They Sound Scared

[rob menard]

CTV News Staff

Date: Mon. Apr. 22 2002 2:49 PM ET

"What I'm going to teach you is how the tax system entrapped you and why it entrapped you."

It's the gospel according to self-proclaimed minister, Reverend Alex Muljiani. But his congregation doesn't come to listen to lessons from the good book; they come to hear about tax evangelism.

Muljiani is a leader in a growing movement of renegades who call themselves 'detaxers'.

"I'll show you how to get out of the tax system today."

The pitch is that you don't have to pay one dime to the taxman. But they're not teaching lessons in legitimate loopholes. Disgruntled taxpayers are dishing out hundreds, even thousands of dollars, to learn how to get away with tax evasion.

Muljiani goes even further in his sermon, by warning the government to get out of the way.

"Just give us our space, stop trying to control us. We want more of our own freedom back to make our own decisions, still following the law as much as it's stated, but allowing us to take more control over our lives again."

Leaders of the detax movement go back a long way to justify their position, 800 years in fact, to the Magna Carta. They claim the ancient charter exempts citizens from paying taxes or carrying a driver's licence.

Muljiani has been preaching the detax gospel for two years and says he's reached 30,000 people. He insists he's governed by God and not by the government.

His method for getting rid of the tax burden is amazingly simple - you simply opt out of the income tax system.

"You send a notice saying that you are misinformed. You were actually signed up in a contract without full knowledge, without full awareness of what was involved, and that was that you actually signed off to create a corporation. And so this notice basically says that this is an invalid contract."

Muljiani says he's never paid income tax and he's never been thrown in jail for failing to do so. He also claims his method is legal and foolproof.

"I haven't had anybody show up on my door... And I'm not worried about it."

On promotional videos, other detax salesmen insist their method is the one that works. For a fee they'll tell you things, such as: Fill in your income tax form in lower case letters and the government can't collect; use "truth language," a baffling code of words and numbers used to tie up tax cases in court; or claim diplomatic immunity by declaring to be a citizen of heaven.

Detaxers claim, these are the magic bullets to get out of paying tax. But there are other messages, such as conspiracy theories about the government and the banks.

"Did you know that a driver is an artificial person? Now let me ask you something else. If you are an artificial person who were you created by? The government.

"Our government are puppets. They are totally 100 per cent controlled by the international banks. If you economically dominate a country, you economically dominate its people and you economically dominate its government," says Muljiani.

Muljiani is a disciple of Albertan, Eldon Warman, one of the founders of the detax movement. Warman insists we were tricked into paying income tax because tax forms aren't valid.

"A voidable contract is where one party has committed fraud against the other in some way or another. And fraud is doing something deviously to take the other man's rights or property by deception," says Warman.

He also has suggestions for keeping money out of government hands. Warman says you should avoid keeping anything in the bank and should instead buy one-ounce gold coins.

"It would be recommended to go to the hardware store and buy some plastic pipe and put [the coins] in there. And then you can bury it in the yard. Bury it in your mother's basement or whatever."

Setting the record straight

But Toronto lawyer David Sherman, one of Canada's foremost authorities on income tax, says the law is very clear. You have to pay tax.

"I don't know how many people they're getting to their seminars and how many people are actually paying the money for this nonsense information. It's completely bogus."

Not just bogus, says the tax department, it can land you in jail. Revenue Canada is now called the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency.

"We do take appropriate action... And every month, 10 to 20 cases are published on our website. So people can see we've won in court and these are what the rules are and we want them fairly applied to everyone," according to CCRA Minister, Elinor Caplan.

She says paying income tax is not voluntary and writing your name in lower case on an income tax return does not mean you're opting out, because everyone benefits from tax revenue.

"In Canada we believe in sharing and caring for each other and the way we do that is through our tax system. We all pay our fair share and then we receive the benefits, whether it's health care or education or national security defense."

But detaxers say those rules don't apply to them. Consider the high profile case of detax darlings, Denis and Richard Rosenberg of Winnipeg.

Back in 1999, they were charged with failing to file income tax returns, owing more than two-million dollars. Forced to court, the Rosenbergs used an arsenal of detax techniques.

They insisted their trial be translated from English to the baffling so-called "truth language." They dredged up the Magna Carta, to no avail. They also called themselves sovereign citizens. The judge didn't buy it and sent Denis Rosenberg for psychological testing.

The Rosenbergs insisted the courts just don't understand the detax arguments.

In the end, Rosenbergs lost at a huge cost. Their million dollar home was seized and their belongings and family cottage were sold to the highest bidder.

When anti-tax becomes anti-government

It takes a lot to make Manitoba Justice Jeffery Oliphant speak out publicly. But he says he's sick of wasting his time and taxpayers' money on detax crusaders, causing havoc in the courtroom.

"I known darn well that they're not really there to defend the charge of tax evasion, they're there to make life difficult and to tear away at the administration of justice... Bearing in mind that the judiciary is the third branch of government, really what they're trying to do is bring down the government in their own way."

Judge Oliphant says this is not just an anti-tax agenda, it is an anti-government movement.

"They're more than a nuisance. I think that there's something pretty sinister about this movement and why I use that term is the tactics of intimidation that are utilized to frighten people who work in the justice system."

Toronto lawyer and author, Warren Kinsella agrees. He has studied right wing extremist groups for 20 years. Kinsella believes the anti-tax movement is the first stage of a wider anti-government movement, which could get increasingly fanatical or even violent.

"What these people have done is take that theme, the notion that people don't like to pay taxes, and used it to recruit people into their movement," says Kinsella.

It's an early warning sign Canada should not ignore, says Kinsella.

