fg_admin
Forum Replies Created
-
It appears that this debate has concluded. I shared this info with SEDM and they have now added an expanded version of the dialog to multiple publications and multiple sections:
1. Why Your Government is Either a Thief or You are a Public Officer for Income Tax Purposes, Form #05.008, Section 7.3 See section 7 generally. Section 13.2 deals with the “includes” argument used by neo.
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/WhyThiefOrPubOfficer.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
2. Nonresident Alien Position, Form #05.020, Section 7.3 See section 7 generally.
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/NonresidentAlienPosition.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
3. The “Trade or Business” Scam, Form #05.001, Section 7 end was expanded.
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/TradeOrBusScam.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
This debate has vastly improved the above sections, based on my reading of what they did with this discussion. Readers may wish to reuse the above materials in their own litigation against the BEAST.
In addition, we also added the same language as SEDM to the following:
The “Trade or Business” Scam, Section 7 end was expanded
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Remedies/TradeOrBusinessScam.htm
Many thanks to those who contributed and participated. 🙂
-
We are aware that the constitution only applies to federal territory as congress directs. That fact is stated in the Downes v. Bidwell case itself which was discussed during this thread. The evidentiary weight of GAO reports is much lower than that of the U.S. Supreme Court, so we wouldn’t use the GAO report to assert or prove that fact during litigation.
Nevertheless, thanks anyway, and welcome back.
-
Stija,
Good point. That has historically been the focus more of the sedm.org site than this one: Making tools and processes that will accomplish the goals exactly as you described. It is a daunting task and they have had over ten years to evolve the best way to do those things. Their tools are pretty good and highly refined by this point, but the process is a complicated one and requires lots of involvement by the audience to converge on the very best techniques that have been “lab tested”. Your input is solicited. Their info provides at least a really good starting point.
By the way, there is a proverb along the lines you suggest:
“Would you rather be HAPPY or would rather be RIGHT? You can’t be both.”
This site and these forums are more for research and theory, rather than direct application in the courtroom. Sedm is better for application and litigation. Thanks to you and neo and others, the research continues to bet better. We may be tough on people by necessity, but mainly so they will be good axe fighters in the courtroom. Americans are pansies and they need a boot camp so we have to be the “drill instructor” or they will go in and get creamed and then come back and try to blame us. It’s a lonely life being a drill instructor. Your Christmas card list is REAL short and everyone thinks you’re mean. Kinda like the difference between the way children think of Mom v. Dad.
🙂
-
OK. I’m done editing. 🙂
The Sixteenth Amendment is a red herring, because while it does deal with the states of the Union, it really only applies to public offices lawfully established and exercised within those states of the Union. They do the switcheroo by confusing contexts of the word “United States” between the Constitution and Statutory contexts.
You are correct about not discussing it in court and about how to approach it. The SEDM materials take EXACTLY the same approach as you recommend throughout their site, as far as we can tell. Did you get that approach from them? Here’s a video demonstrating exactly that approach:
Do you like the sedm materials? We certainly do. 🙂
-
Stija,
Many thanks for pointing that out. Very interesting.
So:
1. It is a DNAT on INCOME as property. All direct taxes are on property.
2. It is direct because it involves both real estate and personal property or the “benefits” of such property. This definition of “direct” derives from the Pollock case.
3. It is a direct tax upon PROPERTY owned BY THE government because in POSSESSION of the government at the time of payment.
4. The “income” subject to tax is payments FROM the government.
5. It is an excise on the SOURCE of income.
6. The SOURCE is the specific place the activity was accomplished, which is ALWAYS the government or a “U.S. source”. A “U.S. source” means an activity WITHIN the government. Hence “INTERNAL revenue code”. See:
http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/source.htmSource of Earned Income
The source of your earned income is the place where you perform the services for which you received the income. Foreign earned income is income you receive for performing personal services in a foreign country. Where or how you are paid has no effect on the source of the income. For example, income you receive for work done in France is income from a foreign source even if the income is paid directly to your bank ac-count in the United States and your employer is located in New York City.
If you receive a specific amount for work done in the United States, you must report that amount as U.S. source income. If you cannot determine how much is for work done in the United States, or for work done partly in the United States and partly in a foreign country, determine the amount of U.S. source income using the method that most correctly shows the proper source of your income.
In most cases you can make this determination on a time basis. U.S. source income is the amount that results from multiplying your total pay (including allowances, re-imbursements other than for foreign moves, and noncash fringe benefits) by a fraction. The numerator (top number) is the number of days you worked within the United States. The denominator is the total number of days of work for which you were paid.
[IRS Publication 54 (for the year 2000, on page 4)]7. It is only applicable to those consensually and contractually engaging in business WITH the U.S. Inc. as public officers.
8. The earnings of public offices are property of the government, because the OFFICE is owned by the government.
9. It is an EXTRA-constitutional tax because it is related to a franchise contract that does not apply to the public generally. On the OTHER hand, if everyone fills out W-4’s and ACTS like a government statutory “employee”, then for all intents and purposes it applies to EVERYONE and at least LOOKS like it is public law, even though it isn’t.
10. It is PRIVATE law and SPECIAL law, rather than PUBLIC law, that only applies to specific persons and things CONSENSUALLY engaged in activities on federal territory as AGENTS of the government ONLY.
11. The activities SUBJECT to the tax must also occur on federal territory. All civil law is prima facie territorial. If territory is divorced from the activity and the tax is enforced outside of federal territory, then the activity subject to tax becomes an act of private contract governed by the local CIVIL laws of the jurisdiction in which the activity occurred. And because it is private business activity, then there is a waiver of sovereign immunity AND it must be heard in a LOCAL court having jurisdiction over the domicile of the public officer and NOT in a federal court. These facts are plainly stated in 40 USC 3112.
12. Because it is PRIVATE and SPECIAL LAW, it is what the USSC called “class legislation” in the Pollock case.
13. If it is enforced or offered in a constitutional state, then an “invasion” has occurred under Article 4, section 4. By “enforced”, we mean that the ACTIVITY subject to the tax occurs within a constitutional state of the Union. Hence, “INTERNAL” in the phrase “INTERNAL Revenue Service”, meaning INTERNAL to the government and INTERNAL to federal territory.
14. The reason that direct and indirect can BOTH describe it, is that the constitution doesn’t apply in the only place the activity can lawfully be exercised (per 4 USC 72), which is federal territory. It doesn’t fit the constitution because it doesn’t apply to the PRIVATE people who are the only proper subject of the constitution.
The above are not in conflict with the content of this site that we are aware, but they do add an additional but important dimension to our collective understanding of the SCAM.
No wonder so many people in the freedom community have a hard time grasping this. It’s complicated. I think some tables or pictures would help. Still trying to imagine what those tables and pictures would look like. We did it with citizenship, and now it needs to be done with taxation. With this kind of complexity, it is easy to see why people might never be able to learn enough to be able to even confront or explain it in a court of law. We collectively are far above and beyond any attorney I have ever met in our collective knowledge of the tax laws at this point. You probably would never see even a Law Review article from a major university written about something this abstruse and complicated. This is GRADUATE material, not UNDERGRADUATE material. They hid the needle in a HUGE hay stack so complicated and big that no one but us collectively has found it so far that I know of.
I also think we need more than just the above to prove the case you are asserting, stija, but this is a very good start. Any other USSC cases on this subject to prove your assertion?
Good job. 🙂
-
Neo,
Now THAT’S much better. Thanks for continuing this. You left a lot of strings loose that are of great interest to many people.
1. You completely skipped the point made. It is ILLEGAL and a CRIME for those NOT in a “public office” to exercise the FUNCTIONS of a public office. Yes, those people are CRIMINALS. ALL OF THEM, because:
1.1. You can’t exercise the “functions of a public office” WITHOUT BEING a public officer.
1.2. Even being “federal personnel” does NOT make them public officers.
1.3 The information returns CONNNECTING them to a public office are FALSE, because they do not lawfully occupy said office. Hence, those filing them are ALSO criminals.
You can’t have it both ways:
a. Either they ARE public officers and they are criminally impersonating a public officer because they don’t satisfy the legal requirements for serving in public office and never took the oath…OR
b. They are NOT public officers and the information returns are all CRIMINALLY FRAUDULENT. Which is it? If they ARE public officers, they do not satisfy the legal definition of a public office and in fact, do not even KNOW they are in the office! How the HELL can you responsibly serve in a position that you don’t even realize you are in? Do you think these people KNOW they are public officers?
The courts agree that all franchisees are public officers and you continue to admit that SS is a franchise:“Is it a franchise? A franchise is said to be a right reserved to the people by the constitution, as the elective franchise. Again, it is said to be a privilege conferred by grant from government, and vested in one or more individuals, as a public office. Corporations, or bodies politic are the most usual franchises known to our laws.”
[People v. Ridgley, 21 Ill. 65, 1859 WL 6687, 11 Peck 65 (Ill., 1859)]
Yet, you don’t agree that SS recipients are public officers. This can’t be so and you can’t be telling the truth on this subject. SS recipients, like EVERY OTHER FRANCHISEE, MUST be public officers. And if they are public officers, then they MUST satisfy the legal requirements for HOLDING public officers. In point of fact, almost NONE of them do, so they are ALL committing the crime of impersonating a public office. 18 U.S.C. 912.
We already agree that Congress cannot regulate or legislate for exclusively private conduct. The only way they can therefore impose duties on a human being is through an office of some kind that you had to consent to or else involuntary servitude is involved. Whether it be through a corporate office under a federal corporation ONLY or through a public office if it is within a government, the end result is the creation of a legal “person” under statutory law to which PUBLIC duties attach. It is a fact that you CANNOT elect yourself into public office by filling out any form, INCLUDING the SS-4. Therefore, SS can only be offered to those who are ALREADY public officers BEFORE they signed up, and the benefits can ONLY attach to THAT specific office and not to ALL PRIVATE EARNINGS of the participant. Otherwise, there can NEVER be any separation between the public and private, and THAT separation is the MAIN purpose of government itself. Which is it in the case of SS?:
a. A corporate office…OR
b. A public office?
If it is a public office and you are collecting an ss check, you’re a thief and a criminal, and your withholdings in effect are being used to bribe uncle to illegally TREAT you as a public officer if you are a private American not lawfully serving in a public office.
2. Agreed partially. There IS criminal conversion going on because:
2.1 They won’t respect and protect your right to either quit or not participate. They don’t prosecute third parties who compel use of the number and this makes the system essentially compulsory, which then converts otherwise private property to public property.
2.2 Even after you join, they won’t let you quit.
2.3 They won’t let you interact in ANY way with them WITHOUT providing a de facto license to represent a public office called an SSN or TIN. Hence, you have to be a public officer before you even EXIST in their eyes.
2.4 They assume EVERYTHING the person owns is owned by the public status, rather than only that expressly and voluntarily donated. That too is fraud.
2.5 They use of the W-4 to compel the party into a de facto public office, because the statutory definition of “employee” in 5 USC 2105(a) includes public officers. You cannot and should not be allowed to elect yourself into public office by filling out a government form, including a W-4. That’s a crime and results in conversion.
2.6 They cause every jurist and voter who received federal benefits to have a criminal conflict of interest every time they vote on an issue affecting their “benefits”.
3. Disagree. You are mixing apples and oranges. We referred to the “trade or business” in Title 26, not public offices in the military or courts GENERALLY. We agree with you that officers in the military serve where they are EXPRESSLY assigned and judges serve in the courthouse EXPRESSLY authorized by Congress. The law that directs the officers who operate in the states acts only upon said officers and not the public GENERALLY. The office itself and the property it manages is the Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 property being constitutionally managed. However:
3.1 The I.R.C. does not EXPRESSLY authorize such “taxpayer” offices in a constitutional state and CAN’T. The geographical definitions confirm this.
3.2 The levies are improperly served outside the geographic United States and outside all internal revenue districts in violation o 26 U.S.C. 7601.
3.3 While the “taxpayer” is acting as an agent of the government, the domicile of the taxpayer is the District of Columbia. The taxpayer is NOT the officer filling the office. The Federal Lien Registration Act mandates that the lien must be served in the place of domicile of the “taxpayer”, which is the District of Columbia and NOT any state of the Union. As you well know the “taxpayer” is the office, and not the officer.
So you need to work on this one.
4. Disagree. Congress in fact HAS created a “trade or business”. The “location” of the franchise is the PLACE the activity that is taxed occurs, not the domicile of the parties engaging in it. The License Tax Cases addressed excise taxable activities EXECUTED within constitutional states. The “trade or business” franchise behaves as such excise because the PHYSICAL activity subject to tax OCCURS within constitutional states of the Union and NOT in D.C. They are taxing the rendering of “personal services” carried on in a constitutional state, which the License Tax Cases said they cannot.
5. Resolved.
6. Disagree. We said the following on this subject:
6.1 Yes, Brushaber was a taxpayer, as we already pointed out, but ONLY if the activity subject to tax physically occurred on federal territory, which is the ONLY place federal civil law can be enforced, or if he was a FEDERAL corporation officer with an effective domicile on federal territory under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b ).
Congress cannot institute a franchise or tax physical activities that do not occur on its own PHYSICAL territory. Otherwise, its engaging in acts of international terrorism outside its jurisdiction and waiving its sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 USC 1605A.
