| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Energy - Hydrogen Forum » Bloody Knives
Page 1 of 4 Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
|
| Author |
Message |
| Guest |
 Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2007 1:35 pm |
|
|
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Dear Subscriber,
One night you're walking through the city, when from an alley you
hear screams of agony. At first it's too dark to see, but then a
man comes running into view, a bloody butcher's knife clutched in
his hand. Seeing your expression, he hesitates, then says, "Oh,
don't worry, that was just my girlfriend; she stubbed her toe." So
you go on about your business, putting the incident out of your
mind, forgetting it ever happened. The end.
-------------------
Just about anyone with a brain, after reading the above story,
would immediately think, "But what about the bloody knife??" A
stubbed toe doesn't explain the bloody knife. But hey, the guy TOLD
you that's all it was, so who are you to keep asking frivolous
questions about what happened?
And so it is with the "income tax" deception, and the 861 evidence.
There are piles of proverbial "bloody knives" lying around, which
the feds have never even TRIED to explain. But they TOLD you we all
owe the tax, and just for good measure, they persecuted, robbed,
imprisoned, and/or silenced the people who suggested otherwise.
Isn't that enough? You don't STILL want explanations for all those
bloody knives, do you? Just mind your own damn business, and forget
you ever saw them.
Here are some of the "bloody knives" which have been made public
for anyone who wants to see them, but which, as far as I know, the
feds have never even TRIED to explain:
1) Many decades of income tax regulations very specifically said
that, in addition to those types of income specifically exempted
from tax by the tax code, some OTHER income is also tax-free
because of the Constitution itself.
Like what? For a moment, never mind what I think the answer is, or
what you think the answer is. THOUSANDS of Americans have asked the
IRS the question, and I have yet to see ANY answer, or even any
MENTION of the question or the regulations which say that, coming
from anyone in government, in any of the three branches. SOMETHING
is Constitutionally excluded--their own law books say so in plain
English. And yet I have NEVER seen them say a word about that. They
just leave that "bloody knife" sitting there in plain view, with
nary a WORD about it, hoping you'll forget you ever saw it.
2) After saying that the "items" of income listed in Section 61 are
sometimes exempt, the current regulations give a list of types of
income which are NOT exempt--i.e., which ARE taxable. The list,
which you can go look up yourself (1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii)), includes
four types of international trade. No mention is made of the
domestic income of the average American.
What's the purpose of that list? And why isn't OUR income on the
list, if we actually owe the tax? Once again, set aside any answer
you and I might suggest; why has no one in any of the three
branches of government ever given any answer or explanation of
that, or even MENTIONED that particular regulation? Another
unexplained "bloody knife," left right out in the open.
3) In the older version of the tax codes, there was a section which
very plainly stated that in the case of FOREIGNERS, and in the case
of Americans with POSSESSIONS income, compensation for services
performed inside the U.S. (as well as other kinds of domestic
income) is, after subtracting allowable deductions, to be included
in full as TAXABLE income.
Isn't such income taxable for ALL U.S. citizens? That's obviously
what the feds want us to think. So why would there be a section
saying it's taxable in the case of foreigners and CERTAIN
Americans? I have an answer, and you might too, but I have NEVER
seen anyone in any of the three branches of government answer that
question, or discuss that section of law at all.
There are many more proverbial "bloody knives," but that will do
for now. At least as far back as 1998, thousands of Americans have
been asking about these things. They get the usual insults
("frivolous!") and threats ("you'll get in trouble!"), and even an
occasional baseless assertion or two. But many of the
"inconvenient" pieces of evidence just get ignored entirely. The
feds say NOTHING about them, acting as if they're not there, in the
hopes that we'll all forget about the pile of bloody knives on
their front doorstep. (In case you're wondering, I brought up all
three of the above-mentioned "bloody knives" at my trial, in
addition to others, and neither the prosecutors nor the judge ever
said ONE WORD about them.)
The objective, thinking scientific mind seeks to explain evidence,
rather than looking for an excuse to IGNORE it. I put together my
"Taxable Income" report in 1998, revised and updated it repeatedly,
and then recently rewrote the entire thing from scratch (whilst in
prison for the crime I didn't commit), for the benefit of anyone
who actually WANTS to see how all the evidence fits together. You
won't ever see the feds doing anything of the kind. If you're
lucky, you'll get one or two baseless assertions (e.g., "You're not
supposed to use 861!"), but you'll NEVER see them lay out all the
evidence, explaining it piece by piece, showing how all the pieces
fit together into a complete and logical picture supporting their
position (because it doesn't). In short, for eight YEARS it's been
a one-sided "debate": while we give comprehensive explanations,
with numerous supporting citations, they say "Frivolous! Shut up!"
