Browns - they are going in now

[cruise4]

30 to 40 rounds fired behind the house noise heard in the woods every one is at battle stations this in not a drill i repeat this in not a drill.

Danny



http://www.wtprn.com/listen.shtml



TELL THEM THE WORLD IS WATCHING!



Plainfield Police: 603-643-2222

Sullivan County Sheriff: 603-863-4200





WMUR News is not going to cover this story, because the Police are Stonewalling and will not confirm the reports of Gunfire. Call them up and demand that they cover this issue! 1-800-257-5151


Federal Agents have been physically shaking the Trailer of one of Ed’s supporters in order to attempt to provocateur return fire from the Brown’s supporters to be used as a pretext to use force.

Ed & Elaine Brown
401 Center of Town Road
Plainfield, New Hampshire 03781

Get to the Browns house now!

If you are unable, use this list below, call them and dont stop calling!

Please flood the phones and do not stop till good things start to happen.

1: Sullivan County, NH (Plainfield is located here) Sheriff Michael Prozzo -- 603-863-4200

Please call the sheriff's office and urge him to act under his authority as the supreme law enforcement official in Sullivan County. He is the only elected law enforcement "official" and has the authority to tell the feds to back off. But so far he hasn't done anything but hide from this whole matter. Urge him to do something RIGHT NOW!!!

2: New Hampshire State Governor John Lynch -- 603-271-2121

Please call Gov. Lynch's office right now! They will likely try to skirt the issue and tell you to call the U.S. Marshall's office. Don't let them off the hook! Tell them that the GOVERNOR is supposed to have the authority over New Hampshire -- not the feds!!! Ed does not live on federal land! Ed is not under federal jurisdiction! Plainfield isn't on federal land, the county isn't, and the state isn't. The feds have no business there. The governor could act to stop it and keep the feds out. As with the sheriff, so far he has not!!! Call and tell them HE ABSOLUTELY MUST EXERCISE HIS AUTHORITY AND STOP THE FEDS.

3: The U.S. Marshall's office: 603-225-1632

Please call and tell them they have no authority, no business, and should immediately stop the violent actions they are taking against the Browns. They will likely ask for your name and number -- that's what they asked from me -- you can give it to them if you'd like, or not if you don't want to -- but don't be scared of these guys. Get your message that this should be resolved without the continued use of violence and the threat of violence. Tell them we are watching!

OTHER NUMBERS TO CONTACT:

Sullivan County Sheriff's Office
14 Main St.
P.O. Box 27
Newport, NH 03773
PH 603.863.4200
FAX 603.863.0012

Representative Matthew S. Houde
Home Address:
Matthew S. Houde
P.O. Box 66
Meriden, NH 03770-0066
Phone: (603)504-2744
matthewhoude@yahoo.com
Business Address:
Vermont Law School
Chelsea St., PO Box 96
S. Royalton, VT 05068
Phone: (802)831-1241

Representative Carla M. Skinder
Carla M. Skinder
465 East Road
Cornish, NH 03745-4433
Phone: (603)542-6065
Phone: (603)543-6895
FAX: (603)863-8383
cskinder@vrh.org
carla.skinder@leg.state.nh.us

Senator Peter Hoe Burling
Senate Office:
Statehouse
107 N. Main St., Room 105
Concord, N.H. 03301
(603) 271-2642
peter.burling@leg.state.nh.us
Home:
20 Lang Road
Cornish, N.H. 03745-4209
(603) 675-6255

Governor Lynch
Office of the Governor
State House
25 Capitol Street
Concord, NH 03301
(603)271-2121
(603)271-7680 (fax)

[cruise4]

Prisonplanet also down

What we know so far:

Five minutes after the email was sent, WeAreChange contacted the local Plainfield NH Police. The female dispatcher said that she did not have any reports about shots fired. About 15 minutes later Dan Riley went live on We The People Radio and described shots fired and movement on the north side of the house. Branches breaking in the woods and movement around the generator shed. Scouting teams were sent out and movement continued around the house for the next hour. They heard a single shot and then a series of bursts of rounds going off around 50 yards from the house.

2:37 am Jack Blood reported he talked with Elaine Brown. Things appear stable at this point.

3:15 am Dan Riley called back in to WTPRN to report that at 3am he still heard noises coming from the woods.

4:10 am Dan called back to report that he still hears noises in the woods.

4:22 am Dan called back to report "they are shaking Jim's trailer up there, trying to provoke them" "Jim called and said they are shaking the hell out of my trailer" "Jim is a friend of Ed and Elaine brown" -also confirmed by Elaine Brown via Jack Blood at 4:30am </SPAN>

What, with the recent arrest of Korey Rowe (a political prisoner in effect) and the shootings at Ed and Elaine Brown's, the 'Feds' are really showing their true colours now. I wonder why!
Is this anything to do with trying to conceal the great work of We Are Change activists and true Americans.

[phoenixchilde]

Let me get this straight, you accuse me of having my head in the sand, but you're supporting a rich asshole who's refusing to pay the taxes that you and everyone else in the world pays?

This guy is no righteous avenger. He's simply a rich, greedy asshole, who doesn't want to give up any of his money. It's that simple.

[shodan]

Let me get this straight, you accuse me of having my head in the sand, but you're supporting a rich asshole who's refusing to pay the taxes that you and everyone else in the world pays?

This guy is no righteous avenger. He's simply a rich, greedy asshole, who doesn't want to give up any of his money. It's that simple

Personally, I support the Brownes. I support them because they are symbolic of a stand against draconian tax levels, and one can only presume the money goes towards war, it certainly doesn't go towards education or health. I couldn't care less how much they are worth, if everyone did it, at the same time, it would be a damn fine start to turning this mess we are all in around.

[2013]

correct me if im wrong please , but it was my understanding that the browns refusal to pay tax was on the grounds that it is an illegal tax .Along the lines of what david icke amongst others has been exposing for some time .The arron russo film freedom to fascism highlights the same issues .I wouldnt of thought that it makes any difference that the person drawing attention to the situation is rich or poor , in fact the richer the better as no one seems to take notice of the little guy .How much attention would a poor working man get if he tried standing up to the system we wouldnt hear anything about it ..Rich or poor the law dont differentiate when it comes to not towing the line it would seem .Is the treatment he is recieving fair ? I have read a bit about this matter but if anyone has anything more to add who has studied the case more i would be interested in reading it Thank you :D

[2013]

Personally, I support the Brownes. I support them because they are symbolic of a stand against draconian tax levels, and one can only presume the money goes towards war, it certainly doesn't go towards education or health. I couldn't care less how much they are worth, if everyone did it, at the same time, it would be a damn fine start to turning this mess we are all in around.

Yes if everyone all stood as one to be counted then it would make a huge difference well put that person :D

[cruise4]

Tut Tut Tut, phoenixchilde... you have learnt nothing from your last humiliation.

I don't pay tax. I am taking personal responsibilty in many areas of my life. I am not as brave as the Browns and their supporters, so my tactic is to keep my income below the personal Allowance level.

May I refer you to this article:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56855

The people are being robbed blind by the Federal Reserve System, which was established to funnel money and public resources into the coffers of Rockefella, Rothschild and other illuminati scum. Your failure to investigate only serves to propogate this felony.

Once again you are exposed as an idiot who will choose to learn nothing even when the information is posted straight in front of you.

[cruise4]

What I don't get in this article is how Blackwater could be involved. Aren't they private citizens? Can someone from the US explain this. Worrying development for everyone, I reckon, if true.

Shots Fired At Browns Probable Attempt at Provocation
Numerous incidents last night around New Hampshire couple's property had frantic observers worried siege was underway
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Sunday, July 29, 2007


30 to 40 shots were fired outside Ed and Elaine Brown's house last night in what was a probable attempt at provocation to goad the Browns and their supporters into a violent response.

Alex Jones spoke to Elaine Brown at around 11:30pm last night and confirmed that what sounded like automatic weapon fire was heard coming from a wooded area behind the house.

Another supporter of the Browns who was staying on the property in a trailer was also startled when his mobile home was violently pounded on in the middle of the night, but the perpetrator escaped.

According to the Brown's blog, others reported seeing Blackwater vehicles parked around the property on satellite surveillance images of the area.

Danny Riley, a friend of the Browns who is also staying in the house, earlier reported that a vehicle driven by the Plainfield Chief of Police had made its way onto the property and was blocking his exit but fishtailed and suddenly accelerated away from the scene violently.

The Palinfield Police offcie told Riley that they were putting down tracks to check how many vehicles were entering the property.

Frantic calls were made to the New Hampshire authorities throughout the night by concerned radio listeners, but early this morning the police denied any involvement in the incidents.

The events coincided with coordinated hack attacks of the Infowars, Prison Planet and We Are Change websites, which went down just 20 minutes before the gunshots were heard.

Early indications suggest that this was an attempt to provoke the Browns and their supporters into a violent response.

Similar tactics were employed when the Browns held a Live Free Or Die jamboree two weeks ago when a Homeland Security helicopter flew low over the attendees and circled the property.

As ever, we are calling for calm heads on both sides and asking that the authorities leave the Browns alone and avoid needless bloodshed from taking place.

[phoenixchilde]

correct me if im wrong please , but it was my understanding that the browns refusal to pay tax was on the grounds that it is an illegal tax .

His grounds for calling it an illegal tax was saying that there's no law on the books that says you have to pay income tax. When he was proven wrong on that regard, he refused to pay tax on the grounds that he's above man's law and only obeys the laws in the bible. That's kinda funny in itself because the bible has a paragraph where Jesus himself told people to pay taxes. The fact that he keeps changing his story helps prove to me that he's not doing this for moral reasons.

The most interesting thing is the way that he and his wife signed their court documents. Edward, a Living Soul in the Body of the Lord, of the House of Israel, and Elaine, a Living Soul in the Body of the Lord, of the House of Israel. This started after they started hanging out with some cultist who flew all the way from Hawaii to visit them.

[phoenixchilde]

Tut Tut Tut, phoenixchilde... you have learnt nothing from your last humiliation.

Sorry to break it to you, but I wasn't humiliated by your inability to counter my facts.

May I refer you to this article:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56855

That is an interesting article. However it would be interesting to see how appeals stand up to it.

Here's an interesting webpage written by a law professor who has a personal interest in tax protesters.

http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/IncomeTax.htm

The first two links in particular are the ones that apply most specifically to Mr. Brown's case.

Once again you are exposed as an idiot who will choose to learn nothing even when the information is posted straight in front of you.

If you're so sure that I can learn nothing, why post it? Let's see if you can carry on the rest of this debate without childish name calling.

[phoenixchilde]

Oh, and by the way, contradictory to the first post, WMUR is not refusing to cover this story. They are stating that the local police and neighbours all state that there is no police activity in the area. According to their article, the only person in the area who is claiming to have heard shots fired is a supporter of the Brown's, who is staying on their property. It's all right here.

http://www.wmur.com/news/13776502/detail.html

[cruise4]

This was an ongoing story and upon first seeing it my over-riding concern was trying to save lives. That it subsequently turned out be a probable deliberate provocation which was denied by certain parties is neither here nor there, in this context. The people I believe are on the Browns side.

I will now post various information concerning the Tax issue which should enable you to at least understand that the position is not Black and White. I am from the UK and this relates to US tax, and I am not going to get into the ins and outs of this. I am already confident in the whole System we live in being corrupt from top to bottom and run by criminals and thats the bottom line for me. My interpretation is tax is criminal by default in such a circumstance.