The cite we gave from United States v. Erie R. Co., 106 U.S. 327 (1882) earlier proves this by even admitting that it was NOT a tax that was being collected. Here is a portion of that cite:
Where is the authority for this tax? It was said by counsel on the argument of the case — somewhat facetiously, I thought at the time — that Congress might impose a tax upon property anywhere in the world, and this court could not question the validity of the law, though the collection of the tax might be impossible, unless, perchance, the owner of the property should at some time visit this country or have means in it which could be reached. This court will, of course, never, in terms, announce or accept any such doctrine as this. And yet it is not perceived wherein the substantial difference lies between that doctrine and the one which asserts a power to tax, in any case, aliens who are beyond the limits of the country. The debts of the company, owing for interest, are not property of the company, although counsel contended they were, and would thus make the wealth of the country increase by the augmentation of the debts of its corporations. Debts being obligations of the debtors are the property of the creditors, so far as they have any commercial value, and it is a misuse of terms to call them anything else; they accompany the creditors wherever the latter go; their situs is with the latter. I have supposed heretofore that this was common learning, requiring no argument for its support, being, in fact, a self-evident truth, a recognition of which followed its statement. Nor is this the less so because the interest may be called in the statute a part of the gains and profits of the company. Words cannot change the fact, though they may mislead and bewilder. The thing remains through all disguises of terms. If the company makes no gains or profits on its business and borrows the money to *333 meet its interest, though it be in the markets abroad, it is still required under the statute to withhold from it the amount of the taxes. If it pays the interest, though it be with funds which were never in the United States, it must deduct the taxes. The government thus lays a tax, through the instrumentality of the company [PUBLIC OFFICE/WITHHOLDING AGENT], upon the income of a non-resident alien over whom it cannot justly exercise any control, nor upon whom it can justly lay any burden.
The implication is that they can tax the above federal railroad corporation, because it is an AGENT of the government AND because the SITUS (headquarters) of that corporation is in federal territory, but they cannot tax the nonresident alien stock holders of the corporation situated in a legislatively foreign state, such as Brushaber. What changed between the above case in 1882 and the Brushaber case in 1921? NOTHING, except possibly the creation of the Federal Reserve, the Sixteenth Amendment (that the USSC said conferred “no new taxing powers”) and the whims of corrupted covetous judges who lust over money they aren’t entitled to!
The above dissenting opinion was NOT denied by the majority, and therefore was admitted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(b )(6). Hence, even to this day it is a fact that the U.S. government is an agent of international terrorism.
7. Resolved.
8. Disagree. The boundaries of internal revenue districts are different from judicial districts. Judicial districts INCLUDE other than federal territory. Internal revenue districts DO NOT. The excise taxable franchise ACTIVITY MUST physically occur within said district for the tax to be owed.
In The Apollon, a libel was filed against the collector of the District of St. Mary’s for damages occasioned by the seizure of the ship and cargo whilst lying in a river within the territory of the King of Spain, and Mr. Justice Story said, speaking for the court, that “The laws of no nation can justly extend beyond its own jurisdiction, except so far as regards its own citizens. They can have no force to control the sovereignty or rights of any other nation within its own jurisdiction. And however general and comprehensive the phraseology used in our municipal laws may be, they must always be restricted in construction to places and persons upon whom the legislatures have authority and jurisdiction.” 9 Wheat. 362.
[United States v. Erie R. Co., 106 U.S. 327 (1882)]
If it occurs outside the PHYSICAL district, then the government becomes de facto and is engaged in acts of international terrorism:
28 U.S.C. 1605A
(a) In General.—
(1) No immunity.— A foreign state shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of courts of the United States or of the States in any case not otherwise covered by this chapter in which money damages are sought against a foreign state for personal injury or death that was caused by an act of torture, extrajudicial killing, aircraft sabotage, hostage taking, or the provision of material support or resources for such an act if such act or provision of material support or resources is engaged in by an official, employee, or agent of such foreign state while acting within the scope of his or her office, employment, or agency.
[SOURCE: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1605A]
Putting people in jail for not paying a franchise tax is an example of “hostage taking” from the above, and the monies collected pay directly for killing of people abroad in Afghanistan and Iraq. The feds are a legislatively foreign state for cases where they can’t demonstrate subject matter jurisdiction, such as Subtitles A and C of the I.R.C. Hence, they fall under the above and implicitly waive sovereign immunity by “purposefully availing themselves” of NON-CONSENSUAL commerce in a foreign state. Technically, its economic terrorism, and the monies deceptively stolen are being used for nefarious, violent, military, and offensive rather than defensive ends.
9. Disagree. Yes, all statutory “residents” are foreign nationals, but “residence” has NOTHING to do with domicile in the I.R.C. It imputes you are a federal contractor franchisee and NOT a foreign national. The entities mentioned below encompass ALL taxpayers, not just corporations or partnerships, because ALL taxpayers are corporate officers.
26 CFR §301.7701-5 Domestic, foreign, resident, and nonresident persons.
A domestic corporation is one organized or created in the United States, including only the States (and during the periods when not States, the Territories of Alaska and Hawaii), and the District of Columbia, or under the law of the United States or of any State or Territory. A foreign corporation is one which is not domestic. A domestic corporation is a resident corporation even though it does no business and owns no property in the United States. A foreign corporation engaged in trade or business within the United States is referred to in the regulations in this chapter as a resident foreign corporation, and a foreign corporation not engaged in trade or business within the United States, as a nonresident foreign corporation. A partnership engaged in trade or business within the United States is referred to in the regulations in this chapter as a resident partnership, and a partnership not engaged in trade or business within the United States, as a nonresident partnership. Whether a partnership is to be regarded as resident or nonresident is not determined by the nationality or residence of its members or by the place in which it was created or organized.
[Amended by T.D. 8813, Federal Register: February 2, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 21), Page 4967-4975]
[IMPORTANT NOTE!: Whether a “person” is a “resident” or “nonresident” has NOTHING to do with the nationality or residence, but with whether it is engaged in a “trade or business”]
Hence, by filling out a “U.S. person” tax return such as a 1040 based on the above, you are imputing a “residence” but NOT a domicile on federal territory. The choice of law rules in the franchise itself at 26 USC 7701(a)(39) and 7408(d) are what changed the effective choice of law but NOT the domicile of the parties. Domicile and residence are NOT equivalent in the I.R.C. See:
Why Domicile and Becoming a “Taxpayer” Require Your Consent, Section 11.4
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Remedies/DomicileBasisForTaxation.htm
10. Settled.
11. Disagree. Its not a government unless there is a body politic and a body corporate. If everyone abandons the body politic and joins the body corporate as a W-4 statutory “employee”, there is no government. It is also a crime to vote or serve on jury duty with a financial conflict of interest, and all those serving as voters and jurists who ALSO particpate in franchises as public officers have such a financial conflict of interest. See UNITED STATES v. GRIFFITH et al., 55 App.D.C. 123, 2 F.2d 925 (1924) mentioned in the forums.
http://famguardian.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=5286&hl=griffith
12. Disagree. Where does SCOTUS call it a direct, unapportioned tax? Even the Brushaber case you cite didn’t do that:
“[Taxation of “income” is] in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such unless and until it was concluded that to enforce it would amount to accomplishing the result which the requirement as to apportionment of direct taxation was adopted to prevent, in which case the duty would arise to disregard form and consider substance alone, and hence subject the tax to the regulation as to apportionment which otherwise as an excise would not apply to it” (That is, if the “income” tax ever comes to be administered as something other than an excise, or on something unsuited to an excise, the rule of apportionment must be applied.)
[Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)]
The income tax is an excise, and therefore it cannot be a direct unapportioned tax. All excise taxes are INDIRECT and are placed on an ACTIVITY, because they are avoidable and can be shifted to the end consumer. Even the above cite doesn’t apply INSIDE the government because the constitution doesn’t regulate what happens by consent by contract or employment contract.
12.1 Direct and indirect are only relevant in constitutional states and NOT on federal territory.
12.2 The law that applies to the ACTIVITY being taxed is the PLACE of the activity, not the DOMICILE of the parties ENGAGING in the activity in it.
12.3 You can’t have it both ways or be able to choose EITHER source of law you want. The law that applies has to derive from EITHER the domicile of the parties engaging in the activity or the PLACE of the activity. Which is it? You are confused on this issue.
12.4 The United States v. Erie R. Co., 106 U.S. 327 (1882) case cited earlier made it clear that you can’t use BOTH sources of law and that you must use the place of the ACTIVITY and not the domicile of the parties.
12.5 28 USC 3112 determines whether federal civil law applies in the case of general jurisdiction, such as franchises:
40 USC § 3112 – Federal jurisdiction
(a) Exclusive Jurisdiction Not Required.— It is not required that the Federal Government obtain exclusive jurisdiction in the United States over land or an interest in land it acquires.
( 😎 Acquisition and Acceptance of Jurisdiction.— When the head of a department, agency, or independent establishment of the Government, or other authorized officer of the department, agency, or independent establishment, considers it desirable, that individual may accept or secure, from the State in which land or an interest in land that is under the immediate jurisdiction, custody, or control of the individual is situated, consent to, or cession of, any jurisdiction over the land or interest not previously obtained. The individual shall indicate acceptance of jurisdiction on behalf of the Government by filing a notice of acceptance with the Governor of the State or in another manner prescribed by the laws of the State where the land is situated.
(c ) Presumption.— It is conclusively presumed that jurisdiction has not been accepted until the Government accepts jurisdiction over land as provided in this section.
[SOURCE: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/40/3112%5D
The above issues relate to a field called “choice of law”. The law to be applied can only derive from ONE source. Choice of law rules are documented in:
Federal Jurisdiction, Form #05.018, Section 3
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/FederalJurisdiction.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
Courts below the U.S. Supreme Court may conflict on this issue, but the IRS doesn’t recognize those rulings as applying generally to everyone, so they are irrelevant.
For further details and supporting evidence, see:
The “ Trade or Business” Scam, Section 7
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Remedies/TradeOrBusinessScam.htm -
Neo,
We agreed that the definition of “trade or business” INCLUDES “the functions of a public office” and all classes of similar things, but we didn’t agree that:
1. Those who are NOT public officers can lawfully execute “the functions of a public office”. Thus social security recipients can’t be included UNLESS they are public officers. Those who try to exercise “the functions of a public office” WITHOUT in fact BEING public officers are committing the crime of impersonating a public officer found in 18 U.S.C. 912.
2. A de jure government CAN lawfully pay public tax monies to PRIVATE people, such as social security recipients who ARE NOT “officers of a corporation” or public officers. Such a government is a THIEF and a robinhood.
3. Federal civil law or even a “trade or business” can lawfully be exercised OUTSIDE the District of Columbia or federal territory without the express authorization of Congress per 4 USC 72. Congress never authorized people anywhere in legislatively foreign states such as states of the Union to be exercise public offices outside the District of Columbia. The definition of “State” within the SS act does not expressly include states of the Union and therefore they are purposefully excluded.
4. Congress can create what the Supreme Court called a “trade or business” and therefore a federal privilege inside of a constitutional state. The USSC said otherwise in the License Tax Cases, which has never been overruled. The corrupt courts skirt this problem by refusing to accept and enforce the statutory definition of “trade or business” and the rules of statutory construction that protect and enforce it.
5. The geographical definition of “United States” in the I.R.C. includes any part of a state of the Union and therefore, that a “U.S. source” can include a state of the Union.
6. Federal civil statuses such as “taxpayer” can have any existence whatsoever outside the geographical “United States” in 26 USC 7701(a)(9) and (a)(10). All such statuses have domicile as a prerequisite and the minute they don’t is the minute that the corporate “United States” ceases to be a government as legally defined and becomes just a wall mart that moves exclusively by private contract.
7. Stockholders in federal corporations are necessarily ALSO “officers of a corporation” as defined in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b ) who can be reached extraterritorially in a state of the Union.
8. There are any internal revenue districts within the constitutional states, and therefore that the I.R.S. can’t enforce there. 26 U.S.C. 7601 says they CAN’T AND that the ONLY place they can enforce is where the ONLY remaining internal revenue district is, which is the District of Columbia.
9. You can be a “resident” or have a “residence” in a place you have never physically been, in the District of Columbia, without committing FRAUD in filing a resident tax return such as a 1040?
10. You can owe a tax on PRIVATE property, or that the earnings even from a franchise are anything OTHER than private property which you have the right to EXCLUDE the government from benefitting from or using.
11. A corrupt corporation that refuses to recognize the requirement for consent in taxation or consent to BECOME a customer or a “taxpayer” is a REAL government. Thomas Jefferson said it is NOT and that it is UNJUST in the Declaration of Independence.
12. The Subtitles A and C income tax are either direct or indirect. They are NEITHER. It is not a CONSTITUTIONAL or UNCONSTITUTIONAL tax, but an EXTRACONSTITUTIONAL tax that applies only WITHIN the government to government payments of those lawfully engaged in public offices. It applies ONLY because of consent and is enforced as essentially an unconscionable or adhesion contract prerequisite of federal employment as a way to undermine and violate the constitution and destroy the separation of powers between PUBLIC and PRIVATE.
13. A government can simply PRESUME you consented to unconstitutional taxation simply by receiving a federal payment, and yet can avoid the same kind of liability to me under my anti-franchise franchise when I attach strings to what I pay them. That’s an abuse of sovereign immunity, completely destroys your equality, and makes you a slave.
