"All systems either of preference
or of restraint, therefore, being thus completely taken away, the
obvious and simple system of natural liberty establishes itself
of its own accord. Every man, as long as he does not violate the
laws of justice, is left perfectly free to pursue his own interest
his own way, and to bring both his industry and capital into competition
with those of any other man or order of men.
The sovereign [the government]
is completely discharged from a duty, in the attempting
to perform which he must always be exposed to innumerable delusions,
and for the proper performance of which no human wisdom or knowledge
could ever be sufficient:
the duty of superintending
the industry of private people."
An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations
The U.S. Supreme Court has held many times that
the ONLY purpose for lawful, constitutional taxation is to collect revenues
to support ONLY the machinery and operations of the government and its
This purpose, it calls a “public use” or “public purpose”:
“The power to tax is, therefore,
the strongest, the most pervading of all powers of government, reaching
directly or indirectly to all classes of the people. It
was said by Chief Justice Marshall, in the case of McCulloch v.
Md., 4 Wheat. 431, that the power to tax is the power to destroy.
A striking instance of the truth of the proposition is seen in the
fact that the existing tax of ten per cent, imposed by the United
States on the circulation of all other banks than the National Banks,
drove out of existence every *state bank of circulation within a
year or two after its passage. This power can be readily employed
against one class of individuals and in favor of another, so as
to ruin the one class and give unlimited wealth and prosperity to
the other, if there is no implied limitation of the uses for which
the power may be exercised.
To lay, with one hand,
the power of the government on the property of the citizen, and
with the other to bestow it upon favored individuals to aid private
enterprises and build up private fortunes, is none the less a robbery
because it is done under the forms of law and is called taxation.
This is not legislation. It is a decree under legislative
Nor is it taxation.
‘A tax,’ says Webster’s Dictionary, ‘is a rate or sum of money assessed
on the person or property of a citizen by government for the use
of the nation or State.’ ‘Taxes are burdens or charges imposed
by the Legislature upon persons or property to raise money for public
purposes.’ Cooley, Const. Lim., 479.
in Northern Liberties v. St. John’s Church, 13 Pa. St., 104 says,
very forcibly, ‘I think the common mind has everywhere taken in
the understanding that
taxes are a public imposition,
levied by authority of the government for the purposes of carrying
on the government in all its machinery and operations—that they
are imposed for a public purpose.’ See, also Pray
v. Northern Liberties, 31 Pa.St., 69; Matter of Mayor of N.Y., 11
Johns., 77; Camden v. Allen, 2 Dutch., 398; Sharpless v. Mayor,
supra; Hanson v. Vernon, 27 Ia., 47; Whiting v. Fond du Lac, supra.”
Association v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 655 (1874)
"A tax, in the general understanding
of the term and as used in the constitution, signifies an exaction
for the support of the government. The word has never thought to
connote the expropriation of money from one group for the benefit
v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936)]
Black’s Law Dictionary defines the word “public
purpose” as follows:
purpose. In the law of taxation, eminent domain,
etc., this is a term of classification to distinguish the objects
for which, according to settled usage, the government is to provide,
from those which, by the like usage, are left to private interest,
inclination, or liberality.
The constitutional requirement
that the purpose of any tax, police regulation, or particular exertion
of the power of eminent domain shall be the convenience, safety,
or welfare of the entire community and not the welfare of a specific
individual or class of persons [such as, for instance, federal benefit
recipients as individuals]. “Public purpose” that will
justify expenditure of public money generally means such an activity
as will serve as benefit to community as a body and which at same
time is directly related function of government. Pack v. Southwestern
Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 215 Tenn. 503, 387 S.W.2d 789, 794 .
The term is
synonymous with governmental purpose. As employed to denote
the objects for which taxes may be levied, it has no relation to
the urgency of the public need or to the extent of the public benefit
which is to follow;
the essential requisite being that a public service or use shall
affect the inhabitants as a community, and not merely as individuals.
A public purpose or public business has for its objective the promotion
of the public health, safety, morals, general welfare, security,
prosperity, and contentment of all the inhabitants or residents
within a given political division, as, for example, a state, the
sovereign powers of which are exercised to promote such public purpose
or public business.”
[Black’s Law Dictionary,
Sixth Edition, p. 1231, Emphasis added]
A related word defined in Black’s Law Dictionary
is “public use”:
Eminent domain. The constitutional and statutory basis for
taking property by eminent domain. For condemnation purposes,
"public use" is one which confers some benefit or advantage to the
public; it is not confined to actual use by public. It is
measured in terms of right of public to use proposed facilities
for which condemnation is sought and, as long as public has right
of use, whether exercised by one or many members of public, a "public
advantage" or "public benefit" accrues sufficient to constitute
a public use. Montana Power Co. v. Bokma, Mont., 457 P.2d
769, 772, 773.
Public use, in constitutional
provisions restricting the exercise of the right to take property
in virtue of eminent domain, means a use concerning the whole community
distinguished from particular individuals. But each and every
member of society need not be equally interested in such use, or
be personally and directly affected by it; if the object is to satisfy
a great public want or exigency, that is sufficient. Ringe Co. v.