First off as a Lawyer this Guy has a vested interest and I don't know
his background or motives. There are some interesting lines here and
there and by no means am I going through all that and picking it apart.
Nor do links to the IRS and their explanations impress me. They are the
crooks doing this. Its akin to the Police investigating themselves:

Quotes from his site follow:

Now, it may be true, as the protestors report, that if you send the IRS
a letter asking them to show you the laws that require you to pay
taxes, you do not get an intelligent answer. I don't really know; I've
never tried.
(comment: enough said)

If it is true that the IRS can't get its act together to send this
document to anyone who asks the question what laws require payment of
income taxes, I'm guessing it's because the IRS is a big government
agency
(comment: just what we want lawyers guessing)

Here's an oddball story: Tommy K. Cryer, a man who proudly proclaims
that he hasn't paid his income taxes in ten years, and who made a
series of videos explaining that there's no law requiring most people
to pay taxes, is prosecuted for failing to file and is acquitted! His
analysis: "The court could not find a law that makes me liable or makes
my revenues taxable." Could it be true?
Of course not. Criminal income tax cases are subject to a special rule:
the government has the burden of proving, not only that the defendant
didn't pay his taxes, but that the defendant knew he had to pay his
taxes. This is very unusual.
(comment: so its 'oddball' now is it)

The problem is that tax protestors are never satisfied. Arguing with
them is like playing whack-a-mole. Each time you answer whatever absurd
argument they're making, they just switch to a different, but equally
absurd argument. You answer that, and they switch to another one, and
so on, until eventually they cycle back to where they started.
(comment: That would be because they actually argue their case then
would it?)

That's why the target market for my website is not hard-core tax
protestors, but people who have been exposed to tax protestor rhetoric
and who wonder if it could possibly be true, but who are still open to
reason and who can accept the law if it's intelligently laid out for
them.
(comment: for people read sheeple)

These men are entertainers. Both of them are very good at what they do.
Tom Cruise is a fine actor. I particularly liked his performance in
Rain Man. But that does not make him a doctor. Americans have the good
sense to understand this. Most people realize that Mr. Cruise is sadly
mistaken with regard to theories of mental health care. He has rejected
conventional psychiatry and embraced bizarre theories that appear to
have something to do with his chosen religion (the Church of
Scientology). I think most people understand that, if someone you loved
had a mental health problem, you would want to get advice from a
competent doctor, not from a confused actor like Mr. Cruise.

The same reasoning applies to Mr. Russo. To have produced a successful
Hollywood movie like Trading Places is a considerable achievement. But
that does not mean that Mr. Russo knows the first thing about how to
figure out what the law is. America: Freedom to Fascism shows that he
certainly has no clue about the income tax laws. If you want to know
what the law is, go to a legal expert, not a movie producer.
(comment: would you call this a fair comparison?)

The fact that some former IRS agents are tax protestors is not
persuasive.
Russo shows interviews with people he refers to as the "tax experts." I
didn't recognize everyone he showed, but he included Larken Rose and
Irwin Schiff. Considering that they have both been criminally convicted
of not paying their income taxes, I think it's fair to say that they—
and by implication the other people that Russo interviews—are not "tax
experts."
comment: As the assertion is the IRS are a criminal body holding guns
to peoples heads I hope you can see the problem with this statement)

Mr. Russo's "tax experts" loudly and proudly quote some vintage Supreme
Court opinions that say that the Sixteenth Amendment "conferred no new
power of taxation." This is true, but tax protestors misinterpret the
significance of this point.
(comment: Do they?)

I am sure that the IRS takes improper enforcement actions sometimes.
This bloke then goes on to argue the case for the federal reserve.
Having looked into this, its the clincher for me. This point alone
shows me the man's a stooge of some sort. The Federal Reserve System is
undefendable in my opinion and many others.

[cruise4]

May I suggest you watch the following videos and visit the links:


The misrepresentation and misapplication of the United States federal income tax constitutes the largest acquisition of wealth by way of ... all deception in history. A handful of government lawyers fabricated an intricate maze of legalese which created a perfectly Constitutional tax (a tax on income derived from certain types of international and foreign commerce), but which at the same time could easily be misread to give the impression that the income of all Americans is subject to the tax. For decades, the American people have been "conditioned" to believe that the income tax applies to all income and trained to pay "their" taxes. All the while, however, hidden in a previously nearly universally misunderstood (therefore misapplied) section of the law known as Subchapter N, Section 861 was the truth that the income tax is NOT a direct tax on incomes but is an indirect tax imposed only on those individuals engaged in certain types of international and possessions commerce. Most Americans are engaged in purely domestic commerce (commerce that occurs entirely within and between the 50 states). Subchapter N proves that domestic income received by residents of the United States (most incomes) is not taxed, due to Constitutional restrictions on Congress' power to tax.


"Theft By Deception"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7521758492370018023&q=Theft+by+Deception&hl=en

Also see Ed and Elaine Browns Site:
http://edbrownvlog.blogspot.com/

This is a good primer on how to navigate the CFR and USC to look and learn about the IRC from its source:

http://whatistaxed.com/who_is_taxed.htm

Linked to:

http://uscode.house.gov/

America Freedom to fascism by Aaron Russo
http://www.myspace.com/1fastwalker

Why the Lawyers run America
http://www.rense.com/general77/citiz.htm

Freedom Law School is offering $100,000 to the first person who can demonstrate any of the three propositions listed below. The winner can collect up to $300,000 if he or she can prove all of the propositions below.

1. Show what statute written by the Congress of the United States requires Americans to file an income tax “CONFESSION” (return) and pay an income tax.

2. How can Americans file an income tax “CONFESSION” (return) without giving up their 5th amendment right not to give any information to the government that may be used to prosecute them.

3. Prove that the 16th amendment to the United States Constitution, which, according to the IRS and modern American courts permitted the income tax to exist was, lawfully added to the United States Constitution.
http://www.livefreenow.org/30K_challenge.cfm

Ezra 7:24 Also we certify you, that touching any of the priests and Levites, singers, porters, Nethinims, or ministers of this house of God, it shall not be lawful to impose toll, tribute, or custom, upon them.

Then there is always the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Whenever we kicked out King George, we didn't have a government. We were ALL Sovereign. We were all equal before the Law. One group of Sovereigns over here don't have a Right to put the rest of us Sovereigns into servitude without our voluntary consent. I've never knowingly given up any of my Sovereignty, have you?

For more information on this subject, please visit:

http://www.myutsi.info/WhoRU/SArchive.htm

If you want the law. The actual law. Not somebodies interpretation of it. Go here:

http://uscode.house.gov/

http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/new/home.asp

http://www.etherzone.com/2003/stang082203.shtml

http://www.etherzone.com/2003/stang082203.shtml

Brief History of the IRS
http://www.irs.gov/irs/article/0,,id=149200,00.html

Here is the link to the Blue Folder.

http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/MISC/6700/BlueFolder.htm


On May 12, 2006 in Peoria, Illinois, the attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) begged the court to dismiss all charges against IRS victim Robert Lawrence in federal District Court.

The motion for dismissal came on the heels of a surprise tactic by Lawrence’s defense attorney Oscar Stilley.

The tactic threatened exposure of IRS’s on-going efforts to defraud the public. The move put DOJ attorneys in a state of panic that left them with only one alternative: beg for dismissal, with prejudice.

Stilley’s tactic paid off. Sixty days earlier, the DOJ had indicted Lawrence on three counts of willful failure to file a 1040 form, and three felony counts of income tax evasion. The federal Judge dismissed all charges with prejudice, meaning the DOJ cannot charge Lawrence with those crimes again.

http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTP2/UPDATES/Update2006-06-09.htm

[cruise4]

Go here:

http://whatistaxed.com/reading.htm

You have not determined what "Taxable income" is in the section you quoted. Any word used in the law must either be defined by the law itself. Or by common usage/dictionaries of the time. You have determined what gross income is. But where do you find what determines which gross income is taxable?

Here's what you will find on the above link. It is the most succinct description of the law concerning the Fed income tax. It is as short as it can be, and still explain. USC26 is written in a confusing way. I wonder why they would do that?

The tax laws in Title 26 USC begin with law Number One.

USC Sec. 1
"There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of [everyone] a tax..."
Over five hundred pages later, it says

USC Sec. 63
"In general... the term ''taxable income'' means gross income minus the deductions"
Going back a dozen pages we find

USC Sec. 61
(a) "Except as otherwise provided ...gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:..."


Many people don't even read the tax rules before protesting

"To rebel against a powerful political, economic, religious, or social establishment is very dangerous and very few people do it, except, perhaps, as part of a mob."
--Isaac Asimov



Regulations in the CFR are written to explain the laws to us, and to provide rules for us to follow. So, we look up the same numbered regulation (USC 61 = CFR 61) to see if it can tell us what is "otherwise provided."

CFR Sec. 61(b)
"more common items... are included in or excluded from gross income entirely, or treated in some special manner. To the extent that another section of the Code or of the regulations thereunder, provides specific treatment for any item of income, such other provision shall apply notwithstanding section 61"
So, if another section of the Code, or regulations, provides specific treatment for any item, the "other provision shall apply", in spite of Sec. 61 and its claim to all income. And, CFR 61(b) says, "more common items... are... excluded from gross income entirely". It just so happens that another section does provide specific treatment for more common items (any item) of income. That section is found thousands of pages later in Sec. 861, "the rules... for determining taxable income."

Your own computer can confirm to you that "the rules", including the following provision, are exclusive and occur only once. They cannot be mistaken for another set of "rules... for determining taxable income".

Remember, we are told if either, has a section that provides "specific treatment for any item of income", "such other provision [or section] shall apply".

CFR Sec. 861-8T(d)(2)(iii)
Income that is not considered tax exempt. The following items are not considered to be exempt, eliminated, or excluded income and, thus, [thus, are taxable and] may have expenses, losses, or other deductions allocated and apportioned to them:
(A) In the case of a foreign taxpayer...
(B) the gross income of [international and foreign sales]...
(C) the gross income of a possessions corporation ...
(D) Foreign earned income ...
According to The Principles of Statutory Construction, if a list does not include an item, it has been excluded purposefully and is excluded from coverage or application of the statute.

Look carefully at that list. Are your items of income included, or have they been excluded from the list?

If you're asking how do we know this is the list of taxable items? Whatever words are used to search for how to determine tax, 861 is the result. Just one example, "taxable income", "excluded income", and "items" only occur together in one regulation, and that's within one simple rule/list, in Sec. 861.


"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." - Johann W. Von Goethe

The rule says, "Income that is not considered tax exempt" - Don't underestimate this powerful statement. It is a masterpiece of a double negative. In the common tongue, it more accurately means "Income That Is Taxable", or in other words it is telling us What Is Taxed. Not only does this section (provision) provide specific treatment for any item of income as required, but it's also the only location - in the entire CFR - with an actual list of items of "Income That Is Taxable". Where is the income of most Americans? Why do we consider [Judge] our domestic income taxable when the regulation clearly lists what is does consider taxable?

Continued..................

[cruise4]

Continued...Part two:

Obviously, CFR Sec. 861-8T(d)(2)(iii) does not specifically say that a particular income, like yours, is exempt. Or does it? Actually, yes, it does.

Tax Rules must tell us What is Taxed, not what isn't taxed. Just like the rules must tell us how to determine the amount of tax we do owe, and not the amount of tax we do not owe. Do you think we're just making this up to fit a story? Since this is the only specific list of taxable items, any item of income that is considered taxable ("not considered tax exempt") must be included within this list, that is according to The Principles of Statutory Construction.

