THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE SCAM The Internal Revenue Service, puts out a publication that is called Publication 525, Taxable, Nontaxable Income. Introduction, the first thing it says is: "Wages and salaries are the chief source of income for most people." It doesn't say its income, it said its source. The only way it can convert to income is after all expenses, deductions and so forth. If it was earned in the exercise of a government granted privilege, any profit thereafter, would constitute income. Without that element of privilege first, it can never be income. When we talk about privilege, lets try it, this way. Let's say that in the pursuit of your occupation, you have receipts of twenty thousand dollars. You go out and buy a dollar ticket and you hit the lottery for fifty thousand dollars. How would you start to fill out a Federal tax return? What would you put down, for numbers, if you were playing the game, their way, as a volunteer? Seventy thousand dollars? The twenty plus the fifty? That is generally the way most people would respond to it. The way it should be treated is the twenty thousand is non-taxable, because it never constituted income anyway. The fifty thousand less the dollar for the cost of the ticket, the number of exemptions that you have in family. Twenty one hundred and fifty dollars apiece or whatever it is now, then all your deductions. Your gasoline taxes, estate sales taxes, and all the things to which you're entitled to, to reduce it, and then if you end up with a profit, you would then return a part of that to the I.R.S.. Why would the fifty thousand be taxable? It was a privilege! Isn't gambling per se, illegal? Could you do business with a bookmaker, and he not go to jail? No, you couldn't. If someone was taking book from you, horses and so forth, he'd go to jail, if caught. Gambling is illegal, the state gives you a privilege of doing something illegal, on a legal basis, if you play their game, sponsored by them. So they have taken what is a criminal activity, and made it legal, providing you give part of what you get out of the act, to them. That is why doing what is normally an illegal act, becomes a privilege, for which you will pay, if you are lucky enough to hit it. See, when you take these things apart, it's no longer complicated. When you look in the 1040 instruction booklet, it tells you in the Privacy Act and Paperwork Reduction Act Notice that the I.R.S. has to do certain things. To ask questions of you and so forth. They tell you what they're going to do with it. You are led to believe that your income tax forms are confidential. If you believe that, you believe, wet streets make rain. It says here: "We may give the information to the Department of Justice . . ." Why? Just to stockpile information against you, to prosecute you criminally, anytime they choose. ". . . [A]nd to other Federal agencies, as provided by law. We may also give it to cities, states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. commonwealths or possessions to carry out their tax laws. And we may give it to foreign governments because of tax treaties they have with the United States." Confidential? If Russia wanted the tax returns of everyone that filed a tax return, the I.R.S. would turn them over to them. The I.R.S. is called "The Lending Library," and it is. There is no question about it. Now it says: "Our legal right to ask for information is Internal Revenue Code sections 6001, 6011, 6012(a) and their regulations. They say you must file a return or statement with us for any tax you are liable for." What is the conditions for having to file? If you are liable for a tax! How do you, or did you get that way? Well, the I.R.S. has gone to much trouble, to invent this Title 26, and you will find that the whole thing has nothing to do with you. So you don't have to worry about sections buried inside or anything else. You just follow their instructions. You go to section 6001. 6001 says: "Every person liable for any tax imposed by this title, or for the collection thereof, shall keep such records, render such statements, make such returns, and comply with such rules and regulations as the Secretary may from time to time prescribe." Now what it said is: "Every person liable for any tax . . ." Does it say every person "IS" liable? No! Ninety eight percent of the people put the verb in there, that is non-existent. So from that point forward they start taxing themselves. Assessing themselves, paying a tax because they read it that every person is liable. It doesn't say every person is liable. It doesn't tell you who, that person is, or how you get that why. So 6001 is absolutely no help. It said after 6001 go to 6011. So you go to 6011 and it says: "When required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary any person made liable for any tax imposed by this title, or with respect to the collection thereof, shall make a return or statement according to the forms and regulations prescribed by the Secretary. Every person required to make a return or statement shall include therein the information required by such forms or regulation." So it says: "When required by regulations . . . any person made liable . . ." It doesn't tell you who the person is, that is made liable, it doesn't tell you how the person got that way. Then it says: "Every person required to make a return or statement shall include therein the information . . ." But it doesn't say every person is required to make a return. It tells you that a person required to make a return shall include the information required, that is reasonable. Again, that is your jurisdictional entry points into the code and they haven't told you how it could apply to you. It said after 6011 go to 6012(a). So you go to 6012(a) and it says: "Returns with respect to income taxes under subtitle A shall be made by the following: . . ." It doesn't say anything about income tax returns. It says: "Returns with respect to income taxes . ." Why the strange wording? If you worked for the government and they wanted a return on what they paid you, then it would make sense. That is exactly who they are talking about! Then it goes on to talk about subtitle A, if you go to subtitle A, you will find that they are talking about non-resident aliens. That is exactly who is required, federal