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

The Lost Horizons forum has been completely erased by...

Expand Messages
  • daviddiemer9041
    THE FORUM ADMIN, that is, Mr. Peter Eric Hendrickson! After years of work, over 1,900 posts with substantial research and methodologies, were completely erased
    Message 1 of 4 , Jul 21, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      THE FORUM ADMIN, that is, Mr. Peter Eric Hendrickson!

      After years of work, over 1,900 posts with substantial research and methodologies, were completely erased yesterday morning, July 20, 2009.

      Apparently, Mr. Hendrickson believed the forum had veered from its intended purpose of explaining how to grow from a CtC-educated grasshopper (a la Kung Fu) to a CtC-educated warrior.

      He seems to disagree with three issues:

      1. The SSN makes one liable for taxation (a proposition I don't agree with. The IRS doesn't use SSNs - they use Taxpayer Identification Numbers (TIN) and will use the SSN, if available, as the TIN. If not, the filer will be assigned a TIN. Kind of makes having an SSN moot!) This is rather insubstantial but consistently repeated by the tax honesty movement.

      2. The Form W-4 somehow changes the lawful nature of a person, a company, and his money into an employee, employer, and wages by statutory fiat! Or that the W-4 is a contract even though there is no consideration, it has only one signatory, and there is no meeting of the minds for an equal exchange. Those kinds of issues would have been covered by the worker's contract, not the W-4. Again, an insubstantial issue.

      3. The Form 4852 is being used to rebut three allegations by asserting the negative: I am NOT an employee; I did NOT work for an employer; and I did NOT earn wages. This is a sore point with Mr. Hendrickson who maintains that the Form 4852 IS a rebuttal form and is therefore legally sufficient evidence as to one's true status before the law. Simply changing wages from some number to zero is supposed to somehow conclusively prove that one did not earn wages and therefore wasn't an employee and didn't work for an employer by a signature on a jurat! However, if the IRS asks, "Where's the beef?," what is one to offer as proof-positive, or better stated, what is one to offer as proof-negative?

      It has been posited that this may be why the DOJ believes it can charge Mr. Hendrickson with lying on his Forms 4852 by stating he didn't earn wages when in fact he did. If Mr. Hendrickson did not rebut the 3 presumptions present on a Form W-2 (employer, employee, and wages) with a credible dispute in a courtroom proceeding (that means he didn't offer proof to backup his allegations), then he remains an employee working for an employer earning wages. It matters not what Mr. Hendrickson chooses to call them (receipts, payments, etc.) nor can simply changing a number on a 4852 erase the presumptions. As long as the W-2 presumptions remain at the end of the day, he'll be found guilty.

      But, Mr. Hendrickson argues (this is paraphrased), "I told you on your own form that I earned zero (0) wages, which means I wasn't an employer working for an employee." However, he uses the very Form 4852 that ALSO CONTAINS THESE VERY THREE (3) PRESUMPTIONS without proof - just naked allegations.

      Okay, says the DOJ, prove you weren't an employee. Prove you didn't earn wages. And prove you didn't work for an employer.

      [crickets chirping]

      So how do we resolve these discussions in a manner that is equitable to all? EASY! ERASE 2-3 YEARS OF WORK! That's how!

      Goodbye Lost Horizons forum!

      Thank you, Legalbear, for taking an active role in administering your forum and assuring us all that we'll stay on track, on topic, and on target. I'd rather live with rules that are known than arbitrarily deleting nearly 2 years of personal research.
    • dave
      Like many of the victims, Pete is a great patriot. I might disagree on several minor points but overall he shares something in common with all of us: Abolition
      Message 2 of 4 , Jul 21, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Like many of the victims, Pete is a great patriot. I might disagree on
        several minor points but overall he shares something in common with all of
        us: Abolition of slavery.



        I agree also with the author of this post. Its good. I will go one step
        further:

        . ON SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS and IDENTITY: If you apply for a Visa
        card from Citibank, Citibank as an administrator in some far away state will
        assign you an ACCOUNT NUMBER. Your name will be on the account but the
        NUMBER is how Citibank makes sure that Mr Pete Hendrick in Illinois is not
        the same as Mr Pete Hendrick in California. The number might REPRESENT
        identity to VISA alone internally but it doesn't make the ACCOUNT NUMBER
        your identity TO YOU. [Unless you are ignorant.] Thus you won't catch
        Citibank captioning any court case against you as a number for the NUMBER
        never was how you named and/or signed the contract as IDENTITY. The point? A
        Social Security NUMBER is a NUMBER for the ACCOUNT which SOCIAL SECURITY
        ADMINISTRATION "administers" : as administrators over an account BY LAW they
        are to track the funds deposited-into. The NUMBER is NOT "Your
        identity"-unless you ignorantly claim it so for nothing says you can't use a
        number as identity. But.a Social Security Number is the CLAIMED PROPERTY of
        the social security administration BUT ONLY when used in conjunction with
        the same "Social Security". Let me explain: Let's say you find this written
        on a BLANK piece of paper: 286422970 or even as 286-42-2970. What are they?
        Answer: WHO KNOWS!!!! They could REPRESENT: (1) a telephone number in France
        (2) My bookie slip.whoops (3) a lottery ticket (4) a social security number,
        etc. You see..NUMBERS ARE NUMBERS: Its only when LABELED that they become
        something. So you apply for an SSN: Big deal!! Examine the 4 corners of the
        application and go NO FURTHER. There could be ANY number of reasons why you
        wanted the number and only YOU can tell. Now.a TAXPAYER IDENTIFICATION
        NUMBER is different for it tells IN PLAIN ENGLISH that this number
        IDENTIFIES a TAXPAYER. They say that "In confusion there is profit" and
        nothing is more confusing than the interface between SSA and the IRS. This
        is done ON PURPOSE to cloud the issue of exactly WHO determines you are a
        taxpayer. When an employer swears under POP that you earned something on a
        W2/W3, that form hits SSA first. SSA I am sure records the ACCOUNT number
        and credits the $$$ to the ACCOUNT. It then hands off the accusation to a
        SERVICE for TAXPAYERS. That SERVICE can only service TAXPAYERS per its
        mission statement so what would it consider every number to be? Of course.a
        taxpayer identification number.

