[fg_admin]

The authority to collect the number of occupants in no way is challenged, because that is a constitutional authority. What IS questioned is:

1. Engaging in enforcement activity or penalty against those who choose not to participate. All administrative penalties without a court trial and without implementing regulations amount to unconstitutional Bills of Attainder.

2. Collecting any more information than the number of occupants, including ANY personal information that might be entered into any government or private information system, shared with any third party, sold, or used for law enforcement. This is a consequence of your right ot privacy guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment. If they really ARE a de jure government, they are instituted ONLY to protect and not undermine that right.

3. ASSUMING that the occupants of the dwelling are public officers of the government domiciled on federal territory that they can demand ANYTHING they want from without any constitutional restraints. The form forces them to expose that presumption if they are making it.

Otherwise, we agree with you.

[fg_admin]

Neo,

Now you are starting to get it and understand that CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING. We have been saying that since the beginning and we also pointed it out in the post to which you refer. A summary of context, in fact, is contained at:

http://sedm.org/Samp…Conventions.htm (OFFSITE LINK)

The above table is also prominently placed at the beginning of our book to emphasize its importance:

Great IRS Hoax

http://famguardian.o…reatIRSHoax.htm

Understanding the context requires legal expertise not possessed by the average American, and this is the heart of how the laws are being abused by priests (judges) and deacons (licensed attorneys) of the civil religion of socialism:

1. The legislative branch writes deliberately vague statutes in order to delegate undue discretion to judges.

2. Judges use the long rope handed to them by the legislative branch, word games, and judicial verbicide to hang and enslave the people they are supposed to be protecting.

It’s a vicious circle that breaks down the separation of powers and converts a society of law into a society of policy and men. It’s evil, and the mechanisms that perpetuate it are exhaustively documented in:

1. Government Conspiracy to Destroy the Separation of Powers, Form #05.023

DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…ionOfPowers.pdf

FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

2. De Facto Government Scam, Form #05.043

DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…/DeFactoGov.pdf

FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

The best way to find out about context relating to citizenship is to look at the original text of the laws of congress from the statutes at large. In this case, that would be the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1940, which you can read the text of at:

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis

Click on “Laws” at the top and then “Immigration and Nationality Act” on the left.

Also, we just posted 8 U.S.C.A 1401, which is the ANNOTATED version of “nationals and citizens at birth”, so you can discern EVERYTHING you could ever want to know about as far as context. It includes all the caselaw.

http://famguardian.o…01-20090918.pdf

As a result of your confusion, we went back and modified the following articles to add mention of 4 U.S.C. 110(d) as being “the states” and to replace “District of Columiba” with “United States**”, to emphasize that federal civil law and jurisdiction is limited to federal territory:

1. Why Domicile and Becoming a “taxpayer” Require Your Consent-Modified the table at the beginning and note 1 in Table 5-25:

http://famguardian.o…ForTaxation.htm

2. Why You are a “national”, “state national”, and Constitutional but not Statutory Citizen-modified note 1 in section 10.2.

http://famguardian.org/Publications/WhyANational/WhyANational.pdf

3. Great IRS Hoax-updated footnote 1 in sections 5.1.4.2, Table in 5.4.8.1, table in section 5.4.8.8

http://famguardian.o…reatIRSHoax.htm

4. Federal and State Tax Withholding Options for Private Employers-updated footnote 1 in table in section 4.2, table in section 15.1, and note 1 in the table in section 15.8.

http://famguardian.o…teWHOptions.pdf

5. Flawed Tax Arguments to Avoid-updated note 1 in section 6.1

http://famguardian.o…ArgsToAvoid.pdf

Otherwise, welcome back to planet earth, now that you quit slurping government kool-aide.

http://famguardian.o…kTheKoolaid.wmv

Also, in response to you pointing out your confusion about the methods by which language is abused, we added section 2.3 to the following document:

Meaning of the Words “includes” and “including”

http://familyguardia…c/Includess.pdf

[fg_admin]

Neo,

I wouldn’t dare ask them that question about whether it means a statutory “citizen and national of the United States” WITHOUT also asking the following questions. Otherwise, they will just use it as another opportunity to spread self-serving confusion and their jurisdiction:

1. Which if the three “United States” are meant in this specific context.
2. Upon what positive law evidence do you rely in making that conclusion. NO PRESUMPTIONS PLEASE!
3. If you are going to associate a statutory “citizen and national of the United States” status found in 8 U.S.C. 1401 with a human being domiciled within a state of the Union, where is the DIFFERENT status of those domiciled on federal territory not protected by the Constitution found within Title 8? I don’t want to be confused with anyone who has no constitutional rights such as a citizen of the District of Columbia, which by the way is included within the statutory “U.S. citizen” status found at 8 U.S.C. 1401. From the founding of this country, there has always been a separation of powers between federal exclusive jurisdiction and states of the Union.

Quote:

“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 1st section of the 14th article [Fourteenth Amendment], to which our attention is more specifically invited, opens with a definition of citizenship—not only citizenship of the United States[***], but citizenship of the states. No such definition was previously found in the Constitution, nor had any attempt been made to define it by act of Congress. It had been the occasion of much discussion in the courts, by the executive departments and in the public journals. It had been said by eminent judges that no man was a citizen of the United States[***] except as he was a citizen of one of the states composing the Union. Those therefore, who had been born and resided always in the District of Columbia or in the territories, though within the United States, were not citizens.”

 

[Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L.Ed. 394 (1873)]

 

Don’t EVER leave them ANY wiggle room at all to answer, without contradicting themselves if they give a vague or self-serving answer.

[fg_admin]

Bing,

Thanks for those candid and honest comments.

To everyone else:

Lest anyone think that Bing is making this stuff up, take a look at the attached conviction of Pete Hendrickson to which Bing refers. Pete personally confirmed to one of our forum participants [Sonik] that he was in fact the party identified in this conviction.

[fg_admin]

Lindsey Springer here and hoping this update finds you both well and encouraged.

Little background. On March 18, 2009 Judge Payne recused himself in 09-cr-043 (criminal indictment brought against me). The rules of the Court were to have random reassignment. That did not happen. For 13 days the Clerk of Court was my “judge”. On March 31, 2009, Chief Judge Eagan hand picked Judge Friot out of the Western Judicial District of Oklahoma.

I objected. Meanwhile, on June 28, 2009 U.S. Attorney resigned leaving no appointment or other person to “prosecute” me. Trial began on October 26, 2009. After 10 hours and some judicial intrusion of the Sixth Amendment a jury returned guilty verdict on the Court's jury instructions.

On November 27, 2009, I petitioned the 10^th Circuit Court of Appeals for a Writ of Mandamus dealing with the selection of Judge Friot, that judicial district and internal revenue districts do not coincide, and regarding the paperwork reduction act errors made by Judge Friot at trial.

On December 4, 2009, a three judge panel in 09-5165 issued an order concluding Judge Friot was “designated” but not “assigned” according to Title 28, Section 292(b) and the rest of my issues could wait for the appeal process. I disagreed. I have given the 10^th Circuit four different times to rule on the merits of the PRA and the closest I got was on August 31, 2009 where they said I raise difficult issues and the Commissioner's attorneys made frivolous arguments. That case currently is pending for conference in the Supreme Court on March 19, 2010 regarding whether a penalty is a penalty and what “notwithstanding any other provision of law” means.

On December 10, 2009, six days later, Chief Judge Henry from the 10^th Circuit resigned as a Judge and Chief Judge.

Meanwhile, on January 13, 2010 I filed a Petition for Mandamus with the Supreme Court of the United States. 09-8701. This involved six judges. I was ordered on January 26, 2010 to serve process on each of the six federal judges involved. I did that and they were given until late February to file any opposition. They each remained silent as one would expect most Americans would do under the circumstances. I remain shocked at how Americans claim the Fifth Amendment of silence and they are indicted while Judges remain silent without any ramifications.

Anyway, the Supreme Court set conference for March 5, 2010 in 09-8701. On March 8, 2010, they sent me an order requesting I submit my Petition for Writ of Mandamus under a rule written by attorneys and for attorneys. There were many other cases that were dismissed or denied but I survived the conference.

In the Petition I have raised three issues. They are as follows:

I. Has Chief Circuit Judge in Misc. # 23 and the Panel in 09-5165, so far departed from Title 28, United States Code, Section 292(b), including the sanctioning of such departure by a lower district court, calling for an exercise of this Court's supervisory power pursuant to S.Ct. Rule 10(a) to render such exercise clear abuse of such limited power extended by Section 292(b)?

A. Does Title 28, United States Code, Section 292(b) authorize a Chief Judge of a circuit, to designate United States' Judicial District Court Judges commissioned in one “Oklahoma” judicial district, to 1 year terms in the other two “Oklahoma” judicial districts on a renewable yearly basis for no reason?