Los Angeles County, 262 U.S. 700, 43 S.Ct. 689, 692, 67 L.Ed. 1186.
The term may be said to mean public usefulness, utility, or advantage,
or what is productive of general benefit. It may be limited
to the inhabitants of a small or restricted locality, but must be
in common, and not for a particular individual. The use must
be a needful one for the public, which cannot be surrendered without
obvious general loss and inconvenience. A "public use" for
which land may be taken defies absolute definition for it changes
with varying conditions of society, new appliances in the sciences,
changing conceptions of scope and functions of government, and other
differing circumstances brought about by an increase in population
and new modes of communication and transportation. Katz v.
Brandon, 156 Conn. 521, 245 A.2d 579, 586.
See also Condemnation;
Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1232]
Black’s Law Dictionary also defines the word “tax”
A charge by the government on the income of an individual, corporation,
or trust, as well as the value of an estate or gift. The objective
in assessing the tax is to generate revenue to be used for the needs
of the public.
[relating to money] burden laid upon individuals or property to
support the government, and is a payment exacted by legislative
authority. In re Mytinger, D.C.Tex. 31 F.Supp. 977,978,979.
of a tax are that it is NOT A VOLUNTARY PAYMENT OR DONATION, BUT
AN ENFORCED CONTRIBUTION, EXACTED PURSUANT TO LEGISLATIVE
AUTHORITY. Michigan Employment Sec. Commission
v. Patt, 4 Mich.App. 228, 144 N.W.2d 663, 665. …”
[Black’s Law Dictionary,
Sixth Edition, p. 1457]
So in order to be legitimately called
a “tax” or
“taxation”, the money we pay to the government must fit all of the following
- The money must be used ONLY for the support of government.
- The subject of the tax must be “liable”,
and responsible to pay for the support of government under the force
- The money must go toward a “public purpose” rather than a “private
- The monies paid cannot be described as wealth transfer between
two people or classes of people within society
- The monies paid
cannot aid one group of private individuals in society
at the expense of another group, because this violates the concept
of equal protection of law for all citizens found in section 1 of
the Fourteenth Amendment
If the monies demanded by government do
all of the above
requirements, then they are being used for a “private” purpose and
cannot be called
“taxes” or “taxation”, according to the Supreme Court. Actions
by the government to enforce the payment of any monies that do
not meet all the
above requirements can therefore only be described as:
- Theft and robbery by the government in the guise of “taxation”
- Government by decree rather than by law
- Extortion under the color of law in violation
- Mob rule and a tyranny by the “have-nots” against the “haves”
U.S.C. §241: Conspiracy against rights. The IRS
shares tax return information with states of the union, so that
both of them can conspire to deprive you of your property.
U.S.C. §242: Deprivation of rights under the color of
law. The Fifth Amendment says that people in states
of the Union cannot be deprived of their property without due process
of law or a court hearing. Yet, the IRS tries to make it appear
like they have the authority to just STEAL these people’s property
for a fabricated tax debt that they aren’t even legally liable for.
U.S.C. §247: Damage to religious property; obstruction
of persons in the free exercise of religious beliefs
U.S.C. §872: Extortion by officers or employees of the
U.S.C. §876: Mailing threatening communications.
This includes all the threatening notices regarding levies, liens,
and idiotic IRS letters that refuse to justify why government thinks
we are “liable”.
U.S.C. §880: Receiving the proceeds of extortion.
Any money collected from Americans through illegal enforcement actions
and for which the contributors are not "liable" under the law is
extorted money, and the IRS is in receipt of the proceeds of illegal
U.S.C. §1581: Peonage, obstructing enforcement.
IRS is obstructing the proper administration of the
Internal Revenue Code and the Constitution, which require that
they respect those who choose NOT to volunteer to participate in
the federal donation program identified under
Subtitle A of the I.R.C.
U.S.C. §1583: Enticement into slavery. IRS tries
to enlist “nontaxpayers”
to rejoin the ranks of other peons who pay taxes they aren't demonstrably
liable for, which amount to slavery.
U.S.C. §1589: Forced labor. Being forced to expend
one’s personal time responding to frivolous IRS notices and pay
taxes on my labor that I am not liable for.
The U.S. Supreme Court has further characterized
all efforts to abuse the tax system in order to accomplish “wealth transfer”
as “political heresy” that is a denial of republican principles that
form the foundation of our Constitution, when it issued the following
strong words of rebuke. Incidentally, the case below also forms
the backbone of reasons why the Internal Revenue Code can never be anything
more than private law that only applies to those who volunteer into
“The Legislature may enjoin, permit,
forbid, and punish; they may declare new crimes; and establish rules
of conduct for all its citizens in future cases; they may command
what is right, and prohibit what is wrong; but
they [the government] cannot
change innocence [a “nontaxpayer”] into guilt [a “taxpayer”]; or
punish innocence as a crime [criminally prosecute a “nontaxpayer”
for violation of the tax laws]; or violate the right of an antecedent
lawful private contract; or the right of private property. To maintain
that our Federal, or State, Legislature possesses such powers [of
THEFT and FRAUD], if they had not been expressly restrained; would,
*389 in my opinion, be a political heresy, altogether inadmissible
in our free republican governments.”
[Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386 (1798)]
We also cannot
suppose that our government has the authority to make “gifts” of
monies collected through its taxation powers, and especially not when
paid to private individuals or foreign countries because:
- The Constitution DOES NOT authorize the government to “gift”
money to anyone within states of the Union or in foreign countries,
and therefore, this is not a Constitutional use of public funds,
nor does unauthorized expenditure of such funds produce a tangible
public benefit, but rather an injury, by forcing those who do not
approve of the gift to subsidize it and yet not derive any personal
benefit whatsoever for it.
- The Supreme Court identifies such abuse of taxing powers as
“robbery in the name of taxation” above.
Based on the foregoing analysis, we are then forced
to divide the monies collected by the government through its taxing
powers into only two distinct classes. We also emphasize that
every tax collected and every expenditure originating from the tax paid
MUST fit into one of the two categories below:
Two methods for taxation
Authority for tax
Legislative fiat, tyranny
Monies collected described by Supreme Court as
“Robbery in the name of taxation” (see Loan Assoc. v.
Money paid only to following parties
Federal “employees”, contractors, and agents
Private parties with no contractual relationship or agency
with the government
Government that practices this form of taxation is
A righteous government
This type of expenditure of revenues collected is:
Lawful means of collection
Apportioned direct or indirect taxation
Voluntary donation (cannot be lawfully implemented as a
Tax system based on this approach is
A lawful means of running a government
A charity and welfare state for private interests, thieves,
Government which identifies payment of such monies
as mandatory and enforceable is
A righteous government
A lying, thieving government that is deceiving the people.
When enforced, this type of tax leads to
Limited government that sticks to its corporate charter,
Mafia protection racket
Lawful subjects of Constitutional, federal taxation
Taxes on imports into states of the Union coming from foreign
countries. See Constitution, Article 1, Section 8,
Clause 3 (external) taxation.
No subjects of lawful taxation. Whatever unconstitutional
judicial fiat and a deceived electorate will tolerate is
what will be imposed and enforced at the point of a gun
Tax system based on
||Private property VOLUNTARILY donated to a public use by its exclusive owner
||All property owned by the state, which is FALSELY PRESUMED TO BE EVERYTHING. Tax becomes a means of “renting” what amounts to state property to private individuals for temporary use.
If we give our government the benefit of the doubt
by “assuming” or “presuming” that it is operating lawfully and consistent
with the model on the left above, then we have no choice but to conclude
that everyone who lawfully receives any kind of federal payment MUST
be either a federal “employee” or “federal contractor” on official duty,
and that the compensation received must be directly connected to the
performance of a sovereign or Constitutionally authorized function of
government. Any other conclusion or characterization of a lawful
tax other than this is irrational, inconsistent with the rulings of
the U.S. Supreme Court on this subject, and an attempt to deceive the
public about the role of limited Constitutional government based on
Republican principles. This means that you cannot participate
in any of the following federal social insurance programs WITHOUT being
a federal “employee”, and if you refuse to identify yourself as a federal
employee, then you are admitting that your government is a thief and
a robber that is abusing its taxing powers:
Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code. IRS sections
1, 32, and 162 all confer privileged financial benefits to the participant
which constitute federal “employment”
- Social Security.
- Unemployment compensation.
An examination of the Privacy Act,
5 U.S.C. §552a(a)(13), in fact, identifies all those who participate
in the above programs as “federal
personnel”, which means federal “employees”.
TITLE 5 >
PART I >
CHAPTER 5 >
SUBCHAPTER II > § 552a
§ 552a. Records maintained on individuals
(a) Definitions.— For purposes of this section—
(13) the term “Federal personnel” means [not "includes", but
MEANS] officers and employees of the Government of the United States,
members of the uniformed services (including members of the Reserve
entitled to receive immediate or deferred retirement benefits under
any retirement program of the Government of the United States (including
The “individual” they are talking about above is
further defined in
5 U.S.C. §552a(a)(2) as follows:
TITLE 5 >
PART I >
CHAPTER 5 >
SUBCHAPTER II > § 552a
§ 552a. Records maintained on individuals
(a) Definitions.— For purposes of this section—
(2) the term “individual”
means a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted
for permanent residence;
of the United States” they are talking above is based on the statutory
rather than constitutional definition of the “United
States”, which means it refers to the federal zone and excludes
states of the Union. Also, note that both of the two preceding
definitions are found within
Title 5 of the U.S. Code, which is entitled “Government Organization
and Employees”. Therefore, it refers ONLY to government employees
and excludes private employees. There is no definition of the
anywhere in Title 26 (I.R.C.) of the U.S. Code or any other title that
refers to private natural persons, because Congress cannot legislative
for them. Notice the use of the phrase “private business” in the
U.S. Supreme Court ruling below:
may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen.