And they hope people don't notice all the bloody knives.
Well, for anyone who's interested in learning more about the
"bloody knives," you too can now have your very own copy of my
recent updated, much-improved "Taxable Income" report, for the low,
low price of... zero dollars and zero cents (just like it's always
been). Just look for the link at the bottom of the following web
page, and download the new and improved (but still free) version of
the report (in PDF format):
http://www.theft-by-deception.com
Sincerely,
Larken Rose
www.larkenrose.com
P.S. For those of you who haven't yet, while you're on the
http://www.theft-by-deception.com web site, find the orange
"Click&Pledge" button near the bottom, and make a donation to the
family of Dr. Tom Clayton, a man who has risked, and lost, a LOT in
an effort to get the public to pay attention to all the feds'
"bloody knives." If you do it now, you have my permission to ignore
any future naggings about it I may send out. Wouldn't that alone
make it worthwhile?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Note: This signature can be verified at https://www.hushtools.com/verify
Version: Hush 2.5 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Paul Thomas |
| Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2007 1:55 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Chewynues wrote
Quote: One night you're walking through the city, when
from an alley you hear screams of agony.
Let me rephrase this Larken:
"One night you're walking through the block, when
from a darkened cell you hear screams of angony"
Now, doesn't that have a realistic ring to it?
Quote: Just about anyone with a brain, after reading
the above story, would immediately think,
Hehehehe.....
No telling what they think...by the way, how was prison life at night?
What's that? You're aching to go back? Do tell.
--
Paul A. Thomas, CPA
Athens, Georgia |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2007 3:01 pm |
|
|
|
|
On Aug 25, 11:55 am, "Paul Thomas" <paulthomas...@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
Quote: Chewynues wrote
One night you're walking through the city, when
from an alley you hear screams of agony.
Let me rephrase this Larken:
"One night you're walking through the block, when
from a darkened cell you hear screams of angony"
Now, doesn't that have a realistic ring to it?
Just about anyone with a brain, after reading
the above story, would immediately think,
Hehehehe.....
No telling what they think...by the way, how was prison life at night?
What's that? You're aching to go back? Do tell.
--
Paul A. Thomas, CPA
Athens, Georgia
No response to any of the substance of the post noted.
Threat of more prison time from a Certified Public
Asshole...er..theif..er..liar...er...never mind. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Paul Thomas |
| Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2007 3:06 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
BarkinLarkin wrote
Quote: No response to any of the substance of the post noted.
Only you can control whether or not you go back to jail.
--
If electricity comes from electrons,
does morality come from morons?
----------------
Paul A. Thomas, CPA
Athens, Georgia |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Paul Maffia |
| Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2007 3:10 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Everyone one Barken Larken's gibberish has been addressed here over and over
and over again. And still the Village Idiot salivates over any of Rose's
fake pearls of so-called wisdom.
The 861 argument is in shreds and every time one of inhabitants of moron
town uses it, the get bitched slapped with not only penalties and interest
added to their tax bills but the Courts further slap them with fines for
wasting the Court's time with frivolous arguments.
As for Constitutionally exempt income, Rose makes the argument but can't
show even one one item of income that the Constitution exempts from the
income tax.
But the Village Idiot would rather believe the claims despite the lack of
proof for them.
YOU ARE THE VILLAGE IDIOT OF MORON TOWN.
<knews4u2chew@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1188072109.208643.191130@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Quote: On Aug 25, 11:55 am, "Paul Thomas" <paulthomas...@bellsouth.net
wrote:
Chewynues wrote
One night you're walking through the city, when
from an alley you hear screams of agony.
Let me rephrase this Larken:
"One night you're walking through the block, when
from a darkened cell you hear screams of angony"
Now, doesn't that have a realistic ring to it?
Just about anyone with a brain, after reading
the above story, would immediately think,
Hehehehe.....
No telling what they think...by the way, how was prison life at night?
What's that? You're aching to go back? Do tell.