B. What is the limitation on the meaning of the term “temporarily” and phrase “public interest” in Title 28, United States Code, Section 292(b)?

C. Does Misc. # 23 qualify as a lawful and legal Article III designation pursuant to Title 28, Section 292(b) of Stephen P. Friot to 09-cr-043?

D. Should all orders entered by Stephen P. Friot in 09-cr-043 outside Stephen P. Friot's Western Judicial District Court commission be rendered coram non judice and invalid?

II. When the Secretary abolishes “internal revenue districts,” by calender year 2000 encompassing the State of Oklahoma, what original, territorial, and subject matter jurisdiction does a District Court Judge have over alleged “internal revenue law” offenses pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 3231?

III. Is a United States Judicial District under Title 28, United States Code, Section 116(a) a valid substitute for an “internal revenue district” required for administration and enforcement of the “internal revenue laws” pursuant to Title 26, United States Code, Section 7621 in the State of Oklahoma?

Those experienced have concluded once I comply with the Court's most recent order derived from the conference of March 5, 2010, that they have taken the beginning steps of taking direct aim at the issues above. Obviously they should. Issue # 2 and # 3 are at the heart of why issue # 1 arose in the first place. I call this judge shopping by other judges (unauthorized shopping).

Anyway, I have filed a number of personal Mandamus Petitions and other writs and have never survived the original conference meeting. I cannot say that anymore. I have now survived that meeting. http://www.supremeco…s/030810zor.pdf

I realize most do not understand what is going on and that the procedures are so difficult to understand it remains a blur. I however am watching every procedure like an eternal hawk. If you read the above orders list from the Supreme Court you will see the number of cases that were denied and dismissed. Again, I was not.

The Supreme Court addressing internal revenue district and district director or the difference between an internal revenue district and a judicial district are currently the object of my Petition's affection and could go a long way to helping fix what is so wrong with one part of this Country.

I need your continued help. I realize most of you probably have lost hope but I have not. Please consider recommitting to help me submit the documents the Supreme Court has asked me to submit by March 29, 2010.

If you wish to send me by mail that address is 5147 S. Harvard, # 116, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74135. If you wish to send paypal you can use My other Petition regarding the “difficult issues between the tax code and the PRA” is up for conference this Friday. http://origin.www.su…ket/09-8858.htm

Thank you for not ever giving up. Lindsey Springer. March 15, 2010

[fg_admin]

We just looked up the case on protection mentioned in the above Wheeler Case. Very interesting. Note that:

1. Taxation and protection are correlated.

2. “The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government as nearly as possible in proportion to their respective abilities” A nonresident is NOT a “subject”, but a foreign sovereign. “subjects” are “inhabitants”, and inhabitants include ONLY citizens and residents.

3. Governments cannot tax property outside their territory. States of the Union are NOT “territory” of the federal government.

Quote:

“Territories' or 'territory' as including 'state' or 'states.” While the term 'territories of the' United States may, under certain circumstances, include the states of the Union, as used in the federal Constitution and in ordinary acts of congress “territory” does not include a foreign state.

“As used in this title, the term 'territories' generally refers to the political subdivisions created by congress, and not within the boundaries of any of the several states.”

[86 C.J.S. [Corpus, Juris, Secundum, Legal Encyclopedia], Territories]

______________________

Union Refrigerator Transit Company v. Kentucky

No. 84

Argued October 13, 16, 1905

Decided November 13, 1905

199 U.S. 194

ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF

THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY

Syllabus

The power of taxation is exercised upon the assumption of an equivalent rendered in the protection of the property and person of the taxpayer, and if such equivalent cannot possibly be rendered because the property taxed is wholly beyond the jurisdiction of the taxing power, the taxation thereof within the domicil of the owner amounts to a taking of property without due process of law.

While there may be individual cases where the weight of the tax necessarily [199 U.S. 195] falls unequally on account of special circumstances, the general rule is that, in classifying property for taxation, some benefit to the property taxed is a controlling consideration, and a plain abuse of the power in this respect may justify judicial interference.

The proper use of a legal fiction is to prevent injustice and the maxim mobilia sequuntur personam may only be resorted to when convenience and justice so require. That doctrine does not apply to tangible personal property permanently located in another state where it is employed and protected, acquires a situs, and is subject to be there taxed irrespective of the domicil of the owner, and an attempt on the part of the state in which the owner is domiciled to tax such property amounts to a deprivation of property without due process of law within the purview of the Fourteenth Amendment.

So held in regard to the taxation of cars owned by a transit refrigerating company and which were permanently employed without the state in which the company was domiciled.

This proceeding was begun by a statement filed by the revenue agent of the commonwealth in the Jefferson County court, praying that certain personal property belonging to the plaintiff in error be assessed for taxation for state, county, and municipal taxes, and be also adjudged to pay a penalty of twenty percent on the aggregate amount of the tax.

To this statement the transit company filed certain demurrers and answers, upon which, and upon the deposition of the comptroller of the company in St. Louis, Missouri, the case went to a hearing, and resulted in a finding of facts that the transit company was the owner of two thousand cars in September, 1897, 1898, 1899, and 1900, to which years the recovery was limited, of the value of $200 each; that its cars were employed by the company by renting them to shippers, who took possession of them from time to time at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and used them for the carriage of freight in the United States, Canada, and Mexico, the company being paid by the railroads in proportion to the mileage made over their lines; that the correct method of ascertaining the number of cars which should be assessed for taxation was to ascertain and list such a proportion of its cars as, under a system of averages upon their gross earnings, were shown to be used in the State of Kentucky during the fiscal year, the court finding by this method that [199 U.S. 196] there were subject to assessment in Kentucky twenty-eight cars for the year 1897, twenty-nine for the year 1898, forty for the year 1899, and sixty-seven for 1900.

The court also found that the cars other than those mentioned were not liable to assessment.

The order of the county court was affirmed by the circuit court, and an appeal taken to the Court of Appeals of Kentucky, which reversed the judgment of the court below, and found that the company was liable to taxation upon its entire number of two thousand cars, and directed the court below to enter judgment against it for the taxes appropriate to this number. 26 Ky. 23.

To review this judgment this writ of error was sued out. [199 U.S. 201]

_______________________________

BROWN, J., lead opinion

MR. JUSTICE BROWN delivered the opinion of the Court.

In this case, the question is directly presented whether a corporation organized under the laws of Kentucky is subject to taxation upon its tangible personal property permanently located in other states, and employed there in the prosecution of its business. Such taxation is charged to be a violation of the due process of law clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Section 4020 of the Kentucky statutes, under which this assessment was made, provides that

all real and personal estate within this state, and all personal estate of persons residing [199 U.S. 202] in this state, and of all corporations organized under the laws of this state, whether the property be in or out of this state, . . . shall be subject to taxation unless the same be exempt from taxation by the Constitution, and shall be assessed at its fair cash value, estimated at the price it would bring at a fair voluntary sale.

That the property taxed is within this description is beyond controversy. The constitutionality of the section was attacked not only upon the ground that it denied to the transit company due process of law, but also the equal protection of the laws in the fact that railroad companies were only taxed upon the value of their rolling stock used within the state, which was determined by the proportion which the number of miles of the railroad in the state bears to the whole number of miles operated by the company.

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. GO>Railroad Company v. Jackson, 7 Wall. 262; GO>State Tax on Foreign-Held Bonds, 15 Wall. 300; GO>Tappan v. Merchants' National Bank, 19 Wall. 490, GO>499; GO>Delaware &c. R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 198 U.S. 341, GO>358. In GO>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 GO>Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U.S. 97, GO>102; GO>Missouri Pacific Railway v. Nebraska, 164 U.S. 403, GO>417; Mt. Hope Cemetery v. Boston, 158 Mass. 509, 519.

Most modern legislation upon this subject has been directed

(1) to the requirement that every citizen shall disclose the amount of his property subject to taxation, and shall contribute in proportion to such amount, and

(2) to the avoidance of double taxation.

As said by Adam Smith in his Wealth of Nations, Book V. Ch. 2, Pt. 2, p. 371:

The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government as nearly as possible in proportion to their respective abilities — that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state. The expense of government to the individuals of a great nation is like the expense of management to the joint tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective interests in the estate. In the observation or neglect of this maxim consists what is called the equality or inequality of taxation.