He is entitled to carry
on his private business in his own way [unregulated by the government].
His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State
or to his neighbor to divulge his business, or to open his doors
to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him. He
owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom,
beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights
are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the
organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due
process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his
rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of
himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant
of the law. He owes
nothing to the public [including so-called “taxes” under Subtitle
A of the I.R.C.] so long as he does not trespass upon their rights."
[Hale v. Henkel,
201 U.S. 43, 74 (1906)]
The purpose of the Constitution and the Bill of
Rights instead is to REMOVE authority of the Congress to legislate for
private persons and thereby protect their sovereignty and dignity.
That is why the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the following:
of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to
the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man's
spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect. They knew
that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life
are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans
in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations.
They conferred, as against
the Government, the right to be let alone - the most comprehensive
of rights and the right most valued by civilized men."
[Olmstead v. United States,
277 U.S. 438, 478
(1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting); see also Washington
494 U.S. 210 (1990)]
Another very important point to make here is that
the purpose of nearly all federal law is to regulate “public conduct”
rather than “private conduct”. Congress must write laws to regulate
and control every aspect of the behavior of its employees so that they
do not adversely affect the rights of private individuals like you,
who they exist exclusively to serve and protect. Most federal
statutes, in fact, are exclusively for use by those working in government
and simply do not apply to private citizens in the conduct of their
private lives. This fact is exhaustively proven with evidence in:
Statutory Civil Law is Law for Government and Not Private Persons, Form #05.037
Federal law cannot apply to the private public
at large because the Thirteenth Amendment says that involuntary servitude
has been abolished. If involuntary servitude is abolished, then
they can't use, or in this case “abuse” the authority of law to impose
ANY kind of duty against anyone in the private public except possibly
the responsibility to avoid hurting their neighbor and thereby depriving
him of the equal rights he enjoys.
For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall
not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not bear false witness,”
“You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, are
all summed up in this saying, namely, “You shall love your neighbor
Love does no harm
to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of [the ONLY requirement
of] the law [which is to avoid hurting your neighbor and thereby
[Romans 13:9, Bible, NKJV]
“Do not strive with a man without cause,
if he has done you no harm.”
[Prov. 3:30, Bible, NKJV]
Thomas Jefferson, our most revered founding father,
summed up this singular
duty of government to LEAVE PEOPLE ALONE and only interfere or impose
a "duty" using the authority of law when and only when they are hurting
each other in order to protect them and prevent the harm when he said.
"With all [our]
blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous
people? Still one thing more, fellow citizens--a
wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring
one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate
their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take
from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum
of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of
[Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801.
The U.S. Supreme Court confirmed this view, when
“The power to
"legislate generally upon" life, liberty, and property, as opposed
to the "power to provide modes of redress" against offensive state
action, was "repugnant" to the Constitution. Id., at 15. See also
United States v. Reese,
92 U.S. 214, 218 (1876); United States v. Harris,
106 U.S. 629, 639 (1883); James v. Bowman,
190 U.S. 127, 139 (1903). Although the specific holdings of
these early cases might have been superseded or modified, see, e.g.,
Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States,
379 U.S. 241 (1964); United States v. Guest,
383 U.S. 745 (1966), their treatment of Congress' §5 power as
corrective or preventive, not definitional, has not been questioned.”
of Boerne v. Florez, Archbishop of San Antonio, 521 U.S. 507 (1997)]
What the U.S. Supreme
Court is saying above is that the government has no authority to tell
you how to run your private
life. This is contrary to the whole idea of the Internal
Revenue Code, whose main purpose is to monitor and control
every aspect of
those who are subject to it. In fact, it has become the chief
means for Congress to implement what we call “social engineering”.
Just by the deductions they offer, people are incentivized into all
kinds of crazy behaviors in pursuit of reductions in a liability that
they in fact do not even have. Therefore, the only reasonable
thing to conclude is that Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code, which
would “appear” to regulate the private conduct of
all human beings
in states of the Union, in fact:
- Only applies to “public employees”, “public offices”, and federal
instrumentalities in the official conduct of their duties
on behalf of the municipal corporation located in the District of
4 U.S.C. §72 makes the “seat of government”.
- Does not CREATE any new public offices or instrumentalities
within the national government, but only regulates the exercise
of EXISTING public offices lawfully created through Title 5 of the
U.S. Code. The IRS abuses its forms to unlawfully CREATE public
offices within the federal government. In payroll terminology,
this is called “creating fictitious employees”, and it is not only
quite common, but highly illegal and can get private workers FIRED
on the spot if discovered.
- Regulates PUBLIC and not PRIVATE conduct and therefore does
not pertain to private human beings.