This discussion so far is only inconsistent because you don’t want to answer the core issues presented above and won’t even acknowledge an attempted answer to your initial post. We showed you repeatedly above what you had to prove and you don’t want to meet the above burden of proof so you take the default approach of PRESUMING that Caesar can tax the WHOLE WORLD and steal from people who not only don’t want his “protection” or services, but who regard ALL OF HIS TAX ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES as international terrorism that produces a waiver of sovereign immunity and makes him a private actor and not a government under 28 U.S.C. 1605A. God owns the whole earth, and yet you want to recognize, subsidize and protect Caesar renting it back to EVERYONE and using that rent to enslave the whole damn world.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1605AHere’s are some movies on how that system of state sponsored terrorism works:
1. Pirates and Emperors
http://sedm.org/LibertyU/PiratesAndEmperors.wmv2. Tales of an Economic Hitman. The corporations mentioned in this video are FEDERAL corporations and therefore a subset of the government mafia.
http://sedm.org/LibertyU/How_the_world_works.wmvThat makes you a sponsor for international terrorism and an invasion of the states pursuant to Article 4 section 4 if you subsidize Caesar under such circumstances. As Pete Hendrickson correctly points out, subsidizing such international terrorism and the criminal counterfeiting behind it with tax dollars is a crime.
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Humor/April15th.htm
As you well know, there are ONLY two types of governments: government by consent and TERRORIST government. Any government that would force EVERYONE to be a customer and STEAL from people who don’t even live or maintain a domicile within its territorial borders (nonresident aliens) and don’t want to pay it “protection money” is nothing but a terrorist just like Osama Bin Laden. Those who subsidize such a government themselves are also complicit and also terrorists. And then to describe such support as a patriotic duty and a fulfillment of a Constitutional oath is the ultimate hypocrisy.
You’ve been drinking federal Kool Aid on the plantation so long now that you don’t see the Orwellian doublethink or contradiction in all the above problems. We say that if you want to drink that kind of pagan government Kool Aide, then you ought to pay ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING to the BEAST that you earn in tax, so you don’t invite yet more THEFTS from the people who don’t want to pay “protection money” to the BEAST that is the modern Orwellian pagan idol that people like you worship, salute, and take an oath to protect. Paganism in our book. Larken Rose also agrees, and he isn’t even a Christian!:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5FNDRgPOLsNo man can serve two masters and the Ten Commandments forbid such idolatry. The phrase “serve other Gods” found in the Ten Commandments, in fact, ESPECIALLY includes those serving as “public officer franchisees” and worshipping what the book of Revelations calls THE BEAST.
http://famguardian.org/Publications/SocialSecurity/TOC.htm
Christians cannot have such a king or “supernatural power” above them without being sinners:
Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah, and said to him, “Look, you are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now make us a king to judge us like all the nations [and be OVER them]”.
But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” So Samuel prayed to the Lord. And the Lord said to Samuel, “Heed the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have rejected Me [God], that I should not reign over them. According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt, even to this day—with which they have forsaken Me and served other gods [Kings, in this case]—so they are doing to you also [government becoming idolatry]. Now therefore, heed their voice. However, you shall solemnly forewarn them, and show them the behavior of the king who will reign over them.“
So Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who asked him for a king. And he said, “This will be the behavior of the king who will reign over you: He will take [STEAL] your sons and appoint them for his own chariots and to be his horsemen, and some will run before his chariots. He will appoint captains over his thousands and captains over his fifties, will set some to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and some to make his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take [STEAL] your daughters to be perfumers, cooks, and bakers. And he will take [STEAL] the best of your fields, your vineyards, and your olive groves, and give them to his servants. He will take [STEAL] a tenth of your grain and your vintage, and give it to his officers and servants. And he will take [STEAL] your male servants, your female servants, your finest young men, and your donkeys, and put them to his work [as SLAVES]. He will take [STEAL] a tenth of your sheep. And you will be his servants. And you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, and the LORD will not hear you in that day.”
Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, “No, but we will have a king over us, 20 that we also may be like all the nations, and that our king may judge us and go out before us and fight our battles.”
[1 Sam. 8:4-20, Bible, NKJV]
And then when you can’t satisfy your agenda of justifying the plunder that is being deposited in your checking account and have to work to justify it by dealing with the above HUGE contradictions, you promptly abandon all discussion, all the while leaving the REAL victims who have to subsidize it to fend for themselves and with no defense from the plunder that pays the very perks you are trying to protect. That appears to be the only reason you came here to request our services, and as soon as we told you that we wouldn’t help you because its commercial and a taxpayer issue, you quickly abandoned the forums with a “good day”. That’s not an honorable way to do battle for someone who took an oath NOT to protect YOUR SHARE of the plunder, but to protect people who don’t want ANYTHING from the government but simply want to be left alone. That’s what the Bill of Rights is all about: the right to be simply left alone and NOT be a customer of the protection racket. These are the REAL people you swore an oath to when you swore to protect and defend the Constitution as a public officer in the military:
“The makers 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 v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210 (1990)]
Are you going to protect these widows, nontaxpayers, fatherless, and needy people and honor your oath, or do you want to suborn it? God is the main protector of these same people. Are you going to honor God by protecting them, or only protect your pay check by abandoning this thread in defending your position. He who abandons the battlefield first loses:
“Woe to those who decree unrighteous decrees [judges and lawyers], who write misfortune, which they have prescribed to rob the needy of justice, and to take what is right from the poor [and NONTAXPAYERS] of My people. That widows may be their prey, and that they may rob the fatherless. What will you do in the day of punishment, and in the desolation which will come from afar? To whom will you flee for help? And where will you leave your glory? Without Me they shall bow down among the prisoners, and they shall fall among the slain. For all this His anger is not turned away, but His hand is stretched out still.”
[Isaiah 10:1-4. All the judges in Tax Court and Federal District Court who handle income tax cases against taxpayers who don’t really owe tax will end up in desolation among prisoners and will fall among the slain eventually]
The justice that God is talking about above is simply the right to be LEFT ALONE by the government and to govern and support yourself WITHOUT any external interference. In other words, RESPONSIBLE, INDEPENDENT living. It costs the government NOTHING to simply LEAVE ME ALONE and get the hell out of dodge: and why should I pay them a bribe to simply LEAVE my life?
“Where do wars and fights come from among you? Do they not come from your desires for pleasure [unearned money from the government] that war in your members [and your democratic governments]?You lust [after other people’s money] and do not have. You murder [the unborn to increase your standard of living] and covet [the unearned] and cannot obtain [except by empowering your government to STEAL for you!]. You fight and war [against the rich and the nontaxpayers to subsidize your idleness]. Yet you do not have because you do not ask [the Lord, but instead ask the deceitful government].You ask and do not receive, because you ask amiss, that you may spend it on your pleasures.Adulterers and adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship with the world [or the governments of the world] is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world [or the governments of the world as a statutory “citizen”, “resident”, or “taxpayer” ] makes himself an enemy of God.”
[James 4:4 , Bible, NKJV]
Here you are trying to rearrange deck chairs on the sinking Titanic in these forums to get the best view. All the while the very perks and federal privilege that are the only thing you want to defend are going to instantly vaporize while the pagan, money worshipping beast rapidly self destructs over the next few months in an orgy of spending, debt, and theft. That’s truly insane, my friend. Yet you say we’re the crazy and conflicted one? 😆 😆
This battle isn’t about you or defending your perks. If you think it is, then it’s a work of the flesh and God will curse it. It’s about defending people who don’t CONSENT to participate, none of whom can lawfully be called or treated like statutory “taxpayers” without committing a CRIME. All just government authority derives from consent, as Jefferson said. The only difference between a theft and a donation in the context of taxation is CONSENT.
Thank you kindly for helping clear our head on this important subject and give us much better tools to explain what we strongly felt but didn’t understand and couldn’t explain fully until now. We agree with stija that we understand this subject better than ever now! Thank you for helping us thoroughly understand exactly what is going on and confirming it with your silence. This has been a great and very educational discussion that will certainly make its way into many different publications later on. The pile of incriminating facts that have to be rebutted by complicit government people like you will now grow even further. You add a lot of value to these forums and this is just another example of it.
“Do not correct a scoffer, lest he hate you; Rebuke a wise man, and he will love you.”
[Proverbs 9:8, Bible, NKJV]
Checkmate.
“Good day”, as you would say.
-
Stija,
Welcome back. You are correct and we did correct our post to clarify our position on Brushaber being a taxpayer AND we agree with your position. Nice going:
6.1 Yes, Brushaber was a taxpayer, as we already pointed out, but ONLY if the activity subject to tax physically occurred on federal territory, which is the ONLY place federal civil law can be enforced, or if he was a FEDERAL corporation officer with an effective domicile on federal territory under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b ). The fact that he owned stock in the corporation and was therefore a contractor doesn’t necessarily make him such officer of a federal corporation. Enforcing I.R.C. Subtitles A and C extraterritorially within a state of the Union has already been called “extortion”, based on the geographic definitions in the I.R.C.
Quote
“The power of taxation, indispensable to the existence of every civilized government, is exercised upon the assumption of an equivalent rendered to the taxpayer in the protection of his person and property, in adding to the value of such property, or in the creation and maintenance of public conveniences in which he shares — such, for instance, as roads, bridges, sidewalks, pavements, and schools for the education of his children. If the taxing power be in no position to render these services, or otherwise to benefit the person or property taxed, and such property be wholly within the taxing power of another state, to which it may be said to owe an allegiance, and to which it looks for protection, the taxation of such property within the domicil of the owner partakes rather of the nature of an extortion than a tax, and has been repeatedly held by this Court to be beyond the power of the legislature, and a taking of property without due process of law. Railroad Company v. Jackson, 7 Wall. 262 ; State Tax on Foreign-Held Bonds, 15 Wall. 300; Tappan v. Merchants’ National Bank, 19 Wall. 490, 499 ; Delaware &c. R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 198 U.S. 341, 358 . In Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 226, it was held, after full consideration, that the taking of private property [199 U.S. 203] without compensation was a denial of due process within the Fourteenth Amendment. See also Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U.S. 97, 102; Missouri Pacific Railway v. Nebraska, 164 U.S. 403, 417; Mt. Hope Cemetery v. Boston, 158 Mass. 509, 519.“
[Union Refrigerator Transit Company v. Kentucky, 199 U.S. 194 (1905)]
No topless mud fight necessary.
Furthermore, we are ALL equal as Obama said in his inauguration speech. If the government can make you a public officer or corporate officer by simply paying you STOLEN or COUNTERFEITED money, then I can do the same thing and enforce MY franchise fees the same way. A “tax”, after all, is nothing but a service fee and I’ve got just as much a right to collect for MY “services” as they do. It’s a PRIVILEGE and not a RIGHT to make demands on my money, time and labor, and the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that I have a right to charge WHATEVER I want for my services to ANYONE, including a corrupted thieving government. The following video PROVES this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3ggFibd5hk
In fact, my franchise fees are at least TWICE what they want me to pay. The legal definition of justice, which is the right to be left alone, means that they either have to leave me alone and NOT steal from me, OR pay what I offered them commercially as a contract in exchange for my services. That approach, in fact, is what SEDM calls an “anti-franchise franchise” and it is a very effective way to SHUT them up about their so-called COMMUNIST PRIVILEGE rights. The only way they can attack that approach is to defeat their very SAME ability to collect tax from you. Turn their sword on them. That is what Bing would call the “Sun Tzu” approach. See:
Sovereignty Franchise and Agreement, 06.027
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/06-AvoidingFranch/SovereigntyFranchise.pdf
Every time an SEDM party communicates with the government, they use the U.C.C. and international law and the foreign sovereign immunities act to reverse the roles and turn the GOVERNMENT into the franchisee and the PAYMENT into a LOAN that obligates them to the franchise. I love it. See:
Path to Freedom, Form #09.015, Section 4.5
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/09-Procs/PathToFreedom.pdf
I don’t care WHAT they think they can do. Whatever they can do I can do under the concept of equal protection and equal treatment. I never consented to become unequal or to surrender my sovereignty or equality, so I can do anything and everything that they can do. It doesn’t matter how bad things get, because I always win by turning their own sword against them and forcing them to twist it inside their own belly.
😛 😛
-
Neo,
Thanks for the feedback. If nothing else you are keeping minds and eyes and ears open on the subject. Some responses:
1. You state that your position agrees with IRS and SCOTUS. ANYONE who says that EVERYONE who receives government payments is a “Taxpayer” REGARDLESS OF THE LOCATION AND DOMICILE is NOT going to get agreement from the corrupt thieves in the government, but that doesn’t make their position consistent with choice of law rules or lawful. The U.S. is the ONLY major country that taxes its citizens EVERYWHERE, regardless of either their domicile or nationality, and EVERYONE hates this and regards it as CRIMINAL extortion. This kind of situation sounds eerily similar to the occasion of Jesus birth, in which Caesar took a WORLDWIDE census to tax and enslave EVERYONE in the world. We believe that the occasion of Jesus’ birth, in fact, was God’s remedy for that very problem. I can see why you would defend this view because you want “insurance” that makes the whole world your servant in protecting your federal plunder goodies as a public officer. But what about everyone ELSE who doesn’t consent to be the a government “customer” called a “citizen”? Do you only care about yourself?
