Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
During the Clinton years and as early as 1993, the US and her Embassies were attacked five times by the same al Qaeda that attacked us on 9/11. Only two of the seven attempts were discovered and prevented before the planned attacks took place. The Clinton response was to underfund the CIA allowing a 25% attrition rate at the agency.
And Bush invaded Iraq, at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives and billions of bucks per month, when Al Qaeda had no connection with Iraq.
During the Clinton years and as early as 1993, the US and her Embassies were attacked five times by the same al Qaeda that attacked us on 9/11. Only two of the seven attempts were discovered and prevented before the planned attacks took place. The Clinton response was to underfund the CIA allowing a 25% attrition rate at the agency.
And Bush invaded Iraq, at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives and billions of bucks per month, when Al Qaeda had no connection with Iraq.
no connection????
US State Department
November 4, 1998
Bin Laden, Atef Indicted in U.S. Federal Court for African Bombings
New York -- Usama bin Laden and Muhammad Atef were indicted November 4 in Manhattan federal court for the August 7 bombings of the US embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and for conspiring to kill Americans outside the United States.
Bin Laden's "al Qaeda" organization functioned both on its own and through other terrorist organizations, including the Al Jihad group based in Egypt, the Islamic Group also known as el Gamaa Islamia led at one time by Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, and a number of other jihad groups in countries such as Sudan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Somalia.
Bin Laden, the US Attorney charged, engaged in business transactions on behalf of Al Qaeda, including purchasing warehouses for storage of explosives, transporting weapons, and establishing a series of companies in Sudan to provide income to al Qaeda and as a cover for the procurement of explosives, weapons, and chemicals, and for the travel of operatives.
According to the indictment, bin Laden and al Qaeda forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in Sudan and with representatives of the Government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezballah with the goal of working together against their common enemies in the West, particularly the United States.
"In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the Government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq," the indictment said.
Beginning in 1992, bin Laden allegedly issued through his "fatwah" committees a series of escalating "fatwahs" against the United States, certain military personnel, and, eventually in February 1998, a "fatwah" stating that Muslims should kill Americans -- including civilians -- anywhere in the world they can be found.
-------------------
no connection?????????........
The Guardian
February 6, 1999
Saddam link to Bin Laden
By Julian Borger
Saddam Hussein's regime has opened talks with Osama bin Laden, bringing closer the threat of a terrorist attack using chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, according to US intelligence sources and Iraqi opposition officials.
The key meeting took place in the Afghan mountains near Kandahar in late December. The Iraqi delegation was led by Farouk Hijazi, Baghdad's ambassador in Turkey and one of Saddam's most powerful secret policemen, who is thought to have offered Bin Laden asylum in Iraq.
News of the negotiations emerged in a week when the US attorney general, Janet Reno, warned the Senate that a terrorist attack involving weapons of mass destruction was a growing concern. "There's a threat, and it's real," Ms Reno said, adding that such weapons "are being considered for use."
-------------------------
there was no connection of iraq to 911....but there most certainly is a connection of iraq to alqeda
He's as wrong as you are. Your last sentence makes little to no sense at all. Law theory does not exist in a vacuum. It exists for application to our lives. The courts tell us what that application is. Just b/c the theory doesn't mean what you think it does doesn't mean it's in err.
Sure it does. Until the law is applied, it exists only in theory (or a vacuum). That determination has been made clear by the Supreme Court who have consistently refused to hear constitutional challenges to laws that have not been applied, or alleged to have caused harm by it's application. Until such application and subsequent harm is demonstrated, there is no violation of the constitution in the eyes of the court. It don't agree with that, because it allows for unconstitutional laws to be passed, and stay on the books, and pose a threat, but that has been the court's stance. And even when such a law might be misapplied, and causing damage, the person damaged still needs the resources to challenge the law, and also gain the cooperation of the High Court to hear their complaint.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckhorn
Definitions have to be comprehensive in effect in some statutes. Like the definition of "gross income". The disconnect between the plain meaning used by courts and your contention is your creation.