- Constitutes a franchise and a “benefit” within the meaning of
5 U.S.C. §552a . Tax “refunds” and “deductions”, in fact,
are the “benefit”, and 26 U.S.C. §162 says that all those
who take deductions MUST, in fact, be engaged in a public office
within the government, which is called a “trade or business”:
TITLE 5 >
PART I >
CHAPTER 5 >
SUBCHAPTER II > § 552a
§ 552a. Records maintained on individuals
(a) Definitions.— For purposes of this section—
(12) the term “Federal benefit program” means any
program administered or funded by the Federal Government, or by
any agent or State on behalf of the Federal Government, providing
cash or in-kind assistance in the form of payments, grants, loans,
or loan guarantees to individuals;. . .
- Has the job of concealing all the above facts
in thousands of pages and hundreds of thousands of words so that
the average American is not aware of it. That is why they
call it the “code” instead of simply “law”: Because it is
private law you have to volunteer for and an “encryption” and concealment
device for the truth. Now we know why former Treasury Secretary
Paul O’Neil called the Internal Revenue Code “9500 pages of gibberish”
before he quit his job in disgust and went on a campaign to criticize
The I.R.C. therefore
essentially amounts to a part of the job responsibility and the “employment
contract” of “public employees”, "public offies", and federal instrumentalities.
This was also confirmed by the House of Representatives, who said that
only those who take an oath of “public office” are subject to the requirements
of the personal income tax. See:
The total lack of authority of the government to regulate or tax private
conduct explains why, for instance:
- The vehicle code in your state cannot be enforced on PRIVATE
property. It only applies
on PUBLIC roads owned by the government
The family court in your state cannot regulate
the exercise of unlicensed and therefore PRIVATE CONTRACT marriage.
Marriage licenses are a franchise that make those applying
into public officers.
Family court is a franchise court and the equivalent of binding
arbitration that only applies to fellow statutory government “employees”.
City conduct ordinances such as those prohibiting
drinking by underage minors only apply to institutions who are
licensed, and therefore PUBLIC institutions acting as public officers
of the government.
Within the Internal Revenue Code , those legal
“persons” who work for the government are identified as engaging in
a “public office”. A “public office” within the Internal Revenue
Code is called a “trade or business”, which is defined below.
We emphasize that engaging in a privileged “trade or business” is the
main excise taxable activity that in fact and in deed is what REALLY
makes a person a “taxpayer” subject to the Internal Revenue Code, Subtitle
U.S.C. Sec. 7701(a)(26)
"The term 'trade or business'
includes the performance of the functions of a
Below is the definition of “public
of a ‘public office’ are:
(1) Authority conferred
(2) Fixed tenure of
(3) Power to exercise
some of the sovereign functions of government.
(4) Key element of
such test is that “officer is carrying out a sovereign function’.
(5) Essential elements
to establish public position as ‘public office’ are:
(a) Position must be created by Constitution,
legislature, or through authority conferred by legislature.
(b) Portion of sovereign power of government must
be delegated to position,
(c) Duties and powers must be defined, directly
or implied, by legislature or through legislative authority.
(d) Duties must be performed independently without
control of superior power other than law, and
(e) Position must have some permanency.”
[Black’s Law Dictionary,
Those who are fulfilling the “functions of a public
office” are under a legal, fiduciary duty as “trustees” of the “public
trust”, while working as “volunteers” for the “charitable trust” called
States Government Corporation”, which we affectionately call “U.S.
otherwise, the powers delegated to a public officer are held in
trust for the people and are to be exercised in behalf of the government
or of all citizens who may need the intervention of the officer.
Furthermore, the view
has been expressed that all public officers, within whatever branch
and whatever level of government, and whatever be their private
vocations, are trustees of the people, and accordingly labor under
every disability and prohibition imposed by law upon trustees relative
to the making of personal financial gain from a discharge of their
That is, a public officer
occupies a fiduciary relationship to the political entity on whose
behalf he or she serves.
and owes a fiduciary duty to the public.
It has been said that the fiduciary responsibilities of a public
officer cannot be less than those of a private individual.
Furthermore, it has been stated that any enterprise undertaken by
the public official which tends to weaken public confidence and
undermine the sense of security for individual rights is against
[63C Am.Jur.2d, Public Officers and
“U.S. Inc.” is a federal corporation, as defined
"Corporations are also of all grades, and made for varied objects;
all governments are
corporations, created by usage and common consent, or grants and
charters which create a body politic for prescribed purposes; but
whether they are private, local or general, in their objects, for
the enjoyment of property, or the exercise of power, they are all
governed by the same rules of law, as to the construction and the
obligation of the instrument by which the incorporation is made.
One universal rule of law protects persons and property.
It is a fundamental principle of the common law of England, that
the term freemen of the kingdom, includes 'all persons,' ecclesiastical
and temporal, incorporate, politique or natural; it is a part of
their magna charta (2 Inst. 4), and is incorporated into our institutions.
The persons of the members of corporations are on the same footing
of protection as other persons, and their corporate property secured
by the same laws which protect that of individuals. 2 Inst. 46-7.
