Lindsey Springer & Oscar Stilley Indicted (Part 2)

[Famspear]

No I am not talking about show me that law. I never said that. No, that is not what I meant.

I mean get on there and say basically American citizen or resident, if you work at Mcdonalds, if you work at 7-11, if you work at Wal-Mart or Costco or SaveMart or Pepboys or Kragen or BurgerKing or Carls Jr. or Walgreens or FedEx or UPS or Dell, if you work at Macy's or Target or Taco Bell or Kinko's or Ross or Denny's, if you are a self-employed consultant, baby sitter, plumber, lock-smith, gardener, landscaper, mechanic, taxi driver, bus driver, or HVAC specialist, or any other such similar business or corporation or facility, no matter what your position is that money you make for doing those tasks is fully taxable by the federal government, that is it end of story.

I mean get on there and say 26 USC 3121 and 3401 and 7701 means exactly what the IRS says it means; that income means all the money in the USA exchanged between however many parties and for whatever reason is fully taxable by the federal government, unless it is specifically exempted within 269 USC itself, period.

And I mean get on there and use common English words like money, cash, checks, revenue, labor, laborer, laboring, worker, and not specialized terms such as wages, income, employee, trade or business, and services.

I mean get on there and say that capitation taxes or other direct taxes do not mean taxes in consideration of labor. That Wealth of Nations had nothing to due with the determination of established tax principles within the U.S. Constitution, that our entire system of federal taxation is entirely coincidental.

That is what I mean. Now that simple enough to do, right?

OK.

I still contend that many, many people in the tax protester community would not even accept that.

[GoldandSilverEagles]

No I am not talking about show me that law. I never said that. No, that is not what I meant.

I mean get on there and say basically American citizen or resident, if you work at Mcdonalds, if you work at 7-11, if you work at Wal-Mart or Costco or SaveMart or Pepboys or Kragen or BurgerKing or Carls Jr. or Walgreens or FedEx or UPS or Dell, if you work at Macy's or Target or Taco Bell or Kinko's or Ross or Denny's, if you are a self-employed consultant, baby sitter, plumber, lock-smith, gardener, landscaper, mechanic, taxi driver, bus driver, or HVAC specialist, or any other such similar business or corporation or facility, no matter what your position is that money you make for doing those tasks is fully taxable by the federal government, that is it end of story.

I mean get on there and say 26 USC 3121 and 3401 and 7701 means exactly what the IRS says it means; that income means all the money in the USA exchanged between however many parties and for whatever reason is fully taxable by the federal government, unless it is specifically exempted within 269 USC itself, period.

And I mean get on there and use common English words like money, cash, checks, revenue, labor, laborer, laboring, worker, and not specialized terms such as wages, income, employee, trade or business, and services.

I mean get on there and say that capitation taxes or other direct taxes do not mean taxes in consideration of labor. That Wealth of Nations had nothing to due with the determination of established tax principles within the U.S. Constitution, that our entire system of federal taxation is entirely coincidental.

That is what I mean. Now that simple enough to do, right?

Thank you my friend, you mean well but I feel your missing a part of the 'big picture' here. Look back in history to Nazi Germany, Hitler put it best...(paraphrased)...If your gonna tell a lie, make it a BIG ONE!

Enter government theft by means of an exceptionally complex tax code. What better way to perpetrate theft and fraud through the use of a highly complex and deceptive tax code, remembering that the second plank of the Communist Manifesto is a heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

So fighting the second plank of the Communist Manifesto is 'anti-American' eh? ..ROTFLMAO.. Please remember dear critics that unfair taxation is one of the major reason's our forefathers left England. They were tax protesters, and yet you folks associate the terms with criminals/criminal behavior. Were our forefathers who established this country criminals? To the government of England, the King, "Yes they were!", but were they "criminals" in the pursuit of liberty and freedom? I think not!

[Famspear]

PS: Weston, the fact that you are still referring to "wages" etc., as "specialized terms" shows that you are still buying into the CtC fantasy.

I know that on some level, you really do "believe" that for purposes of the Internal Revenue Code, the Treasury regs, and the related texts of court cases interpreting said same, the terms "wage" and "includes" and "employer" and "employee" have the specialized meanings that Pete Hendrickson claims those words have. For the umpteenth time, Hendrickson is wrong. His so-called "analysis" of the law is wrong. His method is wrong.

