Part Two without the noise.

Dear Subscriber,

The first message in this series (and other previous e-mails to this list)
can be found here:
http://www.3rdear.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum;f=16

The first message explained that only the WRITTEN LAW can impose taxes, so
if we want to know what the law requires (regardless of what we WANT the
law to be, and regardless of our political, moral, or other beliefs) we
must study the LAW ITSELF to find out. (Not exactly rocket science, I
know, but important to keep in mind.)

The next question is, where is the law? We have a system of WRITTEN law
so that the law itself can (in theory) tell EACH person what is required
of them. As convoluted as the law sometimes is, it is at least in
English, and thus needs no "interpretation," unless there is some "gray
area" in which the law itself failed to clarify something.

Nonetheless, a lot of Americans now have the unfortunate belief that the
law is some mystical, magical collection of voodoo verses that not only
should not be studied by us mere mortal peasants, but which don't really
mean what they say, which is why we need to pay lawyers to tell us what
they mean. Yes, the law is often complicated, but it is WRITTEN, and it
is KNOWABLE. And most importantly, THE LAW MEANS WHAT IT SAYS.

Again, this may not seem worth saying (because it should be obvious), but
it is because so many people consider themselves unfit to examine the law.
It is precisely BECAUSE people have put their trust in lawyers and
government bureaucrats to correctly represent the law, that this fraud has
been allowed to happen... but now I'm getting ahead of myself.

Before we get to the "good stuff," we need to set some ground rules about
what the law IS. The law works pretty much like the old children's game
"Simon Says," where one kid says "Simon Says stand on one foot," so you
do. But when the kid says "stick out your tongue" (WITHOUT first saying
"Simon Says"), you lose if you stick out your tongue.

Likewise, when studying the law, the source of a claim about the law means
EVERYTHING in whether the claim is legitimate. An IRS form letter, for
example, carries NO LEGAL WEIGHT whatsoever. Not a shred. Nada, nothing,
zilch. It's like a command with a "Simon Says": you have ZERO obligation
to believe it or obey it. On the other hand, if the United States Code
says something, or if the Code of Federal Regulations says something,
you'd bettter sit up and take notice (because those are "Simon Says"
documents). The following link shows what the IRS does and does not think
are legally binding:

http://www.irs.gov/irm/part4/ch10s11.html#d0e151364

Here is a summary of what that shows:

1) Title 26 of the United States Code (also called the "Internal Revenue
Code"), is where the tax laws passed by Congress end up being encoded.
Often called "statutes," sections of the USC... ARE binding. (This is
true unless and until a competent court rules a statute to be
unconstitutional.)

2) Title 26 of the Code of Federal Regulations constitutes the IRS'
official interpretation of the Internal Revenue Code. Sections of the
CFR... ARE binding. (Though occasionally a court will rule that a
regulation is inappropriate, meaning it does not properly interpret the
statutes.)

3) Rulings from the Supreme Court (which has never addressed the 861
evidence)... ARE binding.

4) Rulings from lower courts (i.e. any court other than the Supreme
Court)... are NOT binding.

5) Revenue Rulings from the IRS carry a little bit of weight, but are
"outranked" by regulations and statutes.

NOTHING ELSE has the legal authority of statutes, regulations, and Supreme
Court rulings. So if someone shows you something that ISN'T one of the
following, don't assume it is legally binding on you, because it isn't.

"Statutes" of the United States Code (Title 26 for tax laws)
"Regulations" of the Code of Federal Regulations (Title 26 for tax laws)
Rulings of the Supreme Court

Citations for sections of the "statutes" look like this: 26 USC 861, which
means section 861 of Title 26 of the United States Code. Citations for
sections of the "regulations" look like this: 26 CFR 1.861-1, which is a
bit more complicated, but that means they are income tax regulations
related to Section 861 of the statutes.

There is one more kind of "law" that we have to keep in mind... a very
important part, which we'll address in the next message.

Sincerely,


Larken Rose
larken@taxableincome.net
http://www.861.info
http://www.theft-by-deception.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

To subscribe, send a blank message to

Part Two without the noise.