"They bring them in and they radicalize them and bring them further along to the point where sometimes you see them carrying around guns to defend this notion that they shouldn't be paying taxes."

It's that potential violence that has police concerned. An internal RCMP report warns "increasing militancy by members and associates of anti-tax and other anti-government groups in Western Canada has led to a pattern of criminal activity relating to harassment of... police officers, judges and CCRA officials."

Calgary lawyer and traffic court Judge Allan Fay knows all about that kind of harassment. It started when a man showed up in his courtroom charged with driving an uninsured motor vehicle. His defence was based on that 800-year old charter.

"The gist of his argument was, once again, that the Magna Carta said that the government had no control over a free man and you could freely use the highways and he translated this to me that he didn't have to insure his motor vehicle or obtain a driver's licence or anything of this nature."

Fay dismissed the Magna Carta argument. But suddenly threats appeared and flyers were posted on the man's anti-government website and in Fay's neighbourhood.

"When the death threats started being phoned into my office, that's the point where my attention was brought to task."

Across the country in Ottawa, Betty Bannon also deals with threats to tax officials. Bannon is the National President of the Union of Tax Employees.

"An anonymous letter was sent to nine of our tax service offices in 2000. And they talked about killing GST auditors, boring out their eyes with drills, pouring acid on them, bury the bones, that kind of thing... In another case, two of our members were held at gunpoint."

The tax department says threats are turned over to the police. But so far, no charges have been laid against any authors of these threatening letters.

In the United States the anti-tax movement is more than 30 years old. It has evolved, fueled by ineffective protests and failed court challenges.

"What happens is the people who are behind the anti-tax sentiment become more radicalized, they become more frustrated, they become more angry and they see the conspiracy is at work... So that's when you see them starting to pick up arms," says Kinsella.

In the seventies, gun-toting anti-tax fundamentalists in Oregon, called the Posse Comitatus, became a problem for law enforcement. In 1983, Posse member Gordon Kahl murdered two federal marshals.

Then in the 1990s, a radical right wing group, the Montana Freemen formed. Members refused to pay tax, they threatened judges and bankers, and in 1996 they held an 81-day standoff with the FBI.

Kinsella says violent anti-government individuals commonly start as seemingly non-violent anti-taxers.

"Timothy McVeigh, the guy who planned and executed the Oklahoma City bombing in April of 1995, and that's the biggest act of domestic terrorism in the history of the United States, started as an anti-tax protester."

An anti-hate activist, who has asked that his identity not be disclosed, infiltrated the detax movement in British Columbia almost a year ago by attending seminars and befriending leaders. He worries about an e-mail from the group leader that talks about where the movement is headed.

"He said basically, 'there are four options for us in this world. One is politics and will never work. Second is the courts, we're losing everywhere. Thirdly is civil disobedience - lets start to work at it. And fourth, it's war.' And that, in my book, is where they're heading."

But high profile detaxer Muljiani scoffs at the notion that the Canadian detax movement is nurturing the next Timothy McVeigh.

"We've actually been accused in Canada of being right-wing extremist militia. And I find that quite hilarious because anyway, I'm a minister. I teach in a suit and tie and I'm totally open and I preach non-violence and yet we're being labelled that by the RCMP. I think it's more propaganda than anything else. What they're afraid of, I don't know."

But Muljiani warns if there was violence it would be because the government provoked it.

"If the government pushes things too far and more people get angrier, I think it's time for people to stop being angry and start just doing something about it. And I think the anger part is something we have to be watching out for."

It sounds like a long way off from trying to save a few bucks from the tax man. But buying into the anti-tax movement could come at a price, either jail or helping to sow the seeds of extremism.



http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20020422/ctvnews859291/20020422/?hub=CTVNewsAt11

[yozhik]

When they start putting labels like 'extremist' onto a peaceful and lawful ideology ... you KNOW you're onto something ...

[majicdragon]

yeah, they're trying to pick a tax case that they can point at to say, "look, it doesn't work" but the minister is still not paying taxes, and neither are his flock.

i'll believe his methods are unsound when they jail him... no, actually, i won't. i'd be waiting for him to get out...

as it is, i don't pay income tax. this is because i have opted not to make any money. my mom has been doing my tax though, and i told her to stop... even though somehow i would get money back.

i told her about the freeman on the land concept, and told her not to do my taxes anymore even though i don't make an money.

i also do not vote, but i never did. i am no longer registering to vote... and i never did before... my mom did it for me all the time...

that's the same mom that got me the sin number which, when i go back in time after i die to awaken into 1984 at the age of 14, i'm not getting.

i can hardly wait... but in the mean time, and since this is only a dream i'm dreaming on a hit of acid from 1984, i'm going to be brave and push far in the freeman movement.

[lightindarkness]

Peaceful ideology:

That obscure Michigan hunter would, three years later, become known to the entire world. He was Terry Nichols, friend and accomplice of Oklahoma City Federal Building bomber Timothy McVeigh. Nichols subscribed to an unusual right-wing anti-government ideo-logy whose adherents have in recent years increasingly plagued public officials, law enforcement officers and private citizens with a variety of tactics designed to attack the government and other forms of authority.Its members call themselves, variously, consti-tutionalists, freemen, preamble citizens, common law citizens and non-foreign/non-resident aliens (Nichols used several of these), but most commonly refer to themselves as "sovereign citizens."