Look at the list in Sec. 861-8T(d)(2)(iii). ALL of the "more common items" ARE "excluded from gross income entirely" [as we are plainly told in CFR Sec. 61(b)], unless they are gained from foreign sources, or you happen to be a foreign taxpayer.
"how to determine taxable
income" - Sec. 861 Let him who has
understanding
calculate the number
--Revelation 13: 16-18

Again, that whole process went just like this:

There is a tax on taxable income.
"In general... the term 'taxable income' means gross income..."
"Except as otherwise provided... gross income means all income."
[Except...] "more common items... are... excluded from gross income entirely."
[Except... ] If "another section of Code or... Regulations... provides specific treatment for any item of income, such other provision shall apply notwithstanding [in spite of] section 61."
[Except...] The list of "Income that is not considered tax exempt ...or excluded income" i.e. what is taxed, does not include a citizens income when it is earned within the United States.
According to well established principles of statutory construction, if an item is not included in a list, it has been excluded purposefully and is excluded from coverage or application.
There aren't any other sections in the entire CFR claiming to have the rules that apply in determining taxable income, and there are no other lists of items of income that are nonexempt. These "rules"... and the "list" of "items"... happen to occur within the same section, together, along with the "list" of "specific sources". If reasonable is the required condition in law, there can be no mistake that we are examining the correct rules applicable to "determining taxable income" of a US citizen. You can verify all of this with your own computer.

In case you were wondering, following next is the rule for exempt and nonexempt income. While we may naturally tend to seek our answers as shown below in (1)(i) and (1)(ii) in terms of being excluded or exempt, the rules only give us this information as it is referred to in number (2), which is given in terms of being "nonexempt." Notice that number (2) shows that only nonexempt income is required to be included.

26CFR1.265-1(b)
Exempt income and nonexempt income. (1) As used in this section, the term class of exempt income means any class of income (whether or not any amount of income of such class is received or accrued) wholly exempt from the taxes imposed by Subtitle A of the Code. For purposes of this section, a class of income which is considered as wholly exempt from the taxes imposed by subtitle A includes any class of income which is:
(i) Wholly excluded from gross income under any provision of Subtitle A, or
(ii) Wholly exempt from the taxes imposed by Subtitle A under the provisions of any other law.
(2) As used in this section the term nonexempt income means any income which is required to be included in gross income.


Why is the list of nonexempt income in 861-8T(d)(2)(iii) so short?

Where are all the "more common items" of income? In fact, aren't they missing because the rules say "more common items... are... exclude from gross income entirely"? All of these terms and their conditions are written in plain English in the CFR.

The whole purpose of rules (any rules) is to list the affected items and give the requirements.

Is taxation theft?



Just follow this simple logic: Over the year, we accumulate what we hope is a tall pile of gross income. From this pile, we hope to shovel away as much of it as possible, in the form of deductions, because the remainder is taxable income. However, exempt income does not require any shoveling because it is Not even a part of gross income; it is tax exempt. According to the only list of items of "Income that is not considered tax exempt" (i.e. "Income That Is Taxable"), most Americans do not have any Taxable Income, they have been excluded from the "list". Expressio unius est exclusio alterius.

You can use your own computer to verify all the Search Results that lead to Sec. 861-8. The results include many exclusive terms that give specific instructions to compute income tax. If you think this is simply incorrect, keep in mind that only one section contains "specific guidance", "prescribing rules" for "determining taxable income" while telling us "how to determine taxable income" and titled "Computation of taxable income". Many more similar results occur.

We challenge anyone; CPAs, attorneys, IRS, tax experts and all, to find search results that would allow conclusions otherwise. In fact, the term "taxable income" is only found in 817 files, and "excluded income" is only found in seven files, so it's not difficult really to dispense with other search terms and simply read all the relevant files. The one reasonable conclusion is that only the income gained from foreign sources is taxable income for a US citizen. Evidently, the US Federal Income Tax is a big scam upon its citizens by, surprise, politicians, bureaucrats, and bankers that play both sides of any issue.

See the Search Examples and How to Search to better understand the search process.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This concludes the Five Minute Reading. For more information, continue with the 15 Minute Reading, or see the complete Analysis.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



THE 15 MINUTE READING
Quick Facts:

Laws or the statutes = United States Code (USC). It's formatted like - USC Sec. 861.
Regulations or rules = Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Formatted - CFR Sec. 1.861.


Income within the Code of Federal Regulations is referred to as:
All Income
Any Income
Items of Income
Gross Income
Taxable Income
Exempt Income
Excluded Income
...and other terms of Income.


But, the tax imposed is upon Taxable Income. Remember this, it's very easy to forget.


If the title of a particular section is unclear, pay little attention to it, regardless of what it seems to indicate. USC Sec. 7806(b) shows that the individual titles of sections, i.e. descriptive matter relating to the contents, or table of contents, and cross references, outlines, etc. are only tools for the location of a subject. The laws (and rules) are only found on the inside of these labeled sections.
This shows...
Only the words under the title are law.
A title is only a tool for locating a subject.
Related sections may be located far apart.
What the law says:

USC Sec. 1
"There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of [everyone] a tax..."

USC Sec. 63
"In general... the term ''taxable income'' means gross income..."

USC Sec. 61
(a) "Except as otherwise provided ...gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:..."
Regulations are written by the Treasury Secretary to interpret the laws and explain to us what we must do. At this point, we look up the corresponding regulation (USC 61 = CFR 61) to see if it offers a clue as to what is "otherwise provided."

CFR Sec. 61 (b)
"Cross references to other provisions of the Code are to be found throughout the regulations under section 61. The purpose of these cross references is to direct attention to the more common items which are included in or excluded from gross income entirely, or treated in some special manner. To the extent that another section of the Code or of the regulations thereunder, provides specific treatment for any item of income, such other provision shall apply notwithstanding section 61... "
CFR Section 61(b) tells us notwithstanding (or in spite of) what the law in USC Section 61(a) says about all income, there is such a thing as "more common items" of income that "are... excluded from gross income entirely", and if other sections provide more specific treatment, the "other provision shall apply". So, CFR 61(b) explains to us a little something about "Except as otherwise provided," like telling us the Cross references found throughout the regs have a purpose, to direct our attention to these "items which are... excluded... entirely."


There are Cross references in both CFR 61 and USC 61. The USC Cross references are pointing us to Sec. 861 and 862. These sections start with the title "Tax Based on Income From Sources Within or Without the United States".

Searching the tax rulebook with a computer shows "the rules... for determing taxable income" are found in 861. In addition, several other exclusive and specific terms, which provide "specific treatment for any item of income" confirm that Sec. 861 is absolutely relevant and required.

"...the intent of the lawmaker is to be found in the language that he has used". -- United States Supreme Court in U.S. V. Goldberg (1897)



[ WARNING: The Cross References to 861 are being removed from the USC for unclear reasons. You may have to look in an Edition of the USC that is slightly older. Or, look in the USCA or USCS. We found it in USC (1994) and USCA (2002). There is also a separately printed index that has these references.]

Since the law came first, we begin with the law, USC 861. Cross References in USC 61 are pointing us to Sec. 861 - Except as otherwise provided.

USC Sec. 861
(a) Gross income from sources within United States
The following items of gross income shall be treated as income from sources within the United States:
(1) Interest
(2) Dividends
(3) Personal services [...including Compensation for labor]
(4) ...[etc]
(5) ...[etc]
(b) Taxable income from sources within United States
From the items of gross income specified in subsection (a) as being income from sources within the United States there shall be deducted [ stuff ]...and other deductions properly apportioned or allocated thereto ...The remainder, if any, shall be included in full as taxable income from sources within the United States.
USC Sec. 861 clearly says "the remainder, if any, shall be... taxable income," and that's all the USC will ever know about the matter. Later, we see that the Treasury Secretary is the one who knows if any shall be taxable income ("under regulations prescribed by the Secretary" - USC Sec. 863).

USC 861 isn't a specific instruction, nor does it provide specific guidance. Not to mention that this is a law. We are told to follow the rules, which are binding on both the citizens and the IRS. All this law 'knows' is that, "if any" income remains, it shall be included in taxable income. How can we tell what is taxed, and where are the "deductions". How can we tell what is "excluded income"?

So, the rules and laws up to this point say that an unknown number (or type?) of "more common items" are "excluded from gross income entirely". Then "deductions" are applied and "if any" ("any items") happen to remain, they are included in taxable income. Also, we must still apply "another section" that "provides specific treatment for any item of income". This section must exist if it is written about, and "another section" is easily found with a computer. (Be aware that laws and rules refer to an "item", "any item", "item of income", "following items", "items of gross" and more "common items".) A more specific instruction still exists. We must find out what, "if any", remains and where the deductions and excluded incomes are located.

USC Sec. 861(b) is saying "there shall be... deductions properly... allocated thereto", but 861(a) only mentions one deduction. Where are the other deductions? Where are the specific items of taxable income and excluded income? They must be written down someplace. We must continue looking for more specifics. A computer search of keywords "deduction" with "allocated" provides us with Sec. 863 ...

USC Sec. 863
"Items of gross income... and deductions, other than those specified in sections 861(a) and 862(a), shall be allocated or apportioned to sources within or without the United States, under regulations prescribed by the Secretary."
USC Section 863 (the law) is leaving it up to the Secretary and his regulations (the rules) to prescribe items of gross, and deductions, which "shall be allocated or apportioned to sources." Isn't the law here giving too much power and control to a single person or entity? Who keeps track of the Secretaries here? Shouldn't this be corrected? Secretaries make prescriptions much too long and drawn out, using references to references to references. Required information is so scattered among the millions of words. Since USC 863 instructs us to allocate under regulations, we begin by examining regulation CFR 863 to see what is prescribed.

WHAT IS PRESCRIBED?
According to the law in USC 863, it says items of gross income and other deductions "shall be allocated or apportioned to sources within or without the United States, under regulations prescribed by the Secretary." So, we find the corresponding regulation (USC 863 = CFR 863) to see what is prescribed.

26CFR1.863-1
(c) Determination of taxable income. The taxpayer's taxable income from sources within or without the United States will be determined under the rules of Secs. 1.861-8 through 1.861-14T for determining taxable income from sources within the United States.
First, Sec. 863-1 says the rules for determining taxable income begin with 861-8, second, this fact is confirmed by the next 2 citations (and by several specific search terms, see Search Results).

26CFR1.863-3(d)
Determination of source of taxable income. Once the source of gross income has been determined under paragraph (c) of this section, the taxpayer must properly allocate and apportion separately under Secs. 1.861-8 through 1.861-14T the amounts of its expenses, losses, and other deductions to its respective amounts of gross income...

26CFR1.861-1(a)(1)
Within the United States.
The taxable income from sources within the United States, in the case of such income, shall be determined by deducting therefrom, in accordance with sections 861(b) and 863(a), the expenses, losses, and other deductions properly apportioned or allocated thereto and a ratable part of any other expenses, losses, or deductions which cannot definitely be allocated to some item or class of gross income. See Secs. 1.861-8 and 1.863-1.
Next we examine 861-8 as instructed, and we notice it claims "This section provides specific guidance... by prescribing rules for... deductions of the taxpayer." No other section claims to provide specific guidance or to have the rules that "apply in determining taxable income."

26CFR1.861-8(a)(1)
Computation of taxable income from sources within the United States and from other sources and activities.
...This section provides specific guidance for applying the cited Code sections by prescribing rules for the allocation and apportionment of expenses, losses, and other deductions (referred to collectively in this section as ``deductions'') of the taxpayer. The rules contained in this section apply in determining taxable income of the taxpayer from specific sources and activities under other sections of the Code, referred to in this section as operative sections. See paragraph (f)(1) of this section for a list and description of operative sections.
The above actually says, "The rules... apply in determining taxable income of the taxpayer from specific sources and activities under other sections of the Code... See paragraph (f)(1)... for a list." Looking in paragraph (f)(1) tells us that these are the "sections of the Code which require the determination of taxable income... and which give rise to statutory groupings" of income. What are statutory groupings?