Dear Subscriber,

The first message in this series (and other previous e-mails to this list)
can be found here:
http://www.3rdear.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum;f=16

The first message explained that only the WRITTEN LAW can impose taxes, so
if we want to know what the law requires (regardless of what we WANT the
law to be, and regardless of our political, moral, or other beliefs) we
must study the LAW ITSELF to find out. (Not exactly rocket science, I
know, but important to keep in mind.)

The next question is, where is the law? We have a system of WRITTEN law
so that the law itself can (in theory) tell EACH person what is required
of them. As convoluted as the law sometimes is, it is at least in
English, and thus needs no "interpretation," unless there is some "gray
area" in which the law itself failed to clarify something.

Nonetheless, a lot of Americans now have the unfortunate belief that the
law is some mystical, magical collection of voodoo verses that not only
should not be studied by us mere mortal peasants, but which don't really
mean what they say, which is why we need to pay lawyers to tell us what
they mean. Yes, the law is often complicated, but it is WRITTEN, and it
is KNOWABLE. And most importantly, THE LAW MEANS WHAT IT SAYS.

Again, this may not seem worth saying (because it should be obvious), but
it is because so many people consider themselves unfit to examine the law.
It is precisely BECAUSE people have put their trust in lawyers and
government bureaucrats to correctly represent the law, that this fraud has
been allowed to happen... but now I'm getting ahead of myself.

Before we get to the "good stuff," we need to set some ground rules about
what the law IS. The law works pretty much like the old children's game
"Simon Says," where one kid says "Simon Says stand on one foot," so you
do. But when the kid says "stick out your tongue" (WITHOUT first saying
"Simon Says"), you lose if you stick out your tongue.

Likewise, when studying the law, the source of a claim about the law means
EVERYTHING in whether the claim is legitimate. An IRS form letter, for
example, carries NO LEGAL WEIGHT whatsoever. Not a shred. Nada, nothing,
zilch. It's like a command with a "Simon Says": you have ZERO obligation
to believe it or obey it. On the other hand, if the United States Code
says something, or if the Code of Federal Regulations says something,
you'd bettter sit up and take notice (because those are "Simon Says"
documents). The following link shows what the IRS does and does not think
are legally binding:

http://www.irs.gov/irm/part4/ch10s11.html#d0e151364

Here is a summary of what that shows:

1) Title 26 of the United States Code (also called the "Internal Revenue
Code"), is where the tax laws passed by Congress end up being encoded.
Often called "statutes," sections of the USC... ARE binding. (This is
true unless and until a competent court rules a statute to be
unconstitutional.)

2) Title 26 of the Code of Federal Regulations constitutes the IRS'
official interpretation of the Internal Revenue Code. Sections of the
CFR... ARE binding. (Though occasionally a court will rule that a
regulation is inappropriate, meaning it does not properly interpret the
statutes.)

3) Rulings from the Supreme Court (which has never addressed the 861
evidence)... ARE binding.

4) Rulings from lower courts (i.e. any court other than the Supreme
Court)... are NOT binding.

5) Revenue Rulings from the IRS carry a little bit of weight, but are
"outranked" by regulations and statutes.

NOTHING ELSE has the legal authority of statutes, regulations, and Supreme
Court rulings. So if someone shows you something that ISN'T one of the
following, don't assume it is legally binding on you, because it isn't.

"Statutes" of the United States Code (Title 26 for tax laws)
"Regulations" of the Code of Federal Regulations (Title 26 for tax laws)
Rulings of the Supreme Court

Citations for sections of the "statutes" look like this: 26 USC 861, which
means section 861 of Title 26 of the United States Code. Citations for
sections of the "regulations" look like this: 26 CFR 1.861-1, which is a
bit more complicated, but that means they are income tax regulations
related to Section 861 of the statutes.

There is one more kind of "law" that we have to keep in mind... a very
important part, which we'll address in the next message.

Sincerely,


Larken Rose
larken@taxableincome.net
http://www.861.info
http://www.theft-by-deception.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe, send a blank message to