For your sake, I wish that you could study law the way that real law students study it. And I mean, study contracts, torts, property -- anything other than tax law. If you studied law the right way long enough you might hopefully come to an understanding of why Hendrickson and all the other tax deniers are wrong. Part of the problem for all those caught up in the tax protester "movement" is that they are trying so hard to convince themselves that the federal income tax is invalid as applied to them that they are allowing their feelings to affect their judgment. I'm not saying that to put them down, I'm just saying that if they study law without the emotional "baggage" they are carrying with respect to taxes and their bad feelings about the government, etc., etc., they might be able to clear away the fog. One way to do that would be to study the parts of the law about which they don't hold strong emotional feelings.

Some people think of tax law and the analysis of federal income taxation as some sort of special animal with analytical rules that are different from those for "regular" law. And that's wrong. If you learn how to do "regular" legal analysis (without being hampered by the emotional baggage of anti-government feelings anti-tax feelings and so on), you can learn how to study tax law as well.

[Duke2Earl]

So fighting the second plank of the Communist Manifesto is 'anti-American' eh? ..ROTFLMAO.. Please remember dear critics that unfair taxation is one of the major reason's our forefathers left England. They were tax protesters, and yet you folks associate the terms with criminals/criminal behavior. Were our forefathers who established this country criminals? To the government of England, the King, "Yes they were!", but were they "criminals" in the pursuit of liberty and freedom? I think not!

This is utter and complete crap. Our forefathers were protesting taxes imposed on them by a government in which we had no representation. They were categorically NOT protesting against taxes imposed on them by their own government. How do you explain George Washington raising an American army to enforce a tax our government imposed in the Whiskey Rebellion? No, don't bother... I don't even want to hear the bullcrap you will come up with. "Liberty" and "Freedom" are simply buzzwords you use to try to justify your criminality and are your use of these words is a mortal insult to those who truely fight for freedom in this world. I am ashamed that I have to share this country with the likes of you.

And let's have a show of hands of the people who give even the slightest damn what an ignorant mental defective like you thinks. Laugh away, Criminal. We'll see who has the last laugh.

[The Operative]

No I am not talking about show me that law. I never said that. No, that is not what I meant.

I mean get on there and say basically American citizen or resident, if you work at Mcdonalds, if you work at 7-11, if you work at Wal-Mart or Costco or SaveMart or Pepboys or Kragen or BurgerKing or Carls Jr. or Walgreens or FedEx or UPS or Dell, if you work at Macy's or Target or Taco Bell or Kinko's or Ross or Denny's, if you are a self-employed consultant, baby sitter, plumber, lock-smith, gardener, landscaper, mechanic, taxi driver, bus driver, or HVAC specialist, or any other such similar business or corporation or facility, no matter what your position is that money you make for doing those tasks is fully taxable by the federal government, that is it end of story.

I mean get on there and say 26 USC 3121 and 3401 and 7701 means exactly what the IRS says it means; that income means all the money in the USA exchanged between however many parties and for whatever reason is fully taxable by the federal government, unless it is specifically exempted within 269 USC itself, period.

And I mean get on there and use common English words like money, cash, checks, revenue, labor, laborer, laboring, worker, and not specialized terms such as wages, income, employee, trade or business, and services.

I mean get on there and say that capitation taxes or other direct taxes do not mean taxes in consideration of labor. That Wealth of Nations had nothing to due with the determination of established tax principles within the U.S. Constitution, that our entire system of federal taxation is entirely coincidental.

That is what I mean. Now that simple enough to do, right?

OK.

I still contend that many, many people in the tax protester community would not even accept that.

[/quote]

Also, the government has said that. The courts have said that. "Income, from whatever source derived", just because you do not believe that it means what it plainly means and what the courts have said it means doesn't mean that the government must spell it out for every idiotic tax protester out there. BTW, the compensation you receive for your labor is income.

[Weston White]

The truth is that there is nothing to discuss or debate. This fantasy that there is something that has to be discussed or worked out or addressed regarding the "truth" of federal taxation is just a wet dream of deranged wackos (sometimes referred to as friggin' 'tards). The truth is that the 16th admendment authorized an income tax without any need of apportionment. The Congress passed an income tax and the President signed it into law. The Federal courts have unanimously upheld that tax as constitutional and enforceable. That's it... the whole and entire story. There is nothing further to explain. See, that took a lot less than 2 weeks.