CFR Sec. 861-8(a)(4)
... ``statutory grouping'' means the gross income from a specific source or activity which must first be determined in order to arrive at ``taxable income'' from which specific source or activity under an operative section. (See paragraph (f)(1) of this section.) Gross income from other sources or activities is referred to as the ``residual grouping of gross income'' or ``residual grouping.''
... In some instances, where the operative section so requires, the statutory grouping or the residual grouping may include, or consist entirely of, excluded income. See paragraph (d)(2) of this section with respect to the allocation and apportionment of deductions to excluded income.
It says both the statutory or residual sources of gross income "may include, or consist entirely of, excluded income", and that we should see paragraph (d)(2) for allocation and apportionment of deductions to excluded income.

[cruise4]

Part three................

861-8(d)(2)
Allocation and apportionment to exempt, excluded, or eliminated income. [Reserved] For guidance, see Sec. 1.861-8T(d)(2).
861-8(d)(2) says to see 861-8T(d)(2)

861-8T(d)(2)
(i)...the following rules shall apply to take account of income that is exempt or excluded, ...with respect to allocation and apportionment of deductions.
(A) Allocation of deductions. In allocating deductions that are definitely related to one or more classes of gross income, exempt income (as defined in paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of this section) shall be taken into account.
We are told in allocating deductions - exempt income shall be taken into account [as defined in (d)(2)(ii)].

To determine what is exempt, we need to see a specific list of sources and items.

But first, to avoid confusion, look at what is a "class of gross income."

The term a "class of gross income" consists of items of gross income...


Tax class begins
"Of all contrivances for cheating the laboring classes of mankind, none has been more effective than that which deludes them with paper money."
-- Daniel Webster



26CFR1.861-8(b)
Class of gross income. ...the gross income to which a specific deduction is definitely related ...is referred to as a ``class of gross income'' and may consist of one or more items of gross income. The rules emphasize the factual relationship between the deduction and a class of gross income. See paragraph (d)(1) of this section which provides that in a taxable year there may be no item of gross income in a class or less gross income than deductions allocated to the class, and paragraph (d)(2) of this section which provides that a class of gross income may include excluded income.
So, there may be no items left, and they may consist of excluded income. And, again we are told to see paragraph (d)(2). Paragraph (d)(2) tells us to see (d)(2)(ii) for a definition.

861-8T(d)(2)(ii)
...the term exempt income means any income that is, in whole or in part, exempt, excluded, or eliminated for federal income tax purposes.
Then finally, we are given a specific list. Immediately after the Secretary prescribes that "exempt income means ANY INCOME" that is eliminated for federal income tax purposes, 861-8T(d)(2)(iii) provides us with a list of income that is Not exempt, eliminated, or excluded. The list is titled, "Income that is not considered tax exempt", which also means "Income that Is Taxable." In other words, it is telling us exactly What Is Taxed.

Presented in the order given, the whole thing looks like this...

861-8T(d)(2)
Allocation and apportionment to exempt, excluded or eliminated income

(i) the following rules shall apply to take account of income that is exempt or excluded... (A) In allocating deductions...exempt income shall be taken into account.

(ii) Exempt income and exempt asset defined ...exempt income means any income that is, in whole or in part, exempt, excluded, or eliminated for federal income tax purposes.

(iii) Income that is not considered tax exempt. The following items are not considered to be exempt, eliminated, or excluded income and, thus, [are taxable and] may have expenses, losses, or other deductions allocated and apportioned to them:

(A) In the case of a foreign taxpayer (including a foreign sales corporation (FSC)) computing its effectively connected income, gross income (whether domestic or foreign source) which is not effectively connected to the conduct of a United States trade or business;
(B) In computing the combined taxable income of a DISC or FSC and its related supplier, the gross income of a DISC or a FSC;
(C) For all purposes under subchapter N of the Code, including the computation of combined taxable income of a possessions corporation and its affiliates under section 936(h), the gross income of a possessions corporation for which a credit is allowed under section 936(a); and
(D) Foreign earned income as defined in section 911 and the regulations thereunder (however, the rules of Sec. 1.911-6 do not require the allocation and apportionment of certain deductions, including home mortgage interest, to foreign earned income for purposes of determining the deductions disallowed under section 911(d)(6)).

Why is the income of most Americans not on the list? Could it be exempt since it is "not considered tax exempt?" Notice that there is no list of "Income that is considered tax exempt." Logically, who could possibly predict what sources or items may exist in the future. Such a list would be outdated as soon as a new "item" of income is developed.

Since any list of excluded income would eventually be incomplete, this likely explains why there is no such list, but only examples. It also coincides with the idea that our tax rules must tell us what we do owe, and not the amount we do not owe.

In case you are wondering, here is the rule for exempt and nonexempt income...

26CFR1.265-1(b)
Exempt income and nonexempt income. (1) As used in this section, the term class of exempt income means any class of income (whether or not any amount of income of such class is received or accrued) wholly exempt from the taxes imposed by Subtitle A of the Code. For purposes of this section, a class of income which is considered as wholly exempt from the taxes imposed by subtitle A includes any class of income which is:
(i) Wholly excluded from gross income under any provision of Subtitle A, or
(ii) Wholly exempt from the taxes imposed by Subtitle A under the provisions of any other law.
(2) As used in this section the term nonexempt income means any income which is required to be included in gross income.
Sec. 861-8T(d)(2)(iii) provides for both of these conditions.
(1) The rules have excluded the income of most Americans from it's specific list of taxable income.
(2) The rules don't require the income of most Americans since this income is not on the the list of "Income that is not considered tax exempt".

So, notice that here is what's happening:

From our tall piles of gross income, which we have produced over the year, we try to shovel away as much as possible the deductions. These are the allowable deductions, which help to reduce gross income because "The remainder, if any, shall be included in full as taxable income." While doing so, we see "exempt income... shall be taken into account", but exempt income is something that would not require any shoveling; because it is exempt, and not even a part of our tall pile of gross income. This is shown in (d)(2)(ii), the definition of exempt income.


Legal tender
"... the privilege of creating and issuing money... is the government's greatest creative opportunity... [saving] the taxpayers immense sums of money..."
-- Abraham Lincoln



How do we find out exactly to what extent the rule in 861-8T(d)(2)(iii) covers these items? To find out, we must determine its Scope. The scope shows it covers income "under other sections of the Code." In addition, CFR Sec. 861-8(f)(1), which states "sections of the Code which require the determination of taxable income" is also excluding the income of most Americans from it's own list (a list of sources). It actually makes perfect sense - if something is not included in a list, then by default, it has been excluded from the list. Can this be true? Yes, according to Principles of Statutory Construction, but also according to CFR Sec. 61(b), which says if there is another section of Code or regulations that treats any item of income more specifically than Sec. 61, then it shall apply.

CFR Sec. 61(b)
Cross references. Cross references to other provisions of the Code are to be found throughout the regulations under section 61. The purpose of these cross references is to direct attention to the more common items which are included in or excluded from gross income entirely, or treated in some special manner. To the extent that another section of the Code or of the regulations thereunder, provides specific treatment for any item of income, such other provision shall apply notwithstanding section 61 and the regulations thereunder.
Sec. 61(b) says more common items ARE excluded from gross entirely, and that if another section of the Code or regulations provides specific treatment for any item - it shall apply - in spite of what section 61 says about "Gross income... from whatever source." Well, in fact, the most specific treatment for any item of income is found under 861-8T(d)(2)(iii), and it actually tells us which "items are not... excluded income." If the items in the list are not excluded income, it's actually telling us the Income That Is Taxable. So, why aren't all the other items of "income from whatever source" on the list of Income That Is Taxable?

For example, if the income from your job (an item of income) is Not exempt, why isn't it on the only list of items that are Not exempt? Sec. 861-8T(d)(2)(ii) says, "exempt income means ANY INCOME." Wouldn't your income be on the list of "Income that is not considered tax exempt" (Income That Is Taxable) if it was? This shows that the income of most Americans is excluded for federal income tax purposes. Still doubt these are the correct rules? Have another look at the exclusive terms within the computerized search results, and ask yourself what are the odds that there could be so many specific terms indicating how to determine taxable income, yet they shouldn't apply? All the terms are found in Sec. 861 and 863.

What about the items of gross listed in USC Sec. 861?

Regulations in the CFR show that USC Sec. 861(b) only states how to determine taxable income "in general terms" [CFR Sec. 861-8(a)], and continues on to say "This section provides specific guidance... by prescribing rules for...deductions."

Regulations specifically say, "[ gross income ] may include, or consist entirely of, excluded income" and that "gross income may include excluded income" (See "excluded income" in Search Results).

USC Sec. 861 is giving us the "items of gross," but it does not say those are sources of "items of gross". There is a big difference. For example, we can have items of gross from the sale of inventory, one sale made in Texas (from sources within the U.S.) and one item of gross from France (sources without the U.S.). The law, USC 861, is only stating a very basic fact, saying there is such a thing as gross income from sources within the United States.

What if "items of gross" are only gross when they come from sources outside the United States, or when gained only by a particular group of taxpayer? It does not specify such a thing here, but it did in previous editions of U.S. Code [see below]. To understand this better, read What Can Be Excluded (See heading "WHAT CAN BE EXCLUDED" in the Analysis). Remember, as shown earlier, it is the Secretary of the Treasury who "prescribes" regulations for deductions, and also the specific "items of gross", which are taxable.

"Whosoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce... And when you realise that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or another, by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate."
-- President James Garfield

(Garfield was assassinated in 1881 within weeks of release of this statement during the first year of his Presidency, he died of blood poisoning on September 19, two months after he was shot.)

"Federal Reserve Notes are not Dollars."
-- Russell Munk, Assistant General Counsel, Department of the Treasury


"Federal Reserve notes... receive no backing by anything. This has been the case since 1933. The notes have no value... the... numbers appear in green." --www.treas.gov



In early editions of the U.S. Code, which then had different numbers assigned, this law was written as...

(a) In the case of a nonresident alien individual or of a citizen entitled to the benefits of section 1030 of this title, the following items of gross income shall be treated as income from sources within the United States: [ USC Sec. 958 (1928 Edition) ]
Now this law is written in 861 and begins as...

(a) Gross income from sources within United States
The following items of gross income shall be treated as income from sources within the United States: [ Title 26 USC Sec. 861 (2003 Edition) ]
Section 1030, in the old law, was for citizens making a certain amount of income from possessions.

(a) In case of citizens... gross income means only gross income from sources within the United States - If 80 per centum or more of the gross... was derived from sources within a possession of the United States..." [ USC Sec. 1030 (1928 Edition) ]
The written law of Section 1030 still exists today, but it is now in the regulations in CFR Sec. 931-1(b).

CFR Sec. 931-1(b)
"In the case of a citizen of the United States... gross income means only gross income from sources within the United States-- (i) If 80 percent or more" (...is from possessions, the term ``possession of the United States'' includes American Samoa, Guam, Johnston Island, Midway Islands, the Panama Canal Zone, Puerto Rico, and Wake Island.) [2004]
The condition for "In the case of a nonresident alien individual" is still a condition in the current laws, but is not prescribed until later under a more expanded explanation, and different number assignments of the current USC, within Sec. 864(c) and Sec. 871.

The conditions still exist for "citizens" from the old Sec. 1030, but has been moved to USC Sec. 861(a)(3)(C)(ii), and 864(b)(1)(B) and required amounts of 80-percent moved to USC Sec. 861(c)(1)(A)

Apparently, Sec. 931-1(b) can used to the advantage of taxpayers gaining income from possessions. If the required percentage of income is gained, a US citizen can claim it was gained from within the United States. For example, if 80% of income is reached as prescribed, only the remaining 20% is foreign source income and therefore is taxable income. But, if only 79% of the income is from the possession(s), then all the income is from foreign sources and all of it is taxable income. An additional rules must also be applied, the workplace must be a foreign country for 330 days per year (Sec. 911).