No it is not. Definitions have to be specific in statutory law, and clearly defined in the regulations for which a particular statute gives power and force of law. There can be no assumptions, though the law can appear very ambiguous if you don't know what you are looking at, or looking for. It's all there, you just have to find it, and the Treasury Lawyers have done a good job in making the law obscure and difficult to navigate (Purposely).
"Gross Income" is the KEY. "Taxable Income" is spelled out as "Gross Income" minus lawful deductions, making "Gross Income" the first step in determining whether or not one has "taxable income". The whole ball game lies in when does "income" become, and what constitutes "Gross Income". That is covered in Code of Federal Regulations CFR 1.61:
Sec. 1.61-1 Gross income.
(a) General definition. Gross income means all income from whatever
source derived, unless excluded by law. Gross income includes income
realized in any form, whether in money, property, or services. Income
may be realized, therefore, in the form of services, meals,
accommodations, stock, or other property, as well as in cash. Section 61
lists the more common items of gross income for purposes of
illustration. For purposes of further illustration, Sec. 1.61-14
mentions several miscellaneous items of gross income not listed
specifically in section 61. Gross income, however, is not limited to the
items so enumerated.
(b) Cross references. Cross references to other provisions of the
Code are to be found throughout the regulations under section 61. The
purpose of these cross references is to direct attention to the more
common items which are included in or excluded from gross income
entirely, or treated in some special manner. To the extent that another
section of the Code or of the regulations thereunder, provides specific
treatment for any item of income, such other provision shall apply
notwithstanding section 61 and the regulations thereunder.
This portion of the regulations BOLDED are key ... gross income is all income from whatever source derived, UNLESS EXCLUDED BY LAW. Then it goes on to say in general, but not comprehensively what specific items constitute gross income, and points to other areas of the regulations for further definitions, to include items subject to and items exempted from gross income. The last part bolded states clearly that sec 61 definitions of items of income that other areas of the regulations treat differently, shall take precedent, overriding sec 61. ( This is the little cat and mouse game that goes on with regard to "Gross Income")
If no games were being played here, the definition of "Gross Income" would not be spread out across 1000's of pages of code. And as the old saying goes, the "Devil is in the details".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckhorn
The courts are consistent in its understanding of 'income'. While this is technically true, it's irrelevant. It's typical of tax statutes to define things that way.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The word "Income" cannot define itself, and the argument is far from irrelevant. Why? Because in the statutory law regarding taxes, there are really two basic types of income .. while there might be many "sources" for each. Types and sources are two separate things. The two types are 1) Income from within the United States ... 2) Income from without the United States ... and those two types of incomes are not broadly lumped together by the "from whatever source derived" language. This can be proven by close examination of the CFR regulations, where those two types of "Income" are specifically addressed, with distinct tax code application for each one, and WHO they apply to. Therefore, given that the regulations treat each of the two types of incomes differently, they are obviously considered two separate things by the law. You see, the tax law applies different standards to these two fundamental types of incomes, including certain exceptions and exemptions. Therefore, these two types of incomes cannot be lumped together by the statement "from whatever source derived". Source, in this instance, defines a payment type .. not an income type. You may suggest this is a semantical argument, but it's not, because in other areas of the tax code, these two fundamental types of Income are treated differently, so they must remain separate. There is no other choice. The law cannot conflict with itself, nor can two separate things be viewed as the same thing, while being treated differently under the law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckhorn
Where is 'property' defined in the Code? It isn't. Property is still referred to throughout the Code. "Property" and "income" are difficult to thoroughly define. Plain meaning does have its advantages.
