Re: And the purpose of that section is.........

Arthur L. Rubin wrote:

> > > > You and I got unfinished business with this:
> > > >
> > > > http://home.sprintmail.com/~dalereastman/tax/tmachine/explain.html
> > >
> > >
> > > I believe we do.  I'll start a new thread in a month or so -- after
> > > I get MY descriptions (without idiotic flow diagrams) online.
> >
> > Yep, Dance away.
> >
> > I fixed the flaw you brought to my attention, so now it's time to dance
> > away. It's interesting how you IRS collaborators do that when you know
> > what's coming....
> >
> > Not that it's hard to see what's coming. You trashed my "idiotic flow
> > diagrams" in general. That was a baseless assertion. I called you on it.
> > I broke down that image into each component part, along with the rules
> > regs and laws that support each part.
>
>
> That particular section is still idiotic, even as corrected.  

Again sir, a generalized assertion, lacking in support.

> In fact, there's no LAW requiring any of the "income"s (as defined in
> the code) to be the same as "income" as commonly defined.

<shaking head> And you point is?

> However, if we ignore the green line, and go on from there....
> there are still many incorrect assertions.

Again, another unsubstantiated assertion, lacking in support.

> > This puts you on the spot.
> >
> > If you can not prove each component part is incorrect, you can not
> > assert the image is wrong in general.
>
>
> Actually, that's not fair.  It's possible for each block to be correct,
> but the entire image to be wrong, if the definition of the output of
> one block subtly differs from the definition of the input to the next.

Then you'll bring that up as we move from one block to the next.

> I'm not saying that each block of your diagram is correct, but....

Is correct, or is incorrect?

But... Erases everything prior to it in a sentence.

> That's why _I_ prefer text, with numbered clauses.

That's why each partial of the larger image has the supporting codes 
and/ or regulations right there.

> > >>>The courts refuse to look at YOUR INTERPRETATION
>
>
> > > > > of the law and regulations.
> >
> > Just like you are now refusing to look at the image.
> >
> > http://home.sprintmail.com/~dalereastman/tax/tmachine/explain.html
>
>
> I find it hard to believe that anyone could believe that the "source"
> (as determined under 861-864) of income can affect whether it's taxable.

I don't doubt that last statement for one moment.

It's called a "perception filter". It blocks what you don't want to believe.

It means the thoughts are literally impossible for you to format. You 
can't even pretend that source matters, in spite of being shown how many 
times by Malloy before I even arrived in this group.


--
On May 6, 2003, The IRS pushed their way into the home of Larken Rose
 and seized $3,000 worth of the video Theft-By-Deception.
According to Mr. Rose, the IRS has vowed to never give the tapes back.

This is a First Amendment violation.

As of November 14, 2003, the IRS has still not indicted
or charged Larken Rose for the commission of any crime.
The website of Mr. Rose is http://taxableincome.net/

If you are within the Chicago, Milwaukee, Rockford triangle
and are interested in viewing this video for free, buy yourself
some popcorn & soda, then Contact me by clicking this link:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

6 questions the IRS won't answer:
http://home.sprintmail.com/~dalereastman/tax/6Questions.html

Some clues as to why they won't answer:
http://home.sprintmail.com/~dalereastman/tax/tmachine/explain.html
http://home.sprintmail.com/~dalereastman/block/block.html
http://home.sprintmail.com/~dalereastman/tax/right.html

All email missing the magic word is deleted unread.
http://home.sprintmail.com/~dalereastman/misc/spamnot.htm
Hormel makes the good spam.