Common Law and UCC 1-308

[Randomeyes]

Your modus operandi seems to be posting copy/pasted non sequiturs. If you have any self-generated content relevant to the topic, I'd love to see it. I'm starting to think you haven't any, however.

[aljhoa]

People suffer real harm when they believe this stuff and make decisions because of it. Wesley Snipes served over 2 years in federal prison because of it, and many other less known people have suffered as much or worse.

Your modus operandi seems to be posting copy/pasted non sequiturs.

Former IRS Agent Joe Banister and Ron Paul On CNBC - YouTube

Is the IRS lying and defrauding the American people? Hear from the man who beat - YouTube

Income Tax Truth Tom Cryer 1/3 - YouTube


Al

[Randomeyes]

Three bad examples from you...nice job.

Another copypasta from you...this time with three videos of three people who have lost against the IRS.

First, there's Joe Banister. Used to be a licensed accountant, but lost his CPA license because he gave "absolutely wrong" advice to his clients concerning their requirement to file. He's already lost to the IRS once, and is in the process of getting pwned by them again:
http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpHistor...er.TCM.WPD.pdf
Joseph R. Banister - Tax Protester Dossiers

Next, you link Robert Lawrence talking nonsense. He claims that the Paperwork Reduction Act makes a criminal prosecution for failure to file illegal. He lost on this issue, of course. The government did dismiss his indictment, however, when they found that they had miscalculated the amount owed. He lucked out and escaped criminal liability.

He argued the same PRA defense nonsense to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and lost there, as well. The Court of Appeals said:

"Lawrence's brief represents an attempt to prove that the PRA could present a valid defense to the criminal charges. Yet Lawrence conceded at oral argument that no case from this circuit establishes such a proposition, and in fact Lawrence cites no caselaw from any jurisdiction that so holds. In contrast, the government referenced numerous cases supporting its position that the PRA does not present a defense to a criminal action for failure to file income taxes [ … ] Lawrence provides no explanation of how government conduct can be vexatious, frivolous, or in bad faith when there is no law contrary to it.""
Docket entry 39, March 26, 2007, United States v. Lawrence, No. 06-3205, United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit .

Finally, you bring up good ole Tom Cryer. I am not here to speak ill of the dead, but the IRS beat him as well. He escaped paying because he died first, but his estate did have to pay the back taxes.

https://www.ustaxcourt.gov/UstcDockI...ndexID=5975532

So, the lesson is clear. These bull**** arguments don't work. They don't get you out of having to pay taxes. At best, they delay the inevitable and you'll end up paying tons of penalties and interest on top of the original amount owed...Unless you're willing to die, of course.

Again, people who believe these nonsense theories suffer real harm when they try to use them in court.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf

[aljhoa]

Al

[aljhoa]

The Property

“Property is the fruit of labor—property is desirable—is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich, shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. ”
Abraham Lincoln, speech (1864)
Abraham Lincoln (president of United States) : Supplemental Information -- Encyclopedia Britannica


Butchers’ Union Co. v. Crescent-City Co., 111 U.S. 746 (1884)
It has been well said that 'the property which every man has is his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands, and to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property. It is a manifest encroachment upon the just liberty both of the workman and of those who might be disposed to employ him. As it hinders the one from working at what he thinks proper, so it hinders the others from employing whom they think proper.' Smith, Wealth Nat. bk. 1, c. 10.
Labor is Property


In Pollock v. Farmers’Loan and Trust-Company (1895), a taxpayer sued the corporation in which he owned stock, contending that they should never have paid the income-tax because it was unconstitutional.
This time, the Supreme Court took the argument seriously and in a 5-4 decision, ruled that the income-tax was unconstitutional. A few days after the initial vote, the Court re-voted and reached the same result.