But notwithstanding the rule of uniformity lying at the basis of every just system of taxation, there are doubtless many individual cases where the weight of a tax falls unequally upon the owners of the property taxed. This is almost unavoidable under every system of direct taxation. But the tax is not rendered illegal by such discrimination. Thus, every citizen is bound to pay his proportion of a school tax, though he have no children; of a police tax, though he have no buildings or personal property to be guarded; or of a road tax, though he never use the road. In other words, a general tax cannot be dissected to show that, as to certain constituent parts, the taxpayer receives no benefit. Even in case of special assessments imposed for the improvement of property within certain limits, the fact that it is extremely doubtful whether a particular lot can receive any benefit from the improvement does not invalidate the tax with respect to such lot. GO>Kelly v. Pittsburgh, [199 U.S. 204] 104 U.S. 78; Amesbury Nail Factory Co. v. Weed, 17 Mass. 53; GO>Thomas v. Gay, 169 U.S. 264; GO>Louisville &c. R. Co. v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co., 197 U.S. 430. Subject to these individual exceptions, the rule is that, in classifying property for taxation, some benefit to the property taxed is a controlling consideration, and a plain abuse of this power will sometimes justify a judicial interference. GO>Norwood v. Baker, 172 U.S. 269. It is often said protection and payment of taxes are correlative obligations.

It is also essential to the validity of a tax that the property shall be within the territorial jurisdiction of the taxing power. Not only is the operation of state laws limited to persons and property within the boundaries of the state, but property which is wholly and exclusively within the jurisdiction of another state receives none of the protection for which the tax is supposed to be the compensation. This rule receives its most familiar illustration in the cases of land, which, to be taxable, must be within the limits of the state. Indeed, we know of no case where a legislature has assumed to impose a tax upon land within the jurisdiction of another state — much less where such action has been defended by any court. It is said by this Court in the GO>State Tax on Foreign-Held Bonds Case, 15 Wall. 300, GO>319, that no adjudication should be necessary to establish so obvious a proposition as that property lying beyond the jurisdiction of a state is not a subject upon which her taxing power can be legitimately exercised.

The argument against the taxability of land within the jurisdiction of another state applies with equal cogency to tangible personal property beyond the jurisdiction. It is not only beyond the sovereignty of the taxing state, but does not and cannot receive protection under its laws. True, a resident owner may receive an income from such property, but the same may be said of real estate within a foreign jurisdiction. Whatever be the rights of the state with respect to the taxation of such income, it is clearly beyond its power to tax the land from which the income is derived. As we said in GO>Louisville [199 U.S. 205] & J. Ferry Co. v. Kentucky, 188 U.S. 385, GO>396:

While the mode, form, and extent of taxation are, speaking generally, limited only by the wisdom of the legislature, that power is limited by principle inhering in the very nature of constitutional government — namely, that the taxation imposed must have relation to a subject within the jurisdiction of the taxing government.

See also GO>M'Culloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, GO>429; GO>Hays v. Pacific Mail S.S. Co., 17 How. 596, GO>599; GO>St. Louis v. Wiggins Ferry Co., 11 Wall. 423, GO>429, GO>431; GO>Morgan v. Parham, 16 Wall. 471, GO>476.

Respecting this, there is an obvious distinction between tangible and intangible property in the fact that the latter is held its existence or ownership can be ascertained its existence or ownership can be ascertained in the state of its situs except, perhaps, in the case of mortgages or shares of stock. So if the owner be discovered, there is no way by which he can be reached by process in a state other than that of his domicil, or the collection of the tax otherwise enforced. In this class of cases, the tendency of modern authorities is to apply the maxim mobilia sequuntur personam and to hold that the property may be taxed at the domicil of the owner as the real situs of the debt, and also, more particularly in the case of mortgages, in the state where the property is retained. Such have been the repeated rulings of this Court. GO>Tappan v. Merchants' National Bank, 19 Wall. 490; GO>Kirtland v. Hotchkiss, 100 U.S. 491; GO>Bonaparte v. Appeal Tax Court, 104 U.S. 592; GO>Sturges v. Carter, 114 U.S. 511; GO>Kidd v. Alabama, 188 U.S. 730; GO>Blackstone v. Miller, 188 U.S. 189.

If this occasionally results in double taxation, it much oftener happens that this class of property escapes altogether. In the case of intangible property, the law does not look for absolute equality, but to the much more practical consideration of collecting the tax upon such property either in the state of the domicil or the situs. Of course, we do not enter into a consideration of the question, so much discussed by political economists, of the double taxation involved in taxing the property from [199 U.S. 206] which these securities arise, and also the burdens upon such property, such as mortgages, shares of stock, and the like — the securities themselves.

The arguments in favor of the taxation of intangible property at the domicil of the owner have no application to tangible property. The fact that such property is visible, easily found, and difficult to conceal, and the tax readily collectible is so cogent an argument for its taxation at its situs that of late there is a general consensus of opinion that it is taxable in the state where it is permanently located and employed, and where it receives its entire protection, irrespective of the domicil of the owner. We have, ourselves, held in a number of cases that such property, permanently located in a state other than that of its owner, is taxable there. GO>Brown v. Houston, 114 U.S. 622; GO>Coe v. Errol, 116 U.S. 517; GO>Pullman's Car Co. v. Pennsylvania, 141 U.S. 18; GO>Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Massachusetts, 125 U.S. 530; GO>Railroad Company v. Peniston, 18 Wall. 5; GO>American Refrigerator Transit Co. v. Hall, 174 U.S. 70; GO>Pittsburg Coal Co. v. Bates, 156 U.S. 577; GO>Old Dominion Steamship Company v. Virginia, 198 U.S. 299. We have also held that if a corporation be engaged in running railroad cars into, through, and out of the state, and having at all times a large number of cars within the state, it may be taxed by taking as the basis of assessment such proportion of its capital stock as the number of miles of railroad over which its cars are run within the state bears to the whole number of miles in all the states over which its cars are run. GO>Pullman's Car Co. v. Pennsylvania, 141 U.S. 18.

There are doubtless cases in the state reports announcing the principal that the ancient maxim of mobilia sequuntur personam still applies to personal property, and that it may be taxed at the domicil of the owner, but upon examination they all, or nearly all, relate to intangible property, such as stocks, bonds, notes, and other choses in action. We are cited to none applying this rule to tangible property, and, after a careful examination, have not been able to find any wherein the question [199 U.S. 207] is squarely presented, unless it be that of Wheaton v. Mickel, 63 N.J.L. 525, where a resident of New Jersey was taxed for certain coastwise and seagoing vessels located in Pennsylvania. It did not appear, however, that they were permanently located there. The case turned upon the construction of a state statute, and the question of constitutionality was not raised. If there are any other cases holding that the maxim applies to tangible personal property, they are wholly exceptional, and were decided at a time when personal property was comparatively of small amount, and consisted principally of stocks in trade, horses, cattle, vehicles, and vessels engaged in navigation. But, in view of the enormous increase of such property since the introduction of railways and the growth of manufactures, the tendency has been in recent years to treat it as having a situs of its own for the purpose of taxation, and correlatively to exempt at the domicil of its owner. The cases in the state reports upon this subject usually turn upon the construction of local statutes granting or withholding the right to tax extraterritorial property, and do not involve the constitutional principle here invoked. Many of them, such, for instance, as Blood v. Sayre, 17 Vt. 609; Preston v. Boston, 12 Pick. 12; Pease v. Whitney, 8 Mass. 93; Gray v. Kettell, 12 Mass. 161, turn upon the taxability of property where the owner is located in one, and the property in another, of two jurisdictions within the same state, sometimes even involving double taxation, and are not in point here.

One of the most valuable of the state cases is that of Hoyt v. Commissioners of Taxes, 23 N.Y. 224, where, under the New York statute, it was held that the tangible property of a resident actually situated in another state or county was not to be included in the assessment against him. The statute declared that “all lands and all personal estate within this state” were liable for taxation, and it was said in a most instructive opinion by Chief Judge Comstock that the language could not be obscured by the introduction of a legal fiction about the [199 U.S. 208] situs of personal estate. It was said that this fiction involved the necessary consequence that “goods and chattels actually within this state are not here in any legal sense, or for any legal purpose, if the owner resides abroad,” and that the maxim mobilia sequuntur personam may only be resorted to when convenience and justice so require. The proper use of legal fiction is to prevent injustice, according to the maxim “in fictione juris semper aequitas existit.” See GO>Eidman v. Martinez, 184 U.S. 581; GO>Blackstone v. Miller, 188 U.S. 189, GO>206. “No fiction,” says Blackstone,

shall extend to work an injury; its proper operation being to prevent a mischief or remedy an inconvenience, that might result from the general rule of law.

The opinion argues with great force against the injustice of taxing extraterritorial property when it is also taxable in the state where it is located. Similar cases to the same effect are People v. Smith, 88 N.Y. 585; New Albany v. Meekin, 3 Ind. 481; Wilkey v. Pekin, 19 Ill. 160; Johnson v. Lexington, 14 B. Monroe 648; Catlin v. Nashua, 46 N.H. 389. Bank v. Nashua, 46 N.H. 389.

