify for the tax” notice a couple months ago after 18 months of steady agency threats, claims and efforts to get him to reverse his educated filing. See it at http://losthorizons.com/EveryWhichWayButLoose.htm#Jim

        Let’s stick with the facts, not myths put out by the troll community. Regarding the “$5k penalties”, see http://losthorizons.com/tax/ParsingFrivolousFictions.htm for a truth about these vaporous threats made to a handful of educated filers (and no surprise– the government is already losing billions of dollars to CtC-educated Americans and stands to lose much, much more if it can’t scare others away from learning the truth about the tax through the “frivolous penalty” fictions. Indeed, see http://losthorizons.com/tax/ParsingFrivolousFictions.htm#1 to see documentation of an actual hoax about this subject discovered on the IRS’s own website. It’ll stun you.

         
      • Phil Cali

        June 14, 2015 at 9:12 PM

        Pete,

        It is not a fiction. I suppose you do not believe that some of us have had wage levies via assessment of the 6702 penalty. That we are ‘making it up’. Perhaps I need to send you the copy of the levy on my company and the garnishment of my money. And then more penalties trying to fight the initial penalties. Some mistakes by me in fighting the originals, but still they ignored the evidence and assessed again. LOTS of money stolen from me. Perhaps I could have been more savvy but there it is – yes it really did happen.

        Very real indeed, Pete. Please stop saying it is fiction.

        I wish Doreen and you the best.

         
      • Colin

        June 15, 2015 at 10:53 PM

        If Mr. Hendrickson acknowledges the failure of his theories, he’d have to stop taking donations. Doing the right thing in this case would also be the expensive thing for him. Do his past actions suggest that this man, who was convicted of mailing a firebomb that injured two innocent people, is willing to take the difficult, expensive step of acknowledging his own error merely because that error is harmful to others?

         
      • Happy Campbell

        June 26, 2015 at 11:33 PM

        Phil Cali,
        @ Thank you for your well-guided words. I have ALREADY (twice) had 10’s of K’s of $ stolen from me by the lawbreakers er… makers.
        You did not consider the SOURCE of WHO passed that information on to you. REMEMBER !! It is not WHAT is said, it’s WHO is saying it. Doancha know it was a TROLL who passed that info on to you? You are not going to be in good standing responding like you did You MUST consider the SOURCE. Roger, Toland, & Henry,for example are regarded as good sources. As far as what you say was stolen, SAME HERE. Also, if you by chance get arrested & jailed, for WHATEVER, & you have what is called a Silver Dollar in your pants pocket, when you are “released” “they” will give you back ONE FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE. Just ANOTHER WAY to STEAL BUT !!!! IT’S LEGAL. Not Lawful, LEGAL !!!
        P.S. Do not respond to my message. You should know why I say this.

         
    • Spade Koolie

      June 14, 2015 at 3:39 AM

      Pete Hendrickson,
      Do you know Roger Elvick? Did you get any information from him that helped in writing your Book? If you know Roger Elvick, to your knowledge, is he still in Prison? Thanks.

      P.S. I liked Roger Elvick & I believe he sincerely meant well. He was just sincerely wrong. I talked with him via phone a lot. I had a dream about him & I told him about it. How I saw him on a beautiful Paradise Island. About 3 months later, he was living in Hawaii.

       
  7. mrtideman

    June 13, 2015 at 5:50 PM

    Thank you Pete*. So it was a trial by jury, eh? Sorry for going off on the tangent of that 6-month max for a “petty offense” info. cc: to (JAndrophy at bafirm dot com) of maybe that can help somebody else.

    * Pete Hendrickson, 232 Oriole Rd., Commerce Twp., Michigan 48382 e-mail: newscritter at losthorizon dot com

    That’s quite an impressive list of those #____ people (as un-numbered, gotta count them) who filed for refunds of getting over $11 million in total, of thus from what
    $low to what $high? for an $average of what dollar amount? Not that I need to know, but just curious.

    Without read the entire page I see what went wrong in that at the top[ of the page [ http://losthorizons.com/Newsletter/DoreenAssault/RegardingTheAssaultOnDoreen.htm ] you wrote that: ” The other order commanded Doreen to not file tax returns based on the idea that only federal, state and local government workers are subject to the income tax, ” . But then HOW to get a REFUND for having erroneously having paid in in the first place!?
    Of the judge using your own words in your book against you!

    When the IRS came after me in 1983, case #M.83-50-D in Concord, N.H. that was based on that “they” said I was a business, but the law (as in the Martin J. “Red” Beckman book) reads that an apartment house is an investment and so no tax due. Of actually a tax is merely a charge of not a debt due and owing until after a civil trial by jury that when declared so by them in a verdict and you REFUSE to pay of then to NOT put you in prison, but by the Morsell case of 1875 at the U.S. Supreme Court to be squeezed down to half your freehold by the writ of elegit process.

    O.K. I’ve read more and so comment more too: to ” (this was a return filed in 2009 for a $5 refund of withholdings from Doreen’s $59 of W-2-reported earnings in 2008, ” of thus the moral of the story is like what that red-head Devvy Kidd wrote about that I read about years ago at her http://www.devvy.com/ website that with even with an Amended W4 form with your employer that reads of you a W4-E for Exempt, the very fact that there is a form on file gives the employer the authority to deduct $whatever as a donation to “Uncle Sam”.

    Thus an expensive lesson for Doreen to learn that of having to spend 18 months x 30 = 540 days minus x for good-time credits = y exact, of like in prison of a day for each penny sought!

    So a warning to others of not to file in the first place: just cite the 16th Amendment of: “to lay and collect”, of the word lay defined as either to apply or impose, of if the latter then to levy, of which I go by the more-consumer-friendly definition of lay meaning of to apply = request and so if everI get a bill from Uncle Sam and fell like a reply I’d say: Request Denied! (;-) Plus show me the O.M.B. # that this be a mandatory that it is not! Re: The OMB = Office of Management & Budget that without such a number on the paperwork you can treat as bootleg. Plus of course: Where be the Delegation of Authority letter from The Secretary.

    Yours truly, – – Joe Haas (in New Hampshire)

     
  8. sac

    June 13, 2015 at 6:07 PM

    I would encourage all to read Cracking the Code, and educate yourself about the income tax. Title 26 is where the code and truth resides.

     
    • mrtideman

      June 14, 2015 at 12:24 PM

      You’re right * “sac”, and thank you these 19+ hours later of I see Alfred is back of getting a bunch of us off the Moderation mode. Mine of yesterday afternoon just posted here this Sunday afternoon the next day, and which I’d like to update that Pete’s e-mail as listed is not working, but that I did manage to find an answer to that question of $high and $low over at http://losthorizons.com/PostReplyToMSJ.pdf of refunds from $1.00 to $75,150.00 of thus this follow-up of by what check? From the U.S. Treasury right? So you take to your local NATIONAL Bank to cash into what form of coin (as those FRNs are notes as promises to pay). They try to give you the debased variety of from The Coinage Act of 1965, but that I’d insist on the variety of “lawful money” as in the coin as defined by The Coinage Act of 1792, like the JFK silver half dollars of fifty (50)-cent pieces of last year: 2014 minted for the 50th Anniversary of 1964-2014, and that the ones not sold at premium prices to collectors in proof condition, of where did they go? I think LOOMIS & FARGO and GARDA got them! before us. The local bank uses the excuse of that we only get from GARDA what they have on their electronic form of they put down a box of half dollars at $500 and get what they get, but see: 31 C.F.R. 100.2 of The Code of Federal Regulations at: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/31/100.2 and in particular that last sentence, of your bank ought to write a letter to these private Federal Reserve agents in your Region #__ of 12 who also wear the gov’t hat of for the distribution of ALL the coin of from the U.S. Mint in-cluding this “lawful money” as defined in Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution, put in there by Founding Father Roger Sherman, R.I.P. along with F. Tupper Saussy http://www.tuppersaussy.com/ and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupper_Saussy [ 1936-2007 ], of I was one of his subscribers to: “The Main Street Journal” back in the 1980s after reading his “Miracle on Main Street” book. Of the you are right sac * being that Title 26 of the Internal Revenue Code has never been enacted into positive law, as in the asterisk “*” in the inside front page of the actual books at the library, as originally told to me by Andy Melechinsky, see: http://www.strike-the-root.com/71/davies/davies2.html Yours truly, – – Joe (in New Hampshire)

       
  9. Phil Cali

    June 13, 2015 at 7:21 PM

    Let me further clarify my prior post. I admire and respect PH very much. Generally speaking I believe Pete is correct – that non-privileged pay for labor is not “income” as defined by the Supreme Court and confirmed in a House Congressional hearing prior to wage-withholding circa 1943.

    However, even though there is no law passed by Congress that we know of that taxes common-law pay-for-labor, the devious Congress devised a ‘voluntary’ taxation in the form of wage-withholding that basically forces Americans seeking work with a common-law private employer to sign the GOVERNMENT W-4 Form to work for that employer (thru fear and coercion by GovCo on the common-law private employer), making the common-law employee a statutory “employee” (law term in quotes) now subject to the tax code. Thus the “employee” instantly makes the common-law private employer into a statutory “employer” (“employer” definition is based on “employee” definition). However, the common-law employer is by law NOT required to make the worker sign the W-4 Form – but thru that fear of GovCo they ALWAYS require it.

    We The People DO NOT have the Courts on our side even though it is obvious to those who have researched this that this is coercion and obfuscation at its worst. Thuggery, bullying, you name it.

    With all due respect to Pete, he does not see that the rule of law is gone. I/you will not work for a company if we do not sign that ‘slavery Form. Because that is exactly what it is; specifically, slavery to GovCo. The common-law employers do not want that fight with GovCo to protect Americans who do not want to volunteer their hard-earned money as “income”. If YOU signed the Form, then you agreed to the terms. Coercion? You bet. Sad but true.

    Regards, all.

     
    • Colin

      June 15, 2015 at 10:56 PM

      Generally speaking I believe Pete is correct – that non-privileged pay for labor is not “income” as defined by the Supreme Court and confirmed in a House Congressional hearing prior to wage-withholding circa 1943.

      He is very obviously wrong. “Income” is not defined as exclusive of standard wages. If you’re earning money, it’s income. There is a reason that no one ever wins in court using such a silly theory–it’s completely, obviously wrong. It’s fun to pretend to be “in the know,” though, until the bill comes due. Hence a lot of tax protesters get excited about these inane theories and gradually find themselves in hot water, never taking the time to ask themselves: if this is actually true, then why am I reading about it from internet kooks? Why can’t they show me these theories succeeding in court? Why is it always someone who went to prison for tax fraud telling me they’ve cracked the code?

       
      • Spade Koolie

        June 16, 2015 at 12:37 AM

        Colin,
        @ . If you’re earning money
        I do not believe I am wrong when I say what we call “Money” is really, “Military Scrip”. As you, Colin, MUST KNOW, paper money is authorized by, THE WAR POWERS ACT. :-) D

         
      • Jethro!

        June 16, 2015 at 8:28 AM

        @Colin – “If you’re earning money, it’s income.”

        Except it doesn’t say that, anywhere. If “earning money” alone subjected one to a particular taxing jurisdiction, it would so claim. But it doesn’t, anywhere.

         
      • Colin

        June 16, 2015 at 9:38 PM

        Jethro, earning money isn’t what subjects you to “a particular taxing jurisdiction.” You’re already subject to the jurisdiction of the United States if you live, work, or earn money here. (Again, this is the real-world definition of “The United States,” as opposed to the imaginary secret conspiracy to keep two different parallel United Stateses, which as an aside would require tens of thousands of people to be in the know yet never write it down or talk about it.)

        26 USC 61 defines “gross income” (the starting point for tax liability calculations) as “all income from whatever source derived.” All income means all income; it doesn’t mean “only income earned on the weekend” or “only income earned from physical labor” or “only income denominated in francs.” It means all income. Lots of people have tried to argue that it means something other than what it plainly says, and they fail. Always. Every time. The reason tax gurus can’t show you their theories working in practice is that they fail in practice.

         
      • Phil Cali

        June 16, 2015 at 10:14 PM

        Colin,

        I don’t want to say you are misinformed, but maybe a little. Follow the disturbing maze of the regulations of Sec 61 and if you come out alive you will see it has nothing to do with American citizens working for THEIR LIVING and for companies based in the United States. It is all foreign-based application. Wonder why the courts won’t let THAT evidence into the discussion. Not to mention “income” is profit or gain based on privilege or some taxable event.

        Working to survive is NOT profit, gain or based on any privilege. “Income” is not even defined in the tax code of which there is still no law passed by Congress that makes American-born workers working for American-based companies liable to the code.

        But the lies are the truth because they have been so ingrained into our ‘norm’ and because most Americans can’t handle the truth and/or won’t believe our ‘good and gracious’ government would ever do such a thing. Yes, they would, and have.

        Colin, please do more research. I know it’s painful, but otherwise you are relying on others and their agendas for your opinions.

         
      • Colin

        June 16, 2015 at 11:22 PM

        Follow the disturbing maze of the regulations of Sec 61 and if you come out alive you will see it has nothing to do with American citizens working for THEIR LIVING and for companies based in the United States.

        That’s not true. The definition is extremely simple: all income from whatever source derived. “All income” doesn’t mean “all income above what you have to have to survive.” It means “all income.” “Income” itself doesn’t need to be separately defined because the commonly-understood meaning is clear and sufficient: things coming in. Money coming in is income. All income goes into the “gross income” calculation. No one who’s argued that “all income” has a secret definition has ever persuaded any court that it’s true, and in the American judicial system it’s the courts who interpret the law.

        there is still no law passed by Congress that makes American-born workers working for American-based companies liable to the code.

        You’ll find those laws in Title 26, and in the indictments of people who foolishly follow fraudulent tax gurus.

         
      • Phil Cali

        June 17, 2015 at 3:42 PM

        Phil Cali said:
        Follow the disturbing maze of the regulations of Sec 61 and if you come out alive you will see it has nothing to do with American citizens working for THEIR LIVING and for companies based in the United States.

        there is still no law passed by Congress that makes American-born workers working for American-based companies liable to the code.

        Colin said:
        That’s not true. The definition is extremely simple: all income from whatever source derived. “All income” doesn’t mean “all income above what you have to have to survive.” It means “all income.” “Income” itself doesn’t need to be separately defined because the commonly-understood meaning is clear and sufficient: things coming in. Money coming in is income. All income goes into the “gross income” calculation. No one who’s argued that “all income” has a secret definition has ever persuaded any court that it’s true, and in the American judicial system it’s the courts who interpret the law.

        You’ll find those laws in Title 26, and in the indictments of people who foolishly follow fraudulent tax gurus.

        Phil Cali says:
        So it’s not true (Sec 61 regs) because YOU say so? You sound like the IRS. Did you EVER go thru those regs – actually read them? All you give me is the statute language (broad). You are so narrow-minded that I challenge you to research the Sec 61 regulations BY YOURSELF. Surely with that Harvard degree you can do this.

        You need a taxable event passed by Congress or payments/investments derived from profit or privilege to be “income” (taxable kind). How ANYONE can say working to support yourself is a profit or privilege is ludicrous. So if I suddenly don’t want to work to LIVE and SUPPORT MYSELF then all my living-essentials will go away (house, car, food, clothing, etc.). Does that make it easier for you to understand “income”, Mr IRS man? The 16th Amendment gave Congress NO new taxing power it didn’t already have. It just said they did not have to consider source. It did NOT say that all income (payments) was suddenly “income” as it was and still is defined (profit from taxable event or privilege).

        Why do you think Congress employed that W-4 withholding BS? So that We The People would ‘voluntarily’ becomes “taxpayers” – THAT’s why. Otherwise all bets are off. Don’t you see that, Mr Title 26? I have no affiliation with Title 26 but for that ‘voluntary’ statutory relationship where those BS terms come into play (“employee”, “wages”, “employer”). It’s simple coercion. Still does not make me an implicit “taxpayer”. It makes me a SLAVE taxpayer via the employer not knowing any better for fear from the GovCo machine. If I don’t sign it, no job. I tried it so I should know.

        I can’t help it if the system has conditioned most Americans into BS. You are lock-step one of those.

        When you go thru the Sec 61 regs like I challenged you to and report back what you learned, THEN we can resume this conversation. Otherwise you are arguing from an ignorant position. Good day.

        Phil

         
      • mrtideman

        June 17, 2015 at 3:57 PM

        Alfred, Can you open this up and somehow transfer to the discussion? Me not that computer savvy. Best wishes, – – Joe cc: Dick 220.3 KB whatever that mean; Dick-I can’t see Alfred’s e-mail in the “To:” section here of maybe it shows up on your side? “From: armlaw@hotmail.comTo: josephshaas@hotmail.com Subject: RE: I.R.S. of P.R. Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 20:43:52 +0000

        Just send those uninformed, the above attachment which requires IRS to conform the protocol of the Uniform Commercial Code.

        Dick

        From: josephshaas@hotmail.com To: armlaw@hotmail.com Subject: I.R.S. of P.R. Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 16:28:47 -0400

        Dick, You might want to reply using that Puerto Rico Trust info. – – Joe Re: ” Really? How do you know? Manta.com reports there are thousands of private companies called “IRS”. Which one is it? ” If the REPLY button doesn’t work on the forward here it is on like a direct dial:https://adask.wordpress.com/2015/06/13/court-orders-defendant-to-commit-perjury/?replytocom=60463#respond &”Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 19:51:49 +0000 To: josephshaas@hotmail.com

         
      • mrtideman

        June 17, 2015 at 6:45 PM

        Al, I do not have a pdf format set up here so forward to you for whatever good it can do like if you have pdf format of to get this over to others of then I can comment to such later. Best wishes, — Joe cc: to Dick with thanks.

         
      • Jethro!

        June 17, 2015 at 7:58 AM

        “Jethro, earning money isn’t what subjects you to “a particular taxing jurisdiction.”
        Good. Although that’s not what you implied earlier.

        “You’re already subject to the jurisdiction of the United States if you live, work, or earn money here.”
        That’s a nice opinion.

        “(Again, this is the real-world definition of “The United States,” as opposed to the imaginary secret conspiracy to keep two different parallel United Stateses, which as an aside would require tens of thousands of people to be in the know yet never write it down or talk about it.)”
        Not sure what you mean by “The United States”, but the Supremes have already explained that “United States” can have at least three meanings (Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt). There are hundreds or likely thousands of additional definitions of “United States” scattered about. So which “real-world definition” are you talking about?

        “26 USC 61 defines…”
        Who cares? What’s “26 USC 61” have to do with me?

         
      • Colin

        June 17, 2015 at 11:14 AM

        There are hundreds or likely thousands of additional definitions of “United States” scattered about. So which “real-world definition” are you talking about?

        And if I renamed my dog “United States,” there’d be one more. But it wouldn’t create more than one political entity commonly referred to as The United States or the US or the USA–that federal entity that exists between Mexico, Canada, and the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans (plus Hawaii, Alaska, etc.).

        Making believe that there’s some actual ambiguity there is fun, but that’s all it is: make believe.

         
      • Jethro

        June 17, 2015 at 1:59 PM

        “And if I renamed my dog “United States,” there’d be one more.”
        Thank you for acknowledging there are multiple, perhaps nearly endless, definitions of “United States”.

        “But it wouldn’t create more than one political entity commonly referred to as The United States or the US or the USA”
        That depends on which political entity you’re referring to…

        “that federal entity that exists between Mexico, Canada, and the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans (plus Hawaii, Alaska, etc.).”
        What do you mean by “federal entity”? What’s “etc.” mean? Sounds like you’re describing a place where Congress exercises its exclusive legislative jurisdiction.

        “Making believe that there’s some actual ambiguity there is fun, but that’s all it is: make believe.”
        You telling me about “make believe”? That’s pretty funny. Even the Supremes acknowledge there is ambiguity. You’re trained in playing make believe; and likely deceit, as well. I don’t think you could discern the real world if your life depended on it.

         
      • Colin

        June 17, 2015 at 4:01 PM

        So it’s not true (Sec 61 regs) because YOU say so? You sound like the IRS. Did you EVER go thru those regs – actually read them? All you give me is the statute language (broad).

        What regs in particular? You’re claiming some strange interpretation of the statute, but you won’t say what regulation supports that interpretation—just read it all and somehow the truth will crystalize out of thin air? If you think there’s a regulation that makes income something other than all received value, please cite it. The fact that you can’t should be your first clue that there is no such regulation. (Your second should be the unbroken string of people losing court cases by claiming that “income” means something other than what it says.) Again, if you want to get into the regs, fine—I love getting into details! Please show us what regulation supports your beliefs here.

        You need a taxable event passed by Congress or payments/investments derived from profit or privilege to be “income” (taxable kind).

        Receiving income is a taxable event. Nothing requires that it be “derived from profit or privilege.” Again, I note that you have no support whatsoever for this position—just the raw assertion. And again, no one has ever won on this theory in court. Because it’s wrong.

        So if I suddenly don’t want to work to LIVE and SUPPORT MYSELF then all my living-essentials will go away (house, car, food, clothing, etc.). Does that make it easier for you to understand “income”, Mr IRS man?

        “Income” is already easy to understand. You’re telling me what you want to be the law, not what actually is the law. You can tell the difference easily enough: when you start talking about what the law is, you’ll be citing statutes and codes and court cases and treatises.

         
      • Phil Cali

        June 17, 2015 at 6:05 PM

        Colin wrote…
        “If you think there’s a regulation that makes income something other than all received value, please cite it. The fact that you can’t should be your first clue that there is no such regulation.”

        Phil Cali writes…

        Gross Income regulations links below. The first one is important to keep in mind if/when you are researching the second one where YES, you will need to read thru all the regulations mentioned in § 1.861-1(a)(1) (and subsequent regs where directed) to find out how to apply OR NOT ‘gross income’ to the average American working for a company/Corp that is not foreign-based. From my research, if I work for a company/Corp and do not ‘volunteer/be coerced into’ submitting myself to the W-4 Title 26 terms of art, there’s nothing in the ‘Gross Income’ regs I’ve cited below that make me liable to the Code. Period.

        If you take on the challenge and research this, you should jot down the reg path as you go to see where you came from and where you are in the regs to see the entire path of criteria. It will take a LONG time because it it is a maze (by design). They (Congress/IRS/other lying entities) don’t want you to take the time, but I and many others did.

        If you quit researching I understand because it is arduous, but don’t BS me and PLEASE cite where you find (assuming the American citizen did not sign a W-4 Form to work) where ‘Gross Income’ applies to the American citizen in this regard.

        Being that I don’t trust you, I will research anything you cite (be specific) in these regulations and I will gladly stand corrected and state as such if YOU prove to me by your regulation cites that I and others have missed something.

        Happy research Mr Harvard!

        §1.61-1 Gross income
        http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=fe8b04120ef95afba2c6f0ac16e4afa9&mc=true&node=se26.2.1_161_61&rgn=div8

        § 1.861-1 Income from sources within the United States.
        http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2006-title26-vol9/xml/CFR-2006-title26-vol9-sec1-861-1.xml

         
      • Colin

        June 17, 2015 at 11:34 PM

        Good lord, I just saw this quoted above: “Just send those uninformed, the above attachment which requires IRS to conform the protocol of the Uniform Commercial Code.”

        There is no attachment that will ever require the IRS to “conform [to] the protocol of the Uniform Commercial Code.” The UCC is not a law. It is a recommendation as to what laws states should pass. States enact portions of it, or all of it, and then those are law–in the states where they’re passed. No state enactment of the UCC is ever going to bind the IRS, which is a federal agency.

        Someone who tells you that you can force the IRS to “conform to the protocol of the Uniform Commercial Code” either (a) knows nothing about either the IRS or the UCC, or (b) is just outright scamming you.

         
      • Colin

        June 17, 2015 at 11:46 PM

        Gross Income regulations links below. The first one is important to keep in mind if/when you are researching the second one where YES, you will need to read thru all the regulations mentioned in § 1.861-1(a)(1) (and subsequent regs where directed) to find out how to apply OR NOT ‘gross income’ to the average American working for a company/Corp that is not foreign-based.

        Why on earth are you pointing at whole sections of the regulations? The statute is very clear: “Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived…” The question isn’t whether there’s something in the regs that specifically includes your income—the statute starts from the position that all money taken in, from whatever source, is in gross income unless there’s some reason to exclude it. You should be looking for something in the regs that excludes your income in order to support your argument. The fact that you haven’t found it isn’t surprising – it’s not there.

        If you think you have some reason why your income is excluded, please let us know! Just pointing generally at the regulations does nothing other than demonstrate that you don’t, in fact, have an argument. You’re telling us what you want to be true, not what you have good reason to believe actually is true.

        From my research, if I work for a company/Corp and do not ‘volunteer/be coerced into’ submitting myself to the W-4 Title 26 terms of art, there’s nothing in the ‘Gross Income’ regs I’ve cited below that make me liable to the Code. Period.

        Please feel free to share that research with us. I’d particularly be interested in any example of anyone ever prevailing under such a theory. Or any explanation why the many cases here, standing for the proposition that the income tax is not “voluntary” in the sense you mean, don’t apply. Because when I see all those cases saying this theory fails, and not a single one showing that it works, it looks again like you’re enjoying a pipe dream but not really engaging with the real world.

        If you quit researching I understand because it is arduous, but don’t BS me and PLEASE cite where you find (assuming the American citizen did not sign a W-4 Form to work) where ‘Gross Income’ applies to the American citizen in this regard.

        See generally the very good Tax Protester FAQ on this point. More specifically, it’s trivial to show that 26 USC 6012(a) requires everyone who has gross income over the exemption amount to file a return. There’s no requirement that they sign a W-4 in order to be liable for taxes. And as we’ve established, gross income includes all income—there’s no exemption anywhere for “money I need to survive,” or “money I made from a company,” or “money I really want to keep and not pay in taxes.”

        So, again, any example of this fantasy ever actually working in court? No?

         
      • Phil Cali

        June 18, 2015 at 9:48 PM

        Colin,

        If you did the research instead of blathering about what you think is the truth then you would see that only certain entities are INCLUDED in gross income and taxable income. You didn’t even know the regulations existed until I gave you the links. Says something about what you DON’T know. I went through them before and I have the basic excerpts of my research below because you are too lazy and stubborn. Or as Al Adask says, you’re just ‘indoctrinated’. But after reading the EVIDENCE I have given you below it will still not be enough for you. That’s called ignorance. I know, why would they lie to us or just ignore evidence? That would NEVER happen, right?

        Here it is, ‘Harvard’…

        Look at the regulation at 1.861-8(f)(1) which is ‘Operative sections’. The actual ‘operative sections’ apply to the overall determination of ‘taxable income from sources within the United States’.

        Look at the (a)(4) section below that follows the ‘(f)(1) Miscellaneous matters – (1) Operative sections’. The law says you must first determine a source or activity from which ‘income’ is derived (a “statutory grouping”), AND THEN, it must ALSO apply to a ‘taxable source of income’ from one of the ‘operative sections’ listed in (f)(1).

        In other words, your statute-loving Sec 61 ‘compensation for services’ is supposedly a taxable activity under (a)(4) which is a “statutory grouping”, but THAT must ALSO be from a ‘taxable source of income’ as listed under/derived from an OPERATIVE SECTION, which is (a)(f)(1) – which is… wait for it…ALL business and foreign-related ‘taxable sources of income’ – see (f)(1) subsection paragraphs i thru vi in the regulation. Did you follow that?

        Actual regulation subsection…

        (f) Miscellaneous matters —(1) Operative sections. The operative
        sections of the Code which require the determination of taxable
        income of the taxpayer from specific sources or activities and
        which give rise to statutory groupings to which this section is
        applicable include the sections described below.

        Actual regulation subsection…

        (a)(4) Statutory grouping of gross income and residual grouping of
        gross income. For purposes of this section, the term “statutory
        grouping of gross income” or “statutory grouping” means the
        gross income from a specific source or activity which must first be
        determined in order to arrive at “taxable income” from which
        specific source or activity under an operative section. (See
        paragraph (f)(1) of this section.) Gross income from other sources
        or activities is referred to as the “residual grouping of gross
        income” or “residual grouping.”

        Actual regulation “residual grouping” definition in part…

        (4) Statutory grouping of gross income and residual grouping of gross income. For purposes of this section, the term “statutory grouping of gross income” or “statutory grouping” means the gross income from a specific source or activity which must first be determined in order to arrive at “taxable income” from which specific source or activity under an operative section. (See paragraph (f)(1) of this section.) Gross income from other sources or activities is referred to as the “residual grouping of gross income” or “residual grouping.” For example, for purposes of determining taxable income from sources within specific foreign countries and possessions of the United States, in order to apply the per-country limitation to the foreign tax credit (as in effect before enactment of the Tax Reform Act of 1976), the statutory groupings are the separate gross incomes from sources within each country and possession. Moreover, if the taxpayer has income subject to section 904(d) (as in effect after enactment of the Tax Reform Act of 1976), such income constitutes one or more separate statutory groupings. In the case of the per-country limitation, the residual grouping is the aggregate of gross income from sources within the United States. In some instances, where the operative section so requires, the statutory grouping or the residual grouping may include, or consist entirely of, excluded income. See paragraph (d)(2) of this section with respect to the allocation and apportionment of deductions to excluded income. Moreover, if the taxpayer has income subject to section 904(d) (as in effect after enactment of the Tax Reform Act of 1976), such income constitutes one or more separate statutory groupings. In the case of the per-country limitation, the residual grouping is the aggregate of gross income from sources within the United States. In some instances, where the operative section so requires, the statutory grouping or the residual grouping may include, or consist entirely of, excluded income. See paragraph (d)(2) of this section with respect to the allocation and apportionment of deductions to excluded income.

         
      • Colin

        June 19, 2015 at 1:44 AM

        If you did the research instead of blathering about what you think is the truth then you would see that only certain entities are INCLUDED in gross income and taxable income.

        That’s not true. “Entities” aren’t included in gross income and taxable income, income is. Whether an entity is taxable is a separate question from whether it has gross or taxable income. The first question is very simple: pursuant to 26 USC 61, gross income includes all income, from whatever source received. All income. Everything. Any exceptions are spelled out explicitly, not implied. The rest of the discussion is about whether that income is taxable.

        You didn’t even know the regulations existed until I gave you the links. Says something about what you DON’T know.

        It sounds like you think that the regs are some kind of secret knowledge. No, they aren’t. Everyone who knows anything about tax law (yes, including me) knows what the regs are. They’re a pain to parse sometimes, but they aren’t secret received wisdom—you just read ’em and apply ’em.

        Here it is, ‘Harvard’…

        For what it’s worth, you’re the only person in this conversation who cares where I went to school. And I’m not really sure why you do.

        Look at the regulation at 1.861-8(f)(1) which is ‘Operative sections’. . . .
        Look at the (a)(4) section below that follows the ‘(f)(1) Miscellaneous matters – (1) Operative sections’. The law says you must first determine a source or activity from which ‘income’ is derived (a “statutory grouping”), AND THEN, it must ALSO apply to a ‘taxable source of income’ from one of the ‘operative sections’ listed in (f)(1).

        In other words, your statute-loving Sec 61 ‘compensation for services’ is supposedly a taxable activity under (a)(4) which is a “statutory grouping”, but THAT must ALSO be from a ‘taxable source of income’ as listed under/derived from an OPERATIVE SECTION, which is (a)(f)(1) – which is… wait for it…ALL business and foreign-related ‘taxable sources of income’ – see (f)(1) subsection paragraphs i thru vi in the regulation. Did you follow that?

        No, not at all. (a)(4) only says that you determine a statutory grouping for the purposes of allocating taxable income into statutory and residual groupings. Both categories are taxable. The point isn’t to exclude some income from tax, it’s to help determine how to allocate credits and deductions and such. For example, to determine how you apply a foreign-tax credit. I can’t pretend to understand the entire reg—it’s outside my experience and I’d need a while to read it all in context—but you can tell from the examples in the regs that it’s not about excluding income.

        I don’t see anywhere that says the statutory groupings must apply to a “taxable source of income” – unless I mistyped my search, those words don’t even appear in 1.861-8.

        I also don’t think you’re reading subsection (f) at all correctly. It sets out the operative sections of the statue that require the allocation of income to specific sources. So for example, the foreign tax credit I mentioned above—to allocate that properly, you have to know how much money you made under X provision of the code as opposed to Y, for frustratingly complicated reasons. (This stuff isn’t easy for anyone to read.) I don’t see how that’s applicable to your argument—you aren’t talking about allocating credits, you’re claiming that some things are somehow excluded from the basic definitions of taxable and gross income. But not actually citing any provision that says so.