employees and non-resident aliens. So since they tell you in the Privacy Act, that is their authority to ask something of you. You find that they can only ask it of any person made liable and every person required, from them can demand a return. They don't have the authority to tell you that you are required. They don't have the authority to tell you, you've been made liable, because the whole thing is voluntary. Something that is voluntary can't command a requirement from you or anybody. So you have to go beyond Title 26 to find out, from the time of the constitutionality of the 16th Amendment. The only reason that it was constitutional, is that for the first time it separated income from source, but it didn't mean that it applied to everybody. It only applied to those persons, who were required and the only way they could get that way would be through asking for a government granted privilege. Since the code doesn't apply to you, you need no longer fuss with it or have any burden with it. What you have to do, is learn how to write the information you're going to discuss with someone when you go down there for a hearing, when they write you a letter, after you have stopped filing and they say: "We can't find your returns and so forth." You say "Well gee, that is your problem, not mine. What makes you think I'm required?" Then they try to tell you "Well, you had income." Then you pick up the code and you say: "Would you be so kind, now its up to me to make the determination. Your forms tell me that, I must make the determination. To make that determination, there has to be something in the law that says I'm required to do something. Here is Title 26, you say I became liable, because I had income. Would you find the definition of income in this code?" It doesn't exist! The reason it doesn't exist in the code, is because, the President can't define it, the Congress can't define it, the I.R.S. cannot define it, Social Security Administration can't define it, because it is a word that appears in the Constitution. There is only one entity that can define any word that appears in the Constitution. That is the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court has defined the word income, as profit or gain earned in the exercise of a government granted privilege. In the BUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R.R. CO., 240 US 1, ruled that the 16th Amendment did not change the Constitutional limitations forbidding direct taxation. It further stated that: ". . . taxation on income was in its nature an excise . . ." Look up the case of FLINT v. STONE TRACY 220 US 107, the court defined excises as " . . . taxes laid on the manufacture, sale or consumption of commodities within the country, upon license to pursue certain occupations, and upon corporate privileges." Look up all the definitions of profit or gain and they will tell you. It's corporate income that is being taxed, not the wages of an individual, who can't be taxed directly by the government under any circumstances. The I.R.S. can tell you there is a definition in here of gross income, but you know, when you ask them to show you a definition of income, all you have to remember is this. When they tell you "Well, that is gross income." You say "Please, don't do that to me. If you can't tell me what a horse is, there is no way I'm going to accept your trying to tell me what a gross horse is. To have a rabbit stew, you first must have a rabbit. You can't have gross income, adjusted income, taxable income, you can't have any kind of income until first there exists income. In ATKINS v. CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL, 261 U.S. 525, the court is going to tell you what your liberties are and they're going to refer to those cases that established them. In talking about the due process clause of the 5th Amendment, because there are two due process clauses. There is the 14th Amendment covers you with citizenship and so forth, so the states can't tax you on residency. There is a due process clause in the 5th Amendment, which talks about your Right to make a contract. Your liberty in the making of a contract. Here is what the court says: "The Right to contract about one's affairs is a part of the liberty of the individual protected by this clause, and it is settled by the decisions of this court, and it is no longer open to question." In the case of ADAIR v. U.S., 208 US 161, the court said: "The Right of a person to sell his labor, upon such terms as he deems proper, is in its essence, the same as the Right of the purchaser of labor to prescribe the conditions upon which he will accept such labor from the person offering to sell." Very simply stated is, you come to me, you want a job, you want to sell your labor, you tell me how much you need. I tell you what I need you to do. I want you to work certain days or nights, I want you to work in the factory. I want this from you, I want that from you and so forth. If you'll do that, I'll agree to pay you what you're asking for. So, the Right of a person to sell his labor is no better, no worse than the Right of the purchaser to prescribe under what conditions he will buy it. The court goes on to say: "In all such particulars the employer and the employee have equality of Rights, and any legislation which disturbs that equality, is an arbitrary interference with the liberty of contract, which no government can legally justify in a free land." Then in the case of COPAGE v. KANSAS, 236 US 1, the court said: "Included in the Right of personal liberty and the Right of private property partaking of the nature of each, is the Right to make contracts for the acquisition of property, chief among such contracts is that of personal employment, by which labor and other services are exchanged for money or other forms of property." If you have an exchange with equality of Rights or an equal exchange there can be no what? There can be no profit or gain, therefore there can be no income; there can be no tax. For those of you that are puzzling over what constitutes income. Let me tell you how they did it. They've been playing games with the language of the court. The way they play their game is this way. CONNER v. U.S., 303 F. Supp. 1187, and they mention in there, in the head notes: "There must be gain, before there is income within the 16th Amendment. Second