Our intention is to inform you about some of the important fundamentals of American law...We know that the law is fine in structure, and that it has been misapplied for years...It is knowable to the common Citizen, and we are here to reveal it to you in the most simple form that we can. |
|
This is first and among the more important points because it is the beginning of the law and it is ultimately these people who have the power to correct the lawlessness of the IRS. It is a fact as revealed in our Constitution that the laws in this Nation, and every State, are created by the Legislative Branch of the Government. At the Federal Level it is the Congress. At the State level it may be called a General Assembly.
These legislative bodies are specifically limited by their respective Constitutions as to the subject matter and nature of laws that they may enact. This is due to the fact that America emerged out of the Rule of a Monarchy which, having the right of Kings, owned everything and everyone, and could dispose of person or property as it pleased, save for some rights given to Nobles under the Magna Carta. Americans realized that these governmental bodies must be limited.
When examining or studying the tax laws, one must always keep in mind that the laws, not being created under the right of Kings but by the authority of the people, are limited in nature, in that the words in the laws indicate precisely what the law intends. The law cannot be legally expanded in application by a whim of the Executive (President and the Departments within the Administration) authority, including the IRS, but can only be expanded upon by the Acts of the Legislature.
When a law is enacted it is enacted as a Public Law, which is then codified by Congressional authority. This law is then given to the respective Department of the Executive Branch responsible for the enforcement of the law. This Department will submit to the Federal Register, for review by the Congress and the People, regulations promulgated by the Department Secretary. If these regulations are not objected to by the Congress or the People in a timely manner, it is then determined that the regulations are the agreed procedure by which the Executive Branch Department will enforce the laws as enacted by the Congress.
Ignorantia juris non excusat. Ignorance of the law, which is the Public law, the United States Code (U.S.C.), and the regulations for the Code as published in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), is no excuse. We are all bound to the law and taken to be knowledgeable of the law, as ignorance is not excusable. This is also stated in the legal maxim of Ignoratia legis neminem excusat (ignorance of the law excuses no one).
Ignoratia juris sui non præjudicat juri is a very important maxim of law to understand as the phrase literally means ignorance of one’s own right does not prejudice the right, or more clearly that your ignorance of your right does not mean that it does not exist, and if you are not appropriately informed of a right before an event designed to give up that right, the right will not be lost. This is a very important fact as the Social Security Administration article will reveal a seldom discussed, and little known right which you have most likely been denied without ever being told you had it to begin with.
There is no interpretation of laws by any court including the U.S. Supreme Court. The laws mean what the words in them say. The following is a good list to keep and treasure. The U.S. Supreme Court cases below reveal this fact:
"In deciding a question of statutory construction, we begin of course with the language of the statute." Demarest v. Manspeaker, 498 US 184, 112 L Ed 2d 608, 111 S Ct. 599, (1991) (emphasis added)
"When the words of a statute are unambiguous, the first canon of statutory construction--that courts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there--is also the last, and judicial inquiry is complete." Connecticut National Bank v. Germain, 503 US ____, p. ____, 117 L.Ed 2nd 391(1992) (emphasis added)
"Rules of statutory construction are to be invoked as aids to the ascertainment of the meaning or application of words otherwise obscure or doubtful. They have no place, as this court has many times held, except in the domain of ambiguity." Hamilton v. Rathbone, 175 U. S. 414, 421, 44 L. Ed. 219, 222, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 155; United States v. Barnes, 222 U. S. 513, 518, 519, 56 L. Ed. 291-293, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 117. Russell Motor Car Co. v. United States., 261 US 514, pp. 517.
"In construing a federal statute, it is presumable that Congress legislates with knowledge of the United States Supreme Court's basic rules of statutory construction." MCNARY v HAITIAN REFUGEE CENTER, 498 US 479, 112 L Ed 2d 1005, 111 S Ct. 888, (1991) (emphasis added)
As in all cases involving statutory construction, "our starting point must be the language employed by Congress," Reiter v Sonotone Corp., 442 US 330, 337, 60 L Ed 2d 931, 99 S Ct. 2326 (1979) (emphasis added), and we assume "that the legislative purpose is expressed by the ordinary meaning of the words used." Richards v United States, 369 US 1, 9, 7 L Ed 2d 492, 82 S Ct. 585 (1962) (emphasis added).
