After you apoligized for "attracting" me to the "Anesthesized by the tax rebate" thread, you came back and offered this....

"I believe that the phrase .."there is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual..a tax".... actually comes from section (1) of the code, 26 USC.1

"I don't know what you think it means. I think it means you've got to pay taxes."

Please answer this question: Where in the USC would I find the statute that determines whether I have "taxable" income, and that I am the individual in question?

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), August 26, 2001

Answers

Title 26.

-- E.H.Porter (just.wondering@about.it), August 26, 2001.

So, you're unable to answer. No surprise.

You're unable to answer, because there is no statute, Porter.

At least several other people on this forum have stated that they file because they would rather submit than go to jail. But you have no excuse, Porter, because you claim to know that there is a legitimate reason for it. You're a liar.

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), August 26, 2001.

So, you read Title 26 of the United States Code? That was quick -- I guess you're not quite the dim bulb I think you are, if you can read and undestand that muchh material in so short a time. Since you still have questions, please tell me this -- exactly what part of Title 26 didn't you understand?

Now,if you haven't actually read the tax code, perhaps this might be a good thing for a "tax nut in training" to do. I suggest you start with a number of highly relevant sections. Perhaps when your mother puts you to bed each night, she could read to you the Code a section at a time.

If I were you, and I actualy wanted to understand the basis of personal taxation (which I doubt that you do), I'd start with the following provisions of Title 26 -- 1, 61, 861, 6001, 6011, 7201-7203.

All tax nuts trying to shed their training wheels should also search for and read about the trials and travails of fabled tax protester Irwin Shiff, which culimate with the impositions of sanctions in Schiff v. United States, 919 F.2d 830, 834 (2nd Cir. 1990)(describing Shiff as "an extremist who reserves the right to interpret the decisions of the Supreme Court as he read[s] them from his layman's point of view regardless of and oblivious to the interpretations of the judiciary").

By the way, as expressed in the prior thread, I'll be up in the Wind River Mountains for a while, begining shortly -- so KoFE, I guess that you are just going to have to figure out what the tax code says on your own. Good luck; your literacy level does not seem high enough for the task. But, with a little practice, you might actualy acquire some faint glimmer of understading.

-- E.H.Porter (just.wondering@about.it), August 26, 2001.

So does this mean that your both anesthetized by the tax rebate? LOL

(Have fun E.H.)

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), August 26, 2001.

Well, here you go folks. I invite you to veiw the statutes Porter uses to direct him to file a 1040, and advises others to do so as well. Put US tax code in the search engie, and then the sections he refered to in the tax code search engine.

Of course there is nothing there to indicate that the statute is refering to you, but you can insert your name where ever you like. In other words, you are in charge of your own mind fuck.

You're pathetic Porter.

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), August 26, 2001.

Good Night, KoFE -- have your mother read 26 U.S.C.1 to you before she puts your jammies on.

I love you KoFE.

-- E.H.Porter (just.wondering@about.it), August 26, 2001.

"At least several other people on this forum have stated that they file because they would rather submit than go to jail."

Please explain why they would go to jail if not paying taxes is perfectly legal.

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), August 27, 2001.

No one can fault Kofe for a lack of persistence.

When I think of Kofe, I think of the man who looks at the bear and says loudly, "There is nothing to fear!" "If there is nothing to fear," I reply, "why not come down from the tree?"

The legal arguments espoused by Kofe have been dismantled in the U.S. court system again and again. Rather than admit the failure of his position, Kofe insists he is correct. I suppose Kofe thinks he is better able to interpret the law than the numerous sitting judges, or is it a grand conspiracy?

This is the intellectual equivalent of quibbling over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I will wait until Kofe climbs down from his tree. Until he does, his tax rants are nothing more than the frightened boasts of the treebound.

-- Jose Ortega y Gasset (j_oretega_y_gasset@hotmail.com), August 27, 2001.

Because Deano, the public has been told a lie, and they believe it, and are too lazy to bother looking at the code. Why anyone would be so naive to think there is corruption everywhere except the courts is beyond me. (Or is it just a convenient argument?)

In the other hand, parasites like Jose love this country for the economic priviledges it provides but are clueless about the principles of freedom. He doesn't know our history, and doesn't share our heritage.

To those who question this governments illegal actions, Jose would turn in to the authorities.

The code is actually refering to people like Jose, who run from their own countries, and come here for safety and priviledges they would deny to you.

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), August 27, 2001.