head note, under Internal Revenue Code of 1954, if there is no gain there is no income. Now I'm going to show you how the word weasels play the game. We had a definition of the word income, which appeared in the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, again the code can't define income, only the court can. You have to go back to the cases to find out what the court called income. If there is income, then income from all sources can be added up to constitute gross income. The Internal Revenue Code says that: "[G]ross income includes gains, profits and income derived from salaries, wages or compensation for personal services." So if it is derived from salaries, since income has to be derived from source. They're identifying that salaries are source, or income derived from salaries, derived from wages, or compensation for personal services of whatever kind. They also went on to enumerate in there, that it took care of interest, rent, dividends, securities, or the transaction of any business or whatever and those were all source and they cannot be taxed. In 1954 they wanted to change it, so they used the phrase in section 61(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, which defines income in the following terms: "Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle . . ." Well you can forget that, that doesn't mean a thing. It says: ". . . [G]ross income means all income from whatever source derived." Now they're telling you again that income has to be derived from source. Then they say: ". . . [I]ncluding but not limited to the following items . . ." Now they use: ". . . [C]ompensation for services, including fees, commission and similar items. They're expecting you not to understand that the items do not refer to income. The items refer to source. If you don't understand the syntax of your language or how the sentence is constructed. You'll be confused and you'll do what they want you to do and you'll read items, compensation for services including fees, commission and similar items, gross income derived from business, interest, rent, dividends, securities, royalties etc.. They're not income, they're all source. The way that you prove it is, when you look at the categories of items. The first category is compensation for personal services, including fees, commission and similar items. When you go back to 22(a) it tells you that income derived from salaries, derived from source equals salaries, wages or compensation for personal service. They have compensation for personal services including fees, commission and similar item, in 61(a). When they get to similar items, that is a reference to the wages or salaries that appeared in 22(a). They have tried to mislead you into thinking that any compensation you had, has now become an item of income rather than items of source. So that you will voluntary divest yourself of your property. Except that the court said: "The language of 61(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 set forth above, might at first glance appear to have broadened the definition of gross income, this however is not so." Because the Supreme Court had before it then, the recent act of the 1954 Code and it had before it, section 22(a) of the 1939 Code and they are telling you there, that the language is the same, just don't misread it. Then they tell you, income has to be profit or gain. "Accountants and economists may differ greatly about what is, or what is not, income. It is not however their theories that have guided the court throughout the years." There has to be a profit or gain earned in the exercise of a government granted privilege. Whatever may constitute income therefore must have the essential feature of gain to the recipient, this was true when the 16th Amendment became effective, it was true at the time of the decision in EISENER v. MACOMBA, it was true under section 22(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, it is also true under section 61(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, if there is no gain, there is no income. With an equal exchange by selling your labor, which is your property, for somebody else's property, which is money, there can be no element of gain. With no privilege extended by government, there is no requirement to prove the arithmetic, that you've lacked gain. There is nothing that compels you to complete a return or a form, that is why this code can't compel you or anyone else to do anything. One of the reasons that we ended up, with the authority to debauch the currency of the United States back in the 1940s, was the conference in Britton Woods, New Hampshire. Here they agreed with the other nations of the world controlled by the International Bankers, that the United States government would have the power to debauch its currency. Members there attending, were Harry Dexter White and others who were proven to be known communists at the time, card carrying communists. The chairman of the conference was Alger Hiss. We can get rid of the Federal Reserve, and we must. The powers to buy it back or take it back, are in the original Act of its creation. There is no national debt, when the Act was first passed the Federal Reserve had agreed that they would only take a six percent profit. After chartering their corporations and the rest of the money was to be returned to the United States government as the cost of having the monopolistic privilege of running the country's money or running our money system. In the 1930s, that was rewritten to where they pay nothing for the power to control the monetary system of the United States, by which they have bankrupted us. They have stolen our wealth, the gold in Fort Knox has disappeared, the silver is gone. Now they have replaced our copper pennies with zinc. I wonder who has stolen our copper! Turiyan Gold ---- adscapes@ix.netcom.com iMALL consultant--- http://www.imall.com http://www.netcom.com/~adscapes/new.html http://www.netcom.com/~adscapes/ime.html http://www.imall.com/ads/data/p-826656769-m52=scnk.html =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= "These guys would'nt think twice about killing cops. Because they know, it brings down serious misery." --Excessive force Signature made w/ Unregistered ESig - The Original E-Mail Signature ManagerGet your copy at: http://netnow.micron.net/~jjordan/dbs/