Federal Reserve

Home :: Search :: Memberlist :: Privacy Policy :: Donate!

Federal Reserve

Home // Government Watch

Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next

thelast007
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 525

Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 6:12 pm Post subject:

TrespassersW wrote:

thelast007 wrote:

TrespassersW wrote:

Simply put, a federal income tax appears legal and supported by the constitution as far as I can see, and no one has offered me anything that seems to dispute that, which was what I was seeking. So, for now I think I've satisfied myself that what I thought was true is true. (At least until someone shows me otherwise.) Wink

read the post between exton and i. you're behind in the debate exchange.

No, I don't think I'm behind anything. It just seems that you're debating minutia that don't interest me--and that's cool... I don't mean that as a negative at all, but I'm not interested in the definition of labor or profit or whatever, unless you think that they prove my conclusion above wrong. (But if you do, I don't see how.)

????????

TrespassersW wrote:

Simply put, a federal income tax appears legal and supported by the constitution

i pointed out twice that the above was not in debate or dispute. i relayed that no one disagreed on that.
????????
your conclusion was never disputed.

that's why i posted twice

The Last 007 wrote:

no one ever disageed or disagrees with the fact that the government has the right to collect taxes and create the dept. to collect them.

that is not the issue at hand in this debate.

with that being expressed twice i thought you wanted to know what actually was in dispute.

but now i see. no no no.
no one ever disagreed with that fact TrespassersW.

If you want to know what was disputed it's in the post.

TrespassersW
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 988
Location: North Carolina, USA

Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 7:45 pm Post subject:

thelast007 wrote:

i pointed out twice that the above was not in debate or dispute. i relayed that no one disagreed on that.
????????
your conclusion was never disputed.

So how could I be "behind" if I feel the question I raised has been answered to my satisfaction? With respect, you seem to have misinterpreted my reasons for being here, something I assure you I've always been clear about.

thelast007
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 525

Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 7:46 pm Post subject:

TrespassersW wrote:

thelast007 wrote:

i pointed out twice that the above was not in debate or dispute. i relayed that no one disagreed on that.
????????
your conclusion was never disputed.

??????...ok

thelast007
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 525

Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 6:22 pm Post subject:

The exact law that proves federal taxes on american labor wages within the u.s are not lawful. Very Happy

better yet

proof a federal law taxing american labor wages and other profits within the u.s. does not even exist. Razz

http://video.google.com/videop.....2370018023

I will do my best to summerize the above 1.5 hour film and a 3 hour discussion on taxes.

Below are the actual tax statues made created and made law by the United States Congress under the authority of the U.S. Constitution.

Section 1--- imposes a tax on income from a U.S. citizens made from within the U.S. or without the U.S.

Section 63-- defines what is taxable income as gross income minus deductions

Section 61-- defines what are taxable items i.e. interest, dividends, wages, etc. as gross income or all income from what ever source derived

Section 861-- defines and determines what are the "sources derived"
&
Section 861--- determines sources of income for purposes of the income tax within or without the U.S.
Only the specific sources listed are taxable

the list is as follows:

-non resident aliens and foreign corporations are taxable when they do business in the u.s.

-income from outside the U.S. and from foreign nations

-u.s. citizen living and working in foreign countries

-those who reside or receive income from U.S. possessions such as Puerto Rico and Guam etc.

-Domestic international sales cooperation

-international boycott determinations.

Supreme Court Ruled in Gould v. Gould of 1917 "In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes it is the established rule not to extend their provisions, by implication, beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out. In case of doubt they are construed most strongly against the government, and in favor of the citizen."

if you & your money are not in the above category you & your money are not federally taxable. Cool

if it sounds confusing. you're right.
if you want to know the truth. (see and understand it for yourself that is)

#1 get real bored and feel like giving yourself a head ache. Sad

#2 buy the book of codes at Borders Smile

#3 watch the film yourself Shocked

#4 look up the codes yourself. Shocked

#5 reference a long time tax protester & listen to them go on and on explaining. Rolling Eyes

THE END

Refused
Known Associate

Joined: 14 Mar 2007
Posts: 247

Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 4:21 pm Post subject:

Well, let's break everything down into a simple high-school, American Government class type of situation.

Congress is here for the legislative branch. They make the laws and pass them to head of state.

The judicial branch was created to interpret law. This means to interpret what exactly the laws that congress set up.

Whenever a case dealing with Constitutional issues arises, it falls under Supreme Court jurisdiction. The Supreme Court is called the Supreme Court because it's the final authority of interpreting the constitution.

It starts in 1895 Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. The Supreme Court ruled that an income tax was unconstitutional BUT, in 1916, after the 16th amendment was ratified, the income tax then became considered an excise (or indirect) tax, by the Brushaber V. Union Pacific Railroad. The court upheld that Congress could not levy another tax but it did decide that income tax was considered an indirect tax.

Now, the question is, what exactly does the word, "income" mean?

The Eisner V. Macumber case is a little irrelevant because it talks more about shareholding and things like that, however, Doyle V. Mitchell says, "Whatever difficulty there may be about a precise and scientific definition of 'income,' it imports, as used here, something entirely distinct from principal or capital either as a subject of taxation or as a measure of the tax; conveying rather the idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activities. As was said in Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415 , 34 S. Sup. Ct. 136: 'Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined.'"

I was really hoping that the IRS and income taxing was illegal but from what I've gathered so far, even after watching From Freedom To Fascism, is that the income tax is constitutional, ALTHOUGH, I still don't see how the income tax is an excise tax. Excise taxes are taxes we can avoid, such as riding a bike instead of using a car to avoid gasoline tax. Excise taxes are avoidable but not the income tax, so I don't understand how the income tax could be considered an indirect tax.

Refused
Known Associate

Joined: 14 Mar 2007
Posts: 247

Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 4:29 pm Post subject:

By the way, there's no chance in hell our forefathers would want a private bank to do Congresses job.

thelast007
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 525

Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 4:54 pm Post subject:

you're ten threads too late. skim through the threads. were argued that up and down and in and out.

this is a total different reason found in the IRS tax code.

and it has nothing to do with the reasoning in freedom to fascism.

and it specifically has nothing to do with the definition of income.

Refused wrote:

By the way, there's no chance in hell our forefathers would want a private bank to do Congresses job.

I second that motion!

Turk
Forum Elder

Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 3340

Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 2:17 am Post subject:

Corrupt institution that runs our country in private hands nuff said

Turk
Forum Elder

Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 3340

Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 7:46 pm Post subject:

The federal reserve was named that to confuse the people into thinking that its a federal entity.
The supreme court has ruled that the fed is a private corp that loans our government money with interest

Centeral bank is socialist in nature