--
Paul A. Thomas, CPA
Athens, Georgia
No response to any of the substance of the post noted.
Threat of more prison time from a Certified Public
Asshole...er..theif..er..liar...er...never mind.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| nat |
| Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2007 4:02 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
knews4u2chew@yahoo.com wrote:
Quote:
1) Many decades of income tax regulations very specifically said
that, in addition to those types of income specifically exempted
from tax by the tax code, some OTHER income is also tax-free
because of the Constitution itself.
barkin larkin's reasoning: "There is income that is exempt under the
Constitution from taxation; therefore, my income is exempt."
Is that logical, larkin?
Quote: 2) After saying that the "items" of income listed in Section 61 are
sometimes exempt, the current regulations give a list of types of
income which are NOT exempt--i.e., which ARE taxable. The list,
which you can go look up yourself (1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii)), includes
four types of international trade. No mention is made of the
domestic income of the average American.
Yea, one of those "types of income which are NOT exempt" from that list
is the foreign earned income of a foreign person.
Hey larkin, can Congress really tax the foreign earned income of a
foreign person, or are you taking something out of context and haven't
got a clue as to what you are talking about?
Quote: 3) In the older version of the tax codes, there was a section which
very plainly stated that in the case of FOREIGNERS, and in the case
of Americans with POSSESSIONS income, compensation for services
performed inside the U.S. (as well as other kinds of domestic
income) is, after subtracting allowable deductions, to be included
in full as TAXABLE income.
Now why would an American with domestic income be looking in a section
that applies only to foreigners and Americans with possessions income?
Is that logical, larkin?
Quote:
The objective, thinking scientific mind seeks to explain evidence,
rather than looking for an excuse to IGNORE it.
The objective, thinking scientific mind first determines if the
"evidence" he is looking at is real or the figment of someone's deluded
imagination.
Quote:
Well, for anyone who's interested in learning more about the
"bloody knives," you too can now have your very own copy of my
recent updated, much-improved "Taxable Income" report, for the low,
low price of... zero dollars and zero cents (just like it's always
been).
Well, as anyone with any sense can find, you get exactly what you pay
for. hehehehehe... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2007 12:17 am |
|
|
|
|
On Aug 25, 2:02 pm, nat <esen...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
Quote: knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
1) Many decades of income tax regulations very specifically said
that, in addition to those types of income specifically exempted
from tax by the tax code, some OTHER income is also tax-free
because of the Constitution itself.
barkin larkin's reasoning: "There is income that is exempt under the
Constitution from taxation; therefore, my income is exempt."
Is that logical, larkin?
2) After saying that the "items" of income listed in Section 61 are
sometimes exempt, the current regulations give a list of types of
income which are NOT exempt--i.e., which ARE taxable. The list,
which you can go look up yourself (1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii)), includes
four types of international trade. No mention is made of the
domestic income of the average American.
Yea, one of those "types of income which are NOT exempt" from that list
is the foreign earned income of a foreign person.
Hey larkin, can Congress really tax the foreign earned income of a
foreign person, or are you taking something out of context and haven't
got a clue as to what you are talking about?
3) In the older version of the tax codes, there was a section which
very plainly stated that in the case of FOREIGNERS, and in the case
of Americans with POSSESSIONS income, compensation for services
performed inside the U.S. (as well as other kinds of domestic
income) is, after subtracting allowable deductions, to be included
in full as TAXABLE income.
Now why would an American with domestic income be looking in a section
that applies only to foreigners and Americans with possessions income?
Is that logical, larkin?
The objective, thinking scientific mind seeks to explain evidence,
rather than looking for an excuse to IGNORE it.
The objective, thinking scientific mind first determines if the
"evidence" he is looking at is real or the figment of someone's deluded
imagination.
Well, for anyone who's interested in learning more about the
"bloody knives," you too can now have your very own copy of my
recent updated, much-improved "Taxable Income" report, for the low,
low price of... zero dollars and zero cents (just like it's always
been).
Well, as anyone with any sense can find, you get exactly what you pay
for. hehehehehe...
Look in the index.
To find taxable income.
All references point to it.
All wealth for the exchange of one's labor is does not start out
taxable.
Period.
You will never get it unless you understand this basic concept of the
Constitution.
All one need do is rebutt 1099's and W-2's.
Anyone born on American soil can exchange his labor without tax unless
apportioned to the states.