The important fact to notice here is that only one law used to specifically tell us who was taxed on the items of gross income from sources within the United States. This older version of the law had the conditions (who, when), and the items (what) within the same law. Now this information is separated between the law book (USC) and the rulebook (CFR).

We have seen that the Secretary has prescribed that our "items of gross income" from sources within the United States are exempt for federal tax purposes because they have been excluded from the list of "Income that is not considered tax exempt." There are Principles of Statutory Construction, which confirm that if a list does not list, but excludes an item, it has been kept off the list for a good reason.

Both the title of CFR Sec. 861-8T(d)(2)(iii), and the rule underneath it are using a negative on top of a negative, which is deceptive and confusing. It is similar to a NOT NOT type of statement in computer programming, or like (negative x negative)=positive in simple math.

In conclusion, consider this: If all income from whatever source is taxable, why does CFR Sec. 861, "the rules... for determining taxable income," even exist? If we read the rules, the one reasonable conclusion is that only the income gained from foreign sources is taxable income for a US citizen. Evidently, the US Federal Income Tax is a giant scam upon those of us who don't care for reading long rulebooks. Who can blame us, but how sad. Just think of the lost impact on our ecomony. We must wonder who really gets this money, you know, beyond the Fed. It's certainly not used to pay for government services (you'll have to research that one, but that's another book, or maybe our next website).

[cruise4]

I saw the Code of Federal Regulations cited here as law. I excuse the ignorance because the American public has been duped by legal professionals and law schools into believing the average American cannot read the law for themselves. That is a bold faced lie. Anyone can read the law after taking a simple legal research and writing course. Then it is as easy as it was for Abraham Lincoln.

There is a simple methodology by which one can pick any topic of interest and easily and quickly gather all of the pieces of law available to read on that topic. Free public law libraries are available at country courthouses and university law libraries. For example, the University of Texas at Arlington, which does not even have a law school, has an annex to the Tarrant County Law library. Southern Methodist University has a law library open to the public.

I am a paralegal trained in legal research and writing. The Code of Federal Regulations is not the law. There are only three kinds of law:

Constitutional
Statutory
Common Law

I speak on the federal level only. State laws are inferior to federal law. Federal law supersedes state law when there is a conflict of law. All American laws must be constitutional to be valid laws. Otherwise, their enforcement is bogus.

The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land. All other laws emanate from it, including local laws. Federal inferior laws are either statutes or common law (case law). The code of federal regulations is not law. It is simply a laundry list on how to implement the law. The language of the CFR is frequently in violation of the law but is obeyed as law because we have stupid people filling positions of authority.

If any laws DO NOT SUPPORT OR ENFORCE THE CONSTITUTION, verbatim and they are based on any interpretation or reading between the lines of the Constitution, THEN IT IS NOT LAW.

The law libraries have a three-inch thick book called the "Official Constitution of the United States." It is bogus. Only the original Constitution and any amendments thereto AND NOT ANY INTERPRETATION BY THE SUPREME COURT is the Constitution. The Constitution can ONLY be amended through constitutional amendment. IT CANNOT BE LEGALLY ALTERED IN ANY OTHER WAY.

PRESIDENTIAL ORDERS ARE NOT LAW AS CONTEMPLATED BY THE CONSTITUTION. THEY ARE DICTATORIAL ACTS.

For example, there is no constitutional right to privacy. It is not in the Constitution in black and white. It should be added by constitutional amendment, but it is not there now. The Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade to INTERPRET privacy into the constitution is an unconstitutional act.

The Supreme Court is required by the Constitution to evaluate and interpret any statute or common law that emanates from the Constitution to determine if it UPHOLDS AND ENFORCES THE CONSTITUTION. They do not have a legal right to interpret the Constitution.

We have a fake government that was created by keeping the average American intentionally ignorant. THE EXECUTIVE, LEGISLATIVE, AND JUDICIAL BRANCHES OF OUR GOVERNMENT HAVE ALL VIOLATED THEIR OATHS OF OFFICE TO UPHOLD AND ENFORCE THE CONSTITUTION. They are all a bunch of liars and they are all guilty of moral terpitude because they all know exactly what they are doing.

[cruise4]

The IRS has commented on the voluntary nature of filing for years.

Voluntary according to them is they let you do it on your own. (How Nice)
If you do not volunteer they will make you volunteer at gun point!!!


Actually there is a law that states US citizens pay the federal income tax. US citizens earning $$$ overseas and US possessions corporations are liable for the tax. Here it is:

26 CFR 1.861-8T(d)(2)(ii)]
"(iii) Income that is not considered tax exempt. The following items are not considered to be exempt, eliminated, or excluded income and, thus, may have expenses, losses, or other deductions allocated and apportioned to them:
(A) In the case of a foreign taxpayer…
(B) In computing the combined taxable income of a DISC or FSC…
(C) For all purposes under subchapter N of the Code… the gross income of a possessions corporation…
(D) Foreign earned income as defined in section 911…" [26 CFR § 1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii)]

We have to have our facts straight. Just making statements serves no purpose other than to bolster emotions. This whole thing is about the law. Nothing less. Aaron's movie is a starting point. But not the end of it. Learn what the law actually says. That's what this is about. I have found the knowledge of the law and how it is to be applied severely lacking among the tax truth movement. It will be our undoing. If you are going to state a truth. Then back it up with the law. This is not about bold statements and sticking out a middle finger to the fedgods. It is about truth. It is about THE LAW! The truth can be found in the law itself. If steadily/accurately applied....... It will be the undoing of those that wish to take this country down and us with it. Think about it.

[cruise4]

http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/UPDATE/Update2007-07-19.htm
July 19, 2007


Withholding On The Ropes?

U.S. Unable To Prove It’s Not Voluntary


The United States appears to have bitten off more than it can chew when it sued Bob Schulz and the We The People organizations earlier this year in an effort to shut down "Operation Stop Withholding."

In the lawsuit, the Government accused WTP of operating an unlawful "abusive tax shelter" in violation of IRC Sections 6700 and 6701, citing the organization's efforts to urge individuals to terminate their W-4 wage and salary withholding agreements.

In response to the lawsuit served on Schulz on May 3, 2007, Schulz filed a motion to have the case dismissed on the ground that Operation Stop Withholding is not only fully protected by the First Amendment (including the Petition clause), it is protected because We The People organization is educating People about the withholding laws as they are currently written and which expressly provide that such agreements are voluntary.

The Government's lawsuit has asked the District Court to issue an injunction prohibiting WTP’s efforts to educate Americans about the legal termination of private withholding agreements. WTP's efforts rely on "black letter" law which clearly establishes that Withholding Agreements (W-4s) are voluntary and that a worker can -- at any time -- terminate his W-4 by simply notifying the company that he no longer gives his permission to the company to withhold from his pay.

The Government finds itself in a very tough spot.

On one hand, it is asking the Court to shut the WTP program down, but on the other hand, neither the IRS nor the attorneys at the Department of Justice have been able to dispute or refute the simple truth that the law itself plainly establishes that withholding is voluntary and permission to withhold can be easily withdrawn by workers at their sole discretion.
What follows are a just a few of the legal citations that the Government has been confronted with and has failed to rebut:



26 CFR § 31.3402 (p)-1 "Voluntary Withholding Agreements". (a) An employee who desires to enter into an agreement for withholding.....shall furnish his employer with Form W -4 (or equivalent) for withholding.
Read it for yourself.



Pursuant to 26 CFR § 31.3402(p)-1(b)(2), either a company or a worker may terminate the withholding agreement (or its equivalent) at any time, by furnishing a signed, written notice to the other. Read it for yourself.

Pursuant to 26 USC § 3402(p)(3)(A), 5 USC §5517 and 31 CFR §215.2(n)(1), all ordinary American workers have the right to refuse to consent to enter into a voluntary withholding agreement and can voluntarily refuse to have amounts taken from his/her pay for federal and/or state taxes, social security, other governmental insurance programs or welfare programs.

“Protected Individuals” as per 8 USC §1324a cannot be compelled to submit any specific government documents or to disclose a social security number as a condition of being hired by or maintaining their status as a worker. Most American workers qualify as "Protected Individuals" under the law.



The landmark decision of EEOC v. Information Systems Consulting CA3-92-0169T U.S.D.C. Northern District of Texas Dallas Division, held that companies cannot discriminate against applicants or workers for failure to obtain or disclose a social security number.



No law requires a worker to file a Form W-4 (or its equivalent). In U.S. v. Mobil Oil Co., 82-1 USTC para. 9242, U.S.D.C. ND Tex. Dallas 1981 CA. 3-80-0438-G, the court ruled that an Entity does not even have to send a W-4 Form or other employment forms to the Internal Revenue Service unless served with a judicial court-ordered summons to do so.

Pursuant to IRC §6041(c), a worker is only required to furnish a name and address upon demand of a company for whom he seeks to work. No social security number is required by statute.


Building upon a plethora of false statements, pitiful hyperbole, factual omissions and defective (and vindictive) claims of lawful authority, the Government has attempted to paint WTP as a "promoter" of an illegal tax fraud "scheme" without ever specifically identifying any false speech made by WTP, and without addressing the very laws WTP has relied upon -- and which irrefutably establish that wage and salary withholding is voluntary.

Nowhere in its pleadings does the Government directly confront the voluntary nature of the withholding laws cited by WTP even though withholding is the central issue before the court.

Indeed, beyond the compelling judicial and constitutional drama unfolding as the landmark Right to Petition lawsuit continues its certain path to the Supreme Court, the Government may have done itself great harm by pursing a "6700" lawsuit against WTP.

As a result of accusing WTP of activity expressly protected by the Constitution and the lesser laws of the nation, it has risked widespread exposure in the public domain of the very information it seeks to censor.

It is no miracle that the United States cannot -- by any law -- force average workers to submit to mandatory withholding. To do so would be to require them to withhold monies for taxes, which by the Constitution and U.S. law, CANNOT BE IMPOSED UPON ORDINARY AMERICANS.

The fact that one's signature is required to execute a W-4 withholding agreement is simple evidence of this truth that, until recently, has remained well-obscured within the complexity of the tax code.

It is beyond time that our government confront a difficult political question that our organization has asked repeatedly over numerous years:

Do our elected leaders and guardians of the Rule of Law move with deliberation toward an orderly transition of a replacement for our Constitutionally-abusive tax system, or do they risk a chaotic, systemic collapse of the government funding mechanism (or even worse) because of the growing, yet unstoppable, awakening of the public consciousness regarding the truth about our nation's tax laws?

It is indeed not ironic that such a possibility awaits our nation, and may one day come to pass, inadvertently perhaps, because of one IRS prosecution too many.

The truth is out there and it's not going away.


History of the "6700" Lawsuit:

The United States served its Complaint on May 3, 2007, charging Schulz with promoting an abusive tax shelter in violation of Section 6700 of the Internal Revenue Code.

On May 23rd, Schulz and WTP filed a Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted under 6700 and under the First Amendment’s Petition for Redress and Free Speech clauses. Also filed were three Declarations by Schulz.

On June 18th, the United States filed its Response and its Statement of Material Facts.

On July 16th, Schulz and WTP filed their Reply, including six more Declarations by Schulz.