'No man shall be taken,' 'no man shall be disseised,' without due
process of law, is a principle taken from magna charta, infused
into all our state constitutions, and is made inviolable by the
federal government, by the amendments to the constitution."
[Proprietors of Charles
River Bridge v. Proprietors of Warren Bridge,
36 U.S. 420 (1837)]
TITLE 28 - JUDICIARY
AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE
- PARTICULAR PROCEEDINGS
176 - FEDERAL DEBT COLLECTION PROCEDURE
SUBCHAPTER A - DEFINITIONS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS
''United States'' means
a Federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department,
commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
(C) an instrumentality
of the United States.
Those who are acting as “public officials” for
“U.S. Inc.” have essentially donated their formerly private property
to a “public use”. In effect, they have joined the SOCIALIST collective
and become partakers of money STOLEN from people, most of whom, do not
wish to participate and who would quit if offered an informed choice
to do so.
“My son, if sinners [socialists,
in this case] entice you,
Do not consent [do not abuse your
power of choice]
If they say, “Come with us,
Let us lie in wait to shed blood [of innocent "nontaxpayers"];
Let us lurk secretly for the innocent without cause;
Let us swallow them alive like Sheol,
And whole, like those who go down to the Pit:
We shall fill our houses with spoil [plunder];
Cast in your lot among us,
Let us all have one purse [share the stolen LOOT]"--
My son, do not walk in
the way with them [do not ASSOCIATE with them and don't let the
government FORCE you to associate with them either by forcing you
to become a "taxpayer"/government
whore or a "U.S.
Keep your foot from their path;
For their feet run to evil,
And they make haste to shed blood.
Surely, in vain the net is spread
In the sight of any bird;
But they lie in wait for their own blood.
They lurk secretly for their own lives.
So are the ways of everyone who is greedy for gain [or unearned
It takes away the life of its owners.”
, Bible, NKJV]
Below is what the U.S. Supreme Court says about
those who have donated their private property to a “public use”.
The ability to volunteer your private property for “public use”, by
the way, also implies the ability to UNVOLUNTEER at any time, which
is the part no government employee we have ever found is willing to
talk about. I wonder why….DUHHHH!:
“Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and to 'secure,' not grant
or create, these rights, governments are instituted.
That property [or income]
which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject
to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's
injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's
benefit; second, that if he devotes
it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that
use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the
public may take it upon payment of due compensation.
[Budd v. People of State of New York,
143 U.S. 517 (1892)]
Any legal person, whether it be a natural person,
a corporation, or a trust, may become a “public office” if it volunteers
to do so. A subset of those engaging in such a “public office”
are federal “employees”, but the term “public office” or “trade or business”
encompass much more than just government “employees”. In law,
when a legal “person” volunteers to accept the legal duties of
a “public office”, it therefore becomes a “trustee”, an agent, and fiduciary
(as defined in
26 U.S.C. §6903) acting on behalf of the federal government by the
operation of private contract law. It becomes essentially a “franchisee”
of the federal government carrying out the provisions of the franchise
agreement, which is found in:
Internal Revenue Code, Subtitle A , in the case of the federal
Social Security Act , which is found in Title 42 of the U.S. Code.
If you would like to learn more about
how this “trade or business” scam works, consult the authoritative article
If you would like to know more about the extreme
dangers of participating in all government franchises and why you destroy
ALL your Constitutional rights and protections by doing so, see:
- Government Instituted
Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030
- Liberty University, Section 4:
The IRS form 1042-S Instructions confirm that all
those who use Social Security Numbers are engaged in the “trade
or business” franchise:
Box 14, Recipient’s
Identification Number (TIN)
You must obtain and enter a U.S. taxpayer identification number
Any recipient whose income is effectively connected with the
conduct of a
trade or business
in the United States.
Form 1042-S Instructions, p. 14]
Engaging in a “trade
or business” therefore implies a “public office”, which makes the
person using the number into a “public official” who has donated his
formerly private time and services to a “public use” and agreed to give
the public the right to control and regulate that use through the operation
of the franchise agreement, which is the Internal Revenue Code Subtitle
A and the
Social Security Act found in Title 42 of the U.S. Code. The
Social Security Number
is therefore the equivalent of a “license number” to act as a “public
official” for the federal government, who is a fiduciary or trustee
subject to the plenary legislative jurisdiction of the federal government
26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(39),
26 U.S.C. §7408(d ), and
of Civil Procedure Rule 17(b), regardless of where he might be found
geographically, including within a state of the Union. The franchise
agreement governs “choice
of law” and where it’s terms may be litigated, which is the
of Columbia, based on the agreement itself.
Now let’s apply what we have learned to your employment
situation. God said you cannot work for two companies at once.
You can only serve one
company, and that company is the federal government if you are receiving
“No one can serve two masters [two
employers, for instance]; for either he will hate the one and love
the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other.
You cannot serve God and mammon [government].”
16:13, Bible, NKJV. Written by a tax collector]
Everything you make while working for your slave
master, the federal government, is
their property over
which you are a fiduciary and “public officer”.