Period.
Only priviledged activities are indirectly taxable and make one a
"taxpayer."
Period.
The 16th amendment created "no new powers of taxation."
Period.
www.theft-by-deception.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Richard Macdonald |
| Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2007 3:38 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
<knews4u2chew@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1188105465.054002.161270@q4g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
Quote: On Aug 25, 2:02 pm, nat <esen...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
All wealth for the exchange of one's labor is does not start out
taxable.
This falacy has been shown to be in error so many times, that
bothering with the details is meaningless for discussion. The
only reason to respomd is to prevent otheres from falling into
this error. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2007 2:13 pm |
|
|
|
|
On Aug 26, 1:38 am, "Richard Macdonald" <rmacdon...@verizon.net>
wrote:
Quote: knews4u2c...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1188105465.054002.161270@q4g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 25, 2:02 pm, nat <esen...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
All wealth for the exchange of one's labor is does not start out
taxable.
This falacy has been shown to be in error so many times, that
bothering with the details is meaningless for discussion. The
only reason to respomd is to prevent otheres from falling into
this error.
Liar.
Show where one's labor is taxable if not engaged in a priviledged
activity.
Show the law that makes "everyone liable" for a SPECIFIC TAX.
All exchanges of labor start out as non-taxable unless ENGAGED IN A
listed "activity" is exchanged for labor.
www.theft-by-deception.com
And
http://www.losthorizons.com/Cracking_the_Code.htm
But you knew that.
You're just a paid tax collector for the fraud. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| cpt banjo |
| Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2007 3:17 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Aug 26, 1:13 pm, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
Quote: Show where one's labor is taxable if not engaged in a priviledged
activity.
Income from illegal activities is taxable, you pathetic schmuck. Or
are you so amazingly stupid that you think illegal activities are
privileged?
And learn how to spell "privilege", you illiterate clod. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2007 3:35 pm |
|
|
|
|
On Aug 26, 1:17 pm, cpt banjo <cptba...@aol.com> wrote:
Quote: On Aug 26, 1:13 pm, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
Show where one's labor is taxable if not engaged in a priviledged
activity.
Income from illegal activities is taxable, you pathetic schmuck. Or
are you so amazingly stupid that you think illegal activities are
privileged?
Red Herring noted.
Quote: And learn how to spell "privilege", you illiterate clod.
Wooppee for you you caught a mis-spell.
So I only get an A -.
You got anything of substance to argue? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Paul Maffia |
| Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2007 3:47 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
The Village Idiot of MORON TOWN posts more of his insane ramblings to show
he truly deserves the title he holds.
<knews4u2chew@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1188155636.611208.86980@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Quote: On Aug 26, 1:38 am, "Richard Macdonald" <rmacdon...@verizon.net
wrote:
knews4u2c...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1188105465.054002.161270@q4g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 25, 2:02 pm, nat <esen...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
All wealth for the exchange of one's labor is does not start out
taxable.
This falacy has been shown to be in error so many times, that
bothering with the details is meaningless for discussion. The
only reason to respomd is to prevent otheres from falling into
this error.
Liar.
Show where one's labor is taxable if not engaged in a priviledged
activity.
Show the law that makes "everyone liable" for a SPECIFIC TAX.
All exchanges of labor start out as non-taxable unless ENGAGED IN A
listed "activity" is exchanged for labor.
www.theft-by-deception.com
And
http://www.losthorizons.com/Cracking_the_Code.htm
But you knew that.
You're just a paid tax collector for the fraud.
And your monumental stupidity leaves one breathless at its depths.
YOU ARE THE VILLAGE IDIOT OF MORON TOWN. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Richard Macdonald |
| Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2007 4:24 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
<knews4u2chew@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1188155636.611208.86980@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Quote: On Aug 26, 1:38 am, "Richard Macdonald" <rmacdon...@verizon.net
wrote:
knews4u2c...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1188105465.054002.161270@q4g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 25, 2:02 pm, nat <esen...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
All wealth for the exchange of one's labor is does not start out
taxable.
This falacy has been shown to be in error so many times, that
bothering with the details is meaningless for discussion. The
only reason to respomd is to prevent otheres from falling into
this error.
Liar.
Show where one's labor is taxable if not engaged in a priviledged
activity.
Your Labor is not taxed, just the gain recognized,
otherwise I would owe tax for mowing my own lawn.