Nonsense. There are many definitions and distinctions regarding property. Personal property, residential property, commercial property, intellectual property, etc, etc.. Look again to the CFR for the various types, and how the law treats each one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckhorn
It's seems like a waste of effort to try to make hay out of semantical games involving the meaning of 'income' in 'gross income' of Sec. 61
No it's not. It's the law ... the semantical games are being played by the IRS by insinuating that domestic and foreign incomes are to be viewed as the same thing, when the law treats each one differently. And by spreading out across a 1000 pages of law, the constituent elements of "Gross Income" and those portions of income exempted by law, the purposeful effort to confuse and deceive is absolutely demonstrated.
TITLE 26 - Subtitle A - Chapter 1:
Subchapter A
Tax imposed on "taxable income."
Subchapter B
"Items" of income that may be taxed.
Subchapter N
Determining the taxable "sources" of income.
( in order for there to be taxable domestic income
1) One must receive a taxable "item" of income (e.g. compensation, interest, rents) (per 26 USC - 61 and following).
2) The "source rules" must categorize the income as domestic income (per 26 USC - 861(a) and 26 CFR 1.861-2 through 1.861-7).
3) The income must derive from a "specific source or activity" which is taxable (per 26 CFR 1.861-8 and following).
A careful examination of 26 CFR 1.861-8 shows that taxable sources of income are limited to the following types of commerce:
1) Certain foreign income of U.S. citizens (26 CFR § 1.861-8(f)(1)(i)).
2) The domestic income of foreigners (26 CFR § 1.861-8(f)(1)(iv)).
3) Certain income related to federal possessions (26 CFR § 1.861-8(f)(1)(vi)(E)).
Now you go ahead and actually read the law ... and tell me that the law doesn't specifically classify domestic and foreign income as totally separate items, with specific application under the US Code (USC) and Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). You have to read both ... and you have to follow the trail ... it is obscure, but it is there. The mistake you make is in assuming that your english language interpretation is law. It is not. The Law is the Law. The KEY is "Gross Income is all income, except income exempted by law". The "exempted by law" portion actually covers most domestic income (read: income within the United States), except such income received by foreign corporations or foreign nationals. Domestic income by American citizens, and legal residents are not taxable income according to the law.
That doesn't mean that the IRS, the US Attorneys, and the Courts won't railroad your arse into the pokey. But they know what they are doing .. they know it's a fraud.
Check out Joe Banister's story. He was a gun toting IRS Investigator and compliance officer who went about the task of proving all of those tax protesters false. After a 2 year investigation, he came to the undeniable conclusion that the Tax laws did not apply to most average Americans, and that he had been arresting innocent people, and seizing their property unlawfully. He sent a letter to the IRS Commissioner with a list of concerns, and a request for the law that required filing tax returns, and clarification of the regulations and was denied. He was asked to resign.
there was no connection of iraq to 911....but there most certainly is a connection of iraq to alqeda
You have to be the most ill informed person on this board, if not the planet.
Hussein ran a tight ship ... secular, and considered an enemy of the more radical Islamists. Bin Laden, a long term CIA asset would never have gotten anything from Saddam Hussein, save for a bullet.
Certain elements of the Kurds, fighting against the Iraqi regime were supported by Al-CIA-Duh. and were considered enemies by Hussein.
Even the farcical 911 commission report admits some of this.
Don't tell me .... you're a ditto head maybe? Something traumatic has happened to that brain.
We are spending way too much and on useless stuff.
Health care reform another 2 trillion. Yes taxes are coming
higher at the liberal request! Might as well get in Cap and Trade
while were at it. From there the GOV can regulate everything.
The economy was suppose to be getting better, but Obama put
a nail in that hole!
You have to be the most ill informed person on this board, if not the planet.
Hussein ran a tight ship ... secular, and considered an enemy of the more radical Islamists. Bin Laden, a long term CIA asset would never have gotten anything from Saddam Hussein, save for a bullet.
Certain elements of the Kurds, fighting against the Iraqi regime were supported by Al-CIA-Duh. and were considered enemies by Hussein.
Even the farcical 911 commission report admits some of this.
Don't tell me .... you're a ditto head maybe? Something traumatic has happened to that brain.