“THE” + “IRS” =”THEIRS”
A federal “public
official” has no rights in relation to their employer, the federal
that the Constitution places upon the government in its capacity
as lawmaker, i.e., as the regulator of private conduct, are not
the same as the restrictions that it places upon the government
in its capacity as employer. We have recognized this in many contexts,
with respect to many different constitutional guarantees. Private
citizens perhaps cannot be prevented from wearing long hair, but
policemen can. Kelley v. Johnson,
425 U.S. 238, 247 (1976). Private citizens cannot have their
property searched without probable cause, but in many circumstances
government employees can. O'Connor v. Ortega,
480 U.S. 709, 723 (1987) (plurality opinion); id., at 732 (SCALIA,
J., concurring in judgment). Private citizens cannot be punished
for refusing to provide the government information that may incriminate
them, but government employees can be dismissed when the incriminating
information that they refuse to provide relates to the performance
of their job. Gardner v. Broderick,
[497 U.S. 62, 95]
392 U.S. 273, 277 -278 (1968). With regard to freedom of speech
in particular: Private citizens cannot be punished for speech of
merely private concern, but government employees can be fired for
that reason. Connick v. Myers,
461 U.S. 138, 147 (1983). Private citizens cannot be punished
for partisan political activity, but federal and state employees
can be dismissed and otherwise punished for that reason. Public
Workers v. Mitchell,
330 U.S. 75, 101 (1947); Civil Service Comm'n v. Letter Carriers,
413 U.S. 548, 556 (1973); Broadrick v. Oklahoma,
413 U.S. 601, 616 -617 (1973).”
[Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois,
497 U.S. 62 (1990)]
Your existence and your earnings as a federal “public
official” are entirely subject to the whim and pleasure of corrupted
lawyers and politicians, and you must beg and grovel if you expect to
“In the general course of human nature, A POWER OVER A MAN’s
SUBSISTENCE AMOUNTS TO A POWER OVER HIS WILL.”
[Alexander Hamilton ,
paper No. 79]
You will need an “exemption” from your new slave
master specifically spelled out in law to justify
anything you want
to keep while working on the federal plantation. The 1040 return
is a profit and loss statement for a federal business corporation called
the “United States”. You are in partnership with your slave master
and they decide what scraps they want to throw to you in your legal
“cage” AFTER they figure out whatever is left in financing their favorite
pork barrel project and paying off interest on an ever-expanding and
endless national debt. Do you really want to reward this type
of irresponsibility and surety?
The W-4 therefore essentially amounts to a federal
employment application. It is your badge of dishonor and a tacit
admission that you can’t or won’t trust God and yourself to provide
for yourself. Instead, you need a corrupted “protector” to steal
money from your neighbor or counterfeit (print) it to help you pay your
bills and run your life. Furthermore, if your private employer
forced you to fill out the W-4 against your will or instituted any duress
to get you to fill it out, such as threatening to fire or not hire you
unless you fill it out, then he/she is:
- Acting as an employment recruiter for the federal government.
- Recruiting you into federal slavery in violation of the Thirteenth
42 U.S.C. §1994 .
- Involved in a conspiracy to commit grand theft by stealing money
from you to pay for services and protection you don’t want and don’t
- Involved in racketeering and extortion in violation of
18 U.S.C. §1951.
- Involved in money laundering for the federal government, by
sending in money stolen from you to them, in violation of
18 U.S.C. §1956.
The higher ups at the IRS probably know the above,
and they certainly aren’t going to tell private employers or their underlings
the truth, because they aren’t going to look a gift horse in the mouth
and don’t want to surrender their defense of “plausible deniability”.
They will NEVER tell a thief who is stealing for them that they are
stealing, especially if they don’t have to assume liability for the
consequences of the theft. No one who practices this kind of slavery,
deceit, and evil can rightly claim that they are loving their neighbor
and once they know they are involved in such deceit, they have a duty
to correct it or become an “accessory after the fact” in violation of
18 U.S.C. §3. This form of deceit is also the sin most hated by God in the
Bible. Below is a famous Bible commentary on
Prov. 11:1 :
"As religion towards God is a
branch of universal righteousness (he is not an honest man that
is not devout), so righteousness
towards men is a branch of true religion, for he is not a godly
man that is not honest, nor can he expect that his devotion
should be accepted; for, 1.
Nothing is more offensive
to God than deceit in commerce. A false balance is here put for
all manner of unjust and fraudulent practices [of our public dis-servants]
in dealing with any person [within the public], which are all an
abomination to the Lord, and render those abominable [hated] to
him that allow themselves in the use of such accursed arts of thriving.
It is an affront to justice, which God is the patron of, as well
as a wrong to our neighbour, whom God is the protector of.
Men [in the IRS and the Congress] make light of such frauds,
and think there is no sin in that which there is money to be got
by, and, while it passes undiscovered, they cannot blame themselves
for it; a blot is no blot till it is hit, Hos. 12:7, 8. But they
are not the less an abomination to God, who will be the avenger
of those that are defrauded by their brethren.