Thus "[a]bsent a clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary, that language must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive." Consumer Product Safety Comm'n v GTE Sylvania, Inc., 447 US 102, 108, 64 L Ed 2d 766, 100 S Ct. 2051 (1980). (remarks of Sen. Dirksen). As Senator (emphasis added)
"When the terms of a statute are unambiguous, judicial inquiry is complete except in rare and exceptional circumstances." FREYTAG v. COMMISSIONER, 501 US 115 L Ed 2d 764, pp. 767 - 9/73
"In a statutory construction case, the beginning point must be the language of the statute, and when a statute speaks with clarity to an issue, judicial inquiry into the statute's meaning--in all but the most extraordinary circumstance--is finished; courts must give effect to the clear meaning of statutes as written." Estate of Cowart v. Nicklos Drilling Co., 505 US 120 L Ed 2d 379, 112 S Ct. 2589 (1992) (emphasis added)
"It is not a function of the United States Supreme Court to sit as a super-legislature and create statutory distinctions where none were intended." AMERICAN TOBACCO CO. v PATTERSON, 456 US 63, 71 L Ed 2d 748, 102 S Ct. 1534 (emphasis added)
"(T)he court's task is to determine whether the language the legislators actually enacted has a plain, unambiguous meaning." Beecham v. United States, 511 US 128 L Ed 2d 383 (1994). (emphasis added)
"The United States Supreme Court cannot supply what Congress has studiously omitted in a statute." FEDERAL TRADE COM. v SIMPLICITY PATTERN CO., 360 US 55, p. 55, 475042/56451 (emphasis added)
"The starting point in any endeavor to construe a Statute is always the words of the Statute itself; unless Congress has clearly indicated that its intentions are contrary to the words it employed in the Statute, this is the ending point of interpretation." Fuller v. United States 615 F. Supp. 1054 (D.C. Cal 1985) , West’s Key 188 quoting Richards v. United States 369 US 1, 9, 82 S. Ct. 585, 590, 7 L.Ed. 2d 492 (1962) (emphasis added)
"The starting point for interpreting a statute is the language of the statute itself; absent a clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary, that language must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive." PRODUCT SAFETY COMM'N v. GTE SYLVANIA, 447 US 102, 64 L Ed 2d 766, 100 S Ct. 2051 (1980) (emphasis added)
"Words used in the statute are to be given their proper signification and effect." Washington Market Co. v. Hoffman, 101 U. S. 112, 115, 25 L. Ed. 782, 783. (emphasis added)
"The construction of a statute by those charged with its execution should be followed unless there are compelling indications that it is wrong, especially when Congress has refused to alter the administrative construction, and such deference is particularly appropriate where an agency's interpretation involves issues of considerable public controversy and Congress has not acted to correct any misperception of its statutory objectives." CBS, INC. v FCC, 453 US 367, p. 367, 69 L Ed 2d 706, p. 709 190155/564515 (emphasis added)
"We are not at liberty to construe any statute so as to deny effect to any part of its language. It is a cardinal rule of statutory construction that significance and effect shall, if possible, be accorded to every word. As early as in Bacon's Abridgment, § 2, it was said that 'a statute ought, upon the whole, to be so construed that, if it can be prevented, no clause, sentence, or word, shall be superfluous, void, or insignificant.' This rule has been repeated innumerable times." Justice Strong, United States v. Lexington Mill & E. Co., 232 US 399, pp. 409. (1914) (emphasis added)
This fact only underscores our duty to refrain from reading a phrase into the statute when Congress has left it out. " '[W]here Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another ..., it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion.' " Russello v United States, 464 US 16, 23, 78 L Ed 2d 17, 104 S Ct. 296 (1983) (citation omitted). KEENE CORP. v UNITED STATES, 508 US 124 L Ed 2d 118, 113 S Ct. 1993. (emphasis added)
Legislative history and intent do not overturn the rule of the letter of the law, but are only resorted to, in order to resolve ambiguity within the words of a single law:
"For purposes of statutory construction, a statute's subsequent legislative history is an unreliable guide to legislative intent." CHAPMAN v UNITED STATES, 500 US 114 L Ed 2d 524, 111 S Ct. (1991) (emphasis added)
"Going behind the plain language of a statute in search of a possibly contrary congressional intent is "a step to be taken cautiously" even under the best of circumstances." Piper v. Chris-Craft Industries, Inc., 430 US 1, 26, 51 L Ed 2d 124, 97 S Ct. 926 (1977). (emphasis added)
"The name given to a congressional enactment by way of designation or description in the act or the report of the committee accompanying the introduction of the bill into the House of Representatives cannot change the plain implication of the words of the statute." (emphasis added) [For other cases, see statutes, 154-160, 249-255, 354-372, in Digest Sup. Ct. 1908.]