Quote: Show the law that makes "everyone liable" for a SPECIFIC TAX.
26 USC
Quote: All exchanges of labor start out as non-taxable unless ENGAGED IN A
listed "activity" is exchanged for labor.
Unmittigated crap. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| nat |
| Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2007 8:17 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
knews4u2chew@yahoo.com wrote:
Quote: On Aug 25, 2:02 pm, nat <esen...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
1) Many decades of income tax regulations very specifically said
that, in addition to those types of income specifically exempted
from tax by the tax code, some OTHER income is also tax-free
because of the Constitution itself.
barkin larkin's reasoning: "There is income that is exempt under the
Constitution from taxation; therefore, my income is exempt."
Is that logical, larkin?
2) After saying that the "items" of income listed in Section 61 are
sometimes exempt, the current regulations give a list of types of
income which are NOT exempt--i.e., which ARE taxable. The list,
which you can go look up yourself (1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii)), includes
four types of international trade. No mention is made of the
domestic income of the average American.
Yea, one of those "types of income which are NOT exempt" from that list
is the foreign earned income of a foreign person.
Hey larkin, can Congress really tax the foreign earned income of a
foreign person, or are you taking something out of context and haven't
got a clue as to what you are talking about?
3) In the older version of the tax codes, there was a section which
very plainly stated that in the case of FOREIGNERS, and in the case
of Americans with POSSESSIONS income, compensation for services
performed inside the U.S. (as well as other kinds of domestic
income) is, after subtracting allowable deductions, to be included
in full as TAXABLE income.
Now why would an American with domestic income be looking in a section
that applies only to foreigners and Americans with possessions income?
Is that logical, larkin?
The objective, thinking scientific mind seeks to explain evidence,
rather than looking for an excuse to IGNORE it.
The objective, thinking scientific mind first determines if the
"evidence" he is looking at is real or the figment of someone's deluded
imagination.
Well, for anyone who's interested in learning more about the
"bloody knives," you too can now have your very own copy of my
recent updated, much-improved "Taxable Income" report, for the low,
low price of... zero dollars and zero cents (just like it's always
been).
Well, as anyone with any sense can find, you get exactly what you pay
for. hehehehehe...
Look in the index.
To find taxable income.
All references point to it.
Taxable income is gross income minus deductions- section 63.
Quote: All wealth for the exchange of one's labor is does not start out
taxable.
Any wealth exchanged for labor is gross income- section 61, therefore it
is taxable.
Quote: Period.
You will never get it unless you understand this basic concept of the
Constitution.
All one need do is rebutt 1099's and W-2's.
Sorry, can't find "1099's and W-2's" in the Constitution and nothing
about rebuttals. You rebut facts not laws, dimwit.
Quote: Anyone born on American soil can exchange his labor without tax unless
apportioned to the states.
Nope. There is not a single income tax that ever needs to be
apportioned- 16th Amendment.
Quote: Period.
Only priviledged activities are indirectly taxable and make one a
"taxpayer."
You are a taxapayer if you are subject to any internal revenue law. If
you have taxable income, you are liable for the income tax.
"Privilege" has nothing to do with anything.
Quote: Period.
The 16th amendment created "no new powers of taxation."
Correct on that point. All direct taxes must still be apportioned and
all indirect taxes must still be uniform. Taxation on income is an
indirect tax so no apportionment is required.
More tax cult gibberish from a jailbird.
I note that knews-chewy can not defend a single point made by barkin
larkin and can only regurgitate standard tax cult gibberish.
Are you capable of independent thought, chewy?
It's clearly evident that you aren't. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2007 9:43 pm |
|
|
|
|
On Aug 26, 6:17 pm, nat <esen...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
Quote: knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Aug 25, 2:02 pm, nat <esen...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
1) Many decades of income tax regulations very specifically said
that, in addition to those types of income specifically exempted
from tax by the tax code, some OTHER income is also tax-free
because of the Constitution itself.
barkin larkin's reasoning: "There is income that is exempt under the
Constitution from taxation; therefore, my income is exempt."
All labor starts out untaxable unless in a regulated activity or
foreign trade.
Quote: Is that logical, larkin?
Not for you.
Quote: 2) After saying that the "items" of income listed in Section 61 are
sometimes exempt, the current regulations give a list of types of
income which are NOT exempt--i.e., which ARE taxable. The list,
which you can go look up yourself (1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii)), includes
four types of international trade. No mention is made of the
domestic income of the average American.