2. Nothing is more pleasing
to God than fair and honest dealing, nor more necessary to make
us and our devotions acceptable to him: A just weight is his delight.
He himself goes by a just weight, and holds the scale of judgment
with an even hand, and therefore is pleased with those that are
herein followers of him. A balance cheats, under pretence of doing
right most exactly, and therefore is the greater abomination to
[Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible; Henry, M., 1996,
The Bible also says that those who participate
in this kind of “commerce” with the government are practicing harlotry
and idolatry. The Bible book of Revelations describes a woman
called “Babylon the Great Harlot”.
“And I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast which was full
of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. The woman
was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and precious
stones and pearls, having in her hand a golden cup full of abominations
and the filthiness of her fornication. And on her forehead a name
MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND OF THE
ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints and with
the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. And when I saw her, I marveled
with great amazement.”
, Bible, NKJV]
This despicable harlot is described below as the
“woman who sits on many waters”.
“Come, I will show you the judgment of the great harlot [Babylon
the Great Harlot] who sits on many waters, with whom the kings
of the earth [politicians and rulers] committed fornication, and
the inhabitants of the earth were made drunk [indulged] with the
wine of her fornication.”
17:1-2 , Bible, NKJV]
These waters are simply symbolic of a democracy
controlled by mobs of atheistic people who are fornicating with the
Beast and who have made it their false, man-made god and idol:
“The waters which you saw, where the harlot sits, are peoples,
multitudes, nations, and tongues.”
, Bible, NKJV]
The Beast is then defined in Rev. 19:19 as “the
kings of the earth”, which today would be our political rulers:
“And I saw the
beast, the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered
together to make war against Him who sat on the horse and against
19:19 , Bible, NKJV]
Babylon the Great Harlot is “fornicating” with
the government by engaging in commerce with it. Black’s Law Dictionary
defines “commerce” as “intercourse”:
…Intercourse by way of trade and traffic between different
peoples or states and the citizens or inhabitants thereof, including
not only the purchase, sale, and exchange of commodities, but also
the instrumentalities [governments] and agencies by which it is
promoted and the means and appliances by which it is carried on…”
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 269]
If you want your rights back people, you can’t
pursue government employment in the context of your private job.
If you do, the Bible, not us, says you are a harlot and that you are
CONDEMNED to hell!
"And I heard another voice from
heaven saying, “Come out of her, my people, lest you share in her
sins, and lest you receive of her plagues. For her sins have
reached to heaven, and God has remembered her iniquities.
Render to her just as she rendered to you, and repay her double
according to her works; in the cup which she has mixed, mix double
for her. In the measure that she glorified herself and lived
luxuriously, in the same measure give her torment and sorrow; for
she says in her heart, ‘I sit
as queen, and am no widow,
and will not see sorrow.’ Therefore her plagues will come
in one day—death and mourning and famine. And she will be utterly
burned with fire, for strong
is the Lord God who judges
, Bible, NKJV]
If you would like to know more about why
Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code only applies to federal
instrumentalities and payments to or from the federal government, we
refer you to the free memorandum of law below:
 State ex
rel. Nagle v Sullivan, 98 Mont 425, 40 P2d 995, 99 ALR
321; Jersey City v Hague, 18 NJ 584, 115 A2d 8.
of Human Resources v Sistrunk, 249 Ga 543, 291 SE2d 524.
A public official is held in public trust. Madlener v
Finley (1st Dist) 161 Ill App 3d 796, 113 Ill Dec 712, 515 NE2d
697, app gr 117 Ill Dec 226, 520 NE2d 387 and revd on other
grounds 128 Ill 2d 147, 131 Ill Dec 145, 538 NE2d 520.
Dist. v Kenroy, Inc., 78 Ill 2d 555, 37 Ill Dec 291, 402 NE2d
181, appeal after remand (1st Dist) 107 Ill App 3d 222, 63 Ill
Dec 134, 437 NE2d 783.
v Holzer (CA7 Ill) 816 F2d 304 and vacated, remanded on other
grounds 484 US 807, 98 L Ed 2d 18, 108 S Ct
53, on remand (CA7 Ill) 840 F2d 1343, cert den 486 US
1035, 100 L Ed 2d 608, 108 S Ct 2022 and (criticized
on other grounds by United States v Osser (CA3 Pa) 864 F2d 1056)
and (superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in United
States v Little (CA5 Miss) 889 F2d 1367) and (among conflicting
authorities on other grounds noted in United States v Boylan
(CA1 Mass) 898 F2d 230, 29 Fed Rules Evid Serv 1223).
rel. Cohen v Keane, 64 Ill 2d 559, 2 Ill Dec 285, 357 NE2d 452,
later proceeding (1st Dist) 105 Ill App 3d 298, 61 Ill Dec 172,
434 NE2d 325.
Ethics Comm'n v Nelson (Ind App) 656 NE2d 1172, reh gr (Ind
App) 659 NE2d 260, reh den (Jan 24, 1996) and transfer den (May