Remember the Marines had a sniper marked on Bin Laden head, but Clinton waved it off. This was a big undercover story that never reached the media!
Bin Laden, Atef Indicted in U.S. Federal Court for African Bombings
New York -- Usama bin Laden and Muhammad Atef were indicted November 4 in Manhattan federal court for the August 7 bombings of the US embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and for conspiring to kill Americans outside the United States.
Bin Laden's "al Qaeda" organization functioned both on its own and through other terrorist organizations, including the Al Jihad group based in Egypt, the Islamic Group also known as el Gamaa Islamia led at one time by Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, and a number of other jihad groups in countries such as Sudan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Somalia.
Bin Laden, the US Attorney charged, engaged in business transactions on behalf of Al Qaeda, including purchasing warehouses for storage of explosives, transporting weapons, and establishing a series of companies in Sudan to provide income to al Qaeda and as a cover for the procurement of explosives, weapons, and chemicals, and for the travel of operatives.
According to the indictment, bin Laden and al Qaeda forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in Sudan and with representatives of the Government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezballah with the goal of working together against their common enemies in the West, particularly the United States.
"In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the Government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq," the indictment said.
Beginning in 1992, bin Laden allegedly issued through his "fatwah" committees a series of escalating "fatwahs" against the United States, certain military personnel, and, eventually in February 1998, a "fatwah" stating that Muslims should kill Americans -- including civilians -- anywhere in the world they can be found.
-------------------
no connection?????????........
The Guardian
February 6, 1999
Saddam link to Bin Laden
By Julian Borger
Saddam Hussein's regime has opened talks with Osama bin Laden, bringing closer the threat of a terrorist attack using chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, according to US intelligence sources and Iraqi opposition officials.
The key meeting took place in the Afghan mountains near Kandahar in late December. The Iraqi delegation was led by Farouk Hijazi, Baghdad's ambassador in Turkey and one of Saddam's most powerful secret policemen, who is thought to have offered Bin Laden asylum in Iraq.
News of the negotiations emerged in a week when the US attorney general, Janet Reno, warned the Senate that a terrorist attack involving weapons of mass destruction was a growing concern. "There's a threat, and it's real," Ms Reno said, adding that such weapons "are being considered for use."
-------------------------
there was no connection of iraq to 911....but there most certainly is a connection of iraq to alqeda
Sure it does. Until the law is applied, it exists only in theory (or a vacuum). That determination has been made clear by the Supreme Court who have consistently refused to hear constitutional challenges to laws that have not been applied, or alleged to have caused harm by it's application. Until such application and subsequent harm is demonstrated, there is no violation of the constitution in the eyes of the court. It don't agree with that, because it allows for unconstitutional laws to be passed, and stay on the books, and pose a threat, but that has been the court's stance. And even when such a law might be misapplied, and causing damage, the person damaged still needs the resources to challenge the law, and also gain the cooperation of the High Court to hear their complaint.
I respectfully disagree with you on this one. Legislators take into account application of legislation before it becomes law. Much legislation arises to meet the demands of a politician's constituency. So real world application does have its place from the outset.
No law can be exhaustive in its definitions. It can't be defined to meet every single exigency.
Quote:
No it is not. Definitions have to be specific in statutory law, and clearly defined in the regulations for which a particular statute gives power and force of law. There can be no assumptions, though the law can appear very ambiguous if you don't know what you are looking at, or looking for. It's all there, you just have to find it, and the Treasury Lawyers have done a good job in making the law obscure and difficult to navigate (Purposely).
Definitions do not have to be specific to the point where every single possible iteration involved is given voice. That's an absurdity.
Like I said, "property" is defined nowhere in the Code. Does that mean that a house or car sale is not subject to tax b/c they're not defined as 'property' under the Code. Of course not.