Kofe the patriot. Perhaps you can point out where you fought and bled for American freedom? Bunker Hill? Yorktown? I thought not. You are just another coward wrapped in patriotic language. You know nothing of freedom, Kofe, because you fail to understand responsibility. America is not license, but obligation, moral obligation.

Perhaps the most amusing irony, however, is to have a tax dodging coward call someone who pays taxes a "parasite." It seems one of us, Kofe, is paying for the commonweal, the national defense, the public infrastructure. I imagine I will also pay for your incarceration when the authorities finally lock you up for tax evasion. When's the court date? Once again your silence is deafening.

-- Jose Ortega y Gasset (j_ortega_y_gasset@hotmail.com), August 27, 2001.

You wouldn't want those entitlement checks to stop coming, would you, jose? Someone has to pay for your welfare.......

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), August 27, 2001.

BTW Dumb fuck, let me know when YOU find that statute as well. Your lawyer friend can't, but that shouldn't stop you. Bring it on, lol.

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), August 27, 2001.

KoFE, you know I don't have a problem with you, dear. Please try not to faint when I say I don't mind paying taxes. I mind $400 hammers for the military, but by and large most of the money seems to be accounted for. I enjoy driving on a paved road to get to work. Transportation alone would be at a standstill in this country if every foot of road or rail or runway had to be maintained at private expense. We'd have no national defense without some way to raise the money for it. If you conked your noggin and went into a coma for a year, our tax dollars would ensure that you would be given medical care and your right to life would be protected by law...and we must pay the people who enforce those laws. It's a need-based system. If there are cheats, that's the cheaters' moral decay and not the decay of American freedom. Most people are honest.

-- helen (pass@the.hat), August 27, 2001.

Helen, I have never once said taxes are not needed. I am 100% in favor of raising revenue to support our government.

The proper way to raise taxes has always been with us from the beginning. Sales, excise, imports, user fees, income taxes on citizens working outside the US, RESIDENT ALIENS working here; the list goes on.

Even the current tax code is written correctly. But it BEING MISAPPLIED. There is no mandate for you to file a 1040 unless you have foreign earned income, or you are a resident alien working in this country.

People in this country are being misled. They are lining up like automotrons to submit to a law that doesn't exist.

Some people on this board can seem intelligent enough to understand, but then they get worked into a frenzy before they even check it out. Take the jackass Jose for example; telling me that payng taxes is a moral obligation. What a friggin crock.

Obeying the law is a moral obligation, whatever that law may be, so it would be a good idea to know what the law says, rather than your own misbegotten feelings. Read the statutes that Porter referenced without making the assumption beforehand that it's talking about you.

I'm making the assertion that it's not. If it was, it would say all citizens. Not person, not individual. A person or an individual can be a corporation. As I said before, you can interject your self into that statute if you want, but realize that you are the one doing it. It doesn't say citizens because a direct tax on citizens is forbidden by the constitution.

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), August 29, 2001.

KoFE: I just have a couple of quick questions: 1) Do you PAY income taxes, or do you just "talk the talk"? 2) Why is it so important to you that you evangelize on this issue?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), August 29, 2001.

Anita, I follow the law, and pay the taxes I owe.

As for "evangilizing", I think I'm discussing an intresting subject, and you must have at least a passing interest, otherwise you wouldn't be posting on this thread

But equally interesting is the phenomenon of belief and attitude of certain people. How they reference propaganda sites which have no basis in the law(I'm not talking about Porter, who actually referenced the code; at least he tried) and continually discuss me instead of just admitting they don't know. I'm 100% sure that everyone one this board is smart enough to read the code. (well maybe not Jose and Porter or Flint) but everyone else is. I can't figure out though, how that fact is contiunally overlooked.

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), August 29, 2001.

Kofe:

Anita, I follow the law, and pay the taxes I owe.

This confuses me, KoFE. I thought you said there WAS no law. If there IS no law, what taxes do you owe?

You're correct about my interest. It's just "passing". I've always paid an accountant to do my taxes. The whole "self-employment" thing and what expenses I COULD and could NOT deduct, and whether I could deduct my mom when I paid more than half her living expenses, etc. was worth $100 to me to avoid.

However, if I believed as strongly as YOU do on this thing, I'd want to stand up for my principles and test my reading of the code on the court system. I understand that this has been done by several others and they all lost. I also remember the reason why Al Capone went to prison. So...even if you're right, and the law is being misapplied, if no court in the land will agree with you, wouldn't you agree that you're blowing in the wind?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), August 29, 2001.