In Weaver v. State, 110 Ia. 328, it was held by the Supreme Court of Iowa that a herd of cattle within the State of Missouri, belonging to a resident of Iowa, was not subject to an inheritance tax upon his decease. In Commonwealth v. American Dredging Company, 122 Pa. 386, it was held that a Pennsylvania corporation was taxable in respect to certain dredges and other similar vessels which were built, but not permanently retained, outside of the state. It was said that the nontaxability of tangible personal property located permanently outside of the state was not

because of the technical principle that the situs of personal property is where the domicil of the owner is found. This rule is doubtless true as to intangible property such as bonds, mortgages, and other evidences of debt. But the better opinion seems to be that it does not hold in the case of visible tangible personal property permanently located in another state. In such cases, it is taxable within the jurisdiction where found, and is exempt [199 U.S. 209] at the domicil of the owner.

The property in that case, however, was held not to be permanently outside of the state, and therefore not exempt from taxation. The rule, however, seems to be well settled in Pennsylvania that so much of the tangible property of a corporation as is situated in another state, and there employed in its corporate business, is not taxable in Pennsylvania. Commonwealth v. Montgomery &c. Mining Co., 5 Pa.Co.Ct. 89; Commonwealth v. Railroad Co., 145 Pa. 96; Commonwealth v. Westinghouse Electric Mfg. Co., 151 Pa. 265; Commonwealth v. Standard Oil Co., 101 Pa. 119. The rule is the same in New York. Pacific Steamship Company v. Commissioners, 46 How.Pr. 315.

But there are two recent cases in this Court which we think completely cover the question under consideration, and require the reversal of the judgment of the state court. The first of these is that of the GO>Louisville &c. Ferry Co. v. Kentucky, 188 U.S. 385. That was an action to recover certain taxes imposed upon the corporate franchise of the defendant company, which was organized to establish and maintain a ferry between Kentucky and Indiana. The defendant was also licensed by the State of Indiana. We held that the fact that such franchise had been granted by the Commonwealth of Kentucky did not bring within the jurisdiction of Kentucky, for the purpose of taxation, the franchise granted to the same company by Indiana, and which we held to be an incorporeal hereditament, derived from and having its legal situs in that state. It was adjudged that such taxation amounted to a deprivation of property without due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment — as much so as if the state taxed the land owned by that company — and that the officers of the state had exceeded their power in taxing the whole franchise without making a deduction for that obtained from Indiana, the two being distinct, “although the enjoyment of both are essential to a complete ferry right for the transportation of persons and property across the river both ways.”

The other and more recent case is that of the GO>Delaware &c. [199 U.S. 210] Railroad Co. v. Pennsylvania, 198 U.S. 341. That was an assessment upon the capital stock of the railroad company, wherein it was contended that the assessor should have deducted from the value of such stock certain coal mined in Pennsylvania and owned by it, but stored in New York, there awaiting sale, and beyond the jurisdiction of the commonwealth at the time appraisement was made. This coal was taxable, and in fact was taxed, in the state where it rested for the purposes of sale at the time when the appraisement in question was made. Both this Court and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania had held that a tax on the corporate stock is a tax on the assets of the corporation issuing such stock. The two courts agreed in the general proposition that tangible property permanently outside of the state, and having no situs within the state, could not be taxed. But they differed upon the question whether the coal involved was permanently outside of the state. In delivering the opinion, it was said:

However temporary the stay of the coal might be in the particular foreign states where it was resting at the time of the appraisement, it was definitely and forever beyond the jurisdiction of Pennsylvania. And it was within the jurisdiction of the foreign states for purposes of taxation, and, in truth, it was there taxed. We regard this tax as, in substance and in fact, though not in form, a tax specifically levied upon the property of the corporation, and part of that property is outside and beyond the jurisdiction of the state which thus assumes to tax it.

The decision in that case was really broader than the exigencies of the case under consideration required, as the tax was not upon the personal property itself, but upon the capital stock of a Pennsylvania corporation, a part of which stock was represented by the coal, the value of which was held should have been deducted.

The adoption of a general rule that tangible personal property in other states may be taxed at the domicil of the owner involves possibilities of an extremely serious character. Not only would it authorize the taxation of furniture and other [199 U.S. 211] property kept at country houses in other states or even in foreign countries, of stocks of goods and merchandise kept at branch establishments, when already taxed at the state of their situs, but of that enormous mass of personal property belonging to railways and other corporations, which might be taxed in the state where they are incorporated, though their charter contemplated the construction and operation of roads wholly outside the state, and sometimes across the continent, and when in no other particular they are subject to its laws and entitled to its protection. The propriety of such incorporations, where no business is done within the state, is open to grave doubt, but it is possible that legislation alone can furnish a remedy.

Our conclusion upon this branch of the case renders it unnecessary to decide the second question — viz., whether the transit company was denied the equal protection of the laws.

It is unnecessary to say that this case does not involve the question of the taxation of intangible personal property, or of inheritance or succession taxes, or of questions arising between different municipalities or taxing districts within the same state, which are controlled by different considerations.

We are of opinion that the cars in question, so far as they were located and employed in other states than Kentucky, were not subject to the taxing power of that commonwealth, and that the judgment of the Court of Appeals must be reversed, and the case remanded to that court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

MR. JUSTICE WHITE concurred in the result.

HOLMES, J., separate opinion

MR. JUSTICE HOLMES:

It seems to me that the result reached by the Court probably is a desirable one, but I hardly understand how it can be deduced from the Fourteenth Amendment, and as the CHIEF JUSTICE feels the same difficulty, I think it proper to say that my doubt has not been removed.

Cases citing this case . . .

The following 52 case(s) in the USSC+ database cite this case:

GO> California v. Texas, 437 U.S. 601 (1978)

GO> Central R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 370 U.S. 607 (1962)

GO> Braniff Airways, Inc. v. Nebraska Board of Equalization and Assessment, 347 U.S. 590 (1954)

GO> Miller Brothers Co. v. Maryland, 347 U.S. 340 (1954)

GO> Standard Oil Co. v. Peck, 342 U.S. 382 (1952)

GO> Ott v. Mississippi Valley Barge Line Co., 336 U.S. 169 (1949)

GO> Greenough v. Tax Assessors, 331 U.S. 486 (1947)

GO> Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Minnesota, 322 U.S. 292 (1944)

GO> Hoopeston Canning Co. v. Cullen, 318 U.S. 313 (1943)

GO> State Tax Comm'n v. Aldrich, 316 U.S. 174 (1942)

GO> Graves v. Elliott, 307 U.S. 383 (1939)

GO> Curry v. McCanless, 307 U.S. 357 (1939)

GO> Guaranty Trust Co. v. Virginia, 305 U.S. 19 (1938)

GO> Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 303 U.S. 77 (1938)

GO> Carmichael v. Southern Coal & Coke Co., 301 U.S. 495 (1937)

GO> Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Grosjean, 301 U.S. 412 (1937)

GO> New York ex rel. Cohn v. Graves, 300 U.S. 308 (1937)

GO> Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193 (1936)

GO> Senior v. Braden, 295 U.S. 422 (1935)

GO> Johnson Oil Refining Co. v. Oklahoma ex Rel. Mitchell, 290 U.S. 158 (1933)

GO> Louis K. Liggett Co. v. Lee, 288 U.S. 517 (1933)

GO> Burnet v. Brooks, 288 U.S. 378 (1933)

GO> Lawrence v. State Tax Commission of Mississippi, 286 U.S. 276 (1932)

GO> First National Bank of Boston v. Maine, 284 U.S. 312 (1932)

GO> Graniteville Mfg. Co. v. Query, 283 U.S. 376 (1931)

GO> Educational Films Corp. v. Ward, 282 U.S. 379 (1931)

GO> Farmers Loan & Trust Co. v. Minnesota, 280 U.S. 204 (1930)

GO> Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Commonwealth, 280 U.S. 83 (1929)

GO> Blodgett v. Silberman, 277 U.S. 1 (1928)

GO> Rhode Island Hospital Trust Co. v. Doughton, 270 U.S. 69 (1926)

GO> Frick v. Pennsylvania, 268 U.S. 473 (1925)

GO> Haavik v. Alaska Packers Assn., 263 U.S. 510 (1924)

GO> Schwab v. Richardson, 263 U.S. 88 (1923)

GO> Citizens Nat'l Bank v. Durr, 257 U.S. 99 (1921)

GO> Cream of Wheat Co. v. County of Grand Forks, 253 U.S. 325 (1920)

GO> Maguire v. Trefry, 253 U.S. 12 (1920)

GO> Union Tank Line Co. v. Wright, 249 U.S. 275 (1919)

GO> Fidelity & Columbia Trust Co. v. Louisville, 245 U.S. 54 (1917)

GO> Provident Savings Life Assur. Soc'y v. Kentucky, 239 U.S. 103 (1915)

GO> Equitable Life Assur. Soc'y v. Pennsylvania, 238 U.S. 143 (1915)

GO> New York Life Ins. Co. v. Head, 234 U.S. 149 (1914)

GO> Hawley v. City of Malden, 232 U.S. 1 (1914)

GO> Gromer v. Standard Dredging Co., 224 U.S. 362 (1912)

GO> Southern Pacific Co. v. Kentucky, 222 U.S. 63 (1911)

GO> Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Kansas, 216 U.S. 1 (1910)

GO> Selliger v. Kentucky, 213 U.S. 200 (1909)

GO> First National Bank v. Albright, 208 U.S. 548 (1908)

GO> Buck v. Beach, 206 U.S. 392 (1907)

GO> Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. New Orleans, 205 U.S. 395 (1907)

GO> Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Ry. Co. v. Babcock, 204 U.S. 585 (1907)

GO> Hatch v. Reardon, 204 U.S. 152 (1907)

GO> New York Central R. Co. v. Miller, 202 U.S. 584 (1906)

[fg_admin]

EMERGENCY ALERT – ACTION REQUIRED:

“America: Freedom to Fascism” Star Sherry Jackson is Being Murdered

The feds seem intent upon MURDERING SHERRY JACKSON. See her own report below, and you'll understand. She details how the feds denied her medical care in prison and right now she IS IN THE PROCESS OF DYING.

