Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: Be very WARY of 'Cracking the Code'

Expand Messages
  • Gwbinsat@aol.com
    This is the response from a friend who is well versed on, and a participant in, the Cracking the Code premise. Subject: RE: Be very WARY of Cracking the
    Message 1 of 4 , Jun 2, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      This is the response from a friend who is well versed on, and a participant in, the "Cracking the Code" premise.
       
      Subject:RE: Be very WARY of 'Cracking the Code'
      Date:6/2/2009 4:50:20 P.M. Central Daylight Time
      From:
       
      Glen,

      I really appreciate you sending those briefs.  In reading them, there are several problematic areas.  Number one, the DOJ claims that proponents of CtC believe that wages do not constitute income.  Nobody makes it more clear than Hendrickson that wages DO CONSTITUTE income.

      If you own a firearm.  And the DOJ says that a firearm was used to commit a crime . . . then have you committed the crime?

      This is precisely what is going on here.  I believe the DOJ is going after these folks because they have put their foot into their mouths in the course of some corrspondence with the IRS.  There are some technical errors in what the DOJ says about CtC, but that is really irrelavent.  What is relevant is what the DOJ DOES NOT SAY in the course of their complaints!

      The best lie in the world is a half-truth!  The IRS paints a grim picture by painting only the parts of the truth that bolster their perspective.  Generally speaking, I agree 100% with everything the IRS typically says, but for example, they claim that the words "includes" and "including" are terms of enlargement and not limitation.  What they don't tell you is that the enlargement itself is limited to those things which are in the same general class.  Ask the IRS if the terms "includes and including" are UNLIMITED enlargement, and watch them fall silent!  So, when they say "includes and including" are terms of enlargement, they are not lying . . . they are just choosing to not say that those words are terms of LIMITED enlargement!  Does anyone think this might be just a little bit significant?!!!  Hello!!!  If one doesn't realize this . . . the DOJ will absolutely have their way with them!  Of course the tax is not limited to federal employees.  It's much more broad than that.  Any serious student of the federal income tax knows this.  The problem is, there is a very narrow window in which one has to gain the proper knowledge to fight these guys effectively.  If you learn to do this, they won't touch you with a 10 ft pole.  But if you exhibit signs of less than 100% comprehension of the mechanisms behind the tax, then they are gonna roll in on you!  The DOJ only takes cases they can win.  This bolsters case law, and keeps the sheep corralled.  Meanwhile, there are 1000s of other folks they are not coming after.  These particular people in these legal briefs walked into a legal trap that make it a slam dunk for the DOJ!!  This is my opinion of course!

      These folks that find themselves on the receiving end of this have probably actually unwittingly stated something that is not 100% accurate, and have thus fallen into the IRS' trap of taking a frivolous position.  One has to be EXTREMELY CAREFUL  when one makes statements to the IRS.  It's best to not say anything, and get them to prove you had "wages."  The Devil is in the details . . . as it were.

      Of course an unrebutted or unchallenged W-4 on file constitutes "voluntary compliance," and of course, the resulting pay would be "treated as if it were wages paid to an employee by an employer" in accordance with 26 USC 3402(p)(3).  It's not that CtC is wrong, it's that these people opened their mouths or wrote a letter that exposed their less than 100% comprehension of the tax, and the DOJ is rolling in on them.

      That IS the truth of the matter here.

      Rich
    • Cliff Bass
      And, It [is argued that] the word including means moreover , or as well as ; but if this was the meaning of the legislature, it was a very embarrassing
      Message 2 of 4 , Jun 3, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        And, "It [is argued that] the
        word "including" means "moreover", or "as
        well as"; but if this was the meaning of the legislature, it was
        a very embarrassing mode of expressing the idea." 
        Chief Justice Marshall of the United States Supreme Court, United
        States v. The Schooner Betsey and Charlotte, 8 U.S. 443 (1808). 
        Marshall proceeds to observe that the proposition that "moreover"
        or "as well as" is, in fact, what is meant by
        the legislative use of "including" (or, by extension,
        includes) is nonsense.


        This is the response from a friend who is well versed on, and a
        participant in, the "Cracking the Code" premise.
         