2. The only thing we’re trying to “posit” is an answer to your initial question. We’re not trying to defend or protect anything else, including SEDM materials we aren’t responsible for. That answer has been provided and you refuse to even address it or disprove it or to thank us for trying to answer it. Eye? Plank?
3. You state that SS is a subset of “trade or business”. This CANNOT lawfully be the case if the alleged “government” really is a “government” as pointed out in Loan Association v. Topeka. Its PRIVATE business activity of a private de facto corporation, not a “government” function and therefore a “trade or business”. Robbing Peter to bribe Paul can NEVER become a legitimate government function, and therefore its FRAUD to call it a “trade or business” or public office. And people like Paul and yourself can always be counted on to support and defend the robbery, on voting to protect and expand the robbery with their vote, and with their posts in these forums.
4. The income tax CANNOT relate to state domiciled parties because choice of law rules do not allow it. As we said many times before, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b ) permits legislatively FOREIGN law from the district of criminals to be cited ONLY against OFFICERS OF A CORPORATION. Nowhere in the statutes are those accepting federal payments expressly made into such CORPORATE OFFICERS of U.S. Inc. Brushaber may have been a federal contractor, but that DOES NOT necessarily make him the Officer of a Corporation mentioned in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b ) and its your job to prove it did if you believe otherwise. That’s a huge jurisdiction problem that does not match with your curve fitting as we pointed out earlier.
5. You say “All public officers are taxpayers, but not all taxpayers are public officers”. This can’t be true because without CORPORATE agency, there is no way to extend federal civil law or even statutory statuses such as “taxpayer” to an otherwise legislatively foreign state such as a state of the Union through Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b ). If they can’t REACH ALL People receiving government payments legislatively, then they can’t enforce and the obligation can’t therefore lawfully exist for ALL political citizens, as you allege.
6. In answer to your closing questions:
6.1 Yes, Brushaber was a taxpayer, as we already pointed out, but ONLY if the activity subject to tax physically occurred on federal territory, which is the ONLY place federal civil law can be enforced, or if he was a FEDERAL corporation officer with an effective domicile on federal territory under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b ). The fact that he owned stock in the corporation and was therefore a contractor doesn’t necessarily make him such officer of a federal corporation. Enforcing I.R.C. Subtitles A and C extraterritorially within a state of the Union has already been called “extortion”, based on the geographic definitions in the I.R.C.
“The power of taxation, indispensable to the existence of every civilized government, is exercised upon the assumption of an equivalent rendered to the taxpayer in the protection of his person and property, in adding to the value of such property, or in the creation and maintenance of public conveniences in which he shares — such, for instance, as roads, bridges, sidewalks, pavements, and schools for the education of his children. If the taxing power be in no position to render these services, or otherwise to benefit the person or property taxed, and such property be wholly within the taxing power of another state, to which it may be said to owe an allegiance, and to which it looks for protection, the taxation of such property within the domicil of the owner partakes rather of the nature of an extortion than a tax, and has been repeatedly held by this Court to be beyond the power of the legislature, and a taking of property without due process of law. Railroad Company v. Jackson, 7 Wall. 262 ; State Tax on Foreign-Held Bonds, 15 Wall. 300; Tappan v. Merchants’ National Bank, 19 Wall. 490, 499 ; Delaware &c. R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 198 U.S. 341, 358 . In Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 226, it was held, after full consideration, that the taking of private property [199 U.S. 203] without compensation was a denial of due process within the Fourteenth Amendment. See also Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U.S. 97, 102; Missouri Pacific Railway v. Nebraska, 164 U.S. 403, 417; Mt. Hope Cemetery v. Boston, 158 Mass. 509, 519.“
[Union Refrigerator Transit Company v. Kentucky, 199 U.S. 194 (1905)]
6.2 We accept the 7701(c ) definition of “includes”, BUT even with the interpretation you present, NONRESIDENT parties STILL may not be “included” within the meaning or the STATUS that uses the word “includes”. All GOVERNMENTAL civil law is prima facie territorial. The minute it reaches OUTSIDE the territory of the government or the “subject matter jurisdiction” to extraterritorial parties is the minute it CEASES to be governmental in nature and becomes PRIVATE business activity that in effect “invades the states” in violation of Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution. In effect, it becomes an act of international commercial terrorism.
6.3 Whatever meaning or “status” you want to associate with the “code” is irrelevant OUTSIDE the geographical “United States”, and therefore to the constitutional states of the Union.
6.4 Either the bill of rights are UNALIENABLE to people in the constitutional states or they are not. Congress cannot be charged with PROTECTING rights on the one hand, and then turn around and make a profitable FRANCHISE business out of alienating and undermining those SAME rights or essentially PRESUMING (theft by presumption) that EVERYONE has no such rights because they are recipients of “benefits”. As the Government Franchises, Form #05.030 says, it is a breach of fiduciary duty to offer or enforce FEDERAL franchises within a CONSTITUTIONAL state. Government cannot serve two masters: God and Mammon. The minute it does is the minute it CEASES to be a government and becomes a private, for profit federal corporation thousands of times worse than the Enron fraud.
6.5 The License Tax cases even to this day have NEVER been overruled, and they STILL state that Congress cannot LICENSE a federal franchise within a constitutional state. Hence, the ONLY people they can offer such franchises to are DOMICILED on federal territory and outside of constitutional states. Even to this day, the geographical definitions in the I.R.C. reflect this critical fact.
“Thus, Congress having power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes, may, without doubt, provide for granting coasting licenses, licenses to pilots, licenses to trade with the Indians, and any other licenses necessary or proper for the exercise of that great and extensive power; and the same observation is applicable to every other power of Congress, to the exercise of which the granting of licenses may be incident. All such licenses confer authority, and give rights to the licensee.
But very different considerations apply to the internal commerce or domestic trade of the States. Over this commerce and trade Congress has no power of regulation nor any direct control. This power belongs exclusively to the States. No interference by Congress with the business of citizens transacted within a State is warranted by the Constitution, except such as is strictly incidental to the exercise of powers clearly granted to the legislature. The power to authorize a business within a State is plainly repugnant to the exclusive power of the State over the same subject. It is true that the power of Congress to tax is a very extensive power. It is given in the Constitution, with only one exception and only two qualifications. Congress cannot tax exports, and it must impose direct taxes by the rule of apportionment, and indirect taxes by the rule of uniformity. Thus limited, and thus only, it reaches every subject, and may be exercised at discretion. But, it reaches only existing subjects. Congress cannot authorize [e.g. LICENSE, using a Social Security Number (SSN) or Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN)] a trade or business [per 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(26)] within a State in order to tax it.”
[License Tax Cases, 72 U.S. 462, 18 L.Ed. 497, 5 Wall. 462, 2 A.F.T.R. 2224 (1866) ]For the purpose of the above, “license” is equivalent to using SSNs and TINs. They are what we call “de facto licenses” to represent a corporate office in the national government. It is by the COMPELLED and criminal use of such licenses and the fraudulent information returns associated with them that most Americans ILLEGALLY become taxpayers, even though they are otherwise OUTSIDE the civil jurisdiction of Congress.
6.6. You STILL have the problem in defending your “curve fitting theory” of explaining how someone can earn U.S. sourced reportable INCOME that is NOT connected to a “trade or business”, which by the way describes ALL the earnings of the vast majority of Americans.
6.7 You are making the same mistake that Larken Rose, Pete Hendrickson, and Irwin Schiff all made, which is again a problem of hyper-focusing on STATUTORY language and of confusing contexts. The conclusions you reach can and do ONLY apply to government public officers lawfully serving where EXPRESSLY authorized in 4 U.S.C. 72 AND people domiciled on federal territory. They don’t apply to state domiciled PRIVATE parties, UNLESS they file fraudulent RESIDENT tax returns and are therefore made to APPEAR as though they are RESIDENT parties. This is a criminal FRAUD. You can’t be a “resident” under the common law WITHOUT a physical presence in the place. This means you HAVE to be physically present on territory within the exclusively jurisdiction to file RESIDENT tax forms. If you are NOT, then a “resident” is nothing more than a federal contractor and there IS no government, but a PRIVATE corporation and DE FACTO government that operates entirely by private contract. In effect, U.S. Inc. becomes a HUGE “Wal Mart” for all practical purposes, and it is engaging in criminal racketeering and using sovereign immunity to protect that racketeering..
7. The following U.S. Supreme Court ruling describes and justifies our position on the Brushaber decision, and it applies equally well to people in states of the Union. They even say its NOT a “tax”. The case derives from Nonresident Alien Position, Form #05.020, Section 3.2:
The tax which is sustained is, in my judgment, a tax upon the income of non-resident aliens and nothing else. The 122d section of the act of June 30, 1864, c. 173, as amended by that of July 13, 1866, c. 184, subjects the interest on the bonds of the company to a tax of five per cent, *331 and authorizes the company to deduct it from the amount payable to the coupon-holder, whether he be a non-resident alien or a citizen of the United States. The company is thus made the agent of the government [PUBLIC OFFICER!] for the collection of the tax. It pays nothing itself; the tax is exacted from the creditor, the party who holds the coupons for interest. No collocation of words can change this fact. And so it was expressly adjudged with reference to a similar tax in the case of United States v. Railroad Company, reported in the 17th of Wallace. There a tax, under the same statute, was claimed upon the interest of bonds held by the city of Baltimore. And it was decided that the tax was upon the bondholder and not upon the corporation which had issued the bonds; that the corporation was only a convenient means of collecting it; and that no pecuniary burden was cast upon the corporation. This was the precise question upon which the decision of that case turned.
A paragraph from the opinion of the court will show this beyond controversy. “It is not taxation,” said the court, “that government should take from one the profits and gains of another. That is taxation which compels one to pay for the support of the government from his own gains and of his own property. In the cases we are considering, the corporation parts not with a farthing of its own property. Whatever sum it pays to the government is the property of another. Whether the tax is five per cent on the dividend or interest, or whether it be fifty per cent, the corporation is neither richer nor poorer. Whatever it thus pays to the government, it by law withholds from the creditor. If no tax exists, it pays seven per cent, or whatever be its rate of interest, to its creditor in one unbroken sum. If there be a tax, it pays exactly the same sum to its creditor, less five per cent thereof, and this five per cent it pays to the government. The receivers may be two, or the receiver may be one, but the payer pays the same amount in either event. It is no pecuniary burden upon the corporation, and no taxation of the corporation. The burden falls on the creditor. He is the party taxed. In the case before us, this question controls its decision. If the tax were upon the railroad, there is no defence; it must be paid. But we hold that the tax imposed by the 122d section is in substance and in law a tax upon the *332 income of the creditor or stockholder, and not a tax upon the corporation.” See also Haight v. Railroad Company, 6 Wall. 15, and Railroad Company v. Jackson, 7 id. 262, 269.
The bonds, upon the interest of which the tax in this case was laid, are held in Europe, principally in England; they were negotiated there; the principal and interest are payable there; they are held by aliens there, and the interest on them has always been paid there. The money which paid the interest was, until paid, the property of the company; when it became the property of the bondholders it was outside of the jurisdiction of the United States.
Where is the authority for this tax? It was said by counsel on the argument of the case — somewhat facetiously, I thought at the time — that Congress might impose a tax upon property anywhere in the world, and this court could not question the validity of the law, though the collection of the tax might be impossible, unless, perchance, the owner of the property should at some time visit this country or have means in it which could be reached. This court will, of course, never, in terms, announce or accept any such doctrine as this. And yet it is not perceived wherein the substantial difference lies between that doctrine and the one which asserts a power to tax, in any case, aliens who are beyond the limits of the country. The debts of the company, owing for interest, are not property of the company, although counsel contended they were, and would thus make the wealth of the country increase by the augmentation of the debts of its corporations. Debts being obligations of the debtors are the property of the creditors, so far as they have any commercial value, and it is a misuse of terms to call them anything else; they accompany the creditors wherever the latter go; their situs is with the latter. I have supposed heretofore that this was common learning, requiring no argument for its support, being, in fact, a self-evident truth, a recognition of which followed its statement. Nor is this the less so because the interest may be called in the statute a part of the gains and profits of the company. Words cannot change the fact, though they may mislead and bewilder. The thing remains through all disguises of terms. If the company makes no gains or profits on its business and borrows the money to *333 meet its interest, though it be in the markets abroad, it is still required under the statute to withhold from it the amount of the taxes. If it pays the interest, though it be with funds which were never in the United States, it must deduct the taxes. The government thus lays a tax, through the instrumentality of the company [PUBLIC OFFICE/WITHHOLDING AGENT], upon the income of a non-resident alien over whom it cannot justly exercise any control, nor upon whom it can justly lay any burden.
The Chief Justice, in his opinion in this case, when affirming the judgment of the District Court, happily condensed the whole matter into a few words. “The tax,” he says, “for which the suit was brought, was the tax upon the owner of the bond, and not upon the defendant. It was not a tax in the nature of a tax in rem upon the bond itself, but upon the income of the owner of the bond, derived from that particular piece of property. The foreign owner of these bonds was not in any respect subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, neither was this portion of his income. His debtor was, and so was the money of his debtor; but the money of his debtor did not become a part of his income until it was paid to him, and in this case the payment was outside of the United States, in accordance with the obligations of the contract which he held. The power of the United States to tax is limited to persons, property, and business within their jurisdiction, as much as that of a State is limited to the same subjects within its jurisdiction. State Tax on Foreign-Held Bonds, 15 Wall. 300.”
