Family Guardian | Ben | Activity https://famguardian.org/members/ben/activity/ Activity feed for Ben. Fri, 22 May 2026 13:13:57 +0000 https://buddypress.org/?v=3.0.2 en-US 30 hourly 2 f57cf2b1fb8db485726fa144d9ce63c7 Ben replied to the discussion New evidence on "Includes" in the forum 7.5. Word Games that STEAL from and deceive people https://famguardian.org/forums/forums/topic/new-evidence-on-includes/page/2/#post-8219 Sat, 02 Apr 2005 19:09:51 +0000 Reply to New evidence on "Includes"

Sorry, can't stay away from this topic!

Hmmm….couldn't Congress just write 7701 like this:

For the purposes of this subtitle:

(1) the terms ?includes? and ?including? are not limiting.

which they did here:

Rules of Construction – Title 28, section 3003

HA!

I'm led to believe that anybody who thinks 7701 and section 3003 of Title 28… Read more

]]> c6181d35c94095105102a4dbea0c3cde Ben replied to the discussion New evidence on "Includes" in the forum 7.5. Word Games that STEAL from and deceive people https://famguardian.org/forums/forums/topic/new-evidence-on-includes/page/2/#post-8217 Tue, 22 Feb 2005 03:12:11 +0000 Reply to New evidence on "Includes"

Just found an article that does an excellent job of explaining this. I'm not sure if it is linked to on this site or not:

http://www.losthorizons.com/comment/The%20…20It%20Says.pdf

My confusion is beginning to clear up…

EDIT: Just realized this is an excerpt from Cracking the Code by Peter Hendrickson.

]]> 8dc0c6dc7488e19b7dd1f2f9668ce821 Ben replied to the discussion New evidence on "Includes" in the forum 7.5. Word Games that STEAL from and deceive people https://famguardian.org/forums/forums/topic/new-evidence-on-includes/page/2/#post-8216 Mon, 21 Feb 2005 21:47:06 +0000 Reply to New evidence on "Includes"

Thank you for the swift reply.

I was previously unaware that the phrase “but not limited to” was used in the code with such frequency, nor had I considered the logical consequences of the “does not include” usage. Your proofs are compelling. Let me present a problem to proof number 2 and have you address it if you would do me… Read more

]]> e3876882fdd47f9122b540c2f0c695f2 Ben replied to the discussion New evidence on "Includes" in the forum 7.5. Word Games that STEAL from and deceive people https://famguardian.org/forums/forums/topic/new-evidence-on-includes/page/2/#post-8214 Mon, 21 Feb 2005 02:05:50 +0000 Reply to New evidence on "Includes"

Please help me, someone…I'm confused!

This situation is bothering me. It is crystal clear to me that the supreme Court has determined that the word “includes” is a limiting term. However, and correct me if I'm wrong, everyone here seems to be in agreement that if a chapter contains its own definition of the word “includes” then that… Read more

]]> 37e7569f8ebba8f654e6d2cc40de41e4 Ben replied to the discussion IRS website in the forum 3.4.3. Deceptive tax propaganda https://famguardian.org/forums/forums/topic/irs-website/#post-8662 Fri, 18 Jun 2004 01:20:01 +0000 Reply to IRS website

Thanks for the reply. I tried to edit some of my post to make it clearer. I was going a hundred miles an hour and didn't make my main point too well. I'll try again.

The Supreme Court ruled in the Brushaber case that income taxes are not direct, but are indirect taxes (excise). There has not been, to my knowledge, a SC case since then… Read more

]]>