"...courts do not resort to legislative history to cloud a statutory text that is clear" Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 US ____, p. ____, 126 L Ed 2d 615 (1994). (emphasis added)
"The title of a statute and the history leading up to its adoption, as aids to statutory construction, are to be resorted to only for the purpose of resolving doubts as to the meaning of the words used in the act in case of ambiguity." Fairport, P. & E. R. Co. v. Meredith, 292 US 589, p. 589, 78 L 1434. (1934) (emphasis added)
Two statutes in conflict are taken to co-exist as equally effective. When two statutes conflict with one another regarding a Citizen and his rights, the Citizen, and not the Government and its claims, are to be favored and secured under the law:
Judges "are not at liberty to pick and choose among congressional enactments, and when two [or more] statutes are capable of co-existence, it is the duty of the courts, absent a clearly expressed congressional intention to the contrary, to regard each as effective." Morton v Mancari, 417 US 535, 551, 41 L Ed 2d 290, 94 S Ct. 2474 (1974). COUNTY OF YAKIMA v YAKIMA NATION, 502 US ____, p. ____, 116 L Ed 687 (1992) (emphasis added)
"In view of other settled rules of statutory construction, which teach that a law is presumed, in the absence of clear expression to the contrary, to operate prospectively; that, if doubt exists as to the construction of a taxing statute, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the taxpayer..." Hassett v. Welch., 303 US 303, pp. 314 - 315, 82 L Ed 858. (1938) (emphasis added)
If a law cannot be understood, then the common man who is expected to be knowledgeable of the law and govern his actions according to the words in the law cannot do so. Therefore, a maxim of law exists to aid the common man from being saddled with the responsibility to comply with a law that no man can understand. This is the Void for Vagueness Doctrine, and is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary 5th Edition in part as:
A law which is so obscure in its promulgation that a reasonable person could not determine from reading what the law purports to command or prohibit is void as violative of due process.
Case law, as defined in Black’s Law Dictionary "interprets statutes".
How is this possible when the first group of U.S. Supreme Court decisions cited herein plainly state that not even the U.S. Supreme Court can interpret any law, but must follow the words in the law?
Case law is obviously a ruse used to perplex the common man from attempting to read the law and know it, thus keeping him ignorant and fearful of the law. This is EVIL, as it leads to not only a lawless and ignorant society, but it places too much power and authority over the destiny of the many into the hands of the few within a private guild.
Rather than just merely attacking a group of people as we believe that they have authority or power, we must instead focus on our own failure, to keep our nation on track, by our past choice to be ignorant and fearful. We must take responsibility for our own selves and assert that law be followed, not that a group of people be demonized. This is the path to resolution of our problems.
We must realize that any decision or determination which rules against the letter of the law, without rendering the law unconstitutional or void for vagueness, is an affront to Justice under a rule of law as enacted under authority of the Congress of the United States to make the laws for the People who vote them into office, and is also a denial of the People’s right to a manifest destiny of self governance as set forth in the Constitution.
Either we are under a rule of law as enacted by the Congress we vote into control, or we are under a rule of legal plunder by non-elected bureaucrats and Judges, who see the words of the Congress as mere suggestions, and not the absolute rule of law of the People, by the People, and for the People.
Other than ignorance and outright apathy for the law, this is our greatest enemy; "Those who would deny us a rule of law by OUR Congress, and seek to make themselves Kings and Lords merely by their power and decrees." We the People are to blame, should such men succeed, as we are greater in number than they are, and it has been long revealed, since Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, that men are governed by consent.
Since this entire site is about tax law, you must know and understand these points, or you will not understand your responsibilities and rights, nor will you understand what some are trying to do to your present rights under the law, or rather, under the guise of law.
"What are these other people trying to do?" you may ask…They are trying to give you a new tax and new tax law, so that you never learn that the Income Tax Code was always very simple for most U.S. Citizens living and working in the U.S., because it never applied to them to begin with.
Slowly, select government officials have been starting a quiet campaign to give us a new tax system and a new tax law, claiming that it will be fair to Americans. Well, would you think that any new system could be fairer than the one we have now, if you learned that the present law and the tax do not apply to you? See the Gross Income article.
It was inevitable that we would discover this to be true, but in 1968 the lines were being drawn by government officials to start telling the People that they could not understand the Tax Laws, that there was no hope for them to ever understand the tax laws, and thus created a good platform of public opinion to start a push for a new system of taxation; the National Sales Tax, which the Treasury Department wanted to begin with in 1913, but settled for the income tax. (The argument that defeated the National Sales Tax was that it was not based, and evenly distributed, pursuant to the ability to pay, as the common man spends more of his income on survival, and the wealthy invest most of their money. Investment will be protected from taxation in order to grow the economy.)
"We must note here, as a matter of judicial knowledge, that most lawyers have only scant knowledge of tax law."