You are assuming that this is about me or you and it's not. I don't ask people to do anything; I'm only telling what the law says.

I sure as hell don't expect any converts from this crowd. The best I can hope for is that maybe if you (the generic you) or someone you know is called to jury duty, you will at least be fair enough to look at the code, and wise enough not to be slicked by a prosecutor who uses emotional slogans like "moral obligation".

I hope you'll do something different, like asking him to show you the law.

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), August 29, 2001.

Once again, another misinformation site. Or rather 2 sites, if you count the Y2k. It would be much simpler if you show the law that mandates filing, instead of "supposedly" failed arguements. How can a settlement be reached with a guy who claims "IT"S A LITTLE UNCLEAR WHAT THE MEANING IS", ( BUT I THINK YOU'RE WRONG)

Either you know what it means or you don't. This is the kind of smoke and mirrors that is thruout the so-called "tax protester"(government) sites.

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), August 29, 2001.

Pardon my mistake by saying the Y2K site was misinformation. I should have said it was disinformation, because I concluded that you were using it to disinform since it was referenced along with a site (Evans) that is meant to disinform.

Evans has taken several cases of doubtful validity(I don't mean they didn't actually occur,I mean the judgement written after the trial probably reflects the writers opinion beyond the facts.) and has held them up as failed "protestor" arguments. Take for example the Melton Bros. These three may or may not have been correct, however, the lengths that they went to to hide their assets adds suspicion to conspiracy and more. For example giving property to a relative to hold as a trust is not illegal. Probably nothing they did (by itself) was illegal, however, the refusal to report all of their activities and assets brought about the illegal actions (a demand to perform an act for which no precise mandate exist) of the IRS. Evans doesn't reference the actual statute that was violated, but purposely disinforms by referencing yet another and another opinion written after judgement.

An example of this is Brushaber vs Union Pacific RR. If you've been taught in law school that Brushaber is the definitive case for establishing the validity of the "income tax" you compare all others in the same light. However, if you learn that Brushaber was a withholding agent for a group of resident alien stockholders, who were protesting the tax on income from the mining operation; and they were not citizens, you can see that the later cases are built on an illusion.

Evans claims that the meaning of "direct tax" is unclear because he can't explain the violation of it, but rather makes the declaration that the 16th overrides it. (BTW, if this is the case, there would be no need to repeal the 18th (prohibition) with the 22nd. That would be like saying from now on, we're going to ignore the 2nd. The "no direct tax" clause is as valid today as it was 200 years ago, but if the prosecutor and judge choose to ignore that fact, then one can lie and the other can swear to it.

Evans, like many others who get their opinion from him, insinuates that anyone who question the legality of the income tax on citizens wages must be a "tax protestor". This is like saying anyone who sues for damages when injured in an accident is dishonest.

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), August 30, 2001.

Re-reading the above;

Two things here:

>(1) you've been shown the law above. Title 26<

Does this mean You have read it also?

>However, I believe you have made the assertion that individuals and citizens are two seperate entities<

The statute is stating persons and individuals liable for a taxable income. Persons and individuals can be corporations according to Blacks law dictionary.

>I believe the cases cited by Evans above refute this completely<

If a prosecutor can convince a jury that this statute is without a doubt pointing at you, and not a corporation, you will be convicted. The jury will never be told the difference, but rather misinformed that "everybody knows". If you, yourself won't consider your rights as a citizen, you can believe it too. So, it really comes down to whether you believe you're a citizen with rights protected by the constitution, or person who accepts "whatever".

Evans (and the courts) would have you believe that you are "whatever" they tell you you are. If you own a cat, they could claim that you're anti-dog.

The code was written with the income of corporations, resident aliens, and US citizens with FOREIGN EARNED income in mind.

IF YOU CROSS REFERENCE THE STATUTES IT BECOMES CLEAR.

btw

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), August 30, 2001.

What a hypocrite. Kofe is a church-going atheist, a man who believes in his principles only to the point of convenience. Why, Kofe, I do believe you would have written a strongly-worded anonymous letter strongly supporting the Boston Tea Party. What courage!

If you must know, Kofe, I pay taxes because I think it is my legal obligation, a position supported by every court in the United States. It is also a moral obligation. Since I benefit from public services like national defense and public roads, I feel morally obligated to assist in their maintenance. Would I prefer to pay less taxes? Certainly, but these taxes are levied by a governmental duly elected by its citizens. Unlike the American colonists, I cannot claim, "No taxation without representation."