        Subject:
        RE: Be very WARY of 'Cracking
        the Code'

        Date:
        6/2/2009 4:50:20 P.M. Central Daylight
        Time
        From:




        To:
        gwbinsat@aol. com
         
        Glen,

        I really appreciate you sending those briefs.  In reading
        them, there are several problematic areas.  Number one, the DOJ claims that
        proponents of CtC believe that wages do not constitute income.  Nobody
        makes it more clear than Hendrickson that wages DO CONSTITUTE income.
      • Patrick M
        So there is NO POSSIBILITY that there is a PROBLEM with the METHOD used? So it s the USER, NOT the SYSTEM? Per Rich It s not that CtC is wrong, it s that
        Message 3 of 4 , Jun 3, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          So there is NO POSSIBILITY that there is a PROBLEM with the METHOD used?



          So it's the USER, NOT the SYSTEM?



          Per Rich "It's not that CtC is wrong, it's that these people opened their
          mouths or wrote a letter that exposed their less than 100% comprehension of
          the tax, and the DOJ is rolling in on them."



          Oh really???



          So WHAT is Peter Hendrickson's (the AUTHOR of "Cracking the Code) "excuse",
          since it appears that he got NAILED for the SAME thing too?



          http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/Hendrickson_AmendedJudgPermInj.pdf



          Could it REMOTELY be POSSIBLE that the PROBLEM may relate to the FACT that
          the DEFINITION of "wages" for WITHHOLDING for income tax in 26 USC 3401(a) &
          that for Medicare & Social Security in 26 USC 3121(a) are DIFFERENT, so that
          while one MAY NOT owe income tax they could still OWE Medicare & Social
          Security taxes?



          26 USC 3401

          (a) Wages

          For purposes of this chapter, the term "wages" means all remuneration (other
          than fees paid to a public official) for services performed by an employee
          for his employer, including the cash value of all remuneration (including
          benefits) paid in any medium other than cash; except that such term shall
          not include remuneration paid-

          .

          (c) Employee

          For purposes of this chapter, the term "employee" includes an officer,
          employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any
          political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or
          instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term "employee"
          also includes an officer of a corporation.

          http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sec_26_00003401----000-.html



          26 USC 3121

          a) Wages

          For purposes of this chapter, the term "wages" means all remuneration for
          employment, including the cash value of all remuneration (including
          benefits) paid in any medium other than cash; except that such term shall
          not include-[rest omitted]

          http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00003121----000-
          .html



          WHICH would EXPLAIN WHY the Court said "Defendants were not entitled to a
          refund, under any circumstances, of the social security and Medicare taxes
          that had been withheld from Defendant Peter Hendrickson's wages during
          2002", WOULDN'T it?



          Patrick in California

          "We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, for my part, I am
          willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst & to provide for it."--
          Patrick Henry

          _____


          This is the response from a friend who is well versed on, and a participant
          in, the "Cracking the Code" premise.



          Glen,

          I really appreciate you sending those briefs. In reading them, there are
          several problematic areas. Number one, the DOJ claims that proponents of
          CtC believe that wages do not constitute income. Nobody makes it more clear
          than Hendrickson that wages DO CONSTITUTE income.
        • gimesumodat
          ... Not so. The legal determination of wages paid rests squarely on the application of the relevant definitions of section 3401 to the facts at hand and has
          Message 4 of 4 , Jun 3, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            > Of course an unrebutted or unchallenged W-4 on file constitutes "voluntary
            > compliance," and of course, the resulting pay would be "treated as if it
            > were wages paid to an employee by an employer" in accordance with 26 USC
            > 3402(p)(3). It's not that CtC is wrong, it's that these people opened their
            > mouths or wrote a letter that exposed their less than 100% comprehension of
            > the tax, and the DOJ is rolling in on them.
            >
            > That IS the truth of the matter here.
            >
            > Rich

            Not so. The legal determination of wages paid rests squarely on the application of the relevant definitions of section 3401 to the facts at hand and has nothing whatsoever to do with a Form W-4. The fact of the matter is you can't change the character of what was paid to you simply by signing a form because you don't get to change the law with your signature.

            You're right about CtCers walking into a semantic trap when they don't know how to use the language in a precise fashion. Many don't know how to identify the relevant presumptions or issues, and otherwise stumble around the process with half baked notions about which voodoo trick might work next.
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.