The Court held an unapportioned tax based on receipts from the use of property to be unconstitutional. The Court held that taxes on rents from real estate, on interest income from personal property and other income from personal property (which includes dividend income) were treated as direct taxes on property, and therefore had to be apportioned. Since apportionment of income taxes is impractical, this had the effect of prohibiting a federal tax -on-income from property. The *power to tax real and personal property, or that such was a direct tax, was not d-enied by the Constitution.[10] Due to the political difficulties of taxing individual wages without taxing income from property, a federal-income-tax was impractical from the time of the Pollock decision until the time of ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment (below).

Thus, the tax law was ruled unconstitutional and was effectively repealed.
Legal history of income tax in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


*Modern income-tax [edit]In 1909, fifteen years after Pollock, Congress took two actions to deal with their increasing revenue needs.

1. Corporate income ("excise") tax. First, they passed a corporate income-tax, but labeled it an “excise tax.” The tax was set at 1% on all incomes exceeding $5,000. In 1911, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld this corporate “excise tax” as constitutional in Flint v. Stone Tracy Company, in which the court ruled that the tax was a special excise tax on the privilege of doing business.

2. Sixteenth Amendment. More importantly, in 1909 Congress passed the Sixteenth Amendment, which would do away with the apportionment requirement of the Constitution if enacted. This amendment reads as follows:

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.[11]
Legal history of income tax in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The concept of “income” is never really defined in the Internal Revenue Code. The closest that Congress comes to defining income is found in IRC Section 61, which is largely unchanged from its predecessor, the original Section 22(a) definition of income in the Revenue Act of 1913:

Sec. 22(a). “Gross income” includes gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages or compensation for personal service (including personal service as an officer or employee of a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing), of whatever kind and in whatever form paid, or from professions, vocations, trades, businesses, commerce, or sales, or dealings in property, whether real or personal, growing out of the ownership or use of or interest in such property; also from interest, rent, dividends, securities, or the transaction of any business carried on for gain or profit, or gains or profits and income derived from any source whatsoever.[13]
Legal history of income tax in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Al

[Randomeyes]

in·come [in-kuhm] Show IPA
noun
1. the monetary payment received for goods or services, or from other sources, as rents or investments.

2. something that comes in as an addition or increase, especially by chance.

"
(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, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;

(2) Gross income derived from business;

(3) Gains derived from dealings in property;

(4) Interest;

(5) Rents;

(6) Royalties;

(7) Dividends;

(8) Alimony and separate maintenance payments;

(9) Annuities;

(10) Income from life insurance and endowment contracts;

(11) Pensions;

(12) Income from discharge of indebtedness;

(13) Distributive share of partnership gross income;

(14) Income in respect of a decedent; and

(15) Income from an interest in an estate or trust. "

28 U.S.C. § 61

"Every court which has ever considered the issue has unequivocally rejected the argument that wages are not income." United States v. Connor, 898 F.2d 942, 943-44 (3d Cir. 1990).

I don't know what you're trying to prove here, but all of this is theoretical nonsense that never actually works in court.

[aljhoa]

in·come [in-kuhm] Show IPA
noun
1. the monetary payment received for goods or services, or from other sources, as rents or investments.

2. something that comes in as an addition or increase, especially by chance.


"Every court which has ever considered the issue has unequivocally rejected the argument that wages are not income." United States v. Connor, 898 F.2d 942, 943-44 (3d Cir. 1990).

I don't know what you're trying to prove here, but all of this is theoretical nonsense that never actually works in court.

def·i·ni·tion (df-nshn)n.
1.
a. A statement conveying fundamental character.
b. A statement of the meaning of a word, phrase, or term, as in a dictionary entry.
2. The act or process of stating a precise meaning or significance; formulation of a meaning.
definition - definition of definition by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Marina and the Diamonds - Power & Control - The Tabernacle - Live in London - June 25 2012 - YouTube

Al

[aljhoa]

"Russglish"

are = являются
from = от
income = кончить

"Perhaps you know Russian epic of Cinderella, if shoe fits wear it."
Pavel Andreievich Chekov's Movie Quotes

Al

[aljhoa]