For those not familiar with WTP’s Operation Stop Withholding here are the highlights:

On March 15, 2003, by letter, Schulz Petitioned the Government for a Redress of Grievances relating to the forced withholding and diversion of workers’ pay. The theme of the Petition for Redress was the black letter law showing that withholding was voluntary, that any worker could legally terminate an existing withholding certificate (W-4) by simply notifying the company, in writing, that the worker did not want to continue having his pay withheld, and that a worker did not have to provide the company with a Social Security number.

Enclosed with Schulz’s March 15, 2003 letter was a Blue Folder with documentation supporting the Petition for Redress, and Forms for workers to use to legally terminate withholding.

In the March 15 letter, Schulz notified the United States that he would begin to instruct workers on how to legally terminate withholding unless the United States were to tell him his interpretation of the law was wrong.

Hearing no objection, Schulz embarked on his schedule of 37 meetings around the country, handing out 3500 copies of the Blue Folders (at no cost) to people in attendance at those meetings. The materials comprising the Operation Stop Withholding "Blue Folder" are still available (for free) on the WTP website.

The day before he left on his trip, the IRS sent Schulz a letter saying, in effect, “We have reviewed certain materials and have decided to investigate you for promoting an abusive tax shelter, in violation of Section 6700 of the Internal Revenue Code. You are asked to meet with us and to bring your books and records.”

Thus, under color of an “official” 6700 investigation of Schulz and the WTP organization, the IRS could now get away with almost anything, including harassing Schulz and the organization to death, or at least to the point where we could not continue with our process of Petitioning the Government for Redress of Grievances relating to withholding or anything else.

Schulz told the IRS, in effect, “No answers, No records.” The IRS then served a Summons on Schulz for the books and records. Schulz sued the IRS. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held in Schulz I, that Schulz did not have to respond to the Summons without a court order and if the IRS wanted the information it would have to bring Schulz to court to get it.

The IRS and DOJ then filed a subsequent motion asking the U.S.Court of Appeals to modify its decision claiming it would make it harder for the Government to collect taxes. In Schulz II, the Court sternly denied the motion again holding that taxpayers enjoy the protection of broad Due Process Rights with regard to all forms of IRS administrative actions.

Within weeks of the decision in Schulz II, the IRS began serving a series of third-party summonses against Schulz, rather than bring Schulz to Court to enforce the original Summons. Each third-party summons has resulted in a new lawsuit by Schulz against the IRS.

In November, 2006 the IRS felt the teeth of the Second Circuit Court of Appeal's decision in Schulz II when it served an administrative Summons on a New York bank demanding Schulz's personal bank records. Read our 11/8/06 web article.

After Schulz filed a lawsuit against the IRS to quash the Summons, on November 6th a federal judge issued an injunctive order enjoining and prohibiting the IRS from enforcing the bank Summons. During pre-trial pleadings, the primary investigator for the IRS was caught perjuring herself to the District Court regarding the alleged basis for issuing the Summons. This case is currently awaiting the disposition of that Court.
Immediately following the March 30, 2007 “V” demonstration outside the White House (video) and its coverage by the Washington Post, the United States filed the "6700" civil injunction lawsuit against Schulz and the WTP organizations.



Please support our work by making a Donation.

Every dollar you donate enables us to continue our epic battle for Liberty. Please know the Foundation requires a substantial level of regular donations each month just to continue our normal operations. Your donations are used for the Internet services, computer hardware, technical support, office supplies, travel, attorney fees, and a multitude of other costs directly enabling the execution of our mission. We cannot continue without your support and we cannot secure our objectives if we lack the commitment of our supporters. We hope that over the past years we have demonstrated both our ability to make a real difference and our deep, personal commitment to our shared, and necessary cause. The path back to Freedom may be long, but it is surely worth every step. Again, we ask you to share the burdens of our fight and consider making a much-needed Donation.


Update Related Links

Read the Government's June 18th Response to WTP's Motion to Dismiss, its Statement of Material Facts. and several supporting IRS Declarations.

Read the July 16th Schulz and WTP Reply brief and Schulz's Declarations.

Download the contents of the Operation Stop Withholding "Blue Folder" for FREE

[cruise4]

According to breaking news right now, tax resistor Tom Cryer was found innocent of all charges by a jury of his peers!

The news is ripping through the network now. Coast to coast, people are celebrating this victory by a true warrior of the Republic.

While encouraging that this verdict was produced in federal circuit court, it doesn't look like this case will produce actionable case law or judicial precedent, which are outside the ability of jury determinations. However, it sounds like Cryer was able to introduce Supreme Court case law, if not Constitutional testimony in this case. As per normal, the judge prevented any direct citation of Constitutional law in court.

It's too early to be more precise. It may be that this event has more to do with deft handling and superior presentation by Cryer and his defense. Cryer is a man of gravitas, of learning and impeccable record. If anyone could talk to a local jury and not come off like a radical madman, it would be Cryer. But one thing seems sure, those jury members who acquitted Cryer go home with a whole new understanding of life in America. They too are American heroes for listening to the truth and the courage to speak truth to power in their decision.

[cruise4]

It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government from falling into error." -Robert H. Jackson

Please visit the following site. There is much to learn about the Law, and the Internal Revenue Code, and specifically what it says.

http://www.losthorizons.com/Newsletter.htm

26 USC Sec. 6331 01/02/01

-EXPCITE-

TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE

Subtitle F - Procedure and Administration

CHAPTER 64 - COLLECTION

Subchapter D - Seizure of Property for Collection of Taxes

PART II - LEVY

-HEAD-

Sec. 6331. Levy and distraint

-STATUTE-

(a) Authority of Secretary

If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay

the same within 10 days after notice and demand, it shall be lawful

for the Secretary to collect such tax (and such further sum as

shall be sufficient to cover the expenses of the levy) by levy upon

all property and rights to property (except such property as is

exempt under section 6334) belonging to such person or on which

there is a lien provided in this chapter for the payment of such

tax. Levy may be made upon the accrued salary or wages of any

officer, employee, or elected official, of the United States, the

District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the

United States or the District of Columbia, by serving a notice of

levy on the employer (as defined in section 3401(d)) of such

officer, employee, or elected official. If the Secretary makes a

finding that the collection of such tax is in jeopardy, notice and

demand for immediate payment of such tax may be made by the

Secretary and, upon failure or refusal to pay such tax, collection

thereof by levy shall be lawful without regard to the 10-day period

provided in this section.

(b) Seizure and sale of property

The term ''levy'' as used in this title includes the power of

distraint and seizure by any means. Except as otherwise provided

in subsection (e), a levy shall extend only to property possessed

and obligations existing at the time thereof. In any case in which

the Secretary may levy upon property or rights to property, he may

seize and sell such property or rights to property (whether real or

personal, tangible or intangible).

(c) Successive seizures

Whenever any property or right to property upon which levy has

been made by virtue of subsection (a) is not sufficient to satisfy

the claim of the United States for which levy is made, the

Secretary may, thereafter, and as often as may be necessary,

proceed to levy in like manner upon any other property liable to

levy of the person against whom such claim exists, until the amount

due from him, together with all expenses, is fully paid.

(d) Requirement of notice before levy

(1) In general

Levy may be made under subsection (a) upon the salary or wages

or other property of any person with respect to any unpaid tax

only after the Secretary has notified such person in writing of

his intention to make such levy.

(2) 30-day requirement

The notice required under paragraph (1) shall be -

(A) given in person,

(B) left at the dwelling or usual place of business of such

person, or

(C) sent by certified or registered mail to such persons's

last known address,

no less than 30 days before the day of the levy.

(3) Jeopardy

Paragraph (1) shall not apply to a levy if the Secretary has

made a finding under the last sentence of subsection (a) that the

collection of tax is in jeopardy.



On Wednesday, May 23, 2007

I caught the end of this hearing last night on CSPAN and at the end of it the Congressman said "our system is voluntary" . Since this was a hearing on the IRS it could not mean anything else than what we know already. This admission by the Chariman is A HUGE fact.
Here is where the transcript will be when it is uploaded, I will also link to the CSPAN video when it is online

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearings.asp?formmode=detail&hearing=562

Well unless someone knows where the archive video can be had CSPAN wants 30 bux for it damn
http://inside.c-spanarchives.org:8080/cspan/cspan.csp?command=dprogram&record=553091261


Committee on Ways and Means

Hearing on Internal Revenue Service’s Use of Private Debt Collection Companies to Collect Federal Income Taxes

[cruise4]

If the IRS is following the law....Then why can't they, or you, or anybody answer the following questions without showing that the law states clearly that US citizens are not liable for the fed income tax?

Questions Regarding Determining Taxable Income

1) Should I use the rules found in 26 USC § 861(b) and 26 CFR § 1.861-8 (in addition to any other pertinent sections) to determine my taxable domestic income?

2) If some people should not use those sections to determine their taxable domestic income, please show where the law says who should or should not use those sections for that.

Reason for first two questions: The regulations at 26 CFR § 1.861-8 begin by stating that Sections 861(b) and 863(a) state in general terms “how to determine taxable income of a taxpayer from sources within the United States” after gross income from the U.S. has been determined. Section 1.861-1(a)(1) confirms that “taxable income from sources within the United States” is to be determined in accordance with the rules of 26 USC § 861(b) and 26 CFR § 1.861-8 (see also 26 CFR §§ 1.862-1(b), 1.863-1(c)). Cross-references under 26 USCS § 61, as well as entries in the USC Index under the heading “Income Tax,” also refer to Section 861 regarding income (“gross” and “taxable”) from “sources within U.S.”

3) If a U.S. citizen receives all his income from working within the 50 states, do 26 USC § 861(b) and 26 CFR § 1.861-8 show his income to be taxable?

Reason for question: Section 217 of the Revenue Act of 1921, predecessor of 26 USC § 861 and following, stated that income from the U.S. was taxable for foreigners, and for U.S. corporations and citizens deriving most of their income from federal possessions, but did not say the same about the domestic income of other Americans. The regulations under the 1939 Code (e.g. §§ 29.119-1, 29.119-2, 29.119-9, 29.119-10 (1945)) showed the same thing. The current regulations at 1.861-8 still show income to be taxable only when derived from certain “specific sources and activities,” which still relate only to certain types of international trade (see 26 CFR §§ 1.861-8(a)(1), 1.861-8(a)(4), 1.861-8(f)(1)).

4) Should one use 26 CFR § 1.861-8T(d)(2) to determine whether his “items” of income (e.g. compensation, interest, rents, dividends, etc.) are excluded for federal income tax purposes?

Reason for question: The regulations (26 CFR § 1.861-8(a)(3)) state that a “class of gross income” consists of the “items” of income listed in 26 USC § 61 (e.g. compensation, interest, rents, dividends, etc.). The regulations (26 CFR §§ 1.861-8(b)(1)) then direct the reader to “paragraph (d)(2)” of the section, which provides that such “classes of gross income” may include some income which is excluded for federal income tax purposes.

5) What is the purpose of the list of non-exempt types of income found in 26 CFR § 1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii), and why is the income of the average American not on that list?

Reason for question: After defining “exempt income” to mean income which is excluded for federal income tax purposes (26 CFR § 1.861-8T(d)(2)(ii)), the regulations list types of income which are not exempt (i.e. which are subject to tax), including the domestic income of foreigners, certain foreign income of Americans, income of certain possessions corporations, and income of international and foreign sales corporations; but the list does not include the domestic income of the average American (26 CFR § 1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii)).

6) What types of income (if any) are not exempted from taxation by any statute, but are nonetheless “excluded by law” (i.e. not subject to the income tax) because they are, under the Constitution, not taxable by the federal government?

Reason for question: Older income tax regulations defining “gross income” and “net income” said that neither income exempted by statute “or fundamental law” were subject to the tax (§ 39.21-1 (1956)), and said that in addition to the types of income exempted by statute, other types of income were excluded because they were, “under the Constitution, not taxable by the Federal Government” (§ 39.22(b)-1 (1956)). (This is also reflected in the current 26 CFR § 1.312-6.)

