What I mean is that if the IRC defines who has to pay income tax, then surely it defines what exactly is "income", because it's obviously not all that comes in.
Here is what the IRC says "income" is. No need to go any further than number 1 for the "employed".
Quote:
Sec. 61. Gross income defined.
(a) General definition.
Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commisions, fringe benefits, and similar items;
Compensation for services = "employment" by definition 3121(b) to be exact.
Havent I've been saying if you are "employed" as far as Social Security is concerned you are not required to have deductions and withholding for occupations that are excluded?........yes I have been saying that the whole time.
So common sense says if you are not under a W4 agreement then the same can be said for the requirement of withhold and deduction..................not required......it voluntary to participate and therefore not statutory "income". The same as it was before 1935 when millions didnt file taxes because they didnt have to.
In this case I was listening to the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO, which is why I also included the source document:
Attachment 731
see page 2, where I highlighted it for convenience.
Are you saying that the United States of America, through undersigned counsel lied in the cognizance of a United States District Court?
Have no idea as I didnt listen or click the link.............and dont care to. If a lie has been said its of no concern of mine. I'm only focused and concerned with my Bill of Rights first and foremost, as you should be. They can lie to themselves all they want!
Ok so I did click on your file. The thing you should be more concerned about is the corporation "United States" is not the same as the United States of America. The USofA is the states united as in several states. The US is a corporation.
The reason I think that title 26 must be private law is because it was never
enacted as positive law.
So how can it be a law of the United States of America?
If I were you I would research both positive and nonpositive to get a better understanding what it is. Some here beleive I'm a lawyer........I'm not any such thing I'm an union electrician (electronics degree in aviation) whos been studying tax laws since 1995. I have a few lawyer friends and a very good public defender friend from California who have really helped.
If admitting to being a US citizen amounts to becoming a voluntary slave, then it is only so by guile and deceit. At no point in history were the American people ever alerted to the fact that participation in Social Security is akin to slavery, because it converts a free man or woman into a debt slave without any constitutionally protected rights.
If Social Security is a contract in which the participants agree to waive all their unalienable rights, then somewhere there must be a disclosure of this fact. Otherwise, there is no meeting of the minds, and therefore no contract.
Yes there is a disclosure pamphlet that comes along with the ssn application stating the beneficiary doesnt have to use the number as Rights are effected. Seen this with my very eyes when my wife went behind my back and applied for the ssn at the hospital for my daughter.
Also, ignorance of the law is no excuse. We are to know and understand the laws.
Can you point out where and when the American people were officially informed of the fact that voluntarily admitting to being a US citizen will make one a subject of an extra-constitutional statutory dictatorship?
1935 when the Act was enacted. I know it really sucks but we are to understand the law and not break it that applies.
Thank you for your time jesse james.