The problem is that there is no set of words that could be used in any law that the wackos won't find some way to re-define, ignore or say don't apply to them. Any "clarifications" that you think you want would simply be a waste of time. There are no clarifications that these wackos would accept because at the end of the day these folks are not patriots...they are not heros or freedom fighters... they are greedy little self-centered egomaniacs.

Name call, name call, name call, name call, name call, name call. ... yawn.


No the income tax is not a tax upon revenue it is a tax upon gain and profit. That is the problem with the status quo.

Taxing property, taxing people, is a direct tax, therefore taxing their inalienable rights or activities is also a direct tax. Taxing the federally granted or controlled privileges or activities is an indirect tax.

Consequently or equivocally, the income tax is in essentially a tax upon the gains and profits earned from participating in excise taxable activities... pay for labor was never apart of such class or head of taxation nor can you provide any evidence of such being the case, not as the original intention of our Nations Framers or through some warped or twisted faucet of subsequent legislation in passing.

[Famspear]

The truth is that there is nothing to discuss or debate. This fantasy that there is something that has to be discussed or worked out or addressed regarding the "truth" of federal taxation is just a wet dream of deranged wackos (sometimes referred to as friggin' 'tards). The truth is that the 16th admendment authorized an income tax without any need of apportionment. The Congress passed an income tax and the President signed it into law. The Federal courts have unanimously upheld that tax as constitutional and enforceable. That's it... the whole and entire story. There is nothing further to explain. See, that took a lot less than 2 weeks.

The problem is that there is no set of words that could be used in any law that the wackos won't find some way to re-define, ignore or say don't apply to them. Any "clarifications" that you think you want would simply be a waste of time. There are no clarifications that these wackos would accept because at the end of the day these folks are not patriots...they are not heros or freedom fighters... they are greedy little self-centered egomaniacs.

Name call, name call, name call, name call, name call, name call. ... yawn.


No the income tax is not a tax upon revenue it is a tax upon gain and profit. That is the problem with the status quo.

Taxing property, taxing people, is a direct tax, therefore taxing their inalienable rights or activities is also a direct tax. Taxing the federally granted or controlled privileges or activities is an indirect tax.

Consequently or equivocally, the income tax is in essentially a tax upon the gains and profits earned from participating in excise taxable activities... pay for labor was never apart of such class or head of taxation nor can you provide any evidence of such being the case, not as the original intention of our Nations Framers or through some warped or twisted faucet of subsequent legislation in passing.

No, Weston, you're still holding your hands over your ears, and saying "nanananananana ImnotlisteningtoanyoneelseIhavemadeupmymindandIdontcarewhatanyonesays" and you're just not getting anywhere.

[Weston White]

Also, the government has said that. The courts have said that. "Income, from whatever source derived", just because you do not believe that it means what it plainly means and what the courts have said it means doesn't mean that the government must spell it out for every idiotic tax protester out there. BTW, the compensation you receive for your labor is income.

No the law says, compensation for services, never is the word labor or revenue used in Subtitle A. Income is not revenue and service is not labor, not in their common sense meanings. The XVI Amendment is stating that the income you make from the source [whatever source defined in law] is what is taxable taxable, the source itself is not what is taxable. The revenue from the labor is itself the source, this means there is no income yet, the income comes later on when or if I choose to invest that revenue into an activity that is taxable and I generate a gain or profit... this is when I realize income.

[Famspear]

Also, the government has said that. The courts have said that. "Income, from whatever source derived", just because you do not believe that it means what it plainly means and what the courts have said it means doesn't mean that the government must spell it out for every idiotic tax protester out there. BTW, the compensation you receive for your labor is income.

No the law says, compensation for services, never is the word labor or revenue used in Subtitle A. Income is not revenue and service is not labor, not their common sense meanings. The XVI Amendment is stating that the income you make from the source [whatever source defined in law] is what is taxable taxable, the source itself is not what is taxable. The revenue from the labor is itself the source, this means there is no income yet, the income comes later on when or if I choose to invest that revenue into an activity that is taxable and I generate a gain or profit... this is when I realize income.

