|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
If you examine the cases you cite carefully you will find that neither of
these cases won (as you put it) on the basis of their original premise.
After severe legal penalties both were forced to continue paying income
taxes and the courts of appeal upheld that decision.
I will not bore you with my credentials to discuss this matter but I will
tell you that I have spent many years working in the tax field and have
thoroughly completed my homework. You, on the other hand, are spouting
things that are quite simply not true and it is quite easy to ascertain that
you have not done your homework. You are interpreting the tax law
differently than the ruling bodies and the courts and quite frankly your
interpretation does not matter. The ruling bodies and the courts are the
only opinions that matter in any tax case. No one, in the history of the
US, has ever successfully challenged the IRS or the tax laws in a court of
law and been granted immunity from paying income taxes. It would not
surprise me one bit if you are visited in the very near future by
representatives of our taxing authority if your claim that you do not pay
income taxes is true which I doubt seriously.
You have the right to interpret and attempt to apply the tax laws and IRS
code in any manner which you see fit however the courts will be the ultimate
decision maker.
If your claim that you do not pay any income taxes is true then give us
specifics and detailed steps to take to follow in your footsteps. If you
are unable or unwilling to be specific and detailed in your claims then quit
making the claims. Prove your case with details, facts, dates, times, court
docket numbers, legal counsel, presiding judge, etc. or you have no case at
all, just opinion.
To members of the Omega-List:
I have no personal interest in this train of thought however I am very
deeply concerned that some innocent individual might read these ravings and
act upon them bringing legal and financial harm to themselves and their
families.
Please, for your own well being, do not listen to these rantings. This
individuals claims will result in serious harm to you and your families
legal and financial future if you take them seriously. Please do not risk
your future well being on the rantings of someone who is unwilling or unable
to provide you with detailed facts and legal precedents to support their
claims. Study the tax laws, study the IRS code and consult legal counsel
before acting upon any information of this nature regardless of the source.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lamont Cranston" <strategies@xxxxxxx>
To: "Tom Bowen" <trbowen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2000 2:12 AM
Subject: Re: Re:Stop paying taxes
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Tom Bowen <trbowen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: Lamont Cranston <strategies@xxxxxxx>; Patrick White
<simgenie@xxxxxxxx>
> Cc: <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, April 07, 2000 9:15 PM
> Subject: Re: Re:Stop paying taxes
>
>
> > Careful what you believe.
> > ALWAYS consult legal counsel before acting on any claims of this nature.
> > If you research legal cases where any attempt to avoid paying income
taxes
> > was involved you will find that the defendant ALWAYS lost.
>
> NOT TRUE: Go on the web and look the Cheek case and the Lloyd Long case.
> They both won.
> > Anyone who proports a position that you do not have to pay taxes in the
> U.S.
> > is either a liar or ignorant of the law. In any case they are very
> > dangerous to others who might believe their spoutings. ALWAYS ask these
> > people if they pay taxes and if not how do they manage to avoid
> prosecution.
> > The bottom line is if you want to live and prosper in the U.S. you must
> pay
> > income taxes on your earnings and or profits, it is the law whether we
> like
> > it or not is not the issue. The tax laws ARE ratified and have been
> > supported by every court in the land on numerous occasions.
> > It is the law and you WILL go to jail if you attempt to avoid it.
>
> No, it is not the law nor the bottom line. If it were, I wouldn't be
> responding to you in this fashion, but from a jail cell as you so nicely
put
> it. But since I'm not in any cell, and my assets haven't been seized then
I
> must know something that you don't. At least I took the time to examine
the
> facts and determine for myself what the law is and is not.
>
> At the
> > very least the IRS will seize all of your assets, liquidate them to the
> > highest bidder to cover your tax liability and sue you for any balance
> owed.
> > They will hound you, garnish your wages, seize new assets you may
acquire
> > and imprison you if necessary but they will collect the taxes owed them.
> > Life has enough problems, why go out and look for trouble.
> > Above all else protect yourself legally and for God's sake, pay your
> taxes.
>
> It's nice to know that so many of you are either apathetic about your
> freedoms, afraid to stand up for what you believe, or worse yet believe
what
> you have been spoon fed.
>
> And yes, the IRS will hound you to death. And I mean that literally. I
had
> a very good friend that lived in Harrisburg, Pa. that the IRS hounded for
> eleven years until he commited suicide and that wasn't enough they went
> after his wife after that.
>
> I'm not saying that all of you should go out and stop paying the taxes you
> think owe. What I have done is not for everybody. It took me a very long
> time and many hours of research to come to my decision of not paying any
> more taxes. Oh, I still pay taxes on my capital gains, but no longer on
any
> of my earnings.
>
> If what I am doing or saying here is repugnant to any of you I apologize,
> but I believe very strongly about this issue.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Lamont Cranston" <strategies@xxxxxxx>
> > To: "Patrick White" <simgenie@xxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Friday, April 07, 2000 9:32 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re:Stop paying taxes
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Patrick White <simgenie@xxxxxxxx>
> > > To: Lamont Cranston <strategies@xxxxxxx>
> > > Sent: Friday, April 07, 2000 6:00 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Re:Stop paying taxes
> > >
> > >
> > > > Lamont,
> > > >
> > > > I read through your post. It sounds like you really know your stuff.
> If
> > > this
> > > > is truly the case, what do I need to do so that I don't have to pay
> tax?
> > > > What are you doing along these lines? What are the known risks of
> > adopting
> > > > such a posture?
> > >
> > > You first have to understand that by taking this defense against the
IRS
> > you
> > > would lose. There have been many cases based on the constitutional
> issue
> > of
> > > the direct tax issue that have lost. What it takes is an extensive
> > > understanding of the Internal Revenue Code and what areas of that code
> > that
> > > you can base your defense upon. The code is very ambiguous, and I
want
> to
> > > emphasis the word very, and difficult to understand. Having said
that,
> > > there are many web-sites and books that can help you with that
> > > understanding. One web-site that gave me the deepest understanding
is;
> > >
> > > http:\\home.erols.com\scambos\taxbook.asc
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Also, how does the phrase: "on incomes, from whatever source
derived."
> > > mean
> > > > from corporate incomes only? I am not familiar with this particular
> > > > interpretation.
> > >
> > > In this case the word income is misused. It really should be profits.
> A
> > > corporation never pays taxes on income, but profits. In other words,
> net
> > > profits.
> > >
> > > As an individual earning a wage from a profession, those wages are not
> > > taxable, because it is not profits, but income. The way the code is
> > > written, the ambiquity of the phrases regarding income and profits
makes
> > it
> > > appear that an individual earning a wage is liable for taxes on
income.
> > > However, I will defy you to find anywhere in the code a definition of
a
> > > specific tax on income.
> > >
> > > Now, once you read this paragraph, you should begin to understand that
> any
> > > individual earning a "profit" from trading or any other endeavor that
> > > generates a profit must pay a tax on those profits.
> > >
> > > In the Constitution, it states "we have the right to life, liberty and
> the
> > > ownership of property, and those rights will not excised". What
> basically
> > > this means is that our labor is the individuals property and therefor
> > cannot
> > > be taxed. It does not make any reference to profits on the sale or
> trade
> > of
> > > property.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Patrick White
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Lamont Cranston" <strategies@xxxxxxx>
> > > > To: <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Sent: Friday, April 07, 2000 7:58 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"
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
|