Yea, one of those "types of income which are NOT exempt" from that list
is the foreign earned income of a foreign person.
And foreign earned income of a citizen.
But no mention of purely domestic activities.
Quote: Hey larkin, can Congress really tax the foreign earned income of a
foreign person, or are you taking something out of context and haven't
got a clue as to what you are talking about?
You are obfuscating.
Disinfo 101.
Quote: 3) In the older version of the tax codes, there was a section which
very plainly stated that in the case of FOREIGNERS, and in the case
of Americans with POSSESSIONS income, compensation for services
performed inside the U.S. (as well as other kinds of domestic
income) is, after subtracting allowable deductions, to be included
in full as TAXABLE income.
Now why would an American with domestic income be looking in a section
that applies only to foreigners and Americans with possessions income?
Because that is where the index sends EVERYONE to detrmine if they
have any taxable activity.
Quote: Is that logical, larkin?
The objective, thinking scientific mind seeks to explain evidence,
rather than looking for an excuse to IGNORE it.
The objective, thinking scientific mind first determines if the
"evidence" he is looking at is real or the figment of someone's deluded
imagination.
But don't address the facts stated.
Disinfo 101.
Quote: Well, for anyone who's interested in learning more about the
"bloody knives," you too can now have your very own copy of my
recent updated, much-improved "Taxable Income" report, for the low,
low price of... zero dollars and zero cents (just like it's always
been).
Well, as anyone with any sense can find, you get exactly what you pay
for. hehehehehe...
More disinfo but no substance.
Quote: Look in the index.
To find taxable income.
All references point to it.
Taxable income is gross income minus deductions- section 63.
Once one determines if they were engaged in taxable activities...
Quote: All wealth for the exchange of one's labor is does not start out
taxable.
Any wealth exchanged for labor is gross income- section 61, therefore it
is taxable.
Liar.
Quote: Period.
You will never get it unless you understand this basic concept of the
Constitution.
All one need do is rebut 1099's and W-2's.
Sorry, can't find "1099's and W-2's" in the Constitution and nothing
about rebuttals. You rebut facts not laws, dimwit.
To bad...more obfuscation.
Don't need them if not a taxpayer.
Quote: Anyone born on American soil can exchange his labor without tax unless
apportioned to the states.
Nope. There is not a single income tax that ever needs to be
apportioned- 16th Amendment.
Right. If you are in a taxable activity that is indirectly taxed.
If you are not, no tax, no direct tax unless apportioned.
"16th created no new powers of taxation." USSC.
Quote: Period.
Only priviledged activities are indirectly taxable and make one a
"taxpayer."
You are a taxapayer if you are subject to any internal revenue law.
No taxable activity, no liability, no juristiction over the exchange
of private labor.
Quote: If
you have taxable income, you are liable for the income tax.
No, only an employer is liable.
He must withhold for "employees."
Anyone who knows what they are doing signs a W-4 "Exempt."
Quote: "Privilege" has nothing to do with anything.
Liar.
Indirectly taxed activities must be "avoidable."
Those are the actvities listed in 861 et al.
Quote: Period.
The 16th amendment created "no new powers of taxation."
Correct on that point. All direct taxes must still be apportioned and
all indirect taxes must still be uniform.
Gee, you got one right.
Quote: Taxation on income is an
indirect tax so no apportionment is required.
Yup, indirect because one can avoid the taxable activities.
All labor is not taxable unless apportioned.
If it were it would be called a labor tax.
He went to jail for not rebutting the 1099's.
http://www.losthorizons.com/Cracking_the_Code.htm
Quote:
I note that knews-chewy can not defend a single point made by barkin
larkin and can only regurgitate standard tax cult gibberish.
You haven't proven he is wrong about taxable activities being the only
way to directly tax income. The 16th changed nothing. You are
obfuscating thew terms "income" and "employee."
Quote: Are you capable of independent thought, chewy?
It's clearly evident that you aren't.
I was signing W-4's "exempt" long before Rose ever showed his face.
I discovered that the 1040 instructions told citizens with only
domestic income to use the Form 2555 years ago.
The 1040 form is only for Residents of Puerto Rico. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 1 of 4 Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Thu Nov 20, 2008 5:02 pm
|
|