Final Comment: This is just some of what could be said.

[ashyr]

It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government from falling into error." -Robert H. Jackson

very powerful. very true.

says so much about every injustice ever committed. just refer to that statement. and all other falsehoods will eminate from that. =D

btw. what is BLACKWATER? i have a album by one of my favorite bands OPETH, the album is called "Blackwater Park" any reference?

[cruise4]

Blackwater USA comprises nine separate business units to offer the most comprehensive professional security, peacekeeping, and stability operations company in the world.

http://www.blackwaterusa.com/

VISION
To support security, peace, freedom, and democracy everywhere.

MISSION
To support national and international security policies that protect those who are defenseless and provide a free voice for all with a dedication to providing ethical, efficient, and effective turnkey solutions that positively impact the lives of those still caught in desperate times.

Blackwater is committed to the foot soldiers -- the men and women who stand on the frontlines of the global war on terror and who believe in a peaceful future for their communities and nations. Whether serving in or out of uniform, Blackwater is committed to providing these men and women with the very best in training and tactical support to ensure they are fully prepared to meet current and future global security challenges.

In other words trained military thug Police Types being groomed to 'protect' the US citizens! Don't you feel safe.

[phoenixchilde]

That it subsequently turned out be a probable deliberate provocation which was denied by certain parties is neither here nor there, in this context.

I would completely disagree with that. The likelyhood that this was done for deliberate provocation is one of the most important issues in this series of events.

Having been involved in local politics, I know first hand that there are people in the system who aren't corrupt. They're a minority, but they do exist.

With all due respect to your research, you've posted at least three hours of reading for me to do, and having a life doesn't leave me that much time to read up on foreign tax law. Maybe that's what the elite are most afraid of, people like us acting, instead of just talking.

That being said, I do have a few succinct points to make on the subject of whether a person should pay taxes. Legal concepts aside, as we have both shown that there are many credible arguments on both sides, there are moral concerns with paying taxes.

The fact remains, as much as people may like to deny it, we all benefit to some amount from some of those tax dollars. In my country, we have universal healthcare, which is paid for by tax money. Although the yanks don't have this, I beleive you Brits do as well. That means that if you get sick, the tax dollars of others will pay for your medical care, but no tax dollars from your wallet will be helping pay for them to get better. I don't know about you, but I consider money spent to save lives is money well spent.

In the case of Ed Brown, I can give you a direct way that US tax dollars are protecting him. If I wanted to kill him and take all his money, there's numerous things in my way that are paid for by US tax money. First of all, there's the matter of customs. Whether driving or flying into the country, it would be difficult for me to cross the border with an armed weapon, or weapons. Customs is funded by tax money. After I rob, or rob and kill him, then I would have the police to deal with, who depending on how much evidence I leave, would either catch me before I leave the country, or the US politicians would negotiate with my country's politicians for extradition. All of that is covered by tax dollars.

So you see, right now, Ed Brown is being protected by the tax dollars that he refuses to pay. Does that seem morally acceptable to you?

[phoenixchilde]

Nice description of Blackwater. Although I must say that I still prefer the term "mercenary army." Two words that conjure up images of bloodthirsty neanderthals that kill for money.

[nickatnoon61]

Tut Tut Tut, phoenixchilde... you have learnt nothing from your last humiliation.

I don't pay tax. I am taking personal responsibilty in many areas of my life. I am not as brave as the Browns and their supporters, so my tactic is to keep my income below the personal Allowance level.

May I refer you to this article:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56855

The people are being robbed blind by the Federal Reserve System, which was established to funnel money and public resources into the coffers of Rockefella, Rothschild and other illuminati scum. Your failure to investigate only serves to propogate this felony.

Once again you are exposed as an idiot who will choose to learn nothing even when the information is posted straight in front of you.
Bravo Cruise4, the paying, or better, the NON-PAYING of taxes is probably THE MOST important issue in our quest for freedom. The Browns are heros and they said they would give millions of dollars to anyone who would show them the law, that requires anyone to pay income tax! Nick.

[nickatnoon61]

Let me get this straight, you accuse me of having my head in the sand, but you're supporting a rich asshole who's refusing to pay the taxes that you and everyone else in the world pays?

This guy is no righteous avenger. He's simply a rich, greedy asshole, who doesn't want to give up any of his money. It's that simple.

PChild, get out of Toronto,the fluoridated water there, is obviously affecting any free-thinking, discernment, you would normally have!!!!:eek:I am from Windsor,Ont. originally, so I know from experience!!!

[cruise4]

Hi Phoenixchilde, I actually agree with you on the point that 'tax dollars' are not inherently evil. The issues I have problems with, stem from the way Money operates and the banking system we have now. The Federal Reserve and the Bank of England really are extortion rackets. This almost certainly extends around the world as most all of it seems centred around Rothschild and Co. I recommend understanding this aspect more than most, and its also a fairly quick research job. You can then appreciate that tax doesn't go towards projects... it goes to pay interest on totally unnecessary Government loans backed by your labour and goods. Fractional banking causes inflation. The banks invent money, make you a loan that then has to be paid back with your blood, sweat and tears... or house or whatever. they create so called economic cycles. What thats really about is high debt, defaults and reposessions.

Like you I am not US which makes it even harder to get to grips with. And mercenary army is good too!

"If I wanted to kill him and take all his money" this is the thing. Thats what the feds are doing, but they want to do it to all of us. The only thing in their way is Ed Brown with a Gun. What you need to ask is what have you got to protect you, because these people make up laws whenever it suits them.

I cannot put it any more succinctly than this:

Banks run an extortion racket and the Police are their Enforcers.

It really is that simple, incredible though it initially sounds. We are all being robbed blind by crooks who have cleverly hidden the mechanisms so few realised it.

Oh yeah... the IMF and World Bank are also well worth a look at for scandal.

[nickatnoon61]

Hi Phoenixchilde, I actually agree with you on the point that 'tax dollars' are not inherently evil. The issues I have problems with, stem from the way Money operates and the banking system we have now. The Federal Reserve and the Bank of England really are extortion rackets. This almost certainly extends around the world as most all of it seems centred around Rothschild and Co. I recommend understanding this aspect more than most, and its also a fairly quick research job. You can then appreciate that tax doesn't go towards projects... it goes to pay interest on totally unnecessary Government loans backed by your labour and goods. Fractional banking causes inflation. The banks invent money, make you a loan that then has to be paid back with your blood, sweat and tears... or house or whatever. they create so called economic cycles. What thats really about is high debt, defaults and reposessions.

Like you I am not US which makes it even harder to get to grips with. And mercenary army is good too!

"If I wanted to kill him and take all his money" this is the thing. Thats what the feds are doing, but they want to do it to all of us. The only thing in their way is Ed Brown with a Gun. What you need to ask is what have you got to protect you, because these people make up laws whenever it suits them.

I cannot put it any more succinctly than this:

Banks run an extortion racket and the Police are their Enforcers.

It really is that simple, incredible though it initially sounds. We are all being robbed blind by crooks who have cleverly hidden the mechanisms so few realised it.

Oh yeah... the IMF and World Bank are also well worth a look at for scandal.
Thanx Cruise,in a free society, there wud be no need for "GOVERN" ments, no need for any taxes whatsoever. Our own labor would create our infrastructures! A days pay for a days work. NO INTEREST, OR BANKSTER PARASITES!!! ANYONE WHO HAS THE NEED TO BE "GOVERNED" IS ALREADY BRAINWASHED TO BE A LIFELONG SLAVE! Also, everyones basic needs wud be met(food,clothing,shelter,education,medical,etc.) for free. Anyone who is ambitious/creative would be paid extra, accordingly, for their efforts!

[phoenixchilde]

Bravo Cruise4, the paying, or better, the NON-PAYING of taxes is probably THE MOST important issue in our quest for freedom. The Browns are heros and they said they would give millions of dollars to anyone who would show them the law, that requires anyone to pay income tax! Nick.

Well then, if they're telling the truth, I can show you an easy way to make millions. Here's the webpage that spells it out for them.

http://www.irs.gov/taxpros/article/0,,id=159932,00.html#_Toc153765504

Why don't you email that to the Browns and see if they really pay up. Then we can discuss if they're heroes, or just plain greedy.

[phoenixchilde]

PChild, get out of Toronto,the fluoridated water there, is obviously affecting any free-thinking, discernment, you would normally have!!!!:eek:I am from Windsor,Ont. originally, so I know from experience!!!

I suppose it would probably be pointless to point out that there's no relation between free thought and fluoride? It's probably pointless to bring up that tap water all across Canada has fluoride in it.

[phoenixchilde]

Hi Phoenixchilde, I actually agree with you on the point that 'tax dollars' are not inherently evil. The issues I have problems with, stem from the way Money operates and the banking system we have now. The Federal Reserve and the Bank of England really are extortion rackets. This almost certainly extends around the world as most all of it seems centred around Rothschild and Co. I recommend understanding this aspect more than most, and its also a fairly quick research job. You can then appreciate that tax doesn't go towards projects... it goes to pay interest on totally unnecessary Government loans backed by your labour and goods. Fractional banking causes inflation. The banks invent money, make you a loan that then has to be paid back with your blood, sweat and tears... or house or whatever. they create so called economic cycles. What thats really about is high debt, defaults and reposessions.

I'll be the first to admit that I know so very little about banking and economics, so you've definitely got me on this one.

"If I wanted to kill him and take all his money" this is the thing. Thats what the feds are doing, but they want to do it to all of us. The only thing in their way is Ed Brown with a Gun. What you need to ask is what have you got to protect you, because these people make up laws whenever it suits them.

Let's be honest. If the feds wanted him dead, he'd already be dead. They've got special forces, the FBI, the CIA. What's he got, his wife and a few guns. They've got the means to take out both him and his wife without taking a single shot. If they were so inclined, they could probably make it look like a murder-suicide. What's more, they could take them both away, alive and unconscious.

Tactically speaking, it doesn't make any sense for them to move in. The government can wait forever, the Brown's can't. The government is no doubt looking at this from a PR angle. If the government moves in, they're the villians. If the Browns give up, they're the villians. The US Gov has PR people working for it who are way better at it than me, so I have no doubt that they won't make any military moves.

[cruise4]

Hi nickatnoon61... you are right. The foundations don't exist and as soon as you realise that, the rest collapses in on itself. Now what does that sound like:D

[cruise4]

phoenixchilde... if you go here: http://www.nw0.info/?p=Documentaries

Download and watch:

America Freedom to Fascism
Fluoride Deception
Future of Food

Also google: Creature from Jekyll Island

I recommend watching all of them but that does take a number of months.
I know you seem averse to so called 'Conspiracy sites' but 'Conspiracy Theories' was actually a term coined by the CIA or some similar body as a Psyop. Much better to view them as 'alternative points of view'.

I would urge you to also revisit that Global warming thread we were talking on and watch those two movies there. Again whilst a Conspiracy Site... the links are to articles from all over. Its just a handy collection of links.

You will come away from this with a much better understanding of both these issues, I promise you. In fact you could well be in for a very interesting 'awakening', and we've all been there! Its not often you can say... watch these videos and your life will change:D

And I wouldn't get too bogged down with this tax stuff as relates to the US. Better to check your own countries operations later.

[phoenixchilde]

Sorry dude, those files are huge, and I have a low bandwidth. Videos really aren't the best for me. If you got something written down, I'll be happy to take a look at it.

My reasoning for not liking conspiracy theory websites has nothing to do with their names. Let's be honest, people in this sub-culture have difficulty differentiating fact from opinion. Opinions are fine, but people in the conspiracy culture need to accept when they don't stand up to incontroversial facts. It's true that facts are sometimes fabricated to hide the truth, but it's an all to easy argument in these types of discussions.

[cruise4]

I wondered if you had dial up or something. Shame.

However The Creature from Jeckyl Island is a small download pdf.

Pretty well everything else you say is rubbish.

Whilst Reptilians, Illusion and Spirituality stuff 'may' be classed as opinion, things like 911, Federal Reserve, Medication, Global warming, illuminati, New World Order etc. etc. are not based on opinion. they are based on facts.

'We' are the people that do research the facts and have an open mind. For example I have watched every one of those videos and many many more. I have read ebooks galore. I have read books galore. I have searched NASA sites, Scientific data sites, researched official documentation, checked the background of multiple writers... everything I can to uncover the truth. And I'm still doing it, because I want the truth wherever it leads me. You seem to avoid it like the plague.

I am unaware of a single fact you have stated in all your posts so far, let alone a incontroversial fact. Please enlighten me as to one.

One last question... 9/11 was an inside job. Do you believe this?

[espii]

phoenixchilde

I believe 100% of all personal "income" taxes extorted by the IRS goes to the "Federal" Reserve Banking System and does not fund a single function of the government. Furthermore 75% of ALL TAXES go to the Federal Reserve to pay for loans created out of thin air, they just print the money that has no real value.

In Basic terms;

Lets say you go to the bank and want a 10,000$ loan @ 20% interest
which means you have to pay 12,000$ back.

What the banks do is type 10,000$ in the computer and print 10,000$ paper money for you. Your signature is your "promise" to pay the banks those 12,000$ in real value, goods or services, blood and sweat. It's the perfect scam! So your paying 12,000$ which didn't really exist, enslaving yourself.

Your consumer ( useless eater ) and tax payer futile existence leads to funding and perpetuating your enslavement, wars on every front on mankind by the international banksters, their allies, and their illuminati overlords.


About your beloved "healthcare" system:

My friend's brother-in-law is a doctor and he makes a 6 - 7 figure income.
A typical patient visit will involve a quick check-up of 5 - 15min and a prescription drug to treat the symptoms ( not the cause )

What they do is swipe the health insurance card twice @ 250$ per visit
= a 500$ charge on the taxpayer for a 5 - 15 min checkup where all the doctor does is hand out prescription drugs that cover symptoms.

This is done to offset the heavy 50% tax on that doctors high income.

Also the healthcare system in canada is in very bad shape, some people died like dogs waiting 12+ hours for emergency treatments not to mention the horror stories of mistreatment and poor hygiene, which makes you more likely to get sick visiting a hospital. I could go on.

Im not against taxes in a fair and just society used towards real services.

Taxes can be a good thing, but the way things are you are better off keeping
all your money. Also i don't believe we need taxes on income. There are dozens of other taxes that can cover everything we need.

[phoenixchilde]

Whilst Reptilians, Illusion and Spirituality stuff 'may' be classed as opinion,

Actually, those are classed as theories. A theory is something that may or may not be fact, but is at that point unproven.

things like 911, Federal Reserve, Medication, Global warming, illuminati, New World Order etc. etc. are not based on opinion. they are based on facts.

911 is a fact. The belief held by many(myself included) that it was an inside job, is unfortunately still a theory, because they shot down the 4th plane before people on board could take back the plane and prove that there were no muslims involved.

The existence of the Federal Reserve is a fact.

The existence of medication is a fact. The idea that it's all mind control drugs created to make us pliable and submissive, is still just theory. Which brings up one that I believe is used for mind control, caffiene. Do you drink coffee Mr. Cruise?

Global warming is a fact. Arguments exist that point to it being man-made and not being man-made. One could easily say that the cause is currently inconclusive, but as I see more reasons for the gas companies to lie, I'm inclined to beleive that all theories to it not being man made are fabricated for the benefit of profit. That, I fully admit, is an opinion.

The existence of the Illuminati are a fact. The idea that they are an ancient secret society bend on total world domination is just a theory. The other major theory on the Illuminati is that they are less than 300 years old, and started in Bavaria, Germany.

The New World Order is not a fact, unless you're referring to the WWE gimmick created a few years ago by Vince McMahon. I have read one of David Icke's books, discussed and read things on this website, communicated with astral entities, and so far, I have seen nothing to prove that there is one global power working behind the scenes, and not numerous secret societies fighting for dominance over each other.

[cruise4]

phoenixchilde I know '9/11 was an inside job' is fact.

Better get researching again...
I'm not going to get into word playing games.
I don't drink Coffee, just Tea.

[nickatnoon61]

I suppose it would probably be pointless to point out that there's no relation between free thought and fluoride? It's probably pointless to bring up that tap water all across Canada has fluoride in it.

PC, I grew up in Vancouver, and as far as I know, the water was never fluoridated. We had the reputation of the best water in the world! Read the bottom for solutions to sodium fluoiride, which is the major ingredient in rat poison!

Few Answers to Support Fluoride Use
By Michael Downey
May 2, 1999
It's DIFFICULT to think of cavity-free teeth without thinking of fluoride. We have long been told that fluoride is good for us. It was added to Toronto's drinking water in the mid-1960s; dental associations endorsed its addition to toothpaste. But what are we to think when Canada's top pro-fluoride authority says he believes we should not be putting it into our bodies?

Dr. Hardy Limeback, biochemist and professor of dentistry at the University of Toronto, told the Sunday Star last week that parents should keep fluoride away from children under three. He added that he doesn't think adding fluoride to water is necessary and may be risky.

Limeback's change of mind is based on numerous studies, published in highly respected journals, showing strong links between fluoridated water and: weakened, brittle teeth and bones (conditions known as dental and skeletal fluorosis); cancer, lowered intelligence and Attention Deficit Disorder, early aging; genetic damage; birth defects; auto-immune disorders; and more.

Limeback is not the first fluoride expert to survey the evidence and recant. In 1980, Dr. John Colquhoun, chief dental officer of Auckland, New Zealand, examined children's dental records to help promote fluoridation. To his surprise, he found fabricated statistics and errors - but no advantage at all from fluoridation. He eventually campaigned against fluoride.

In 1973, Dr. Richard Foulkes, then consultant to the British Columbia health minister, recommended mandatory fluoridation. It never happened, but almost 20 years later, he examined dental records and discovered that the teeth of children from non-fluoridated areas were as healthy as those of children where fluoride was added to water.

Says Foulkes today: "A child's brain is vulnerable to damage from fluoride even before birth and the result can be lowered IQ ... Fluoride in drinking water may react with aluminum, to cause Alzheimer's disease."
Over 1, 100 scientists at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency denounced fluoridation while their employer, the EPA, continued to support it. Former EPA scientist Dr. Robert Caxton, speaking on CBC TVs Marketplace in 1992, called fluoridation "the greatest case of scientific fraud of this century, if not of all time.
Very few countries fluoridate. Several, such as Sweden, Denmark and Holland, have banned fluoride. Vancouver and Montreal never bought into fluoridation. (Limeback's research shows that Torontonians have double the fluoride build-up in their hip bones as Montrealers.)

So why do we hold to the notion that fluoride is not only harmless but good for us?
Most public health officials and dental organization -including those paid to endorse fluoride products have never accepted the studies indicting fluoride and appear to be standing firm even in the wake of Limeback's change of position. (He was a chief fluoride adviser to the Canadian Dental Association.) The CDA, the Ontario Dental Association (ODA), the Canadian Medical Association (CMA), and Health Canada still support fluoridation. Why? In some ways, it's not entirely clear.

Without addressing the change in Limeback's position, the ODA told dentists in a release last week that "no assertion against the benefits and safety of fluoridation has ever been substantiated by scientific consensus."
This may be true, but critics point out that almost no scientific issue is settled unanimously but rather based on a preponderance of evidence.

An ODA spokeswoman said this week that "the facts are clear Communal water fluoridation is safe and extremely beneficial."

But when asked to cite research that supports this, the spokeswoman said "you'll have to call Health Canada ... we get all our information from them."

A Health Canada said "I seriously doubt all this information came from us." The ODA did say, however, that it does no fluoridation research of its own (nor do Health Canada and the CDA). The ODA doesn't even review research conducted by others.

When fluoride was being considered as an additive, a number of studies were conducted that seemed to suggest some benefits. But since then, the data has been re-examined a number of times and been found wanting.

Prominent fluoride detractor and biochemist Dr. John Yiamouyiannis is blunt: "Early (scientific) results were premature and completely misinterpreted."

Yiamouyiannis believes that "zealous experts weren't interested in the numerous studies linking fluoride with serious health risks once they had made up their minds.

Today, health and dental officials always qualify fluoride's safety with the phrase "at optimum levels,"
"The trouble is, the only safe or optimum amount of fluoride is none at all," says Yiamouyiannis. "While no one is going to die from drinking one glass of Toronto tap water, just as no one will die from smoking one cigarette, it is the longer-term chronic effects of fluoride ... glass after glass ... that takes its toll on human health."

Limeback, who still thinks fluoride is beneficial in toothpaste, agrees, and points out that we also get fluoxide from almost everything we drink and much of what we eat.

If you are concerned about fluoride intake, one way to cut down is to buy distilled water for drinking and cooking, or buy a proper distillation unit, reverse osmosis system or a de-ionizer. Conventional filters don't remove it.

[nickatnoon61]

Actually, those are classed as theories. A theory is something that may or may not be fact, but is at that point unproven.



911 is a fact. The belief held by many(myself included) that it was an inside job, is unfortunately still a theory, because they shot down the 4th plane before people on board could take back the plane and prove that there were no muslims involved.

The existence of the Federal Reserve is a fact.

The existence of medication is a fact. The idea that it's all mind control drugs created to make us pliable and submissive, is still just theory. Which brings up one that I believe is used for mind control, caffiene. Do you drink coffee Mr. Cruise?

Global warming is a fact. Arguments exist that point to it being man-made and not being man-made. One could easily say that the cause is currently inconclusive, but as I see more reasons for the gas companies to lie, I'm inclined to beleive that all theories to it not being man made are fabricated for the benefit of profit. That, I fully admit, is an opinion.

The existence of the Illuminati are a fact. The idea that they are an ancient secret society bend on total world domination is just a theory. The other major theory on the Illuminati is that they are less than 300 years old, and started in Bavaria, Germany.

The New World Order is not a fact, unless you're referring to the WWE gimmick created a few years ago by Vince McMahon. I have read one of David Icke's books, discussed and read things on this website, communicated with astral entities, and so far, I have seen nothing to prove that there is one global power working behind the scenes, and not numerous secret societies fighting for dominance over each other.

PC, the fluoride seems to have affected you! I do not mean this as an insult, but an observation! Read the Secret Covenant below, and esp the second sentence..."those who see it... " http://100777.com/node/438

[phoenixchilde]

PC, the fluoride seems to have affected you!

There's a big problem with that sentence. I drink natural spring water, not tap water. The only fluoride I get is toothpaste and mouthwash, both of which I spit out. I discovered at the dentist once that fluoride makes my stomach queesy.

Read the Secret Covenant below, and esp the second sentence..."those who see it... " http://100777.com/node/438

Dude, you can't expect me to take that article seriously. First, it starts with a bible quote. Second, it includes that anti-semitic crap "Protocols of Zion." For the love of Pete, there is no Jewish conspiracy to put all the Christians of the Earth underfoot. I emplore you, instead of listening to this crap, go out and meet some Jewish people. Get to know them, what they're really like, and then you'll see that this is just a bunch of garbage from people who want to blame someone else for their lot in life.