        To reiterate: nothing in what you cited talks about anything being excluded from taxable income, or gross income. It’s dividing income into buckets for the application of rules that require knowing how much income came from which source. It apportions the taxable income, but doesn’t reduce it.

        You’re not going to take my word for it. God himself could descend from the clouds and write in words of fire upon the clouds, “I WAS SERIOUS WHEN I SAID RENDER UNTO CAESAR, YOU HAVE TO PAY YOUR TAXES, ALL THIS WEASELING ABOUT TRYING TO GET OUT OF IT SHAMES YOU AND IS BASICALLY A PARTICULARLY BORING KIND OF THEFT, WHICH IS A SIN. PAY YOUR DAMN TAXES!” And the tax protesters would start complaining about how God is actually a foreign-registered private corporation and fiery letters are proof that we’re in admiralty court and God only has jurisdiction on mountaintops and designated church zones and over transactions conducted in gold, silver, or sheeps’ intestines, etc.

        So take the IRS’s and court’s words for it: this argument has been tried. And it has failed. I’d link you to the memoranda I found, but the last time I included links my comment got stuck in the spam queue. (Alfred, I think it’s still there. Mind jogging it loose?) You can find them by googling “1.861-8 frivolous.” The second and fourth links, at least for me, are PDFs hosted by the IRS explaining how this scam has failed in court, and why people who try it are in for a “frivolous argument” penalty. You can also look up Rev Rule 2004-30 which says more or less the same thing in different words, and includes this holding: “Any position that, under sections 861 through 865, United States citizens and residents are not subject to tax on wages and other income earned or derived in the United States is frivolous. Taxpayers attempting to reduce their federal tax liability by taking frivolous positions based on this argument will be liable for the actual tax due plus statutory interest. In addition, the Service will determine civil penalties against taxpayers where appropriate, and those taxpayers also may face criminal prosecution. The Service also will determine appropriate civil penalties against persons who prepare frivolous returns or promote frivolous positions, and those persons also may face criminal prosecution. Promoters and others who assist taxpayers in engaging in these schemes also may be enjoined from doing so under section 7408.”

        The courts have been very clear about this. Above you claimed, “Follow the disturbing maze of the regulations of Sec 61 and if you come out alive you will see it has nothing to do with American citizens working for THEIR LIVING and for companies based in the United States.” But the Supreme Court held in Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass, 348 US 426, “Nothing in sections 861 to 865 of the Code limits the gross income subject to United States taxation to foreign-source income. The rules of sections 861 through 865 have significance in determining whether income is considered from sources within the United States or without the United States, which is relevant, for example, in determining whether a U.S. citizen or resident may claim a credit for foreign taxes paid” (emphasis added). See also Great-West Life Assurance Co. v. United States, 678 F.2d 180, Williams v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 136, Aiello v. Commissioner, TC Memo 1995-40 (“rejecting the claim that section 861 lists the only sources of income relevant for purposes of section 61”), and United States v. Condo, 741 F.2d 238 (upholding criminal conviction of individual who refused to pay tax based on these arguments). I took these cases from one of the PDFs I mentioned; the other has a whole bunch more. You will not find any case, ever, anywhere, in which someone prevailed under these goofy arguments. In other words, they only lose, they never win. Because they’re wrong. That’s also why you can’t just cite a rule or statute excluding your income from tax liability—it doesn’t exist.

        Thanks for the discussion, though. I enjoy the technical ones. Alfred, for time-tracking purposes, this one comes out to about 20 minutes.

         
      • Adask

        June 19, 2015 at 10:25 AM

        We wouldn’t have known that you graduated from Harvard if you hadn’t told us–or at least, me.

        You don’t need to tell me you spent only 20 minutes on your post. You need to tell your sweetie.

        According the Bibles I’ve read, the Messiah did not say “Render unto Caesar” (meaning pay your taxes without question). He said “Render unto Caesar THAT WHICH IS CAESAR’S” (meaning that some things (Caesar’s) are taxable and some thing (that are not “Caesar’s”) are not taxable). Today’s problem is not only trying to figure out what is and what is not taxable, but who is and who is not “Caesar”.

        Incidentally, for time-keeping purposes, this comment of mine took about 4.5 minutes. You’re faster than I am. Maybe you should consider hosting your own blog. Do you think you could attract an audience on your own?

         
      • Colin

        June 19, 2015 at 11:41 AM

        Doubtful! Not many people find this stuff interesting. But I do blog sometimes on Violent Metaphors.

         
      • Phil Cali

        June 19, 2015 at 4:54 PM

        Colin,

        Got ahead of myself. Since you are so enamored with ‘sources’, see below. We are talking about sources and who is liable based on gross “income” and taxable “income” being DERIVED from those sources. It’s not the sources itself and it’s not the money itself but the taxable EVENT that taxes the profit from the transaction or event. NOT all income is taxable “income”, silly. Even YOU should know that.

        This is basically the starting point. Now tell me that I, Al Adask, and other American-citizen individuals (assuming so, even YOU!) apply to the criteria below that the liars continually point to under your beloved Sec 61 ‘whatever sources’ list. And as I mentioned, it is “income” DERIVED from sources, not the sources themselves. I digress. Explain away…

        §1.861-4 Compensation for labor or personal services.
        http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=ef7a53dde3f10abcbd9d9c3d9d0285af&mc=true&node=se26.11.1_1861_64&rgn=div8

        §1.861-4 Compensation for labor or personal services.

        (a) Compensation for labor or personal services performed wholly within the United States. (1) Generally, compensation for labor or personal services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items, performed wholly within the United States is gross income from sources within the United States.

        (i) The labor or services are performed by a nonresident alien individual temporarily present in the United States for a period or periods not exceeding a total of 90 days during his taxable year,

        (ii) The compensation for such labor or services does not exceed in the aggregate a gross amount of $3,000, and

        (iii) The compensation is for labor or services performed as an employee of, or under any form of contract with—

        (a) A nonresident alien individual, foreign partnership, or foreign corporation, not engaged in trade or business within the United States, or

        (b) An individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States, a domestic partnership, or a domestic corporation, if such labor or services are performed for an office or place of business maintained in a foreign country or in a possession of the United States by such individual, partnership, or corporation.

         
      • Colin

        June 19, 2015 at 5:09 PM

        Phil, nothing in those regs says those are the only sources of taxable income. They don’t limit taxable income, which is why there are all of those court cases above (including the Supreme Court) rejecting the argument you’re making.

         
      • Phil Cali

        June 19, 2015 at 5:55 PM

        Colin,

        You just ignore written law, like THEY DO. You are saying that THEY decide what is taxable or not, not the law. Which actually you are correct: the Courts continually railroad Americans by dismissing evidence, not allowing it in, or making their own interpretations even if it’s counter to what is virtually undeniable, in this situation the regulations I have presented. Your statement is correct that they are not the only sources, but the INDIVIDUAL who is liable AND WHY, is VERY clear regarding Sec 61 and ‘compensation for services’ by the evidence of law I have presented of which you have so easily dismissed.

        Here’s an example of another source/event: “wages”. Do you see THAT in the Sec 61 list? Wouldn’t that be OBVIOUS that it SHOULD be there? Why is that? Because it is defined under Subtitle C EMPLOYMENT, that’s why. It should not apply to Subtitle A (“Income” taxes) but apparently THEY have determined it is undeniable “income” by receiving money for ‘something’. The ‘something’ is a farce in that it is based on those BS Subtitle C tax terms “wages”, “employee”, “employment”, “employer”. How do ‘apply yourself to those ‘terms’? W-4 Form. ‘Voluntary’ form? Yeah, voluntary my ass.

        ““Nothing in sections 861 to 865 of the Code limits the gross income subject to United States taxation to foreign-source income.”

        I never said this and the argument made by the petitioner/defendant in that case made a poor argument. If he would have argued that the REGULATIONS that expand the statutes limit the application thereof then he would have had a case. You see, it’s in the details. The ‘foreign tax credit’ explanation by the Judge was obfuscation because it is not his job to ‘learn the regulation language for you’. The language of those regulations continually states the criteria (sources, types of individuals, scenarios) for WHAT is to be considered gross “income” FROM SOURCES WITHIN THE UNITED STATES and WHO is liable for it.

        So you undeniably trust the Court system we have today in determining the written law and the outcome of every trial, evidence be dismissed or damned? Shame on you. You’re a sheeple American, conditioned, incredulous that ‘they would do such a thing to the American people’. I’ll bet you are a member of Quatloos as well. Consider that source, anyone reading here.

        As you so smugly stated earlier, thanks for the discussion.

         
      • Colin

        June 19, 2015 at 8:11 PM

        You just ignore written law, like THEY DO. You are saying that THEY decide what is taxable or not, not the law.

        This is interesting. It seems like your position is that your interpretation is right, and the courts are wrong. I have two thoughts on that.

        First, your interpretation isn’t very persuasive. I keep asking where in those regs it says that anything is excluded from taxable income, and you keep not showing us. It isn’t there. I think you’re reading a very complex and difficult regulation in isolation, not in context, and coming at it with a pre-existing belief as to what it means. When the regulation doesn’t make sense (which it never will as long as you try to shoehorn it into what someone else told you it meant), you assume it’s saying what you want it to say. But you never quite get to the point where it actually says so. You can’t point at a provision and say, “Here, this language excludes my income from the tax laws.” It’s always in between the lines, in the shadows, a secret that’s only obvious to those with eyes to see.

        I’m not persuaded. As far as I know, no lawyer, accountant, tax professional, judge, or politician has ever been persuaded by this loser argument. No one. Maybe that’s because of a giant conspiracy of silence. But I don’t think so. Why on earth, and how on earth, would all those people keep silent? Why would they all keep paying their taxes instead of taking advantage of this loophole? Isn’t it vastly more likely that your interpretation is just wrong, as every court ever has said?

        And that’s the second point. You don’t have to agree with the courts. God knows I don’t—I’ve looked at plenty of decisions and thought, “This is bullshit.” But at the end of the day, the courts interpret the law. And there’s no ambiguity at all as to how they interpret this one: they disagree with your theory. Every court that’s ever considered it. Maybe it’s because of the giant secret silent shadowy conspiracy, although of course I think that’s make-believe. Can we at least agree that whyever they disagree with this theory, they do disagree with it? And that it will therefore fail in practice?

        Because that’s something I don’t see tax gurus saying very often. They go on for pages and pages about how smart their theories are, and how they’re 100% correct, and how it’s so obvious… but they never seem to have enough time or space to point out that their theories have already been tried and failed in court. (See the Lost Horizons guy for example—as I think you pointed out earlier, his triumphant crowing glosses over all the people who have been burned following his theories, and in fact I don’t think he’s even told his followers he’s going back on trial for tax problems.)

        Whatever else you think about these theories, they fail when tried. Every time. And a guru who doesn’t bother to tell you that is incredibly ignorant at best, or more likely (especially if they want your money) just outright scamming you.

        Here’s an example of another source/event: “wages”. Do you see THAT in the Sec 61 list?

        Wages are income. All income, from any source received, is gross income. There’s nothing that excludes them from taxable income, which is why you aren’t citing any such rule or regulation. And which is why no one has ever prevailed on that theory, ever.

        So you undeniably trust the Court system we have today in determining the written law and the outcome of every trial, evidence be dismissed or damned?

        I do deny that. I disagree with courts all the time. As I said just a little while ago, I disagreed with the Elonis and American Apparel rulings, just to pick recent Supreme Court cases. But when every court ever holds the same thing, you’ll have to work hard to show me that you’re right and they’re wrong. And your inability to actually cite some law or rule or regulation that supports your position is not moving the needle very far. All your theories need something, somewhere, that says, “This isn’t taxable income.” You can’t find it, because it isn’t in the regs. Which, to bring it full circle, is why that argument has always failed and never, ever, ever won in court: it’s not supported by the law.

        As you so smugly stated earlier, thanks for the discussion.

        You’re welcome!

         
      • Phil Cali

        June 19, 2015 at 9:35 PM

        Colin,

        You ignorant slut.

        I SHOWED YOU and others and clarified in my last post of which you have not responded to yet. I don’t give shi* what the Courts continually say on the subject. I SHOWED YOU the regulations and you just ignore them as though they don’t exist or don’t apply. Do you honestly think some rogue judge would EVER rule against the status quo even if he/she knew the status quo was BS? He would be killed, plain and simple. That’s the part you don’t get. The machine has consequences within the machine to keep things status quo. You are SO naive, or just belligerent (both?).

        I gave you tax-code regulations, examples and FACTS of how individuals are liable to the tax code and NOT liable to the tax code. But you just ignore or dismiss it. Why don’t YOU cite us some regulations and the law passed by Congress that makes us liable to the tax code – BEYOND what I have actually showed you regarding ‘compensation for services’ of which CLEARLY does not apply to me. “Wages” I will concede and ONLY because it is a coercive effort by GovCo and the acquiescing companies who force us to sign a W-4 Form. Generally a non W-4 contract does NOT apply. Frankly you’re a ‘tool’ for your ignorance because of your dismissal of evidence that I have shown. “Doesn’t apply, uh, means something else, uh, just because I say so”. Whatever, dude.

        I would not be surprised if you currently or formerly have worked for GovCo in some capacity.

        Why don’t YOU show us some regulations that American citizens who work for domestic companies/corporations have gross “income”. “Wages” is the only way in as far as I can see for common employees and that is not even listed in Sec 61. It is a SUBTITLE C TERM! Do you know what the difference is? I don’t give bleep what the Courts say. They are protecting their self interests. Prove it otherwise because why would I trust the Courts? If you cite the Sec 61 statute then you are a fool and a moron.

         
      • Phil Cali

        June 19, 2015 at 11:36 PM

        Colin,

        I had to respond to some of your specific wording here.

        “First, your interpretation isn’t very persuasive. I keep asking where in those regs it says that anything is excluded from taxable income, and you keep not showing us.”

        What I showed you is what IS considered gross “income” based on your incessant citing of Section 61 and the language and list of items applicable to that. The regs I showed you are SPECIFIC to that list relative to ‘compensation for services’ which is the only item in the list relative to pay for labor. If that list is not all encompassing, then please show us where our pay for labor is considered gross “income” BEYOND the regulations I have presented which are THE regulations cited for ‘compensation for services’ relative to the Sec 61 statute. Stop saying ‘EXCLUDED’. Show us where we are ‘INCLUDED’!

        Very simple exercise…

        If you (Colin) are an American citizen and work for an American company that has no affiliation with or extension into a foreign country and that company did NOT force you to sign a W-4 Form agreeing to the TERMS (statutory) of that contract, after reading the regs I presented to you, would you say that you received gross “income”? If yes, please tell us why the tax code is wrong; otherwise, please cite another statute or regulation that applies here.

        “Wages are income. All income, from any source received, is gross income. There’s nothing that excludes them from taxable income, which is why you aren’t citing any such rule or regulation. And which is why no one has ever prevailed on that theory, ever.”

        Incorrect. ‘All’ income received is NOT gross “income”. It must be DERIVED from a source. Meaning, that simply getting paid for ‘something’ is not a taxable event. The “income” is a gain or profit based on a taxable event or privilege. If I have to, I will hunt down the Supreme Court cites and Congressional testimony. Apparently you do not understand the meaning of “income” regards to taxation. Your ‘accepted for value’ theory/understanding is unsupported by law as far as I know. Further, you are AGAIN citing ‘from whatever source’ which is the Sec 61 cite which AGAIN I have shown you the regulations regarding gross “income” and ‘compensation for services’ of which ONLY apply to non-resident aliens working in the United States for a foreign-based corporation or partnership. Are you THAT person?

        “You can’t point at a provision and say, ‘Here, this language excludes my income from the tax laws.'”

        Yes, I can. I just showed it to you. If you do not sign that W-4 Form ‘volunteering’ that you earned “wages” (STATUTORY, get it?), then gross income (notice the non-quotes around income) is NOT applicable to the statutory ‘compensation for services’ regulation definition as shown. So in that case, what OTHER statute am I applicable to and liable for regarding the “income” tax? You see Colin, by process of elimination we are left with statutory “wages” as the only door into the tax code for American-citizen employees of wholly-American based companies; and of which our involvement is coerced into by GovCo upon our employers where they require the W-4 and WE are the losers in that relationship.

        Regarding following “tax guru’s” I do not. I gained knowledge by some and have applied it to my own research, presented to you here in part.

         
      • Allen Curtis

        June 19, 2015 at 3:19 PM

        Colin,
        @ (Again, this is the real-world definition of “The United States,” as opposed to the imaginary secret conspiracy to keep two different parallel United Stateses, which as an aside would require tens of thousands of people to be in the know yet never write it down or talk about it.)

        Dear Sir,
        Prior to the adoption of the 14th Amendment there were no “citizens of the United States as such” but only some one of them (States)”. The term Citizen of the United States, IS written, & BEFORE the adoption of the 14th Amendment. The word Citizen IS a “proper noun”. The word citizen as written in the 14th IS a common noun. I believe the term, United States, written BEFORE the 14th, meant the several States, &, United States as written in the 14th, IS a SINGLE ENTITY. Being that there were not ANY citizens existing BEFORE, &, within the meaning of the 14th Amendment, it makes sense to me that the term United States, as written in the 14th, meant something different than the meaning of United States, BEFORE the 14th.

        Original Intent Treatise – 14th Amendment Clarified
        Make no mistake – such people are not above misrepresenting the facts and …
        Dred case as their rationale to turn the true meaning of the Amendment on its
        head. … written long after the Court’s early 14th Amendment decisions were
        rendered, … Since the term “citizen of the United States”, as used in the 14th
        Amendment, …
        http://www.originalintent.org/edu/14thamend.php – 41k – Cached – Similar Pages

         
      • Colin

        June 19, 2015 at 3:31 PM

        Prior to the adoption of the 14th Amendment there were no “citizens of the United States as such” but only some one of them (States)”.

        So what? We live after the adoption of the 14th Amendment.

        The term Citizen of the United States, IS written, & BEFORE the adoption of the 14th Amendment. The word Citizen IS a “proper noun”. The word citizen as written in the 14th IS a common noun.

        Do you mean the word “citizen” was always a proper noun prior the 14th? I’m skeptical! Or do you mean a particular reference? But regardless, again, we live in the post-14th world.

        I believe the term, United States, written BEFORE the 14th, meant the several States, &, United States as written in the 14th, IS a SINGLE ENTITY.

        The phrase could certainly mean “the collection of 50 (or however many, depending on the date) states,” as opposed to the federal entity. I think that’s true before and after the 14th Amendment; we know there was a federal government all along. What do you think people called that singular entity prior to the 14th?

        Being that there were not ANY citizens existing BEFORE, &, within the meaning of the 14th Amendment, it makes sense to me that the term United States, as written in the 14th, meant something different than the meaning of United States, BEFORE the 14th.

        Here your logic has lost me. As I said, I think “United States” could mean a singular federal entity both before and after the 14th; otherwise, what would you call that federal entity in 1800?

        It’s all besides the point, though. Whatever the terminology was prior to the 14th, there’s no secret parallel government or jurisdiction today. People who claim otherwise have a curious inability to actually find any evidence to support their fantasies. And citizenship isn’t hard to figure out—if you’re born in one of the states, you’re a citizen of the United States of America. And you can’t get out of taxes by making up stories about citizenship. (Not that you’re trying to necessarily, just contextualizing the conversation.)

         
      • Henry

        June 19, 2015 at 8:08 PM

        Colin, now that you have mentioned your Harvard attendance for the record, it’s there for keeps to be twisted and misapplied as the need arises, no matter how often you clarify your intended meaning or correct those who deliberately misinterpret what you meant to imply. While this admission can’t be undone, there’s at least a lesson for future reference:

        Anything you say will be used against you, regardless of its irrelevance to the topic at hand. Disingenuous advocacy doesn’t respect the rules of honest discourse, but instead relies heavily on personal attack and caricature to score points and will throw everything but the kitchen sink at you in pursuit of this ethically and intellectually challenged tactic of rhetoric.

         
      • Colin

        June 19, 2015 at 8:13 PM

        True. In the long run, I think the best approach is just to speak often and fully and honestly, and let my character evidence itself.

         
      • Allen Curtis

        June 20, 2015 at 7:45 AM

        Sir Colin,
        @ Good lord, I just saw this quoted above: “Just send those uninformed, the above attachment which requires IRS to conform the protocol of the Uniform Commercial Code.”

        I believe you are 100% right in your entire message of/on, June 17, 2015 at 11:34 PM. I say this because this is my understanding also, just like you say/said it is.

         
      • Allen Curtis

        June 20, 2015 at 8:02 AM

        Colin,
        Good morning, afternoon, evening, as the case may be.
        @ “The definition is extremely simple: all income……………………………….”
        What is the latest/newest definition of, income. You have access to things I do not & this is why I ask. Thank you.

         
      • Colin

        June 20, 2015 at 4:59 PM

        What I showed you is what IS considered gross “income” based on your incessant citing of Section 61 and the language and list of items applicable to that. The regs I showed you are SPECIFIC to that list relative to ‘compensation for services’ which is the only item in the list relative to pay for labor. If that list is not all encompassing, then please show us where our pay for labor is considered gross “income” BEYOND the regulations I have presented which are THE regulations cited for ‘compensation for services’ relative to the Sec 61 statute.

        This isn’t true, Phil. You haven’t shown anything that limits the scope of Section 61, because the regulations can’t limit the scope of Section 61. Section 61 is part of codified US law; the regulations are just the treasury department’s rules for interpreting and enforcing those laws. When the statue says, “all income is gross income,” the regulations can’t reverse or modify that. Where there are exceptions to gross income, they’re spelled out in the statute—not in section 861 of the regs.

        The “operative sections” language you’re hammering does not carve out anything from “gross income.” That’s why you can’t cite anything that actually says what you want it to say—it’s not there. Where there are carvouts, they don’t reach what you want them to. Which, again, is why this argument has never, ever prevailed before a court and is not persuasive to any professional lawyers or accountants or tax professionals. It’s not a giant conspiracy of many thousands of people who have been threatened with murder to keep them silent—you’re just wrong.

        Stop saying ‘EXCLUDED’. Show us where we are ‘INCLUDED’!

        All income is included. That’s the point of the language in section 61. You need to find the exclusion because all income is gross income unless specifically excluded. Since you can’t find any such exclusion, the income you’re trying to hide is gross income. This fact is going to upset you, and you’re going to yell and scream about it and probably insult me some more. But you’re not going to come up with any actual language in the statute or regulations that says anything different, because it isn’t there.

        If you (Colin) are an American citizen and work for an American company that has no affiliation with or extension into a foreign country and that company did NOT force you to sign a W-4 Form agreeing to the TERMS (statutory) of that contract, after reading the regs I presented to you, would you say that you received gross “income”? If yes, please tell us why the tax code is wrong; otherwise, please cite another statute or regulation that applies here.

        If they paid me money, then I received gross income. 26 U.S.C. 61(a) states that, “Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived.” Since I received income, it was gross income, unless “otherwise provided in [subtitle A of Title 26 of the U.S. Code]”. I’m not aware of any such exclusion that would apply, whether or not I signed a W4. And neither are you, which is why you can’t point to one.

        Incorrect. ‘All’ income received is NOT gross “income”. It must be DERIVED from a source.

        “All income, from whatever source derived,” is included in “gross income.” The statute very specifically states, “from whatever source derived.” It explicitly says that derivation doesn’t matter, unless there is a specific exclusion in Subtitle A of Title 26. The regulations don’t matter, because they aren’t Subtitle A of Title 26. (And even if they did, they also don’t provide the exclusions you want to find, which—again—is why you can’t just cite the language that says so.)

        If I have to, I will hunt down the Supreme Court cites and Congressional testimony.

        I would appreciate that.

        Apparently you do not understand the meaning of “income” regards to taxation. Your ‘accepted for value’ theory/understanding is unsupported by law as far as I know.

        I don’t know what you mean by “accepted for value.” My theory is very simple: the law says what it says. The fact that every single court, practicing lawyer, expert and professional disagrees with your very odd and self-serving interpretation of that law is not because of a giant murderous secret conspiracy, but because you are wrong. Further, the reason why you can’t find language in the statue or the regulations that actually provides the exclusions you want is also because you are wrong. This explains why you get so angry when the topic of Section 61 comes up—it must be immensely frustrating to have the law state, so bluntly and obviously, that you are wrong. All income is gross income, unless there is a Subtitle A exclusion.

        Further, you are AGAIN citing ‘from whatever source’ which is the Sec 61 cite which AGAIN I have shown you the regulations regarding gross “income” and ‘compensation for services’ of which ONLY apply to non-resident aliens working in the United States for a foreign-based corporation or partnership.

        Nothing in the regulation, the statute, or anything else limits the scope of Section 61 to non-resident aliens or foreign-based corporations. You’re looking at regulations that provide for the allocation of income to various sources for the purposes of calculating credits and deductions and such that are relevant to such entities. But the law just doesn’t say anywhere that such allocations exclude anything from actual gross income for US citizens or residents. Which, again, is why you can’t cite such language. And why no court has ever interpreted the law the way you are. And why no one gets away with tax evasion on such theories. And why professors and lawyers and other experts don’t try these dishonest tactics to evade their ethical and legal obligations to pay taxes.

        And, come to think of it, why the examples in sec. 861 of the regs have nothing to do with excluding income from taxation for US residents, and everything to do with source allocation for determining credits and such. Because your self-serving interpretation is wrong. (Am I wrong? Is one of the examples in sec. 861 consistent with your self-serving interpretation? If so, which one? If not, why would the authors of the regulations exempt US residents from taxes but make all the examples so abstruse? It’s because you’re wrong. I’m sorry, but it’s true.)

        Yes, I can. I just showed it to you. If you do not sign that W-4 Form ‘volunteering’ that you earned “wages” (STATUTORY, get it?), then gross income (notice the non-quotes around income) is NOT applicable to the statutory ‘compensation for services’ regulation definition as shown.

        You’re referring to 1.861-8(a)(3)? This doesn’t exclude anything from “gross income.” At all. Which is why there’s no language there or anywhere else in 861 that says, in any way, shape, or form, “this is not gross income.” All that (3) says is that gross income gets broken down into various buckets for source allocation. It does not say, and cannot say given that it’s just a regulation, that something not inside one of those buckets is magically not gross income at all, because the root statute explicitly says that it is.

        In any event, not signing a W-4 doesn’t magically transform money you’re paid for your services into something other than “compensation for services.” If you received compensation for performing some service, it’s compensation for services.

        Again, I don’t expect you to agree with me. You’ve invested a lot of time and effort in creating and preaching this complex fantasy. Your inability to actually support it with any specific statutes or regulations that say income gets excluded from gross income, as well as the embarrassing number of court cases explicitly saying that you’re wrong, upsets you. But I don’t think it’s ever going to be enough to make you question your own competence. That’s OK. Rather than persuading you, I’d like to prevent anyone from falling victim to this nonsense the way they have to Peter Erickson’s.

        To that end, I hope at the very least we can agree that this argument will lose in court. Every single time. Without exception. It always has, and it always will. You can protect your investment in this fantasy by pretending that it’s because of a super-giant mega-secret bloodthirsty conspiracy, but the result is the same—this junk will always fail in court. And people who try it are likely to also draw penalties for making frivolous arguments. So while I enjoy the discussion, as always, I very sincerely hope you aren’t planning on trying this out for yourself.

         
      • itsmymoney

        June 21, 2015 at 11:53 AM

        Colin,

        We will never convince each other to the contrary, but anyone that can read can see that the following regulations and examples (and all previous I have shown) regarding how to determine gross income and WHO/WHAT applies to that is right in front of your eyes. There is no gray area for §1.861-1(a) as written (sorry, but I had to write in CAPS below for specific reasons). They moved language and sections around to OBFUSCATE the underlying and fundamental law and application thereof. What’s not there is NOT there. You can’t just ASSUME you owe something when you can’t find yourself specified in the law. But this country has been ‘indoctrinated’ into believing our legal duties are there when they are not (well, when you sign the slave W-4 Form things change a bit and THAT is by a coercive effort).

        Colin, it’s so simple and yes it is ‘unbelievable’ that the powers-that-be could be lying to us all these years. But they (and the suck-up MSM and Courts by extension) have been. It’s called AGENDA. I was a non-believer myself years ago. Then gee, I started reading. Used common sense and a little understanding of legal ‘terms’ and language, then came to my own conclusions. You can do the same thing.

        I won’t be responding to your responses to this because I’ve done enough research and I’m just burnt out showing you the logical progression of each regulation as they relate to each other. But it’s all there if you would open your mind like I did years ago. Happy trails…

        Fundamental (Constitutional) law rules the land…

        “It is elementary law that every statute is to be read in the light of the Constitution. However
        broad and general its language it cannot be interpreted as extending beyond those matters
        which it was within the constitutional power of the legislature to reach.”
        [McCullough v. Virginia, 172 U.S. 102 (1898)]

        Again, fundamental (Constitutional) law rules the land…

        In the year 1919, the Secretary of the Treasury recognized as “fundamental” the right of Sovereign State Citizens to accept employment as laborers for hire, and to enjoy the fruits of their own labor:

        Gross income excludes the items of income specifically exempt by … fundamental law free from such tax.

        [Treasury Decisions under Internal Revenue Laws
        of the United States, Vol. 21, Article 71]
        [emphasis added]

        In the year 1921, the Secretary of the Treasury reiterated this statement concerning the fundamental law:

        Gross income excludes the items of income specifically exempted by the statute and also certain other kinds of income by statute or fundamental law free from tax.

        [Treasury Decision 3146, Vol. 23, page 376]
        [emphasis added]

        And again in the year 1924, the identical statement was published concerning the fundamental law:

        Gross income excludes the items of income specifically exempted by the statute and also certain other kinds of income by statute or fundamental law free from tax.

        [Treasury Decision 3640, Vol. 26, page 769]
        [emphasis added]

        The Constitution is, therefore, the fundamental law. Within the 50 States where Congress is restrained by the Constitution, “gross income” excludes certain kinds of income which are free from tax under the fundamental law. Labor is personal property. The fruits of labor are personal property. A tax on personal property is a direct tax, or “capitation” tax. Outside the federal zone and inside the 50 States, Congress is restrained from imposing a direct tax on Sovereign State Citizens, unless that tax is apportioned. So income tax is an indirect tax and certain income is exempted by statute or fundamental (Constitutional) law.

        This is Section 61 in 1925 (the CURRENT Sec 61 you keep pointing to) before they moved the content to the 861 regulations we see today which are STILL THE SAME…

        “Sec. 217. (a) In the case of a nonresident alien or of a citizen entitled to the benefits of section
        262, the following items of gross income shall be treated as income from sources within the
        United States:
        (1) Interest on bonds, notes, or other interest-bearing obligations of residents, corporate or
        otherwise;
        (2) The amount received as dividends from a domestic corportation…;
        (3) Compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United States;
        (4) Rentals or royalties from property located in the United States…;
        (5) Gains, profits, and income from the sale of real property located in the United States;
        (b) From the items of gross income specified in subdivision (a) there shall be deducted [the
        allowable deductions]. The remainder, if any, shall be included in full as net income from
        sources within the United States.” [Section 217, Revenue Act of 1925]”

        Indirect excise tax category and based on activities and privileges (taxable events) producing income from those events…

        “The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to
        certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income which they
        produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of
        the tax.” [U.S. Congressional Record, March 27, 1943 (page 2580)]

        1956 regulation for Gross Income – I don’t see me (average joe American citizen) anywhere here. They changed the language and moved things around because it was so obvious that they had to deceive you and make it harder to find, but it did NOT change the law)…

        “39.22(a)-1 What included in gross income (a) Gross income includes in general [numerous
        items of income listed] derived from any source whatever, unless exempt from tax by law [i.e.,
        by statute or by the Constitution]. . . . Profits of citizens, residents, or domestic corporations
        derived from sales in foreign commerce must be included in their gross income; but special
        provisions are made for nonresident aliens and foreign corporations by sections 211 to 238,
        inclusive, and, in certain cases, by section 251, for citizens and domestic corporations deriving
        income from sources within possessions of the United States.” [26 CFR § 39.22(a)-1 (1956)]

        It does not get more simple than this (emphasis mine because some people can’t read): “Part I (Section 861 and following), subchapter N, chapter 1 of the Code, AND THE REGULATIONS THEREUNDER DETERMINE THE SOURCES OF INCOME FOR PURPOSES OF THE INCOME TAX” …

        §1.861-1 Income from sources within the United States.
        (a) Categories of income. Part I (section 861 and following), subchapter N, chapter 1 of the Code, and the regulations thereunder determine the sources of income for purposes of the income tax.