Members of the sovereign citizen movement engage in a variety of seemingly bizarre activities. Nichols, for instance, several times repudiated his allegiance to federal and state governments. He tried to pay a credit card debt with a fictitious financial instrument called a "certified fractional reserve check." Brought into court in Michigan in 1993, he refused to walk to the front of the courtroom and denied the court's jurisdiction over him. Even when he wrote addresses on letters, Nichols made sure to use the abbreviation "TDC" to indicate that he was using the federal zip code under "threat, duress and coercion." These exhibitions of behavior might seem odd or even humorous, but the same ideology that led to those activities also helped lead Terry Nichols to assist Timothy McVeigh in building a bomb that would kill 168 people and injure hundreds more. By then the sovereign citizen movement to which Nichols subscribed had embarked upon a nationwide resurgence that would last into the 21st century; its anti-government activities would cause problems in every region of the country.

http://www.adl.org/Learn/ext_us/SCM.asp?xpicked=4&item=20

And before someone tries it: Yes its from the ADL, but before you go on your ADL bashing fest CAN YOU DISPUTE THE FACTS IN THE ARTICLE?

And from the quoted article: death threats and harassment from local Freemen! I would be scared to if I had death threats issued against me like that. Quite the peaceable bunch really, on both sides of the pond. :rolleyes:

[lightindarkness]

yeah, they're trying to pick a tax case that they can point at to say, "look, it doesn't work" but the minister is still not paying taxes, and neither are his flock.

i'll believe his methods are unsound when they jail him... no, actually, i won't. i'd be waiting for him to get out...

as it is, i don't pay income tax. this is because i have opted not to make any money. my mom has been doing my tax though, and i told her to stop... even though somehow i would get money back.

i told her about the freeman on the land concept, and told her not to do my taxes anymore even though i don't make an money.

i also do not vote, but i never did. i am no longer registering to vote... and i never did before... my mom did it for me all the time...

that's the same mom that got me the sin number which, when i go back in time after i die to awaken into 1984 at the age of 14, i'm not getting.

i can hardly wait... but in the mean time, and since this is only a dream i'm dreaming on a hit of acid from 1984, i'm going to be brave and push far in the freeman movement.

This is a post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy. See more information here:
http://www.skepdic.com/posthoc.html

In other words, you are trying to make a casual link where there is no evidence for one existing. Because someone does not pay taxes and has not yet been thrown in jail for it does not equate into Freeman logic having any basis in reality.

All it means is that the government is a cost/benefits animal, and unless you are a big time money maker the cost of going after you for not paying taxes immediately is not worth it. Quite simply, there are bigger fish to fry. If you really don't make that much money, it could very well be that they never get around to it - but they likely will eventually. And when they do, your Freeman tax arguments will fail just as they have for every single other person who actually gets taken to court.

Its a gamble - and you might win, depending on how much in taxes you are defrauding the government out of - but the fact that you might win the gamble doesn't mean the bet is legitimate.

[vladmir]

Its a gamble - and you might win, depending on how much in taxes you are defrauding the government out of - but the fact that you might win the gamble doesn't mean the bet is legitimate.
You are talking straight out of your ass.
First find me the definition of the word income in the IRS tax code.
Then tell me who is being defrauded.

[lightindarkness]

You are talking straight out of your ass.
First find me the definition of the word income in the IRS tax code.
Then tell me who is being defrauded.

Ah, yet another Freeman intellectual who dazzles us with their ability to actually put up a cohesive argument. Oh wait, just another person who has nothing but insults. :rolleyes:

This is for the US, but all countries have similar definitions:

Sec. 61. Gross income defined

(a) General definition
Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means
all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited
to) the following items:
(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions,
fringe benefits, and similar items;
(2) Gross income derived from business;
(3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
(4) Interest;
(5) Rents;
(6) Royalties;
(7) Dividends;
(8) Alimony and separate maintenance payments;
(9) Annuities;
(10) Income from life insurance and endowment contracts;
(11) Pensions;
(12) Income from discharge of indebtedness;
(13) Distributive share of partnership gross income;
(14) Income in respect of a decedent; and
(15) Income from an interest in an estate or trust.
(b) Cross references
For items specifically included in gross income, see part II
(sec. 71 and following). For items specifically excluded from
gross income, see part III (sec. 101 and following).

BUT WAIT! That is statute, right, and that doesn't apply to Freemen. How good it is that the courts have defined it in the COMMON LAW in the US just as they have in every other country with an income tax.

See: Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 207 (1920), defining income in the tax code to include among the above "the gain derived from capital...labor...or from both combined."
See Also: Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426 (1955), adding to the definition any benefit derived from wealth.

[vladmir]

Ah, yet another Freeman intellectual who dazzles us with their ability to actually put up a cohesive argument

Lets try it again, slowly for your sake.
Where in the IRS tax Code is the word income defined?
Are you telling us you cant differentiate between income and Gross income? Are you saying there is no difference?
That income and gross income is the same thing :rolleyes:

[vladmir]

BUT WAIT! That is statute, right, and that doesn't apply to Freemen.
Without being condescending, if you could just answer the question, that would be great, thanks.

[lightindarkness]

Lets try it again, slowly for your sake.
Where in the IRS tax Code is the word income defined?
Are you telling us you cant differentiate between income and Gross income? Are you saying there is no difference?
That income and gross income is the same thing :rolleyes:

Please cite COMMON LAW CASES demonstrating that "income" must be defined for a tax system which taxes gross income. You may use any case that would fall under stare decisis (appeals and Supreme Court in the US, or the UK equivalent). Until then, the definition for what is actually taxed - gross income - has been provided.

In addition, as previously cited which you have not been able to refute, the following common law cases have added to the definition of income to include:
See: Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 207 (1920), defining income in the tax code to include among the above "the gain derived from capital...labor...or from both combined."
See Also: Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426 (1955), adding to the definition any benefit derived from wealth.

[lightindarkness]

Without being condescending, if you could just answer the question, that would be great, thanks.

Wait, so providing statute law to answer questions is condescending?

What would you prefer, wiki? Do you find facts offensive or something?

Again:

See: Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 207 (1920), defining income in the tax code to include among the above "the gain derived from capital...labor...or from both combined."
See Also: Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426 (1955), adding to the definition any benefit derived from wealth.

[bones]

Without being condescending, if you could just answer the question, that would be great, thanks.

they wont anwser the questions !! they love the government and abide by all its statutes.....

anything that threatens there status quo they attack and attempt discredit..

[lightindarkness]

they wont anwser the questions !! they love the government and abide by all its statutes.....

anything that threatens there status quo they attack and attempt discredit..

Questions have been asked and answered fully. That you don't want to accept the reality would be your problem.

Especially those "statutes" which are common law cases. I tell you, those are the worst.

[vladmir]

See: Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 207 (1920), defining income in the tax code to include among the above "the gain derived from capital...labor...or from both combined."
See Also: Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426 (1955), adding to the definition any benefit derived from wealth.

The definition of the word “income” does not exist in Title 26. How do we really know this? The Supreme Court tells us so:

U.S. v. Ballard, 535 F2d 400, cert denied, 429 U.S. 918, 50 L.Ed.2d 283, 97 S.Ct. 310 (1976)

"...the general term 'income' is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code..."

Note that in section 61a the term “income” is claimed by IRS “agents acting in the governments behalf” (see the 2 decisions at the top of this page) to be defined by saying “from whatever source derived”. Can “rain” be defined by saying “it comes from clouds”? Can “electricity” be defined by saying “it comes from dams”?



Exactly what is this thing, this “income” that is taxed? Where can we find the legal definition as used in Title 26? Let's ask the Supreme Court.



Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746.(1883)

"Among these unalienable rights, as proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant, the right of any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give them their highest enjoyment... It has been well said that, the property which every man has is his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property so it is the most sacred and inviolable..."

Redfield v. Fisher, 292 P. 813, 135 Or. 180, 294 P.461, 73 A.L.R. 721 (1931)

"The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the state; but the individuals' rights to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an excise cannot be imposed."

Edwards v. Keith, 231 F110, 113 (1916)

"The phraseology of form 1040 is somewhat obscure .... But it matters little what it does mean; the statute and the statute alone determines what is income to be taxed. It taxes only income 'derived' from many different sources; one does not 'derive income' by rendering services and charging for them... IRS cannot enlarge the scope of the statute." (NOTE: This is taken out of context but is an eye-opening statement nonetheless. It ties in perfectly with the other cases cited here.)

Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930)

"The claim that salaries, wages, and compensation for personal services are to be taxed as an entirety and therefore must be returned by the individual who has performed the services which produce the gain is without support, either in the language of the Act or in the decisions of the courts construing it... It is to be noted that, by the language of the Act, it is not salaries, wages, or compensation for personal services that are to be included in gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal services."

Conner v. U.S., 303 F Supp. 1187 (1969)

"... whatever may constitute income, therefore, must have the essential feature of gain to the recipient. This was true when the 16th Amendment became effective, it was true at the time of Eisner v. Macomber Supra, it was true under Section 22(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1938, and it is likewise true under Section 61(a) of the I.R.S. Code of 1954. If there is not gain, there is not income ... Congress has taxed income not compensation."

"There is a clear distinction between `profit' and 'wages', or a compensation for labor. Compensation for labor (wages) cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law. The word `profit', as ordinarily used, means the gain made upon any business or investment- - - a different thing altogether from the mere compensation for labor."

Emanuel J. Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Company 247 US 179 (1918)

"Yet it is plain, we think, that by the true intent and meaning of the Act the entire proceeds of a mere conversion of capital assets were not to be treated as income. Whatever difficulty there may be about a precise and scientific definition of 'income' it imports, as used here, something entirely distinct from principal or capital either as a subject of taxation or as a measure of the tax; conveying rather the idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activities. As was said in Stratton's Independence vs. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415: 'Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined.'"

Merchant's Loan & Trust Company v. Smietanka 255 US 509 (1921)

"It is obvious that these decisions in principle rule the case at bar if the word 'income' has the same meaning as the Income Tax Act of 1913 that it had in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, and that it has the same scope of meaning was in effect decided in Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330, 335, where it was assumed for the purposes of decision that there was no difference in its meaning as used in the Act of 1909 and in the Income Tax Act of 1913. There can be no doubt that the word must be given the same meaning and content in the Income Tax Acts of 1916 and 1917 that it had in the Act of 1913. When to this we add that in Eisner v. Macomber, Supra, arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, with the addition that it should include 'profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets,' there would seem to be no room to doubt that the word must be given the same meaning in all of the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act and that what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by decisions of this court.”

Stanton v. Baltic Mining, 240 U.S. 103 (1916)

"... by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived, that is by testing the tax not by what it was -- a tax on income, but by a mistaken theory deduced from the origin or source of the income taxed. "

Burnet v. Harmel 287 US 103 (1932)

"before the 1921 Act this Court had indicated (see Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 207, 64L.ed 521, 9 A.L.R. 1570, 40 S. Ct. 189), what it later held, that 'income,' as used in the revenue acts taxing income, adopted since the 16th Amendment, has the same meaning that it had in the Act of 1909. Merchants; Loan & T. Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509, 519, 65 L.ed. 751, 755, 15 A.L.R. 1305, 41 S. Ct. 386; see Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe. 247 U.S. 330, 335, 62 L.ed. 114, 1147, 38 S. Ct. 540."

