Ares
14th April 2011, 07:09 AM
Although the IR Code is used as the basis for the so-called income tax, the personal income tax does not derive its authority from the 16th Amendment, Brushaber v. Union Pacific RR, or any other constitutional or federal provision, as those authorities fell with the loss of our national money standard in 1933. Since 1933, the people have formed a new unincorporated United States in trust by their silence in accepting the loss of their ability for paying their debts [i.e., extinguishing the obligation] at law [i.e., by the loss of a money based on substance]. In other words, the suspension of our national money standard created a void in the law. Consequently, a resulting or implied [constructive] trust rushed in to fill the void.
In a resulting or implied trust, there are no terms of how and who is to administer the terms of the trust. Therefore, you cannot put the blame on anyone besides the people for letting the trust be established. “The United States Government may be the trustee of a charitable trust,” Russell v. Allen, 107 U.S. 163: 27 L.Ed. 397, and further: The United States or a state has capacity to take and hold property upon a charitable trust, but in the absence of a statute otherwise providing, the charitable trust is unenforceable against the United States or a state.” In other words, the code does not define who is required to file and what the terms are, but when you use the IR Code as your argument, you admit to conveying your estate to the public trust. Thus, all your arguments have little or no merit. It then is a constant battle finding niches in the code which the IRS eventually overcomes, and it comes down to how much you owe and when you are going to pay. In the mean time, you cannot own anything because they put a lien on it, and it is hell getting rid of the lien.
Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution states: “New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.” Article IV, Sec. 3 clearly states that in order to establish new incorporated States under the Constitution, the legislatures and Congress must follow the Constitutional rules. But, since there is no prohibition under Article IV, Sec. 3 or any other provisions of the Constitution to prohibit the people from forming an association of new unincorporated states, and just since there is no charter of incorporation of the new states, and just what its duties are, i.e., its intents and purposes, a resulting implied charitable trust is formed by operation of law [see below for definitions].
You must also remember that you are also considered a beneficiary to the trust, and as such, unjust enrichment comes into play. As a result of [all] the foregoing, when you go into court, the judge constructs a trust whereby he takes judicial notice [of the presumption that you are a beneficiary of the trust and the presumption is the fact until rebutted with evidence] and invokes unjust enrichment on your part. Consequently there is no Constitutional Law, only the conscience of the masses in the trust governed by courts of equity whereby all property, real and personal, is held in common to everybody in the trust, i.e., every person re-insures each other’s debts and responsibility, in limited liability. In other words, by operation of law, the people have formed new unincorporated states that operate outside the Constitution under their right to contract and convey their property as a gift in trust, thereby creating relative rights instead of absolute rights. As stated earlier, being there is no charter of incorporation and just what its duties and jurisdiction consist of, this public trust of unincorporated states reverts back to the Articles of Confederation because, under the Articles, taxation and commerce were and are under the control of the states and outside the control of the federal Government. Thus, the IR Code is not under control of Congress’ general powers, but rather its authority lies under local law, which is the law [of the unincorporated] states under the Erie RR doctrine.
The Articles were in force from March 1781 to March 1789. They were never abolished, but discredited by 1786, thus not being [were not] incorporated into the Constitution. Most authorities of that time agree that, had it not been for the Articles of Confederation, our Constitutional Republic would not have survived. But taxation and commerce, being under control of the [unincorporated] states, created major problems as we are witnessing today under local law. Erie held that the law of the state shall apply in the absence of the Constitution or Acts of Congress. First, Erie does not say the incorporated State, but the unincorporated state. Second, Erie does not differentiate between foreign or domestic commerce, nor does it differentiate between local or general Acts of Congress. I go ballistic when I hear folks say that the incorporated States are what are doing-us-in. Go to your state constitution and check to see if the state boundary lines are there. “Oh!” you say, “they are not there.” Well, then, how can the incorporated State or States be doing-us-in when there are no boundary lines drawn between the various general powers over the people?—the U.S. Supreme Court has stated this many times over.
The purpose of the personal income tax is to tax those who want government acting under local law (public policy) to take care of them, which unfortunately is what most of the people want and expect, and therein lies the major problem. Anyhow, silence is consent. Therefore you are required to file tax returns and share your wealth with the undesirables. That is, unless you use the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 USC 1602-1611 (FSIA). FSIA was passed in 1976 in order to offer to those who are dissatisfied with public policy, a statutory remedy to the Constitution under Article III. Your access to the Constitution runs directly through the FSIA in every area when dealing with government: federal, state, or local.
In short, the FSIA codified the era of Swift v. Tyson, 16 Peters 1 (1842-1938) whereby a jury trial can now be demanded, if desired, in State court on any statutory issue covered by the FSIA against federal, state, or local government. Congress specifically stated that the FSIA must be interpreted by statutory remedy in an Article III court regardless of the citizenship of the plaintiff under international law outside of the realm of equity, Erie, Title 42 and other public policy. FSIA also, waives sovereign immunity for commercial activities of state and federal governments which consists of about 90% of government activity. In summation, arguing the Internal Revenue Code is an effort in futility.
End.
Resulting trusts
There are two main categories of resulting trust. In Re Vandervell's Trusts (No. 2) [1974] Ch. 269, Megarry J. distinguished between automatic and presumed resulting trusts, as follows:
"(a) The first class of cases is where the transfer to B is not made on any trust [formal trust indenture (document) creating an express trust] ... there is a rebuttable presumption that B holds on resulting trust for A. The question is not one of the automatic consequences of a dispositive failure by A, but one of presumption: the property has been carried to B, and from the absence of consideration and any presumption of advancement [towards formalizing an express trust], B is presumed not only to hold the entire interest on trust, but also to hold the beneficial interest for A absolutely. The presumption thus establishes both that B is to take on trust and also what that trust is. Such resulting trusts may be called "presumed resulting trusts".
(b) The second class of case is where the transfer to B is made on trusts which leave some or all of the beneficial interest undisposed of. Here B automatically holds on resulting trust for A to the extent that the beneficial interest has not been carried to him or others. The resulting trust here does not depend on any intentions or presumptions, but is the automatic consequence of A's failure to dispose of what is vested in him. Since ex hypothesis the transfer is on trust, the resulting trust does not establish the trust but merely carries back to A the beneficial interest that has not been disposed of. Such resulting trusts may be called "automatic resulting trusts".
LOWE v. STATE OF KANSAS, 163 U.S. 81 (1896) – And, in an information to enforce a charitable trust, a relator is required, who may be compelled, if the information is not maintained, to pay the costs. Attorney General v. Smart, 1 Ves. Sr. 72, and note; Attorney General v. Butler, 123 Mass. 304, 309.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3J8vbtMxgWg
Senator Harkins document can be found here (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fecclesia.org%2Fforum%2Fuploads%2F Bondservant%2FIRS.doc&rct=j&q=Senator%20Harkin%20on%20the%20IRS&ei=9fGmTYXqBM600QGqitn5CA&usg=AFQjCNF7h7le14OJeX83hsrffpb4c783uw&cad=rja)
In a resulting or implied trust, there are no terms of how and who is to administer the terms of the trust. Therefore, you cannot put the blame on anyone besides the people for letting the trust be established. “The United States Government may be the trustee of a charitable trust,” Russell v. Allen, 107 U.S. 163: 27 L.Ed. 397, and further: The United States or a state has capacity to take and hold property upon a charitable trust, but in the absence of a statute otherwise providing, the charitable trust is unenforceable against the United States or a state.” In other words, the code does not define who is required to file and what the terms are, but when you use the IR Code as your argument, you admit to conveying your estate to the public trust. Thus, all your arguments have little or no merit. It then is a constant battle finding niches in the code which the IRS eventually overcomes, and it comes down to how much you owe and when you are going to pay. In the mean time, you cannot own anything because they put a lien on it, and it is hell getting rid of the lien.
Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution states: “New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.” Article IV, Sec. 3 clearly states that in order to establish new incorporated States under the Constitution, the legislatures and Congress must follow the Constitutional rules. But, since there is no prohibition under Article IV, Sec. 3 or any other provisions of the Constitution to prohibit the people from forming an association of new unincorporated states, and just since there is no charter of incorporation of the new states, and just what its duties are, i.e., its intents and purposes, a resulting implied charitable trust is formed by operation of law [see below for definitions].
You must also remember that you are also considered a beneficiary to the trust, and as such, unjust enrichment comes into play. As a result of [all] the foregoing, when you go into court, the judge constructs a trust whereby he takes judicial notice [of the presumption that you are a beneficiary of the trust and the presumption is the fact until rebutted with evidence] and invokes unjust enrichment on your part. Consequently there is no Constitutional Law, only the conscience of the masses in the trust governed by courts of equity whereby all property, real and personal, is held in common to everybody in the trust, i.e., every person re-insures each other’s debts and responsibility, in limited liability. In other words, by operation of law, the people have formed new unincorporated states that operate outside the Constitution under their right to contract and convey their property as a gift in trust, thereby creating relative rights instead of absolute rights. As stated earlier, being there is no charter of incorporation and just what its duties and jurisdiction consist of, this public trust of unincorporated states reverts back to the Articles of Confederation because, under the Articles, taxation and commerce were and are under the control of the states and outside the control of the federal Government. Thus, the IR Code is not under control of Congress’ general powers, but rather its authority lies under local law, which is the law [of the unincorporated] states under the Erie RR doctrine.