        And here’s your Subchapter N items (gee, I see that Gross Income is there) …

        SUBCHAPTER N
        Tax based on income from sources within or without the United States
        PART I: Determination of Sources of Income
        Section 861 – Income from sources within the United States
        861(a) – Gross income from sources within United States
        861(b) – Taxable income from sources within United States
        Section 862 – Income from sources without the United States
        862(a) – Gross income from sources without U.S.
        862(b) – Taxable income from sources without U.S.
        Section 863 – Special rules for determining source
        Section 864 – Definitions and special rules
        Section 865 – Source rules for personal property sales
        PART II: Nonresident Aliens and Foreign Corporations
        PART III: Income from Sources Without the United States
        PART IV: Domestic International Sales Corporations
        PART V: International Boycott Determinations

        How to compute taxable income which is based on ‘classes of income’ via Sec 61 list…

        §1.861-8 Computation of taxable income from sources within the United States and from other sources and activities.

        (3) Class of gross income. For purposes of this section, the gross income to which a specific deduction is definitely related is referred to as a “class of gross income” and may consist of one or more items (or subdivisions of these items) of gross income enumerated in section 61, namely: (the list found in Sec 61).

        What’s not in the law is not in the law…

        “Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius.” The inclusion of one is the exclusion of another. (legal definition).

        “In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes it is the established rule not to extend their
        provisions, by implication, beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their
        operations so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out” [Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151 (1917)]

         
      • Colin

        June 21, 2015 at 2:35 PM

        All that, and still not a single citation to anything that excludes wages (from whatever source derived) from gross income. Just more fanciful conspiracy theories. The reason you can’t find any legal language, statutory or otherwise, that just says what you want it to say is that your theories are wrong. That’s why the regulatory examples are inconsistent with your theories. That’s why the court rulings are inconsistent with your theories. That’s why the textbooks are inconsistent with your theories. That’s why the accountants don’t believe in your theories, or the lawyers, or the businessmen, or anyone who knows anything about tax. Could it be a giant conspiracy, composed of every judge, every lawyer, every professor, every accountant, every politician, every bureaucrat, every law student, every IRS agent, and every tax preparer, all going back decades if not centuries? No, not really, not in the real world. I’m sorry, you’re just wrong.

        We will never convince each other to the contrary, but anyone that can read can see that the following regulations and examples (and all previous I have shown) regarding how to determine gross income and WHO/WHAT applies to that is right in front of your eyes.

        There are two steps to determining gross income: Is it income? Then it’s “gross income,” pursuant to Section 61. Is there a statutory exemption, found in the statute itself as opposed to the regulations? If not, it’s still gross income. (I’ll grant that the constitution could exempt income, but it doesn’t. Neither do the regs—even if 1.861 could override 61, it doesn’t. Which is why you can’t find any language in there saying that anything at all is ever excluded from gross income—it’s just not in that section of the regs. Because your theories are wrong.)

        They moved language and sections around to OBFUSCATE the underlying and fundamental law and application thereof.

        Why doesn’t this giant conspiracy of everyone just not write those regs in the first place? They don’t have to write regs at all, you know. They could just have omitted that section, as opposed to writing secret codes only a few people on the far radical fringe can understand. People who, not coincidentally, have never been able to win a case or support their theories. Your enormous conspiracy of many thousands of people operating in perfect silence for many decades seems even less plausible than it did before.

        Colin, it’s so simple and yes it is ‘unbelievable’ that the powers-that-be could be lying to us all these years.

        We agree at last! Completely unbelievable. But you’d rather make yourself believe it than accept that you might have been wrong. Pride leads people into terrible delusions. And the more time, effort, and pride you invest in this nonsense, the harder it will be for you to think objectively about it. What’s more likely, that you’re wrong, or that thousands and thousands of people with different ideologies and agendas are acting as part of a coordinated conspiracy that’s been going on for decades with no leaks?

        Used common sense and a little understanding of legal ‘terms’ and language, then came to my own conclusions. You can do the same thing.

        A very little understanding. And totally lacking when it comes to the US Code and regulations. Again, the regs can’t override the code, and even if they could, the 861 doesn’t say that anything gets excluded from gross income. (You need the exclusion, rather than an inclusion, because 61 includes all income, from “whatever source derived.) You want there to be an exclusion, so you convinced yourself it’s there. And you know you can’t find it, so you tell yourself it’s just hidden in between the lines. But regulations don’t work that way. Look at the other places in the regs where they point out when something has been excluded from gross income: they just come right out and say it. Nothing like that in 861, because 861 doesn’t exclude anything from gross income. (As the Supreme Court has said… but I guess they’re part of the mega-conspiracy, aren’t they? Such a convenient belief, that keeps you from ever being wrong about your beliefs—whenever they don’t work, it’s just conspiracies on top of conspiracies on top of conspiracies.)

        I won’t be responding to your responses to this because I’ve done enough research and I’m just burnt out showing you the logical progression of each regulation as they relate to each other.

        The reason it’s so hard is that your progression is missing steps, and you’re pouring work into it trying to invent them out of thin air. Nothing in those regs excludes anything from 61’s inclusion of “all income, from whatever source derived.” A true logical progression would have to show where the exclusion comes from, and you can’t do that, because it isn’t there.

        Outside the federal zone and inside the 50 States, Congress is restrained from imposing a direct tax on Sovereign State Citizens, unless that tax is apportioned.

        This is a fantasy. The Sixteenth Amendment specifically permits income taxes regardless of apportionment. Nor would the income tax be a direct tax anyway; see, i.e., Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1880). These arguments have always lost, every time. Giant ultra-mega-super-duper secret conspiracy, with ninja CIA/IRS agents assassinating anyone who starts to speak about it? No. The theories are just wrong.

        This is Section 61 in 1925 (the CURRENT Sec 61 you keep pointing to) before they moved the content to the 861 regulations we see today which are STILL THE SAME…

        Are you saying that the 1925 version of the statute is the “CURRENT” version? No, it’s not. Which is why this language doesn’t appear in the statute. Or even in the regs, as far as I can tell. (I could be wrong about the regs, please let me know if I am.)

        “Sec. 217. (a) In the case of a nonresident alien or of a citizen entitled to the benefits of section
        262, the following items of gross income shall be treated as income from sources within the
        United States:
        (1) Interest on bonds, notes, or other interest-bearing obligations of residents, corporate or
        otherwise;
        (2) The amount received as dividends from a domestic corportation…;
        (3) Compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United States;
        (4) Rentals or royalties from property located in the United States…;
        (5) Gains, profits, and income from the sale of real property located in the United States;
        (b) From the items of gross income specified in subdivision (a) there shall be deducted [the
        allowable deductions]. The remainder, if any, shall be included in full as net income from
        sources within the United States.” [Section 217, Revenue Act of 1925]”

        Not one word of this excludes anything from gross income. It’s a sourcing rule, like 861—it tells you how to divide up gross income in order to apportion tax credits and such that only apply to foreign income, or other such specific sources. No matter how you apportion the income, it’s all still gross income, unless some statutory provision specifically excludes it. Which is what you can’t find for wages, because it isn’t there. Basic logic, my friend: apportionment isn’t the same thing as exclusion, and doesn’t even imply exclusion. Especially where the statute explicitly includes all income.

        “The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to
        certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income which they
        produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of
        the tax.” [U.S. Congressional Record, March 27, 1943 (page 2580)]

        Do you realize what you’re saying here? Excise taxes are indirect taxes. Weren’t you just howling about how the income tax is a direct tax and therefore unconstitutional?

        1956 regulation for Gross Income – I don’t see me (average joe American citizen) anywhere here. They changed the language and moved things around because it was so obvious that they had to deceive you and make it harder to find, but it did NOT change the law)…
        “39.22(a)-1 What included in gross income (a) Gross income includes in general [numerous
        items of income listed] derived from any source whatever, unless exempt from tax by law [i.e.,
        by statute or by the Constitution]. . . .

        Sneaky, buddy, but I’ve been reading tax protestors for a long time. Many of them are very dishonest, searching for any way to twist facts to justify their crimes. So ellipses stand out to me! And what you cut out here includes “general compensation for personal and professional services, business income . . . and income derived from any source whatsoever, unless exempt from tax by law.

        You don’t think “average joe American citizen” makes money from “compensation for personal and professional services”? Because that’s wages and salaries. And in any event, it’s income derived from a source, therefore included even under this reg.

        For what it’s worth, I don’t think you’re responsible for the extremely dishonest editing of the material you quoted. Googling it, I see you got that formulation from elsewhere, perhaps Larken Rose. You know, the convicted felon whose tax theories failed when he tested them. These people are lying to you. They are as ineffectual as well as dishonest, and they’re scamming you.

        It does not get more simple than this (emphasis mine because some people can’t read): “Part I (Section 861 and following), subchapter N, chapter 1 of the Code, AND THE REGULATIONS THEREUNDER DETERMINE THE SOURCES OF INCOME FOR PURPOSES OF THE INCOME TAX” …

        Determining the source does not determine whether something is gross income or not. All income, “from whatever source derived”, is gross income. If everything “from whatever source derived” is gross income, you won’t get out of it with regulations that “determine the source.” Because the source is irrelevant. What you’d need is a specific provision exempting wages, which you can’t find—because it doesn’t exist. You’re just wrong, and possibly committing serious crimes.

        “Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius.” The inclusion of one is the exclusion of another. (legal definition).

        Irrelevant. The law explicitly, specifically says that “all income” is included. Nothing is excluded from that definition except by specific, explicit operation of the statute. Determining sources doesn’t exclude anything, because the statute includes all income “from whatever source derived.”

        “In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes it is the established rule not to extend their
        provisions, by implication, beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their
        operations so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out” [Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151 (1917)]

        Buddy, there’s nothing clearer than “gross income means all income from whatever source derived.”

         
      • Phil Cali

        June 21, 2015 at 4:57 PM

        Colin,

        I had to respond (and this WILL be the last time on this topic) just to show everyone that you either do not read or you are incapable of understanding or wanting to understand…

        I DID cite “wages” as applicable but ONLY thru Subtitle C because that’s the only way they bring “wages” into “income” (thru ‘privilege’ via the TERMS that apply). “Wages” is a STATUTORY TAX TERM different than the common meaning of the word wages – how do you NOT get that?! And how do you earn “wages” that make common wages a TAX TERM? By signing and submitting a W-4 Form! Read Subtitle C, genius. And please show me where wages or “wages” (either one, I’m giving you a choice) shows up in Subtitle A Sec 61. Oh, you can’t? …

        Given ALL the rewording of and moving around of this tax code, WOULDN’T IT BE REAL EASY TO ADD WAGES TO THAT LIST? But your UNFOUNDED answer would be that ‘they don’t have to’. No, because they CAN’T! The only way is thru Subtitle C of which I cited not only in my last post but other prior posts. It’s not “income” but thru that W-4 Form that you ‘volunteered’ to submit but only because it was coerced upon you or you wouldn’t work otherwise. You keep missing this. Why is that? I’m sure others can follow the logic.

        And I KNOW that source does not matter. It is WHOM IS LIABLE to ‘Gross Income’ and THAT has been defined for you in the regulations I have shown you of which you conveniently dismiss! You keep ignoring this as well. Why is that?

        I do not wish to insult you but the word IGNORAMUS fits. Please refrain from responding because you are making yourself look like a fool. Especially with that so-called ‘Harvard’ degree. Adios.

         
      • Allen Curtis

        June 21, 2015 at 1:10 AM

        SIR Colin,
        Colin
        June 19, 2015 at 1:44 AM

        @ If you did the research instead of blathering about what you think is the truth then you would see that only certain entities are INCLUDED in gross income and taxable income.

        Colin your response to the above comment IS, “That’s not true. “Entities” aren’t included in gross income and taxable income”.

        ok Colin, SO how does what you say tie in with definition of, ENTITY, > “In general, an entity (pronounced N-tih-tee ) is an existing or real thing”.

         
      • Colin

        June 21, 2015 at 5:57 PM

        I DID cite “wages” as applicable but ONLY thru Subtitle C because that’s the only way they bring “wages” into “income” (thru ‘privilege’ via the TERMS that apply).

        Wages are income because it’s money received. Period. If you get money, it’s income. If there’s no explicit statutory exemption, it’s gross income. You’re doing so much work to try and pretend that Section 61 doesn’t say what it says. But you can’t change the law by pretending, no matter how hard.

        “Wages” is a STATUTORY TAX TERM different than the common meaning of the word wages – how do you NOT get that?!

        It doesn’t matter how you define “wages.” If it’s money and you receive it, it’s income. If there’s no explicit statutory exemption, it’s gross income. And no matter how hard you squint, you still haven’t found any kind of exemption for wages. It’s not there. Which is why no one has ever won a case on this theory.

        And please show me where wages or “wages” (either one, I’m giving you a choice) shows up in Subtitle A Sec 61. Oh, you can’t? …

        Sure I can. Section 61 says, “Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived…” All income falls under Section 61. The source explicitly doesn’t matter: “all income from whatever source derived.” If it’s money and you receive it, it’s income and it falls within Section 61. Wages are money you receive, which makes them income and gross income under Section 61.

        The list of specific items in Section 61 is not exclusive. The statute explicitly says that gross income includes but is not limited to the items in (1) through (15). Even if wages couldn’t be found on that list, they’d still be income and gross income. You have to find an explicit exclusion to get something out of gross income. You can’t find that for wages because it doesn’t exist.

        Given ALL the rewording of and moving around of this tax code, WOULDN’T IT BE REAL EASY TO ADD WAGES TO THAT LIST? But your UNFOUNDED answer would be that ‘they don’t have to’. No, because they CAN’T!

        They don’t have to. The foundation for that answer is the plain text of Section 61: “Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items….” They don’t have to include the word “wages” to make wages income, which makes them gross income.

        They also don’t have to include the word “wages” because they already included “compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items.” That’s wages.

        But again, even if it wasn’t, wages would still be income and therefore gross income in lieu of an explicit exclusion, which you can’t find because it doesn’t exist. Your stories get so elaborate and twisty because you’re trying to build a fantasy to defeat reality. That usually doesn’t work very well. Which is why your theories have always lost, and never prevailed, when tested in the real world.

        It’s not “income” but thru that W-4 Form that you ‘volunteered’ to submit but only because it was coerced upon you or you wouldn’t work otherwise. You keep missing this. Why is that? I’m sure others can follow the logic.

        I’d be surprised if they could. Income just means money or value received. Whether you signed a W-4 or not is completely irrelevant. If it’s money and you received it, it’s income. If there’s no explicit statutory exclusion, it’s gross income. Simple and logical, because it’s true—as opposed to your twisty narrative full of holes. (Like why we’d need an explicit inclusionary provision when Section 61 is so straightforward, and clearly says that all income is included in lieu of a statutory exclusion. Terrible logic.)

        And I KNOW that source does not matter. It is WHOM IS LIABLE to ‘Gross Income’ and THAT has been defined for you in the regulations I have shown you of which you conveniently dismiss!

        The regulations you’re citing are sourcing rules. If you “KNOW that source does not matter,” you’re one step closer to understanding why the sourcing rules don’t remove anything from gross income. (Which is why the regulatory examples in 861 have nothing to do with removing wages or anything else from gross income.)

        Please refrain from responding because you are making yourself look like a fool.

        I’m quite comfortable with the record here. Again, my goal is not to persuade you, although that would be nice. I hope that any readers who might otherwise be tempted to commit crimes based on your logic will be persuaded that those theories are irrational and wrong. Which is why they’ve always lost in court, every time. Because judges, like most people, can read the single sentence in Section 61 that refutes all your fantasies: “Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived….”

         
      • Allen Curtis

        June 21, 2015 at 8:08 PM

        Sir Colin,
        You, Colin were advised, > Prior to the adoption of the 14th Amendment there were no “citizens of the United States as such” but only some one of them (States)”.

        You, Colin, responded, > “So what? We live after the adoption of the 14th Amendment.”

        Dear Mr. Colin. Fraud begets fraud, corruption begets corruption, & forced at the point of a bayonet to ADOPT anything only brings on more forced at the point of a bayonet to obey the unlawful adoption(s) if later resisted. Also, it was presumed you kept in mind the OTHER points presented to you in the differences of opinion. Each message cannot be repeated in one message, otherwise it will take at least a day or more to read that one message containing ALL the previous messages. NOW ! Per this FLAG disagreement. Here as follows, IS the mistake ALL the flag protesters made & STILL make,e.g., Excerpts, >

        On October 31, 1995, the United States of America moved that this Court grant it summary judgment. Defendant Greenstreet responded by filing a document entitled “Notice of No Venue to This Statutory, Admiralty Court.”
        AND, the Court said, > The concept behind the theory the proponent asserts is that if a courtroom is adorned with a flag which happens to be fringed around the edges, such decor indicates that the court is one of admiralty jurisdiction exclusively. ( 952 F.Supp. 647 (1997)
        Daniel J. McCANN, Plaintiff, v. Ronnie GREENWAY, et al., Defendants.
        No. 96-5038-CV-SW-1.
        United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Southwestern Division.
        His main complaint is that the state court did not have jurisdiction over the custody dispute because the court flew a “maritime flag of war”, which invested the court with admiralty jurisdiction to the exclusion of its lawful jurisdiction over family law disputes.

        This IS the SAME mistake ALL the Flag protesters make, e.g,, AN ADMIRALTY FLAG EXCLUSIVELY. BUT !! They make other mistakes TOO

         
      • Allen Curtis

        June 21, 2015 at 8:15 PM

        Colin,
        My LAST, at this time message to you did not post as I sent it. Hopefully what did not post will this time, One of the Courts excerpts about the flag was from,

        UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff,
        v. Gale E. GREENSTREET, LuAnn Taylor, County Clerk of Dallam County, Texas, and LeRoy Hutton, County Clerk of Randall County, Texas, Defendants.
        No. 2:95-CV-119-J.
        United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Amarillo Division

         
      • Allen Curtis

        June 21, 2015 at 9:08 PM

        Colin,
        My last two messages to you, at this time, STILL did not post as I cut & pasted them so I will try again NOW that I have “cooled off”. As most of us know, there are all kinds of law, e.g., family law, real estate law & so on. I also tried to say that this yellow fringed flag only serves notice as to what kind of law is in force & of course at the discretion of the Judge. NOW, I have been subjected to “back porch” justice where there was not any flag at all. Some of these Justices of the Peace hold court in their OWN homes, out on the back porch. TEXAS & TENNESSEE & KENTUCKY are 3 first hand experiences for me. ALSO, I know for a fact there are,OR AT LEAST WERE, State Troopers involved & these “PEACE JUSTICES” & the State Troopers HAD TO SPLIT THE “FINES” between each other. I have been “incarcerated” in a CLOTHES CLOSET in the HOMES where these Justices of the PEACE LIVED. IF I did not have the amount of the fine they ALL ” negioated” with me. NOW !!! I am either telling the TRUTH, OR, I am LYING. Dangerfield TX. was ONE of these BACK-PORCH JUSTICE TOWNS.

         
      • Eddy Kitts

        June 22, 2015 at 7:35 AM

        My dear Colin,
        You have the patience of Job. What we have here my dear Colin IS, True Sovereigns v. sov-runs, aka, sov-cits, hereinafter, sov-cits. sov-cits do not put Sovereigns in jail. Sovereigns put sov-cits in jail. Sovereigns have Sovereign immunity, sov-cits do not.Sovereigns are sued for various & sundry & reasons only to have their, hahhah hehe “right to petition the government for a redress of grievance” denied as specious, spurious, frivolous, irrelevant, immaterial, & without foundation & merit & they, the sov-cits STILL DON’T GET IT !!! As we both know, my dear Colin, Guillotine laws are now in the making. The mouth & the brain & the eyes are located in what is called, the HEAD. sov-cits claim to, smell a rat, say they use their brain & say they SEE. Well we’ll SEE when a few of those heads are chopped off via Guillotine Public executions so the other sov-cits will SEE who is SOVEREIGN, won’t we ?1? I wonder if the sov-cits will GET IT THEN? Will they finally SEE they are SUBJECTS? I do wonder.They ARE hard HEADED ya know. I SAY OFF WITH THEIR HEADS.

         
    • Eddy Kitts

      June 22, 2015 at 12:21 AM

      Philip,
      @ What I showed you is what IS considered gross “income”
      Phil, I know how gross is defined,but I do not know how income is defined by “Government”. BUT I do believe the Government IS GROSS AS GROSS IS DEFINED. HAHHAHhahahahahaHAHHAHha
      Ain’t that Right palani? That’s right ain’t it? :-)

       
  10. Phil Cali

    June 13, 2015 at 7:34 PM

    Follow-up to prior post: I have noticed that some/many 1099-based filers have had great success in making the IRS ‘surrender’ when IRS tries to bully these 1099-based filers into paying the tax. Of course these filers must be savvy in how to defend themselves, but I DO see a pattern here…

    …without a ‘voluntary’ W-4 Form in play, there are no statutory-applied tax code terms applied to the contract (“employee”, “employer”, “wages”). Therefore it is harder for the IRS to prove their claim that you owe an “income” tax.

    In fact, in my profession there used to be an option offered to ‘us’ to work either as a 1099 employee or a W-4 “employee”. Now, virtually 99% of companies do not offer that option anymore. Why do you think that is?

    Food for thought.

     
    • John Brennan

      June 13, 2015 at 8:14 PM

      I bought a copy of CtC at a gun show in Michigan last February. Best $25 I ever spent. Read it twice in about three weeks. I believe that Peter Hendrickson is right as rain. I filed my first educated return in April and have already got my union state refund back. I am getting a little push back from the feds but I expected that. What do we have to lose? They already have most of the money. If they want to put me in prison, they know where I live. Are they going to make all of us dig potatoes on the prison farm for 12 hours a day at the point of a gun? Because that’s basically what they’re doing to us all right now without Pete’s book. By the way, I love Adask Law and have been following your site for several years, ever since you were on 60 minutes.

       
    • Phil Cali

      June 13, 2015 at 8:37 PM

      “In fact, in my profession there used to be an option offered to ‘us’ to work either as a 1099 employee or a W-4 “employee”. Now, virtually 99% of companies do not offer that option anymore. Why do you think that is?”

      Clarification: The ONLY option most companies now offer is the W-4 “employee” variety. You think maybe GovCo might have ‘suggested’ this to them?

       
      • Jethro!

        June 16, 2015 at 8:43 AM

        The W-4 is little problem. This “certificate” is about having “knowledge and BELIEF” about its contents — it even says so. So do you have firsthand knowledge that you have a tax liability? (hint: no). Now do you BELIEVE that you have a tax liability? Hmm, that’s the rub, isn’t it? (hint: ever heard of a WILLFUL (=belief) failure to charge?) So without knowledge and belief of a liability, it says to write “Exempt” on it. Why not do that?

         
    • Divine Law

      June 14, 2015 at 4:02 PM

      If you have the status as a US citizen, then you are a US person, and a subject required to file. Because you are engaged in privileged taxable activity and must file. Especially if you married by the State, by applying and receiving the Marriage license. The same goes for a Business License issued and/or a Drivers License issued by application then the Card in Hand. Ah yes, the most overlooked!, the application and the issuance of the Social Security Card. One has to apply for it in the past, but now is issued at birth, to those who are birthed in a city, county, or municipal Hospital. Why? because they are now presumed to expressly imply; You are a US citizen, thus our property, and as a citizen/subject, we own YOU. When one receives these Gifts and/or Privileges you become a citizen/subject within the Federal Zone established, extended into the States, County, City, and Municipalities, known as USPS Zones engaging in Commerce. The Legal System, All Courts, and Lawyers must enforce their ECCLESHEASTICAL LAW, by their Oaths to the Bar to keep citizen/subjects in line! Since Obama came into the Office of the President of the UNITED TATES INC. (A Religious NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION) things seem to be ramping up in the suspension of the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution, by Executive Order.

       
      • Spade Koolie

        June 14, 2015 at 10:08 PM

        Divine Law
        @ June 14, 2015 at 4:02 PM
        Thaaaaaaaaaat’s RIGHT. And, I STILL SEE this S.S.N. as the Mark of the Beast, or at least the forerunner of that Mark. It does have a NUMBER & it IS REQUIRED for everything, it seems, to be able to BUY & SELL & EXIST, at least for the vast majority.

         
    • Colin

      June 15, 2015 at 10:59 PM

      Great success like Mr. Waltner? He followed Hendrickson’s “main tax tactic“:

      “This misguided view leads to the author’s strategy for filing tax returns, which was mirrored by Mr. Waltner’s returns. The author recommends “correcting” Forms 1099 by including a declaration that nothing that was received was taxable. Mr. Waltner did this. The author recommends creating substitute W-2s by changing only the amount of the reported wages. Mr. Waltner did this. The author recommends filing a Form 1040 based on these inappropriately revised forms. Mr. Waltner did this. The author recommends including FICA taxes amongst the taxes withheld. Mr. Waltner did this.”

      And of course those tactics didn’t work. Mr. Waltner lost his case and was fined for making frivolous arguments.

      Fraudulent tax gurus like to cherry-pick examples to make their theories look sound. It takes a while for the law to catch up with tax cheats, and some get away by flying under the radar for years or even decades. The vast majority, though, end up like Mr. Waltner or Mr. Hendrickson himself: losing in court, because the theories don’t actually work when put to the test.

       
      • Spade Koolie

        June 17, 2015 at 7:28 AM

        Colin,
        @ Jethro, earning money isn’t what subjects you to “a particular taxing jurisdiction.” You’re already subject to the jurisdiction of the United States if you live, work, or earn money here. (Again, this is the real-world definition of “The United States,”
        —————————————————————————————————
        Subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States is the same as saying Subject to ITS Jurisdiction and IS NOT the same thing as Subject to THEIR Jurisdiction. It is my understanding that Benjamin Franklin was asked, What have you wrought? Ben replied, “A Republic IF you can KEEP It”. Do you have any idea why he responded like that? Do you believe THAT REPUBLIC has been KEPT? “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands,…………………………..” < Whoever does this today is either extremely ignorant, or, a mocker. I also remember What Justice James Wilson said in, Chisholm v. Georgia about how The Servants of Man at first deceive, then vilify, and, at last, oppress their Master & Maker, &, Colin, I find it hard to grasp that you are not aware that you stand behind & support those oppressors.

         
      • mrtideman

        June 17, 2015 at 12:08 PM

        RE: ” I also remember What Justice James Wilson * said in, Chisholm v. Georgia about how The Servants of Man at first deceive, then vilify,*** and, at last, oppress their Master & Maker”

        ” Spade Koolie
        June 17, 2015 at 7:28 AM”

        * https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=James_Wilson

        You were there back then Spade? (;-) Hey, thanks.

        RE #2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chisholm_v._Georgia

        Did he use the word: Dulocracy * in that paragraph #___ with #___ sentences therein? The reason I ask is that years ago I read this term in Henry Campbell “Black’s Law Dictionary” 5th edition, (c)1979 @ page 450 in column #1 of 2 = “Dulocracy. A government where servants and slaves have so much license and privilege that they domineer.” as in to have dominion of like what I call a Government Passover in that they do http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/violate , re: #1 of 5: “to break, infringe, or transgress (a law, rule, agreement, promise,instructions, etc.). ” & http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/transgress = ” to pass over or go beyond (a limit, boundary, etc.): ” .

        * See: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dulocracy for yet another word: ” A government where servants and slaves have so much license and privilege that they domineer or belord; ” of that of https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/belord of to: ” lord over. ” of here in New Hampshire of even to lord over the landlord, of the judges do allow two wrongs to make a right ** in that of no RSA Ch. 528:16 postings in two adjoining towns in ADDITION to that of the RSA Ch. 529:20 for real estate of withIN the town only, nor 528:18 service of process upon the corporate clerk of only then of AFTER such can the rents by legally taken temporarily by the Sheriff Sale bidder, and when you tell this to your local Legislators / to present this to them they REFUSE to re-present as a House Address H.A. #____ to become a Bill of Impeachment against the judge for having violated his RSA Ch. 92:2 oath of office to honor the law! http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-LIV.htm and http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/VI/92/92-2.htm plus: http://www.nh.gov/constitution/oaths.html

        ** http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/two-wrongs-make-a-right.html and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_wrongs_make_a_right ” This is an informal fallacy that occurs when assuming that, if one wrong is committed, then another wrong will cancel it out.” / Criticism: “Common use of the term, in the realm of business ethics, has been criticized by scholar Gregory S. Kavka **** writing in the Journal of Business Ethics. Kavka refers back to philosophical concepts of retribution byThomas Hobbes. ” ***** & ” For example, Kavka states that it is wrong to deprive someone of their property but it is right to take property back from a criminal who takes another’s property in the first place. ” & ” Lasky uses as an analogy the situation between John F. Kennedy’s wiretapping of Martin Luther King, Jr. (which led to nothing) and Richard Nixon’s actions in Watergate (which Nixon thought would also lead to nothing).[3] ” (-:0 ) footnote #3 = ” It Didn’t Start With Watergate. Victor Lasky. ”

        *** http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vilify = ” : to say or write very harsh and critical things about (someone or something) ”

        **** http://texts.cdlib.org/view?docId=hb5g50061q&doc.view=frames&chunk.id=div00055
        Gregory S. Kavka, Philosophy: Irvine

        1947-1994
        Professor
        Gregory Kavka died on February 16, 1994, at the age of 46. After cancer was first detected in January of 1984, . . .He was also well along on another book, provisionally entitled,Governing Angels. In his own view, however, perhaps the most important achievement of this period was the birth of his beloved daughter, Amber, in 1989.. . . Personally, Greg was a deeply kind, thoughtful, and egalitarian human being. His lack of pretension and vanity was manifest in his relations with colleagues and students alike. He was also deeply dedicated in his personal and philosophical life to clarity and truth. These latter qualities probably explain Greg’s attraction to Hobbes, whose line “The question is not what is fit to be preached but what is true,” could almost be his motto.
        However, Greg’s honesty was inextricably bound up with his humanity, with his humaneness. These traits are difficult to combine. His humaneness prevented his honesty from becoming ruthless or cynical; his honesty prevented his humanity from lapsing into sentimentality or wishful thinking. . . Greg is survived by his wife, Professor Virginia Warren of Chapman University; his daughter, Amber Kavka-Warren; his parents, Jerome Kavka, M.D. and Georgine Kavka M.D; and his sister, Audrey Kavka Moretti M.D.. . A memorial fund in Greg Kavka’s name has been established to support the work of younger scholars in social and political philosophy. To make a contribution to the fund, write a check to “UCI Foundations, Gregory Kavka Memorial Fund,” in care of the Department of Philosophy at UC Irvine, 92717.
        Tyler Burge Gary Watson” @ pages 143, 144 + 145 thank you “very” much, of maybe his future book was about The Dominions? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_angelic_hierarchy
        2.1 Dominions or Lordships

        Dominions or Lordships[edit]
        The “Dominions” (Eph. 1:21; Col. 1:16) (lat. dominatio, plural dominationes, also translated from the Greek term kyriotētes, pl. of kyriotēs, as “Lordships”) or “Dominations” are presented as the hierarchy of celestial beings “Lordships” in some English translations of the De Coelesti Hierarchia. The Dominions regulate the duties of lower angels. It is only with extreme rarity that the angelic lords make themselves physically known to humans. They are also the angels who preside over nations.[citation needed]
        The Dominions are believed to look like divinely beautiful humans with a pair of feathered wings, much like the common representation of angels, but they may be distinguished from other groups by wielding orbs of light fastened to the heads of their scepters or on the pommel of their swords.[citation needed] ”

        ***** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hobbes

         
      • Spade Koolie

        June 18, 2015 at 10:51 AM

        Sir Colin
        @ And if I renamed my dog “United States,” there’d be one more. But it wouldn’t create more than one political entity commonly referred to as The United States or the US or the USA–

        And, the beat goes on Sir Colin for over 150 years, since the First U.S.A. Is Ameristralia NEXT?