“A personal tax,” says the Supreme Court of New Jersey, “is the burden imposed by government on its own citizens for the benefits which that government affords by its protection and its laws, and any government which should attempt to impose such a tax on citizens of other States would justly incur the rebuke of the intelligent sentiment of the civilized world.” State v. Ross, 23 N.J.L. 517, 521.
In imposing a tax, says Mr. Chief Justice Marshall, the legislature acts upon its constituents. “All subjects,” he adds, “over which the power of a State extends are objects of taxation, but those over which it does not extend are, upon the soundest principles, exempt from taxation. This proposition *334 may almost be pronounced self-evident.” McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 428.
There are limitations upon the powers of all governments, without any express designation of them in their organic law; limitations which inhere in their very nature and structure, and this is one of them, — that no rightful authority can be exercised by them over alien subjects, or citizens resident abroad or over their property there situated. This doctrine may be said to be axiomatic, and courts in England have felt it so obligatory upon them, that where general terms, used in acts of Parliament, seem to contravene it, they have narrowed the construction to avoid that conclusion. In a memorable case decided by Lord Stowell, which involved the legality of the seizure and condemnation of a French vessel engaged in the slave trade, which was, in terms, within an act of Parliament, that distinguished judge said: “That neither this British act of Parliament nor any commission founded on it can affect any right or interest of foreigners unless they are founded upon principles and impose regulations that are consistent with the law of nations. That is the only law which Great Britain can apply to them, and the generality of any terms employed in an act of Parliament must be narrowed in construction by a religious adherence thereto.” The Le Louis, 2 Dod. 210, 239.
Similar language was used by Mr. Justice Bailey of the King’s Bench, where the question was whether the act of Parliament, which declared the slave trade and all dealings therewith unlawful, justified the seizure of a Spanish vessel, with a cargo of slaves on board, by the captain of an English naval vessel, and it was held that it did not. The odiousness of the trade would have carried the justice to another conclusion if the public law would have permitted it, but he said, “That, although the language used by the legislature in the statute referred to is undoubtedly very strong, yet it can only apply to British subjects, and can only render the slave trade unlawful if carried on by them; it cannot apply in any way to a foreigner. It is true that if this were a trade contrary to the law of nations a foreigner could not maintain this action. But it is not; and as a Spaniard could not be considered as bound by the acts of the British legislature prohibiting this trade, it would be unjust to deprive *335 him of a remedy for the heavy damage he has sustained.” Madrazo v. Willes, 3 Barn. & Ald. 353.
In The Apollon, a libel was filed against the collector of the District of St. Mary’s for damages occasioned by the seizure of the ship and cargo whilst lying in a river within the territory of the King of Spain, and Mr. Justice Story said, speaking for the court, that “The laws of no nation can justly extend beyond its own jurisdiction, except so far as regards its own citizens. They can have no force to control the sovereignty or rights of any other nation within its own jurisdiction. And however general and comprehensive the phraseology used in our municipal laws may be, they must always be restricted in construction to places and persons upon whom the legislatures have authority and jurisdiction.” 9 Wheat. 362.
When the United States became a separate and independent nation, they became, as said by Chancellor Kent, “subject to that system of rules which reason, morality, and custom had established among the enlightened nations of Europe as their public law,” and by the light of that law must their dealings with persons of a foreign jurisdiction be considered; and according to that law there could be no debatable question, that the jurisdiction of the United States over persons and property ends where the foreign jurisdiction begins.
What urgent reasons press upon us to hold that this doctrine of public law may be set aside, and that the United States, in disregard of it, may lawfully treat as subject to their taxing power the income of non-resident aliens, derived from the interest received abroad on bonds of corporations of this country negotiable and payable there? If, in the form of taxes, the United States may authorize the withholding of a portion of such interest, the amount will be a matter in their discretion; they may authorize the whole to be withheld. And if they can do this, why may not the States do the same thing with reference to the bonds issued by corporations created under their laws. They will not be slow to act upon the example set. If such a tax may be levied by the United States in the rightful exercise of their taxing power, why may not a similar tax be levied upon the interest on bonds of the same corporations by the States within their respective jurisdictions in the rightful *336 exercise of their taxing power? What is sound law for one sovereignty ought to be sound law for another.
It is said, in answer to these views, that the governments of Europe — or at least some of them, where a tax is laid on incomes — deduct from the interest on their public debts the tax due on the amount as income, whether payable to a non-resident alien or a subject of the country. This is true in some instances, and it has been suggested in justification of it that the interest, being payable at their treasuries, is under their control, the money designated for it being within their jurisdiction when set apart for the debtor, who must in person or by agent enter the country to receive it. That presents a case different from the one before us in this, — that here the interest is payable abroad, and the money never becomes the property of the debtor until actually paid to him there. So, whether we speak of the obligation of the company to the holder of the coupons, or the money paid in its fulfilment, it is held abroad, not being, in either case, within the jurisdiction of the United States. And with reference to the taxation of the interest on public debts, Mr. Phillimore, in his Treatise on International Laws, says: “It may be quite right that a person having an income accruing from money lent to a foreign State should be taxed by his own country on his income derived from this source; and if his own country impose an income tax, it is, of course, a convenience to all parties that the government which is to receive the tax should deduct it from the debt which, in this instance, that government owes to the payer of the tax, and thus avoid a double process; but a foreigner, not resident in the State, is not liable to be taxed by the State; and it seems unjust to a foreign creditor to make use of the machinery which, on the ground of convenience, is applied in the cases of domestic creditors, in order to subject him to a tax to which he is not on principle liable.” Vol. ii. pp. 14, 15.
Here, also, is a further difference: the tax here is laid upon the interest due on private contracts. As observed by counsel, no other government has ever undertaken to tax the income of subjects of another nation accruing to them at their own domicile upon property held there, and arising out of ordinary business, or contracts between individuals.
*337 This case is decided upon the authority of Railroad Company v. Collector, reported in 100 U.S., and the doctrines from which I dissent necessarily flow from that decision. When that decision was announced I was apprehensive that the conclusions would follow which I now see to be inevitable. It matters not what the interest may be called, whether classed among gains and profits, or covered up by other forms of expression, the fact remains, the tax is laid upon it, and that is a tax which comes from the party entitled to the interest, — here, a non-resident alien in England, who is not, and never has been, subject to the jurisdiction of this country.
In that case the tax is called an excise on the business of the class of corporations mentioned, and is held to be laid, not on the bondholder who receives the interest, but upon the earnings of the corporations which pay it. How can a tax on the interest to be paid be called a tax on the earnings of the corporation if it earns nothing — if it borrows the money to pay the interest? How can it be said not to be a tax upon the income of the bondholder when out of his interest the tax is deducted?
That case was not treated as one, the disposition of which was considered important, as settling a rule of action. The opening language of the opinion is: “As the sum involved in this suit is small, and the law under which the tax in question was collected has long since been repealed, the case is of little consequence as regards any principle involved in it as a rule of future action.” But now it is invoked in a case of great magnitude, and many other similar cases, as we are informed, are likely soon to be before us; and though it overrules repeated and solemn adjudications rendered after full argument and mature deliberation, though it is opposed to one of the most important and salutary principles of public law, it is to be received as conclusive, and no further word from the court, either in explanation or justification of it, is to be heard. I cannot believe that a principle so important as the one announced here, and so injurious in its tendencies, so well calculated to elicit unfavorable comment from the enlightened sentiment of the civilized world, will be allowed to pass unchallenged, though the court is silent upon it.
I think the judgment should be affirmed.
[United States v. Erie R. Co., 106 U.S. 327 (1882)]8. Lastly, we bring up your financial interest in the matter only to emphasize that your testimony on the subject would be inadmissible as evidence in a real court, and not as a way to slander you. We take the same approach to the testimony of IRS witnesses for the same reasons. The main purpose is to ensure that the reader takes your assertions with a grain of salt and to not take everything you say as gospel. The “bribe” spoken of below are the “benefits” you are receiving above and beyond what the average American receives. It is the BRIBE we hate, not you:
“And you shall take no bribe, for a bribe blinds the discerning and perverts the words of the righteous.”
[Exodus 23:8, Bible, NKJV]
“He who is greedy for gain troubles his own house,
But he who hates bribes will live.”
[Prov. 15:27, Bible, NKJV]
“Surely oppression destroys a wise man’s reason.And a bribe debases the heart.”
[Ecclesiastes 7:7, Bible, NKJV]We Christians are commanded to HATE the sin but LOVE the sinner. Please don’t misunderstand our motives on this subject.
Do not also mistake those having strong or inflexible moral beliefs with being arrogant. The two are not synonymous.
“Lord, who may abide in Your tabernacle? Who may dwell in Your holy hill?
He who walks uprightly, and works righteousness, and speaks the truth in his heart;
He who does not backbite with his tongue, nor does evil to his neighbor, nor does he take up a reproach against his friend;
In whose eyes a vile person is despised, but he honors those who fear the Lord; He who swears to his own hurt and does not change;
He who does not put out his money at usury, nor does he take a bribe against the innocent.
He who does these things shall never be moved.”
[Psalm 15:1-5, Bible, NKJV] -
Stija,
I suppose the retirement earnings of a public officer could be considered what the IRS calls “deferred compensation” that is still related to the initial office, and thus they might on that basis be considered “trade or business” earnings. But that is a presumption and we haven’t seen sufficient proof of the subject to convince us.
____________________________
Neo,
1. Nothing has been debunked. You haven’t harmonized anything relevant to this post with case law yet with only one case from the U.S. Supreme Court and lower cases that we identified as irrelevant based on the IRS itself. By your failure to disagree and produce evidence on this subject, you have agreed per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(b )(6). Where is the beef? Here is the case law beef you as the moving party must produce that we have already repeatedly pointed out:
1.1 Case law and/or statutes demonstrating that a former public officer who is retired is still considered to be a public officer for the purposes of deferred compensation.
1.2 Case law and/or statutes disproving what we showed earlier from Am.Jur, whereby earnings from franchises are considered PRIVATE and therefore NOT connected to an office.
1.3 Case law proving that an officer of a federal corporation is ALSO a public officer as legally defined. We have been looking for evidence on this subject for years and can’t find it.
Agency policy or government publications that the courts say are NOT legal evidence should not be cited on the above issues. We don’t care about POLICY, but LAW AND FACTS, because these forums are a mock court.
2. As we said, we agree that Brushaber was a “taxpayer” in the instance ONLY of the earnings from the federal corporation Union Pacific Railroad, but only if he was ALSO a the “officer of a corporation” designated in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b ) and the definition of “Person” found in 26 U.S.C. 6671(b ) and 7343 or if the activity subject to tax physically happened on federal territory. He was also a government officer because as we pointed out, from New Orleans Gas Co. v. Louisiana Light Co., 115 U.S. 650 (1885), he was a federal contractor and therefore officer as a share holder in the corporation. Whether he was ALSO a “public officer” or “officer of a corporation” (a federal corporation) as such officer is still open to debate. The legal definition of “public officer” says to us that he wasn’t a public officer.
“Public office. The right, authority, and duty created and conferred by law, by which for a given period, either fixed by law or enduring at the pleasure of the creating power, an individual is invested with some portion of the sovereign functions of government for the benefit of the public. Walker v. Rich, 79 Cal.App. 139, 249 P. 56, 58. An agency for the state, the duties of which involve in their performance the exercise of some portion of the sovereign power, either great or small. Yaselli v. Goff, C.C.A., 12 F.2d. 396, 403, 56 A.L.R. 1239; Lacey v. State, 13 Ala.App. 212, 68 So. 706, 710; Curtin v. State, 61 Cal.App. 377, 214 P. 1030, 1035; Shelmadine v. City of Elkhart, 75 Ind.App. 493, 129 N.E. 878. State ex rel. Colorado River Commission v. Frohmiller, 46 Ariz. 413, 52 P.2d. 483, 486. Where, by virtue of law, a person is clothed, not as an incidental or transient authority, but for such time as de- notes duration and continuance, with Independent power to control the property of the public, or with public functions to be exercised in the supposed interest of the people, the service to be compensated by a stated yearly salary, and the occupant having a designation or title, the position so created is a public office. State v. Brennan, 49 Ohio.St. 33, 29 N.E. 593.
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, p. 1235]
3. The fact that Brushaber was a federal officer within the Union Pacific Railroad as a stock holder doesn’t necessarily make him EITHER a “public officer” or “officer of a corporation” for ALL purposes, or for his job in the private-sector Wall Street firm of Thomas, Davies, & Co. The maxim of law which applies to this situation is the following:
Quando duo juro concurrunt in und personâ, aequum est ac si essent in diversis.
When two rights [public right v. private right] concur in one person, it is the same as if they were two separate persons. 4 Co. 118.