On the term "labor," actually, you're partly right, Weston. The problem is this: it's the tax protesters who keep using the term "labor" (e.g., some of them arguing that the income tax supposedly is a tax on "labor"). Of course, as others have noted, the federal income tax is not really a tax on "labor." You can theoretically "labor" all you want and never owe federal income tax. But if you get PAID for performing labor, the value you receive or constructively receive (regardless of whether it's money or something else) is required to be included in your gross income under section 61, whether you like it or not and whether you believe it or not.

No, the Sixteenth Amendment does not state or imply "that the income you make from the source (whatever source defined in law) is what is taxable taxable, the source itself is not what is taxable". That's meaningless tax protester gibberish.

If you work for, say, McDonald's hamburgers, at a location in California, for example, for $1,000, then that amount -- when paid or constructively paid to you -- must generally be included in your gross income under section 61 of the Internal Revenue Code. That amount is taxable to you, regardless of whether it's consider public sector or private sector or federally privileged or non-federally privileged, etc., etc., etc. And it doesn't matter whether you consider that income tax to be a direct tax or not, and it doesn't matter whether that tax is "apportioned" or not. And in case you're thinking of it, there is no "deduction" allowed for "human capital" or "basis" in your labor, and there is no deduction for the "value" of your labor.

You can contradict us until you are blue in the face, and that will never change the point that we are correct and you are wrong.

You will never win an argument with us on this point.

You will never win an argument with the Internal Revenue Service on this point.

You will never win an argument in a court of law on this point.

You are wrong.

[Weston White]

That is why it uses that language, to clarify that point. Meaning that the power to tax incomes is based upon taxing the income from the source, not the source itself. Your notion about laboring for free is just utter nonsense. That is what laboring is meant in law, working in exchange for something or for compensation. Otherwise you are describing chores. Only slaves and prisoners labor for nothing in return. The Kahre case exposes the truth about this concept. And besides that SCOTUS has stated taxing the shadow is the same as taxing the source. If you tax the raisin you might as well be taxing the grape; however, tax the wine created from the grape and you are taxing a brand new source.

[Famspear]

That is why it uses that language, to clarify that point. Meaning that the power to tax incomes is based upon taxing the income from the source, not the source itself. Your notion about laboring for free is just utter nonsense. That is what laboring is meant in law, working in exchange for something or for compensation. Otherwise you are describing chores. Only slaves and prisoners labor for nothing in return. The Kahre case exposes the truth about this concept. And besides that SCOTUS has stated taxing the shadow is the same as taxing the source.

And there's a big hole in the Earth at the North Pole where the aliens live and they fly around and visit us and the government is hiding The Truth About It and The Moon is made of Green Cheese and so forth and so on.

[Weston White]

And in case you're thinking of it, there is no "deduction" allowed for "human capital" or "basis" in your labor, and there is no deduction for the "value" of your labor.

Which is sort of odd, considering that corporations are treated and defined as "people" in law.

However, people do not get deductions, all that comes in is 100% profit or gain, while corporations get to deduct all expense How is that so? Is not all that comes in to those "people" also 100% profit or gain as well? If they were not working just as a real person was not working they would still meet the same daily requirements or expenditures, either costing them more or less, varying day to day.

[Weston White]

And in case you're thinking of it, there is no "deduction" allowed for "human capital" or "basis" in your labor, and there is no deduction for the "value" of your labor.

Which is sort of odd, considering that corporations are treated and defined as "people" in law.

Now you are either being a complete buffon, or are a complete moron..........

Nope it is true, look up the definitions of person and persons.

[Weston White]

No the law says, compensation for services, never is the word labor or revenue used in Subtitle A. Income is not revenue and service is not labor, not in their common sense meanings. - No court has ever agreed with you on that. The XVI Amendment is stating that the income you make from the source [whatever source defined in law] is what is taxable taxable, the source itself is not what is taxable. The revenue from the labor is itself the source, this means there is no income yet, the income comes later on when or if I choose to invest that revenue into an activity that is taxable and I generate a gain or profit... this is when I realize income. - and no court has ever, ever agreed with you on that either.

The 16th Amendment reads, "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

Guess what WW, that means when you get paid (or any other suitable synonym), you are going to get taxed on what you got paid (or any other suitable synonym). And since it is from whatever source, it matters not if it is from toiling in the field, or sitting in your Barca-lounger getting a dividend check from Exxon. You got income and the government can tax it. Where's the difficulty son?

Note - The word incomes is used in the Amendment, because there are many sources of income.