        White House petition calls for merger of United States, Australia, to …May 7, 2013 … A petition has been created on the official White House website calling for the Obama Administration to join “America and Australia to form …http://www.news.com.au/national/white-house-petition-calls-for-merger-of-united-states-australia-to-form-ameristralia/story-fncynjr2-1226636517210 – Similar Pages

         
      • Eddy Kitts

        June 22, 2015 at 7:31 PM

        Colin
        @ Pride leads people into terrible delusions. And the more time, effort, and pride you invest in this nonsense, the harder it will be for you to think objectively about it.
        HOW TRUE !! It’s just that a few of us see the Government as delusional. HOWEVER, I personally believe most people that comprise Government are doing what seems APPROPRIATE and this is due to what they have been taught & trained to do. Colin, I saw something interesting in the case of, UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Gale E. GREENSTREET, LuAnn Taylor, County Clerk of Dallam County, Texas, and LeRoy Hutton, County Clerk of Randall County, Texas, Defendants.
        No. 2:95-CV-119-J. United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Amarillo Division.

        It is written in the last two sentences, > “Litigants such as Mr. Greenstreet should not be underestimated. They are often motivated and know how to work the system.”

        Now I do not know if this is dicta, dictum, in or out of context,meaning the excerpt cited is quoted, out of context, in a repository out-of-context citation as you have said before, BUT, what do you think the Court meant by, & WHY do you think the Court said that & WHO was the Court directing that statement too? To me, it’s almost like the Court is saying these “KIND” of “litigants” are getting close to seeing what is really going on, etc. BUT who is the Court saying this to? I am mainly curious as to WHY the Court said, > “Litigants such as Mr. Greenstreet should not be underestimated.” And I would like to know WHY the Court said this & WHO it was directed to.

         
      • Phil Cali

        June 23, 2015 at 7:55 PM

        Apparently no one can follow the logic of this or have any semi-comprehensive reading skills.

        Source DOES matter if you are NOT submitting a W-4 Form ADMITTING that you had STATUTORY “wages”. Look at Subtitle C in the Title 26 tax code. It is for EMPLOYMENT taxes (SS + Medicare). “Wages” is defined there for THAT reason, but ALSO for withholding against a POTENTIAL tax liability under Subtitle A (“income” taxes). POTENTIAL is the key word.

        Why the F is “wages” NOT defined in Subtitle A? (BTW genius, it’s NOT compensation for services unless initiated from Subtitle C). Because the only reason “wages” now becomes “income” assessable/applicable under Subtitle A is because YOU volunteered it to be “income” via the ‘GovCo privilege of something gained’ (IN ADDITION TO SS + Medicare) by signing the VOLUNTARY but GOVERNMENT W-4 Form under Subtitle C (EMPLOYMENT taxes!). Where else is “wages” (STATUTORY TERM i.e. LEGAL application) defined? It’s ONLY in Subtitle C! Is this too hard for people? …

        Otherwise common wages (pay for labor) is NOT taxable until it is tied to the tax code. Where does that happen? Subtitle C. It’s f-ing right there but jackass/moron (not you Kitts) can’t see that “wages” only applies thru EMPLOYMENT taxation which falls under Subtitle C along with all the other TAX TERMS (“employee”, “employer”, “employment”). He’s a moron, AND he dismissed my statement showing that HE stated that “income” is any income accepted as ‘value’. Then he later denies it. Hypocrite, GovCo-loving or working for them, troll. Yes, I CAN insult and still be correct.

        People…

        Take the W-4 out of the equation because THAT is the tie into the tax code. Otherwise, please READ and COMPREHEND this simple STARTING income tax regulation below for ‘Gross Income’ (emphasis mine) and then look at the regulations of which NEVER mention the American citizen UNLESS he/she works for or is affiliated with a foreign corp or partnership. Can it be more simple than this? It’s NOT just for tax credits and that is a moronic statement. If YOU (American citizen) are not identified in the code (except SPECIFICALLY in the case of foreign-based-income affiliation as I and the regs have shown), then do YOU apply otherwise to common ‘Gross Income’?

        BTW, ‘ALL’ income (Sec 61 lovers) still must be CLASSIFIED under the REGULATIONS of which are spelled out for you starting with the simple regulation below. Follow the bouncing ball as I have shown in past posts and you will see it clearly. Geez, can I give you any more than I have? Just because the Courts ignore the law is no basis for an unequivocal argument saying that THEY are correct. If you trust the Courts then you are living in OZ and you are ignorant of what is right in front of you if you will just read it without prejudice…

        “Part I (Section 861 and following), subchapter N, chapter 1 of the Code, AND THE REGULATIONS THEREUNDER DETERMINE THE SOURCES OF INCOME FOR PURPOSES OF THE INCOME TAX” …

         
      • Colin

        June 24, 2015 at 11:58 PM

        Source DOES matter if you are NOT submitting a W-4 Form ADMITTING that you had STATUTORY “wages”.

        Gross income is statutorily defined as all income “from whatever source derived.” Not “from whatever source derived, except for people who foolishly sign a W-4.” Regulations can’t overturn a statutory definition, and nothing you’ve cited actually removes wages (or anything else) from gross income. (And since taxable income is just gross income minus deductions, wages are also taxable income.)

        Look at Subtitle C in the Title 26 tax code. It is for EMPLOYMENT taxes (SS + Medicare). “Wages” is defined there for THAT reason, but ALSO for withholding against a POTENTIAL tax liability under Subtitle A (“income” taxes). POTENTIAL is the key word.

        Subtitle C is for employment taxes, as you say. Its definitions and provisions do not affect the calculation of income taxes in Subtitle A. It doesn’t matter what C does or doesn’t define: Subtitle A governs the calculation of income tax. And in Subtitle A, gross income is defined as all income from whatever source. There’s no requirement to define wages specifically, as all income is included in the sec. 61 definition.

        Why the F is “wages” NOT defined in Subtitle A? (BTW genius, it’s NOT compensation for services unless initiated from Subtitle C).

        Because it doesn’t have to be defined separately—gross income is all income from whatever source derived, making a separate definition superfluous. I don’t understand why you think wages aren’t compensation for services. Do you have a specific reason for thinking these words don’t mean what they say, other than that it is difficult to sustain your fantasy if you read the law as it is written? You certainly haven’t cited any text from the statute or regulations that says that wages should be excluded from section 61’s general inclusion, or its specific mention of compensation for services. It’s a moot point, since gross income explicitly includes all income, period, short of a statutory exclusion, but I think it’s telling how your angry rejection of the language of the statute is based on nothing at all.

        Because the only reason “wages” now becomes “income” assessable/applicable under Subtitle A is because YOU volunteered it to be “income” via the ‘GovCo privilege of something gained’ (IN ADDITION TO SS + Medicare) by signing the VOLUNTARY but GOVERNMENT W-4 Form under Subtitle C (EMPLOYMENT taxes!).

        Once again, this is a fantasy based on nothing at all. Subtitle A defines gross income as all income, except that subject to statutory exclusions. Which you can’t find for wages, because there’s no exclusion. Wages are money coming in, so it’s income, so it’s gross and therefore taxable income. You don’t have to “volunteer it to be income,” it’s income because you received it. That’s all it takes.

        Again, your inability to cite any statutory language that makes wages exempt from Subtitle A is rather telling. I understand your frustration—you badly want your theory to be true, but you can’t find actual laws that support it. The solution is not to bury your head in the sand and pretend harder. Is it more admirable and ethical to construct elaborate fantasies, or to learn what the law really is? Are conspiracy theories based on what’s probably true, or an escape mechanism to avoid having to confront inconvenient facts?

        Where else is “wages” (STATUTORY TERM i.e. LEGAL application) defined? It’s ONLY in Subtitle C! Is this too hard for people? …

        Most people—including all accountants, lawyers, judges, tax professionals, law and finance and accounting and business professors, bureaucrats, and so on—read Subtitle A to determine how to calculate income tax. Because it’s the subtitle that’s about calculating income tax. And they read that gross income is all income, except that specifically excluded by statute. And they read that taxable income is all gross income, except that subject to statutory deductions. And that’s it.

        The reason people aren’t following your trail of thought is that it isn’t logical. You’re making up a need to go to Subtitle C. You’re making up a need to find a specific statutory inclusion for wages. You’re making up the significance of a W-4 in calculating gross income.

        A sign of how far off-base your theories are is the sheer magnitude of the conspiracy theory you have to believe in to sustain your fantasy. When everyone who knows anything about tax disagrees with you, it’s probably because you’re wrong. You prefer to believe in a very old, hilariously gigantic, utterly ruthless conspiracy of thousands of politicians and experts and pencil-pushers who execute anyone who dares mention the truth about gross income. And never, ever, ever, ever have a leak where someone talks about this giant murder-tax-cult thing. Isn’t it much more likely that you’re just in error?

        After all, if the conspiracy had that much power, why not just write laws that don’t contain these secret twisty between-the-lines escape hatches that no one else can see but you? If the judges and lawyers and politicians and bureaucrats and even private accountants and tax preparers work for The Conspiracy—which they pretty much have to in order to explain why your theories have no support and have never worked in the outside world—it’s not like anyone would call them on changing the law. Or just writing it in a more convenient way from the beginning, since The Conspiracy would have to date back to the beginning of the income tax.

        Otherwise common wages (pay for labor) is NOT taxable until it is tied to the tax code. Where does that happen? Subtitle C.

        For income taxes, Subtitle A, specifically in section 61. Subtitle C is about employment taxes. You look to Subtitle A to calculate what is and isn’t taxable income. What Subtitle C defines isn’t relevant to that calculation.

        Otherwise, please READ and COMPREHEND this simple STARTING income tax regulation below for ‘Gross Income’ (emphasis mine) and then look at the regulations of which NEVER mention the American citizen UNLESS he/she works for or is affiliated with a foreign corp or partnership. Can it be more simple than this? It’s NOT just for tax credits and that is a moronic statement.

        Regulations cannot trump statutory definitions—they show how the executive branch interprets the statute, and cannot override it. The statute says that all income is gross income. No regulation can change that. And the regulations you’re citing don’t try. They provide operational rules for determining the source of income. We know for a fact that sourcing rules are irrelevant, because the statute explicitly includes all income from whatever source derived.

        The examples in the regulation show how this works. It’s complex and boring, but you can tell pretty easily it’s not about excluding anything from gross income. You can tell that because they don’t exclude anything from gross income in those examples.

        The regulations you’re citing don’t talk about citizenship because citizenship is irrelevant to the calculations. And they tend to refer to foreign people and companies or sources of income from abroad because these rules are used to apportion income into US-based and foreign-based income, for the application of things like tax credits and certain deductions. Which is why the examples are all about such calculations.

        The reason the regulations never say that anything is excluded from gross income is that regulations don’t do that. The statute does. And the statute explicitly includes all income, including compensation for services.

        BTW, ‘ALL’ income (Sec 61 lovers) still must be CLASSIFIED under the REGULATIONS of which are spelled out for you starting with the simple regulation below.

        And where do you find this principle in the law? The statute doesn’t say so. The regulations don’t say so. The courts don’t say so. The law just says that all income is gross income, unless there’s a statutory exception. The regulations agree. The courts agree.

        I know you want this to be true. But is it actually true? Can you point to something that says so, other than your own burning desire to not pay taxes?

        Follow the bouncing ball as I have shown in past posts and you will see it clearly. Geez, can I give you any more than I have?

        Yes!
        1. Citations to law saying that wages are not gross income.
        2. Citations to law saying that gross income must be apportioned by the regulations to be gross income.
        3. Citations to cases finding that wages are not gross (or taxable) income.

        That would be a great start.

        Just because the Courts ignore the law is no basis for an unequivocal argument saying that THEY are correct.

        Can we at least agree that whether the court disagree because you’re wrong, or because of a giant multigenerational blood-soaked murder conspiracy, that your arguments will fail if tried in the real world? That people should not rest their futures and fortunes on these failed ideas?

        “Part I (Section 861 and following), subchapter N, chapter 1 of the Code, AND THE REGULATIONS THEREUNDER DETERMINE THE SOURCES OF INCOME FOR PURPOSES OF THE INCOME TAX” …

        Section 61 of the underlying statute: “gross income means all income from whatever source derived.” Rules for determining the source of income are irrelevant to determining whether it’s gross income.

         
    • Spade Koolie

      June 17, 2015 at 6:28 AM

      Phil Cali
      Well Phil, here is the good news.
      Re: United States dollar –
      One of the unique things about the U.S dollar system is that all of the notes are the same size. This is the only country in the world to have this type of system.Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
      HAHHAHhahahahahahaha Good News, Huh? Yeah Right !! HAHHAHhahahahaHAHHAHhahaha
      I can’t figger out how the IRS says even a single Dollar is involved in anything when a Note is not a Dollar.E.g., “THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER……….. “

       
  11. BillyP

    June 13, 2015 at 7:50 PM

    Enjoyed your work. Thank you.

     
  12. mrtideman

    June 15, 2015 at 10:01 PM

    I’ve yet to read this from Jim, so me just posting it here for anybody else to read first and maybe reply. = http://www.takelifeback.com/ssc/ctcrev/ – – Joe (in New Hampshire). P.S. Jim wrote an excellent thank you page about my good friend Andy Melechinsky, R.I.,P. who fought the I.R.S. back in the 1970s, 80s and 90s. in Enfield, Conn. of he and Ralph Lombardi would travel up to here the 1st Sunday of the month, of we’d meet over at Frank & Barbara Anderson’s The “Sherwood Inn” on Route 4 in Epsom, N.H. of she is in The 1999 Smithsonian Festival book at: file:///C:/Users/Joseph/Downloads/1999SmithsonianFolklifeFestival.pdf (takes about 2-3 minutes to load) at page #___.

     
    • Allen Curtis

      June 19, 2015 at 9:41 PM

      mrtideman,
      @ my good friend Andy Melechinsky,
      I knew Andy. He was a Real trooper. Did not know he died. Anyway, he’s better off than we are. And, the best is yet to come, for him.

       
  13. timmy

    June 15, 2015 at 10:23 PM

    Anyone ever notice how all these people go to jail??

     
    • Colin

      June 15, 2015 at 11:18 PM

      Indeed, Mr. Hendrickson seems to be up for trail again in a week or so. This is tax court, so unless I very much misunderstand the law no criminal penalties will be imposed this time around. Unlike the last time, and the time before that…

      “I have invented a machine that creates pure gold out of thin air! Just pay me $100 and I’ll show it to you.”

       
      • Colin

        June 15, 2015 at 11:20 PM

        (Whoops, googling for more information I learned that Mr. Hendrickson’s trial has been rescheduled for November. I predict he’s going to lose, just like his theories always lose in court eventually.)

         
      • Spade Koolie

        June 16, 2015 at 3:55 AM

        Colin,
        @ “I have invented a machine that creates pure gold out of thin air! Just pay me $100 and I’ll show it to you.”
        Is it for sale? If it is, I’m afraid to ask you how much. D
        Will you consider selling it on credit? D

         
      • Allen Curtis

        June 19, 2015 at 7:17 PM

        Sir Esquire Colin,
        @ “I WAS SERIOUS WHEN I SAID RENDER UNTO CAESAR, YOU HAVE TO PAY YOUR TAXES, ALL THIS WEASELING ABOUT TRYING TO GET OUT OF IT SHAMES YOU AND IS BASICALLY A PARTICULARLY BORING KIND OF THEFT, WHICH IS A SIN. PAY YOUR DAMN TAXES!”
        @ @ Doubtful! Not many people find this stuff interesting. But I do blog sometimes on Violent Metaphors.

        I think I see whatcha mean by blogging on, Violent Metaphors. :-) D

         
    • Spade Koolie

      June 16, 2015 at 2:55 AM

      timmy
      @ Anyone ever notice how all these people go to jail??
      Did you ever notice or did the thought ever cross your mind that innocent people go to Jail TOO!? Being put in Jail is not proof of being guilty of anything, regardless of what anybody thinks. Some ARE guilty as charged BUT, some are not guilty even tho they are adjudicated guilty. :-(

       
  14. Colin

    June 15, 2015 at 11:12 PM

    If I had to guess–and I’m only guessing–Mrs. Hendrickson failed to respond to the first IRS notice(s) with questions. I strongly suspect that by failing to ask insightful questions in response to initial IRS notices, she may have allowed the courts to proceed against her under procedural due process (see, Notes and Notes#2).

    If I had to guess–and I’m only guessing–Mrs Hendrickson failed to identify herself as one of the “people” of her State of the Union and thereby lay the foundation for claiming her right to be free from administrative process under administrative law.

    Your guesses are a little detached from the real world. The IRS is not required to respond to questions sent in by taxpayers. It doesn’t matter what questions you ask, no combination of words will magically relieve you of tax liability. Only actual facts, such as not living, or working, or earning money in the United States, will do that. (And that’s “United States” as the outside world defines it, not the incredibly strange definitions artfully created here in order to construct an elaborate justification for breaking the law.)

    Nor does it make any difference whether, or how, you “identify yourself as one of the ‘people’ of your State of the Union.” This, again, is treating the law like a book of magic spells: say just the right words, and poof! Your legal troubles disappear. No. Actual law works on facts and established principles, not incantations.

    Alfred, why not take a class on the law? You’d learn enough to answer these questions for yourself, and develop a more finely-tuned baloney detector. Getting scammed by Lost Horizons is beneath you.

     
    • Jethro!

      June 16, 2015 at 10:05 AM

      @Colin – “The IRS is not required to respond to questions sent in by taxpayers.”

      Love your legal wiggle word, Colin: “taxpayers”. Let’s analyze…

      1) Might be true that if a “taxpayer” just sends in questions to “the IRS”, “the IRS” has no obligation to respond. However, if “the IRS” sends someone a NOTICE, the recipient has the right to inquire about that NOTICE; and the sender has a correlative duty to respond to the question(s), “taxpayer” or not.

      2) “The IRS” can’t answer questions anyway, it has no eyes to read, no hands to write, and no mouth to talk. Only a man can answer questions. Hold the man liable for failing to answer questions when he has a duty to do so.

       
      • Colin

        June 16, 2015 at 9:41 PM

        It’s not a wiggle word; we can replace it with “anyone.” The IRS is not required to respond to questions sent in by anyone, unless some rule or statue or policy or other actual requirement obligates them to.

        However, if “the IRS” sends someone a NOTICE, the recipient has the right to inquire about that NOTICE; and the sender has a correlative duty to respond to the question(s), “taxpayer” or not.

        No. This is another made-up rule; an imaginary law, like an imaginary friend, designed to make someone feel more comfortable in their deceit by explaining away that yes, their actions are actually illegal, unethical, and immoral. It is actually wrong to refuse to pay taxes by hiding behind a wall of imagination.

        There is no “correlative duty” that obligates someone to answer questions just because you asked them. If I ask you to show me where that “correlative duty” is found, and you can’t do it, does that make your statement a lie? I think so, but presumably you disagree.

         
      • Jethro!

        June 17, 2015 at 8:26 AM

        “It’s not a wiggle word; we can replace it with ‘anyone.'”

        Really? “We” can replace it? Who is this “we”? How about this… YOU can replace “taxpayer” with “anyone” — and take the liability for it. How about it, champ? Are you ready to put your money where your mouth is?

        In the meantime for everyone else, I hope it’s apparent that if “taxpayer” meant “everyone”, they would have simple written “everyone”. Duh.

        “This is another made-up rule; an imaginary law, like an imaginary friend”

        Is that so? The “right to inquire” regarding a notice is “imaginary law”? Huh. So when something like Tennessee Jurisprudence says regarding “Notice”… “When anything appears which would put a man of ordinary prudence upon inquiry, the law presumes that such inquiry was actually made, and therefore fixes the notice upon him as to all legal consequences… And a party put upon inquiry is not bound to do more than apply to the party in interest for information…” that’s all “imaginary law”, right?

        “There is no “correlative duty” that obligates someone to answer questions just because you asked them.”
        NO! It’s not “just because you asked them”, it’s because they sent you a NOTICE. I know you’re trained to twist things, but quit twisting things.

        And folks, BTW, if someone sends you a NOTICE you indeed have the right to 1) ask questions about it, 2) receive an answer, and 3) not be charged with “constructive notice” if you do not receive the answer. And yes, there is a correlative duty of the other side to answer his questions — continued from above…

        “And a party put upon inquiry is not bound to do more than apply to the party in interest for information, and will not be responsible for pushing his inquiries further, unless the answer he receives suggests it.” <– Yep. You're entitled to an ANSWER.

         
      • Colin

        June 17, 2015 at 10:18 AM

        Really? “We” can replace it? Who is this “we”? How about this… YOU can replace “taxpayer” with “anyone” — and take the liability for it. How about it, champ? Are you ready to put your money where your mouth is?

        In the meantime for everyone else, I hope it’s apparent that if “taxpayer” meant “everyone”, they would have simple written “everyone”. Duh.

        I think you’re confused—“they” didn’t write anything. I did. Let me say it again: the IRS has no obligation to respond to questions just because someone send them in. To create such an obligation, there must be an actual rule that says so. Your imagination is, fortunately for the rest of us, not a law or rule binding on the outside world.

        Is that so? The “right to inquire” regarding a notice is “imaginary law”? Huh. So when something like Tennessee Jurisprudence says regarding “Notice”… “When anything appears which would put a man of ordinary prudence upon inquiry, the law presumes that such inquiry was actually made, and therefore fixes the notice upon him as to all legal consequences… And a party put upon inquiry is not bound to do more than apply to the party in interest for information…” that’s all “imaginary law”, right?

        The IRS is a federal agency, and not controlled by state law. And, of course, nothing in what you quoted said that the IRS is obligated to respond to questions. In fact, this question has been posed to courts, and they’ve ruled (unsurprisingly) that there is no such duty. If you have questions about your tax liabilities, consult a lawyer or accountant—the IRS is not there to counsel you. (They will actually answer serious questions about tax law, like how to apply technical provisions. I’d always recommend consulting your own counsel as well.)

        NO! It’s not “just because you asked them”, it’s because they sent you a NOTICE. I know you’re trained to twist things, but quit twisting things.

        There is no obligation to answer random questions just because they sent you a notice, either. If you think there is, please do cite the law or rule or policy. You keep insisting it exists, but you can’t show it; are you engaging fully with the real world?

        And folks, BTW, if someone sends you a NOTICE you indeed have the right to 1) ask questions about it, 2) receive an answer, and 3) not be charged with “constructive notice” if you do not receive the answer. And yes, there is a correlative duty of the other side to answer his questions — continued from above…

        1 is true, you can ask questions of whomever you want whenever you want. 2 and 3 are false. The IRS is not required to answer questions like, “Why are you coming after me, when all my taxes are owned by my shadow corporate ALL CAPS name blah blah blah?” There is a further explanation, with citations to actual cases, here. For example: “The Commissioner’s failure to respond to the tax return memorandum was not improper as the Commissioner has no obligation to respond to inquiries regarding the tax code.”
        Gary Boggs et ux. v. Commissioner, 569 F.3d 235 (6th Cir. 2009) (affirming sanctions of $10,000 imposed by the Tax Court and imposing additional sanctions of $8,000 imposed for a frivolous appeal).

        Part of Jethro’s confusion is perhaps that he thinks the “inquiry” is what creates the tax liability. No. The tax liability already exists. Even if the IRS was bound to respond to taxpayer inquiries (it’s not, as shown above), you can’t defeat your tax liability by defeating the “notice.” You owe your taxes. They don’t go away because you chanted the right words, asked the magic question, or did the right anti-tax dance. There’s a reason people using Jethro’s tactics always lose in the end, and never, ever, ever prevail in court: their ideas are wrong.

        Lots of commenters will make up a rule, either because they don’t know what’s true or they just don’t care. Readers, please use your discretion to see whether they know what they’re talking about. Do they cite the actual rule? Does it say what they claim it does? Do they respond to any contrary facts? Here Jethro has made up a rule, and insists angrily that it’s true. But he can’t show us the rule—he just wants us to believe him. He’s unaware of, or doesn’t care about, the facts that say otherwise, like the court cases linked above. And I’m going to predict he won’t deal with them in any way other than to pretend they don’t matter. I’ll further predict he won’t cite any actual rule that obligates the IRS (or any government agency) to respond to nonsense questions.

         
      • Jethro

        June 17, 2015 at 2:51 PM

        “Let me say it again: the IRS has no obligation to respond to questions just because someone send them in.”
        Let me say again: “the IRS” can’t respond to questions. It has no eyes to read, no hands to write, and no tongue to lick the envelope.

        “To create such an obligation, there must be an actual rule that says so. “
        There is a rule. It’s called “due process”. It’s guaranteed by both state and U.S. constitutions.

        “The IRS is a federal agency, and not controlled by state law.”
        Really? How do you know? Manta.com reports there are thousands of private companies called “IRS”. Which one is it?

        “And, of course, nothing in what you quoted said that the IRS is obligated to respond to questions. “
        Strawman. “The IRS” is not obligated to answer questions, the man who sent the notice is.

        “If you have questions about your tax liabilities, consult a lawyer or accountant—”
        1) Who is gonna pay for that “professional advice”?
        2) Who is gonna take liability for it if they’re wrong? YOU?

        “the IRS is not there to counsel you.”
        “The IRS” cannot counsel anyone, it has no mouth. You’re a very confused man.

        “There is no obligation to answer random questions just because they sent you a notice, either.”
        “Random questions”?? Are you this deceitful by nature or by training?
        Questions about a notice are not “random”, they are pointed.

        “If you think there is, please do cite the law or rule or policy. You keep insisting it exists, but you can’t show it”
        1) Already showed it to you. I’m not going to quote all of Jurisprudence for your edification. Al also has extensive writings on the subject. If you won’t read, I can’t help you.

        2) Have you ever actually seen an “IRS notice”? Every one I’ve seen recognizes the right of inquiry, e.g.: “If you have any questions, contact us by…”

        “1 is true, you can ask questions of whomever you want whenever you want. 2 and 3 are false.”
        Sez you.

        “The IRS is not required to answer questions like, ‘Why are you coming after me, when all my taxes are owned by my shadow corporate ALL CAPS name blah blah blah?'”
        Strawman. Did the notice in question say anything about “my shadow corporate”?

        “There is a further explanation, with citations to actual cases, here. For example:…Gary Boggs et ux. v. Commissioner, 569 F.3d 235 (6th Cir. 2009) (affirming sanctions of $10,000 imposed by the Tax Court
        Oh, the guy was in TAX COURT. That means he GOT HIS NOTICE, and waived inquiry. Duh. Is that the best you got?

        “Part of Jethro’s confusion is perhaps that he thinks the ‘inquiry’ is what creates the tax liability.”
        Yet another strawman. Perhaps Jethro doesn’t think that.

        “Even if the IRS was bound to respond to taxpayer inquiries
        There’s that “taxpayer” again. Why do you keep insisting on interjecting it into the conversation?

        “you can’t defeat your tax liability by defeating the ‘notice.'”
        That presumes there IS a tax liability. If the sender can’t or won’t answer questions about a purported “tax liability”, what does that tell you about its existence? (hint: it probably doesn’t exist).

        “You owe your taxes.”
        You speak for YOU, not for me.

        “There’s a reason people using Jethro’s tactics…”
        Except there are no “Jethro’s tactics”, just observation, reason and understanding applied to law, which is really not that difficult (much to the chagrin of the attorneys).

        “Readers, please use your discretion to see whether they know what they’re talking about. “
        Indeed readers, use your discretion to see whether Colin knows what he’s talking about. (hint: usually he’s just making stuff up based on what he’s been taught, not from actual thinking).

        “Here Jethro has made up a rule, and insists angrily that it’s true. But he can’t show us the rule—he just wants us to believe him.”
        Oh… “angrily”. That makes a difference. And nope, it’s not “my rule”.

        “He’s unaware of, or doesn’t care about, the facts that say otherwise, like the court cases linked above.”
        Strawman cases.

        “And I’m going to predict he won’t deal with them in any way other than to pretend they don’t matter.”
        And I’m going to predict Colin will keep following the attorney playbook: Twist words, play games with red herrings and strawman fallacies, impose presumptions, and otherwise not deal with the matter at hand, then hope nobody notices.

        “I’ll further predict he won’t cite any actual rule that obligates the IRS (or any government agency) to respond to nonsense questions.”

        Haha! ^ Case in point right here! ^

         
      • Colin

        June 17, 2015 at 3:33 PM

        There is a rule. It’s called “due process”. It’s guaranteed by both state and U.S. constitutions.

        We know that due process doesn’t obligate the IRS to respond to inane questions—that theory has been tested in court and failed every single time. Due process doesn’t entitle you to whatever process you want. You can litigate your tax liability in court (district court or tax court); that’s the process to which you’re entitled by the constitution.


        “The IRS is a federal agency, and not controlled by state law.”
        Really? How do you know? Manta.com reports there are thousands of private companies called “IRS”. Which one is it?

        None of them. The IRS isn’t a private company. The fact that private companies use the letters “IRS” in their name is irrelevant.

        “And, of course, nothing in what you quoted said that the IRS is obligated to respond to questions. “
        Strawman. “The IRS” is not obligated to answer questions, the man who sent the notice is.

        Sophistry. The man (or woman) who sent the notice is acting on behalf of the organization. The distinction is immaterial; it doesn’t matter one whit to the outcome.

        “If you have questions about your tax liabilities, consult a lawyer or accountant—”
        1) Who is gonna pay for that “professional advice”?
        2) Who is gonna take liability for it if they’re wrong? YOU?

        You pay for their advice, unless they choose to give it to you for free. Liability would depend on the error; the advisor could certainly be liable for malpractice.

        “There is no obligation to answer random questions just because they sent you a notice, either.”
        “Random questions”?? Are you this deceitful by nature or by training?
        Questions about a notice are not “random”, they are pointed.

        There is no obligation to answer pointed questions, either. That’s why you’re having such trouble identifying any such rule, resorting to make-believe and hand-waiving. And increasingly frustration. You can admit, even if only to yourself, that you’re just plain wrong—it’s the right thing to do.

        2) Have you ever actually seen an “IRS notice”? Every one I’ve seen recognizes the right of inquiry, e.g.: “If you have any questions, contact us by…”

        Giving you contact information is not creating a “right of inquiry.” And it does not create an obligation for them to answer inane questions, or pointed questions, or questions in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS, or questions about jurisdiction, or any such thing. Which, again, is why you’re having such a hard time identifying any such rule or law. IT doesn’t exist. Which is why people claiming that the IRS must respond to their inanities lose in court, every time.

        Oh, the guy was in TAX COURT. That means he GOT HIS NOTICE, and waived inquiry. Duh. Is that the best you got?

        This is an excellent example of defensive thinking: you’ve found an excuse not to think about the evidence that contradicts the things you want to believe. Unfortunately the real world plays hardball. If you actually read the linked material at the TP FAQ, you’ll see cases that weren’t in tax court coming to the same conclusion. And you’ve obviously been totally unable to find any case, rule, law, treatise, or other source creating any obligation on the part of the IRS to respond to such questions. (That’s because it doesn’t exist.)

        “you can’t defeat your tax liability by defeating the ‘notice.’”
        That presumes there IS a tax liability. If the sender can’t or won’t answer questions about a purported “tax liability”, what does that tell you about its existence? (hint: it probably doesn’t exist).

        It says nothing about the liability. The IRS doesn’t have to respond to inquiries, and we know from the court cases where people have tried your theories that their failure to respond does not extinguish any liabilities. Which is why people trying your tactics lose every time. Which is why I comment on threads like this; real people pay the price for such myths.

        “There’s a reason people using Jethro’s tactics…”
        Except there are no “Jethro’s tactics”, just observation, reason and understanding applied to law, which is really not that difficult (much to the chagrin of the attorneys).

        Rather, I think, to the chagrin of the people who try these tactics and lose in court—every single time. And often get hit with additional fines for making frivolous arguments. It’s easy to caper about and spout nonsense about how there’s no IRS there’s just a man the IRS has no mouth why don’t they respond they have to I don’t need to find the rule it’s just true because I say so etc., etc. When the rubber meets the road, such nonsense always fails. The real world is real, and tax guru nonsense is nonsense. That’s why it’s so easy to find cases in which such tactics fail, and impossible (literally impossible) to find any where they work. Don’t believe me? Look at how little Jethro can find to support his position: no laws, no cases, no treatises, nothing. Just his say-so, which is worth rather less than the paper it isn’t printed on.

        “And I’m going to predict he won’t deal with them in any way other than to pretend they don’t matter.”
        And I’m going to predict Colin will keep following the attorney playbook: Twist words, play games with red herrings and strawman fallacies, impose presumptions, and otherwise not deal with the matter at hand, then hope nobody notices.
        “I’ll further predict he won’t cite any actual rule that obligates the IRS (or any government agency) to respond to nonsense questions.”
        Haha! ^ Case in point right here! ^

        I’m happy leaving it there: you actually didn’t deal with the cases in any way other than to pretend they don’t matter. And you actually didn’t cite any rule. Just more make-believe.

         
      • Jethro

        June 17, 2015 at 7:34 PM

        “We know that due process doesn’t obligate the IRS to respond to inane questions”
        Strawman. You have no idea what constitutes “inane” until you see the notice in question.

        “that theory has been tested in court and failed every single time.”
        You’ve yet to cite a single one of those cases.

        “Due process doesn’t entitle you to whatever process you want. You can litigate your tax liability in court”
        Presumptive error: That presumes there is a “tax liability”.

        “None of them. The IRS isn’t a private company. The fact that private companies use the letters “IRS” in their name is irrelevant.”
        How do you know one of these private companies isn’t the one writing you?

        “Sophistry. The man (or woman) who sent the notice is acting on behalf of the organization. “
        Hardly sophistry. “The organization” is make-believe, a mental construct. The man is real. “The organization” can harm no one, but a man can, and a man can (and will) be held liable if he causes harm to his fellow man, say for example he’s LYING about a “liability” or a debt.

        “The distinction is immaterial; it doesn’t matter one whit to the outcome.”
        Not in the real world is isn’t immaterial.

        “There is no obligation to answer pointed questions, either.”
        Really? Then I predict someone is about send you and your employer and bank a “Notice of Levy” to take all of your property and rights to property. It’ll say “IRS” at the top. You’ll have no opportunity to ask any questions about it, because “IRS” is under no obligation to answer any questions whatsoever. “Someone” will get your property and there’s nothing you can do about it. So says Colin himself.

        “That’s why you’re having such trouble identifying any such rule, resorting to make-believe and hand-waiving.”
        *sigh* Did they teach you to shuck and jive at Harvard as an elective?

        “Giving you contact information is not creating a ‘right of inquiry.'”
        Um, did you not not read the part that said, “If you have QUESTIONS” or “an INQUIRY”? That’s not just giving contact information, it’s inviting inquiries.

        “And it does not create an obligation for them to answer inane questions, or pointed questions, or questions in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS, or questions about jurisdiction, or any such thing.”
        Sez you.

        “Which, again, is why you’re having such a hard time identifying any such rule or law.”
        It’s already been identified. But apparently since you didn’t learn about it at Harvard, you cannot THINK for yourself, only regurgitate.

        “Which is why people claiming that the IRS must respond to their inanities lose in court, every time.”
        That depends on which people and under what circumstances…

        “This is an excellent example of defensive thinking: you’ve found an excuse not to think about the evidence that contradicts the things you want to believe.”
        No, this is an example of actual, thinking analysis (which took about 5 seconds to figure out). By being a PLAINTIFF in TAX COURT means that you GOT YOUR NOTICE, and therefore the right to inquire is waived. This is not hard… except for Harvard grads, apparently.

        “If you actually read the linked material at the TP FAQ, you’ll see cases that weren’t in tax court coming to the same conclusion.”
        Oh, I read it. And there was nothing there applicable to the right to inquire (that wasn’t already waived) regarding a notice.

        “And you’ve obviously been totally unable to find any case, rule, law, treatise, or other source creating any obligation on the part of the IRS to respond to such questions. (That’s because it doesn’t exist.)”
        I’m still trying to figure out if you’re 1) lying, 2) dense, 3) obfuscating, or some combination thereof.

        “we know from the court cases where people have tried your theories that their failure to respond does not extinguish any liabilities.”
        And you haven’t cited a single relevant case.

        “Which is why I comment on threads like this; real people pay the price for such myths.”
        Aw, I’m getting warm fuzzies. Just do as “the professionals” tell you to do and everything will be ok, right?

        “Don’t believe me? Look at how little Jethro can find to support his position: no laws, no cases, no treatises, nothing.”
        Except I’ve already cited Tennessee Jurisprudence (presumably the same principles will apply in every state) which is clear about the right to inquire regarding a notice, and the consequences if you do not inquire — the notice recipient is charged with receiving constructive notice.

        So again, Colin’s assertion that I can find no support for my position means he is either 1) lying, 2) dense, or 3) obfuscating.

        Way to rep that expensive degree. Go Crimson!

         
      • Colin

        June 18, 2015 at 12:09 AM

        “We know that due process doesn’t obligate the IRS to respond to inane questions”
        Strawman. You have no idea what constitutes “inane” until you see the notice in question.

        It doesn’t matter. Inane, smart, relevant, irrelevant—you’re fixating on the adjectives because you can’t address the underlying point: the IRS isn’t obligated to respond to questions. I keep asking for the rule, and you keep focusing on irrelevant trivialities rather than actually citing it. Because, of course, it doesn’t exist—which is why there are plenty of court cases (as cited above) saying there is no such obligation, and none saying there is.

        Wannabe tax gurus are not trustworthy. They will invent a rule and insist to the death that it’s a real, important, very significant thing, without ever even attempting to engage with the real-world evidence on that point. It’s a form of false witness, and it’s ultimately harmful to real people who read these invidious, unethical fantasies and come to believe that they can prevail on them in court. But they never, ever do, because these are not valid or well thought-out arguments—it’s just people having a good time by telling tall tales about the law.

        “that theory has been tested in court and failed every single time.”
        You’ve yet to cite a single one of those cases.

        I count half a dozen at least cited in the TP FAQ section I linked above. I count zero supporting your position. Because your position is make-believe.

        “None of them. The IRS isn’t a private company. The fact that private companies use the letters “IRS” in their name is irrelevant.”
        How do you know one of these private companies isn’t the one writing you?

        How do you know it’s not space aliens? Your excellent, well-practiced imagination is not a substitute for an actual rule.

        “There is no obligation to answer pointed questions, either.”
        Really? Then I predict someone is about send you and your employer and bank a “Notice of Levy” to take all of your property and rights to property. It’ll say “IRS” at the top. You’ll have no opportunity to ask any questions about it, because “IRS” is under no obligation to answer any questions whatsoever. “Someone” will get your property and there’s nothing you can do about it. So says Colin himself.

        You are confusing two different questions: the right to ask questions, and the obligation of the IRS to answer. Someone subject to a levy can of course ask the IRS whether they actually sent the notice, and if the question is sane, the IRS will probably answer. But if there’s any rule obligating them to, you (very conspicuously) have failed to find it. If I needed to ascertain the truth of a levy, I could always go to court to do that. In court, the parties are obligated to answer questions.

        “That’s why you’re having such trouble identifying any such rule, resorting to make-believe and hand-waiving.”
        *sigh* Did they teach you to shuck and jive at Harvard as an elective?

        Irony: evading a question by complaining the other guy is shucking and jiving. So why are you having so much trouble identifying this supposed rule? Why do people who test this theory in court always lose? Seems to me it’s because you’re making it up.

        “Giving you contact information is not creating a ‘right of inquiry.’”
        Um, did you not not read the part that said, “If you have QUESTIONS” or “an INQUIRY”? That’s not just giving contact information, it’s inviting inquiries.

        Inviting inquiries does not create a legal obligation to respond. Particularly, but not exclusively, when the questions are tax prostestor inanities like, “Isn’t this notice meant for my shadow corporation?”

        “Don’t believe me? Look at how little Jethro can find to support his position: no laws, no cases, no treatises, nothing.”
        Except I’ve already cited Tennessee Jurisprudence (presumably the same principles will apply in every state) which is clear about the right to inquire regarding a notice, and the consequences if you do not inquire — the notice recipient is charged with receiving constructive notice.

        State laws don’t bind the IRS. That’s an incredibly ignorant mistake. Even if they did, what you cited isn’t a law, just a general principle—the actual statutes and cases applying that principle are what would be relevant. And even if Tennessee did have power over the IRS, and if what you cited was a law, it still doesn’t say that the IRS (or anyone) has an obligation to respond to questions. Just more make-believe.

        “Which is why people claiming that the IRS must respond to their inanities lose in court, every time.”
        That depends on which people and under what circumstances…

        Nope. They lose every time. If you disagree, please do cite a case in which someone prevailed on such a theory.

        OK, that’s enough for this thread. Feel free to have the last word. All that needs to really be said is:

        Some people think they can get out of paying taxes by ginning up a list of silly questions and sending it to the IRS. But there is no rule obligating the IRS to respond to questions generally, or specifically to silly questions. When this theory has been tested in court, the people claiming the IRS must respond to them have always lost, every single time. You can see some excerpts and citations here.

        Jethro is having a good time pretending there is a rule that the IRS must respond to questions. He just can’t actually find it. But rather than deal with this issue, he’s going to spin stories until he gets bored. It’s harmless unless and until someone believes these stories, which happens—it’s how people get in serious trouble, just like the cases cited above. I respond to these inanities as much as I can partly because I think I have an ethical obligation to try and disarm these myths before someone gets hurt. The corollary to that is that it’s quite unethical to spin lies like Jethro’s.

        But some guys don’t care what’s true or false, as long as they get their attention. So Jethro, please feel free—take the last word.

         
      • Jethro

        June 19, 2015 at 6:35 PM

        “It doesn’t matter. Inane, smart, relevant, irrelevant—you’re fixating on the adjectives because you can’t address the underlying point: the IRS isn’t obligated to respond to questions.”
        Quit lying by omission.  The matter is whether the recipient of a notice has the right of inquiry of sender of a notice, and whether there is a correlative duty/obligation to respond to that inquiry.  The answer is YES, there is an obligation, and it doesn’t matter whether sender of the notice is Joe down the street, “IRS”, or the King of the World.  Due process applies whether you like it or not.

        “I keep asking for the rule, and you keep focusing on irrelevant trivialities rather than actually citing it.”
        Another lie.  I’ve already cited Jurisprudence on the matter and you’re pretending it doesn’t exist.  Said Jurisprudence is clear that receiving a notice puts the recipient “on inquiry”; and he need do nothing more than apply to the other party for information.  Receiving no response, he is not charged with having received (constructive) notice.  So no, they don’t “have to” answer the inquiry, but they can’t proceed on beyond the notice either.

        “I count half a dozen at least cited in the TP FAQ section I linked above.”
        Not one of them are relevant to the right of inquiry as it relates to NOTICE.

        “I count zero supporting your position.”
        The “professionals” have no interest in publicizing that which would put themselves out of business.

        “>>How do you know one of these private companies isn’t the one writing you?
        >How do you know it’s not space aliens?”

        Notice folks how Colin dodges the question.  Ineptly, and not unnoticed.  IOW, Colin doesn’t know who is writing him, but will likely presume he knows.  Good for him.  That’s Colin’s prerogative, but it’s restricted to him and him alone.

        “Someone subject to a levy can of course ask the IRS whether they actually sent the notice”
        Well whaddya know?  Colin DOES recognize the right of inquiry in relation to a NOTICE!  It was like pulling teeth, but we got it out of him.

        “But if there’s any rule obligating them to, you (very conspicuously) have failed to find it. If I needed to ascertain the truth of a levy, I could always go to court to do that.  In court, the parties are obligated to answer questions.”
        So on one hand you say there is no rule obligating the sender of a notice (of levy, or whatever) to answer.  But on the other hand, there IS a rule that you can enforce IN COURT to get them to answer. You think you can go into court without a theory compelling them to answer?  So which is it, genius?  Is there a rule or not?

        “So why are you having so much trouble identifying this supposed rule? Why do people who test this theory in court always lose?”
        Colin, I know it’s difficult and against your expensive training, but quit lying.

        “Inviting inquiries does not create a legal obligation to respond.”
        NO — “Inviting inquiries” does not create a legal obligation to respond, it RECOGNIZES it.

        “Particularly, but not exclusively, when the questions are tax prostestor inanities like, ‘Isn’t this notice meant for my shadow corporation?”
        You keep presuming “inane” questions.  But even if they are “inane” the matter is easily resolved by simply answering the question, YES or NO.  How hard is that?

        “State laws don’t bind the IRS.”
        You’re presuming I know who this “IRS” is.  Is that Mr. or Mrs. “IRS”?

        “And even if Tennessee did have power over the IRS, and if what you cited was a law, it still doesn’t say that the IRS (or anyone) has an obligation to respond to questions.”
        If some man sends a NOTICE to another man in Tennessee — especially one making demands and threats — he is absolutely subject to Tennessee’s laws no matter where he is.  “Long arm” jurisdiction.
        But you’re right that the sender doesn’t “have to” respond to questions — however, his notice will effectively be VOID until he does, meaning he can’t move ahead with any act detrimental to me or my property.

        “Just more make-believe.”
        You mean like your belief that “IRS” is something that exists beyond a piece of paper?

        “Some people think they can get out of paying taxes by ginning up a list of silly questions and sending it to the IRS.”
        Wow, many fallacies here…
        1)  Colin presumes that there is a tax to pay, and then thinks you’re trying to “get out of it”.  That’s backwards, son.  Any man asserting I have the duty to do something has the burden to prove that duty exists; I don’t have to prove I don’t have to do it.

        2)  Colin just presumes that any question to “the IRS” is going to be “silly”.  Tell us again who you are to determine whether a question is “silly” relative to a particular notice?  

        “I respond to these inanities as much as I can partly because I think I have an ethical obligation…”
        “Ethical obligation”… coming from a lawyer?  ROTFL!!!

        Ok folks, Colin’s conduct here is textbook lawyer behavior, which involves:  1) Misrepresent and lie about the position you’re arguing against, then argue against the misrepresentation (= strawman fallacy), 2) dodge and change the subject, 3) pretend you don’t understand, 4) obfuscate and muddy the waters as much as possible, 5) arrogantly declare yourself the only smart guy in the room who understands anything, 6) then when pressed, run away/go silent.

        There are a relatively small parasitic group of people who leech upon the productive people in society.  They don’t want that to change.  Colin is among that group and is playing the role nicely in protecting that interest.

         
      • Phil Cali

        June 19, 2015 at 7:42 PM

        Jethro (love the reference I assume to Beverly Hillbillies),

        Very logical and evidential response to the questions/statements posed by Colin. Prior to around late 2007 (when I was exposed to alternative theories on income tax obligation in particular) I would never have entertained that GovCo/Congress/IRS were lying to me in this regard, as Colin so vociferously defends to the contrary. I was SO in disbelief of this, that THEY would lie and obfuscate about such things. Call me naive at that time, but there it is. Better late than never as they say.

        However, thru research, discussion and engaging with and being defeated twice financially (HUGELY) by the IRS and their enablers (GovCo/Congress) I realized that it is THEY who will do anything to maintain the status quo by lying and obfuscation. In essence, labeling We The People as subjects or worse as Mr Adask describes, as “animals” .

        Thank you for your educated and logical post.

        Phil Cali

         
      • Allen Curtis

        June 19, 2015 at 7:45 PM

        Jethro,
        You & Alfred are KILLING me. My stomach is SOooooo SORE. Anyway, you said, in pertinent part, > “The IRS” cannot counsel anyone, it has no mouth.”

        We are living in Babylon again. The News Reporters keep saying, ” Today,The Obama Administration said, Today,The White House said” & so forth.
        The White House said ?? The White House does not have a mouth, does it? :-) D
        Administration, is interesting isn’t it? The Obama Administration. Hmmmmmmm.

         
      • Eddy Kitts

        June 22, 2015 at 12:37 AM

        Jethro,
        @ But first he is an “indoctrinee”.
        I agree. This is plain to see, at least for you & at least for me. he he :-) D
        yes Itttttttttt’s back again. It’s hard to keep a good man down, as they say. :-) D

         
    • Adask

      June 16, 2015 at 11:14 AM

      Take a class on the law? And spoil all my fun? Insofar as you start believing everything you’ve been taught,,you stop hunting for truth and instead seek to “indoctrinate” others with the same crapola that you’ve been taught to believe by others who seek to profit from your beliefs.

      What makes you think that “classes on the law”–even if the classes are taught at Harvard–provide education rather than indoctrination?

      The older I get the more convinced I am that the only real education is self-education. You can go to school and they’ll provide you with the tools you need to education yourself. You go to school to learn how to read, write and do “rythmatic” etc., but those are only tools to tech you HOW to think, rather than WHAT to think.

      If you’re intelligent, you learn “what” to think by conducting your own search for the truth. That search might stop in at a couple of classes, but only as stepping stones towards discovering the truth.

      Insofar as schools teach you WHAT to think, they don’t educate, they indoctrinate.

      Judging from your comments on this blog, you’ve been wonderfully-well indoctrinated. You’d make a wonderful storm trooper, Colin. Your confidence in your indoctrination and in your superiors is almost magnificent. You believe what you’ve been taught without question. You’re a man who can be depended on to just follow orders–or indoctrination.

      However, our reliance on your Harvard indoctrination is, ultimately, as maniacal as the Muslims mindless belief in their faith.

      You mindless confidence that you’ve been educated rather than indoctrinated is comical.

      For example, in one of your earlier comments today you pontificate that a “constitution” is merely a “constitution”–but it’s not an “express, charitable trust”. How profound. You paid most of $200,000 to get a Harvard education that taught you to define a word with the same word? A “constitution” is a “constitution”? A “true believer” is a “true believer”? A “rose,” no matter how sweet it smells, can’t be defined by any other name but can only be defined as a “rose”?

      The “constitutions” that we’re talking about don’t merely create a new “entity” in the same sense as I might create or “constitute” an experimental aircraft. The “constitutions” we’re talking about create RELATIONSHIPS between the people and their government. These relationships contain reciprocal rights and duties. As you may know, Colin, I’m just a dumb roofer who didn’t go to Harvard over even graduate from some lessor college, so my observations are always suspect Even so, I know of only two fundamental mechanisms to establish legal relationships between people: 1) contracts; 2) trusts.

      The Constitution of The State of Texas can’t be a contract because no living man has signed it or expressly agreed to be bound by its terms. That Constitution is not a written or oral contract. To my poorly-educated way of thinking, if that Constitution can’t be a contract, by process of elimination, it has to be trust.

      Trusts are interesting because they can be implied. There is no requirement that all parties to a trust have entered into the trust by means of signed documents or oral agreements. Trusts can be inferred from conduct, alone. Trust can be established to include people who’ve not even been born yet. For example, I could create/constitute a trust that named my unborn grandchildren as beneficiaries. I can create a trust that names my born grandchildren as beneficiaries–even if they are too young or too ignorant to read and understand the terms of my trust indenture. Thus, I can create a trust to provide “benefits” to my, as yet unborn or even un-conceived “posterity”–just as the Constitution of the United States declares in it Preamble that one of its purposes is “secure the Blessing of Liberty to ourselves and our POSTERITY.”

      My conclusion that most political “constitutions” are trust indentures is implicitly supported by Article 1 Section 2 of the Texas Constitution which declares:

      “Sec. 2. INHERENT POLITICAL POWER; REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT. All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their BENEFIT. The FAITH of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.”

      The words “benefit” and “faith” implicate trust relationships. Section 2 tells us expressly that the “free government” of Texas has been “instituted” for the “BENEFIT” of the People. Thus, the People of The State of Texas appear to be the BENEFICIARIES of the Texas Constitution. Thus, the Texas Constitution is a trust, the officers and employees of government are that trust’s fiduciaries and the People are the intended beneficiaries. I infer that the constitutions of The State of Texas, of The State of Maine, and of “The United States of America” must also be trusts.

      Insofar as these apparent trust indentures (constitutions) are written, they are “express”.

      Insofar as these constitutions are well over 100 years old, they can’t be conventional trusts (which I understand to normally expire after 100 to 110 years) and must instead be a “charitable” trust–which, so far as I know, is the only kind of trust that can be “perpetual” (much like the Union created by the Articles of Confederation was declared to be “perpetual”).

      Therefore, I conclude that The Constitution of The State of Texas is an “express, charitable trust”. I infer that virtually all other state and federal constitutions are also “express, charitable trusts.”

      You, on the other hand, insist with the kind of wisdom that only Harvard Law School can provide that a “constitution” is NOT an “express, charitable trust,” but is instead a “constitution”. Well, thanks for sharing you wisdom.

      Even so, I’m led to wonder if you really learned law at Harvard, or if you learned at the Monty Python School of Law. (“Monty Python” might be before your time, but it was the name of an English comedy group who regularly poked fun at all the pompous fools who claimed to be “educated” and “authoritative” but were really incompetent and too dumb to know it. See, “Monty Python and the Search for the Holy Grail”.)

      A “constitution” is a “constitution,” hmm? C’mon, Colin, you’re makin’ me giggle.

      Did they teach you that in the 1st year, 2nd or 3rd at Havard?

      You were pretty impressive when you first arrived on this blog. Formidable, even. But over time you’ve started to make comments that seem to rely on arrogance, bluff and indoctrination rather than intelligence.

      For example, last week, you pontificated that the “United States” and “The United States of America” identified the same entity. If that’s true, why do we have both a “constitution” of “The United States of America” and also a “constitution” of the “United States”? Why did the founders bother to “constitute” or create the “United States” if they’d already already done so with the “constitution” of “The United States of America”?

      The argument that “United States” and “The United States of America” are identical is stupid. If Harvard taught me that, I’d sue for a refund of my tuition. (If you know any good lawyers, maybe you should consider doing the same.)

      The “constitution” of “The United States of America” is the document that “constituted” or created the political entity that is expressly named “The United States of America”. That document’s is generally referred to as the “Articles of Confederation” that was enacted in A.D. 1781. That document expressly created “The United States of America”. That name appears in quotes in that document. That document is interesting and even unique because it created a “perpetual Union” that only includes the States of the Union. There is no proviso in “The United States of America” for districts (like Washington DC) or territories like Guam, US Virgin Islands, or even the territories of Illinois, New Mexico and Oregon, etc..

      Seven years later (A.D. 1788), We the People ratified the document that “constituted” the political entity called “United States”. That document is commonly called the “Constitution of the United States” but note that that document does not have an actual title. The resulting “United States” is significantly different from “The United States of America” in that the “United States” can include districts such as Washington DC and territories such as US Virgin Islands or the territories of Arkansas, Missouri or Alaska.

      There’s no question that this difference is significant and real. After the founders created “The United States of America” in A.D. 1781 out of the States that had been created or constituted in A.D. 1776 by document commonly called the “Declaration of Independence.” After constituting “The United States of America,” the founders were much surprised to see that they not only won the war against Great Britain but found themselves in possession of vast tracts of territory. What would they do with all this territory? There was no proviso for dealing with “territories” in the “constitution” of “The United States of America”.

      Therefore, in A.D. 1787, Congress enacted the “Northwest Ordinance” which provided that the “territory” running from what is now Virginia on up to the Great Lakes would be owned or at least administered by the national government but not any individual State of the Union.

      One year later (A.D. 1788) We the People ratified the “Constitution of the United States” which allowed for the existence of districts and territories and provided a means for those territories to become States of the Union.

      My point is that “The United States of America” is not the “United States”. They may have some commonalities but, for the most part, they are two different political entities and/or jurisdictions. Your claim to the contrary is absurd and evidence that your Harvard education is incomplete.

      Incidentally, did Harvard teach you about “The Organic Law of The United States of America”? You could read up on it at https://adask.wordpress.com/2011/05/30/the-organic-laws-of-the-united-states-of-america/#more-6862. Back about A.D. 1873, Congress declared in its Revised Statutes that that organic law consists of four documents: 1) Declaration of Independence; 2) Article of Confederation; 3) Northwest Ordinance; and 4) Constitution of the United States. At no point did Congress suggest that the legal force of any of those documents had been suspended by later documents. Implication? The Declaration of Independence is not merely an interesting historical document–it’s as much the (organic) law as the Constitution of the United States.

      Did Harvard teach you about that “Organic Law”? If not, do you still think you were educated or indoctrinated?

      * Another one of your little stories that still strikes me as improbable is your claim that that you voluntarily deactivated your law license(s). I had speculated that you’d “voluntarily” deactivated your law license as part of an agreement to avoid being overtly disbarred. You assured me that you’d never been threatened with disbarment but had instead voluntarily deactivated your law license(s) for the sake of your love for your sweetie-pie.

      Well, I’m just as big a sap for a love story as the next guy.

      Your story, deactivating your law license(s), for the sake of a woman’s love, reminds me of the A.D. 1947 film “The Angel and the Bad Man” starring John Wayne (the bad man) and Gail Russel (the “angel”). Wayne is a cattle rustler and a killer who gives up his evil ways for the love of his “angel”. It’s a touching story.

      Yours is also touching. You quit the law racket for the sake of your sweety’s love. The screen play rights should be worth a fortune. I’m thinking Brad and Angelina–does that work for you? Or did you want to play the “Bad Man’s” role, yourself?

      But there are a couple of problems with your story.

      First, you’ve told us that you borrowed the money go to Harvard Law School. If so, there’s a good chance that you’re still in debt for $100,000, maybe more.

      You may have a very sweet and lucrative job teaching negotiation skills, but I doubt that Harvard or any other university has a three year course on negotiating that can result in a license and occupation as lucrative as the practice of law. Odds are, that you could make far more money by practicing law than you can as a negotiation professor.

      If your real love is teaching, why don’t you teach law? After all, you do seem to know everything there is know on that subject. Harvard should hire you in a minute.

      In any case, the problem I see in your story is that your sweetie-pie doesn’t mind that you’ve quit the racket to teach negotiation and thereby guaranteed that your law school debt will linger for several more years. If you really know the law as well as you claim and you’d kept your law license, you should’ve been able to repay your school debt before now. That would mean you’d have money to buy a house, money to get married and have more kids, money for vacations and buying necklaces and rings for your sweety.

      But you’ve foregone that economic potential because you’re in love–which is surprising, and screen play should be worth an Oscar nomination. But even more surprising is that you’ve found a woman who is so in love with you that she doesn’t even care that you’ve sacrificed a lucrative profession that could buy her a new house–so that the two of you can be together. You’ve gotta admit, that’s unusual behavior in a young woman. They usually want a family and therefore they want to nest and that means they want a nest–and they expect the male to provide that nest. But your sweety is so in love that she doesn’t care if you provide a good “nest” or if you and she live on the streets like homeless lovers. And therefore doesn’t mind, doesn’t bitch, bitch, bitch about “When are your going to reactivate your law license?!!!!”

      Whew! That’s one helluva story. If it’s true, I think the Oscar for Best Motion Picture is a lock.

      But there’s another problem that I’m hoping (in fact, expecting) that you can explain. If you and your sweety are so much in love that you voluntarily deactivated your law license so you could be together, why are you spending so much time on this blog?

      According to WordPress (which tracks these kinds of things) you have been the #2 “commentator” on the blog out of the last 1,000 comments. The only person to make more comments on this blog is “Pesky Nat” or whatever name he’s currently using. I’m #3.

      Plus, while Pesky Nat may make more comments, your comments are lengthy and more like lectures than mere “comments”. WordPress only counts the number of comments, not their length and total number of words, so I don’t know who’s truly more prolific–you or Pesky Nat. But if we stopped to count the number of words you write on this blog, there’s a good chance that you are the single most prolific “commentator” on this blog.

      I do a little writing myself from time to time and I have some appreciation for the amount of time you must spend both reading the articles on this blog and then drafting your comments in response. Generally speaking, you don’t shoot from the hip. Your comments tend to be well-thought out, well-organized and even persuasive.

      Those kinds of comments don’t just happen. They take time to reason out and write. You re spending TIME on this blog. Quite a lot of time, actually.

      That’s surprising to me because I’ve visited a couple of other blogs where you’ve made comments. These blogs appear to belong to some of your personal friends. Oddly, I can’t find any extensive comments (of the sort I see on my blog) made by you on your friends’ blogs. Instead, all I’ve seen are occasional comments that are so brief that they read more like Tweets than the extended lectures you deliver on my blog.

      I can’t say that my research is comprehensive, but I can’t help wondering why you have more time to spend on my blog (where your relationship with most of the readers is adversarial) than you do on the blogs of your personal friends? Why aintcha chillin’ wiff yer homeys, Colin, rather than spending so much time on this blog?

      You’ve previously explained that you like “conversations” and hang out on this blog to partake in those “conversations”. Well, we’re all flattered that you’d condescend to spend time “conversating” with us. But still, I see a problem.

      How come your spending all this time “convesating” with us rather than with your sweetie? I mean,you gave up your law license to be with your sweetie, and now that you two love birds can be together, you’re spending hours every week “conversating” with a bunch of rag-tag strangers rather than “conversating” with your one true love.

      Are we to believe that she’s not jealous of all the time you spend on this blog? Is the bloom off the romance? Is she glad that you’re spending time on this blog rather than boring her with more of your lectures on the law? Is there trouble in paradise? Don’t tell me that you two kids are getting ready to break up and go your separate ways. I mean, what’ll happen to all the money I’d hoped to share on the screen play? What about the Oscar? As producer of “The Angel and the Badman II,” I was already writing my acceptance speech. I was even going to thank all the “little people” at Harvard who made your story possible.

      And, even if the bloom is off your romance, there’s another implication is all the time you spend on this blog. If your income from teaching negotiating is considerable, you’re likely to be working hard, at least 60 hours a week, maybe more. If so, where to you find the energy to “converstate around” on this blog?

      I look at the time you’ve invested in this blog and it just doesn’t make sense to me as simply your personal “hobby”. You’re neglecting your friends, you’re neglecting your sweetie, you may even be neglecting your work (teaching negotiation). The only way the time you spend on this blog makes sense to me is if you’re being paid to be here. Instead of a hobby, your time on this blog looks more like a job.

      And it’s a particularly interesting job in that the focus of some of this blog and most of your comments is the law and legal system. Why would a man voluntarily deactivate his license to practice law so he could be with his sweetie, and then spend some significant number of hours each week reading articles about the law and commenting on them so he can be away from his sweetie?

      It doesn’t make sense.

      I still suspect that you “voluntarily” agreed to deactivate your law license in order to avoid a disbarment. I suspect that your story about quitting the racket for the sake of your sweety’s love is a fib. I suspect that your reason for being on this blog is more professional than personal.

      Please ignore whatever grammatical mistakes or omissions are in this comment. Unlike some, I don’t really have enough free time to both write and proofread my comments. And I don’t even have a sweetie.

       
      • mrtideman

        June 16, 2015 at 1:03 PM

        Hey Al, The “Grammar Detective” hear/ no just kidding (;-) of: here, re: your: “How come your * spending all this time “convesating” with us rather than with your sweetie? ” * of this a test? (;-) You’re * (you are) the greatest! in quality (as the provider) as compared to #3 in quantity I guess is the way to say or write it. I really like your statement of: ” Insofar as schools teach you WHAT to think, they don’t educate, they indoctrinate. ” of this is technically AFTER that of attending the “Common School” defined as that of those grades below that of the High School (Senior & Junior) and so in-cludes any “Middle” School, of this is where we all learn how to, like you wrote in your paragraph #1 of: ” You go to school to learn how to read, write and do “rythmatic” etc., but those are only tools to tech you HOW to think, rather than WHAT to think. ” . Thus we are only to pay for the HOW not WHAT of that’s what’s in that VHS tape of the “Indoctri-Nation” that I saw several years ago of that all gov’t school teachers at this upper level are telling the students of WHAT to think, and as required to be members of the N.E.A./ National Education Association that calls themselves Ministers of the Religion of Secular Humanism too!

        Another good “film” for Colin to see is those films on frames for Rose & Milton Friedman’s award-winning TV series of the early 1980s on P.B.S. that I saw back then when in my 20s called: “Fee to Choose” as based on their best-selling book by the same title of he won the Nobel Prize in Economics, of in Chapter 5 they indicate that of to subsidize the poor. Thus not everyone at 100% in like a Totalitarianism Regime, but what is supposed to be an Article IV, Section 4 U.S. Constitutional Republican form of government that the local officials here in New Hampshire take on RSA Chapter 92:2 oath to honor that of to be Article 38 “frugal” as based on “need” of who really needs financial help, and not all these wanties, but some of whom do violate, like 2 of the 3 local Selectmen in my town of telling me to in effect: get lost, of them saying like to heck with your N.H. Article 5 religious rights too, because my religion/ Protest-ant, Congregationalist is that of NOT to be FORCED to GIVE to the poor, BUT that of to LEND to the poor at zero interest expecting nothing back. So when they issue their unlawful as against Article 5 tax warrant non advised nor consented to by the Executive Council to the local Tax Collector to collect for MORE than what be lawful, then that is THEFT by Extortion and I ought to citizens arrest these thieves to take to CRIMINAL court is a lot $cheaper of with no filing fee as the CIVIL way is for to appeal any Tax Abatement denial to either the BTLA/ Board of Tax & Land Appeals or to the County Superior Court, of at the $65 and $250 (plus Sheriff service of process at $25 + ___-cents a mile) filing fees respectfully even though the law reads in Article 14 for “free” with the letter “r” they say “fee”, of pay it or else you get no “justice”. Of a copy to them now for tonight of when they start at 5:00 p.m. and meet for public input at 6:00 p.m.(?) to get a piece of my mind!

