Are you engaged in a trade or business?
If so, do you KNOW what the legal definition of a "trade or business" is in the law?
You can find it in the tax code at 26 USC 7701(a)(26):
The term “trade or business” includes the performance of the functions of a public office.
There is NO OTHER definition of this term anywhere in the tax code.
FYI.
I Know.
This is good data, of course on this thread I'm only speaking of the corrections necessary for tax purposes.
Beyond federation level we go to ultimate kingdom level. In 2008 Satan claimed de jure control over our government, long time coming. Removing him de jure from that is not easy. However, we Jesus people are each sovereigns, co-regents of the kingdom, so we already also retain greater rights to control the same government of the America de jure constituted in the year of our Lord 1787. That means we no longer fight him as an outsider but as an infiltrator, much harder because of collateral risk.
De facto control has been around a lot longer and is a matter of street-by-street warfare. It's not necessary for us to control everything de facto in order to complete our objectives but we have always taken strategic wins.
So "having the government obey the law" is always a demonstration event, and the general approach of appealing all the way to and past the Supremes is still correct. No appeal route is ever shut out because God's on top. If you can't afford a lawyer, study enough to write your own cert requests; if you feel totally shut out, you appeal to general conscience and peaceful civil disobedience. It's not our job to make our servant government obey, it's our job to demonstrate their disobedience sufficient for later discipline and correction.
The other several tracks of acting on sovereignty are important and TBF I'm less expert in them. Many status corrections are very helpful; becoming Amish has never been so appealing. The overarching key is that every awakened sovereign must take whatever steps are most fitting for the local situation, must deign to accept certain drawbacks because of noblesse oblige, the impropriety of calling out one's fellow sovereigns too early for allowing bad laws. This is why St. Paul says very encouragingly about all such situations, If you are able also to become free, rather do that (1 Cor. 7:21 NASB95).
So each sovereign gets the bracing daily challenge of responsibility for life and the realm, and that includes occasional management of the servant governments, or else blithe ignorance of their recent shenanigans because one has structured one's life such that their failures don't hurt one or one's realm. A few periods of intense management can do wonders for indefinite protection from certain failures. For many years I've concluded "what happens in that city doesn't affect me". When RB Cheney first announced that he had invoked Continuity of Government, I knew that part of that meant that nothing ever after could be trusted. (At c/Christianity we are accumulating people who had gotten advanced supernatural warning that something like that would happen at exactly that time.) Each person has the God-given responsibility to labor such that errors of government will never hurt them, and that labor will be rewarded and unexpected divine gifts also given (hint: Jesus is the answer).
That's the stuff that John Quade was talking about, made some videos on, and pushed to the forefront for a small bit of time....
I wish he had made more videos on it, and explained it better....
Agreed, I remember him vaguely. Always start with: What particular remedy do you seek? Then you can determine what options to pursue and it won't significantly matter which authority you use because those who study the same laws and truths will agree, and disagreements can be resolved by further study. Is there anything in life you want to change besides keeping tax status correct (and of course being right with God)?
Well, it was during that same time period that Charlie Sprinkle was suing Ronald Reagan as Govn'r of Cali and had Nancy in that suit also, along with a ton of other people, all according to their Offices....
That/those. lawsuits are still active and can still be pursued by anyone who wants to go down that hole....
It's a trick that I've never been able to figure out, but the point is that when someone takes any office of Guv'nr on down to something like City Police Chief, they inherit those Suits, and they all include their Wives....
This is one of those I'm glad I have time to research (and the web is better) because I didn't when it came up before.
Sprinkle claimed that he "discontinued" as if his complaint could be taken up again, but more accurately the judge granted defendants' motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim on 1975-11-14. Here is the docket; so nobody inherits the case, but someone who wants to make a similar case can be reviewed de novo. The general argument that DLs and tags are titles of nobility has a little traction with me but then there's always been both the remedy side and the theory side to build up. On the theory side I could at least argue for right to travel (public roads) under right to associate, and then argue against unnecessary restrictions on that right that may inhere to the paperwork, but I haven't taken that up lately and REAL ID took the opponents' arguments up another notch.
Sprinkle raised several other issues and it's probable that the treatment he got reflected that some of the issues were more sensitive, without saying which. The gold vs. FRN status has been much fortified in the interim since Nixon closed the gold window. I think vonNothaus made some good strides in advancing the law but he was talked out of continuing with the same ferocity he used to show. Tying this into a complaint doesn't help as it needs to be its own complaint, and really that is only done with a broad org such as vonNothaus envisioned.
The point is that, if Sprinkle got close, nobody has been told what he did right, there's no proof that he got remedy, and everyone commenting on it after is guessing just like he was. If he happened to be someone whom the state classifies as "don't bother with", good for him, it happens to people, but it's not replicable. Things that are replicable can be demonstrated and transferred, which is why I focus on those, and authorities who use those to demonstrate operation of the law.
But let's get back to OP. If you were working for yourself and were asked if you were a "trade or business", you'd think it odd to look up the definition and find the above. Isn't it interesting that all who works for themselves in this country are pressured to fill out a form about their earnings that then uses this magic phrase "trade or business" with the context that it's defined by section 7701 above? That's a repeatable, demonstrable fact, and all anyone can do about it is to explain it away, but never officially.
Now, looking back, I see that you've now raised eight ancillary issues to OP, namely, "resident", gambling, constitutional money, adhesion, reparations, corrected status, Quade sovereign, Sprinkle suit. None of these relate to the meaning of "trade or business", nor any directly to the income tax scheme as a whole. Perhaps you just want your past research tested and possibly approved.
We must all remember that there are distractors among us who can get easily sidetracked from a conversation about obeying the law into a conversation about an unproven pet theory. When I arrived at Scored 2 years ago there was a lot of talk about the election being an occasion for some such pet theories to be vindicated, which has not yet happened; so at that time I resolved that I would patiently explain when a theory lacks enough support so that we can focus our movement's energies on remedies that do work to achieve all our goals. Since this thread might be consulted for the tax side of our goals, I have labored to explain the distractions at length. It would be interesting to me if your focus continued to be on more rarefied factors unrelated to the tax code rather than on the very interesting revelations about the tax code made herein. But for that reason I asked you a question directly about OP to gage your thoughts.