[Bouvier’s Maxims of Law, 1856;
SOURCE: ]http://famguardian.org/Publications/BouvierMaximsOfLaw/BouviersMaxims.htm]
Two legal “persons” are involved in the case of Brushaber: The nontaxpayer (private human being) for his compensation with the wall street firm and the taxpayer (public office) for the purposes of the federal corporation stock. Each, if he approached it rightly, would have to file SEPARATE returns. We have talked about this before in your particular a case. This dual identity was also talked about in:
How the Government Defrauds You Out of Legitimate Deductions for the Market Value of Your Labor, Form #05.026
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/DefraudLabor.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
Personally, I am inclined to say that the PRIVATE Brushaber doesn’t have to file ANYTHING, because the U.S. Supreme Court held that the ability to regulate PRIVATE conduct is “repugnant to the constitution”. The very definition of PRIVATE PROPERTY confirms that it is that which we have an EXCLUSIVE USE and control over, and the ability to deprive ALL OTHERS of the use or benefit of. Hence, they can’t attach tax obligations to such property and it is an oxymoron and “doublethink” to believe otherwise. To refuse to acknowledge this or to argue otherwise leads to the inevitable conclusion that there IS no “government”, because governments are CREATED to protect mainly private property.
4. We agree with you that the ONLY thing taxed by the I.R.C. is government payments, or what we both call “U.S. sourced” payments. Apparently, SEDM also agrees with you on that subject in the Nonresident Alien Position Pamphlet, Form #05.020, Sections 7 and 17. Even Downes v. Bidwell agreed with both of us on this point when it said: “It was held that the grant of this power was a general one without limitation as to place, and consequently extended to all places over which the government extends; and that it extended to the District of Columbia as a constituent part of the United States.[Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)]”. The main issues of debate are:
4.1 How you can earn reportable income as a person NOT engaged in a public office. We proved that it was impossible and you haven’t produced any proof to disprove it. Where’s the beef. Your assertion that ALL U.S. source payments are taxable has already been debunked because its impossible to earn reportable income even from within the U.S. GOVERNMENT if the party is NOT engaged in a the public office/trade or business franchise. Please prove this point instead of slandering people and falsely accusing them that their “theories” have been debunked. You still haven’t identified exactly WHAT has been debunked, and the issues addressed here are the reason why.
4.2 How a retired person not actively serving as a public officer with a desk and regular monthly check can LATER ALSO be regarded as a statutory “employee” and therefore “public officer” per 5 U.S.C. 2105(a) when their commission expires. It appears as though such a person is treated as a public officer AS A MATTER OF POLICY AND NOT LAW, based on the policies of DFAS in re the payment of retirement checks, but we haven’t seen a STATUTE and a REGULATION that PROVES that such a person is in fact STILL treated as “public officer”. YOU and ONLY YOU have the burden of proving that with evidence.
4.3 Whether stockholders of federal corporations are in fact “public officers” as legally defined or “officers of a corporation”.
4.4 How Congress can reach extraterritorially WITHOUT the “taxpayer” being an officer of a federal corporation pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b ). There IS no provision of the rules that allow them to do that, even IF they are receiving “U.S. sourced” payments. Current choice of law rules do NOT permit it, and therefore, we disagree that EVERYONE who receives government payments HAS to be a taxpayer. Civil jurisdiction must exist BEFORE they can have ANY civil status under federal law, and you haven’t proven that it exists. This is made abundantly clear in:
Federal Jurisdiction, Form #05.018DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/FederalJurisdiction.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
5. Apparently after rereading TD 2313 at the link below, you are correct that Brushaber was THE nonresident alien AND the statutory “taxpayer” and we were incorrect. But that doesn’t change the central issues mentioned in this post nor does it invalidate our overall position on the above issues. You still have the burden of proving these issues and until you do, your assertions are suspect and presumed incorrect. This error also doesn’t affect our answer to your initial question of “which is it?” or the answers to any of the central questions raised in this post.
6. We continue to say that all statutory “taxpayers” are public officers. We might be perceived as contradicting ourself only on the issue of how Brushaber could be a “taxpayer” as a federal officer stockholder without ALSO being a public officer. This is so because:
6.1 We asserted that all taxpayers are public officers. We still hold to that position and have already proven it. An entire BOOK has been written on that subject that you haven’t rebutted and therefore agree with. See Form #05.008.
6.2 The Brushaber court said he owed a tax and therefore treated him at least as a federal officer because he was a stock holder in a federal corporation, which was “domestic” for the purposes of the federal zone. The current I.R.C. and federal rules operate like the court behaved in that case. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b ), he can be regarded as an “officer of a corporation” and the law of that corporation can be applied to him by the court as a rule for “choice of law”. It’s legal so even today he would AT LEAST be subject to the laws of the Union Pacific federal corporation as an agent of said corporation because he was a stockholder.
7. As we see it, the real issues in reference to the contradiction in the previous step are:
7.1 Whether officers of federal corporations are considered public officers as legally defined and therefore are engaged in the “trade or business” franchise.
7.2 How a person can earn reportable NON-“trade or business” earnings and thus taxable income. We don’t see how it is possible and the burden of proof rests on you that they do.
7.3 How that which is NOT positive law can be legal evidence of ANY obligation on the part of ANYONE. Consent is the only thing that can make such PROPAGANDA into legal evidence of an obligation and “law” for the party. You can’t become a taxpayer without your consent or there IS no government and we are all slaves.
Until you deal directly with the above issues, the only position debunked so far is yours. You said:
“I conclude that the DNAT is levied across the nation (United States in its political sense), upon all United States political citizens (“U.S. persons” and “nonresident aliens” alike) on government-sourced income. Resident aliens are just plain SOL, they’re taxed on all of it regardless.”
You STILL haven’t proven this with case law and you have the burden of proof as the moving party. The evidence we have produced at least puts this “curve fitting theory” into doubt.
8. The person being treated like a “dog” is us.
8.1 You start your debates with CONCLUSIONS and PRESUMPTIONS and IRRELEVANT INFORMATION instead of RELEVANT FACTS. The case law you cited are not FACTS or even RELEVANT to people who are “nontaxpayers” or who are domiciled OUTSIDE the federal zone. Hence, what you posted was mere PROPAGANDA that a true constitutional court cannot entertain because it is a “political question”.
8.2 You ignore previous research on the subject, which are the only RELEVANT FACTS to people who are “nontaxpayers” not domiciled on federal territory.
8.3 Then you attack us or other members as POLITICALLY wrong and let THEM do the work of producing evidence you are too lazy to find yourself. Satan does the same thing. He is a murderer and a slanderer. The nefarious IRS and DOJ also do the same thing: They trick tax protesters into making claims and being the moving party, and let them do the dirty work of hanging themselves as the moving party so the government doesn’t have to do any work or prove anying.
8.4 You have said our position has been debunked but refuse to deal with the above issue and thereby satisfy the burden or proving that our position on these issues, the ONLY important issues, are incorrect. The fact that Brushaber was the NRA doesn’t change or invalidate our position on these issues and is therefore a red herring to divert attention away from the core issues. We don’t have to defend anything because you are the moving party asserting and PRESUMING something on the above subjects that you refuse your burden of proof to prove. That’s a violation of due process of law. And that violation of due process of law protects a gravy train that you have a financial interest in as a federal goody recipient. Never trust a person with a financial conflict of interest such as yourself. Always insist on proof. Its a CRIME to have such a financial interest pursuant to 18 USC 208.
8.5 Then you say, that because we may have erred in irrelevant issues such as “direct unapportioned tax” that we have “lost ALL credibility”, as if to dramatize things so you can motivate people to do your dirty work. “ALL” is a pretty harsh and presumptuous word.
8.6 You come here to misuse our services and time in defending and protecting unequal commercial privileges and perks of federal public office and yet you hypocritically demand EQUAL treatment in every OTHER area, such as forum editability. You can’t have it both ways.
8.7 Then you rob us of any reward for trying to help you by refusing to even recognize our answer to your lead post, much less critique it. Would that be because we are correct and you can’t stand admitting it? Its obvious you are more interested in being right than converging on the truth here.
9. You STILL haven’t addressed whether our answer to the question posed in your lead post is in fact correct, disregarding all the “administrivia” that you keep raising to avoid answering that question. Is it, or is it NOT accurate? Or is it above you to admit that we can do ANYTHING right or even helpful?
10. Lastly, the forum software on this site has a setting to determine how long after an initial post a member has to edit and change the post. You CAN’T turn this timer off. By default, that timer is set to 30 minutes and it HAS to be set to SOMETHING. There is no timer for Admin and no setting therefore to equalize the time period. The main purpose for this setting is to prevent users from deleting their posts or hackers from deleting content on the site after they break into older accounts. That is the reason we set the timer to default value of 30 minutes for all members. We sometimes edit posts further back than 30 minutes but never go back further than one day, and we only do it to correct typos and the kind of omissions that distract attention away with trivial issues such as the irrelevant “direct unapportioned tax” that you tried to use to discredit us. We won’t as a matter of policy allow anyone to go back more than an hour to edit older posts, because that will compromise the security of the content on this site. The playing field can NEVER be equal for security reasons to protect the content of this site from hacking. There is no sinister motive here, but of course you have to make a big deal about irrelevant issues rather than deal directly with the issues above. Hackers are attacking this site all day every day. All you have to do is examine the logs and the bottom of the forums page to see all the bogus spam bot registrations in these forums that clutter the database.
We don’t care about being “right” or somehow “better” than anyone else. All we want is the truth verified with supporting evidence so that no one has to be victimized by injurious and self serving presumptions. We won’t do that work of producing supporting evidence for you because you are a statutory “taxpayer” and we don’t help “taxpayers” BECAUSE they have the conflict of interest we point out that perpetuates and protects the fraudulent tax system to begin with. That is why we also forbid “taxpayers” from using our materials or services to support their “nefarious” purposes. This may seem “unrealistic” or possibly “purist”, but it also allows us to be completely objective about the issues we advance. No man can serve God and Mammon, so we are picking God. All you do by trying to involve us in a purely commercial dispute is discredit us and make us look like mammon worshippers in the same money cult as the federal reserve.
Pride comes before destruction, and haughtiness before a fall. Just ask Pete Hendrickson or Irwin Schiff about that, who are either ex cons or currently in jail because of their big egos that caused them to censor or ignore the truth. An accurate understanding of this subject is your “stay out of jail” card, and both of us want to stay out of jail and simply be LEFT ALONE. The right to be simply LEFT ALONE is the very definition of “justice”, in fact. We simply don’t care about the controversy you present because we don’t help “taxpayers” such as yourself. Therefore, we have no skin in this game and no position to “protect”, as you said. That may not be true of our PERSONAL circumstances, but it is definitely true of our OFFICIAL circumstances as officers of this ministry. You have attempted to entice us to violate our policy of not helping “taxpayers” such as yourself by falsely accusing and slandering us, just like Satan did to Jesus. It isn’t working, my friend, and here is why the Bible says we CAN’T let it work: 🙂
Avoid Bad Company
“My son, if sinners [socialists, in this case] entice you,
Do not consent
If they say, “Come with us,
Let us lie in wait to shed blood;
Let us lurk secretly for the innocent [the NONRESIDENTS and NONTAXPAYERS] without cause [or CONSENT];
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 [the socialist GOVERNMENT purse]”–
My son, do not walk in the way with them,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;
It takes away the life of its owners.”
[Proverbs 1:10-19, Bible, NKJV]
Nevertheless, the issues and controversies you raise are certainly important to the small audience of “taxpayer” people and REAL public officers such as yourself who we DO NOT help. We are also just as interested in the facts on this subject as you are personally. So please post your research on this subject in this thread for the benefit of those who may have similar circumstances. Thanks in advance for any contributions you make on this important subject. You have added greatly to the research on this site and we appreciate your passionate contributions so far.
-
RE 1. The dividends being paid by the corporation to Brushber were reduced by the amount of income tax it paid. Brushaber sought to enjoin the railroad from paying the tax so he would get MORE dividends, not pay less tax.
Re 2: Irrelevant. The case wasn’t about Brushabers personal tax liability. TD 2313 appears below.
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/CourtCases/BrushaberVUnionPacRR240US1.htmBut the NRA mentioned was NOT Brushaber and we don’t know who it was. However, we agree with TD 1313 that Brushaber was a “taxpayer” for the reason that those who are stockholders of federal corporations (such as the Union Pacific Railroad) are in fact CONTRACTORS with the corporation and therefore AGENTS of the national government, which is the REAL party in interest in all federal corporations:
The court held that the first company’s charter was a contract between it and the state, within the protection of the constitution of the United States, and that the charter to the last company was therefore null and void., Mr. Justice DAVIS, delivering the opinion of the court, said that, if anything was settled by an unbroken chain of decisions in the federal courts, it was that an act of incorporation was a contract between the state and the stockholders, ‘a departure from which now would involve dangers to society that cannot be foreseen, whould shock the sense of justice of the country, unhinge its business interests, and weaken, if not destroy, that respect which has always been felt for the judicial department of the government.’
[New Orleans Gas Co. v. Louisiana Light Co., 115 U.S. 650 (1885)]
Brushaber was the stockholder and therefore the “contractor”. The above “CONTRACT” is the “partnership” referenced in the definition of “person” found in 26 USC 6671(b ) and is the source of liability for tax mentioned in TD 2313. This leads the discussion right back to what we said initially, which is that the AGENCY and OFFICE is the only proper subject of the tax or enforcement of the tax. This is exactly what the Supreme Court said in Osborn which we quoted earlier.