        * See http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html for Articles 5, 14 + 38 as mentioned, plus not only http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/VI/92/92-2.htm but http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/III/42/42-1.htm also to Article 84 at: http://www.nh.gov/constitution/oaths.html , plus for Article 5 part 2 at: http://www.nh.gov/constitution/formofgov.html & of course the http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LIX/594/594-14.htm form to give to the local COP to hand serve them for the day and time to appear in CRIMINAL court to answer to the charge of: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/637/637-5.htm II(g) against each of them two thieves!! ” Take action as an official against anyone or anything, or withhold official action, or cause such action or withholding; ” of there the newbie there, and the one who knows that what they are doing is WRONG, re: he’s the one who cited the Eby case FOR me and so didn’t sign the latest abatement denial, re: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme/opinions/index.htm over to http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme/opinions/2014/index.htm#june2014 13th for the Eby case at: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme/opinions/2014/2014040eby.pdf of see in particular pages 4, 10 + 18 of 19 NOT put into the recommendation letter of June 1st from the Appraiser who calls himself an Assessor that be a LIE as for the taxing part of the definition of the word, as one can argue and win on either the constitutionality of a statute in its entirety like in the unlawful state-wide property tax here for education, +/or as unlawfully applied to the individual that it is with me and others in various other states, of when we win at the local level it will give us more $money to fight these corrupt agents of Uncle Sam who steal our CIVIL cases against them in the State Courts as against their own Rules of the Game as a case canNOT be Removed to Federal Court without the “consent” of BOTH parties: Plaintiff AND Defendant!! It’s pre-scribed by 28USC636(c)(1), and so for their over-look of this that IS corruption! It’s what I call The Government Passover, or Pass-Over: ”
        of http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/violate ” 1 of 5 = ” to break, infringe, or transgress (a law, rule, agreement, promise,instructions, etc.). ” http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/transgress = ” to pass over or go beyond ” so to pass OVER this Article 5 requirement that the Tax Warrant out of the State Dept. of Revenue has to be advised and consented to BEFORE it can pass along by the Selectmen to the Tax Collector of that two wrongs do NOT make a right! See RSA Ch. 21:2 too: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/I/21/21-2.htm ” 21:2 Common Usage. – Words and phrases shall be construed according to the common and approved usage of the language; but technical words and phrases, and such others as may have acquired a peculiar and appropriate meaning in law, shall be construed and understood according to such peculiar and appropriate meaning.
        Source. GS 1:2. GL 1:2. PS 2:2. PL 2:2. RL 7:2. ” thus my religious right cannot be converted to a mere privilege of favor, but that of in rigor juris, of by the strictness of law!

         
      • Roger

        June 16, 2015 at 9:07 PM

        “I know of only two fundamental mechanisms to establish legal relationships between people: 1) contracts; 2) trusts.”

        You can add “3) laws” to this list of mechanisms. While being neither a contract nor a trust, a law does establish legal relationships between people.

        Black’s 4th:

        LAW. That which is laid down, ordained, or established…. That which must be obeyed and followed by citizens, subject to sanctions or legal consequences, is a “law.”

        CONSTITUTION. The organic and fundamental law of a nation or state, which may be written or unwritten, establishing the character and conception of its government…

         
      • Colin

        June 16, 2015 at 11:17 PM

        Take a class on the law? And spoil all my fun?

        That is actually where I think this is coming from; you’re having fun. You enjoy being seen as an expert, and having people ask you questions as if you understand the things about which you’re opining. The frustrating thing is that you could have the knowledge you pretend to. You put a lot of work into this blog and your radio show, and you’re clearly very intelligent. If you applied yourself to actually learning things, instead of making them up to amuse and aggrandize yourself, you could understand the world around you so much more clearly. But pretending will always be easier, and more fun, than working.

        Insofar as you start believing everything you’ve been taught,,you stop hunting for truth and instead seek to “indoctrinate” others with the same crapola that you’ve been taught to believe by others who seek to profit from your beliefs.

        What an ironic comment! You’re claiming that getting an education is to “stop hunting for truth” at the same time that you declare you will not study or attempt to learn what the mainstream has to say.

        “Hunting for truth” does not mean “making things up as I go along.” If you were actually “hunting for truth,” I think you’d be eager to learn what experts have to say about the law. After all, you don’t have to believe it just because you listened to it.

        No, declaring that you won’t learn something is the opposite of “hunting for truth.” It’s a decision to remain in the world of make-believe and deception rather than working to find out whether the things you want to believe are actually true or not.

        What makes you think that “classes on the law”–even if the classes are taught at Harvard–provide education rather than indoctrination?

        For one thing, the ideological disparity among lawyers. People who learn the law all want very different things: higher taxes, lower taxes, more rights, less rights, etc. But they all agree on a few basic things, like the fact that the fringe on a flag doesn’t establish jurisdiction and that “ALFRED ADASK” is legally indistinguishable from “Alfred Adask” and that “The State of Texas” is the same entity as plain old “Texas.” I have a hard time believing in the gargantuan conspiracies you see lurking behind every courtroom; I’ve been there, and it’s just people. And if it were a conspiracy, it seems the rich and powerful aren’t in on it. Billionaires, celebrities, politicians—when they get into court, they behave as if the kind of law taught in school works. And it does. It’s the least educated, least influential, least capable people who get caught in these little ideological communities, and get hurt by it—the people who try to defend their non-payment of taxes by arguing that their names were spelled wrong or pleading false subordination of muster or whatnot. It’s sad, especially because it would be so easy for those people to get an education—it’s free now! And online, so they can do it any time! But no, pretending is more fun, and much faster.

        For another thing, empiricism. The law you learn in school works. When you learn how to litigate a claim based on real law, you can go into a courtroom and win it. When you take refuge in comfortable fantasies about flag fringes and “MOOA” and capitalized names, you can’t win cases. All you can do is invent ever-more elaborate fantasies explaining why those theories can’t win in practice. (See, for example, your claim that the reason your MOOA argument didn’t go to court was that the conspiracy was afraid it would win, even though nothing like it has ever won in any court ever and you’re unable to answer the very basic flaws in its premises. As far as I can tell, MOOA isn’t about being right—it’s about looking sound enough for you to feel as if you’re right, and that’s it. It’s not worth doing the work to find out if your notions are true or not, if all you’re after is the feeling rather than the actual truth.)

        For a third thing, the way law (or pretty much any real-world subject) is taught. It’s not “believe this or else!” It’s, “Here is the principle. Here is how it developed. Here is how it is used in the real world. Here are lots of examples of how it was used. Read them in context to understand fully. Here is where most experts think it will go in the future, and here is why.” That’s the opposite of indoctrination. On the other hand, look at how you teach your ideas: just believe. With the power of Christ, anything can be true. You literally claim you don’t need an education because it threatens your beliefs—what is that if not a rigid ideology? You’ve indoctrinated yourself.

        You’d make a wonderful storm trooper, Colin. Your confidence in your indoctrination and in your superiors is almost magnificent. You believe what you’ve been taught without question.

        You’ve leapt to a convenient conclusion. On the contrary, I disagree with the state of the law in many areas. Some of them are things we’d agree on. For example, I’m very unhappy with the way asset forfeiture works today. I don’t like the way Alford pleas are treated in some jurisdictions. Most recently, I think the Supreme Court decided Elonis and EEOC v. Abercrombie wrongly. (Which is ironic because the only justice to dissent in either of those cases was Clarence Thomas, with whom I rarely agree. I think his dissents were for other reasons in those two cases.)

        You’re cuing off of the fact that I agree with the mainstream when it comes to your pet theories. The difference is that your pet theories are so far off the beaten track that essentially no one agrees with them. Reasonable people can and do disagree about many things in the law, from trivialities to life-and-death matters. But basically no one who knows the first thing about law disagrees when it comes to flag fringes and capitalized names.

        You’re in the position of someone claiming that blood is made up of motor oil and ginger ale, complaining, “Colin, you’re a Nazi stormtrooper because you agree with all the doctors! You only agree with them because they’re doctors, you just refuse to use your imagination and see that blood could be made of ginger ale and motor oil!” Well, no, it couldn’t. I’m sorry that you think my position makes me a “stormtrooper.” If you demonize everyone who disagrees with you, you’ve demonized everyone who knows anything about the law… which does seem to be one of your goals.

        For example, in one of your earlier comments today you pontificate that a “constitution” is merely a “constitution”–but it’s not an “express, charitable trust”. How profound. You paid most of $200,000 to get a Harvard education that taught you to define a word with the same word? A “constitution” is a “constitution”? A “true believer” is a “true believer”? A “rose,” no matter how sweet it smells, can’t be defined by any other name but can only be defined as a “rose”?

        First, let me say that you are the only person in this conversation who gives a damn about where I went to law school. Second, why don’t you try to make a reasoned argument instead of just making raw, illogical assertions? You could start by looking up the definition of an express trust and showing how a state constitution fits those elements. Maybe I’m wrong! But I think not. After all, while a rose is a rose, it is not an express charitable trust.

        As you may know, Colin, I’m just a dumb roofer who didn’t go to Harvard over even graduate from some lessor college, so my observations are always suspect Even so, I know of only two fundamental mechanisms to establish legal relationships between people: 1) contracts; 2) trusts.

        You aren’t dumb, no matter how you earn your daily bread. You wouldn’t be a good person to have a conversation with if you were. No matter what else you are, have been, or may become, you are a very interesting person to have a conversation with.

        You are wrong about the establishment of “legal relationships.” Roger identified a good one below that hadn’t occurred to me: laws. I’d add marriage, childbirth or adoption, or acts creating substantive duties. For example, doctors, lawyers, accountants, priests, and other people can have legal duties towards people to whom they owe duties, even if no contract exists between those people.

        Section 2 tells us expressly that the “free government” of Texas has been “instituted” for the “BENEFIT” of the People. Thus, the People of The State of Texas appear to be the BENEFICIARIES of the Texas Constitution. Thus, the Texas Constitution is a trust, the officers and employees of government are that trust’s fiduciaries and the People are the intended beneficiaries.

        This is an error of logic. Trusts are a thing that is instituted by one actor for the benefit of another; you’re arguing that constitutions do the same so must be a kind of trust. That’s like saying that birds are organisms with wings and legs that make a chirping sound; crickets do the same so they must be a kind of bird.

        The elements of a trust are pretty well-defined. I think you could make an interesting, if unpersuasive, case that a constitution fulfills those elements. But you have to know what they are first. You might find the effort it takes to learn them illuminating. Or you might not. I suppose it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg either way.

        For example, last week, you pontificated that the “United States” and “The United States of America” identified the same entity. If that’s true, why do we have both a “constitution” of “The United States of America” and also a “constitution” of the “United States”? Why did the founders bother to “constitute” or create the “United States” if they’d already already done so with the “constitution” of “The United States of America”?

        Are you referring to the Articles of Confederation? They were superseded by the Constitution. If you’re pretending they’re still in effect, I’d be very curious to see what evidence you can find to support that position.

        As for why the states found it necessary to create a new constitution, you’d have to consult a history book. I don’t know.

        The argument that “United States” and “The United States of America” are identical is stupid.

        If you say so. I’m curious, how do you explain the fact that apparently none of the tens of thousands of people who must be in on this conspiracy have ever written or talked about it? Why no law professor ever decided to make their name by publishing an expose? Why no political candidate ever sought power by upsetting the apple cart? Why no bureaucrat ever spilled the beans? And if no one ever talks or writes about it, then how does this imagined distinction have any legal effect at all?

        Incidentally, did Harvard teach you about “The Organic Law of The United States of America”? You could read up on it at https://adask.wordpress.com/2011/05/30/the-organic-laws-of-the-united-states-of-america/#more-6862. Back about A.D. 1873, Congress declared in its Revised Statutes that that organic law consists of four documents: 1) Declaration of Independence; 2) Article of Confederation; 3) Northwest Ordinance; and 4) Constitution of the United States.

        I had to look that one up. It seems to be a collection of what have been organic laws for the United States. You’re assuming that they were considered active organic laws at the time that list was compiled, but I don’t see any evidence of that. And I see lots and lots of evidence against it. For example, when the slave states seceded, they made their legal arguments to the US Constitution, rather than the Articles of Confederation. Those states, lawyers, politicians and businessmen—who had every incentive in the world to make their arguments as broadly and persuasively as possible—acted as if the Constitution had superseded the Articles of Confederation.

        And the same is true of everyone making serious legal arguments ever, at least since the US Constitution was ratified. No one going before the Supreme Court takes the AoC as if it were an active, current organic law, and neither does any court or judge or politician.

        At some point, pretending that the AoC weren’t superseded is obviously a fiction. If no one actually applies it, then your position (apparently that it’s applied in secret by the conspiracy) is assuming your conclusion. I haven’t seen you identify even a single fact that can only be explained, or better be explained, by assuming that the AoC are current. And as I said above, there are lots of facts that make no sense if the AoC are current. The rational conclusion seems to be that they aren’t. Have you done that analysis, or just assumed your conclusion?

        Did Harvard teach you about that “Organic Law”? If not, do you still think you were educated or indoctrinated?

        If we ever learned the term I’ve forgotten about it. We’ve been a country for hundreds of years—you don’t learn everything in law school. You learn instead how to learn—and, in the crucial step you keep skipping over, how to tell whether an idea is actually true or just something you want to be true. For example, by looking to see which of two possibilities is better supported by the facts.

        Another one of your little stories that still strikes me as improbable is your claim that that you voluntarily deactivated your law license(s). I had speculated that you’d “voluntarily” deactivated your law license as part of an agreement to avoid being overtly disbarred. You assured me that you’d never been threatened with disbarment but had instead voluntarily deactivated your law license(s) for the sake of your love for your sweetie-pie.

        Yup! I wanted to move to Texas with her, and we knew we wouldn’t be here for very long. It would have been crazy to try to find a law job for that short an amount of time, so instead I took a consulting job I can do from any city with an airport. I was lucky to find it! Since I don’t need my licenses (plural, Illinois and Texas) in this job, I parked them to save the extra taxes and fees. Never been disciplined or threatened with discipline or investigated or anything even remotely like that. Closest I’ve ever come is having to pay a fine for failing to send my renewal paperwork in on time.

        You quit the law racket for the sake of your sweety’s love. The screen play rights should be worth a fortune.

        Not unless people start paying extra for boring movies. This story might seem like a big deal to you, but that’s only because you don’t really know anything about the practice of law. It’s actually very common for people to move between states and/or leave the practice for family reasons. Of the people I went to school and worked with, I can think of many examples: one became an entrepreneur, one does litigation support, at least two are authors, several are consultants like me, and one guy, who also moved to be with his fiancé, is a high school football coach. (His story would probably make a better movie, because at least it has sports in it.) I assume all of them parked their licenses, because why would you keep paying the extra taxes and fees? The litigation support guy is probably an exception, because I assume he acts in a legal capacity fairly regularly.

        First, you’ve told us that you borrowed the money go to Harvard Law School. If so, there’s a good chance that you’re still in debt for $100,000, maybe more.

        I’m not going to discuss my finances with you in detail, sorry. I can say your assumption is wrong for a couple of reasons. First, I was able to use my college savings for law school due to undergraduate scholarships. Second, I worked in private practice long enough to pay down my debts pretty substantially. I still have student loans, but they aren’t awful.

        You may have a very sweet and lucrative job teaching negotiation skills, but I doubt that Harvard or any other university has a three year course on negotiating that can result in a license and occupation as lucrative as the practice of law. Odds are, that you could make far more money by practicing law than you can as a negotiation professor.

        I’m not a professor, but yes, I could make a metric ton more money practicing law. At least, under certain circumstances. And that’s the rub. I’d have to live in a major metro area like New York or San Francisco, and I’d have to work at a major law firm. I don’t want to do either of those things. My partner’s job isn’t in a major metro area, so I’d have to leave her to go work there, which I don’t want to do. And I don’t want to work at a major law firm. The quality of life was terrible—I worked six or seven days a week (half a day on Saturdays and an hour or two on Sundays, most of the time) and the stress was awful. I made a bunch of money but never really had a chance to spend it on anything other than paying down my loans. And most of the work was no fun—grinding, monotonous stuff. There was a lot of fun, intellectually stimulating work too, but not enough to make up for the drudgery. You can look at it this way: the top law jobs pay as much as they do because people wouldn’t put up with the bad quality of life without that kind of money. Supply and demand.

        As a consultant, I make a decent living doing something I really enjoy. I get to travel a lot, and when I’m not on a job I can take a day to run around with my dog at the park or have conversations like this. Plus I get to live with my “sweetie”, which is a big plus.

        If your real love is teaching, why don’t you teach law?

        The short version is that people who teach law generally aim for that track from the very beginning. It’s incredibly hard to become a law professor just because you want a different job—the market is extremely competitive. “I went to Harvard and I used to be a litigator” isn’t nearly enough. I haven’t done the kind of research and scholarship that would qualify me for that kind of teaching.

        After all, you do seem to know everything there is know on that subject

        Nope! I only know a little, but I know how to learn more. And I know that the process of learning isn’t “A. Imagine it. B. See step A.”

        In any case, the problem I see in your story is that your sweetie-pie doesn’t mind that you’ve quit the racket to teach negotiation and thereby guaranteed that your law school debt will linger for several more years.

        She doesn’t. As I said, my loans aren’t that bad. I’ll have them for a while, but I’m making enough to pay them down over time without feeling the stress. So why would she want me to take a job in another city or state, or a job that’s miserable and keeps me in the office six days a week minimum?

        If you really know the law as well as you claim and you’d kept your law license, you should’ve been able to repay your school debt before now. That would mean you’d have money to buy a house, money to get married and have more kids, money for vacations and buying necklaces and rings for your sweety.

        I’m not going to talk about my partner here, as she prefers her privacy. But I think I can safely say she didn’t pick me because she wanted to get the most vacations and necklaces and rings possible. Is it really so hard to believe that people want more out of life than jewelry and vacations?

        But even more surprising is that you’ve found a woman who is so in love with you that she doesn’t even care that you’ve sacrificed a lucrative profession that could buy her a new house–so that the two of you can be together. You’ve gotta admit, that’s unusual behavior in a young woman.

        Not in my experience. Maybe it would be different if we were struggling to get by, but we make enough to be comfortable and start a family. We could make more, and I’d love it if we did, but that’s true of most people. I don’t know anyone who prioritizes money completely over quality of life. We all find a balance we can live with. For me, relationship and working conditions were more important than maximizing my income.

        Maybe it would be different if I was struggling to get by and we could make millions if I went back into legal practice, but that’s not the case. We’re pretty comfortable, and going back into the practice would only make us more comfortable, not “fill the yacht with champagne” rich.

        Having said all that, we’re moving again soon (again for her job) and this one will be more permanent. There’s a good chance I’ll get a legal job in the new state, at which point I’ll carry an active license again.

        If you and your sweety are so much in love that you voluntarily deactivated your law license so you could be together, why are you spending so much time on this blog?

        Because I enjoy this! I intended to write a blog article tonight, but got side tracked doing this response instead. As I’ve said before, I love having conversations like this. I think you’re fantastically wrong in your ideas, but I also think you’re interesting.

        I justify it to myself by saying that since I’m still working on that book, this is a kind of research. But in actuality, I just find this kind of conversation fascinating and educational. I really do want to understand how you see the world, and our back-and-forth helps me do that.

        Besides, this doesn’t take all that much time. A couple hours a week, max, and most weeks much less than that. (That’s just a guess, but billing hours all those years made me pretty good at estimating time.) I do a lot of my writing on airplanes, in airports, or from hotel lounges. So the alternative would be reading cheap sci-fi, watching a movie, or sleeping. Talking to you beats those by a country mile.

        I do a little writing myself from time to time and I have some appreciation for the amount of time you must spend both reading the articles on this blog and then drafting your comments in response. Generally speaking, you don’t shoot from the hip. Your comments tend to be well-thought out, well-organized and even persuasive.

        Thank you!

        Those kinds of comments don’t just happen. They take time to reason out and write. You re spending TIME on this blog. Quite a lot of time, actually.

        Less than you think, probably. Bear in mind that I trained to write briefs and such under time pressure. I pretty much write stream-of-consciousness here, and it doesn’t take very much time at all. A lot of the research I do goes very quickly because I’m already familiar with the concepts, just checking details.

        That’s surprising to me because I’ve visited a couple of other blogs where you’ve made comments. These blogs appear to belong to some of your personal friends. Oddly, I can’t find any extensive comments (of the sort I see on my blog) made by you on your friends’ blogs. Instead, all I’ve seen are occasional comments that are so brief that they read more like Tweets than the extended lectures you deliver on my blog.

        Are you talking about Violent Metaphors? Seems like a pretty different environment to me—normally I’m responding to anonymous commenters there. You’re a more significant voice than they are, saying more interesting things. Sort of the same reason I listen to Alex Jones rather than NPR. I’d rather get into a conversation with someone who’s interesting but wrong than with someone with whom I mostly agree.

        How come your spending all this time “convesating” with us rather than with your sweetie? I mean,you gave up your law license to be with your sweetie, and now that you two love birds can be together, you’re spending hours every week “conversating” with a bunch of rag-tag strangers rather than “conversating” with your one true love.

        It’s true that she’s much more important to me than you are. But I travel a lot, and she has her own job. Trust me, I’m not spending time writing to you that I’d otherwise spend talking to her!

        The only way the time you spend on this blog makes sense to me is if you’re being paid to be here. Instead of a hobby, your time on this blog looks more like a job.

        Back to the conspiracy theories. No, no one pays me for the time I spend here. Not directly or indirectly. I can’t prove it to you, because I’m not going to show you my W2! If I was a secret blog agent, working for the IRS or Illuminati or the Secret State of Hidden Texas or whatever, I think I’d have a better cover. But you know how conspiracy theories work—evidence for the theory is proof the conspiracy is true, and evidence against the theory is proof the conspiracy is powerful.

        I think you’re reaching into this particular conspiracy theory as a defense mechanism: “I don’t need to listen to him because he’s just another secret agent.” Well, don’t listen to me. Get your own education. If you’re really hunting for the truth, go hunt in places where it’s likely to be found: among the people who know the most about the subject. Try one of those free classes. It’s not brainwashing, you can still disbelieve the mainstream. But why not invest a few hours yourself in learning how the outside world thinks the law works?

        (If the classes weren’t free, you’d probably suspect me of being a secret salesperson at this point!)

         
      • Jethro!

        June 17, 2015 at 8:38 AM

        @Roger – “You can add “3) laws” to this list of mechanisms. While being neither a contract nor a trust, a law does establish legal relationships between people.
        Black’s 4th:
        LAW. That which is laid down, ordained, or established…. That which must be obeyed and followed by citizens, subject to sanctions or legal consequences, is a ‘law.'”

        You didn’t catch that little thing that “law” relates to “citizens”? “Citizen” relates to PERSONS under said constitution subject to corresponding duties. So no, “law” is not #3, it’s a subset of 1 or 2.

         
      • Jethro!

        June 17, 2015 at 8:50 AM

        @Colin – “I had to look that one up. It [“The Organic Law of The United States of America”] seems to be a collection of what have been organic laws for the United States. You’re assuming that they were considered active organic laws at the time that list was compiled, but I don’t see any evidence of that.”
        You think there’s no evidence that “The Organic Law of The United States of America” is “active”? Gee, you don’t think it’s because it doesn’t say “The Inactive Organic Law of The United States of America”? “Have been” organic laws is something you made up.

         
      • Henry

        June 17, 2015 at 4:51 PM

        @Roger You can add “3) laws” to this list of mechanisms. While being neither a contract nor a trust, a law does establish legal relationships between people.

        Ironically, the definition of the word “law” is unsettled and controversial. Some authors have even maintained that it should be left undefined.

        Having said that, I think the legal philosopher John Austin did a great job of succinctly capturing the essentials of what is meant by “law” in real world (as opposed to Legal Fantasyland theme park) jurisprudence:

        “A rule laid down for the guidance of an intelligent being by an intelligent being having power over him.”

        “A body of rules fixed and enforced by a sovereign political authority.”

        Do these definitions describe a contract? Nope.

        Do these definitions describe a trust? Nope.

        Do these definitions describe a constitution? Yep, as we’d expect since a constitution is the “organic and fundamental law of a nation”.

         
      • Anthony Clifton

        June 21, 2015 at 6:42 AM

        if truth and justice isn’t your sweetie, and you’re just yucking it up with Melody…

        maybe you ought to take up golf…

        http://snippits-and-slappits.blogspot.com/

        when specifically did the first proselyte to Talmudic Judaism ooze forth from
        the primordial cesspit ?

        truth is not on holiday, even in Charleston, South Carolina

         
    • Allen Curtis

      June 20, 2015 at 8:15 AM

      Colin,
      You said to, Jethro, > “I think you’re confused—“they” didn’t write anything. I did. Let me say it again: the IRS has no obligation to respond to questions just because someone send them in. To create such an obligation, there must be an actual rule that says so.”

      Colin, I don’t think it would be to their advantage to make such a rule, do you?

       
  15. Spade Koolie

    June 16, 2015 at 1:23 AM

    Colin,
    You so graciously made available for our educational enlightenment the following on your not required to respond link. In pertinent part, > Another court rejected this kind of claim (after dismissing a “hodgepodge of unsupported assertions, irrelevant platitudes, and legalistic gibberish”) as follows:

    “Finally, petitioner contends that her attempts to secure explanations from the IRS about her arguments were reasonable cause for her failure to file returns for the years in issue. They were not. Petitioner apparently did not consult with an attorney or accountant or any competent tax professional before discontinuing her prior history of filing returns.

    Willie Nelson depended on “Competent TAX attorneys” to handle his Income Tax matters, but this did not help him. Why dat?

     
  16. Spade Koolie

    June 17, 2015 at 7:49 AM

    Colin,
    Alfred asks, “Take a class on the law? And spoil all my fun”?

    Colin, you respond, “That is actually where I think this is coming from; you’re having fun.”
    Colin, where is your sense of humor? Colin, do you mean you are not having fun? :-) D

    Alfred says, “Insofar as you start believing everything you’ve been taught,,you stop hunting for truth and instead seek to “indoctrinate” others with the same crapola that you’ve been taught to believe by others who seek to profit from your beliefs.”

    Colin, You respond, What an ironic comment! You’re claiming that getting an education is to “stop hunting for truth” at the same time that you declare you will not study or attempt to learn what the mainstream has to say.”

    Colin, Indoctrinate means, to teach (someone) to fully accept the ideas, opinions, and beliefs of a particular group and to not consider other ideas, opinions, and beliefs. :-) D
    Colin, you have been well trained. :-) D

     
    • Colin

      June 17, 2015 at 10:23 AM

      Colin, Indoctrinate means, to teach (someone) to fully accept the ideas, opinions, and beliefs of a particular group and to not consider other ideas, opinions, and beliefs. :-) D

      And that’s what Alfred doesn’t do. (Neither do you or many other commenters here.) You get stuck in a particular idea: there’s multiple United Stateses! Taxes only apply to federal employees! My name in all caps refers to some shadow corporation! Gold fringes! And all thinking stops. I’ve not seen any of you actually engage with the outside world. The theory loses every time in court? Well, there must be a conspiracy! I don’t need to think about whether the idea is wrong, because conspiracy. Someone quoted a statue that directly refutes my argument? Well, that guy must be a secret gov-co agent! I don’t need to think about whether the argument is wrong, because conspiracy. I can’t find any actual law or evidence to support my conspiracy theory? Well, that just proves how powerful the conspiracy really is!

      If nothing else, consider Alfred’s position on taking a class on the law. He won’t do it because he doesn’t want to hear what real-world experts have to say. What is that, if not refusing to “consider other ideas, opinions, and beliefs”?

       
      • Henry

        June 17, 2015 at 4:52 PM

        > I’ve not seen any of you actually engage with the outside world.

        Congratulations on “cracking the code” of this manufactured counter-culture.

         
      • Spade Koolie

        June 17, 2015 at 10:35 PM

        Colin,
        @ If nothing else, consider Alfred’s position on taking a class on the law. He won’t do it because he doesn’t want to hear what real-world experts have to say. What is that, if not refusing to “consider other ideas, opinions, and beliefs”?
        Some people have a “sense” of knowing when something is not adding up, or just doesn’t seem to be right. Some people have a higher or lesser sense degree of knowing this. You yourself still have to use your own brain to see if you understand what legislation or court decisions are really saying. It appears to me that we just see & understand some things different. What you see and understand I SEE as the same mindset as & of those who comprise the Government. BUT, when I read these words,e.g., “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other”, I SEE what is said 100% different from you & I honestly believe one or two more people do too. You promote miscegnation, for example. To you, this is right & acceptable & 99% + people agree with you. There are many issues that you & a couple more of US see & understand different. Some of us do not want to fit into the “Mainstream”.

         
      • Spade Koolie

        June 18, 2015 at 5:38 AM

        Sir Colin,
        @ And that’s what Alfred doesn’t do.
        RIGHT!! NOW, we both DO understand something EXACTLY the SAME. Yes, Alfred does not try to indoctrinate.This is your job. You are given free rein to do so. You do a good job, but sometimes our best efforts, no matter what we try to do, are good enough to accomplish the desired end result. :-( Different strokes for different folks it’s called.This is also why we have Vanilla, Chocolate, Strawberry, Raspberry, Butter Pecan & so on.

         
      • Spade Koolie

        June 18, 2015 at 11:33 PM

        Colin,
        @ Colin, Indoctrinate means, to teach (someone) to fully accept the ideas, opinions, and beliefs of a particular group and to not consider other ideas, opinions, and beliefs. :-) D

        @ And that’s what Alfred doesn’t do.
        Yes, Sir Colin,but you try to indoctrinate, doancha? OR, is it, educate? Which it B?

        @ There is a rule. It’s called “due process”. It’s guaranteed by both state and U.S. constitutions.

        Why the necessity of TWO “due process” of law clauses in the U.S. Constitution?
        Why the necessity of TWO power clauses E.g., Article 1 section 8, AND the power clause beginning with the 13th Amendment,>Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

        WHY were the Southern States mandated to ADOPT the 14th Amendment & include it in their State Constitutions BEFORE they could “re-enter” The “Union”?

         
      • Allen Curtis

        June 19, 2015 at 4:15 PM

        Colin,
        @ If nothing else, consider Alfred’s position on taking a class on the law. He won’t do it because he doesn’t want to hear what real-world experts have to say

        Colin, We get educated by the “Law enFORCE ers.” Freely too!! As far as yellow/gold fringes on
        “THE U.S. Flag” goes, I believe the Attorney General is part of what you call the outside world, & he said,> The Placing of a fringe on the national flag, the dimensions of the flag and the arrangement of the stars in the union are matters of detail not controlled by statute, but are within the discretion of the President as commander in Chief of the Army and Navy.” 34 Ops. Atty. Gen. 83.” The commander in Chief is of/in the Executive Dept., excuse me, BRANCH. Per the ARMY regulations 840-10 it says, in pertinent part, in Chapter 2b > b. National flags listed below are for indoor display and for use in ceremonies and parades. For these purposes, the flag of the United States will be of rayon banner cloth or heavyweight nylon, trimmed on three sides with golden yellow fringe, 2 ½-inches wide. It will be the same size or larger than other flags displayed or carried at the same time.

        c. Authorization for indoor display. The flag of the United States is authorized for indoor display for each-
        (4) Military courtroom.
        My understanding of the above IS, “This United States Flag” is only “authorized” to be displayed, as far as a COURTROOM goes, in a military courtroom per Army Regulation 840-10. I do not believe the foregoing Emanated from “trolls” either.

         
      • mrtideman

        June 19, 2015 at 4:44 PM

        I like this answer the best over at: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1296633/posts = ” When gold fringes appear on flags in a given location, it’s a signal to the municipality to pump extra fluoride into the water supply. Before you know it, citizens’ precious bodily fluids are sapped and the Reds are that much closer to world domination. ” (;-)

         
      • Colin

        June 19, 2015 at 4:30 PM

        As far as yellow/gold fringes on “THE U.S. Flag” goes, I believe the Attorney General is part of what you call the outside world, & he said,> The Placing of a fringe on the national flag, the dimensions of the flag and the arrangement of the stars in the union are matters of detail not controlled by statute, but are within the discretion of the President as commander in Chief of the Army and Navy.” 34 Ops. Atty. Gen. 83.”

        Which does not say, or mean, that any flag with gold fringe is a military flag. Or that any courtroom with a gold-fringed flag is a military courtroom.

