Subject:
Halftime Show

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


Dear Subscriber,

I feel compelled to throw in a few quick notes before sending the
second half of my "The Meaning of Income" message, because of some
responses I've received to the first part.

I've gotten a number of e-mails complaining about my refutation of
Mr. Hendrickson's claims, some more caustic than others. Of note,
so far none of them cited anything from the law, or mentioned
anything about the cases I cited. Be advised that assertions--
whether correct or not--by themselves do not impress me. If you
want me to think I've made an error, quote the evidence
demonstrating it.

Some people complained that I was relating Mr. Hendrickson's claims
to the "wages aren't income" argument. But while Mr. Hendrickson
claims to disagree with the claim that "wages aren't income," he
goes on to say the following on the front page of his web site:
"What is called "income" in the internal revenue laws (that is,
what is taxed under those laws) is NOT 'money' or 'receipts' or
'earnings', etc..  It is the exercise of federal privilege, which
is measured, for purposes of determining the tax, by the receipts
brought in by that exercise."

Plainly, he thinks that, unless you work for the government, YOUR
wages are not "income." His site also gives "A Concise Summary Of
The Meaning of 'Income'," which (according to him) consists
entirely of payments made by the federal government and payments
from federal "corporations or instrumentalities." In other words,
he is arguing that private wages are not "income"--an error refuted
by the preceded and following citations just as much as the other
versions of "wages aren't income." The fact that he follows a
somewhat different route to arrive at the same incorrect conclusion
is irrelevant.

I would also note that, amongst all the THEORIZING about what
"income" is, what the subject of the tax is, and so on, he quotes
NOTHING from the law, or from any court ruling, suggesting that
only federal payments constitute "income," for purposes of the
income tax. Again, he has not "Cracked the Code"; he has ignored
the code entirely, preferring instead to theorize about the
meanings of words used in the code, while ignoring what the law
(and the courts) say about the meanings of those terms.

Lastly, please do not read into my comments things I haven't said
(especially before reading the second half). As you'll see, I agree
that the tax is an "excise" tax, that "income" per se is NOT (and
could not be) the subject of the tax, and that most Americans do
not engage in the activities which are the actual subject of the
tax. But rather than just free-style theorizing about it myself, I
quote where the LAW demonstrates all of that.

Sincerely,


Larken Rose
www.larkenrose.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Note: This signature can be verified at https://www.hushtools.com/verify
Version: Hush 2.5

wpwEAQECAAYFAkYIj3MACgkQGmVFo/iGj32emwP/TrxEXlx9fAITDRnoQxxr3FyMouKi
Ws+/wIAQO3l4zd+qPauCNabG/iQVLFayRrbUsUdnm7SsPUUoOza7fKoWjuCV37eRImzm
lfnVMxZkCDzQcs6LcwCWn+xX2IiYqMxGQe36neJK+sG4QgOc/7MYOvy5Bh3X6MnrfI/R
JwFl0LQ=
=x8g/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Need cash? Click to get an instant cash advance
http://tagline.hushmail.com/fc/CAaCXv1KmEUS0oScbcTwWCdSSWZWWe2p/

--------------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe,   send a blank message to 861-on@mail-list.com

To contact the list owner, send your message to 
   861-list-owner@mail-list.com