“All the powers of the government [including ALL of its civil enforcement powers against the public] must be carried into operation by individual agency, either through the medium of public officers, or contracts made with [Content protected for members only] individuals.”
[Osborn v. Bank of U.S., 22 U.S. 738 (1824)]
Re 3: Yes we were incorrect and even admitted it, but it doesn’t make your position about Brushaber correct and is irrelevant to the conclusions. We meant “direct”, “indirect”, rather than “direct unapportioned tax”. As we pointed out earlier:
Thank you for pointing out that error of ours and we are happy to own up to it. It doesn’t affect the main argument here, however.
RE 4: Private sector people receiving social security checks are doing so ILLEGALLY. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the government CANNOT use its taxing power to redistribute wealth among PRIVATE people or the “Private sector” as you call it.
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 forms.
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. Coulter, J., 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.”
Loan Association v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 655 (1874)The ONLY way around this problem is for the recipients to BE WITHIN the government as public officers so that the payment of the “benefit” is an INTRA-governmental distribution. The fallacy you operate under is that BECAUSE it is widely done or accepted, then it has to be LEGAL and LAWFUL. Well it isn’t. The Government is a THIEF and its illegal. You don’t want to address or acknowledge this because you want freebies from uncle as a public officer and will never undermine your eligibility for the freebies by admitting the truth. THAT is why we don’t allow “taxpayers” to use our materials: Because they always skew the facts as you appear to want to do to justify your goody check from uncle. That goody check is derived from STOLEN LOOT as the US Supreme Court said above.
We are not incorrect because you haven’t demonstrated with evidence how a person can have “reportable income” WITHOUT being engaged in a “trade or business” It is only reportable income upon which the IRS can or does do assessments. Even SS is reported as “trade or business” earnings on the 1099, and is subject to tax as “gross income” under 26 USC 861(a )(8). The act of reporting it under 26 USC 6041(a) is what connects it to a public office, in fact. It is “U.S. sourced” because it is paid by the government or “U.S.” as a legal person. And it is paid to an OFFICE and not a private human being, in custody of public property and therefore a “Public officer” as legally defined. Those not possessing or using an SSN or TIN, on the other hand, would NOT be a “public officer” and instead would be PRIVATE.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/861Even the earnings from sources within the U.S. NOT connected with the “trade or business” franchise and appearing on the 1040NR in fact ARE connected with a “trade or business” as pointed out in 26 USC 863(c )(3) and the Nonresident Alien Position, Form #05.020, Sections 7 and 17.
Social Security is taxable because the recipients are federal officers. That is why the SSN is legally classified as the property of the SSA and not the “number holder” pursuant to 20 CFR 422.103(d). A “Public officer”, after all, is legally defined as anyone in charge of public property, and the NUMBER, card, and “benefits” constitute such property. Without said number, they cease to be “individuals” under the I.R.C. and 26 CFR 1.1441-1(c )(3). That is why when an NRA applies for a number, he is issued an INDIVIDUAL Taxpayer Identification Number: Because THAT is how he became and “individual”, and he is ONLY such “individual” when he voluntarily uses said number.
Re 5: The only place we are talking about here is the District of Columbia and not other territories. We already established that THAT area is still protected by the constitution and therefore, the main argument is unaffected. When we said “does not apply to territories”, we meant “BY DEFAULT”, not in ALL cases as you and the Supreme Court both point out. That is what we meant, but we didn’t express it carefully enough and its irrelevant to the final conclusions anyway. But of course you’d rather find a way to be right than to deal with the MAIN issues at hand.
We DO NOT agree that a retired nonresident alien receiving earnings from the USG as you would be is engaged in a “trade or business”. The earnings are by the PRIVATE person, not the office. This is covered in:
1. Path to Freedom, Form #09.015, Section 8.1
http://sedm.org/Forms/09-Procs/PathToFreedom.pdf2. Non-Resident Non-Person Position, Form #05.020, Section 17
http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/NonresidentNonPersonPosition.pdf3. Foundations of Freedom, Video 3: Status, Rights, and Privileges
What makes it taxable is the POLICY decision to report it by the payor, which is the USG, and NOT what the law actually says. It is this desire to report anything and everything, usually ILLEGALLY, that is what sustains the FRAUDULENT system, as pointed out in:
Correcting Erroneous Information Returns, Form #04.001DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/04-Tax/CorrErrInfoRtns/CorrErrInfoRtns.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
If all the fraudulent reporting were prosecuted and stopped, the U.S. government BEAST would instantly go bankrupt and disappear. No guns or violence necessary. Starve the BEAST and it has to die. That is one of many focuses of this website:
http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Instructions/0.1HowKillBeast.htmIf you want to prove us wrong on this point, produce legally admissible evidence proving that a retiree not actively serving in a public office is still regarded as serving in a public office at his home and in his private affairs. No such evidence exists and if the government had to prove that to a jury, they would be laughed out of the courtroom.
Even Am.Jur acknowledges that the EARNINGS from a franchise are PRIVATE property which is therefore NOT connected to a public office, when it said:
“As a rule, franchises spring from contracts between the sovereign power and private citizens, made upon valuable considerations, for purposes of individual advantage as well as public benefit, 1 and thus a franchise partakes of a double nature and character. So far as it affects or concerns the public, it is publici juris and is subject to governmental control. The legislature may prescribe the manner of granting it, to whom it may be granted, the conditions and terms upon which it may be held, and the duty of the grantee to the public in exercising it, and may also provide for its forfeiture upon the failure of the grantee to perform that duty. But when granted, it becomes the property of the grantee, and is a private right, subject only to the governmental control growing out of its other nature as publici juris. 2”
[Am.Jur.2d, Franchises, §4: Generally]
1 Georgia R. & Power Co. v. Atlanta, 154 Ga. 731, 115 S.E. 263; Lippencott v. Allander, 27 Iowa 460; State ex rel. Hutton v. Baton Rouge, 217 La. 857, 47 So.2d. 665; Tower v. Tower & S. Street R. Co. 68 Minn 500, 71 N.W. 691.
2 Georgia R. & Power Co. v. Atlanta, 154 Ga. 731, 115 S.E. 263; Lippencott v. Allander, 27 Iowa 460; State ex rel. Hutton v. Baton Rouge, 217 La. 857, 47 So.2d. 665; Tower v. Tower & S. Street R. Co. 68 Minn 500, 71 N.W. 691.
Conclusion:The only reason we attacked was because you hadn’t :
1. Located and addressed the info on the subject you posed the question on. We identified what that was and it was never addressed.
2. Posted a rebuttal to that in your lead post and related it to your conclusions.
Instead, you ignored all previous work on the subject and all “contextual” research already on this site and forced us to keep addressing things that are already covered on the site and shouldn’t need to be covered again. The content of the site is already overwhelming to most people, and DOUBLING the content by addressing the same issues twice only adds to that problem and needlessly adds to our workload and that of the people who have to read these forums. People complain about the volume of materials on the site and all we are trying to do is respond to and remedy their concerns. That’s all. We aren’t asking you to do anything that we don’t also do. We spend thousands of hours ensuring that all of our work is consistent with itself and with the law, and in referencing prior work in new work in order to avoid duplication. SEDM handles that subject as follows:
1. If your question requires legal research, you should do your best to find the answer yourself FIRST before asking the question, and:
1.1 Post your question along with your proposed answer and all the evidence supporting it.
1.2 Thoroughly explain and justify your proposed answer to your own question and invite others to critique and improve it.
The reason for the above is to prevent people who are too lazy to do their own research from abusing and STEALING the time and resources of others. Sovereignty BEGINS with taking complete, personal, and exclusive responsibility for yourself to the fullest extent that you are able, and to help others only after they have demonstrated an EQUAL commitment to the subject matter but are at an earlier stage of development in their committed self-progress.
[Guide to Asking Questions, Form #09.017, Section 4;
http://sedm.org/Membership/GuideToAskingQuestions.htm]We apply the same approach to due diligence here that Sedm does, even though we are not sedm.
Thanks for your participation. As stija correctly pointed out, please stick to the main question you posed, which was answered with “NEITHER”, and provide PROOF in rebuttal demonstrating HOW a person can earn “REPORTABLE INCOME” WITHOUT being engaged in a public office and therefore the “trade or business” franchise. Everything else is just irrelevant. We object to you calling us “wrong” without providing EVIDENCE as we have proving we are incorrect. Accusations not supported by facts are SLANDER, not debate. We welcome debate based ONLY on facts and law, but not slander designed to essentially extort unearned research and help.
-
Neo,
1. Read the frigging case, dude. You definitely didn’t do your home work, as we said and as the cite below PROVES:
“As a stockholder of the Union Pacific Railroad Company the appellant filed his bill to enjoin the corporation from complying with the Income Tax provisions of the Tariff Act of October 3, 1913, (§ II, ch. 16, 38 Stat. 166). Because of constitutional questions duly arising the case is here on direct appeal from a decree sustaining a motion to dismiss because no ground for relief was stated.”
[Brushaber, 240 U.S. 1; ]http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5893140094506516673&q=240+U.S.+1&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5]
This case had NOTHING to do with Brushaber’s PERSONAL tax liability. Show us evidence proving that Brushaber paid that tax. Why would he pay a tax that wasn’t even the subject of the ruling?
2. You are confusing Treasury Directive 2313 with the content of the case.
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/CourtCases/BrushaberVUnionPacRR240US1.htm
They are NOT the same. The position you advance was Treasury Order 2313, not what is found in the case. Yes, that order came out after and as a RESULT of Brushaber, but it was not directly pertinent to the facts of BRUSHABER himself and in fact referred to the CORPORATION and not the litigant Brushaber.
3. The phrase “direct” and “indirect” are found ONLY in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 and nowhere else. The term “direct unapportioned tax” is not found in the constitution. It was corrected in the lead post as a typo. Thank you for pointing out that error of ours and we are happy to own up to it. It doesn’t affect the main argument here, however.
4. Yes, you MUST be in a public office to have a tax liability BECAUSE:
4.1 You can’t earn “income” without an information return connecting the earnings to a public office.
4.2 Sources within the United States not connected with a public office and appearing in 26 USC 871(a ) are ALSO connected with a public office as proven in:
Non-Resident Non-Person Position, Form #05.020, Sections 7 and 17
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/NonresidentNonPersonPosition.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
4.3 The only information return that comes close to “income” not connected with a trade or business is 1042-S, and they avoid the problem by causing the filer to call it “gross income”, and thus “trade or business” income. Furthermore, 26 USC 6041(a) STILL identifies EVEN THAT as “trade or business” earnings. Thus, it is a legal impossibility to earn “reportable income” WITHOUT being engaged in the public officer/trade or business franchise.
4.4 The statutory definition of “income” confirms the above:
TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter J > PART I > Subpart A > § 643
§ 643. Definitions applicable to subparts A, B, C, and D
(b ) Income
For purposes of this subpart and subparts B, C, and D, the term “income”, when not preceded by the words “taxable”, “distributable net”, “undistributed net”, or “gross”, means the amount of income of the estate or trust for the taxable year determined under the terms of the governing instrument and applicable local law. Items of gross income constituting extraordinary dividends or taxable stock dividends which the fiduciary, acting in good faith, determines to be allocable to corpus under the terms of the governing instrument and applicable local law shall not be considered income.THAT “trust or estate” is in fact the PUBLIC trust and corporation established by the constitution and NOT a PRIVATE trust or state in a state of the Union.
5. The U.S. Supreme Court itself from the very case you cite said that the constitution doesn’t apply on federal territory. Would you be willing to bet a federal prison sentence that the U.S. Supreme Court is WRONG?
“Indeed, the practical interpretation put by Congress upon the Constitution has been long continued and uniform to the effect [182 U.S. 244, 279] that the Constitution is applicable to territories acquired by purchase or conquest, only when and so far as Congress shall so direct. Notwithstanding its duty to ‘guarantee to every state in this Union a republican form of government’ (art. 4, 4), by which we understand, according to the definition of Webster, ‘a government in which the supreme power resides in the whole body of the people, and is exercised by representatives elected by them,’ Congress did not hesitate, in the original organization of the territories of Louisiana, Florida, the Northwest Territory, and its subdivisions of Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, and Wisconsin and still more recently in the case of Alaska, to establish a form of government bearing a much greater analogy to a British Crown colony than a republican state of America, and to vest the legislative power either in a governor and council, or a governor and judges, to be appointed by the President. It was not until they had attained a certain population that power was given them to organize a legislature by vote of the people. In all these cases, as well as in territories subsequently organized west of the Mississippi, Congress thought it necessary either to extend to Constitution and laws of the United States over them, or to declare that the inhabitants should be entitled to enjoy the right of trial by jury, of bail, and of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, as well as other privileges of the bill of rights.”
[Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)]
The only real controversy is whether the District of Columbia fits within the above or is classified as a “territory”, and we believe that it is NOT, and, as pointed out, that it is PROTECTED by the constitution. Hence, the “District of Columbia” mentioned in 26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) is NOT the geographical District of Columbia, but the private corporation established by Congress when the district was incorporated.