Quote:
"Gross Income" is the KEY. "Taxable Income" is spelled out as "Gross Income" minus lawful deductions, making "Gross Income" the first step in determining whether or not one has "taxable income". The whole ball game lies in when does "income" become, and what constitutes "Gross Income". That is covered in Code of Federal Regulations CFR 1.61:
Sec. 1.61-1 Gross income.
(a) General definition. Gross income means all income from whatever
source derived, unless excluded by law. Gross income includes income
realized in any form, whether in money, property, or services. Income
may be realized, therefore, in the form of services, meals,
accommodations, stock, or other property, as well as in cash. Section 61
lists the more common items of gross income for purposes of
illustration. For purposes of further illustration, Sec. 1.61-14
mentions several miscellaneous items of gross income not listed
specifically in section 61. Gross income, however, is not limited to the
items so enumerated.
(b) Cross references. Cross references to other provisions of the
Code are to be found throughout the regulations under section 61. The
purpose of these cross references is to direct attention to the more
common items which are included in or excluded from gross income
entirely, or treated in some special manner. To the extent that another section of the Code or of the regulations thereunder, provides specific treatment for any item of income, such other provision shall apply notwithstanding section 61 and the regulations thereunder.
This portion of the regulations BOLDED are key ... gross income is all income from whatever source derived, UNLESS EXCLUDED BY LAW. Then it goes on to say in general, but not comprehensively what specific items constitute gross income, and points to other areas of the regulations for further definitions, to include items subject to and items exempted from gross income. The last part bolded states clearly that sec 61 definitions of items of income that other areas of the regulations treat differently, shall take precedent, overriding sec 61. ( This is the little cat and mouse game that goes on with regard to "Gross Income")
If no games were being played here, the definition of "Gross Income" would not be spread out across 1000's of pages of code. And as the old saying goes, the "Devil is in the details".
Those sections you put in bold type print just prove my point. Sec. 61 illustrates 'income' with several concrete examples. A fully comprehensive understanding of "income" is so elusive, like 'property's definition, that concrete exceptions to the definition are provided to give guidance.
Quote:
Nothing could be further from the truth. The word "Income" cannot define itself, and the argument is far from irrelevant. Why? Because in the statutory law regarding taxes, there are really two basic types of income .. while there might be many "sources" for each. Types and sources are two separate things. The two types are 1) Income from within the United States ... 2) Income from without the United States ... and those two types of incomes are not broadly lumped together by the "from whatever source derived" language. This can be proven by close examination of the CFR regulations, where those two types of "Income" are specifically addressed, with distinct tax code application for each one, and WHO they apply to. Therefore, given that the regulations treat each of the two types of incomes differently, they are obviously considered two separate things by the law. You see, the tax law applies different standards to these two fundamental types of incomes, including certain exceptions and exemptions. Therefore, these two types of incomes cannot be lumped together by the statement "from whatever source derived". Source, in this instance, defines a payment type .. not an income type. You may suggest this is a semantical argument, but it's not, because in other areas of the tax code, these two fundamental types of Income are treated differently, so they must remain separate. There is no other choice. The law cannot conflict with itself, nor can two separate things be viewed as the same thing, while being treated differently under the law.
Statutory language and construction uses generalized terminology all the time. Income is income. Your 'type' argument for the tax treatment of income is really concerned with either a US based source or a foreign source. Those arent' 'types', they're points of reference for the applicability of the US tax laws to income depending on where that income was earned. For example, a tax qualified retirement plan can only be established with income that has a US based source/nexus. Even illegal aliens can collect a retirement plan benefit if the income they earn is from a US based source.
Even if we accept as true your contention that there are separate types of income, so what? What's the significance?
Quote:
Nonsense. There are many definitions and distinctions regarding property. Personal property, residential property, commercial property, intellectual property, etc, etc.. Look again to the CFR for the various types, and how the law treats each one.
There all types of income too. Gross income, Net income, annual income, quarterly income, taxable income, exempt income, etc.
You're claiming, I think, that "income" is not defined so as to apprise an average citizen of his duty pay income tax.