דעפֿיניציע הכנסה
Dictionary Yiddish English Online, Glosbe

Butchers’ Union Co. v. Crescent-City Co., 111 U.S. 746 (1884)
It has been well said that 'the property which every man has is his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable.
(a) General definition
... gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including ... :
(3) Gains derived from dealings in property;

Gross income from wages is salary.
Nothing from nothing is nothing.
Billy Preston - Nothing From Nothing - YouTube

Income definition @ Mark 3:18
Federal Income Tax - YouTube

Al

[Randomeyes]

Lol...Aaron Russo got owned in that video

[weyman]

Ok, you say that using "without prejudice" UCC 1-308 is use less...Please explain Ferry V Taylor 33 Mo. "It is however, considered settled that letters and admissions containing in substance, they are to be "without prejudice" will not be admitted into evidence...Sounds to me like it can be used to throw out anything signed that way. What say ye sir

[Randomeyes]

I didn't say it was useless. I said that it wasn't a way to exempt yourself from laws. I clearly explained the purpose of 1-308, and it's application. It is about CONTRACTS and CONTRACTS ONLY.

The case you "cited" is a contract case...from 1863, no less...LONG before the UCC was written. It doesn't contain the quoted phrase you posted, either. I don't know where you get your information, but you should really fact-check anything you read on those sovereignty sites.

The case is about a contract that the defendant claims he never signed. He later agreed to pay $1000 "without prejudice" to the plaintiff to settle the matter, but the plaintiff didn't accept the offer. Instead, the plaintiff sued the defendant and sought to introduce the settlement offer as evidence that defendant admitted to being responsible for the contract. The Court said:

"When an offer is made without prejudice, and with a view to an amicable adjustment of pending difficulties and under the faith of a pending treaty, and such offer is refused, the law will not permit any advantage to be taken of it." Ferry v. Taylor, 33 Mo. 323.

The truth is that this case is pretty insignificant. That's why you don't find the text of it all over the internet. It's easy to cherry-pick a sentence from a case and pretend it has some broad application, but that's not how law works. No court would buy that nonsense. The only part of a case that is precedential is the holding, and then only if the holding has not been subsequently overruled by a higher court, statute, or constitutional provision...and then only in the subordinate jurisdictions. (In this case, the State of Missouri)

[springwateroil]

Common Law and UCC

Randomeyes:

Our understanding is that using UCC 1-308 is not to get us out from under the law, but rather to signify one's intention to not be bound under any contract or commercial agreement into which they did not enter intentionally. The laws today that deny people of their rights and compel performance are not true law pursuant to the Constitution and Common Law, instead they are commercial agreements regulated by the UCC.

The founding fathers announced to the world in the Declaration of Independence that in the United States the people were going the be free and that governments' job was to protect those freedoms, and they codified it into the Constitution; so if the government comes along and says that we are not free, then something is wrong. Any so-called law that is contrary to the Constitution and Common Law cannot be true law, and must be from some other jurisdiction, which seems genuine but really is not; and, if so, how can we as free people, claiming the promises of the Declaration of Independence, be subject to them.

There is no mistake that something is wrong where government disregards the rights of the people, and if the solution does not lie with us understanding our status as being free at Common Law, please give us your opinion as to what the cause and solution may be.

[aljhoa]

REMEDY AND RECOURSE

Every system of civilized law must have two characteristics: Remedy and Recourse.
Remedy is a way to get out from under that law, and you recover your loss.
The Common Law, the Law Merchants, and even the Uniform Commercial Code
all have remedy and recourse, but for a long time we could not find them.
If you go to a law library and ask to see the Uniform Commercial Code,
they will show you a shelf of books completely filled with the Uniform Commercial Code.
When you pick up one volume and start to read it, it will seem to have been intentionally written to be confusing.
It took us a long time to discover where the Remedy and Recourse are found in their UCC.
They are found right in the first volume, at 1-308 (old 1-207) and 1-103.
THE UCC CONNECTION

Al