“There could be no doubt as to the correctness of this conclusion, so far, at least, as it applied to the District of Columbia. This District had been a part of the states of Maryland and [182 U.S. 244, 261] Virginia. It had been subject to the Constitution, and was a part of the United States[***]. The Constitution had attached to it irrevocably. There are steps which can never be taken backward. The tie that bound the states of Maryland and Virginia to the Constitution could not be dissolved, without at least the consent of the Federal and state governments to a formal separation. The mere cession of the District of Columbia to the Federal government relinquished the authority of the states, but it did not take it out of the United States or from under the aegis of the Constitution. Neither party had ever consented to that construction of the cession. If, before the District was set off, Congress had passed an unconstitutional act affecting its inhabitants, it would have been void. If done after the District was created, it would have been equally void; in other words, Congress could not do indirectly, by carving out the District, what it could not do directly. The District still remained a part of the United States, protected by the Constitution. Indeed, it would have been a fanciful construction to hold that territory which had been once a part of the United States ceased to be such by being ceded directly to the Federal government.”
[Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)]
6. The USSC in the very case you cite even described the type of tax actually levied by the I.R.C. Subtitles A and C AS a tax upon THE GOVERNMENT and not private activities when it held the following.
“Loughborough v. Blake, 5 Wheat. 317, 5 L.Ed. 98, was an action of trespass or, as appears by the original record, replevin, brought in the circuit court for the District of Columbia to try the right of Congress to impose a direct tax for general purposes on that District. 3 Stat. at L. 216, chap. 60. It was insisted that Congress could act in a double capacity: in one as legislating [182 U.S. 244, 260] for the states; in the other as a local legislature for the District of Columbia. In the latter character, it was admitted that the power of levying direct taxes might be exercised, but for District purposes only, as a state legislature might tax for state purposes; but that it could not legislate for the District under art. 1, 8, giving to Congress the power ‘to lay and collect taxes, imposts, and excises,’ which ‘shall be uniform throughout the United States,’ inasmuch as the District was no part of the United States [described in the Constitution]. It was held that the grant of this power was a general one without limitation as to place, and consequently extended to all places over which the government extends; and that it extended to the District of Columbia as a constituent part of the United States.
[Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)]
Based on the above, they agree that it is a “direct unapportioned tax” about not a NATIONAL or a FEDERAL tax, and that it was only for DISTRICT purposes. In that sense, they agree with our conclusion that it is direct WITHIN the district, but not direct OUTSIDE the district. In other words, it was an “EXTRACONSTITUTIONAL TAX” just as we alleged.
it was admitted that the power of levying direct taxes might be exercised, but for District purposes only, as a state legislature might tax for state purposes; but that it could not legislate for the District under art. 1, 8, giving to Congress the power ‘to lay and collect taxes, imposts, and excises,’ which ‘shall be uniform throughout the United States,’ inasmuch as the District was no part of the United States [described in the Constitution].
Note also the phrases:
6.1. “WHEREVER THE GOVERNMENT EXTENDS” and contrast with “WHEREVER THE TERRITORY EXTENDS”.
6.2. “WITHOUT LIMITATION AS TO PLACE”, which can only mean contract and debt, because neither are limited as to place:
Debt and contract [franchise agreement, in this case] are of no particular place.
Locus contractus regit actum.
The place of the contract [franchise agreement, in this case] governs the act.
[Bouvier’s Maxims of Law, 1856;
SOURCE: ]http://famguardian.org/Publications/BouvierMaximsOfLaw/BouviersMaxims.htm]
It is the key phrase “without regard to place” that is why we say that: 1. “District of Columbia” means a corporation and NOT a geographic place; 2. The tax is an excise/franchise contract tax that operates independent of place.
You’re excused from not comprehending or noticing the above nuances, because you are busy working to feed lots of mouths as a great husband and father while paying HIGH rent on the public office you occupy, leaving little left for academic research such as this.
I hope YOU didn’t bet a prison sentence by using your arguments in a court, because they are incorrect and you will definitely end up in jail. Did you forget to take your Geritol?
Lastly, don’t take any of this personally. It’s just a friendly academic debate. The only motivation for injecting any aspect of pride into it is to encourage a lively debate and involve as many people as possible to ensure an accurate, fully informed, and just result.
-
Neo,
We had the same confusion early in our study of the same subject so we understand your confusion completely. Before the subject can be understood accurately and clearly, you have to correct your facts and then apply those facts properly to the extensive materials and research already done on the subject from this website:
1. Yes, Brushaber was a statutory “nonresident alien” but he was NOT the statutory “taxpayer” or “person” in the case you mention. He was suing a railroad that began as a federal corporation in a federal territory to STOP THE CORPORATION from paying income taxes that were reducing HIS dividends from the stock of the railroad. The quote below from your lead post is WRONG on that subject, which means that you too where spreading what you called “propaganda”:
If a federal domicile was required, then Brushaber would not have been liable for the new DNAT — but he was, despite his “nonresident alien” tax status. And again, since he was liable, then the nature of the tax would have had to change for him from a DNAT to an excise tax, as he was domiciled in New York, and not the geographical United States so-defined in the tax code.
2. The term “direct” and “indirect” appear ONLY in the constitution and deal therefore with people domiciled in constitutional states of the Union. It is irrelevant to what happens on federal territory. Yet, the constitution doesn’t apply on federal territory. Ultimately, the income tax that was imposed was an excise tax upon offices of the United States government called a “trade or business”, which the same supreme court held earlier could NOT be licensed or authorized within the exclusive jurisdiction of a constitutional state. That is why 4 U.S.C. 72 says what it says. Hence, the term is irrelevant and is only used as a red herring to divert attention away from the tax as an excise tax upon offices within the national government, all of which THEMSELVES are the real “taxpayer” because domiciled on federal territory, regardless of where exercised:
“Congress cannot authorize a trade or business within a State in order to tax it.”
[License Tax Cases, 72 U.S. 462, 18 L.Ed. 497, 5 Wall. 462, 2 A.F.T.R. 2224 (1866)]
3. All of the cases cited by the IRS in the quote you give are federal district franchise courts that are property courts managing federal property, pursuant to article 4, section 3, clause 2. Even the IRS refuses to give them any credibility or make them binding upon either itself or you. Hence, they are just propaganda that is irrelevant to the discussion. Ditto for U.S. Tax Court. Anyone who cites federal case law against a party NOT domiciled on federal territory is abusing case law for political and propaganda purposes, as clearly shown by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17( b ). See:
Reasonable Belief About Income Tax Liability, Form #05.007, Section 6
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/ReasonableBelief.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
The district and circuit court cases are therefore what the following sedm.org video calls “legal propaganda” because the courts themselves are engaging in it, and thus they are violating the separation of powers by acting in what amounts to a “political capacity”:
4. Context is EVERYTHING, as you well know by now. Once again, you are confusing contexts. “DNAT” is the CONSTITUTIONAL context, which you are then trying to apply to the STATUTORY context. In that sense, you are engaging in what Orwell called “doublethink”. In the above video, your misconception is a product of what is called “fallacy by equivocation”. The two contexts are mutually exclusive and non overlapping, at least in the context of I.R.C. Subtitles A and C. That point is also made in the above video. Yes, 26 U.S.C. Subtitles D and E IMPLEMENT the constitutional context, but Subtitles A and C DO NOT. The issue is one of jurisdiction. Congress was never granted “subject matter jurisdiction” within states of the Union to collect an income tax and the geographical definitions in the I.R.C. to this day accurately reflect that fact. Hence, it is limited to the federal zone by default, and even then is limited to offices within the government ONLY. Any attempt to approach the subject any other way would be a violation of the Separation of Powers Doctrine that is the FOUNDATION of the United States Constitution:
Government Conspiracy to Destroy the Separation of Powers, Form #05.023
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/SeparationOfPowers.pdf
5. One cannot receive a federal payment WITHOUT engaging in an office or some form of agency on the part of the government, in fact. Congress is forbidden from paying public monies to private people since it is an abuse of their taxing power to redistribute wealth. Congress can only tax or regulate its own creations, and government offices are its creation. Voluntary agency MUST be involved before they can impose duties upon otherwise PRIVATE human beings. Contracts and consent are the ONLY thing that can lawfully create that agency. Otherwise the Thirteenth Amendment has been transgressed, which is among the FEW constitutional provisions that ALSO applies on federal territory. This was alluded to as follows, and note that they can’t compel you to contract, and therefore can’t compel such agency:
“All the powers of the government [including ALL of its civil enforcement powers against the public] must be carried into operation by individual agency, either through the medium of public officers, or contracts made with [Content protected for members only] individuals.”
[Osborn v. Bank of U.S., 22 U.S. 738 (1824)]
The above court ruling is EXACTLY represented in the statutory definition of “person” under the I.R.C. found in 26 USC 6671(b ) , keeping in mind that the “partnership” they are referring to relates ONLY to the agreement between the otherwise PRIVATE person and the national government to OCCUPY said office IN THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT. In that sense, he or she becomes what we call “surety” for the public office, which is the REAL statutory taxpayer. The “employee” they mention is ALSO a public office pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §2105(a):
TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 68 > Subchapter B > PART I > § 6671
§ 6671. Rules for application of assessable penalties
(b ) Person defined
The term “person”, as used in this subchapter, includes an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs.
6. In answer to your initial question then, “which is it?” the answer is:
NEITHER, because it is NEITHER a CONSTITUTIONAL nor an UNCONSTITUTIONAL tax. It is an EXTRACONSTITUTIONAL tax imposed WITHIN the government and is IRRELEVANT to the PRIVATE, NON-GOVERNMENTAL people who are described in the United States Constitution. It is the equivalent of a “needful rule and regulation” of public offices within the government pursuant to Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2. You therefore posed what we call a “trick question”.
“The restrictions 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)]
You alluded to the above when you said:
“Two national governments exist; one to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and Independently of that Instrument.”
[Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)]
The constitution doesn’t apply EXCLUSIVELY WITHIN and BETWEEN officers of the government by consent and private contract. That is what “INTERNAL” means within the phrase “INTERNAL Revenue Service”. Even the IRS and the federal courts have agreed with this conclusion in federal court during the litigation against Hansen by REFUSING to produce evidence of the existence of ANY Internal Revenue District WITHIN a constitutional state of the Union. The ONLY remaining internal revenue District WITHIN which the IRS can lawfully enforce under 26 U.S.C. 7601 is the District of Columbia, and even THAT “District of Columbia” is a corporation and not a geographical place, as proven by:
Corporatization and Privatization of the Government, Form #05.024
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/CorpGovt.pdf
The constitution provides a remedy ONLY for NONCONSENSUAL conduct by the government. It doesn’t and can’t constrain what the government can do with CONSENTING parties, such as government agents and officers.
“Volunti non fit injuria.
He who consents cannot receive an injury. 2 Bouv. Inst. n. 2279, 2327; 4 T. R. 657; Shelf. on mar. & Div. 449.
Consensus tollit errorem.
Consent removes or obviates a mistake. Co. Litt. 126.
Melius est omnia mala pati quam malo concentire.
It is better to suffer every wrong or ill, than to consent to it. 3 Co. Inst. 23.
Nemo videtur fraudare eos qui sciunt, et consentiunt.
One cannot complain of having been deceived when he knew the fact and gave his consent. Dig. 50, 17, 145.”
[Bouvier’s Maxims of Law, 1856;
SOURCE: http://famguardian.org/Publications/BouvierMaximsOfLaw/BouviersMaxims.htm]
In effect, what the I.R.S. collects is what we call a “public officer kickback”. An entire excellent book has been written about that subject by Frank Kowalik which we have read and highly recommend:
IRS Humbug, Frank Kowalik
That book is summarized in:
Great IRS Hoax, Form #11.302, Section 5.6.10
http://famguardian.org/Publications/GreatIRSHoax/GreatIRSHoax.htm
7. The subject of your confusion is already settled and dealt with extensively in the following:
7.1. Rebutted Version of the IRS “The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments”, Form #08.005, Section D.6
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/friv_tax_rebuts.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
7.2. Rebutted Version of “Tax Resister Frequently Asked Questions”, Form #08.007, Section 2.1
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/FalseRhetoric/TRFAQ/TRFAQ.htm
7.3 Why Your Government is Either a Thief or You are a Public Officer for Income Tax Purposes, Form #05.008
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/WhyThiefOrPubOfficer.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
It is pointless to revisit the same subject, unless you can find something wrong with the above. Thanks for caring and contributing to these forums, but you didn’t do all your homework before you asked the question. We only say that because you didn’t address why the above three documents are incorrect in your initial post and instead began the debate with mere PROPAGANDA from foreign courts that isn’t evidence per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b ). When dealing with tax propaganda, you should START your study by reading and learning everything in the following:
SEDM Liberty University, Section 8
http://sedm.org/LibertyU/LibertyU.htm (OFFSITE LINK)
🙂
-
1. Facts established on the record remain for the remainder of the proceeding, not just the motion in question. This is especially true if the result of NOT responding is proven to protect or perpetuate a crime, in which case the responding party has the DUTY to respond if they are a government worker pursuant to 28 USC 3 and 4.
2. The local rules for the court in question govern how many motions, responses, and counter responses may be filed. Typically, the rules permit only a motion, response, and counter-response. The respondent typically doesn’t get a chance to respond to the counter-response.
3. Don’t know. Not a mind reader.
-
Closest doc is the following:
The Money Scam, Form #05.041
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/MoneyScam.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
It talks about lawful money.