        The commander in Chief is of/in the Executive Dept., excuse me, BRANCH. Per the ARMY regulations 840-10 it says, in pertinent part, in Chapter 2b > b. National flags listed below are for indoor display and for use in ceremonies and parades. For these purposes, the flag of the United States will be of rayon banner cloth or heavyweight nylon, trimmed on three sides with golden yellow fringe, 2 ½-inches wide. It will be the same size or larger than other flags displayed or carried at the same time.

        Which does not say, or mean, that any flag with gold fringe is a military flag. Or that any courtroom with a gold-fringed flag is a military courtroom.

        My understanding of the above IS, “This United States Flag” is only “authorized” to be displayed, as far as a COURTROOM goes, in a military courtroom per Army Regulation 840-10.

        Logic failure. Nothing you quoted above prevents civilian courtrooms from displaying gold-fringed flags—it only sets out some military regulations for flying flags, which are irrelevant to civil courts. Civil courtrooms don’t need authorization to fly flags, gold-fringed or not.

        I think this is an excellent example of the sovereigntist mindset. Mr. Curtis has something he wants to believe, that all courtrooms with a gold-fringed flag must be military courts and therefore have no jurisdiction over him. He has a couple of things he found online that he thinks support that belief. There are two problems: First, they’re irrelevant. As explained above, they don’t say anything like, “All courts with gold-fringed flags are military courts.” Basic logic. Second, there is a metric ton of evidence that Mr. Curtis’s preferred belief is false. Starting with the fact that every single person who has ever tried this argument in court has lost, and these days they also tend to draw a fine for making frivolous arguments.

        So, I’m curious what happens next. Mr. Curtis, your belief has no evidence to support it and lots of evidence against it. Will you reconsider it, or descend further into irrational defensiveness? Are you more concerned with truth, or maintaining your preferred beliefs?

         
      • Allen Curtis

        June 19, 2015 at 5:35 PM

        Colin,
        @ Do you mean the word “citizen” was always a proper noun prior the 14th? I’m skeptical! Or do you mean a particular reference? But regardless, again, we live in the post-14th world.

        I KNOW this, IN Article 1, section 2 in pertinent part, in the 187 Constitution, it is written verbatim, “No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States,…………….” and, in the 14th it is written, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States ……………….”

        Person, Representative, and, Citizen, in the 1787 Constitution are proper nouns. In the 14th, person, & citizen ARE common nouns. There IS a difference in the MEANING of a proper v. a common noun. At least it once upon a time meant something different.

        @ The phrase could certainly mean “the collection of 50 (or however many, depending on the date) states,” as opposed to the federal entity. I think that’s true before and after the 14th Amendment; we know there was a federal government all along. What do you think people called that singular entity prior to the 14th?

        The Federal Government

        @Here your logic has lost me. As I said, I think “United States” could mean a singular federal entity both before and after the 14th; otherwise, what would you call that federal entity in 1800?

        The Federal Government

        @ It’s all besides the point, though. Whatever the terminology was prior to the 14th, there’s no secret parallel government or jurisdiction today. People who claim otherwise have a curious inability to actually find any evidence to support their fantasies. And citizenship isn’t hard to figure out—if you’re born in one of the states, you’re a citizen of the United States of America. And you can’t get out of taxes by making up stories about citizenship. (Not that you’re trying to necessarily, just contextualizing the conversation.)

        I would agree that I would be a citizen of the United States IF I was a person of color, &, per what the Supreme Court said in the Slaughterhouse cases. E.g., “It is true that only the fifteenth amendment, in terms, 72*72 mentions the negro by speaking of his color and his slavery. But it is just as true that each of the other articles was addressed to the grievances of that race, and designed to remedy them as the fifteenth.

        I AM NOT of THAT RACE !! K-peach-E ???

         
      • Allen Curtis

        June 19, 2015 at 6:20 PM

        Mr.Colin,
        @ So, I’m curious what happens next. Mr. Curtis, your belief has no evidence to support it and lots of evidence against it. Will you reconsider it, or descend further into irrational defensiveness? Are you more concerned with truth, or maintaining your preferred beliefs?

        As far as what happens next, & unless I die before then, there is not any doubt I will be BEHEADED for having the INTEGRITY to STAND FIRM on my beliefs. Maybe YOU will have the pleasure of being the EXECUTIONER. ALL I gather from you IS, Flags have no significance or meaning. ALL I KNOW IS, the “United States” FLAG as described in Army Regulation 840-10 IS the EXACT SAME Flag that IS in EVERY Courtroom I have been in & unlike you I cannot say there is NO REASON for that Flag being IN the Courtrooms. I say THERE IS AT LEAST ONE REASON. You have it YOUR WAY. I STICK WITH MINE. Btw. I have NEVER SAID that Flag is an Admiralty &/or strictly an Admiralty Flag as ALL, EVERYONE of these losing cases proclaimers DO. IT IS A MILITARY FLAG. In case this is ALSO not CLEAR, IF I was a Judge & this was the argument, that the Flag IS an Admiralty Flag, I would RULE OTHERWISE TOO !! If they did not agree with my judgment, let umm APPEAL It. The Appeals Court will AGREE with me. GANT-TEED.

         
      • Adask

        June 19, 2015 at 6:29 PM

        Colin, I’ve engaged with the “outside world”. Those engagement have helped to support my confidence that this blog has something to offer.

        * It’s supposed to be illegal for a man to run for the Texas Supreme court unless the candidate is a licensed attorney and has served for at least 10 years on a lower court. I’m don’t satisfy either of those criteria, but I found an A.D. 1870 federal statute that I interpreted as allowing me to run. I ran. I not only got on the ballot, I received 201,000 votes. I’m probably the first non-attorney since the Civil War to get on the ballot.

        I engaged with the IRS on two occasions: once in A.D. 1991, and again in A.D. 2009. In both instances, the IRS stopped coming after me after I posed some questions.

        * Back about A.D. 2000, the Dallas Bar Association threatened to charge me with Unauthorized Practice of Law. I responded to their notice with 11 pages of questions. They answered none of my questions, but they did reply and say that they didn’t have time to fence with me over legal niceties, that they were forwarding my file to the Texas Bar Association at Austin for whatever resolution the State Bar thought appropriate. They closed their reply, saying “If you have any further questions, please don’t hesitate to ask.” That still strikes me as hilarious. I asked 11-pages of questions and they didn’t answer one. But they closed offering to answer “any further questions” that I might have. Incidentally, unbeknownst to me at the time, a friend of mine (Robert Fox) was also charged with UPL by the Dallas Bar at about the same time. He fought them in court, lost and wound up with a $10,000 judge. I responded to the Dallas Bar’s notice with 11 pages of questions. I never heard from the Dallas Bar or State Bar again.

        Do you know of anyone other pro se who’s stopped a Bar association after being threatened with UPL?

        I don’t.

        * In A.D. 2002, two police officers entered my home without warrant, arrested me without warrant, ultimately caused me to be extradited to Missouri–a state where I have virtually never been before–based on allegations of two felony counts of non-support of a child. Each count could have meant five years in the slammer. However, through the Grace of God, I signed my waiver of extradition as follows:

        at arm’s length
        s/ Alfred Adask
        True name “Alfred Adask” a/k/a “ALFRED N. ADASK”

        Missouri held me for 344 days in a level-5, maximum-security jail, but in the end released me without even giving me a probable cause hearing, let alone trial or conviction. So far as I know, I have never been actually charged with a crime by Missouri. I was released on the 344th day when I was scheduled for a probable cause hearing but the judge wouldn’t even let me into his court room. The judge tried to use a public defender to B.S. me into taking a bond. I refused. The judge ordered me released without hearing, trial or conviction. I never saw him, face to face.

        I could’ve been a convicted felon, but I’m not. I wonder how many other “patriots” have defeated two felony allegations. Any?

        * In A.D. 2006, I “engaged” the system by volunteering to be a fiduciary for a trust that was one of six defendants in the “man or other animals” (MOOA) case. I was personally threatened by the office of the Attorney General of Texas with fines of $25,000/day–$9 million per year. I read the relevant law, saw something that virtually everyone had previously overlooked, drafted a freedom of religion defense, and the Texas AG (after investing six years and nearly $500,000 in pre-trial hearings and investigations) simply stopped prosecuting the case. They never said why, but I assume and believe it was because they didn’t want to risk facing off against the MOOA argument. They non-suited the case in A.D. 2013.

        I’ll bet that you can’t find a single instance in the past fifty years (maybe ever) where a pro se defendant faced possible fines of nearly $20 million dollars and was able to stop the prosecution by a State Attorney General.

        * I haven’t had a lot of victories, but I’ve had a few. More, I haven’t just won a couple of seat-belt beefs in traffic court. I’ve won a variety of conflicts (IRS, Bar, Attorney General, two felonies). I doubt that you can find any other “pro se” who’s had a similar record of victories in both civil and criminal matters.

        This is not to say that I’m guaranteed to ever win another case. I know that the real reason I “won” was that the Good LORD caused me to do so. If the Good LORD doesn’t want me to win again, I won’t–and I won’t complain, either.

        I also know that you’re an atheist, Colin, and therefore you can’t believe that the Good LORD could play a role in my successes.

        You have three problems that I can see, Colin: 1) you lack faith in our Father YHWH ha Elohiym; 2) you apparently lack imagination; and 3) you can’t conceive of cases being resolved on spiritual and/or political bases rather than legal arguments.

        No one can deny that you have a fine education and apparent talent for dealing with legal issues, but despite that talent, you don’t really “get” what’s going on here.

        The first time I knew you didn’t “get it” was about two weeks ago when you posted a comment that went something like this: “There’s no way that Adask and others on this blog will every be able to get the government admit that it regards us as ‘animals’.”

        Where did you ever get the idea that I wanted the government to admit that it presumed that I’m an “animal”? I don’t want that. I never wanted that. I’d be crazy to want that.

        I was pretty much amazed. All this time (a couple of months) you’ve been steadily sniping at the “MOOA” argument–and you didn’t even understand it.

        We all have a lot to learn, and that “all” includes me and even Harvard Law School grads. We are not as dumb as you imply. You are not as smart as you presume. We know that. You, apparently, do not.

        We do “engage”. We do have victories. But usually, when we win, we win before we ever get to court. If the government sees us coming with a strong enough defense, the government may simply drop the case. We win, but there’s no record of our victory–at least, there’s no earthly record of our victory. The government is like a savvy boxing manager who will never put his fighter into the ring with an opponent that he’s not virtually guaranteed to beat. If the government knows that a pro se defendant might not only win, but also do some political damage, they’ll duck him and find someone else to charge who’s sufficiently incompetent to almost certainly be defeated.

        The government is bully, perhaps, but it’s definitely a coward. It won’t fight unless it’s guaranteed to win. Government is always sending in a score of SWAT team members to kill or capture a defendant. That SWAT team always looks powerful, but it is, in fact, evidence of weakness. When it takes 20 men to subdue one man, those 20 men are weak. They’re cowards. They’re not cut from the same cloth as the lone Texas Ranger sent to subdue a riot in some city in the 1800s. When asked why the Governor sent only one Ranger, the Ranger replied, “Because there’s only one riot”. Now, that Texas Ranger didn’t need 20 masked men wearing body armor to back him up. He had real courage.

        If each of the 20 SWAT team members had real courage, they wouldn’t work together to overwhelm just one defendant. They’d go out individually and capture 20 defendants or maybe even 40.

        Same thing with government prosecutors. They use a team of lawyers, forensic experts, cops and expert witnesses to overwhelm their defendants and generate an almost-perfect win/loss record. The government seems impressive and invulnerable to the audience, but if the government was really any good, why couldn’t one prosecutor handle one defendant? What would the crime rate be if, instead of ten government prosecutors, cops, etc. overwhelming one defendant, those same ten government officers and agents each fought and defeated ten defendants? The more overwhelming that government gangs appear, the less formidable they really are.

        The more the government “gangs up,” the less courage they display.

        The government’s gang-style prosecutions shows cowardice and incompetence. Cowardice makes government weak as compared to those who’ve found some real faith and are ready to risk it all to do what’s right.

         
      • Phil Cali

        June 19, 2015 at 7:53 PM

        Al,

        Your post was very impressive in the details and the outcome of the snarls you were entangled in. Truly brilliant, sincerely without pandering or sucking up to you. It’s great to see logical and ethical outcomes to disturbing situations, executed by intelligent and well-educated persons such as yourself. It is amazing how just asking questions to Notices and threats puts the burden on the enemy. Questions regarding jurisdiction, liability, authority. ‘Show me the law’ in that regard I think is what your MO appears to be.

        Grateful, thankful.

        Phil Cali

         
      • Adask

        June 19, 2015 at 8:06 PM

        Phil,

        There was some logic and maybe some brilliance, but mostly there was the Good LORD letting me “see”.

         
      • Colin

        June 19, 2015 at 7:55 PM

        Alfred,

        * It’s supposed to be illegal for a man to run for the Texas Supreme court unless the candidate is a licensed attorney and has served for at least 10 years on a lower court. I’m don’t satisfy either of those criteria, but I found an A.D. 1870 federal statute that I interpreted as allowing me to run. I ran. I not only got on the ballot, I received 201,000 votes. I’m probably the first non-attorney since the Civil War to get on the ballot.

        Sounds like an interesting story! 201,000 votes is 201,000 more than I’ve ever gotten. Did you go to court and win there, or just put your name on the ballot, or what?

        I engaged with the IRS on two occasions: once in A.D. 1991, and again in A.D. 2009. In both instances, the IRS stopped coming after me after I posed some questions.

        I can’t know what happened with the IRS. I suspect that you just got moved to the bottom of the enforcement pile; Phil Cali was pointing out how victims of the Cracking the Code scam get busted eventually. It can take years and years for the government to get around to an investigation or enforcement action, but they do get around to it.

        The reason I suspect that is that I’ve looked at your list of questions. It’s pages of nonsense, Alfred, and I think you know that. Why would the IRS be scared of questions relating to theories that have lost every single time they’ve been adjudicated in court? (“They just surrender so they won’t have to lose on the record” is not much of an answer. Why would they be afraid of losing if no court has ever found any validity to those goofy theories?)

        * Back about A.D. 2000, the Dallas Bar Association threatened to charge me with Unauthorized Practice of Law. I responded to their notice with 11 pages of questions. They answered none of my questions, but they did reply and say that they didn’t have time to fence with me over legal niceties, that they were forwarding my file to the Texas Bar Association at Austin for whatever resolution the State Bar thought appropriate. They closed their reply, saying “If you have any further questions, please don’t hesitate to ask.” That still strikes me as hilarious. I asked 11-pages of questions and they didn’t answer one. But they closed offering to answer “any further questions” that I might have. Incidentally, unbeknownst to me at the time, a friend of mine (Robert Fox) was also charged with UPL by the Dallas Bar at about the same time. He fought them in court, lost and wound up with a $10,000 judge. I responded to the Dallas Bar’s notice with 11 pages of questions. I never heard from the Dallas Bar or State Bar again.

        I think this is the only thing sovereigntist/tax protester arguments do in the real world: they signal, “this guy is going to be a pain in the ass.” That might get some people to look the other way for minor offenses, or perceived offenses. I doubt you were a high-profile target for the bar association; people who aren’t taking cases or selling their advice don’t seem like much of a UPL risk to me. But that’s just my opinion. And of course I haven’t seen your 11 pages of questions, maybe they were more serious than your tax questions.

        Do you know of anyone other pro se who’s stopped a Bar association after being threatened with UPL?

        I’ve never known any pro se threatened with UPL.

        * In A.D. 2002, two police officers entered my home without warrant, arrested me without warrant, ultimately caused me to be extradited to Missouri–a state where I have virtually never been before–based on allegations of two felony counts of non-support of a child. Each count could have meant five years in the slammer. However, through the Grace of God, I signed my waiver of extradition as follows:

        at arm’s length
        s/ Alfred Adask
        True name “Alfred Adask” a/k/a “ALFRED N. ADASK”

        Meaningless nonsense to add to a signature. It has no effect whatsoever. They held you for a year, so it obviously didn’t work! (It’s not like they hold you forever and ever. Why would they keep you in jail for the rest of your life on a child support beef? It’s not like you can support the child from prison any better than you can out in the world. So they were going to release you sooner or later eventually.)

        * In A.D. 2006, I “engaged” the system by volunteering to be a fiduciary for a trust that was one of six defendants in the “man or other animals” (MOOA) case. … They never said why, but I assume and believe it was because they didn’t want to risk facing off against the MOOA argument. They non-suited the case in A.D. 2013.

        And although you try to downplay it, the fact is that you don’t know why they did it. But we know it wasn’t because of the MOOA argument. Alfred, a first-year law student could destroy the MOOA argument. A high school kid could do it. The most basic problem with it is this: you are the only person defining “animal” as meaning “not made in God’s image.” The government doesn’t define “animal” that way, they can’t because of the First Amendment. So if that motion ever got decided in court, the first thing the judge would ask is, “Why should we assume the government is using this unconstitutional definition, when it’s irrelevant to the statute and there’s no evidence that this was intended or ever applied that way?” Motion denied. It would never have worked—it’s as likely to succeed as a motion declaring yourself emperor of America.

        But you’ve invested a lot of your life in the MOOA idea. You’ve used it to convince yourself that you won in court with an original legal idea. You’re very reluctant to let go of it; you don’t address the problems with it, and you keep telling yourself it had a chance of winning. You’re so attached to it that you won’t even take a class in the law, I think because it would be hard to sustain the illusion if you started learning how law really works.

        So we’re speculating as to each other’s motives, capabilities, and limitations. And our speculation is worth the paper it isn’t printed on. But it’s fun! At least for me, and I’m pretty sure for you as well. Thanks again for the interesting discussion.

        The first time I knew you didn’t “get it” was about two weeks ago when you posted a comment that went something like this: “There’s no way that Adask and others on this blog will every be able to get the government admit that it regards us as ‘animals’.”

        Huh? I don’t think I wrote that. Could you find the actual comment so we can see it? Or maybe you’re remembering something like what I wrote above?

         
      • Allen Curtis

        June 20, 2015 at 8:34 AM

        Colin,
        You were informed, > The commander in Chief is of/in the Executive Dept., excuse me, BRANCH. Per the ARMY regulations 840-10 it says, in pertinent part, in Chapter 2b > b. National flags listed below are for indoor display and for use in ceremonies and parades. For these purposes, the flag of the United States will be of rayon banner cloth or heavyweight nylon, trimmed on three sides with golden yellow fringe, 2 ½-inches wide. It will be the same size or larger than other flags displayed or carried at the same time.

        Colin, you replied to the above, > “Which does not say, or mean, that any flag with gold fringe is a military flag …………………………………………………….”

        Well Colin, I guess the U.S. ARMY IS NOT MILITARY EITHER,

         
      • Anthony Clifton

        June 21, 2015 at 6:48 AM

        Colin if you get a Yarmulke and go to Synagogue you too could be a “Jew”…!

        or you could join the Lodge and become a 32 degree Mason…and get a Masonic ring

        pity you haven’t already done so…2be1ASK1.

        Murder in the Jewish State is legal…it’s called self defense…

        all you have to do is be Jewish and steal someones home.

         
      • Happy Campbell

        June 27, 2015 at 1:50 AM

        Colin,
        @ Which does not say, or mean, that any flag with gold fringe is a military flag. Or that any courtroom with a gold-fringed flag is a military courtroom.

        Colin, you were informed by, Allen Curtiss, > My understanding of the above IS, “This United States Flag” is only “authorized” to be displayed, as far as a COURTROOM goes, in a military courtroom per Army Regulation 840-10.

        Colin you said, “Logic failure. Nothing you quoted above prevents civilian courtrooms from displaying gold-fringed flags—it only sets out some military regulations for flying flags, which are irrelevant to civil courts. Civil courtrooms don’t need authorization to fly flags, gold-fringed or not.

        Alright. Then you are saying that the Yellow/Gold fringed flag is being displayed in a civil court where it is not authorized, as that flag is only authorized to be displayed in a military courtroom. ok then so much for authorization as Army Reg. 840-10 carries 0 weight & is meaningless. ok gotcha, meaning, I clearly see what you are saying.You are saying, Army Reg.840-10, Chapter 2 c. Authorization for indoor display. The flag of the United States is authorized for indoor display for each-
        (4) Military courtroom.

        Then military courtrooms mean civil courtrooms. OK Case closed. Thank you Colin Thank you.

         
      • mrtideman

        June 27, 2015 at 12:41 PM

        1. Happy, This discussion came up in House Bill #_____ by State Representative Dick Marple of Hooksett back in 2011, of him* a current Legislator re-elected through next year: 2016 and he had R.S.A. Chapter 3-E:2,I ** put on the books of that the flag of the United States is defined in 4 U.S.C. Sections 1-10 is that of the colors of red, white and blue. Not that PLUS the gold color. [Thus three colors, not four ] See: * http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/member.aspx?member=376245 & ** http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/I/3-E/3-E-mrg.htm So when “they” tried to put the gold-fringe on (or leave it on) the flag in Reps Hall he’d object with #x-number of others and then turn their backs, of that happened #x-times and so to prevent dis-ruption of the proceedings as such “they” had the fringe removed rather than the Reps voluntarily removing themselves, and especially for sometimes they needed their votes. (;-) At the time Deb Nielson was the Sergeant at Arms for the House [ see: https://auburnnhhistoricalassociation.wordpress.com/2015/05/21/the-old-man-of-the-mountain/ ] and got all this Army Regulation stuff, and the bottom line was that since the Army did not object nor dis-agree IF “they” did display this flag in a civil setting, then it was OK with them, as by their silent consent. It did not turn the Reps Hall into a military whatever. Of same goes for any courtroom in the judiciary or any Legislative Public Hearing room, of on display there of being civil too. It’s when the statutes are passed that of if the Executive branch, acting on any opinions from the judiciary deciding such without the evidence or proof of whatever as this in-complete (as against our Article 14 rights here for legal remedies to be free, “complete”, and prompt) is when the Executives do act as militants from the word militate: a verb of to militate or use force as evidence.

        2. Just read the oaths of the U.S. Marshals: to execute only lawful precepts. Thus implying that not all warrants issued out from the judge’s “bench” are lawful. Of WHO to make that call? The U.S. Marshal. See: Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution, and visit Attorney Lowell “Larry” Becraft’s website over at http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm from Huntsville, Alabama that has the list for all fifty (50) states, as the requirements upon the Feds are different in each state. Here in N.H. we gave to the Feds a conditional consent on June 14, 1883 by R.S.A. Chapter 123:1 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm but that as spelled out by the U.S. Supreme Court, in the Adams case of 1943: *** an offer of consent un-accepted is NOT consent. The U.S. Attorneys KNOW this but over-looks it and they do their activities against the law anyway!, because nobody properly objects, or when they TRY to do so through attorneys (who practice law but never make it to perfection) they cite the Adams case in the Brief but do a lousy job at explaining it like in the Ed Brown case here in N.H. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_and_Elaine_Brown of the two attorneys to the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston where Sven Wieberg of Portsmouth., N.H. http://www.nhcriminaldefense.com/ E-mail: sven at nhcriminaldefense dot com and Joshua Gordon of Concord, N.H. http://appealslawyer.net/ E-mail: jlgoprdon @ appeals lawyer dot net (both getting a cc: of this to please answer before me sending this to David Hacket Souter of P. O. Box #______ Hopkington, N.H.03229 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/04/us/04souter.html?_r=0 [ of that the zip code for BOTH the towns of : Hopkinton AND Contoocook to where all mail goes through there at 129 Park Ave,, Contoocook so said the woman Postmaster to me today of with just his name and either town will get the mail delivered to him at his half a million dollar house.

        3. These two attorneys did a lousy job when talking of such to Judge David Hackett Souter there. I think U.S. Attorney Manual #664 at http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm was cited too but that Souter passed over that of like a Government Passover of to over-look as I’ve explained before is government corruption that ought to get him impeached for his anti Article 14 in-complete-ness to our N.H. Article 12 inhabitants that are not supposed to be controlled “over” by an other laws than what we “consent” to! of I think him on some Senior Status of still active +/or to have his pension taken away! Re: ” for http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/violate ” 1 of 5 = ” to break, infringe, or transgress (a law, rule, agreement, promise,instructions, etc.). ” http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/transgress = ” to pass over or go beyond ” so a copy of this also going over to Federal Rep. Frank Guinta since the other one is an attorney and so a sister of the Bar for to protect the BrotherHOOD of these hoodlums! https://guinta.house.gov/ to: https://guinta.house.gov/contact

        *** See also: http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Misc/PressStatementSchulz9-16-03.htm “”In view of 40 USC 255, no jurisdiction exists in United States to enforce federal criminal laws, unless and until consent to accept jurisdiction over lands acquired by United States has been filed in behalf of United States as provided in said section, and fact that state has authorized government to take jurisdiction is immaterial.” Adams v. United States (1943) 319 US 312, 87 L Ed. 1421, 63 S. Ct. 1122. (Quoted from U.S. statute 40 USC 255, Interpretive Note #14, citing the US Supreme Court).” ” ****

        **** 40USC255 to Title 40 U.S. Code 3112 http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=393575 and http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscod/40/usc_sec_40_00003112—-000-.html

        4. So for the flag, of since there is no penalty provision in N.H. RSA Ch. 3-E:2,I some could say that “The Law of the Flag” is it http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/L/LawoftheFlag.aspx but that is really for merchant ships on the high seas and at foreign ports. Here in America we are supposed to be operating by The Rule of Law, not arbitrary Rule of Man, and so when Mister https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stare_decisis of that’s David Hacket Souter’s nickname does deviate away from precedent, he in effect is like dancing on the graves of his predecessors and ought to be impeached! To give this a forum in which to this be not the only case of his deviation but back to https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12680431751423737&q=State+v.+Rollins+NH&hl=en&as_sdt=6,30&as_vis=1 = The State (by Haas) v. Rollins case #86-393 of Aug. 19, 1987 in Vol. 129 N.H. Reports 684 (1987) when he was one of the five N.H. Supremes and wrote this:

        a.) excellent in a way “slip opinion” then bound that before any dismissal of an RSA Ch. 594:14 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LIX/594/594-14.htm private prosecution of a criminal case of the complaint signed by Article 88 of course http://www.nh.gov/constitution/oaths.html ” “against the peace and dignity of the state.” ” that the Attorney General “shall” conduct in the plural of: “examinations of the evidence” but that he and his co-horts (of which Souter was A.G. during the Gov. Mel Thomson administration back in the 1970s) REFUSE to do, as never did in as in the HR13 of two years ago when Richard Head, AAG lied to the House Finance Sub-Committee that he had done everything to comply with the law, but the law defined as what? the constitution IS the law, and the minor law so-called of the statutes, and case-law or common law, of for the latter he did not do! and which full Committee too took his lie as like in a hook, line and sinker of adopting this lie! Plus then Federal Rep. candidate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilinda_Garcia (only a baby at 4 years old when the 1987 case was written up) was in the meeting room of the sub-committee and recused herself as dealing with a Federal issue of thus NOT doing her job as a wanna-be, of not there yet, and probably NEVER will be, but as the Recording Secretary recorded her not as such but having stepped out of the room AFTER this was brought up, and so marked her down as absent, that be sort of like RSA Ch. 641:7 Tampering with Public Records. http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/641/641-7.htm See also: RSA Ch. 638:3 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/638/638-3.htm

        b.) but who did purposefully over-look the State v. 97 Barrels of Liquor case in my Brief that did counter the Harkeem v. Adams case for malicious prosecution is that such is NOT done in bad faith when it’s your own case, of this Barrels case dating back to The Prohibition days of when liquor was not only illegal but unlawful too, and get this: of the Supremes did compromise in that instead of me to have to pay the opposition attorney’s fee of: $1,000 but only $500.00 then Town of Ashland attorney Jack McCormack said to me of that’s like being “half pregnant”. More like some Mediation than to that of who was Right or Wrong, or that of “in favor”, v.s. “In Rigor Juris”, (strictness of law) but that of which they got-away with back then as what they used to call Memorandum Opinions, or Brief opinions in-complete, and so that being a violation of their RSA Ch. 92:2 oaths too! http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/VI/92/92-2.htm

        5. So Frank, Please start a Bill of Impeachment against Souter so that attention can ricochet over to there at the N.H. A.G.’s office to likewise get rid of AAG Benjamin J. Agati too, because when former Grafton County Superior Court Clerk Robert B. Muh, (middle name: Bruce) did allow the Feds to ORDER him to Remove Civil Case #2005-C-033 there of Ed & Elaine Brown v. http://www.biancopa.com/tom-colantuono.html the then U.S. Attorney as objected to by Ed, but not citing the “magic words” or numbers, then Judge Jean K. (Mrs. Peter Hoe) Burling (of Cornish) sanctions same even though 28USC636(c)(1) requires the “consent” of BOTH parties: Plaintiff AND Defendant. Thus she ought to be H.A./ House Addressed to lead into a Bill of Impeachment too, as no agent of Uncle Sam ought to ORDER that of which the Congress set up in the form of a request needing the party’s “consent”! That’s like changing the “shall” word to “may” of thus a lie and when practiced of it a theft of the case as filing fee paid for. And so when Muh retired to Littleton I sued him criminally within the 2-year statute of limitations by RSA Ch. 625:8,III(b) http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/625/625-8.htm for this RSA Ch. 643:1 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/643/643-1.htm “Official Oppression” for his “refrain” of this Article 12 protection of our inhabitants from these other laws, of actually this “law” of this Title 28 Section 636(c)(1) on the books as the Rules of the Game to operate by, but this a botched operation, and so to do the cover-up, Benjamin J. Agati did dismiss by nol pros in this Case #2012-414 at The Haverhill District Court http://www.courts.state.nh.us/courtlocations/grafdistdir.htm#Haverhill and that I did appeal to the Superior Court for a trial by jury by Article 77 http://www.nh.gov/constitution/judicial.html but which the District Court Clerk there: ” Pamela G. Kozlowski ” termed my Claim as a mere letter to myself since I forgot to scratch out the first “To” line in the printout of my e-mail used as my typewriter, and which non processing of this I reported to “The Judicial Council” http://www.nh.gov/judicialcouncil/ back in April with my handouts since they have no public input at the beginning of their three times a year meetings of in January, April and September of once they get started their Executive Director Chris Keating turns into a tyrant and barked back to me that I was NOT to intrude into HIS time even though his job description as spelled out in RSA Ch. 494:3 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LI/494/494-3.htm is to by paragraph II. there of ” To survey and study continuously the administration of justice within the state and the organization, procedure, practice, rules and methods of administration and operation of the courts of the state. ” but that to “study” means by
        http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/study of ” application of the mind to the acquisition of knowledge ” but NOT to apply such of from what they get from me or anyone else, unless they “want” to as not being told to do so. Of see also paragraph III of: ” To devise ways of simplifying judicial procedure, expediting the transaction of judicial business, and of improving the administration of justice. ” of the word devise defined at: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/devise of “to form in the mind”, of thus these The Thinkers BUT not The Doers! of something has got to be done about re-wording their job description and providing them seminar and forum $funding too, because I gave $1.00 to Chris to start such a fund, of hoping that maybe these $100,000+ per year salaried members there might contribute to such, but them a bunch of greedy, lazy good-for-nothing-but THINK-ers; re: IV: ” To serve as a catalyst for the discussion of legal and judicial issues through seminars, forums and special studies, and any other means, within the limits of available state and private funding” of maybe IF they get some $1,000+ donation to such of they can continue to THINK at like a forum at some Resort Hotel like The Jack-o-Lantern in Woodstock, N.H.? Maybe the owners thereof can provide such at some $discount? cc: to them now too with this request. (;-) http://www.jackolanternresort.com/ to http://www.jackolanternresort.com/contact-us/ See also: http://www.manta.com/c/mm71fzk/jack-o-lantern-resort for both: ” Bob Keating ” and ” Judith Keating ” Finance & Sales Executives, plus: ” Maria and Michael Ford ” the new owners.

        Yours truly, – – – – – – – – – – Joseph S. Haas, P. O. Box 3842, Concord, N.H. 03302 E-mail: JosephSHaas at hotmail dot com

        cc: also to:
        http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H34
        & https://plus.google.com/101398311019434228655/about?gl=us&hl=en
        John J. McCormack, Attorney, 62 S. Main St., (P. O. Box 677) Ashland, N.H. 03217, (603) 968-78997
        http://pview.findlaw.com/view/2232352_1

        & richard dot head at doj dot nh dot gov
        benjamin dot agati at doj dot nh dot gov
        HouseFinanceCommittee at leg dot state dot nh dot us

         
      • Adask

        June 27, 2015 at 1:43 PM

        Tideman,

        I appreciate the time you took to write and document your comment.

         
      • mrtideman

        June 27, 2015 at 3:02 PM

        You’re welcome, plus thank you for letting me kill like 5 birds (paragraphs) with one stone. Not only how this flag issue was (past tense) an issue in 2011 here in N.H., but that in addition to any Law of the Flag “jurisdiction”, of there ought to be at least one reader here of who can benefit from Larry’s website of that in addition to the Feds not filing that required paperwork here, the same occurs down in Pennsylvania and Florida too, as researched by me of that I have the details on such because hundreds of thousands of dollars of: $400,000+ for the former and $1 million for the latter were extracted from the estates of my paternal grandmother and parents respectfully by the Feds in both places, plus I think in Texas too, but get this: Missouri: The “Show Me” state has given Uncle Same like Carte Blanche of there being no requirement to operate in their state, of WHO was it that they put in place as their puppet? for the Puppet Masters to pull the strings to get that done. / / / / / The e-mail to the N.H. House Judiciary Committee bounced as usual, of I have to go to the Info-Tech man in the basement of the State House in Concord to get him to fix it again. In the meantime I sent Chris Keating an e-mail with a cc: to almost each and every member thereof that Committee except for one woman still on the snail-mail system. / / / / / As for par. 3 about the U.S. Attorney Manual 664 I did call to the Attorney-For-The-Day a few years ago and that he had never heard or read of this. My suggestion is that each and every reader here do call their U.S. Attorney office like on different days and weeks too to finally get one of them to Wake Up and do what’s right for the truth to go marching on, as they say. Me yet to mail a copy to Souter about my planned impeachment of him by Guinta but will do so on Monday. Now as Jack Chase of the Boston TV station said years ago back in the 1960s of: “So long and MAKE it a good day”, and weekend. – – Joe

        P.S. Here’s a copy & paste of the e-mail that I just sent to Chris, regarding the word: seminars of that our Legislators enable such, but over the last #___ years, decades and into two centuries now, have yet to $ fund such. You’d think that those with $money would NOT only pay an attorney to take their case, or have them write up such behind-the-scenes as I’ve done of thru that Pre-Paid LEGAL SHIELD costing me $28/month to get them at a “bargain” rate of their regular rate jacked up to be discounted anyway, BUT to privately fund this too And if “they” ever arrest me again for whatever like the major four here of: simple assault, resisting arrest, interference with government administration and disorderly conduct (plus contempt of court) wanting to put me in jail for up to one year on each charge for only one incident, of which five cases in the one cause I won anyway when as within the “school of hard knocks”, of the next time I can get a whole bunch of pre-trial court time pre-paid and for #x-number of hours of attorney time in court pre-paid too, of this one heck of a deal for a newbie, of it just peace of mind for me of probably never to use as I know how to push to the brink as in brinkmanship of free speech without getting physical upon then.

        footnote: Plus in re-reading the above before posting here, it really amazes me that government, that exist “forever” of it continues from day to day, etc. of a new manager gets elected or appointed and so continues the that of what has been pre-scribed in the past, of for them in power to purposely over-look such as that of for our rights to be honored, of WHY should we always have to be looking into the statute books and case-laws for these benefits!? Those in gov’t ought to get trained in such of to carry the baton forward, of not just the baton or club or sword, but also the shield of to honor that too! and not having it only available to us in a courtroom before a jury.

        “Here it is:

        “From: josephshaas at hotmail dot com
        To: christopher dot keating at judcouncil dot state dot nh dot us
        CC: The R & D Reps on the N.H. House Finance Committee (to each of their individual e-mail addresses)
        Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 15:01:07 -0400

        Hi Chris,

        I just spoke with Mike there at JACK, 1-800-227-4454 (603-745-8101) a summer employee, and gave him the summary of that your hands are tied because the Legislature (of those creeps) [ * ] never gave you enough $funding to have any PUBLIC “forums” and “seminars” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seminar = “the function of bringing together small groups * for recurring meetings, ** focusing each time on some particular subject,*** in which everyone ****present is requested to actively ***** participate. This is often accomplished through an ongoing Socratic dialogue[1]with a seminar leader or instructor, or through a more formal presentation of research. It is essentially a place where assigned readings are discussed, questions ****** can be raised and debates ******* can be conducted.[2] It is relatively informal, at least compared to the lecture system of academic instruction. ”

        That maybe the new owners there can help provide a PLACE for such a Public Forum or Seminar at a $discount so as to carry on the Keating Quality of that like in golf of there be the opportunity of to hit that hole in one withOUT a BLOCK put in place of like to have to be able to hit the ball not only around or over the sand pits or “bunkers” , but over some obstacle too! The analogy being that the Legislators put this part of the statute in as an enabling legislation but then by not funding it is like a slap in the face [ * ] to those of us being screwed by judges who do not abide by the law!

        Yesterday (Fri., June 26th) I did get the Ed Kelly June 23rd letter from him to me with a c: to Tina Nadeau as postmarked Wed., June 24th in which he did typewrite to my handwritten page delivered to there as a follow-up to the ones I delivered to each and all of your members at the April meeting in the State House, that of:

        “Dear Joe: Judge Nadeau and I have a copy of your handwritten note dated June 3, 2015 asking for a ‘forum’ with us. We respectfully decline your request.”

        of there no mention of 28USC636(c)(1) therein that I did put on my note AND that was in the April paperwork of me thinking of others [ **] before myself of to get this started, which mention of this Title 28 of the United States Code Section 636(c)(1) would have been nice, but that it was not included.

        Thus we NEED this subject*** of N.H. Article 12 protection of our inhabitants from agents of “Uncle Sam” issuing ORDERS rather than requests to BOTH the District AND Superior Courts of to be debated ******* by like at least two groups* of us and the Feds (state and United States) and not in some far-away “Eastern Slopes Inn” in North Conway is maybe where the latest Tax Collector/ Town Clerk Annual Meeting of their members talking to themselves [like on the Eby case of June 13, 2014 ?(;_ ) http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme/opinions/index.htm to http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme/opinions/2014/index.htm#june2014 and http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme/opinions/2014/2014040eby.pdf of see pages 4, 10 + 18 of 19 in particular for the unlawful state-wide property tax still billed to all of us! ] took place? of Woodstock, N.H. is right up the I-93 highway from the Capitol.

        To start this meeting for some re-curring meetings (in the # plural) ** in which everyone (100%) are “requested” of thus who “may” [not forced to by the “shall” word, but at least be there to “hear” what others have to say of to put into that culpable state of mind (;-) ] to actively **** participate with action and re-action rather than to be so “passive” = http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/passive inacive (as in the comparison of justice to in-justice) and that of to emphasize that “pass”part of the word therein to what I’ve already written about what I call the Government Passover of: ” for http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/violate ” 1 of 5 = ” to break, infringe, or transgress (a law, rule, agreement, promise,instructions, etc.). ” http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/transgress = ” to pass over or go beyond ” ”

        One question ****** being of which to debate ******* being the very basic fact that this “shall” word in 28USC636)(c)(1) is being treated as a “may” word (of WHY is that?) by BOTH those agents of Uncle Sam (like AUSA Seth Aframe) that ought not to be! There supposed to be a state check-and-balance of us the creator OVER our creature, but that we have in that way subordinated our Republic to that of a mere Dulocracy where the public servants have dominion OVER us as over-lords, of this crap has got to stop! NOW!

        You have it in your power to have such a public input at the beginning of your meetings but do NOT do so, like for to have like just five (5) minutes for us to present such of not only to dish it out to you all but to get immediate feedback too, and onto maybe another investigation like what you did for me last year (thank you and the other three members “very” much) of onto the January meeting, of I still have no proof that Jim Bassett ever presented this “Reader” way of getting information to the court AND for to reverse that crummy case-law of in-complete as the former judges not getting the FULL facts to issue their half-assed opinion! and still on the books for future victims too!

        In all the 18 years that Nina Gardner, your predecessor as Executive Director having how many of these “forums” or “seminars” IF any!? NONE! right? So isn’t it about time that you do so? to prevent others not as patient as me to like what? set fire to themselves too like the man in Keene before the court there who burned himself to death as he coulnd’t take it, and look what happened to Carl Drega: Judge Harold W. Perkins never gave him a hearing and so he cracked and killed people up there in Colebrook. Let’s hope that something from another doesn’t happen like that again. Not only hope of to THINK so, but to DO something about it of to have these forums and seminars PLEASE!

        Yours truly, – – Joe

        cc: to each and every member of the House Finance Committee that this time it good that the Governor having vetoed the Budget of to PLEASE $fund these forums and seminars!

        [ ** ] to: “you know who” by Corrlinks. (;-)

        ” Summary/ bottom line: re: Colin’s question of June 15th of: “Alfred, Why not take a class on the law” and of the many replies, of not to “take” a class, but to “give” and “take” of BOTH in such a forum or “seminar”.

         
  17. Jethro!

    June 17, 2015 at 8:59 AM

    Al,

    The reason I frequent your blog vs. the Colins of the world in a nutshell is this…

    Al is a thinker and a challenger.

    Colin is a regurgitator.

    The world needs more thinkers and challengers, and fewer regurgitators.

     
    • Spade Koolie

      June 17, 2015 at 10:03 PM

      Jethro,
      Re: Colin saying, “YOU can replace “taxpayer” with “anyone”
      Replace the word, anyone, with anyTHING, would describe it best, i.e., e.g,, anything.

       
      • Adask

        June 19, 2015 at 4:54 PM

        “Anyone”?

        What about a 4-day old infant or an 80-year old man with Alzheimer’s?

        What about a citizen of China or a resident of Zimbabwe?

        The truth is that the term “taxpayer” is much more narrow than “anyone” who is reasonable would suggest.

         
    • Allen Curtis

      June 19, 2015 at 2:30 PM

      Jethro,
      @ Colin is a regurgitator.
      Colin is an indoctrinator, but he is a “nice” indoctrinator.

       
      • Adask

        June 19, 2015 at 2:47 PM

        That’s why he can write so fast. He’s been so well-trained, that he need not pause to think.

         
      • Jethro

        June 19, 2015 at 6:41 PM

        “Colin is an indoctrinator, but he is a “nice” indoctrinator.”

        But first he is an “indoctrinee”.

         
  18. Cody

    June 17, 2015 at 9:17 PM

    Would you believe it if I told you they aren’t actually collecting under Title 26?
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/subtitle-III

     
  19. Cody

    June 17, 2015 at 9:33 PM

    My bad. Please ignore the above. I had found another section of the USC that I thought applied to the IRS.

     
  20. timmy

    June 17, 2015 at 11:33 PM

    I enjoy Colin, and respect his thoughts and participation. It did always “smell” a little bit funny to me, but I’ve never said anything. I know a lot of guys like him, and they just don’t ‘do’ things like this for fun. It’s just contrary to their makeup and training and priorities. But I allow him the benefit of the doubt. Because I have no evidence to the contrary. (See Colin!) Perhaps, just perhaps, he subconsciously senses that something IS really wrong in the system. But of course, on a practical level, he is correct and I agree with him on that. It’s just stupid to act otherwise. But I like learning and considering the ideas batted about. Open mindedness is just my makeup, and it has served me well in life. But always tempered by reason and prudence. Well, not always…

    I’d hire him in a second for business purposes. He’s a better thinker and communicator than 90% of trained attorneys, even from the “best” law schools. Sure, there’s a certain smugness or over confidence that comes with that education. Like doctors, they are deliberately trained to be over confident and superior. They don’t even realize it. That holds the system together. If these types didn’t buy in fully, everything would rapidly descend into chaos. So it’s not all bad…. of course it’s going to collapse and implode one day anyway… we lost the moorings. Plan accordingly is all I can say. And that will not hurt anyone, even the least of these.

     
    • Colin

      June 18, 2015 at 12:11 AM

      Thanks, I think!

       
      • Allen Curtis

        June 19, 2015 at 5:39 PM

        Colin,
        Sorry. I meant in the 1787 Constitution, NOT in the 187 Constitution. Can ya forgive me? :-)

         
    • Spade Koolie

      June 18, 2015 at 1:12 AM

      timmy,
      @ But I allow him (Colin) the benefit of the doubt. Because I have no evidence to the contrary.
      YOU DON’T? Really? Well, some of us DO have not only evidence, but PROOF of the differences in his opinions V. ours. However, the man with the gun held to our temple defines everything & calls the shots & IT IS how the MAN SAYS IT IS. If he tells me that a Rabbit is a Cadiliac, I will say you betcha and a FLEETWOOD Cadillac TOO!!!

      @ That holds the system together. If these types didn’t buy in fully, everything would rapidly descend into chaos.
      The SYSTEM IS ALREADY IN CHAOS, and, descending into CHAOS even deeper ! It’s that frog in the water ordeal. You apparently have not felt the HEAT YET.

       
  21. timmy

    June 18, 2015 at 8:14 PM

    Spade, you somehow drew the exact opposite conclusion from my post in re collapse. Regarding the other, yeah, I don’t particularly want a bullet in my temple. Or my ass in jail for a couple of years. (How much impact has people experiencing that had on the system so far….?) My first responsibility is to mine, and not to try to fight/save/fix something that is sick and broken and collapsing. And not my responsibility in any event. But you are free to do whatever you like.

    You just gotta love the hostility people throw at FELLOW travelers. How fucked up can your thinking really be? Pathetic. If you live a life of anger and lashing out blindly and without reason, you are no better off than a savage beast.

    That’s one thing all might learn from the despised Colin– how to be civil, rational and respectful of individuals, regardless of their positions on issues.

    End of rant.

     
    • Spade Koolie

      June 18, 2015 at 11:57 PM

      timmy
      June 18, 2015 at 8:14 PM

      @ “Spade, you somehow drew the exact opposite conclusion from my post in re collapse.”
      I did not comment on “collapse”. I commented on your “chaos” statement.

      @ But you are free to do whatever you like.
      I am?

      @ “You just gotta love the hostility people throw at FELLOW travelers.”
      Some so called “fellow Travelers” are, “fellow hinderers”

      @ “How fucked up can your thinking really be? Pathetic. If you live a life of anger and lashing out blindly and without reason, you are no better off than a savage beast.”
      Whatever you say.

      @ That’s one thing all might learn from the despised Colin– how to be civil, rational and respectful of individuals, regardless of their positions on issues.
      I do not despise Colin. Colin is telling us HOW the “Mainstream” IS, i.e. it operates, i.e., FRANKENSTATE, aka FED-GOD-ZILLA. However, I do not like this operation. Colin does.

       
  22. Phil Cali

    June 19, 2015 at 8:46 PM

    Colin,

    Just to be clear about my last response to you as copied into this post at bottom, I think it is clear by presenting the ‘§1.861-4 Compensation for labor or personal services’ regulation to you and others that they (Congress) had to come up with another way to steal money from American citizens because clearly we don’t apply to the §1.861-4 criteria. Are you a non-resident alien individual? Do you work for a foreign corporation or partnership?

    This is why they devised the withholding scam for common employees (most of the work force). In other words, you will be helping GovCo by giving them an interest-free loan that you can file a claim for and receive all of that ‘loan’ back at ‘tax’ time. Sounds somewhat reasonable, helping out ‘the protectors of freedom’.

    Well, they didn’t tell you there was a man behind the curtain. Did you understand the CONTRACT you signed when you submitted the ‘voluntary’ W-4 Form (yes, by statute it is voluntary). The “terms” you ‘volunteered to’ in that contract? You know, “wages”, “employee”, “employment”, etc. You didn’t know that “wages” in the law meant something different than the common usage of the WORD wages? You mean it’s a TERM in the tax code, not a word? Yes, Dorothy, it’s a TERM. And YOU are bound to it’s meaning in the tax code. That you received “wages” as a result of a privilege bestowed by the United States government. But you don’t know what that privilege is or the benefit thereof beyond SS and Medicare? No problem, don’t worry about it. You’re paying your ‘fair share’ to help everyone. It’s “income” and you owe it, just trust us.

    Does it makes sense now, Colin? They duped everyone circa 1943 into this withholding ‘contract’ that is only a contact by coercion thru your company’s participation due to fear and ignorance. It’s simple, really. Many savvy 1099-based filers have beaten these pigs. Much of that has to do with not signing a Form that ‘volunteers yourself’ to the tax code. And don’t tell me that those 1099-based American citizens working for domestic companies/corporations are liable under the Sec 61 regulations that I’ve presented. You would be a fool to state as such.

    Previous post…

    Colin,

    You just ignore written law, like THEY DO. You are saying that THEY decide what is taxable or not, not the law. Which actually you are correct: the Courts continually railroad Americans by dismissing evidence, not allowing it in, or making their own interpretations even if it’s counter to what is virtually undeniable, in this situation the regulations I have presented. Your statement is correct that they are not the only sources, but the INDIVIDUAL who is liable AND WHY, is VERY clear regarding Sec 61 and ‘compensation for services’ by the evidence of law I have presented of which you have so easily dismissed.

    Here’s an example of another source/event: “wages”. Do you see THAT in the Sec 61 list? Wouldn’t that be OBVIOUS that it SHOULD be there? Why is that? Because it is defined under Subtitle C EMPLOYMENT, that’s why. It should not apply to Subtitle A (“Income” taxes) but apparently THEY have determined it is undeniable “income” by receiving money for ‘something’. The ‘something’ is a farce in that it is based on those BS Subtitle C tax terms “wages”, “employee”, “employment”, “employer”. How do ‘apply yourself to those ‘terms’? W-4 Form. ‘Voluntary’ form? Yeah, voluntary my ass.

    ““Nothing in sections 861 to 865 of the Code limits the gross income subject to United States taxation to foreign-source income.”

    I never said this and the argument made by the petitioner/defendant in that case made a poor argument. If he would have argued that the REGULATIONS that expand the statutes limit the application thereof then he would have had a case. You see, it’s in the details. The ‘foreign tax credit’ explanation by the Judge was obfuscation because it is not his job to ‘learn the regulation language for you’. The language of those regulations continually states the criteria (sources, types of individuals, scenarios) for WHAT is to be considered gross “income” FROM SOURCES WITHIN THE UNITED STATES and WHO is liable for it.

    So you undeniably trust the Court system we have today in determining the written law and the outcome of every trial, evidence be dismissed or damned? Shame on you. You’re a sheeple American, conditioned, incredulous that ‘they would do such a thing to the American people’. I’ll bet you are a member of Quatloos as well. Consider that source, anyone reading here.

    As you so smugly stated earlier, thanks for the discussion.

     
  23. Les Moore

    June 24, 2015 at 7:07 PM

    Henry, per your comment on June 19, 2015 at 8:08 PM, you said,
    @ Colin, now that you have mentioned your Harvard attendance for the record, it’s there for keeps to be twisted and misapplied as the need arises, no matter how often you clarify your intended meaning or correct those who deliberately misinterpret what you meant to imply. While this admission can’t be undone, there’s at least a lesson for future reference:

    @ Anything you say will be used against you, regardless of its irrelevance to the topic at hand. Disingenuous advocacy doesn’t respect the rules of honest discourse, but instead relies heavily on personal attack and caricature to score points and will throw everything but the kitchen sink at you in pursuit of this ethically and intellectually challenged tactic of rhetoric.”

    Henry, re: the 2nd paragraph, I have observed, that at times, You & Roger, &, Toland are Disingenuous advocates & fit to a T what you describe, even to, & about Alfred. It’s truly as though all of you know when to send in those comments & you also know that Alfred cannot read all comments. Another “odd” thing, to me, is, You guys post messages at all hours in the 24 hour period. When do you sleep? OR, do you? OHhhhhhhh that’s right. You probably take,”catnaps.”

     
  24. Les Moore

    June 24, 2015 at 9:18 PM

    tsmymoney
    @ Your message of/on, June 21, 2015 at 11:53 AM
    TRY to see it this way & yes,I need to practice what I preach too. You are in Court. You have made your presentment. Colin is the Judge. Judge Colin’s opinion is rendered. NOW, your & my response should be a response we would actually make IF We ARE IN COURT, otherwise we are leaving ourselves wide open to be found in contempt & we will see what 3 hots & a cot are like for 3 days. I have had to learn this the HARD WAY. Fact is, I was sentenced to 30 days for contempt & I STILL insisted on giving the Judge a piece of my mind & he “graciously” made the 30 days into 60 days. I STILL DID NOT GET IT & to make a long story short, I was sentenced to 90 days. I ran out of “piece of mind “suggestions” to the Judge otherwise, no doubt, I wold have received a 120 days. Looking back, I am glad I ran out of “suggestions”

     
    • mrtideman

      June 25, 2015 at 10:24 AM

      Les, What state are you in? Here in New Hampshire the maximum time for contempt is ten (10) days. It’s THE LAW: Article 22+23 of Part 2 of the N.H. Constitution. But as you and I know “they” overlook that, reference: what I call it of: “The Government Pass-Over” since for http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/violate 1 of 5 = ” to break, infringe, or transgress (a law, rule, agreement, promise,instructions, etc.). ” http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/transgress = ” to pass over or go beyond ” of thus to a Dulocracy where the servants domineer OVER us as OVER-LORDS! Then when you try to get your State Legislator to re-present what you presented to him or her of to be a TRUE Representative of to impeach this bastard judge for violating his or her oath to abide by the law of in a Republic, they REFUSE because they are or are like one of the Brothers-of-The-Bar Association of attorneys to protect the Brother-HOOD of hoodlums, And when you go to this “Correctional” Facility they have no course with #x-number of classes on this subject matter of thus False Advertising (to complain to the AG-attorney!?) and thus your religion is to convert to The Quaker way of inward reflection of not to be punished, because the Sheriff who you try to be the check-and-balance as the elected official against these political hacks probably takes a $kickback as on the Federal Funds trough. Thus you were sentenced but not convicted. Re: sentenced by judge but not convicted by jury. The State likes to adopt the Federal policy of it a “petty” offense and so when less than 6 months you get no jury trial. But this is against the 13th Amendment. But then law-enforcement officers refuse to enFORCE the law. They be $revenue agents now of for the Almighty Buck! So the judge is the thief and he sends you over to his partners who hate their own soul according to Proverbs 29:24, but for how long of the like banshee cry upon them? (they heareth the cursings but cannot tell from where it comes). You can maybe tell them that it’s because they are partners with the thief and when they “Wise Up” and finally have THEIR State Rep. do what yours did not do, of then they might get less wailing heard or full peace of mind. In the meantime they get whatever pieces of the cursings upon their own mind, body and soul! of oh how they must squirm in the environs of their own home of reduced to some mental torture house! (;-) If that be the case to push them to do what’s right then so be it! See James 5:6 ” The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much.” especially a prayer that the Banshee like cry from the Dominion over those who do wrongful dominion over you to get what they deserve! Woe worth the day: calamity and mis-fortune to them to have to eventually pay you for each day of over the lawful limit. Find out what is is in your state and if open-ended then to make it not. Good luck.

       
      • Happy Campbell

        June 27, 2015 at 1:19 AM

        @ Here in New Hampshire the maximum time for contempt is ten (10) days. It’s THE LAW: Article 22+23 of Part 2 of the N.H. Constitution.
        What does a Court of NO RECORD CARE ABOUT THE LAW ?!?!? The 60 & BELOW IQ BODY GUARDS JUST FOLLOW ORDERS !! Nobody seems to want to know or even CARE about these Courts of NO RECORD ! THERE IS NOT ANY RECORD OF WHAT THEY DO SO WHAT or WHY DO THESE COURTS OF NO RECORD CARE ABOUT ANYTHING? Btw, Courts of no record ARE the Magistrates, some call themselves,Judges, & some are, “Justices of the Peace”. Tell THEM about your knowledge of, Article 22+23 of Part 2 of the N.H. Constitution, & they simply say, Well, I DISAGREE. mrtideman, no disrespect meant, but I take it you have not had ANY Boots on the Ground,front line experience with Courts of No Record. The Courts of Record are a tad bit better, but even there, they have ways of altering the “Record”. Experience is said to be the best teacher. But, sometimes it can be the worse TOO !!!

         
      • Jerry Byrd

        July 6, 2015 at 10:41 AM

        mrtideman,
        @ Les, What state are you in?
        At this time we are in Illinois. Tomorrow we will be in Florida, Miami to be exact. WE travel a lot.

         
      • Dea Lawman

        July 8, 2015 at 6:48 AM

        mrtideman,
        @ Your “links” message on/of, July 6, 2015 at 11:13 AM
        No comment about the relationship. You may be interested in checking out the “National Security Act of 1947”. This should help show why we are where we are, i.e., a state of perpetual emergency & so says Admiral Gene Larocque. Also, a video is posted on the next thread to your right, I think. Bill Moyers, The Secret Government. Go to 28 minutes into the video & hear what Admiral Gene Larocque says. I believe YOU, mrtideman wear a white hat. I do too.

         
      • mrtideman

        July 8, 2015 at 12:55 PM

        “Would you believe” (like you know who used to say), that I wear a “Hoppalong Cassidy” black hat, and carry a silver bullet? To check out this video after work. Thanks. _____

         
      • Dea Lawman

        July 8, 2015 at 4:26 PM

        mrtideman,
        @ “Would you believe” (like you know who used to say), that I wear a “Hoppalong Cassidy” black hat, and carry a silver bullet? To check out this video after work. Thanks. _____

        Glad you caught I meant it was a “Cowboy hat”.:-) Go to 27 minutes into the video, not 28 minutes, for the Admiral Gene Larocque comment. The BEST of everything to you & yours from ALL of US. :-)

         
    • Phil Cali

      June 25, 2015 at 3:09 PM

      Les Moore,

      Sounds like you got Judge Colin of whom can’t read, ignores what’s written and makes up his own law here and from the bench…

      “Any more suggestions, sir, before I give you another 30 days because I must punish you for upsetting the scam, er, I mean, because you are guilty?”.

      Good day, sir.

       
  25. Happy Campbell

    June 27, 2015 at 1:00 AM

    Phil,
    @ Good day, sir.
    Yes, & the Good is like a high note, & the day, a lower note (sound) but I never heard, a, sir. The ONLY way the vast majority will KNOW what it’s like, is, to experience it. The Jailers also have, it truly does appear, unending ways of, as they say, “getting your mind right”.

     
  26. Dick Maple, Representative, N.H.House, Merrimack District #24 NHGeneral Court

    July 8, 2015 at 3:49 PM

    The Federal Tax Lien Act of 1966 (Page 1316) contains the legislative history to Public Law 89-719 in the Senate Report #1708 on pages 3722-3723-3724 which is incorporated in 89-719 and mandates, thus requires IRS to comply with the protocol of the Uniform Commercial Code. Kindly read UCC, Section 3-501 for your use in authorizing return of ALL PRESENTMENTS received from IRS.
    I have the actual 3 pages on my UBS Drive but cannot attach it to this post. Anyone may request them and I will respond with an attachment for their use..Dick

     
  27. Fred Walter

    July 28, 2015 at 9:35 PM

    This is an amazing thread, and it has taken me, a newbie, hours to read it all. I see lots of arguments with Colin, an IRS plant for sure, in which writers try to use the code to defeat the code. This is a losing strategy. The key here is that the IRS regulations are code. Code is a legal code word meaning commercial, viz, subject to the Uniform Commercial Code, ie, Roman law. It deals in contracts only, and if you enter an Article I court, you are there as a trustee de son tort, liable for the violation of contract incurred by your corporate person, your public trust account, identified by YOUR NAME. You are defined (previously in 6USCCh7, line 6, but moved when Homeland Security took over all of 6USC) as an animal, being “any of the species of mammals and vertebrates, including birds, snakes, and fish, but not shellfish.” This is consistent with Roman law, where trusts were set up containing rights to a man, and these trusts were dealt, bought and sold, and the man went along as we might sell an animal. This is also consistent with Article I courts, which are administrative, and operate under UCC. As corporate subdivisions of the USofA Corporation, they can only deal with corporations, so you as an animal have no standing in said administrative tribunal. And you as a corporate subdivision of the public trust, have no rights. So you are guilty of whatever the judge says you are, as he is not required to accept any evidence, and there is no record of the ‘trial.’ How did you get there? In the immediate, you answered when the clerk called the case, and the first thing the judge asked was “Are you YOUR NAME?” You didn’t hear the all capitals, and you said yes. The judge has now confirmed that you are trustee de son tort for your public trust account, and guilty. In the longer term case, you are there because the corporate government created a cestui que vie trust for you at birth, and the trustee (dot.gov) presumed that you wanted to be a ward of the state, at which you voluntarily surrender all your Constitutionally protected, God-given rights, and accept that you will ask permission from dot.gov, and pay for licenses, to exercise your rights. You agree to sign over all your possessions, and all future income, to dot.gov, to help pay the (onerous) federal debt, which was run up by crooked politicians (is there another kind?) in conspiracy with a cabal of international bankers. The US federal government does not have a Treasury, as it is in receivership to the IMF, having filed for bankruptcy in 1934, at which time FDR pledged all the assets of the US population as collateral for the debt. The IRS is a private corporation operating as the collection agency for the IMF. Your public trust account, identified by YOUR NAME (look on your drivers license: all caps) is the contract the Article I ‘judge’ and the IRS are operating from. You are a ward of the dot.gov, and they can handle you through administrative law; no need to argue about Constitutional rights, as YOU don’t have any. Finally, the IRS Code is private law: it does not apply to the public in general, it only applies to those persons (fictional entities) who engage in the regulated activity, which is dealing in the private debt securities of the Federal Reserve. Your income is all the Federal Reserve Notes you endorse when you sign the back of your paycheck, or endorse the back of any other commercial paper (such as checks) for deposit to your (Federal Reserve) branch bank. The banks report this dealing in private debt securities to the IRS, and they collect the tax, determined on the basis of how much private credit you endorsed.

     
    • Mr. Baker

      July 20, 2016 at 1:49 PM

      From Freds reply “…Your income is all the Federal Reserve Notes you endorse when you sign the back of your paycheck, or endorse the back of any other commercial paper (such as checks) for deposit to your (Federal Reserve) branch bank. The banks report this dealing in private debt securities to the IRS, and they collect the tax, determined on the basis of how much private credit you endorsed.”

      suppose you only earn cash, paper. as in 20 or 100 dollar bills? one is not endorsing any notes, not depositing it into any bank accounts. they are hoarding it in their mattress. however the receiver of the us dollars is also receiving 1099’s from the company paying the cash.

      thoughts?

       
      • Adask

        July 20, 2016 at 2:35 PM

        The feds don’t want us to work for cash. Although I don’t expect to cash to disappear from our economy soon or suddenly, there’s talk about eliminating cash from our economy. The theory you’ve advanced is consistent with the fed’s need to eliminate cash.

         
  28. Mr. Baker

    July 20, 2016 at 2:43 PM

    Yes Adask, that is correct. but what Im asking is whether “cash” is income? how can it be tracked short of the 1099 filed by the payor? or by a line item in that company’s own tax returns? What legal arguments are made that a distribution from that company in cash or a 1099 payment is or isnt income? I was hoping someone could shed light on this.

     
  29. Adask

    July 20, 2016 at 2:57 PM

    The danger is in your receipt for whatever is purchased for cash. If you buy a car or a house and pay with cash, the receipt becomes evidence of your income. Where’d you get the cash to pay for that car? If receipt could be found, the IRS would have evidence that you received income that was not reported.

     
  30. Mr. Baker

    July 20, 2016 at 3:18 PM

    Understood, absolutely would agree. however that is not the question in a “real time filing” dispute. The question is what proof outside of large purchases months or years down the road, does the IRS use to establish proof of income besides what I mentioned above, in an audit etc of a recent year? are there any reasons to believe that Hendricksons arguments or others arguments and points of contention would be valid… especially if these cash payments arent wages? Thanks for the back and forth responses and help.

     
    • Adask

      July 20, 2016 at 4:56 PM

      I’m not the guy to be asking about the IRS. The last time I had to deal with them was about 7 years ago. I’m not currently “immersed” in IRS conflict and so I’ve “lost touch” to some degree. I can’t say or even guess as to whose other arguments might be “valid”.

      As you may or may not know, about 7 years ago, I used a “notice and right of inquiry” strategy to deal with the IRS and it seems to have worked. If you haven’t already done so, you can read the paperwork I submitted to the IRS by typing “CP59” into the search engine on the upper right hand corner of this blog.

      So far as I can tell, you are confronting the IRS with strategies that are much different from my own. Still, you might be interested in reading what I did at “CP59”.

       

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s