Sherry was one of the stars of Aaron Russo's America: Freedom to Fascism. She was the former IRS agent who cried out, “SHOW ME THE LAW!”. Right now she deserves the support of the entire Freedom Movement. We can give it to her by calling her Congressional Representative imploring him to intercede to save her life. For her service to the Cause of Liberty, WE SHOULD DO NO LESS!!

Sherry's Representative is Hank Johnson, representing the 4th Congressional District of Georgia.

FIRST:

Call and fax him at each office and demand immediate medical attention for Sherry:

Washington, DC Office

1133 Longworth HOB

Washington, D.C. 20515

Phone: (202) 225-1605

Fax: (202) 226-0691

Lithonia Office

5700 Hillandale Dr., Suite 110

Lithonia, GA 30058

Phone: (770) 987-2291

Fax: (770) 987-8721

Tucker Office

3469 Lawrenceville Highway, Suite 205

Tucker, GA 30084

Phone: (770) 939-2016

Fax: (770) 939-3753

SECOND:

Slam his Facebook page with comments demanding immediate medical Care for Sherry:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Congressman-Hank-Johnson/115356957005 THIRD:

Forward, post, and blog this email EVERYWHERE!!!

SHERRY'S LETTER:

Hi Friends and Family,

Please, pray for my wife, Sherry Peel Jackson. She's still having challenges while she's incarcerated. Thank you, in advance, for your prayers and encouragemenet. Here's a letter from Sherry to our Congressman, concerning her current situation.

God bless you.

In Christ,

Colin L. Jackson colinljackson@msn.com

Dear Congressman Johnson:

I am Sherry Peel Jackson, your former CPA. I am writing you because I am concerned about my health and my life. Prior to becoming a political prisoner I was the picture of health. In late June, 2009 I started experiencing a rapid heart beat on an irregular basis.

Since this had happened infrequently in the past I did not think much of it. However, in Mid July it started happening on a regular basis and I became concerned. I went to the medical staff twice in Mid July only to be given a one-minute EKG test and powerful meds without proper diagnosis. I did not take them because I had not been seen by a specialist. One week later, on July 21 at 12:45am I left the dorm in flip flops to go tell the officers that I was having a heart attack. The officers on duty called the ambulance and the ambulance checked my heart on their portable EKG machine. It was beating at 150 beats per minute. They took me to Leesberg (spelling) hospital where I remained until Friday, July 24th at 11:30pm. During the hospital stay it was determined that my heart was healthy but my thyroid was producing too much hormone, thus speeding up my heart.

This is called hyperthyroidism or Graves disease. I was given two medications by the hospital – Methimazole, which is an anti-thyroid agent used to reduce the amount of thyroid hormone produced by the body and Metoprolol, which is a beta blocker used to slow the heart.

The hospital doctor told me that in four weeks (approximately August 21) the prison medical unit was to do blood tests to determine how the thyroid medication was affecting my body.

The blood test was taken in late August and I was told that I would be placed on the appointment schedule to come over and review the results. I was never called. I went over in early September and inquired of Dr. DeLeon as to how to get blood test results. He told me to put in a request to staff, so I did that on September 15th. It simply asked to see the results of the tests.

Sometime after September 23rd I received a response in writing, from Ms. Marich, that stated that I could either make a sick call (come over early in the morning wait in line and fill out forms) or come to Open House to see the results. Open house is held only on Thursdays from 3:00pm to 3:30pm. I went to Open House Thursday September 30th and was told by Ms. Marich that she could not find the results! I watched her look through and around several piles of folders in her office but at no time did she look on a computer for them. She told me to check back later. On Wednesday October 28th I passed out around 4pm and was taken to medical and cleared.

On Friday October 30th my lips started turning black as if I had been a lifelong smoker. By Sunday November 1st my lips were fully black.

My boss, the Chaplain, called medical and a male nurse was sent over from the medium security men's prison on this complex (there are two maximum security, one medium security and one low security men's prisons on this complex with the women's camp). He took my blood pressure and oxygen and said there was nothing else he could do. He told me to go to sick call Monday morning, which I did.

I showed Mr. Coucho my lips and told him that something was wrong with my blood, I could tell. (I am leaving out gross details here).

He said I would be put on the schedule. However, the very next day, Tuesday morning, November 3rd, I found blood in my stool and rushed over to medical because I am smart enough to know that this is a major problem. I was chewed out for coming over to medical without a staff member telling me to come. I told Charlie, the female nurse and Mr. Coucho the PA that I was in the hospital in July, never got the blood work results and something was terribly wrong.

I am 46 years old and I know my body! I finally convinced them that I was not playing and was not stupid, so they 'treated' me with a packet for a stool sample test. Mr. Coucho looked on the computer for the blood test results from August and found them there!

The blood test showed a problem with the thyroid way back then!

He said I would be put on the schedule for new blood work later that week because these results were too old. He had a short conversation with Dr. DeLeon in Spanish and then said the thyroid count was off.

This was November 3rd. I administered the stool tests and returned them to Nurse Charlie on Friday November 6th.

Today is November 26th, Thanksgiving. I have not received the results of the stool test. I have not been given any new blood test.

My neck is swelling up like a blow fish and I am having trouble talking. I have been feeling very ill for the last two weeks.

Congressman, I don't want them to kill me in here. As you well know, I am being punished for exposing government fraud. However, millions of people don't file tax returns and I was just used as an example by the DOJ for their new program called the Tax Defiers Initiative.

I have a wonderful husband and two beautiful children. I have already spent 21 months in prison for a non crime, and I refuse to come out dead or maimed for life. I have not caused these people any problems. This is no threat but just for your information.

I also wrote the warden today. Things can't go on this way as I languish in here for someone's political gain. God doesn't like ugly and He is the ultimate judge and vindicator.

Sherry Peel Jackson 59085-019

FCI COLEMAN MEDIUM

FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION

P.O. BOX 1032

COLEMAN, FL 33521

Please do not pass up this email. Take action with us today and all this week as we call for immediate and proper medical care for Sherry.

Do not let another voice go down. This is being sent to over 10,000 and with your help it can reach millions! Think about it since your future hangs in the balance! Do it for your children…Live it! Live Truth! Live Life!

In Freedom,

A REAL AMERICAN CHRISTIAN…10%

JOHN 8:32

[fg_admin]

The bad link should point to:

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/Citizenship/PoliticalRightsvCitizenshipByState.htm

Thanks.

[fg_admin]

Thanks for the feedback.

That form should say 18 USC 112, not 8 USC 1324.

A better form is:

http://famguardian.o…mW9-Amended.pdf

The above form is on the following page:

http://famguardian.o…RSFormsPubs.htm

We have removed the offending form from the website entirely.

[fg_admin]

Yes. But you can't do it. We have to do it. If you want us to do it send “Admin” a private message and tell him/her what you want to use for a new username.

[fg_admin]

RESPONSE TO READER COMMENT:

Big al,

You shouldn't criticize what you are too lazy to read. At least refer to exactly it is that contains so-called specious argument including:

1. The document number.

2. The URL of the document.

3. The version number.

4. The page number

5. The line number.

Otherwise, there is no way to fix anything. We tried to contact you before and you wouldn't respond or defend yourself, and now all you do is take anonymous pot shots as a sniper. That's cruel and irresponsible. You may be right, but until you at least act like a man and step forward instead of hiding in the shadows, there is no hope for any convergence.

READER'S RESPONSE:

Yes I read enough to see you are so far off point it would waste my time to explain.