Staples v. U.S., 21 F Supp 737 U.S. Dist. Ct. ED PA, (1937)

"Income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment and the Revenue Act means, gain ... and, in such connection, gain means profit... proceeding from property severed from capital, however invested or employed and coming in, received or drawn by the taxpayer for his separate use, benefit and disposal."

Oliver v. Halstead, 196 VA 992; 86 S.E. Rep 2nd 85e9 (1955)

"There is a clear distinction between `profit' and `wages', or a compensation for labor. Compensation for labor (wages) cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law. The word `profit', as ordinarily used, means the gain made upon any business or investment -- a different thing altogether from the mere compensation for labor."

Central Illinois Public Service Co. v. United States, 435 U.S. 21 (1978)

"Decided cases have made the distinction between wages and income and have refused to equate the two in withholding or similar controversies.”

Peoples Life Ins. Co. v. United States, 179 Ct. Cl. 318, 332, 373 F.2d 924, 932 (1967);

Humble Pipe Line Co. v. United States, 194 Ct. Cl. 944, 950, 442 F.2d 1353, 1356 (1971);

Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. United States, 194 Ct. Cl. 920, 442 F.2d 1362 (1971);

Stubbs, Overbeck & Associates v. United States, 445 F.2d 1142 (CA5 1971);

Royster Co. v. United States, 479 F.2d, at 390; Acacia:

Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. United States, 272 F. Supp. 188 (Md. 1967).
Source:
http://www.ados.net/~hughbank/INCOME/Income.html

[vladmir]

they wont anwser the questions !!
Willfully ignorant folks like darkness will never get it. They simply cant see the Big Picture of what FMOTL is really about.
They refuse the Light, such is their willful and stubborn choice,
reveling in the mud of self-excreted ignorance.

[sindakit]

'citizen of heaven' for diplomatic immunity lol :D
Love it!

[relentless]

Ah, yet another Freeman intellectual who dazzles us with their ability to actually put up a cohesive argument. Oh wait, just another person who has nothing but insults. :rolleyes:

Isn't that a sarcastic remark intended to reduce the recipient?

Sec. 61. Gross income defined

(a) General definition
Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means
all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited
to) the following items:
(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions,
fringe benefits, and similar items;
(2) Gross income derived from business;
(3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
(4) Interest;
(5) Rents;
(6) Royalties;
(7) Dividends;
(8) Alimony and separate maintenance payments;
(9) Annuities;
(10) Income from life insurance and endowment contracts;
(11) Pensions;
(12) Income from discharge of indebtedness;
(13) Distributive share of partnership gross income;
(14) Income in respect of a decedent; and
(15) Income from an interest in an estate or trust.
(b) Cross references
For items specifically included in gross income, see part II
(sec. 71 and following). For items specifically excluded from
gross income, see part III (sec. 101 and following).


LinD, they have defined income as, 'income', 'compensation', 'gains', 'interest', 'rents', 'royalties', 'pensions', 'dividends', 'annuities', etc.

They don't define income, they are just alternative words for income.

To me, if I break the word down; 'in' and 'come', its says to me 'something' that 'comes' 'in'.

Question; What is income in its quantifiable terms?
Remember, its the IRS who are demanding tax on income, its up to them to make it clear want they are asking for.

[girlgye]

[QUOTE=rob menard;1058669054]CTV News Staff



Much of what they cite up to here is true fact. Now he we have classic CIA reviewing brainwashing techniques, trigger words etc.




But Toronto lawyer David Sherman, one of Canada's foremost authorities on income tax, says the law is very clear. You have to pay tax.

Now this is way they slap the mandate like a nanny goat on you. Up to this every thing was factually correct. Here the argument turns in favour of the right wing reviewer.

"I don't know how many people they're getting to their seminars and how many people are actually paying the money for this nonsense information. It's completely bogus."

So bogus is the trigger word there and the reviewing technique 'you have to pay tax'

Not just bogus, says the tax department, it can land you in jail. Revenue Canada is now called the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency.

Jail trigger word and everyone knows customs have the power to do whatever they like so there is the THREAT TO INVOKE FEAR. Dern dern Dern!
Reviewing techniques so far don't do it, PIRATES ARMED, JAIL.

"We do take appropriate action... And every month, 10 to 20 cases are published on our website. So people can see we've won in court and these are what the rules are and we want them fairly applied to everyone," according to CCRA Minister, Elinor Caplan.

Unlike the factual reporting above they negate. So these people were sheep.

She says paying income tax is not voluntary and writing your name in lower case on an income tax return does not mean you're opting out, because everyone benefits from tax revenue.

Well those of you at this a long time will know this as we do on here. They choose a fringe argument which would factually stand up as evidence against you in argument.

"In Canada we believe in sharing and caring for each other and the way we do that is through our tax system. We all pay our fair share and then we receive the benefits, whether it's health care or education or national security defense."

A Bleep. To cause alarm after all the violent metaphor and reframing what will happen to my pension alarm and signalled to reader. If those measly moors get their way. Well reader of Right Wing paper. How about I tell you that your real benefits you should and could be receiving equate to approximately £1million per year. Yes that is your dividend paid back to you over an average lifetime. Say what? Yep. Lotta money going somewhere innit? Sure you want that pension now?

But detaxers say those rules don't apply to them. Consider the high profile case of detax darlings, Denis and Richard Rosenberg of Winnipeg.

Back in 1999, they were charged with failing to file income tax returns, owing more than two-million dollars. Forced to court, the Rosenbergs used an arsenal of detax techniques.

They insisted their trial be translated from English to the baffling so-called "truth language." They dredged up the Magna Carta, to no avail. They also called themselves sovereign citizens. The judge didn't buy it and sent Denis Rosenberg for psychological testing.