The same exact thing can be said about "property". Listing mulitple self-referential terminology does not define what "property" is. There are voluminous Property textbooks in the legal field that address this matter.
I can show you the holdings of tax protester claims where the court states the plain meaning of 'income' is the proper meaning under the Code.
Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 206-7 (1935), (holding that “Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets.” 252 U.S. at 207).
Quote:
No it's not. It's the law ... the semantical games are being played by the IRS by insinuating that domestic and foreign incomes are to be viewed as the same thing, when the law treats each one differently. And by spreading out across a 1000 pages of law, the constituent elements of "Gross Income" and those portions of income exempted by law, the purposeful effort to confuse and deceive is absolutely demonstrated
TITLE 26 - Subtitle A - Chapter 1:
Subchapter A
Tax imposed on "taxable income."
Subchapter B
"Items" of income that may be taxed.
Subchapter N
Determining the taxable "sources" of income.
( in order for there to be taxable domestic income
1) One must receive a taxable "item" of income (e.g. compensation, interest, rents) (per 26 USC - 61 and following).
2) The "source rules" must categorize the income as domestic income (per 26 USC - 861(a) and 26 CFR 1.861-2 through 1.861-7).
3) The income must derive from a "specific source or activity" which is taxable (per 26 CFR 1.861-8 and following).
A careful examination of 26 CFR 1.861-8 shows that taxable sources of income are limited to the following types of commerce:
1) Certain foreign income of U.S. citizens (26 CFR § 1.861-8(f)(1)(i)).
2) The domestic income of foreigners (26 CFR § 1.861-8(f)(1)(iv)).
3) Certain income related to federal possessions (26 CFR § 1.861-8(f)(1)(vi)(E)). .
The "income" is the same. The geographic locality is different from where that income is earned is different.
Quote:
Now you go ahead and actually read the law ... and tell me that the law doesn't specifically classify domestic and foreign income as totally separate items, with specific application under the US Code (USC) and Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). You have to read both ... and you have to follow the trail ... it is obscure, but it is there. The mistake you make is in assuming that your english language interpretation is law. It is not. The Law is the Law. The KEY is "Gross Income is all income, except income exempted by law". The "exempted by law" portion actually covers most domestic income (read: income within the United States), except such income received by foreign corporations or foreign nationals. Domestic income by American citizens, and legal residents are not taxable income according to the law.
Nowhere in the US Code, Code of Regs, case law, etc., does it state or imply that domestic income by US citizens is not taxable income. That's either a fabrication or a tortured reading of the law.
Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code says that “There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every [married individual, surviving spouse, head of a household, unmarried individual, or married individual filing a separate return] a tax determined in accordance with the following table.. ..”
The Regs state that “Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States ....” Treas. Reg. § 1.1-1(a)(1).
Quote:
That doesn't mean that the IRS, the US Attorneys, and the Courts won't railroad your arse into the pokey. But they know what they are doing .. they know it's a fraud.
Check out Joe Banister's story. He was a gun toting IRS Investigator and compliance officer who went about the task of proving all of those tax protesters false. After a 2 year investigation, he came to the undeniable conclusion that the Tax laws did not apply to most average Americans, and that he had been arresting innocent people, and seizing their property unlawfully. He sent a letter to the IRS Commissioner with a list of concerns, and a request for the law that required filing tax returns, and clarification of the regulations and was denied. He was asked to resign.
He was denied clarification b/c the law is fairly well settled when it comes to dealing with tax charlatans. Joe Banister should know that the law requiring tax returns is Section 6012(a) of the Internal Revenue Code which plainly states that “Returns with respect to income taxes under Subtitle A shall be made by the following: (1)(A) Every individual having for the taxable year gross income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount....”
More about Mr. Banister, he's been disbarred from IRS practice b/c he gave“absolutely wrong” advice to his clients and by failing to file personal tax returns for 1999 through 2002. See IR-2004-5 (1/12/2004).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