I would say the best you can hope for is to read all the Informer's free stuff on atgpress.com and ingest all his books. That's the only way you are going to learn truth and stop believing in myths. Yes, there is a way to fix it but first you have to get rid of myths that enslave you. Then you might come up to a level so discussion would be meaningful. Man I am and I don't talk to persons of artificial character. Do you understand terms of law are not words? The min. you talk statute law of the corporation of the Pope called United States and it's PERSON subject, you must throw out all words and the standard dictionary. Once you learn that simple fact you will then see why what you write is totally in error. I leave you with three quotes to ponder your writings as well as the quote at the very end of this e mail.

Quote:

“When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.” Dresden James

TCD theory of Cognitive Dissonance Leon Festinger Stanford University Press ( 1957) Holds that the mind involuntarily rejects information not in line with previous thoughts/or actions. Festinger observed; A person can deal with the pressure generated by changing the dissonance the old behavior to harmonize with information. But if the person is committed to the old behavior and way of thinking, he simply rejects the new information. A simple “I don't believe it” thought or word is the easy cop out. For if you are unaware, you are unaware of being unaware.

Quote:

“Reason and Ignorance, the opposites of each other, influence the great bulk of mankind. If either of these can be rendered sufficiently extensive in a country, the machinery of Government goes easily on. Reason obeys itself, and Ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.”

“The Rights of Man,” Thomas Paine

Your main error is in your own subject matter phrase.

Big Al

[fg_admin]

SOURCE: http://www.atgpress….nform/ba036.htm

_______________________________

The Informer

[size size=”+2″]USE AND TRANSFER[/size]

[size size=”+2″]Are the notes the subject of the income tax?[/size]

[size size=”+2″]You be the judge.[/size]

I had written the previous article on this Web page asking, could the USE of the federal reserve note cause the income tax to be applied, not to the note itself but to the use of the note which would make it an excise tax. Well a friend did some research and sent me the following case. Within the case is a principle that applies to the very nature, I believe, of why everyone receiving above a certain amount of debt obligations has to file a return. It also shows how property taxes are levied and the same principle applies, that being transfer. The property is not being taxed but the privilege of transfer, especially inheritance tax.

In my book Which One Are You, printed in 1990, I went into detail on this very issue and I am putting excerpts here to show the principle the IRS operates under to collect this “excise” income tax and to show where the privilege lies that for decades people have been trying to find the nexus. I think you are going to be shocked at the premise I give to you. After all no argument so far has succeeded in any substantial win against income taxation. There is nothing that you buy, even silver and gold, without the use of federal reserve notes. Silver, gold, house, car, tv and furniture are all tangible property that was bought with intangible paper. That is the subject of the tax, intangible paper and this case proves it. This excerpt will be at the end of the case.

Quote:

4/20/14 WHEELER v. SOHMER

[1] SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

[2] No. 45

[3] 1914.SCT.244 , 233 U.S. 434, 58 L. Ed. 1030, 34 S. Ct. 607

[4] April 20, 1914

[5] WHEELER v. SOHMER, COMPTROLLER OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

[6] ERROR TO THE SURROGATES' COURT OF NEW YORK COUNTY, STATE OF NEW YORK

[7] Mr. Charles P. Howland for plaintiffs in error:

[8] The taxation of the full value of the debts represented by these promissory notes deprived the executors and beneficiaries of the estate of their property without due process of law, and was in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment.

[9] Jurisdiction of a State for purposes of transfer or inheritance taxation is limited to property within the State, in the senses in which that phrase has been recognized. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. New Orleans, 205 U.S. 395.

[10] Promissory notes are only evidences of debt and not the debts themselves. Their situs, therefore, is not the situs of the debts; the situs of the debts is at the residence of one or the other of the parties to the relation. Buck v. Beach, 206 U.S. 392; Pelham v. Way, 15 Wall. 196.

[11] As to the distinction between a debt and the evidence establishing it, see Wyman v. Halstead, 109 U.S. 654; Attorney General v. Bouwens, 4 M. & W. 171, 191; Hunter v. Supervisors, 33 Iowa, 376; Hanson's Death Duties (4th ed.), p. 239.

[12] A note is the representative of a debt as a warehouse receipt is the representative of personal property, but such a receipt cannot be taxed at the value of the goods on the theory that in some way it represents them. Selliger v. Kentucky, 213 U.S. 200.

[13] The special factors which warrant inheritance taxation upon choses in action belonging to the estates of non-resident decedents — control over the person of the debtor or over the means of enforcement of the obligation — do not exist here. Blackstone v. Miller, 188 U.S. 189 (semble).

[14] In the case of choses in action the State of the owner's domicile levies one tax, Matter of Swift, 137 N.Y. 77, while the State of the debtor's domicile levies a tax “not because of any theoretical speculation concerning the whereabouts of the debt, but because of the practical fact of its power over the person of the debtor” — in other words, because it grants a practical privilege by providing means for the collection of the debt. Blackstone v. Miller, 188 U.S. 189; Matter of Houdayer, 150 N.Y. 37.

[15] In this case the State of the decedent had no control over the persons of the debtors. That control was in the States of the debtors, Buck v. Beach, 206 U.S. 392, 407; Chicago, R.I. & P. R'y v. Sturm, 174 U.S. 710, 715, and as neither the universal succession nor the control over the means of enforcement was granted or could be regulated by the former State, that State had no power to tax.

[16] The situs of bonds appears to determine the situs of the debts they symbolize, but bonds have always been sharply distinguished from promissory notes in that regard.

[17] For certain purposes bonds have a peculiar recognition in the common law, and for purposes of taxation, annual or inheritance, are often treated as having a situs dependent upon their physical whereabouts. Matter of Bronson, 150 N.Y. 1; Matter of Fearing, 200 N.Y. 340; State Tax on Foreign Held Bonds, 15 Wall. 300.

[18] But the rule does not embrace promissory notes. Buck v. Beach, 206 U.S. 392, 403.

[19] This distinction between bonds and promissory notes has a historical basis. Selliger v. Kentucky, 213 U.S. 200, 204.

[20] A promissory note may be the subject of larceny. People v. Ogdensburgh, 48 N.Y. 390, 397; Buck v. Beach, 206 U.S. 407.

[21] At common law a promissory note was not within the law of larceny, Regina v. Watts, 6 Cox, C.c. 304, but certificates of stock, warehouse receipts and policies of insurance are unquestionably the subjects of larceny (Penal Law of New York, 1909, c. 88), although none of them is the property whose situs determines the power of annual or of inheritance taxation. Matter of James, 144 N.Y. 6; Selliger v. Kentucky, 213 U.S. 200; Matter of Horn, 39 Misc. (N.Y.) 133.

[22] Taxation rests upon protection as a correlative, and when no protection is either practically or theoretically possible, taxation should not be laid: this is the broad basis for the rules limiting taxation. Union Transit Co. v. Kentucky, 199 U.S. 194; Matter of Bronson, 150 N.Y. 1; Cooley on Taxation (3d ed.), p. 3.

[23] In this case the State of testator's domicile may tax, and indeed does so (Public Laws of Connecticut, 1903, c. 63), because it protects the universal succession.

[24] The States of the debtors may tax, because they protect the debts by affording recourse to their respective courts. Matter of Daly, 100 App. Div. (N.Y.) 373; S.c., 182 N.Y. 524; Matter of Clinch, 180 N.Y. 300.

[25] But New York has protected nothing.

[26] If such taxation is allowed, triple taxation on many kinds of choses in action is possible; in the case of a bill of exchange issued in multiplicate, the domiciliary States of the owner and of the primary obligor would be able to tax, and also each State within which one of the multiplicate bills happened to be found at the owner's death.

[27] Mr. William Law Stout for defendant in error.

[28] White, McKenna, Holmes, Day, Lurton, Hughes, Van Devanter, Lamar, Pitney

[29] The opinion of the court was delivered by: Holmes

[30] The provision in the New York Inheritance Tax Statute, imposing a transfer tax on property within the State belonging to a non-resident at the time of his death, is not unconstitutional under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as applied to promissory notes the makers of which are non-residents of that State. Buck v. Beach, 206 U.S. 392, distinguished.

[31] 202 N.Y. 550, affirmed.

[32] THE facts, which involve the power of a State to tax promissory notes located in the State although neither the owner nor the maker are residents thereof, are stated in the opinion.

[33] MR. JUSTICE HOLMES delivered the judgment of the court.

[34] This proceeding began with a petition by an executor, acting under ancillary letters, for the appointment of an appraiser to determine the amount, if any, of the transfer tax due from the estate of the deceased testator, Charles C. Tiffany. Tiffany was not a resident of New York at the time of his death but left in a safe deposit box in New York four promissory notes made by Pottinger, a resident of Chicago, secured by mortgages of Chicago land to Illinois trustees, and promissory notes of the Southern Railway Company, a Virginia corporation. The appraiser held these notes taxable under the New York laws of 1905, c. 368, § 1, amending § 220 of an earlier law and imposing a tax “when the transfer is by will or intestate law, of property within the State, and the decedent was a nonresident of the State at the time of his death.” The Surrogate confirmed the appraiser's report, and his order was affirmed by the Appellate Division and the Court of Appeals. 143 App. Div. 327. 202 N.Y. 550. The Executors contend that the tax deprives them of their property without due process of law.