No you get taxed only when you realize income and incomes is used because all head or classes of taxes as used in the U.S. Constitution are written in plural, so why break precedents?

Again, revenue is not income, they used incomes because they were referring to the income tax and no other tax, they did not include capitation taxes for example... but if they had, then the XVI Amendment would have made it possible to indirectly tax your labor or the money received from your labor.

[Dr. Caligari]

The Kahre case exposes the truth about this concept.

You do know that Kahre was not acquitted and is going to be re-tried, don't you?

[Demosthenes]

You do know that Kahre was not acquitted and is going to be re-tried, don't you?

And more importantly, Kahre has tried to weasel out of the criminal case by claiming that he's mentally ill...

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/kahre1833.pdf

[jkeeb]

With very few exceptions corporations are taxed the same as individuals. IRC section 61 applies (income) and IRC section 162 applies (deductions).

Corporations do have a higher initial tax rate and a lower maximum (sometimes) and the income from corporations, when distributed, can be taxed again--but generally its the same system.

[Weston White]

The Kahre case exposes the truth about this concept.

You do know that Kahre was not acquitted and is going to be re-tried, don't you?

Last I heard he kicked the IRS down and was filing a lawsuit against them. That was all I have heard. Do you have links to your sources if so...

[Weston White]

Revenue is a synonym for income, as is wages, earnings, and other such similar synonyms and since the courts have found that whether it is called income (or other such similar synonym) it can be taxed.

You can call it whatever you want and try to claim it is not "income" and therefore can't be taxed, but the courts have found that if you are getting paid (or other such similar synonyms) the amount you are getting paid (or other such similar synonyms) is subject to income taxation.

A person could be a prostitute, call the crumpled, sweaty bills they get from their johns "sucky-f*cky-buckies," and the courts would find they had received income (no matter what they might call it) and that income is subject to income taxation. No amount of cheap-jack sophistry is going to change that.

As for corporations being "persons" - a law or laws werepassed giving corporations rights similar to those of people and since living entity versus business entity is such a hassle, for certain situations, corporations are treated as if they were people. It does not mean that they are in all situations, but can be treated as such in certian situations.

IIRC, part of the laws making corporations "people" occurred so individuals, other businesses and the government could bring suit against corporations.

Some day when you grow up and become a big boy, i might deign to discuss deferred compensation with you. Maybe. But that is its own unique realm.

But you forget that income tax has a special meaning and that income has a special meaning imposed by Congress. You need to learn to separate common English from legal terms and statutory terms. They are all different.

But yes in normal conversation it could be said that revenue is income, though in law income is no longer revenue... Only income is income... Revenue only becomes income if it defined as so in law.

And no with exception to jacked up lower court cases all of the parities seem to have been involved in some sort of federally taxable privilege or activity. I seriously doubt judges have any real conception about taxation anyways, how many really study that issue, outside of looking at current day materials that is. I mean how many really dive into the philosophy of the topic? I bet very few, if that.

[Famspear]

But you forget that income tax has a special meaning and that income has a special meaning imposed by Congress. You need to learn to separate common English from legal terms and statutory terms. They are all different.

Weston, you are a mess.

But yes in normal conversation it could be said that revenue is income, though in law income is no longer revenue... Only income is income... Revenue only becomes income if it defined as so in law.

Weston, you are such a mess.

And no with exception to jacked up lower court cases all of the parities [sic] seem to have been involved in some sort of federally taxable privilege or activity.

Such a mess.

I seriously doubt judges have any real conception about taxation anyways, how many really study that issue, outside of looking at current day materials that is. I mean how many really dive into the philosophy of the topic? I bet very few, if that.

Weston White! Accounting and Legal Philosophy Expert! Weston White - who holds the "real conception" about taxation that federal judges just don't have! Weston White! Able to leap tall buildings at a single bound!

Never mind that Weston White cannot even tell the difference between the losing party's argument in Lucas v. Earl and the holding of the Court in the same case.

Weston White! Who knows more about terms like "income" and "revenue" as those terms are used in the Internal Revenue Code and other legal texts than all the certified public accountants and attorneys who post on this web site!

And how did Weston obtain all this superior knowledge? How did he come to be able to lecture the lawyers and the CPAs here?

Why, he read tax protester literature! That's how he learned to snip quotations from legal texts and argue that the law somehow means something other than what the courts actually ruled in the cases he cites!

Oh, Weston, your parents should be proud!