The Rosenbergs insisted the courts just don't understand the detax arguments.

In the end, Rosenbergs lost at a huge cost. Their million dollar home was seized and their belongings and family cottage were sold to the highest bidder.

Classic reviewing technique. Girlgye and pleasuredome went to prison SEE? We don't know the circumstances of this case. No doubt they had no idea what they were doing and were set up. Tough luck. Shit happens. Many more have been given their homes back after proving they already paid for it. Cash.

When anti-tax becomes anti-government

It takes a lot to make Manitoba Justice Jeffery Oliphant speak out publicly. But he says he's sick of wasting his time and taxpayers' money on detax crusaders, causing havoc in the courtroom.

The trigger Judges are cool ok? Respect your elders or else.

"I known darn well that they're not really there to defend the charge of tax evasion, they're there to make life difficult and to tear away at the administration of justice... Bearing in mind that the judiciary is the third branch of government, really what they're trying to do is bring down the government in their own way."

See your magre pension being frittered away by these parasites help. [what is really happening is the judges have no power whatsover and so they are appealing to the public to start baying for their blood. Yeah like the public care. They might done but someone at the top of the food chain just got a bit tooooooo greedy didn't they?

Judge Oliphant says this is not just an anti-tax agenda, it is an anti-government movement.

Reviewed again here.

"They're more than a nuisance. I think that there's something pretty sinister about this movement and why I use that term is the tactics of intimidation that are utilized to frighten people who work in the justice system."

Now here we are setting you up for the meme. Nazi, jewish death camps. Hitler blah blah blah.

Toronto lawyer and author, Warren Kinsella agrees. He has studied right wing extremist groups for 20 years. Kinsella believes the anti-tax movement is the first stage of a wider anti-government movement, which could get increasingly fanatical or even violent.

So alarmed by this and so alarmed that all the PhD level freemen ignored my consternation. I sat in the forum of this so called Nazi league of free men. For a start of the site owner was bloody great in answering anything I was concerned about. Always. He was imensely efficient, dedicated and well informed. I continued my research into them for 6 months and whilst some of their thread topics made my eyes water. It is America and America has all sorts wild politics. Gun tooting Arian loonies nah. Sure they were into their guns but loonies nah. Terrorists nah. What average American doesn't think one should own a gun. No more than that.

"What these people have done is take that theme, the notion that people don't like to pay taxes, and used it to recruit people into their movement," says Kinsella.

So they've started the triggers and fear. Nazis, gun tooting out of control and wishing to bring down the govt.

It's an early warning sign Canada should not ignore, says Kinsella.

common purpose. Each of you must expose them before they shoot you. Leading you on swiftly for the bleep of concern here.

"They bring them in and they radicalize them and bring them further along to the point where sometimes you see them carrying around guns to defend this notion that they shouldn't be paying taxes."

It's that potential violence that has police concerned. An internal RCMP report warns "increasing militancy by members and associates of anti-tax and other anti-government groups in Western Canada has led to a pattern of criminal activity relating to harassment of... police officers, judges and CCRA officials."

Classic reviewing technique. Police are onto it. You may rely on us maam.

Calgary lawyer and traffic court Judge Allan Fay knows all about that kind of harassment. It started when a man showed up in his courtroom charged with driving an uninsured motor vehicle. His defence was based on that 800-year old charter.

Now this is what they really want to stamp out. What has this case got to do with the piece. Nothing. Zip. Nada. However, it is THE ROADS AND THE INCESSANT BULLYING OF MOTERISTS THAT IS REALLY GETTING OUR GOATS UP AND WHY WE ARE ALL CHANGING OVER OUR THINKING. So? This is where they attempt rather pathetically to stamp it out. Well I'm sorry but I think of my 56k mile car sitting in a pound somewhere right now and boy oh boy just waiting to find out that they had the audacity to crush it.

"The gist of his argument was, once again, that the Magna Carta said that the government had no control over a free man and you could freely use the highways and he translated this to me that he didn't have to insure his motor vehicle or obtain a driver's licence or anything of this nature."


Now for a report that is remarkably accurate on facts how come they get this bit mixed up. Perhaps we didn't explain it to them correctly when they were members of our forums. i don't know. It is actually quite deliberate for they mix the common law with admiralty and hope you are too thick to notice. Though most people are which is why they get away with it.

Fay dismissed the Magna Carta argument. But suddenly threats appeared and flyers were posted on the man's anti-government website and in Fay's neighbourhood.

Trigger. Magna Carta is dismissed and anyone who cites is potentially someone who will do this to the judges and clerks. Now what has been happening world wide is the clerks are starting to be on our side. Can't have that can we? So what do we do we make up a story. See no names here and unsubstantiated as no clues. So in short its crap. Anyone could have sent those threats and having spent 6 months with THE most touted aggressive allegedly right wing freeman on the landers. I can assure you it weren't them.
So who could it have been. Well keep tuned to OUR boards rather than THEIR PAPERS.

"When the death threats started being phoned into my office, that's the point where my attention was brought to task."

Trigger. Death threat.

Across the country in Ottawa, Betty Bannon also deals with threats to tax officials. Bannon is the National President of the Union of Tax Employees.

"An anonymous letter was sent to nine of our tax service offices in 2000. And they talked about killing GST auditors, boring out their eyes with drills, pouring acid on them, bury the bones, that kind of thing... In another case, two of our members were held at gunpoint."

The tax department says threats are turned over to the police. But so far, no charges have been laid against any authors of these threatening letters.

Well I'll be dog gone darned. Usually the cops are pretty kosher at this. I mean aren't they DNA obsessed? Come on. Who are you kidding.

