Results 1 to 10 of 42

Thread: Diminished Money Counterclaim

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    I think it might behoove you to read the thread again.

    This new method also builds the suitor into position of the court of record. This is accomplished through building an evidence repository. Pete does not stand on the law and therefore even if he did use an evidence repository all that would do is indict the taxpayer.

  2. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    Pete does not stand on the law...
    Maybe my interpretation is not quite right. Pete says to the effect wages are earned by those people over there. I opened up my trusty 1983 copy of the Internal Revenue Code and read where it says wages are earned by those people over there. Perhaps I should interpret it to mean wages are earned by everyone, without exception, plus those people over there.
    Blessed is he who keeps from stumbling over me.

  3. #3
    ManOntheLand
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by John Howard View Post
    Maybe my interpretation is not quite right. Pete says to the effect wages are earned by those people over there. I opened up my trusty 1983 copy of the Internal Revenue Code and read where it says wages are earned by those people over there. Perhaps I should interpret it to mean wages are earned by everyone, without exception, plus those people over there.
    The Code is written deceptively, no doubt. But based on what I have learned here, it is the transfer of FRN's that confers an actual "trade or business within the United States" nexus to otherwise private sector employment. Pete does not recognize this nexus (in fact he has disparaged this idea) and therefore Pete is left to conclude that the tax scheme as applied to private sector workers lacks any real legal basis, and depends entirely on false paperwork the worker is forced to sign to create the illusion he is working in the public sector. It turns out everybody being paid wages in FRN's is receiving "wages" under IRC 3401 and 3121. The argument about what "includes" means becomes irrelevant if you realize that you are actually one of those "people over there" due to the FRN's.

  4. #4
    Without counsel purposes are disappointed: but in the multitude of counselors they are established.

    I have been searching for the red line, which Auntie IRiS can not cross for thirty years. I thought I had found it in Pete's books. I thought I had found it previously. Only for the last two years has Auntie been nice to me. I think I found the red line.
    Blessed is he who keeps from stumbling over me.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •