How to keep 100% of your earnings

[Hatha Sunahara]

On a thread here about The Secret of Oz, Palani posted a Maxim of Law:


Cujus per errorem dati repetitio est, ejus consulto dati donatio est. Whoever pays by mistake what he does not owe, may recover it back; but he who pays, knowing he owes nothing; is presumed to give.

I recently watched a video that might be considered a sequel or addendum to Aaron Russo's America From Freedom to Fascism called How to Keep 100% of Your Earnings. Toward the end, the quote above came down on me like a ton of bricks. Here's the video:



http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2398389779813975826

I'm curious why this video doesn't have millions of views yet. Any ideas about that?


Hatha

[Twisted Titan]

tagggg

[JohnQPublic]

Be careful...

3352

ORANGE COUNTY BUSINESS OWNER SENTENCED TO 27 MONTHS IN PRISON FOR SUBMITTING FALSE CLAIM FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT TAXES (http://www.justice.gov/usao/cac/Pressroom/pr2006/040.html)

Los Angeles, CA - An Orange County tax protester who owns a Huntington Beach electronics company was sentenced today to more than two years in federal prison for submitting a false claim to the Internal Revenue Service that fraudulently sought a $61,388 refund of employment taxes.

George Henry "Nick" Jesson, 55, of Fountain Valley, the owner of No Time Delay Electronics, Inc., was sentenced to 27 months in prison by United States District Judge Percy Anderson. Jesson was remanded into custody immediately after the sentencing.

Jesson is associated with We the People Foundation for Constitutional Education, a tax-protest group that bought a full-page ad in USA Today in 2001 to declare that the government did not have the authority to collect taxes from paychecks. Judge Anderson said that the 27-month sentence should serve as a deterrent to others contemplating anti-tax actions.

In addition to the prison term, Judge Anderson ordered Jesson to pay restitution of $215,454 to the IRS.

Jesson pleaded guilty on June 27, 2005, admitting that he signed and filed a false IRS Form 941c – Supporting Statement to Correct Information – and amended Forms W-2c – Corrected Wage and Tax Statements – for No Time Delay Electronics which falsely reported that no wages had been paid to employees of his company in 1997. In reality, No Time Delay Electronics paid wages of $177,083.22 to Jesson and $273,236.20 to Jesson's wife in 1997, which Jesson acknowledged to be taxable income when he pleaded guilty. In addition, No Time Delay Electronics paid wages to other employees in 1997. Based on the false statement in May 2000 that No Time Delay Electronics had paid $0 wages in 1997, Jesson falsely claimed that the total amount of all employment taxes paid by the company in 1997 should be refunded. The total refund requested for all employees of No Time Delay Electronics, Inc. was $215,454, of which $61,388 was the employment tax withholding from the wages of Jesson and his wife. Jesson took the refund of $215,454 and immediately converted the total amount to his own personal use.

Jesson also admitted that, prior to filing the false Form 941c for No Time Delay Electronics for 1997, he had attempted to obtain a refund of $61,388 (the taxes withheld on the wages paid to Jesson and his wife) by filing an IRS Form 1040X – an amended federal income tax return – for himself and his wife. In this filing, Jesson claimed that wages were not taxable income. As part of the sentence imposed, the court also ordered Jesson to file true and accurate tax returns for 1997 through 2004 and to pay over the IRS all taxes, penalties and interest assessed on such tax returns. When this filing was unsuccessful in yielding a refund, Jesson filed the fraudulent Forms 941c and W-2c.

This case is the result of an investigation by IRS-Criminal Investigation Division.

[Ares]

When you exercise the privilege of private credit, you must pay the fee for its use.

[Shami-Amourae]

It doesn't matter what the law is, it matters who has bigger/more firepower. Currently that's the government, so you really can't win with this shit unless you're on their side somehow.

[palani]

Helps to be up front and honest with your desires.

http://i49.tinypic.com/kuql2.jpg

[palani]

When you exercise the privilege of private credit, you must pay the fee for its use.

So why not make use of United States Currency Notes instead?


Congress still has “United State Currency Notes” available (See 31 USC Sec. 5115), and banks are required to convert FRN’s for them (good luck in getting a bank to help with that). But, it can be done with your deposits. Just replace the “$” with a “U” transposed over a “S” (a “S’ with two lines through the S) before the written amount, and write “USCN” upon your deposit. Now your strawman has deposited United States Currency Notes, further pay out in USCN’s with your checks with the same notations.

http://adask.wordpress.com/2012/07/28/just-a-thought/#comments

[7th trump]

When you exercise the privilege of private credit, you must pay the fee for its use.

Ares, you havent a clue of what you are talking about.
Peoiple please dont listen to this tripe about private credit....Ares cant back any of it up with any statutory evidence nor any historical evidence.

The income tax is based on participating in Social Security.....and has absolutely nothing at all to do with fiat curreny (private credit).
Historically, fact is since 1913 when the reserve act came about millions of Americans had fiat in their pockets doing bussiness and didnt pay a damn cent in federal income taxes on their labor until 1940.
It was the the 1939 revised income tax did Title 26 first see chapter 21 (social security). Americans, by the millions, filed for the first time in 1940 because of chapter 21.

And if anybody has any doubt heres Kyles blog http://kylehuwer.wordpress.com/tag/taxes/ showing the official government chart showing how many filed 1040's per year startig with 1913.
In 1940 the amount doubled from 7 million to 14 million returns because of social security being installed into title 26's "Subtitle C- Employment Taxes".
Social Security defines what is "employment" (the heart and sole of Social Security). Its not a coincidence that the 1939 title 26 has added "employment" (26usc 3121(b)) chapter 21.

Some people will deceive you into beleiving a lie about private credit being the crux of taxes on liability and never provide any statutory proof and then there are some who will tell you differently and show the proof.
If anybody tells you a myth (private credit) and cant provide any statutory evidence or tells you they dont research the law because it doesnt apply to them after asking them to provide the evidence..........they are LIARS and FOOLS and keep them at arms length at all times.

Also, if you want to see the governmen tell you what the excise is that is taxable....look no further than 26usc 3111.......the government tells you that "employent" as defined (26usc 3121(b)) is the excise activity that causes your pay to be tax which the employer must also pay a tax from the employee participating in Social Security.

[Ares]

Ares, you havent a clue of what you are talking about.
Peoiple please dont listen to this tripe about private credit....Ares cant back any of it up with any statutory evidence nor any historical evidence.

The income tax is based on participating in Social Security.....and has absolutely nothing at all to do with fiat curreny (private credit).
Historically, fact is since 1913 when the reserve act came about millions of Americans had fiat in their pockets doing bussiness and didnt pay a damn cent in federal income taxes on their labor until 1940.
It was the the 1939 revised income tax did Title 26 first see chapter 21 (social security). Americans, by the millions, filed for the first time in 1940 because of chapter 21.

And if anybody has any doubt heres Kyles blog http://kylehuwer.wordpress.com/tag/taxes/ showing the official government chart showing how many filed 1040's per year startig with 1913.
In 1940 the amount doubled from 7 million to 14 million returns because of social security being installed into title 26's "Subtitle C- Employment Taxes".
Social Security defines what is "employment" (the heart and sole of Social Security). Its not a coincidence that the 1939 title 26 has added "employment" (26usc 3121(b)) chapter 21.

Some people will deceive you into beleiving a lie about private credit being the crux of taxes on liability and never provide any statutory proof and then there are some who will tell you differently and show the proof.
If anybody tells you a myth (private credit) and cant provide any statutory evidence or tells you they dont research the law because it doesnt apply to them after asking them to provide the evidence..........they are LIARS and FOOLS and keep them at arms length at all times.

Also, if you want to see the governmen tell you what the excise is that is taxable....look no further than 26usc 3111.......the government tells you that "employent" as defined (26usc 3121(b)) is the excise activity that causes your pay to be tax which the employer must also pay a tax from the employee participating in Social Security.

Sigh

Not this shit again, we already know you think that social slavery is tied to the income tax. Doesn't matter that the income tax predates social slavery.

keep to your beliefs, I'll keep to mine. We've both done our research just in different areas.

And for the matter I know what I am talking about. Just as you know what you're talking about. Just different avenue's to the same goal. There's more than one axe striking the root.

[LuckyStrike]

It doesn't matter what the law is, it matters who has bigger/more firepower. Currently that's the government, so you really can't win with this shit unless you're on their side somehow.

Exactly, why people can't grasp this is beyond me.

Denial.

[7th trump]

Sigh

Not this shit again, we already know you think that social slavery is tied to the income tax. Doesn't matter that the income tax predates social slavery.

keep to your beliefs, I'll keep to mine. We've both done our research just in different areas.

And for the matter I know what I am talking about. Just as you know what you're talking about. Just different avenue's to the same goal. There's more than one axe striking the root.

Yeah.......this shit again Ares!
Stop leading the sheeple to more lies......wheres your proof private credit is the problem?
Show us just one statute connecting the reserve act to Title 26.
Show us the statutory writing that says having fiat reserve notes in your pocket causes a person to get taxed on their labor?
I can prove my research with statutory evidence that participating in Social Security is the imposing factor.....you cant and I know you cant!


No it doesnt matter the income tax predates Social Security.....why cant you understand what I said about chapter 21 being added to Title 26 (Internal Revenue) in 1939.
Why cant you understand simple logic?

Hell Ares Title 26 was revamped in 1939 because of Social Security.

[Ares]

Yeah.......this shit again Ares!
Stop leading the sheeple to more lies......wheres your proof private credit is the problem?
Show us just one statute connecting the reserve act to Title 26.
Show us the statutory writing that says having fiat reserve notes in your pocket causes a person to get taxed on their labor?
I can prove my research with statutory evidence that participating in Social Security is the imposing factor.....you cant and I know you cant!


No it doesnt matter the income tax predates Social Security.....why cant you understand what I said about chapter 21 being added to Title 26 (Internal Revenue) in 1939.
Why cant you understand simple logic?

Hell Ares Title 26 was revamped in 1939 because of Social Security.

Take your own advice. Quit leading them astray. You can keep shouting your bullshit from the roof tops. Income tax predates social slavery.

In 1913, the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution made the income tax a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system the only reason it wasn't collected was because 90% of the population didn't make enough to be forced to pay. But thanks to inflation we all are stuck paying now.

Yeah simple logic 7th Trump. Why can't you get it?

[7th trump]

Take your own advice. Quit leading them astray. You can keep shouting your bullshit from the roof tops. Income tax predates social slavery.
I do take my own advice.
Bullshit huh?
So far I have supplied statutes to back the truth. I even have regulations. Heck I've even supplied a link to an IRS chart showing an influx of over 7 million first time filed 1040's because Social Security in 1940............ so where is your evidence?
If you have no evidence then your whole stance is just a good fictional book!

Yes, the income tax does predate social security. But what does your point the income tax predates social security have to do with the price of tea in china?
I dont get you Ares.......you want to prove something that baseless, frivolous and unprovable....why?

The income tax predates ebay and yet sellers on ebay are now getting 1099'd.....so just what exactly are you trying to prove here besides you showing everyone you know nothing of what you speak?

And another thing about this so called snake-skin oil private credit fiat currency thingy..........fiat currency (reserve notes) are not "private".....they are very much public and commercial.

The income tax predates the 16th. The first income tax act was in 1862.....so now what Ares.......you cant have this both ways.
Inflation huh?....wow!!!.......thats your best response?
If thats all you have then you really need to piss on the fire and call the dogs.....its over for you before you ever began!

26usc 3111 says what the excise activity is Ares that causes your labor to be taxed.....its so simple a child can read it and understand.
Your problem Ares, is you are infected with an illogical thought processes from idiots who want to beleive in conspiracies.

Ares....I suggest you read this(and anyone else who doesnt understand).
http://adask.wordpress.com/2012/05/05/do-you-think-social-security-is-a-good-deal/

[Ares]

I do take my own advice.
Bullshit huh?
So far I have supplied statutes to back the truth. I even have regulations. Heck I've even supplied a link to an IRS chart showing an influx of over 7 million first time filed 1040's because Social Security in 1940............ so where is your evidence?
If you have no evidence then your whole stance is just a good fictional book!

Yes, the income tax does predate social security. But what does your point the income tax predates social security have to do with the price of tea in china?
I dont get you Ares.......you want to prove something that baseless, frivolous and unprovable....why?

The income tax predates ebay and yet sellers on ebay are now getting 1099'd.....so just what exactly are you trying to prove here besides you showing everyone you know nothing of what you speak?

And another thing about this so called snake-skin oil private credit fiat currency thingy..........fiat currency (reserve notes) are not "private".....they are very much public and commercial.

Yeah so what's your point? Everything you supplied was just a larger net to catch more fish err I mean tax slaves.. Still doesn't change the fact that the Income Tax predated Social Slavery does it? Nope didn't think so.

Even back then 7th Trump there was this thing called a tax bracket. Hey what do you know, it still exist. The whole income tax was shoved down the publics throat with a promise of making the rich pay their fair share.. Sound familiar?

Anyone not making $67,000 dollars in todays money was not subject to the first income tax. The rate didn't even increase until WWII. It's gone up ever since and more people than ever are required to pay.

We've been down this road before, I'm really getting tired of repeating myself. You can site all the forms, regulations and IRS codes until you're blue in the face. Guess what? IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER!! The Income tax predates Social Slavery by almost 30 years. But to you that's just a coincidence..


You had a personal exemption in 1913 of $3,000 dollars which is equivalent to almost $67,000 in today's dollars. Gee I wonder why no one filed income tax back then... Nah it couldn't of been because they were not required too because they didn't make enough. Nah that can't be it *sarcasm*.

Whatever 7th, I'm getting tired of repeating myself, siting sources, giving examples etc. etc. etc. Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall, beating a dead horse and repeating the same task expecting a different result all rolled into one. You've done your research, dig into it a little more.

I'm done, you do your thing I'll do mine.

And for the record Federal Reserve notes ARE NOT PUBLIC, Just as the federal reserve is not public. It is private. The United States Government ask them to print money the Federal Reserve obliges as long as the U.S. agrees to the interest attached to it.

[Hatha Sunahara]

There are two pieces of literature that I have read through partially that put this video into a much more favorable perspective. One of them is The Federal Zone by Paul Andrew Mitchell, that describes the jurisdictional issues the Federal government has, and the deception and fraud practiced by the IRS. You can download that book here:

http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/index.htm

The other is The Great IRS Hoax at the FamilyGuardian.org, which you can download and read here:

http://famguardian.org/Publications/GreatIRSHoax/GreatIRSHoax.htm

There is a good piece about The Federal Zone here:

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/fedzone.htm

I've been reading these books off and on for almost a year now. I started off with the attitude I see that most posters on this thread have--one of resignation. Like there are only two certainties in this world--death and taxes. The more I became informed, the less I believed it about taxes.

It doesn't matter how many guns and bombs the government can use against you. We are a civilized nation. If the government wants to maintain its legitimacy, it has to obey its own laws. If the government cannot show you the law governing one of its practices of relieving you of your income, then it is likely that it is relieving you of your income fraudulently. If you watched the video in the OP, you will note that there is a fairly long segment of a woman who sat on a jury for a trial of a man who lived in Illinois and was hounded by the IRS for not paying taxes. She described how the Jury asked the judge to show them the law that required that man to pay taxes. The judge could not show that law to the jury, and the jury acquitted the man on trial.

The whole video is about the ignorance and fear that people have of and about the IRS. That is evident in the posts on this thread. That ignorance and fear paralyzes people. They do not ask questions, but quietly acquiesce and pay their taxes for fear of the consequences of not doing so. The IRS and the government exploits that fear and ignorance.

Whoever pays by mistake what he does not owe, may recover it back; but he who pays, knowing he owes nothing; is presumed to give. Seriously, how do you know you owe taxes? How do you know the tax code applies to you? Has anybody read the Internal Revenue Code? Are you paying by mistake? Does the government have the authority to tax you? If it does, then it can show you by what authority it does so. Quo warranto? By what authority? What if they have no authority? What if it's all a big hoax? And we all go along because we're afraid to challenge them? I bet the politicians, especially Mitt for Brains is laughing all the way to the bank about the suckers that part with their hard earned money because they don't have the will or the discipline to find out what the law really requires. How effectively do you think when you are paralyzed with fear?

Hatha

[Skirnir_]

Baloney and snake oil is afoot in this thread. A gang of thieves will not abstain because one asks nicely or utters magic words.

[Glass]

Baloney and snake oil is afoot in this thread. A gang of thieves will not abstain because one asks nicely or utters magic words.

But what would they do if 30,000,000 asked?

This the crux of your argument and the purpose of this thread. If you don't know to ask or what to ask then how can you?

If only one at a time asks then yes they will be beat up by 10 goons. That's a 10:1 ratio.

If there are 1,000,000 government goons and 30,000,000 men and women asked them, in unison to do something then... I think the ratio changes some what.

When someone says, "You can't do that" They are really saying "I can't do that". That's their road block not mine. I can tell you, from personal experience and communication with the 2IC of taxation, you need to ask, you can ask and you might be surprised at what the response is. Of course the response will say no, but while it will not say why, it will state how many goons they have to give authority to them saying no. It will not contain any lawful authority because there is none.

do you want to change the world in any beneficial way? Then you have to fight for it, every day in every way. It doesn't happen any other way. And you have to talk about taboos like taxation and politics. Here in Oz, it's bad joojoo to talk about taxation or politics. I've never understood this, but you cannot talk to someone about who they vote for in politics. It's socially frowned upon to discuss your political persuasions. I think this is one of the biggest hurdles we face. I don't understand where it came from but that's how it is.

Forums like this are good because we need the 30,000,000 people on board.

I still contend that Income taxation applies to corporations only. It does not apply to Men and definately not to Women.

And if you don't want to change it, then carry on. Neither of us will lose out if you go your merry way.

[Skirnir_]

But what would they do if 30,000,000 asked?

The same thing they would do if one asked.

[Glass]

The same thing they would do if one asked.

well you know this isn't true... is it?

[Skirnir_]

well you know this isn't true... is it?

I know it is, because even if 30 millions were to be reached, very few would actually do anything besides flap their gums.

As for the verbose monstrosity that is your earlier post, it is unworthy of reply.

[7th trump]

There are two pieces of literature that I have read through partially that put this video into a much more favorable perspective. One of them is The Federal Zone by Paul Andrew Mitchell, that describes the jurisdictional issues the Federal government has, and the deception and fraud practiced by the IRS. You can download that book here:

http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/index.htm

The other is The Great IRS Hoax at the FamilyGuardian.org, which you can download and read here:

http://famguardian.org/Publications/GreatIRSHoax/GreatIRSHoax.htm

There is a good piece about The Federal Zone here:

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/fedzone.htm

I've been reading these books off and on for almost a year now. I started off with the attitude I see that most posters on this thread have--one of resignation. Like there are only two certainties in this world--death and taxes. The more I became informed, the less I believed it about taxes.

It doesn't matter how many guns and bombs the government can use against you. We are a civilized nation. If the government wants to maintain its legitimacy, it has to obey its own laws. If the government cannot show you the law governing one of its practices of relieving you of your income, then it is likely that it is relieving you of your income fraudulently. If you watched the video in the OP, you will note that there is a fairly long segment of a woman who sat on a jury for a trial of a man who lived in Illinois and was hounded by the IRS for not paying taxes. She described how the Jury asked the judge to show them the law that required that man to pay taxes. The judge could not show that law to the jury, and the jury acquitted the man on trial.

The whole video is about the ignorance and fear that people have of and about the IRS. That is evident in the posts on this thread. That ignorance and fear paralyzes people. They do not ask questions, but quietly acquiesce and pay their taxes for fear of the consequences of not doing so. The IRS and the government exploits that fear and ignorance.

Whoever pays by mistake what he does not owe, may recover it back; but he who pays, knowing he owes nothing; is presumed to give. Seriously, how do you know you owe taxes? How do you know the tax code applies to you? Has anybody read the Internal Revenue Code? Are you paying by mistake? Does the government have the authority to tax you? If it does, then it can show you by what authority it does so. Quo warranto? By what authority? What if they have no authority? What if it's all a big hoax? And we all go along because we're afraid to challenge them? I bet the politicians, especially Mitt for Brains is laughing all the way to the bank about the suckers that part with their hard earned money because they don't have the will or the discipline to find out what the law really requires. How effectively do you think when you are paralyzed with fear?

Hatha
Hatha, you bring a good point up about this federal zone.
It just so happens that the Social Security act defines just such a zone (or territory).
Your reasoning about how effectively does a person think when they are paralyzed with fear corralates with how effectively one thinks when paralyzed with disinformation.
The Social Security Act defines just such a "federal zone" for those who participate.
The Social Security Act defines "state" as:

(e) State, United States, and citizen
For purposes of this chapter—
(1) State
The term “State” includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.
(2) United States
The term “United States” when used in a geographical sense includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.
An individual who is a citizen of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (but not otherwise a citizen of the United States) shall be considered, for purposes of this section, as a citizen of the United States.

When a person who is infected (paralyzed of reasonable thinking from being controlled from someone elses uneducated rationalizing) they cannot grasp that the Social Security Act is defining just such a "federal zone".
Most cannot comprehend this term "state", as used in this Act, is actually telling them.
The Social Security Act, through the term "state" is telling the participant by participating in Social Security the participant falls squarely into the federal zone or territory.
Sadly, most people tend to beleive in a conspiracy because its easier to blame someone else than to admit they were wrong or to lazy to think for themselves.
Humbling thyself comes with many blessings!

[7th trump]

Well Ares wheres your proof?

[palani]

Well Ares wheres your proof?Ares is more correct than you are. The basis for taxation is money of account, imaginary money. You are instructed to give to Caesar that which is Caesar's and all Caesar has are things that are not real. When he asks for them back you ought to give them back, even if he asks for ALL of them rather than just a portion.

If you have certificates or bill of exchanges or notes representing others debts in your pocket and you use them daily to exchange for your needs and to purchase your labor then you have stopped being real yourself and are as imaginary as the money is. I call these things "corporate coupons" because only corporations use them or handle them ... and that includes YOU.

Evidence that you are in the jurisdiction of 26 USC is provided by you when you cite this code. If it applies to you then follow it. If it doesn't apply then why are you looking to it for guidance?

[palani]

(e) State, United States, and citizen
For purposes of this chapter—
(1) State
The term “State” includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.
(2) United States
The term “United States” when used in a geographical sense includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.

You might also point out that "United States" is not a familiar term of "The United States of America", the stile established by the Articles of Confederation for the union of the several States.


The Stile of this Confederacy shall be

"The United States of America".

Common law says "things that are similar are not the same." Another source of Law tells you that "by their fruit you will recognize them". The name tells you little. How government acts speaks volumes.

[7th trump]

Ares is more correct than you are. The basis for taxation is money of account, imaginary money. You are instructed to give to Caesar that which is Caesar's and all Caesar has are things that are not real. When he asks for them back you ought to give them back, even if he asks for ALL of them rather than just a portion.

If you have certificates or bill of exchanges or notes representing others debts in your pocket and you use them daily to exchange for your needs and to purchase your labor then you have stopped being real yourself and are as imaginary as the money is. I call these things "corporate coupons" because only corporations use them or handle them ... and that includes YOU.

Evidence that you are in the jurisdiction of 26 USC is provided by you when you cite this code. If it applies to you then follow it. If it doesn't apply then why are you looking to it for guidance?
Can you show me in title 26 where it specifically states having debt in your pocket causes an imposition upon labor?
Because in my 18 plus years studying the tax laws no such regulation or statute exists!

Until you can provide ANY law stating so Palani your thesis is just a pile of horse bisket hear say.
Historical facts says you're misguided Palani and not to be trusted.

I can provide all the evidence in statutory and regulatory form showing your labor is taxed because of 3121(b) "employment" (W4).
I even have the statute that says a W4 is only required upon commencement of "employment".
A W4 is not required outside of participating in Social Security.

Just what do you think a "franchise tax board" is palani?
Just having to file tax forms with the franchise tax board means you are part of the corporation.

And the only thing you have correctly stated so far is stating the difference between the US and USofA.
I've read the book "US vs USofA".....maybe you should as well.

[palani]

Can you show me in title 26 where it specifically states having debt in your pocket causes an imposition upon labor?

I am not a creature of title 26.

[palani]

Until you can provide ANY law stating so Palani your thesis is just a pile of horse bisket hear say.
Historical facts says you're misguided Palani and not to be trusted.
I don't argue with fools. Why would I make an exception in your case?

[palani]

I've read the book "US vs USofA".....maybe you should as well.
Good for you. But do you know TJ (the author)? He lives around 50 miles south of you.

[palani]

Just what do you think a "franchise tax board" is

A board is a slab that has been run through a saw mill. Would it be one of these?

[7th trump]

I am not a creature of title 26.
Nice way of admiting you know absolutely nothing of what you speak.

David Merrill needs you to keep his ego stroked.

[7th trump]

Still cant find any legal evidence in what you say has any base in the law I see.
If word speak is your way of saying you know nothing then so be it Palani
Its not good for the image you are trying to convey around here.

[7th trump]

I don't argue with fools. Why would I make an exception in your case?

Still cant find any legal evidence in what you say has any base in the law I see.
If word speak is your way of saying you know nothing then so be it Palani.
Its not good for the image you are trying to convey around here.

Its like you are trying to tell everyone here you can fly an airplane but yet in the same paragraph refuse to take any flight lessons.

[palani]

Nice way of admiting you know absolutely nothing of what you speak.
Show me where I have spoken of title 26.


David Merrill needs you to keep his ego stroked. I don't know David Merrill.

[palani]

Still cant find any legal evidence in what you say has any base in the law I see.
You won't find any legal evidence. I don't seek permission.


If word speak is your way of saying you know nothing then so be it
I have knowledge of no FACTS. FACTS are classified as 'evil deeds'. If you have knowledge of them be aware that misprison of felony involves being silent when you should speak.


Its not good for the image you are trying to convey around here.
What image would that be?


Its like you are trying to tell everyone here you can fly an airplane but yet in the same paragraph refuse to take any flight lessons. Possibly a poor analogy. Money in circulation is debt. You are unable to make any purchases with debt. Therefore you have made no purchases. Nowhere have I stated that I am able or privileged to make purchases where others may not.

[Bigjon]

Here is another site, with another view. (http://www.edrivera.com/?page_id=2)

Ed Rivera has made a number of discoveries about our organic laws and their application.

Main premise is our constitution has never been adopted, but is used for an entity called the United States under the control of an entity called the United States of America. The United States of America was founded by the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation.

The United States and it's constitution control all federal areas.

[Hatha Sunahara]

The FRNs that are deemed money in the USA are legal tender--meaning that the government will take them for payment of taxes regardless of whether they have any value or not.

The point I raised in the OP was not about how one pays 'income tax' but rather whether anyone owes the government any income tax. The video in the OP takes the position that ordinary working people have been suckered into volunteering to pay taxes they do not legally owe because there is no law that says they do. Or at least no one can find such a law. It has been legally determined that the 16th Amendment gave the government no new powers to tax the people. The Constitution says that taxes must be apportioned among the states. The way the income tax is applied does not meet that apportionment criteria. Also, the Federal government does not have jurisdiction over the people in the several states, but only over the 'residents' of the District of Columbia, and the Territories owned by the USA, i. e. Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Guam, Northern Marianna Islands and Pacific Trust Territories, as well as military bases throughout the world. What is in question here is the legality of taxing all American citizens. The conclusion in the OP video is that we do not owe taxes, but we volunteer to pay them for fear of the consequences of not doing so.

That to me, sounds like extortion. The IRS creates fear, then cashes in on the ignorance of the people. Few people seem to have the courage to question the legality of this extortion, and so it continues unabated, and the government's appetite for this kind of shakedown grows into other aspects of our lives. Those who do have the courage to question the legality of this extortion are effectively abandoned by those who lack such courage, and the government is allowed to punish those people for breaking laws which do not exist.

Glass got it right. If about 10% of the population, or roughly 30 million people adopted the attitude that income tax is illegal, then the tipping point would be reached, and the income tax would disappear. If 10% of the population believe something is true, the rest will follow. The government knows this, and so takes draconian measures against any who might make up such a body of believers to convince the rest that they are wrong.

We have here an opportunity to exercise what many on this forum believe they already do, that is, thinking for ones self. I don't see many people taking that opportunity. It is possible to educate one's self, and to overcome fear and ignorance, but it requires a bit of courage. My observation that such courage is one of the rarest human attributes is once again confirmed. Most of us would rather let someone else lead the charge, and join only if it looks like it will be successful, when we could join and make it successful. This is the crux of the human dilemma. Do I do what's right, or do I do what everybody else does?

Hatha

[Ares]

The FRNs that are deemed money in the USA are legal tender--meaning that the government will take them for payment of taxes regardless of whether they have any value or not.

The point I raised in the OP was not about how one pays 'income tax' but rather whether anyone owes the government any income tax. The video in the OP takes the position that ordinary working people have been suckered into volunteering to pay taxes they do not legally owe because there is no law that says they do. Or at least no one can find such a law. It has been legally determined that the 16th Amendment gave the government no new powers to tax the people. The Constitution says that taxes must be apportioned among the states. The way the income tax is applied does not meet that apportionment criteria. Also, the Federal government does not have jurisdiction over the people in the several states, but only over the 'residents' of the District of Columbia, and the Territories owned by the USA, i. e. Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Guam, Northern Marianna Islands and Pacific Trust Territories, as well as military bases throughout the world. What is in question here is the legality of taxing all American citizens. The conclusion in the OP video is that we do not owe taxes, but we volunteer to pay them for fear of the consequences of not doing so.

That to me, sounds like extortion. The IRS creates fear, then cashes in on the ignorance of the people. Few people seem to have the courage to question the legality of this extortion, and so it continues unabated, and the government's appetite for this kind of shakedown grows into other aspects of our lives. Those who do have the courage to question the legality of this extortion are effectively abandoned by those who lack such courage, and the government is allowed to punish those people for breaking laws which do not exist.

Glass got it right. If about 10% of the population, or roughly 30 million people adopted the attitude that income tax is illegal, then the tipping point would be reached, and the income tax would disappear. If 10% of the population believe something is true, the rest will follow. The government knows this, and so takes draconian measures against any who might make up such a body of believers to convince the rest that they are wrong.

We have here an opportunity to exercise what many on this forum believe they already do, that is, thinking for ones self. I don't see many people taking that opportunity. It is possible to educate one's self, and to overcome fear and ignorance, but it requires a bit of courage. My observation that such courage is one of the rarest human attributes is once again confirmed. Most of us would rather let someone else lead the charge, and join only if it looks like it will be successful, when we could join and make it successful. This is the crux of the human dilemma. Do I do what's right, or do I do what everybody else does?

Hatha

Well said Hatha.

Like I explained to 7th Trump, there's more than 1 way to slay this beast. I've taken the redeeming lawful money approach as have a couple other members on this forum. I won't name names, that is up to them if they want to be known or not. I'm not in jail, I haven't even received so much as a phone call from the IRS. Will it stay that way? Only the creator knows. But at least I have the courage to stand by and execute my research and convictions.

Title 12 U.S.C. 411 I believe is how we can kill the beast. 7th Trump has researched the IRS code itself and relies upon title 26. That works for him. More power to him. I won't fault anyone for looking at ways and standing by their convictions. What I won't tolerate is that it's their way and the only way.

[7th trump]

Heres a question posed that the fiat causes taxation crowd cant answer.

How does the reporting aspect of income taxes relate to fiat currency?

Last I heard an employee voluntarily signs A W4 authorizing the employer to treat the the pay as 3121(a) "wages" to credit the SS account and allow deductions for the income tax.
Can anybody in the fiat private credit community explain why a customer of a bank dosnt sign a W4 when opening a bank account?
Probably not, but its fun to watch them trip over their own ignorance.

[chad]

Heres a question posed that the fiat causes taxation crowd cant answer.

How does the reporting aspect of income taxes relate to fiat currency?

Last I heard an employee voluntarily signs A W4 authorizing the employer to treat the the pay as 3121(a) "wages" to credit the SS account and allow deductions for the income tax.
Can anybody in the fiat private credit community explain why a customer of a bank dosnt sign a W4 when opening a bank account?
Probably not, but its fun to watch them trip over their own ignorance.

banks use a different form, a w-9, or they use their own in house branded one in the stack of stuff you sign when opening an account. standard practice since the patriot act went in to effect.

[7th trump]

banks use a different form, a w-9, or they use their own in house branded one in the stack of stuff you sign when opening an account. standard practice since the patriot act went in to effect.

Sorry Chad, but a W9 is used for identification only.

I'm looking for the form banks use to withhold taxes from your pay.

Something along the lines that authorizes your earnings to get treated as taxable income....if it exists.
Also, looking for any statute that says posessing a bank account is a taxable activity (excise activity).

[chad]

if you sign a w-9 to verify your identity, the bank sends a form to the irs stating what your earned income interest was under your TIN #, and they send a copy to you. it is then up to you to pay the tax on the honesty basis. it's up to you as to what you want to do.

if you don't sign a w-9 or their in-house form, they withold 28% (or 30% if you are a foreigner here on a work visa) and they send it to the irs.

[7th trump]

if you sign a w-9 to verify your identity, the bank sends a form to the irs stating what your earned income interest was under your TIN #, and they send a copy to you. it is then up to you to pay the tax on the honesty basis. it's up to you as to what you want to do.

if you don't sign a w-9 or their in-house form, they withold 28% (or 30% if you are a foreigner here on a work visa) and they send it to the irs.
Yes Chad, I know they only report the interest on an interest bearing account.
I'm looking for any statutory evidence (facts) banks report how much you've earned from being "employed" by statutory definition that Palani and a few others seems to beleive is happening.
I'm looking to see how having fiat in your pocket makes one liable for income taxes.
Palani and Ares seems to think private credit is the reason......well I'm trying to get them to show me how.
So far Ares has only provided this 411 section that doesnt say anything about private credit or the mechanism of reporting to the government to determine how much taxes you owe.
Palani, when confronted, just flat refuses to tell you and tries to turn it around on you....like he always does. I think Palani is hiding the fact he doesnt know anything, but how to bedazzle you with word salad because he himself doesnt understand the inner workings of what hes talking about.

[palani]

I'm looking for any statutory evidence (facts)

In your mind statutes are "facts"? Common law takes no cognizance of statutes. If you rely upon statutes for your law then you are not in common law. Quite possibly you don't desire to be in common law? Common law only deals with reality and you seem to be trying to justify fiction.

If you are looking for a source I would suggest the Trivium, a topic the joins rhetoric, logic and grammar. Don't be searching for easy answers because becoming knowledgeable in these three areas only gives you the TOOLS you need to discover the resolution to your questions.

Be advised that you will have no luck in your journey to become less of a fiction if you insist upon payment in fictions.

[7th trump]

In your mind statutes are "facts"? Common law takes no cognizance of statutes. If you rely upon statutes for your law then you are not in common law. Quite possibly you don't desire to be in common law? Common law only deals with reality and you seem to be trying to justify fiction.

If you are looking for a source I would suggest the Trivium, a topic the joins rhetoric, logic and grammar. Don't be searching for easy answers because becoming knowledgeable in these three areas only gives you the TOOLS you need to discover the resolution to your questions.

Be advised that you will have no luck in your journey to become less of a fiction if you insist upon payment in fictions.

Please answer the question of where are the facts or proof to support your snakeskin oil sales pitch Palani.

I did not ask for your "OPINION" about statutes or the Common law.

Title 26 has all kinds of Common law statutes that eminate from the Constitution itself. The Constitution (a Common law document) allows for certain tarriffs and taxes that are located in title 26 in the form of statutes, so your opinion about title 26 just that.....BASELESS, FRIVOLOUS OPINION!!!

[palani]

where are the facts or proof to support your snakeskin oil sales pitch You are seeking to purchase something?


I did not ask for your "OPINION" about statutes or the Common law. No charge.

[7th trump]

You are seeking to purchase something?

No charge.
Always the same old routine comedic response from the bedazzler.

See everyone........Palani here doesnt know squat of what he speaks.

[palani]

.Palani here doesnt know squat of what he speaks.

You hear voices?

[Hatha Sunahara]

Here's a good place to start studying the Trivium.

http://www.triviumeducation.com/

Once you have a good mastery of it, you may proceed to the Quadrivium which arms you with math, geometry, music and cosmology. And then you have a decent liberal education--meaning that you can think rationally.

I have no problem understanding Palani's view of our money. It's value in my mind is a shared hallucination. The courts had to change the law in Erie vs Thomkins to deal with the fact that our money is fictitious.

http://www.barefootsworld.net/usfraud.html


On April 25, 1938, the Supreme Court overturned the standing precedents of the prior 150 years concerning "COMMON LAW" in the federal government.


"THERE IS NO FEDERAL COMMON LAW, AND CONGRESS HAS NO POWER TO DECLARE SUBSTANTIVE RULES OF COMMON LAW applicable IN A STATE, WHETHER they be LOCAL or GENERAL in their nature, be they COMMERCIAL LAW or a part of LAW OF TORTS." (See: ERIE RAILROAD CO. vs. THOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64, 82 L. Ed. 1188)
The Common Law is the fountain source of Substantive and Remedial Rights, if not our very Liberties. The members and associates of the Bar thereafter formed committees, granted themselves special privileges, immunities and franchises, and held meetings concerning the Judicial procedures, and further, to amend laws "to conform to a trend of judicial decisions or to accomplish similar objectives", including hodgepodging the jurisdictions of Law and Equity together, which is known today as "One Form of Action." [See: Constitution and By Laws, Article 3, Section 3.3(c), 1990-91 Reference Book, see also Colorado Methods of Practice, West Publishing, Vol. 4, pages 2-3, Authors Comments.]



Palani relies on history that apparently few people know, and throws down challenges to educate yourself, which few people easily accept because they think they already know all there is to know. I have found that it is a real adventure to go down the roads Palani points to.


Hatha

[7th trump]

Here's a good place to start studying the Trivium.

http://www.triviumeducation.com/

Once you have a good mastery of it, you may proceed to the Quadrivium which arms you with math, geometry, music and cosmology. And then you have a decent liberal education--meaning that you can think rationally.

I have no problem understanding Palani's view of our money. It's value in my mind is a shared hallucination. The courts had to change the law in Erie vs Thomkins to deal with the fact that our money is fictitious.

http://www.barefootsworld.net/usfraud.html



Palani relies on history that apparently few people know, and throws down challenges to educate yourself, which few people easily accept because they think they already know all there is to know. I have found that it is a real adventure to go down the roads Palani points to.


Hatha
Do you really think I buy the trivium load of crap Hatha?
Just ask Palani what causes your labor to get imposed a tax?....I'll clue you in about Palani!
Palani doesnt know what causes labor to get taxed!
And to hide his short comings Palani dishes out more word salad.
Palani bedazzle the shyt out of everyone with word salads to THINK Palani gave you an answer when in fact when the bedazzling settles THERES NOTHING THERE........NEVER WAS ANYTHING THERE TO BEGIN WITH!
You are back to square 1 of not having an answer.
Palani would make a very good wordsmith politician.

Think rationally.......really???

Maybe you should read what the ERIE case was about Hatha.
That case had nothing to do with money, ficticious or not, but rather the importance of it was how the federal courts assumed they had a federal common law form when none existed.
The Erie case was a personal injury case (not a case over fictious money) that turned into a mess when the federal courts should have applied the state common law the train injury happened in, but they didnt and assumed there existed a federal common law when none existed to decide the case.

Yeah.......that snakeskin oil "trivium" is really working for you....what a joke!

[palani]

Palani doesnt know what causes labor to get taxed!

YOUR labor is taxed because you value it in terms of other peoples debt whereas you might DONATE your labor and retain 100% of it's value yourself.

Try it sometime. Just go to a food bank and tell them you want to donate 10 hours of labor. When you are done ask them what tax you owe on your labor.

Maybe it would help if you ask someone around Deere to explain Root Cause Analysis to you. This is an interesting field that came into being when the government kept getting the excuse "operator error" when asked for the reason why mistakes were made in the manufacture of nuke bombs. The industry was told never to use this reason again but to instead research the ROOT CAUSE.

In the case of conflict of laws (as brought out in Erie) the money change in 1933 and Roosevelt's attempt to pack the Supreme Court with his own stooges were the root causes that resulted in the decision that there was no federal common law (i.e., no law at all ... colorable).

This lack of law is what you cite whenever you bring up Title 26. You accept "no law" as your law. You are an outlaw to real law.

[palani]

Do you really think I buy the trivium load of crap

Written like a true UAW man!!

[7th trump]

YOUR labor is taxed because you value it in terms of other peoples debt whereas you might DONATE your labor and retain 100% of it's value yourself.

Try it sometime. Just go to a food bank and tell them you want to donate 10 hours of labor. When you are done ask them what tax you owe on your labor.

Maybe it would help if you ask someone around Deere to explain Root Cause Analysis to you. This is an interesting field that came into being when the government kept getting the excuse "operator error" when asked for the reason why mistakes were made in the manufacture of nuke bombs. The industry was told never to use this reason again but to instead research the ROOT CAUSE.

In the case of conflict of laws (as brought out in Erie) the money change in 1933 and Roosevelt's attempt to pack the Supreme Court with his own stooges were the root causes that resulted in the decision that there was no federal common law (i.e., no law at all ... colorable).

This lack of law is what you cite whenever you bring up Title 26. You accept "no law" as your law. You are an outlaw to real law.
Tax on your labor has nothing at all to do with valueing it with other peoples debt.

When you volunteer your labor you dont sign a W4.....has nothing at all to do with private credit (which doesnt even exist).
Now root cause analysis the W4 (like I have) and you'll come to find the root cause is Social Security's 3121(b) "employment".
3121(b) "employment" is the heart and sole of Social Security and the ONLY reason anyone signs a w4 in the first place.
If you root cause analys Social Security you'll find social security is 100% voluntary......theres no law on the books anywhere that says all americans must participate in Social Security.
In fact, when thoroughly root cause analizing social security, theres an administrative regulation specifically stating one doesnt have to participate in Social Security....301.6109-1(d).......but your ignorance of law (and it painfully shows you know nothing) wont allow you to root cause analize because you say statutes are "evil" and dont apply to you.

Furthermore, roosevelt threatened to stack the Supreme Court to get Social Security passed as constitutional.......HAD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH THE MONEY CHANGE (a default).....further proving you dont know jack shyt about "root cause analysis" because you dont analize a damn thing Palani.
Dont know who told you what Erie was about, but they sure dont know what they were talking about......but you bought it hook line and sinker.

If anything is LACKING OF LAW it your comprehension of the law.

You flat refuse to even look at the law (its evil) so what makes you think you know anything about the law?
All you do Palani is sit here citing all these "word salad" comments that you cant even get historically correct nor understand from lack of going into the code to properly analizing them (Erie case is a perfect example of your lack).
And when you are backed into a corner you demonize the person who has actually went and researched the statutes and even those statutes at large.
And now you link to a site about "thrivium"
When you practice this "thrivium" what choice of narcotics do you use?
That site looks like an orgy for 1960s tree huggers who cant think comprehensively without music and all thebother crap they promote needed to get in tune with THINKING.
Funny that Thrivium site on every corner talks about "facts" that you PREACH are "EVIL"!
So what is it Palani...you cant have this both ways!

You would be better in the political double speak circuit than talking law.
Wordsalad politician making statements you cant back.

BTW, next time you try to demonize me get the facts straight for once......I'm IBEW not UAW.
The original union that legislated to bring Americans the 40 hour work week, overtime pay, the weekend and your electricity.

[Hatha Sunahara]

7th Trunp--it was me, not Palani that linked to the Trivium site. It is an approach toward educating ones self. You seem to have already done that.

I remember reading not too long ago about how Social Security and the IRS are intertwined--by legislation. And in my dim memory, it was the act of participating in the Social Security scheme by having an SSN that gave the government the right to tax your income. Or at least gave them jurisdiction over you. I am looking for the source where I learned that, and if I find it I'll post it.

You might also be interested, if you have not already read it, in a book by Peter Hendrickson called Cracking The Code. This is a great work on the evolution of the government's power to tax our income. It is done in a way that the people doing it can claim that it is all done with the victim's consent. But try to extract yourself from this vile system. You will find that it is not an easy thing. See if you can get anyone to tell you how to opt out of Social Security. See how many different explanations you get for that. That should tell you something about all of it being voluntary. It's because nobody knows how to get out, and nobody really volunteered to get in. There is a term for this. It is called a government 'franchise'. Social Security is such a program. If people found an easy way to opt out, TPTB would fix that hole quickly. Social Security is what the government giveth, and IRS is what the government taketh.


Hatha

[palani]

your ignorance of law (and it painfully shows you know nothing)
Of course I am ignorant of foreign law. At the same time I am completely in synch with law that is domestic.



roosevelt threatened to stack the Supreme Court to get Social Security passed as constitutional. This doesn't even make sense. Roosevelt attempted to stack the supreme court and failed because substance in the money is key to both contracts and law. The supreme court caved in on Erie because they knew Roosevelt was going to continue to make attempt to stack their court with his cronies.



If anything is LACKING OF LAW it your comprehension of the law. Show me where I have an established duty to stand under foreign law.


next time you try to demonize me get the facts straight for once......I'm IBEW not UAW.
The original union that legislated to bring Americans the 40 hour work week, overtime pay, the weekend and your electricity. Sloppy language. There is no such thing as "American" nationality. That is because there is no nation "America". So who are you claiming to benefit? The null set?

[palani]

try to extract yourself from this vile system.

Clerks are trained to put road blocks in your way until they get what THEY want. Easiest way is to give in to them and then correct the record a day or two later (when you are out of gun range).

Be aware that Hendrickson was so popular the system had to take official (prison) notice of his works

http://www.constitutionpreservation.org/articles/may-7-2010/cracking-code-author-draws-prison-term

[7th trump]

Clerks are trained to put road blocks in your way until they get what THEY want. Easiest way is to give in to them and then correct the record a day or two later (when you are out of gun range).

Be aware that Hendrickson was so popular the system had to take official (prison) notice of his works

http://www.constitutionpreservation.org/articles/may-7-2010/cracking-code-author-draws-prison-term
Hahahahah clerks huh....hahahahaha!!!
Wow....how many tin foil hats do you ave Palani?
Your buddy David merrill Vanpelt you hang with over at Sui Juris has hundreds in his closet.


Hendrickson went to prison because he knew nothing, like our very own palani, about how the income tax works.
Hendrickson argued he wasnt a government employee to be taxed in the first place which eventually lead him to prison time for a second go around.
The "I'm not a government employee" arguement hasnt held any grounds for decades.
All hendrickson did was repackage the decade old arguement of "I'm not a government employee" into a book along with how to file a fancy dancy bedazzling zero return.
Worked for about 2 years until the IRS caught on and smacked the dickens out them fools.

His followers are still getting nailed with 5,000.00 frivolous penalties and garnishment. One guy just last week complained he got 5 years of penalties.....25,000.00 worth of fines because of Hendrickson.
Hendrickson argued he wasnt a 3401(c) "employee". He beleived that term only meant government employees. Hendrickson lacks the intelligents to understand 3401(c) "employee" is hinged on who earns 3401(a) "wages".
3401(a) "wages" is chocked full of attributes of Social Security's 3121(a) "wages" and Social Security's 3121(b) "employment".
Theres actually more written about Social Security in the definition of 3401(a) "wages" (a definition outlining what wages are subject to the income taxes and what wages are not subject to the income tax) than there is about the government employees themselves.
At one time 3401(a) "wages" was restricted to JUST government employees subjects until the 1939 code when chapter 21 (social security) was introduced into title 26 to be subject to the income tax as were the government employees.
From 1939 on 3401(c) "employee" now consists of the original government employees and the private sector who participate in Social Security.
Those who do not participate in Social Security are not subject to the income tax and are not required to have a W4 on file neither.

But some here think researching the statutes is an "evil" thing to do and will demonize you for it.....right Palani?
The same demonizers will try to freighten you into thinking clerks will shoot at you.


Two things for sure about Palani

Word-salad extrodinaire and-
fear mongerer!

[7th trump]

[QUOTE=palani;563957]This doesn't even make sense. Roosevelt attempted to stack the supreme court and failed because substance in the money is key to both contracts and law. The supreme court caved in on Erie because they knew Roosevelt was going to continue to make attempt to stack their court with his cronies.
QUOTE]


What kind of narcotics are you smoking Palani?
Do you even know what the Erie case is about?
Have you even read the Erie case....just to see what it was about?
Erie was a case about an injury from a train. Heres a wikilink to it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erie_Railroad_Co._v._Tompkins
Erie had nothing at all to do with the substance of money. Erie turned into a case of law form jurisdiction that never existed.

Heres the New Deal wikilinks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal where Roosevelt tried to stack the court in his favor to get them passed.
Do you see anything in the New Deal legislation remotely related to banking besides the FDIC which has nothing at all to do with printing fiat currency?

Take a nap and a pill Palani
See you in the morning

[Mouse]

Subject Matter Jurisdiction, is the element that I think people need to start with. You are living in a civil/admiralty/maritime system. For such a system to bind you, you must first contract, or be presumed to contract and agree, and understand. The fact that the vast majority of us, (myself included) have been hoodwinked into doing just that, in unconscionable contracts of adhesion, in violation of UCC (SSA for minors), without consideration, and under duress in a constructive fraud does not seem to matter to those that would put us there. They run their ships and you enter them. They present and you sign. They suggest and you understand. Without your very thoughtful analysis of "where you are" and your own understanding of contract law, you are slayed before you even present yourself.

Whether the court acts upon you in res or in persona, is a vital element. Your job is to NOT enter WILLINGLY into CONTRACTS with Policymakers under CHAMPERY. Therefore you must sign, but under duress (or you go to jail). When you present for your day in court you must properly play by their rules to ensure they cannot ensnare you en persona, or find a way to equity. Your best bet is to ask for the contracts. Show the judge your clearly evidenced "all rights reserved" "Under threat of physical injury" signature on the contract. Then you can bog down their system (if you work within their procedures to the tee) such that they will beggar you to depart of your own for the nuisance. If you can prove there is no subject matter jurisdiction (no contract, no commercial operation), the courts have no jurisdiction. If they press the matter you may bring it up upon your sentencing in your Allocution, and bear upon the judge to be lenient, since he has no jurisdiction and you may pierce his veil of bond and take ALL HIS SHIT, DESTROY HIM, and send him back from whence he came.

I haven't tried this stuff yet, still learning the law, and there is a lot of it to learn.

If they have no jurisdiction over you, Title 26 does not exist. Where did you contract to do business with these den of vipers, and what consideration did you accept?

[Glass]

But some here think researching the statutes is an "evil" thing to do and will demonize you for it.....right Palani?
The same demonizers will try to freighten you into thinking clerks will shoot at you.


It seems you keep reading in things people are not saying there 7thTrump. Do you really think palani was stating that a clerk will use a firearm on someone trying to file something? It is tru though that clerks are the first line of defence of a court and the chief clerk here is on the record with new lawyers stating categorically that their processes are designed to deny access to justice and then to intimidate people to going along with the courts processes. That person had no shame and quite a lot of pride in the success they have in their court doing this.

Perhaps you need to look up metaphores..... or should I do it for you? O-oh a question. Here's an answer. Nope do it yourself. Try not to be so literal. Words can have different meanings. A key point of law. Try and see what other meanings could be derived from words. See if that works better for you.

[palani]

Theres actually more written about Social Security in the definition of 3401(a) "wages" (a definition outlining what wages are subject to the income taxes and what wages are not subject to the income tax) than there is about the government employees themselves.
Like a dog with a bone ... 7th read something once about social (in)security and now blames it for everything.

You need to peel back more layers of the onion. You've barely scratched the surface and stalled.

[7th trump]

It seems you keep reading in things people are not saying there 7thTrump. Do you really think palani was stating that a clerk will use a firearm on someone trying to file something? It is tru though that clerks are the first line of defence of a court and the chief clerk here is on the record with new lawyers stating categorically that their processes are designed to deny access to justice and then to intimidate people to going along with the courts processes. That person had no shame and quite a lot of pride in the success they have in their court doing this.

Perhaps you need to look up metaphores..... or should I do it for you? O-oh a question. Here's an answer. Nope do it yourself. Try not to be so literal. Words can have different meanings. A key point of law. Try and see what other meanings could be derived from words. See if that works better for you.

Do you really think clerks will shoot you?
I think I'm better than that to think so.....I was born at night, but not last night!

My point was to show everyone that Palani isnt who he thinks he is or might be.
The problem with palani is hes, if you hadnt noticed, an armchair lawyerist type. Ever notice when you engage him he tries to run from what hes started.
Then when you figure out he really doesnt know anything and you call him out he goes into fear mongering mode.
Yeah sure researching the statutes is "evil" and you shouldnt do that.....hahahaha......and the clerk is going to shoot you for standing up for you rights!
Thats fear mongering!
Of course palani isnt going to want you to research the law because it exposes Palani for what he is.
Palani has an ego if you didnt notice.
If I was a betting man I bet Palani is a failure at being a tax protester and a failure at all the other stunts hes tried leaving him with the taste of conspiracy.

[palani]

Where did you contract to do business with these den of vipers, and what consideration did you accept?
As a result of the failure of Law in 1933 (substance removed) contracts had to be re-stated. That is what they did in the neighborhood of 1938 ... it is called RESTATEMENT OF CONTRACTS quite appropriately. In terms of Law (which now does not exist .. but may be used for a basis of comparison) what is now called contract used to be termed "quasi-contract". Another name for this is "false contract" or possibly "appearance of contract". One supreme court judge was said be willing to revert to maritime law if he could detect a corncob floating in a pail of water.

Paper floats. Rock sinks. Scissors cuts paper but will not touch rock.

The rock is substance and is prone to being submerged. Rock is a mineral and might be considered gold or silver or it might be considered the 10 commandments.

Paper is what you sign to attest to the validity of the cargo (the words).

A scissors is what you take to court with you to test whether a document floats in maritime law or exists in reality (common law).

[palani]

Do you really think clerks will shoot you? They are more than willing to call upon those who are so equipped.


I bet Palani is a failure at being a tax protester ... I have never protested paying tax.

[jimswift]

Thanks for this thread y'all.

I posted something that I retracted because I didn't feel comfortable putting my business all in the public domain like that, but I have pursued this issue with great interest for a while.


7th if you wouldn't mind, or palani, could you get into how you would go about undoing ones ties to social slavery? It seems to be one of the great mysteries of the world.

We have a brand spanking new office here locally and I would like nothing better than to go in there and toss my card at them and tell'em to F-off, but I know it isn't gonna go down like that, so....

[palani]

could you get into how you would go about undoing ones ties to social slavery? It seems to be one of the great mysteries of the world. The honorable way would be to send notice of your intention directly to them, along with some reasons why you consider your action necessary, and give them an opportunity to respond. Even though you requested the account it has never been yours so you cannot cancel it. You just don't use it and after you have allowed a response just stop talking to them.


We have a brand spanking new office here locally and I would like nothing better than to go in there and toss my card at them and tell'em to F-off, but I know it isn't gonna go down like that, so.... Forgive them and go from there. Your agreement was necessary for you to be in the condition you presently find yourself.

[Bigjon]

Thanks for this thread y'all.

I posted something that I retracted because I didn't feel comfortable putting my business all in the public domain like that, but I have pursued this issue with great interest for a while.


7th if you wouldn't mind, or palani, could you get into how you would go about undoing ones ties to social slavery? It seems to be one of the great mysteries of the world.

We have a brand spanking new office here locally and I would like nothing better than to go in there and toss my card at them and tell'em to F-off, but I know it isn't gonna go down like that, so....

There is a clause that gives SS Power of Attorney over your SS account that you sign when applying for SS.

Anyway the procedures are located here. The SS stuff is around page 49.

http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/sovereignty/errant-sovereign-handbook.pdf

[7th trump]

There is a clause that gives SS Power of Attorney over your SS account that you sign when applying for SS.

Anyway the procedures are located here.

http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/sovereignty/errant-sovereign-handbook.pdf
Bigjohn, thank you for bringing up 1215.org.
1215.org is very good starting point.

[7th trump]

Thanks for this thread y'all.

I posted something that I retracted because I didn't feel comfortable putting my business all in the public domain like that, but I have pursued this issue with great interest for a while.


7th if you wouldn't mind, or palani, could you get into how you would go about undoing ones ties to social slavery? It seems to be one of the great mysteries of the world.

We have a brand spanking new office here locally and I would like nothing better than to go in there and toss my card at them and tell'em to F-off, but I know it isn't gonna go down like that, so....
JimSwift,
Please please dont take the position that Palani is setting you up for...........its a wrong and ass backwards approach that isnt going to get what you need from the SSA....its just going to get you the opposite of what you need from the SSA.
The battle isnt with the SSA....its the employer and anybody whos been down that road will tell you it isnt the SSA!
You dont need to notice the SSA about anything.
The SSA already knows participation in the social program is 100% voluntary, but the employer doesnt and why the battle front rests with the employer.
What you are going to need from the SSA is a letter directed to you from the SSA stating participation is voluntary. This is easy when certain statutes and regulations come into question.
The SSA has sent letters in the past about the program being 100% voluntary, its not a big deal for them.
The next thing is approaching the employer.
The employers follow statutes, its all they know, so dont get scared thinking looking up statutes is "EVIL" or doesnt apply to you because they do apply to you when you are a participant trying to unvolunteer yourself.
One factor of success is making this very appealing to the employer. The employer will realize he has a substantial monatary gain in you not participating.
The employer will soon realize the only reason they pay the tax found at 26usc 3111 is because you volunteer in participating. They have must pay the 3111 imposition becuase of your participation. YOU HAVE $$$ POWER OVER THEM.
The problem is the employer believes everyone must participate (Signing a W4) and with your help he's going to have a change of heart.
This all I can write at the moment (at work).
If you have a little time on your hands go to 1215.org and read up on the difference between a US citizen and the People.
That Senate document on 1215 about rights vs privileges comes into play in this process.

[palani]

What you are going to need from the SSA is a letter directed to you from the SSA stating participation is voluntary.

Cujus est commodum ejus debet esse incommodum. He who receives the benefit should also bear the disadvantage.

While you are talking to the employer why don't you tell him you choose not to participate in the benefit provided by OSHA? This will tell him that you choose to hold him responsible for 100% of any damage he causes you rather than the limited liability "benefit" provided by OSHA. Isn't this a voluntary benefit as well as social security?

When you stop spouting knowledge from both sides of your mouth you still have one orifice left to convey your "wisdom". You would have to pull your head out of it first.

[7th trump]

Cujus est commodum ejus debet esse incommodum. He who receives the benefit should also bear the disadvantage.

While you are talking to the employer why don't you tell him you choose not to participate in the benefit provided by OSHA? This will tell him that you choose to hold him responsible for 100% of any damage he causes you rather than the limited liability "benefit" provided by OSHA. Isn't this a voluntary benefit as well as social security?

When you stop spouting knowledge from both sides of your mouth you still have one orifice left to convey your "wisdom". You would have to pull your head out of it first.
Spouting out knowledge from both sides of my mouth huh?.......ok whatever!

I think your train of thought is infected to think I spout out knowledge from both sides of my mouth.
Call it whichever you like Palani.....at least I'm giving the "rubber meets the road" knowledge you arent knowledgeable to provide.
Its almost like your ego preffers to being a slave or-
At times I wonder if you are a government controling opposition agent.
You recite a lot of cool sounding words and phrases as if that alone is enough authority and action. But the reality of all those cool sounding word and phrases is it brings no meat to the table. Idle words!

You're scared for some reason!

[palani]

You're scared for some reason!

I am worried that your lack of reasoning skills will cause you (and others) grief.

[7th trump]

I am worried that your lack of reasoning skills will cause you (and others) grief.
The truth and wisdom speaks for themselves.

The statutes and regulations are simple and easy to understand.
If you find them difficult to understand-
1. Stop listening to those with lesser understanding.
2. Over simplifying matters.
3. Desire to beleive theres a conspiracy at the statutory level (Cracking the Code by Pete Hendrickson).
4. Cant decypher the subject from the object.

You give credence to Pete Hendrickson as if he speaks truth, but yet wont allow where his interpretation went wrong to the public.

[iOWNme]

Do you want to know how to keep 100% of your earnings?

Buy a gun, and shoot every single person who comes to take them from you.

ITS REAL FUCKING SIMPLE.

[palani]

The statutes and regulations are simple and easy to understand.
The statutes and regulations are easy to STAND UNDER.


If you find them difficult to understand-
1. Stop listening to those with lesser understanding.
2. Over simplifying matters.
3. Desire to beleive theres a conspiracy at the statutory level (Cracking the Code by Pete Hendrickson).
4. Cant decypher the subject from the object.
You are willing to STAND UNDER concepts you don't even comprehend.


You give credence to Pete Hendrickson as if he speaks truth, but yet wont allow where his interpretation went wrong to the public. Honestly? You get so confused you can't even keep your story straight. Where have I given Hendrickson any credance at all? His method does not appear to have worked for him.

[palani]

Do you want to know how to keep 100% of your earnings?

Buy a gun, and shoot every single person who comes to take them from you.



Words convey meaning. Yours would have you discriminating between single and married people or those who would approach you in numbers.

[7th trump]

Like a dog with a bone ... 7th read something once about social (in)security and now blames it for everything.

You need to peel back more layers of the onion. You've barely scratched the surface and stalled.
Ohhh really I read somewhere ONCE about Social Security huh???
Wow thats a really big assumption you cant prove Palani or could ever know anything about. Then again you not knowing the subject of tax structure and the role of how Social Security plays in taxes is your METHOD of OPERATION.
A lot of word salad and no action.

Since when have I ever said Social Security is the blame for everything?
I only said Social Security the reason why your labor is taxed.
Get it straight boy!

And for someone to say to peel back the layers of the onion you'd think that person would know what each and every layer consists of, but allyou do is keep dishing out is the old tired "word salad"...........so wheres the beef?

Do you ever get tired of finding ways of saying absolutely nothing?

[7th trump]

Words convey meaning. Yours would have you discriminating between single and married people or those who would approach you in numbers.
Not your words!

[7th trump]

Anybody interested in a thread where I can explain how Social Security causes your labor to get imposed the federal income tax?

[palani]

Do you ever get tired of finding ways of saying absolutely nothing?

A good fisherman who catches a minnow just tosses it back. You? Are not a keeper.

[palani]

Not your words!

The entropy is so high in this statement I don't even know what it means.

[palani]

Anybody interested in a thread where I can explain how Social Security causes your labor to get imposed the federal income tax?

I would not .. your observations are flawed by lack of logic.

[7th trump]

I would not .. your observations are flawed by lack of logic.Hahaha........lack of logic vs your empty word-salad.

So Palani.....what federal agency do you work for?

[Hatha Sunahara]

Anybody interested in a thread where I can explain how Social Security causes your labor to get imposed the federal income tax?




I would like you to explain that. I may already have heard that explained, but I forgot it. I need a reminder.


Hatha

[palani]

what federal agency do you work for?

evidence of paranoid delusions or inability to discuss without becoming abrasive?

[7th trump]

evidence of paranoid delusions or inability to discuss without becoming abrasive?
Hippacrit......."evidence" is fact.
"Facts" from your very mouth are "evil".
"Dont do as I do, do as I say" comes to mind about this one who calls himself Palani.
Whos delusional here myself or you palani?

Delusion
1. a false belief or opinion: delusions of grandeur.
2. Psychiatry . a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion.

According to the definition of delusion.
Your lack of any evidence, Palani, that fiat is the root cause of taxation on labor is reduced to an opinion. And until any evidence or facts that supports your standing surfaces that "opinion" is one of false belief.
And as it stands thus far, Palani, your confrontational resistance to statutory factual reasoning which points directly to Social Security as the root cause of taxation on labor isnt helping your fixed word-salad false thought pattern.

[palani]

Whos delusional here ?

To settle the discussion I propose an experiment.

Phase I ... Invent something valuable, go out and make 20 million fiat dollars on it, don't use your SSN and don't pay tax. Wait 10 years and see if any governmental agency comes after you.

Phase II ... Give away all your fiat money, don't accept any, use your labor to build shelter and grow your own food, eliminate all credit accounts and bank accounts, don't use your SSN. DON'T register assets with government of any form (local or federal). Live this way for 20 years and see if any governmental agency comes after you.

Balls in your court. Proceed.

My prediction of the outcome? If you have fiat dollars government is going to demand their share even though SSN was not used in either case.

[Skirnir_]

As amusing as Paloony-in-wonderland's posts may be, those who give his prattle the time of day are even more so.

[Mouse]

I keep looking for the "fuck you" button and I cannot seem to find it. I guess my vision isn't what it used to be.

[Skirnir_]

I keep looking for the "fuck you" button and I cannot seem to find it. I guess my vision isn't what it used to be.

That button is labelled "Thanks" and is in the lower left corner of a given post. Please be sure to click it on all of my posts so that your displeasure will be noted.

[Mouse]

It is possible that the Geocentric world does not revolve around you. I may have been thanking another poster.

[Skirnir_]

It is possible that the Geocentric world does not revolve around you. I may have been thanking another poster.

If it did revolve around me, 'egocentric' would describe the resulting system.

[7th trump]

To settle the discussion I propose an experiment.

Phase I ... Invent something valuable, go out and make 20 million fiat dollars on it, don't use your SSN and don't pay tax. Wait 10 years and see if any governmental agency comes after you.

Phase II ... Give away all your fiat money, don't accept any, use your labor to build shelter and grow your own food, eliminate all credit accounts and bank accounts, don't use your SSN. DON'T register assets with government of any form (local or federal). Live this way for 20 years and see if any governmental agency comes after you.

Balls in your court. Proceed.

My prediction of the outcome? If you have fiat dollars government is going to demand their share even though SSN was not used in either case.
The result of phase I is-
You'll get to keep all the money......because you didnt use the ssn on any government forms.

The result of phase II is-
The same as phase I.

Reason being, the common demoninator between phase I and II is "dont use the ssn".
Without the disclosure of the ssn on government forms.............the government has no record about you. Its no different than working under the table. Why you cant understand this simple concept Palani is because you are infected with a belief where your train of thought is compromised with falseness. The government never finds out the money earned under the table because that money was never reported.

All reporting on labor to the government starts with the disclosure of the ssn on government forms (W4).........has absolutely nothing at all to do with fiat private credit sitting in your pocket. The clue, and what sheds the difficulty in understanding the tax laws on labor, is understanding the "reporting" mechanism.
The reporting mechanism is government forms. And without a ssn on government forms to pin point to the individual the government has NO INCOME DATA on the individual!
On April 15, 1939 the government officially recorded a total of over 7 million 1040's filed. On April 15, 1940 the government officially recorded 14 million filed 1040's......it doubled!
It doubled because the 1939 code was the first code revision to add chapter 21 (social security) to Subtitle C "Employment Taxes". And after a year of having deductions taken out of 14 million people pay checks, because they participated in an excise activity (social security), they filed their 1939 tax year taxes before April 15, 1940.

[palani]

The result of phase I is-
You'll get to keep all the money......because you didnt use the ssn on any government forms. My, that ten years went by quickly.


The result of phase II is-
The same as phase I.
Now this answer I know is incorrect because .... you wouldn't have MADE any money.


Reason being, the common demoninator between phase I and II is "dont use the ssn".
OK. Since you want to skew the results in your favor we must proceed to experiment III. Go down to the IRS office with your lack of a SSN and unwillingness to sign a W-4 form, get yourself hired by them, and report back within 5 years as to the success or failure of your mission.

[sirgonzo420]

My, that ten years went by quickly.


Now this answer I know is incorrect because .... you wouldn't have MADE any money.


OK. Since you want to skew the results in your favor we must proceed to experiment III. Go down to the IRS office with your lack of a SSN and unwillingness to sign a W-4 form, get yourself hired by them, and report back within 5 years as to the success or failure of your mission.


Why the hell would someone want to do that?

Shame on you for advocating that people join gangs of murderous thieves!

[palani]

Why the hell would someone want to do that?

It is, after all, just a suggested experiment. And all we have to lose is an IBEW member. If his theories don't work at the head agency I doubt if they would work anywhere else.

[7th trump]

My, that ten years went by quickly.


Now this answer I know is incorrect because .... you wouldn't have MADE any money.


OK. Since you want to skew the results in your favor we must proceed to experiment III. Go down to the IRS office with your lack of a SSN and unwillingness to sign a W-4 form, get yourself hired by them, and report back within 5 years as to the success or failure of your mission.


I didnt skew the results in my favor..........did you not say in both phase I & II that the ssn wouldnt be used (disclosed)?
I'm pretty sure you did unless you're going to admit to being a liar!

Unless you disclose the ssn on government forms the government has absolutely no way of knowing who pays you what, when, where and why.........is this to difficult for you to comprehend Palani?
Beings you refuse to research statutes Palani being hired by the government results in automatically earning 3401(a) "wages".....been that way since 1862 when the first revenue act came about. So lets stay on the topic of the private sector getting imposed by participating Social Security............OK!
Just stop trying to control the answers you are looking for by jumping off topic........it doesnt work that way.

[palani]

stop trying to control the answers you are looking for by jumping off topic........it doesnt work that way.

Your topic? SSN = taxation? Whassamatta? Don't want to participate in the last experiment? Too risky?

You are a creature of statutes and fail to comprehend any dimension beyond them. How can you be a proponent of 1215.org, a common law site, and not realize that common law takes no cognizance of statutes? Fictions of law use statutes.

[Hatha Sunahara]

Fictions of law use statutes.

This seems to be an undisputed assertion among all the discussions I have read so far. Statutes are 'political laws'. They are the policies of tyrants, and require your consent for their enforcement. If you are a registered voter, that is blanket consent to enforcement of all political laws.


Hatha

[7th trump]

This seems to be an undisputed assertion among all the discussions I have read so far. Statutes are 'political laws'. They are the policies of tyrants, and require your consent for their enforcement. If you are a registered voter, that is blanket consent to enforcement of all political laws.


Hatha
Not true, the constitution, not being a fiction of law, allows for taxation on certain imports and duty's.
The how, where, when and rates of this constitutional tax on these imports and duty's are codified in statutory form in title 26.
So Palani, being a victum of self inflicted ignorance by his reasoning that ALL statutes are fiction...........is once again wrong!
Just an observation resulting from extensive root cause analyzing of the subject!

Now back to your regularly scheduled program!

[7th trump]

Your topic? SSN = taxation? Whassamatta? Don't want to participate in the last experiment? Too risky?

You are a creature of statutes and fail to comprehend any dimension beyond them. How can you be a proponent of 1215.org, a common law site, and not realize that common law takes no cognizance of statutes? Fictions of law use statutes.
No, not risky at all!
All I was saying was you are trying to fit square pegs into round holes.........not doable!
You'd know this, but you're ignorant of statutory contruction and not to mention constitutional.

I know and understand the common law form from the civil law form. However, we arent talking about law form are we!

[palani]

Not true, the constitution, not being a fiction of law, allows for taxation on certain imports and duty's.
Again ignorant. The constitution was set aside in favor of the 14th amendment. There are no constitutional restrictions other than 1) you must be given due process, 2) you cannot question the debt 3) you must be in insurrection to cast a ballot.

[palani]

you're ignorant of statutory contruction and not to mention constitutional The constitution is merely a promise. We are in a period known as "in the mean time" until the promise is fulfilled.


I know and understand the common law form from the civil law form. However, we arent talking about law form are we! Bet you cannot find a legal definition for lawform. Your lawform is chosen by you when you accept FRNs as money. And it is not going to be a common law lawform either.

Your lawform is COLORABLE.

[monty]

The appelate courts have been lying about Brushaber



http://youtu.be/105GKdmJ9HU

https://youtu.be/105GKdmJ9HU


Subversion
The process of overthrowing, destroying, or corrupting. Black's Law Dictionary, 7th ed.
IN 1916 THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT definitively settled all questions concerning the meaning and effect of the then-recently adopted 16th Amendment. Its unanimous ruling, in Brushaber v. Union Pacific RR. Co., 240 U.S. 1, reaffirms an already-well-established chain of Supreme Court rulings that the income tax is and always has been an excise (privilege (http://losthorizons.com/Excise.pdf)) tax.

The Brushaber court makes clear that the tax remains an excise after the 16th Amendment and that in no way whatever does the amendment authorize a non-apportioned direct tax, confused notions of plaintiff Frank Brushaber to the contrary notwithstanding:
"We are of opinion, however, that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes. And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it...”


Brushaber v. Union Pacific RR. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)
After generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support the erroneous conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a power to levy an income tax which is both direct and not subject to the regulation of apportionment, the Brushaber court goes on to point out that the very suggestion of a non-apportioned direct tax is crazy, because that would cause:
“...one provision of the Constitution [to] destroy another; that is, would result in bringing the provisions of the Amendment [supposedly] exempting a direct tax from apportionment into irreconcilable conflict with the general requirement that all direct taxes be apportioned."

Ibid.

The purpose and effect of the 16th amendment, the court says, is merely the over-ruling of a mistaken 1895 decision that when applied to dividends and rent, taxation must be viewed by light of the personal-property sources from which those particular gains are derived. Based on that faulty reasoning, the 1895 court had held that even the then-33-year-old income tax, when applied to such gains, must be treated as a property tax requiring apportionment.

The Brushaber court's ruling that the income tax remains an excise and non-apportioned direct taxes remain prohibited is subsequently reaffirmed and recognized as the law of the land in every particular by repeated Supreme Courts and by legislative, executive and private legal professional experts over and over again down through the decades since, as is shown in this modest sampling of instances:
“[B]y the [Brushaber] ruling, it was settled that the provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived -- that is, by testing the tax not by what it was, a tax on income, but by a mistaken theory deduced from the origin or source of the income taxed.”


Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916);
"If [a] tax is a direct one, it shall be apportioned according to the census or enumeration. If it is a duty, impost, or excise, it shall be uniform throughout the United States. Together, these classes include every form of tax appropriate to sovereignty. Cf. Burnet v. Brooks, 288 U. S. 378, 288 U. S. 403, 288 U. S. 405; Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U. S. 1, 240 U. S. 12."


Steward Machine Co. v. Collector of Internal Revenue, 301 U.S. 548 (1937);
"In Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., Mr. C. J. White, upholding the income tax imposed by the Tariff Act of 1913, construed the Amendment as a declaration that an income tax is "indirect," rather than ... an exception to the rule that direct taxes must be apportioned."


Harvard Law Review, 29 Harv. L. Rev., p. 536 (1915-1916);
"The income tax ... is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax; it is the basis for determining the amount of tax.” ... "[T]he amendment made it possible to bring investment income within the scope of the general income-tax law, but did not change the character of the tax. It is still fundamentally an excise or duty..."


House Congressional Record, March 27, 1943, p. 2580, testimony of former Treasury Department legislative draftsman F. Morse Hubbard;
"The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief Justice White, first noted that the Sixteenth Amendment did not authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the Constitution, quoted above. Direct taxes were, notwithstanding the advent of the Sixteenth Amendment, still subject to the rule of apportionment…"


Report No. 80-19A, 'Some Constitutional Questions Regarding the Federal Income Tax Laws' by Howard M. Zaritsky, Legislative Attorney of the American Law Division of the Library of Congress (1979).

The income tax is an excise, and non-apportioned direct taxes are Constitutionally-prohibited. This is the thoroughly settled law of the land, and every institution of government knows it.

HOWEVER, STARTING IN THE EARLY 1940s, the United States and many state governments stealthily launch a scheme to exploit what had by then become widespread public confusion about the nature of the tax (due to the diligent dis-information efforts of Progressives intent on implementing this scheme). The object of the scheme is the birth, care and feeding of an unrestrained Leviathan state, in defiance of the Constitution.

The scheme consists of two elements. The first is the nurturing of a myth that the 16th Amendment DOES authorize a direct tax (thus, one on "all that comes in", rather than only on privilege-related gains to which excise taxes are inherently confined) without the apportionment requirement.

The second element of the "ignorance tax" scheme is the establishment of a tax-related paperwork structure that induces people not involved in privilege-related activities to unknowingly mischaracterize their gains as though they are. This creates a legal pretext for collecting the income tax as the excise that it is, but where it does not objectively apply.

Between them the two elements of the scheme facilitate the wide and largely un-resisted misapplication of the tax, and that's just what was thoroughly underway by 1945. A river of wealth began flowing into Washington and about three dozen state capitals.

WITHIN TEN YEARS of the "ignorance tax" scheme being proven effective the remarkably clear and truth-revealing 1939 Internal Revenue Code is (otherwise inexplicably) replaced in its entirety as official evidence of the law by a 1954 version that is a masterful exercise in obfuscation. Within twenty-five years more, federal judges at the district and appellate court levels begin systematically lying about the Brushaber court ruling and the actual nature of the income tax:
“[T]he income tax is a direct tax,... See Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.., 240 U.S. 1, 19, 36 S.Ct. 236, 242, 60 L.Ed. 493 (1916) (the purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment was to take the income tax "out of the class of excises, duties and imposts and place it in the class of direct taxes")."


United States v. Francisco, 614 F.2d 617 (8th Cir. 1980)
“The Supreme Court promptly determined in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Ry. Co.., 240 U.S. 1, 36 S.Ct. 236, 60 L.Ed. 493 (1916), that the sixteenth amendment provided the needed constitutional basis for the imposition of a direct non-apportioned income tax.”


Parker v. Comm'r, 724 F.2d 469 (5th Cir. 1984)

“For seventy-five years, the Supreme Court has recognized that the sixteenth amendment authorizes a direct nonapportioned tax..., see Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R., , 240 U.S. 1, 12-19, 36 S.Ct. 236, 239-42, 60 L.Ed. 493 (1916).”


United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619 (10th Cir. 1990)
WOW! These lies-- by panels of actual US appellate court judges, in actual rulings by which actual Americans suffered actual and substantial harm-- are grossly, egregiously and staggeringly criminal, and so glaringly false as to raise the specter of dementia. This is the sort of behavior that should land these judges in prison, if not facilities for the criminally insane.

These lies are also fundamentally despotic in nature and purpose. This fact is ironically underscored by the 1984 date of the Parker ruling quoted above.

Like the other judicial lies about Brushaber and its law-of-the-land ruling concerning the nature of the income tax and the ongoing Constitutional prohibition of any kind of non-apportioned direct tax, the Parker court's falsehoods seek to exploit a dynamic George Orwell insightfully explained in his book, [I]1984: "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." The object of all the judicial lies is to enable the perpetuation of the "ignorance tax" scheme by corruptly falsifying history.
All told, the behavior exposed above is nothing less than subversion. These judges-- and their present-day mimics, co-conspirators and enablers-- were and are oath-breaking enemies of the Constitution, engaged in a deliberate and sustained assault on the rule of law in America.

An in-depth, ten-page presentation of the assault, with evidence, details as to its reasons and effects, and links to further information, can be found at losthorizons.com/TaxFraud.pdf (http://losthorizons.com/TaxFraud.pdf). It will make electrifyingly clear just what is and has been going on.