In the United States the anti-tax movement is more than 30 years old. It has evolved, fueled by ineffective protests and failed court challenges.


Yes well they know we know that so they have to concede. Now if ANY OF THE ABOVE WAS TRUE DO YOU THINK IT WOULD STILL BE AROUND?

"What happens is the people who are behind the anti-tax sentiment become more radicalized, they become more frustrated, they become more angry and they see the conspiracy is at work... So that's when you see them starting to pick up arms," says Kinsella.

Triggers,' pick up arms'

In the eventies, gun-toting anti-tax fundamentalists in Oregon, called the Posse Comitatus, became a problem for law enforcement. In 1983, Posse member Gordon Kahl murdered two federal marshals.

Trigger MURDER Review to the 70s. Blimey haven't they got anything more recent. er. No. So in the same breath they mention dear old David Merrill can you imagine David Merrill behaving like what follows? Him and his accomplices? David's radical I'll give him that. He certainly don't like stoners much. :D As for plotting to shoot them? Gimme a break.

Then in the 1990s, a radical right wing group, the Montana Freemen formed. Members refused to pay tax, they threatened judges and bankers, and in 1996 they held an 81-day standoff with the FBI.

Haven't they got anything more recent? Erm.Nope.
We all know what they did wrong and some got away. Not sure why maybe they were more intelligent and got their remedy correct. It's a bit like saying WFS hold stand off and Mary and Rich go to jail. Dern. Doesn't mean WFS did anything nor that they got it wrong. Mary and Rich did though.

Kinsella says violent anti-government individuals commonly start as seemingly non-violent anti-taxers.

Trigger: Don't trust anyone you like either.
Now listen here folks some of you may have come to love Mary and Rich's quirky manna but look what we pummelled into your mhz heads beforehand. They are going to become VIOLENT EXTREMISTS SOON. VERY SOON. Stay tuned. Yes we will send our forces out to g them up. Follow them. bug their phone. Make up fictitious charges, harass and coerce them. Frighten them. This is America right where it is permissable to carry arms. So they do. Even English Freemen have stipulated the right to protect themselves if necessary. I haven't. I just won't go willingly to my death. tis all.

"Timothy McVeigh, the guy who planned and executed the Oklahoma City bombing in April of 1995, and that's the biggest act of domestic terrorism in the history of the United States, started as an anti-tax protester."

Well I can't verify this. So if I go and rob a bank at gun point is it Rob Menards fault?Please.

An anti-hate activist, who has asked that his identity not be disclosed, infiltrated the detax movement in British Columbia almost a year ago by attending seminars and befriending leaders. He worries about an e-mail from the group leader that talks about where the movement is headed.

Trigger.we have infiltrated you. be afraid be very afraid.

We know. None of us trust each other any way. Fact is the more someone says so and so is a spook the more you I think right well I can trust him'/her then.

"He said basically, 'there are four options for us in this world. One is politics and will never work. Second is the courts, we're losing everywhere. Thirdly is civil disobedience - lets start to work at it. And fourth, it's war.' And that, in my book, is where they're heading."

ok sloppy reporting here. They admit they are losing in the courts. They are. Politics isn't working. Watch how many turn out to vote even if they do wheel out Nick Griffin again. Nick Griffin is the leader of the far right Fascist BNP.

But high profile detaxer Muljiani scoffs at the notion that the Canadian detax movement is nurturing the next Timothy McVeigh.

"We've actually been accused in Canada of being right-wing extremist militia. And I find that quite hilarious because anyway, I'm a minister. I teach in a suit and tie and I'm totally open and I preach non-violence and yet we're being labelled that by the RCMP. I think it's more propaganda than anything else. What they're afraid of, I don't know."

But Muljiani warns if there was violence it would be because the government provoked it. See the trigger. He isn't really a good old christian afterall he's everything we've been saying all along.

This is a classic misconstruing of text and twisting it to sound like sinister terrorism.

"If the government pushes things too far and more people get angrier, I think it's time for people to stop being angry and start just doing something about it. And I think the anger part is something we have to be watching out for."

See the negative trigger?
Yes

It sounds like a long way off from trying to save a few bucks from the tax man. But buying into the anti-tax movement could come at a price, either jail or helping to sow the seeds of extremism.

oh yea oh yea oh yea.
Now are you really really really sure you don't want to pay your taxes after all that.
How about another plan?


This is mainstream Canadian media. It hasn't hit British media yet because only a handful have had the courage to walk the talk. Now they are buying peoples homes off them here and renting it back to them and poor people's prices. The home they've already bought and paid for this is.

So it won't take off here so quick - yet.

Keep stealing our cars though and your little vignette in their about the futility of the traffic argument won't matter a tut. Will we call to arms? will we heck.

No we will form our own communities with our own currencies and say by by mr policy men. See ya. Wouldn't wanna be ya.

[danster82]

God they are so predictable.

All I was hearing was "Freeman on the land, Bombs, Kill, Sovereign, 168 dead, legal fiction, Terrorist, lower case name, Timothy mcviegh, revoke consent, Crazy and so on and so on

Very sophisticated propaganda.... :/

[lightindarkness]

Willfully ignorant folks like darkness will never get it. They simply cant see the Big Picture of what FMOTL is really about.
They refuse the Light, such is their willful and stubborn choice,
reveling in the mud of self-excreted ignorance.

I see you have failed...again.

Were still waiting for your case law citation that dictates the US government must define income since the tax system actually applies to gross income.

You have still failed to provide that. Copying and pasting for a tax protester cite doesn't answer the question, because there IS NO SUCH CITATION. Do you know why? Because we don't have to have one.