The Articles were in force from March 1781 to March 1789. They were never abolished, but discredited by 1786, thus not being [were not] incorporated into the Constitution. Most authorities of that time agree that, had it not been for the Articles of Confederation, our Constitutional Republic would not have survived. But taxation and commerce, being under control of the [unincorporated] states, created major problems as we are witnessing today under local law. Erie held that the law of the state shall apply in the absence of the Constitution or Acts of Congress. First, Erie does not say the incorporated State, but the unincorporated state. Second, Erie does not differentiate between foreign or domestic commerce, nor does it differentiate between local or general Acts of Congress. I go ballistic when I hear folks say that the incorporated States are what are doing-us-in. Go to your state constitution and check to see if the state boundary lines are there. “Oh!” you say, “they are not there.” Well, then, how can the incorporated State or States be doing-us-in when there are no boundary lines drawn between the various general powers over the people?—the U.S. Supreme Court has stated this many times over.
The purpose of the personal income tax is to tax those who want government acting under local law (public policy) to take care of them, which unfortunately is what most of the people want and expect, and therein lies the major problem. Anyhow, silence is consent. Therefore you are required to file tax returns and share your wealth with the undesirables. That is, unless you use the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 USC 1602-1611 (FSIA). FSIA was passed in 1976 in order to offer to those who are dissatisfied with public policy, a statutory remedy to the Constitution under Article III. Your access to the Constitution runs directly through the FSIA in every area when dealing with government: federal, state, or local.
In short, the FSIA codified the era of Swift v. Tyson, 16 Peters 1 (1842-1938) whereby a jury trial can now be demanded, if desired, in State court on any statutory issue covered by the FSIA against federal, state, or local government. Congress specifically stated that the FSIA must be interpreted by statutory remedy in an Article III court regardless of the citizenship of the plaintiff under international law outside of the realm of equity, Erie, Title 42 and other public policy. FSIA also, waives sovereign immunity for commercial activities of state and federal governments which consists of about 90% of government activity. In summation, arguing the Internal Revenue Code is an effort in futility.
End.
Resulting trusts
There are two main categories of resulting trust. In Re Vandervell's Trusts (No. 2) [1974] Ch. 269, Megarry J. distinguished between automatic and presumed resulting trusts, as follows:
"(a) The first class of cases is where the transfer to B is not made on any trust [formal trust indenture (document) creating an express trust] ... there is a rebuttable presumption that B holds on resulting trust for A. The question is not one of the automatic consequences of a dispositive failure by A, but one of presumption: the property has been carried to B, and from the absence of consideration and any presumption of advancement [towards formalizing an express trust], B is presumed not only to hold the entire interest on trust, but also to hold the beneficial interest for A absolutely. The presumption thus establishes both that B is to take on trust and also what that trust is. Such resulting trusts may be called "presumed resulting trusts".
(b) The second class of case is where the transfer to B is made on trusts which leave some or all of the beneficial interest undisposed of. Here B automatically holds on resulting trust for A to the extent that the beneficial interest has not been carried to him or others. The resulting trust here does not depend on any intentions or presumptions, but is the automatic consequence of A's failure to dispose of what is vested in him. Since ex hypothesis the transfer is on trust, the resulting trust does not establish the trust but merely carries back to A the beneficial interest that has not been disposed of. Such resulting trusts may be called "automatic resulting trusts".
LOWE v. STATE OF KANSAS, 163 U.S. 81 (1896) – And, in an information to enforce a charitable trust, a relator is required, who may be compelled, if the information is not maintained, to pay the costs. Attorney General v. Smart, 1 Ves. Sr. 72, and note; Attorney General v. Butler, 123 Mass. 304, 309.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3J8vbtMxgWg
Senator Harkins document can be found here (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fecclesia.org%2Fforum%2Fuploads%2F Bondservant%2FIRS.doc&rct=j&q=Senator%20Harkin%20on%20the%20IRS&ei=9fGmTYXqBM600QGqitn5CA&usg=AFQjCNF7h7le14OJeX83hsrffpb4c783uw&cad=rja)