Bursten v.US,
395 F 2d 976, 981 (5th Cir,. 1968):
In 1993 a major blow was delivered to the viability of the Federal Tax Code, as the following quote described the tax law as fitting into the void for vagueness doctrine:
"...Eight decades of amendments and accretions to the Code have produced a virtually impenetrable maze. The rules are unintelligible to most citizens - Including those who hold advanced degrees and including many who specialize in tax law. The rules are equally mysterious to many government employees who are charged with administering and enforcing the law."
"It is also a known fact that the Internal Revenue Code is a very easily misunderstood area of law, even misunderstood by trained professionals. Judges and lawyers admittedly do not know the tax laws." Ms. Shirley D. Peterson, former Commissioner of the IRS
This is a very damning statement to say the least, as it was made in a "Tax Policy Lecture" before Southern Methodist University, on April 14, 1993, by a person who was the former head of the Tax Crimes Division at the Department of Justice. This person was ultimately responsible for putting away an untold number of hard working average Americans, most of whom probably never went to college.
How does such a person sleep at night knowing all of the lives that they had destroyed by applying a law to a common person who had less of a chance understanding the law than the confused government enforcers?
The answer to this is simple. This quote is attributable to Ms. Shirley D. Peterson, former Commissioner of the IRS. Since then many more have been investigated, indicted, and imprisoned for violating this allegedly unknowable law. Even those claiming that the law was void for vagueness.
Why does someone who has made an entire career out of using and manipulating the Tax laws turn on the law in such a way?
We can only determine that this is being done strictly for the purpose of introducing and selling to the American People a new tax law. One that can be just as easily misapplied as the present one, but even easier, as Taxgate is now exposing to you the truth behind this law which will set you free. If those who seek to obfuscate the truth beat the American people to the punch, and get their new tax law, it will take years of research to again find the truth in the new law that releases the U.S. Citizen from the tax.
It is our position at Taxgate that the present form of the income tax is 100% constitutional, and is greatly in the economic favor of the U.S. Citizen. We do not believe that is it void for vagueness as Ms. Peterson and others may tell you and want you to believe.
We believe that the law is fine in structure, and that it has been misapplied for all of these years. It is knowable to the common Citizen, and we are here to reveal it to them in the simplest form possible.
These two U.S. Supreme Court cases reveal that the income which is taxed under federal law must come from a "source" as defined under the law, as the law means exactly what is said,
"…the Sixteenth Amendment, which grants Congress the power "to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived…" Helvering v. Clifford, 309 US 331, 334; Douglas v. Willcuts, 296 US 1,9. It has long been settled that Congress’ broad statutory definitions of taxable income were intended "to use the full measure of taxing power." The Sixteenth Amendment is to be taken as written and is not to be extended beyond the meaning clearly indicated by the language used." Edwards v. Cuba R. Co. 268 US 628, 631 [From separate opinion by Whittaker, Black, and Douglas, JJ.] (Emphasis added)
JAMES v UNITED STATES, 366 US 213, p. 213, 6 L Ed 2d 246, pp.2 449495/564515
"Congress's intent through § 61 of the Internal Revenue Code (26 USCS § 61(a))--which provides that gross income means all income from whatever source derived, subject to only the exclusions specifically enumerated elsewhere in the Code...and § 61(a)'s statutory precursors..." United States v. Burke, 504 U.S. 229, 119 L Ed 2d 34, 112 S Ct. 1867 (1992) (emphasis added)
Since the laws simply mean what the words in them say, now go read our article on ‘Gross income’, and see that income must come from a taxable source before it can be defined as income, taxable for the purposes of the income tax. This should set you free, but a new tax and tax law will turn the clock back on our research, as the game will have new rules.
We are offering a set of Political Action Letters for you to send to your Congressional Representatives as well as Senators Trent Lott and Orin Hatch, thanking them for stemming the tide of Federal Judges who have been ignoring the letter of the law so much that 7000 cases were sent to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1995, and only 72 could be heard.
Yes, the laws enacted by the Congress can be ignored by the Federal Judges with impunity, as they understand that their ultimate corrector (other than the Congress and their impeachment power, which they are afraid to use) cannot handle the log of cases screaming for justice and appeal. Therefore, the lawlessness of lower court Judges is currently allowed to rule by default.
We at Taxgate believe in supporting a government designed and run for all the people. Our government was designed correctly and for all of the right reasons in mind. The framers of our Constitution were brilliant and took many factors into account. They made provisions for US, to allow us to keep the government on the right track... that is what we are attempting, and accomplishing, with this web site and membership program.
Calls and letters to our elected officials explaining our understanding and concern are powerful actions to regain the integrity of our governmental system.