        . W4: A W4 is a WITHOLDING ALLOWANCE CERTIFICATE. Let the words sink
        in..read them as PLAIN ENGLISH. This form is your ALLOWANCE to an employer
        to WITHOLD and contains YOUR signature under penalty of perjury to make sure
        it is something you want to do as CERTIFICATION. Get it? You must ALLOW your
        EMPLOYER to WITHOLD and to make sure it's your wishes, it must be CERTIFIED
        with your signature. Notice how government tries to confuse the children
        with all the talk of their allowances???

        .

        Free Inhabitant Dave



        BTW: Kudos to Legal Bear and this forum.





        From: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
        [mailto:tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of daviddiemer9041
        Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 4:00 PM
        To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [tips_and_tricks] The Lost Horizons forum has been completely
        erased by...





        THE FORUM ADMIN, that is, Mr. Peter Eric Hendrickson!

        After years of work, over 1,900 posts with substantial research and
        methodologies, were completely erased yesterday morning, July 20, 2009.

        Apparently, Mr. Hendrickson believed the forum had veered from its intended
        purpose of explaining how to grow from a CtC-educated grasshopper (a la Kung
        Fu) to a CtC-educated warrior.
      • Bob Conlon
        Employees are not liable for taxes withheld at source in any event, anyway!   Employers are liable for income tax, specifically Federal employers.    Taxes
        Message 3 of 4 , Jul 21, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          Employees are not liable for taxes withheld at source in any event, anyway!
           
          Employers are liable for income tax, specifically Federal employers. 
           
          Taxes are mandatory only for Federal workers
           
          Title 4 USC, section 111 fulfills the requirement of the 16th amendment that congress shall lay and collect income taxes on any source derived.  In this section of law, the United States consents to income tax.  this is most likely why the courts say that income taxes are not optional.  
           
          Use the search engine on the congressional web site at http://uscode.house.gov and click on the second option, Search the code
           
          In the search words box, type "income tax collected at source"
           
          You will only get one section of code, and that will be section 3402 of USC 26.  Click on that and read it.  That makes the (Federal) employer liable for income tax.  Go to the top and click on the blue right arrow.
           
          That will bring you to section 3403.  This is the only section in Title 26 that makes anyone liable for income tax withheld!  Once again, it is only the (Federal) employer, not the employee liable!    This explains how tax cheat Tim Geithner got the IMF to pay for his income tax.  The IRS doesn't care who pays the tax, only that it is paid!....  and Title 4 section 111 makes the United States subject to income tax.  
           
          This also explains why section 6331 (a) of 26 USC 301.6331 26 CFR says that levy may be made upon federal employees! 
           
          Without any liablility there can be no tax due and owing.  Without any tax due and owing there can be not 'taxable year', ergo not income tax due and no requirement to file.
           
          Not legal advice, just education.
           
          Regards,
          Bob

          --- On Tue, 7/21/09, daviddiemer9041 <daviddiemer9041@...> wrote:


          THE FORUM ADMIN, that is, Mr. Peter Eric Hendrickson!

          After years of work, over 1,900 posts with substantial research and methodologies, were completely erased yesterday morning, July 20, 2009.

          Apparently, Mr. Hendrickson believed the forum had veered from its intended purpose of explaining how to grow from a CtC-educated grasshopper (a la Kung Fu) to a CtC-educated warrior.
        • John Hill
          When using a term it is important to first know that the definition of a term is dependent upon how it is defined within the specific section of the code
          Message 4 of 4 , Jul 24, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            When using a term it is important to first know that the definition of a term is dependent upon how it is defined within the "specific" section of the code that is using it. Simply look up the definition in the definitions section of the statute that you are studying! Recently this forum has been batting back and forth the definition of the term "wages." Due to Pete Hendrickson's indictment. Here is an interesting cite from the court for your consideration.
             
             
             
            "Simply put, pay from a job is a 'wage,' and wages are not taxable. Congress has taxed INCOME, not compensation (wages and salaries)."  Conner v. U.S. 303 F Supp. 1187 (1969)
             
             
            Here, the court considers the common definition, or understanding of the "word," and defines the "word" wage" as "pay from a job."
             
            The IRS considers the definition of the "term" "wage," as being payment for the "performance of the functions of a public office," which is the definition of the "term" "trade or business." To be involved in the "performance of the functions of a public office" is considered to be a privilege by the federal government since taxpayer money is being used to fund the livelihood of another person. IF OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS WOULD CONSIDER A PRIVILEGE TO SERVE THEIR CONSTITUENTS, WHICH THEY SHOULD, WE WOULD BE LIVING IN A MUCH BETTER SOCIETY.
             
            FOR WHAT IT IS WORTH
             
             
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.