Again, I await your court appearance to "prove" your legal points. Oh, I forgot. You lack the strength of convictions to do anything but prattle.

-- Jose Ortega y Gasset (j_ortega_y_gasset@hotmail.com), August 30, 2001.

This is kind of like talking to a flat-earther. Evidence is immaterial. However, a little bit of consistency would be welcome.

The last time KoFE crawled out from under his rock, he made the following claim:

"Brushaber was a withholding agent for a group of resident alien stockholders, who were protesting the tax on income from the mining operation; and they were not citizens."

What happened on that prior thread is that Porter showed up and demonstrated that Brushaber was no such thing. Brushaber was a private citizen trying to evade his taxes. There was no mention of ANY "group of resident aliens" involved in this case, anywhere in the entire long decision. There was no mention that Brushaber was a "withholding agent" anywhere in the decision. The issue of citizenship did not come up anywhere in the decision.

So Porter challenged KoFE to find so much as a hint that anything he said about Brushaber was implied by so much as a single sentence in the whole decision. KoFE was unable to provide ANY SUCH THING. Porter was even nice enough to provide publicly accessible links to the Brushaber decision for KoFE to read in its entirety. STILL KoFE found no hint of his allegations. So that thread died with KoFE kind of promising that, while he couldn't find ANY support for his "withholding agent" or "noncitizen" claims, he'd be back someday with actual documentation. This is quite crucial, since these undocumentable (i.e. patently false) claims lie at the very heart of KoFE's argument.

And here he is. THIS time, having presumably read the entire decision, KoFE writes:

"Brushaber was a withholding agent for a group of resident alien stockholders, who were protesting the tax on income from the mining operation; and they were not citizens."

Sound familiar? Like the flat-earther being shown pictures, even live feeds from the shuttle, of the spherical earth, and retreating while promising to document his claims better -- only to show up later with the unchanged flat-earth claims, just as though the prior demonstration had never happened. And Brushaber was STILL a private citizen trying to evade taxes, and there is STILL no hint of "withholding agent" or "resident aliens" in that decision, which has not changed in all these years!

So I share Porter's curiosity as to why some people are so incurably married to certain delusions as to render them hermetically learn- proof. No matter how funny the joke is, sooner or later you'd expect it to wear off and get boring.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), August 30, 2001.

Flint,

That's funny. I hadn't noticed the cut and paste before now. In fact, that's VERY funny. Maybe KoFE thought that if he waited long enough, no one would remember that he had (a) quoted that paragraph and (b) watch it be completely demolished by a practicing barrister. :)

But I think you and Jose miss what KoFE *really* wants, and has wanted from the beginning. Like most tax protestors, he wants -- desperately -- for someone (anyone!) to begin posting the pertinent sections of T26 so that he can argue and nitpick the precise definitions.

No one will play with him. How sad.

-- Admiral Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), August 30, 2001.

As usual the circlejerks are all over the place except reading the code.

The Supreme Court didn't mention Brushabers paycheck either dumb ass; it was talking about income from the mining operation. As usual Flint, you are ejaculating prematurely. And as a matter of fact, I may have even forgotten, what with all the pleasant conversation we had.

Jose, I want you to copy and paste your replies from now on.

Shillpoole, you've already blown your credibility when you admitted you knew the tax was being applied illegally, but you had other priorities. And this AFTER you referenced Evans' site. You ARE the weakest link.

Funny in a strange kind of way, how you 3 want to discuss me instead of the tax fraud. But then you've already been told what to do, so you don't need to know more.

So, as usual

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), August 30, 2001.

KoFE,

You make several mistakes (as usual).

1. If I have lost credibility with YOU, that can only be perceived as a boost in my credibility with the public at large, since over 95% of the public doesn't agree with you. :)

2. No, most people DON'T want to discuss your loony theories in depth. They are without legal merit. I should think that was obvious by now, but you refuse to "get it." I have better things to with my time.

2-1/2. You love to ask questions, but never answer any of your own. For example, I myself asked you to name ONE CURRENT COURT CASE (not something from the turn of the century) in which a tax protestor actually won his argument on the basis of ANY -- *ANY* -- of your spurious legal theories.

That's important KoFE, if we're talking "credibility" here. If your arguments are correct, you *NEED* to produce some evidence that a legitimate court -- somewhere -- ANYWHERE -- agrees with you.

You can't. I'm not going to wait for it, because I have better things to do with my time.

