|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
There are many impressionable people in the world and the stuff you are
spouting is illegal and will harm them if they act on it.
Develop a conscience and let it guide your actions.
Please do not publish this trash publicly as they are those who will believe
you and if they act upon your information it may very well ruin their lives.
You say your case has been sanctioned so you have no proof whatsoever that
the events you espouse ever took place.
If you are going to make claims like this you must produce irrefutable
evidence to support your case.
Why was your case sanctioned when so many others were not?
What are you hiding?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lamont Cranston" <strategies@xxxxxxx>
To: "Tom Bowen" <trbowen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2000 9:44 PM
Subject: Re: Re:Stop paying taxes
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Tom Bowen <trbowen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: Lamont Cranston <strategies@xxxxxxx>; <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, April 07, 2000 6:46 PM
> Subject: Re: Re:Stop paying taxes
>
>
> > Have you tested this theory?
> No, because I would lose.
> > Have you tried not paying taxes?
> Yes, I haven't paid any taxes on my "income" since 1984. I used to work
for
> BofA and filed an exempt W-4 and therefor had no tax taken from my wages.
> > Did you get away with it?
> Yes, but it took two court appearances. The first case I challenged the
> courts authority to levy taxes on my income and I won the challenge. The
> second case, I tried the same challenge, but I got a different judge who
> threw my challenge out and made me prove my case in court. Fortunately, I
> was able to get the Internal Code admitted into court, through discovery,
> and was able to use it against the IRS attorney's. If you have a strong
> understanding of the code, for which I do, you probably will know more
than
> most, if not all of the IRS agents, and a good number of their attorneys.
> > Can you cite your court case where you were exonerated and excluded from
> > paying taxes?
> No, because the case has been sanctioned.
>
> > Prove your point by not paying your taxes. If your successful let us
> know.
> > Sincerely hope you like being contained against your will.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Lamont Cranston" <strategies@xxxxxxx>
> > To: <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Friday, April 07, 2000 6:58 PM
> > Subject: Re:Stop paying taxes
> >
> >
> > > To All:
> > >
> > > The Constitution provides for two types of Taxes; Direct Taxes, which
> are
> > > taxes that are paid directly to the Government (which is the way that
> the
> > > Government attempts to impose the federal Income Tax) and Indirect
Tax,
> > > which the Constitution refers to as duties, imposts, and excises and
> which
> > > must be geographically uniform in order for them to be constitutional.
> > >
> > > The founders had just won independence from a tyrannical king and were
> > > concerned about giving any government too much power including any
> > > opportunity to impose any kind of direct tax, without apportionment.
> > > Apportionment means that before the Government can impose any type of
> > direct
> > > tax, it first must decide how much money it needs to collect in any
> given
> > > year. Then it must apportion the tax among the the various states
based
> > > upon the populations of those states.
> > >
> > > In two seperate Supreme Court cases, Pollock v. Farmers Loan and Trust
> > Co.,
> > > 157 U.S. 601, and Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, 240 U.S. 1, the
> > court
> > > ruled that direct taxes were unconstitutional.
> > >
> > > In the 16th Amendment, it states "The Congress shall have power to lay
> and
> > > collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without
> > > apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any
census
> > or
> > > enumeration." But, the qualifying phrase in this amendment, that
> denotes
> > > the fact that it only applies to corporate profits which is the "on
> > incomes,
> > > from whatever source derived."
> > >
> > > In the IRS code, Section 61 it states that "any person made liable
for
> > any
> > > tax" must pay said tax. The word "person" is this case means
> corporation.
> > > This is what the phrase in the 16th amendment, "income, from whatever
> > source
> > > derived", refers to -- corporate profits.
> > >
> > > With further research, in reference to that Section 61, and the
> statement
> > > that income from whatever source derived is taxable, if further
examined
> > it
> > > would show that the original source of that statement comes from the
> 1939
> > > Tax Code Section 22. The source of the statement comes from Title 26
> Part
> > > 519, which refers to a tax treaty with Canada. In another words, all
> > income
> > > from whatever source derived in Canada is taxable.
> > >
> > > Just the facts folks, just the facts.
> > >
> > > Lamont Cranston
> > > "who knows what evil lurks"
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
|