Yeah no. The Organic Act of 1871 does not have the words United States Corporation in it. This is some serious bullshit and fart smelling. Unfortunately fact check sites like this are correct:
Good post, I read them. This is true, that they use terms of art and create definitions that normal people would shake their heads in disgust, if awakened. Having studied this from the 1990s, there are many supporting arguments I’ve been taught, including: The Trading With the Enemy Act of 1917, participation in the UN, 1950s revision of the internal revenue codes…. The IRS will end when gold ends the Fed, so I would not focus on the Infernal revenue service too much.
CFR is not the most important data, the Statutes at Large are, and they are reflected in the US Code, of which Title 26 is the Internal Revenue Code: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26
What is specifically at issue is 26 USC 7701(a)(26), which says:
The term “trade or business” includes the performance of the functions of a public office.
Note that nothing else is included. There's a specific rule in that same section that states, very ambiguously, how inclusion operates, 26 USC 7701(c):
The terms “includes” and “including” when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.
So the law does not include, and does not exclude, which is what the Supreme Court said when interpreting this rule. Legal construction would indicate then that the only things included are those of the same kind as the examples given (the things "otherwise within the meaning"). You can't include something if there is no indication by a related example that the thing is included. However, you can certainly get millions of people to think something is included in "trade or business" besides the example given.
This is illustrated by several other definitions that work exactly the same way in USC and CFR. Everyone, do your own research.
Yeah no. The Organic Act of 1871 does not have the words United States Corporation in it. This is some serious bullshit and fart smelling. Unfortunately fact check sites like this are correct:
https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2021/01/fact-check-act-of-1871-did-not-establish-the-united-states-as-a-corporation.html
This BS argument was probably created by the CIA to discredit and distract us from the actual tyranny
Stop. Think about how ridiculous this claim is.
So why do they need the Organic Act of 1871 to illegally enslave us?
Which don't they just illegally enslave us (like they are doing)?
These regulations define job titles at the Internal Revenue Service. What is their other importance?
Point to random regulations.
?
Profit.
Good post, I read them. This is true, that they use terms of art and create definitions that normal people would shake their heads in disgust, if awakened. Having studied this from the 1990s, there are many supporting arguments I’ve been taught, including: The Trading With the Enemy Act of 1917, participation in the UN, 1950s revision of the internal revenue codes…. The IRS will end when gold ends the Fed, so I would not focus on the Infernal revenue service too much.
CFR is not the most important data, the Statutes at Large are, and they are reflected in the US Code, of which Title 26 is the Internal Revenue Code: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26
What is specifically at issue is 26 USC 7701(a)(26), which says:
The term “trade or business” includes the performance of the functions of a public office.
Note that nothing else is included. There's a specific rule in that same section that states, very ambiguously, how inclusion operates, 26 USC 7701(c):
The terms “includes” and “including” when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.
So the law does not include, and does not exclude, which is what the Supreme Court said when interpreting this rule. Legal construction would indicate then that the only things included are those of the same kind as the examples given (the things "otherwise within the meaning"). You can't include something if there is no indication by a related example that the thing is included. However, you can certainly get millions of people to think something is included in "trade or business" besides the example given.
This is illustrated by several other definitions that work exactly the same way in USC and CFR. Everyone, do your own research.