[35] In support of this position it was argued that if bonds were subject to taxation simply because of their presence within the jurisdiction it was due to the survival of primitive notions that identified the obligations with the parchment or paper upon which they were written, that bills and notes had a different history, and that there was no ground for extending the conceptions of the infancy of the race to them. It was pointed out that the power to tax simple contracts depends upon power over the person of one of the parties and does not attach to documentary evidence of such contracts that may happen to be within the jurisdiction. Cases were cited in which this court has pronounced bills and notes to be only evidences of the simple contracts that they express, Pelham v. Way, 15 Wall. 196; Wyman v. Halstead, 109 U.S. 654, 656, and the precise issue was thought to be disposed of by Buck v. Beach, 206 U.S. 392. We shall discuss this case, but for the moment it is enough to say that for the purposes of argument we assume that bills and notes stand as mere evidences at common law.

[36] But we are bound by the construction given to the New York statutes by the New York courts, and the question is whether a statute that we must read as purporting to give to bills and notes within the State the same standing as bonds for purposes of taxation, goes beyond the constitutional power of the State. Again for the purposes of argument we may assume that there are limits to this kind of power; that the presence of a deed would not warrant a tax measured by the value of the real estate that it had conveyed, or even that a memorandum of a contract required by the statute of frauds would not support a tax on the value of the contract because it happened to be found in the testator's New York strong box. But it is plain that bills and notes, whatever they may be called, come very near to identification with the contract that they embody. An endorsement of the paper carries the contract to the endorsee. An endorsement in blank passes the debt from hand to hand so that whoever has the paper has the debt. It is true that in some cases there may be a recovery without producing and surrendering the paper, but so may there be upon a bond in modern times. It is not primitive tradition alone that gives their peculiarities to bonds, but a tradition laid hold of, modified and adapted to the convenience and understanding of business men. The same convenience and understanding apply to bill and notes, as no one would doubt in the case of bank notes, which technically do not differ from others. It would be an extraordinary deduction from the Fourteenth Amendment to deny the power of a State to adopt the usages and views of business men in a statute on the ground that it was depriving them of their property without due process of law. The necessity of caution in cutting down the power of taxation on the strength of the Fourteenth Amendment often has been adverted to. Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co., 197 U.S. 430, 434. Unless we are bound by authority, we think the statute, so far as we now are concerned with it, plainly within the power of the State to pass.

[size size=”+1″][Here the court has stated that notes (federal reserve notes) can be taxed. Also the federal reserve notes are an endorsement in blank and do not these debt obligations pass from hand to hand in what is called transfer? Here the court states that bank notes, which are nothing but notes of the private federal reserve, do not differ from any other note.[/size] ]

[37] As to authority, it has been asserted or implied again and again that the States had the power to deal with negotiable paper on the footing of situs. “It is well settled that bank bills and municipal bonds are in such a concrete tangible form that they are subject to taxation where found, irrespective of the domicil of the owner; . . . Notes and mortgages are of the same nature . . . we see no reason why a State may not declare that if found within its limits they shall be subject to taxation.” New Orleans v. Stempel, 175 U.S. 309, 322, 323. Bristol v. Washington County, 177 U.S. 133, 141. State Board of Assessors v. Comptoir National d'Escompte, 191 U.S. 388, 403, 404. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. New Orleans, 205 U.S. 395, 400, 402. This is the established law unless it has been overthrown by the decision in Buck v. Beach, 206 U.S. 392.

[size size=”+1″][Now you have a better understanding of the Decision in Cook v Tate where even though living in Mexico the man was taxed on his income which was a transfer to him of blank endorsed paper federal reserve notes simply transferred to him because the situs was with the federal reserve banks.[/size] ]

[38] No such effect should be attributed to that case. The Ohio notes in Buck's hands that were held not to be taxable in Indiana were moved backward and forward between Ohio and Indiana with the intent to avoid taxation in either State. 206 U.S. 402. They really were in Ohio hands for business purposes, ibid., 395, and sending them to Indiana was spoken of by Mr. Justice Peckham as improper and unjustifiable. Ibid. 402. Their absence from Ohio evidently was regarded as a temporary absence from home. Ibid. 404. And the Conclusion is carefully limited to a refusal to hold the presence of the notes “under the circumstances already stated” to amount to the presence of property within the State. A distinction was taken between the presence sufficient for a succession tax like that in this case, and that required for a property tax such as then was before the court, and the only point decided was that the notes had no such presence in Indiana as to warrant a property tax. See New York Central & Hudson River R.R. Co. v. Miller, 202 U.S. 584, 597. If Buck v. Beach is not to be distinguished on one of the foregoing grounds, as some of us think that it can be, we are of opinion that it must yield to the current of authorities to which we have referred.

[39] In the case at bar it must be taken that the safe deposit box in which the notes were found was their permanent resting place and therefore that the power of the State so repeatedly asserted in our decisions could come into play.

[size size=”+1″][So if these notes had the permanent resting place in this state that it stands to reason that a federal reserve note has its permanent resting place back in the federal reserve system form whence it originated. So the power of the IRS to assert to collect the tax on the transfer and use, which is a excise tax for that privilege can now start to be seen.[/size] ]

[40] Judgment affirmed.

[41] Justice McKENNA, Concurring.

[42] I concur in the result, but cannot concur in the reasoning of the opinion, or rather its controlling proposition unmodified. I might pass it by in silence if it did not have larger consequence than the decision of the pending case. The opinion is rested on the proposition, said to be based on authority, that the States have power to deal “with negotiable paper on the footing of situs,” that is, to regard such paper so far concrete and tangible as to be of itself a subject of taxation, irrespective of the domicile of its owner or, I add, the locality of the debt which it represents. For the proposition announced, Mr. Justice Brewer, in New Orleans v. Stempel, 175 U.S. 309, is quoted from. Other cases are cited and it is said to be established law unless it has been overthrown by the decision in Buck v. Beach, 206 U.S. 392. I refrain from meeting the judgment of my brethren by simply opposing assertion, and I feel constrained to review the cases, including Buck v. Beach. I will do so in the order of their decision.

[size size=”+1″][I do not think this needs any explanation because the federal reserve has stated that it is all negotiable paper and even the UCC so states the federal reserve note is negotiable paper. They are intangible property because they are not money, only representative pieces of paper, or choses in action as they are listed as a bill of exchange also.[/size] ]

[43] Commencing with the Stempel Case I may immediately say of it that its facts did not call for the broad and general declaration it is adduced to sustain. The statute passed on did not attempt to tax negotiable paper simply because of its presence in the State. It regarded the origin and use of such paper and declared its (the statute's) purpose to be that no non-resident, by himself or through an agent, should transact business in the State “without paying to the State a corresponding tax with that exacted of its own citizens,” and, to execute the purpose, declared: “All bills receivable, obligations or credits arising from the business done in this State are hereby declared assessable within this State, and at the business domicil of said non-resident, his agent or representative.”

[44] The property assessed was inherited by Stempel's wards, they and she being residents of the State of New York. It was assessed to the estate of the grandfather of the wards, and was $15,000, “money in possession, on deposit, or in hand,” and 800,000, “money loaned or advanced, or for goods sold; and all credits of any and every description.” The contention was that “the situs of the loans and credits was in New York, the place of residence of the guardian and wards, and, therefore, being loans and credits without the State of Louisiana, they were not subject to taxation therein.”

[45] The question presented by the contention, this court said, was whether, under the statute as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the State, the properties were subject to taxation, and, if so subject, whether any rights secured by the Federal Constitution were thereby infringed.

The tax was sustained, but it will be observed that negotiable paper was not assessed at all or dealt with as an entity separate from what it represented. The notes which represented the credits taxed were, it is true, in New Orleans, but in possession of the agent of Stempel. Not they, but the rights of which they were the evidence were taxed. The broad declaration, therefore, that negotiable paper had such tangibility as to be of itself a taxable entity was not called for. The true value of the case and its application to the case at bar can be estimated when we consider the other cases.

[size size=”+1″][The federal reserve has the right to tax their notes that are the debt obligations of the United States. They had transferred them to you via the company you worked or if you worked as yourself they were transferred to you by a man that you did work and you in turn transfer them to others and no matter where the notes, their situs, as stated by the court, lies in the federal reserve system.[/size] ]

[46] In Bristol v. Washington County, 177 U.S. 133, notes secured by mortgages in the State (Minnesota) were taxed. The question was of their situs. The state court put its decision on the ground that the notes were in the State for collection or renewal with a view of reloaning the money and keeping it invested as a permanent business. And this court in its decision said that “credits secured by mortgages, the result of the business of investing and reinvesting moneys in the State, were subject to taxation as having their situs there.” The ruling was affirmed. We said, by Mr. Chief Justice Fuller: “Persons are not permitted to avail themselves for their own benefit of the laws of a State in the conduct of business within its limits, and then to escape their due contribution to the public needs through action of this sort, whether taken for convenience or by design” (p. 144).