2-3/4. You obviously have never read all of Title 26 of the code yourself, or you wouldn't ask some of the questions that you do (repeatedly) (endlessly) (ad nauseum). You have (just as obviously) instead read summaries and commentaries from fellow tax nuts.

Porter, for example, answered your question here. He answered it correctly. You asked, "show me where the code says yadda yadda." Porter said, "see Title 26."

That's the correct answer. Porter is not wrong. The fact that you THINK he's wrong demonstrates that you are incapable of looking at the thing logically, and I have better things to do with my time.

3. You gloss over Jose's remarks, but they are quite pertinent. I, too, wouldn't mind seeing my taxes lowered, made more fair, etc., etc. But I also do NOT mind paying my fair share, because I use public services. Further, I will obey the law -- not just as an American, but as a Christian who believes what Romans Ch. 12 says about being "subject to authorities," and what Jesus said about "rendering under Caesar.

I won't try to explain this to you (for the nth time) any further, because I have better things to do with my time.

-- Commodore "NoTaxNut" Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), August 30, 2001.

Nonetheless, you gotta admit it takes a certain amount of idiotic chutzpah to use the following technique so invariably:

1) Make false claims without any documentation.

2) Demand that *everyone else* document that your claims are without merit.

3) When they do so, call them all names and vanish.

4) Wait six months, and go back to step 1) as though all the previous rounds never happened.

But it's nice to see that KoFE is now at least implicitly admitting that the Brushaber decision never raised the points KoFE claims are the critical points, because they weren't the point of the case!

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), August 30, 2001.

I love you KoFE. Please don't go to jail over a silly thing like money.

-- helen (no@jail.is.worth.it), August 30, 2001.

Flint, you'll never know the critical points of the case because your head is up your ass.

Helen, by now I'm sure you can see the pattern of human behavior that allows the fraud to continue, even if the fraud isn't apparent. These childish men are very religious about worshipping authority. There is no other God for them. Title 26 is their bible. There are no contradictory passages. the entire 2 million words are gospel. Heretics must die!

It's fun to stir up the nest tho. Hmmmm, that seems familiar.....

I can't resist, one more time; go and reference, and cross reference Porters list of statutes. That's where the real meat of "The Word" is. LOL

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), August 31, 2001.

I refused to pay the fascist IRS.

-- (inmate 364298@Leavenwoth.Kansas), August 31, 2001.

Jonathan, I appreciate the civility. The reason I said your Y2K article was disinformation was because it seemed that you were linking it to Evans' disinformation site to have Evans site appear credible.

The problem with your argument is that there are 11 subchapters in the code, and all are applied seperately, and never the twain shall meet.

A Income tax

B Estate and gifts

C Employment taxes

D Misc. Excise Taxes

E Alchohol Etc.

F Procedure etc.......

G ..........H........I......J.......K.....

In other words, Income taxes are dealt with in Subtitle A and no where else.

You would not apply definitions in Subtitle (E) Alchohol, Tobacco, Firearms to statutes in (C) Employment Taxes and so on.

Meanwhile, I'm working on the relevant ruling of Brushaber, a report from the federal govermments own lawyer written in 1979.

(You're gonna like this one Flint)

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), August 31, 2001.

KoFE, don't spend your life fighting this issue.

-- helen (there@are.better.things), September 01, 2001.

I follow the law and pay taxes.

Why?

Enough said

Why?

-- suMer (I@aint.saying), September 01, 2001.

I'm pissed at myself. Why do I keep clicking on this thread? =)

-- (cin@cin.cin), September 01, 2001.

Jonathan, first off, Subtitle F is Procedure and Administration- this is for IRS Agents to define terms.

Secondly, above ^ -you referenced (30) United States Person-

The term United States person means-

A - A citizen or resident of the United States

B- etc. C- etc

From this you are concluding that this term is used to identify those who are liable for an income tax--

Well okay, for the sake of argument, look in Subchapter A and find All UNITED STATES PERSONS shall be liable for a tax on wages, and file a 1040......

....Or pick your own variation of that....

We have been trained to "assume" liability when we read this thing because it's a "given" that it's a done deal, so I'm suggesting that we keep an open mind and wait (figuratively) for the defining command.

One more thing about Evans; he put his own spin on that Brushaber ruling. Don't forget his slick statement, "the meaning of direct tax is a little unclear". He knows what it means... and I have the interprtation of that ruling by the governments Congressional lawyer, which is on record. I'm gonna post it along with the IRS directive to field agents Re: Brushaber, soon as I get time.

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), September 01, 2001.