[vladmir]

Lets do a review to see how its you who has failed, you disruptive tw@t.
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1058669249&postcount=7
This is where you have failed to distinguish between Gross Income and Income. You thought just copy and pasting something which had the word income in it, would somehow define the word itself.
You failed to make the differentiation, and failed to find the definition of the word 'income' in the IRS tax code.
Then i pointed out that "The definition of the word “income” does not exist in Title 26. How do we really know this? The Supreme Court tells us so:

U.S. v. Ballard, 535 F2d 400, cert denied, 429 U.S. 918, 50 L.Ed.2d 283, 97 S.Ct. 310 (1976)

"...the general term 'income' is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code..."

So now, that you have failed to understand the gravity and tragedy of the situation that exists, since you have failed to see how important it is to have a definition of the word income in the tax code, and it isint there,and since you have pretended that the following quoted dosent exist
Exactly what is this thing, this “income” that is taxed? Where can we find the legal definition as used in Title 26? Let's ask the Supreme Court.



Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746.(1883)

"Among these unalienable rights, as proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant, the right of any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give them their highest enjoyment... It has been well said that, the property which every man has is his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property so it is the most sacred and inviolable..."

Redfield v. Fisher, 292 P. 813, 135 Or. 180, 294 P.461, 73 A.L.R. 721 (1931)

"The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the state; but the individuals' rights to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an excise cannot be imposed."

Edwards v. Keith, 231 F110, 113 (1916)

"The phraseology of form 1040 is somewhat obscure .... But it matters little what it does mean; the statute and the statute alone determines what is income to be taxed. It taxes only income 'derived' from many different sources; one does not 'derive income' by rendering services and charging for them... IRS cannot enlarge the scope of the statute." (NOTE: This is taken out of context but is an eye-opening statement nonetheless. It ties in perfectly with the other cases cited here.)

Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930)

"The claim that salaries, wages, and compensation for personal services are to be taxed as an entirety and therefore must be returned by the individual who has performed the services which produce the gain is without support, either in the language of the Act or in the decisions of the courts construing it... It is to be noted that, by the language of the Act, it is not salaries, wages, or compensation for personal services that are to be included in gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal services."

Conner v. U.S., 303 F Supp. 1187 (1969)

"... whatever may constitute income, therefore, must have the essential feature of gain to the recipient. This was true when the 16th Amendment became effective, it was true at the time of Eisner v. Macomber Supra, it was true under Section 22(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1938, and it is likewise true under Section 61(a) of the I.R.S. Code of 1954. If there is not gain, there is not income ... Congress has taxed income not compensation."

"There is a clear distinction between `profit' and 'wages', or a compensation for labor. Compensation for labor (wages) cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law. The word `profit', as ordinarily used, means the gain made upon any business or investment- - - a different thing altogether from the mere compensation for labor."

Emanuel J. Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Company 247 US 179 (1918)

"Yet it is plain, we think, that by the true intent and meaning of the Act the entire proceeds of a mere conversion of capital assets were not to be treated as income. Whatever difficulty there may be about a precise and scientific definition of 'income' it imports, as used here, something entirely distinct from principal or capital either as a subject of taxation or as a measure of the tax; conveying rather the idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activities.

Nothing rings a bell with unhatched eggs like yourself,
now you do a 180 degree turn and say that its ok that the IRS not define the word income, that the citizens still cannot question that glaring hole to seek further understanding. Why cant the people question?
Simply because the govt. says so?
And they have all teh guns?
EPIC FAILAGE darkness.

Also for casual readers, you might want to check out Aaron Russo's film America: Freedom to Fascism.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4312730277175242198
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4312730277175242198

and no darkness, its not something that can be labled as 'debunked'.

[girlgye]

Excellent work Vladimir. Though it is there way of getting you to do their work for them. Expect things to change once you site case law in terms of fresh acts that appear.

Really having gone around in full circle FMOL simple innit, Commercial Redemption, Patriot, Sovereignty, Remedies in Commerce, FMOL bit more informed now and prepared to go through the wash cycle the second time. I think doing the NOUI/CoR is vital if you want your land GMO free. Food free from irridation. With the right support you can make your own water from the rain which can run your house thus cutting the need to buy expensive ozone filters which cut out the garbage. God every plumber after seeing them is CONVINCED.

We are being slowly killed and dumbed down. this board is no exception.

How refreshing to see you stand up for justice Vladmir and I do hope you don't get burned out sooner rather than later by all this.

[merlincove]

i have deleted a few posts in the thread due to the continuation of a deleted inflamotory post as being off topic.

While there were some worthwhile points made and questions asked, to continue those points and questions would in effect derail the thread further.

Unfortunatley some members seem only to want to post dissertion on the forum and i would ask that members not give themselves over to furthering such topics as such invariably lead only to derailment.

Using our energy to discuss worthwhile topics is the best way forward and the only way to discover remedy to the issues at hand.

Thanks.

Merlin.

[danster82]

i have deleted a few posts in the thread due to the continuation of a deleted inflamotory post as being off topic.

While there were some worthwhile points made and questions asked, to continue those points and questions would in effect derail the thread further.

Unfortunatley some members seem only to want to post dissertion on the forum and i would ask that members not give themselves over to furthering such topics as such invariably lead only to derailment.

Using our energy to discuss worthwhile topics is the best way forward and the only way to discover remedy to the issues at hand.

Thanks.

Merlin.

It basicl happens to every thread they instantly get derailed into personal squabbles.

[yozhik]

Can't believe my origami ninja warriors got cut by Hurricane Merlincove :rolleyes:

Doesn't he realise its against the rules to cut origami?
No scissors allowed - strictly folding only.
:D