[47] In Board of Assessors v. Comptoir National d'Escompte, 191 U.S. 388, credits in the form of checks were taxed under the same statute considered in the Stempel Case. They were held in the State for investment and reinvestment, and this was the basis of the decision. The checks, it was said, became a credit for money loaned, localized in Louisiana, protected by it and within the scope of its taxing laws as construed by the Supreme Court. And we further said, after reviewing the Stempel Case and the Bristol Case: “From these cases it may be taken as the settled law of this court that there is no inhibition in the Federal Constitution against the right of the State to tax property in the shape of credits where the same are evidenced by notes or obligations held within the State, in the hands of an agent of the owner for the purpose of collection or renewal, with a view to new loans and carrying on such transactions as a permanent business” (p. 403).

[48] In Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. New Orleans, 205 U.S. 395, the assessment was also under the act passed on in the Stempel Case. I will not pause to detail the facts. It is enough to say that the credits taxed were loans (evidenced by notes) by the insurance company to its policy holders in Louisiana. The tax was not eo nomine on the notes but was expressed to be on “credits, money loaned, bills receivable,” etc., and its amount was ascertained by computing the sum of the face value of all the notes held by the company at the time of the assessment.

[49] The purpose of the taxing law was said to be to lay the burden of taxation equally upon those who do business within the State. And, after comment, it was said (p. 399): “Thus it is clear that the measure of the taxation designed by the law is the fair average of the capital employed in the business.” In other words, the investments in the State were taxed and the legality of the tax was determined by their situs, not by the locality of the notes which represented them, the notes being in New York at the home of the insurance company.

[size size=”+1″][Again it is noted that situs is the legality to tax the notes be they in California, Maine, France or China. Remember we are applying the PRINCIPLE here to the federal reserve note since the court stated that technically there is no difference between the notes they are talking about in this case and federal reserve notes which are also defined as bills of exchange as they are blank notes, which you have not endorsed but merely passed on called a transfer.[/size] ]

[50] It was the situs of the debt which determined the legality of the taxation in all of the cases and united them under the principle expressed in Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. New Orleans, that the law regards the place of the origin of negotiable paper as its true home, to which it will return to be paid, and its temporary absence can be left out of account. They do not support the broad proposition that to negotiable paper can be ascribed such tangibility and entity as so to make it a taxable object of itself in a jurisdiction other than that of the obligation it represents. This broad generality is necessary to sustain the tax in the present case if it can be regarded a direct tax on property, for Illinois, not New York, is the situs of the debts of which the notes taxed are the evidence, and of the mortgages which secure them.

[51] That broad proposition was asserted in Buck v. Beach and rejected. The notes involved had their origin in Ohio and represented investments in that State. Their owner died, and one of the two trustees of his will resided in Indiana. The notes were kept in the custody of the latter except that at the time of assessment of taxes in that State they were sent to Ohio and after the lapse of a few days returned to him. They were taxed in Indiana. The tax was sustained by the State Supreme Court but declared invalid by this court.

[52] The proposition presented for decision was stated thus by Mr. Justice Peckham for the court: “The sole question then for this court is whether the mere presence of the notes in Indiana [the taxing State] constituted the debts of which the notes were the written evidence, property within the jurisdiction of that State, so that such debts could be therein taxed” (p. 400). The prior cases were considered, and it was said: “There are no cases in this court where an assessment such as the one before us has been involved. We have not had a case where neither the party assessed nor the debtor was a resident of or present in the State where the tax was imposed, and where no business was done therein by the owner of the notes or his agent relating in any way to the capital evidenced by the notes assessed for taxation. We cannot assent to the doctrine that the mere presence of evidences of debt, such as these notes, under the circumstances already stated, amounts to the presence of property within the State” (p. 406). And it was pointed out that the prior cases, which were specifically reviewed, gave no support to the rejected doctrine. It was not overlooked that certain specialty debts, state and municipal bonds and circulating notes of banking institutions, have sometimes been treated as property where they were found though removed from the domicile of the owner, and State Tax on Foreign-held Bonds, 15 Wall. 300, 324, was cited. Promissory notes were held not to be within the rule.

[size size=”+1″][Is not this a true statement by the court that the federal reserve notes are deemed property especially when they seized them whether in bank seizures, drug seizures and the like?[/size] ]

[53] It is, however, asserted that the circumstances of the case showed that the notes were fugitives from taxation, alternately from Indiana and Ohio, and that their stay in Indiana was in evasion of their obligations to Ohio and was “a transit, although prolonged.” But the bad motive of the possessor of the notes was not made a ground of decision. If the court felt a retributive impulse to deny the notes sanctuary in Indiana it was suppressed. The court declared that the motive for sending the notes to Indiana was of no consequence and that the attempt to escape proper taxation in Ohio did not confer jurisdiction on Indiana to tax them (p. 402).

[size size=”+1″][Isn't that interesting that notes are fugitives from taxation, and note the term evasion. Are you, holding private federal reserve notes (debt obligations) via transfer, thereby obtaining a privilege in holding and USING these private notes having their situs in the United States/federal reserve system?[/size] ]

[54] But we are not required to overrule Buck v. Beach nor make it yield in any particular in order to sustain the tax in the case at bar. It, in effect, reserved from its principle inheritance or succession taxing acts by rejecting as not in point cases which involved them. We said, “The foundation upon which such acts rest is different from that which exists where the assessment is levied upon property. The succession or inheritance tax is not a tax on property, as has been frequently held by this court, Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U.S. 41, and Blackstone v. Miller, 188 U.S. 189, and therefore the decisions arising under such inheritance tax cases are not in point” (p. 408).

[55] The tax under review is of that kind. In other words, it is not tax on property, but a tax upon the transfer of the property by the will of the testator of plaintiffs in error as provided by the laws of the State. The will was probated in Connecticut, where the deceased was a resident, but ancillary letters of administration were issued to plaintiffs in error by the Surrogates' Court, County of New York, State of New York, and the taxed notes were part of the property disposed of by his will. It appears, therefore, that the property is in the control of the courts of New York. In other words, the laws of New York are invoked, accomplish its transfer and subject it to the Dispositions of the will and make effectual the purposes of the testator. Blackstone v. Miller, supra.

[size size=”+1″][Now we are right back to transfer, which is a privilege for the use of the notes and the laws of the United States are used to effect a tax on this privilege which involves intrastate transfer of blank notes that are never endorsed, which puts you in commerce which is an excise taxable privilege for the USE of this private note that bears the distinction of a debt obligation of the United States. You are simply being taxed for using IOU's of the United States and the IRS, A.K.A. federal reserve collecting agent is bound to collect this excise tax. It is an intangible that is being taxed. An intangible fits into excise tax.[/size] ]

[56] I am dealing with the power of taxation under our decisions. If there be inJustice in its exercise by measuring the tax by the value of the credits represented by the notes, it is an inJustice which this court cannot redress.

[57] I am authorized to say that MR. JUSTICE PITNEY concurs in this opinion.

[58] JUSTICE LAMAR, Dissenting.

[59] I concur in Mr. Justice McKenna's analysis of Buck v. Beach and the other cases, but am of the opinion that the principle there decided, applies as well to inheritance and transfer taxes on notes as to direct taxes and that, therefore, the judgment in the present case should be reversed.

[size size=”+1″][Here again the dissenting judge says the PRINCIPLE applies to notes as transfer taxes.[/size] ]

[60] I am authorized to say that THE CHIEF JUSTICE and MR. JUSTICE VAN DEVANTER concur in this Dissent.

************************************************************************

I now present to you the excerpts and bear in mind that a W-4, W-2 and 1099 Forms are GIFT tax Forms listed as Tax class 5 by the IRS in the IDRS 6209 manual and also withholding on the Racs 006 and Summary Record of Assessment is listed as tax class five, Gift and Estate tax.

From Which One Are You, page 160 to page 165.

Quote:

Chapter XXII

YOUR GIFT

Applying the W-4 Gift tax Form to where it belongs in Subtitle B–Estate and Gift Taxes of the Internal Revenue Code.

CHAPTER 12 GIFT TAX SUBCHAPTER A– DETERMINATION OF TAX LIABILITY

26 USC SEC. 2501. IMPOSITION OF TAX

(a) Taxable Transfers.

(1) General Rule.– A tax, computed as provided in section 2502, is hereby imposed for each calendar year on the transfer of property by gift during such calendar year by any individual, resident or nonresident.

(2) Transfers of intangible property.– Except as provided in paragraph (3), paragraph (1) shall not apply to the transfer of intangible property by a nonresident not a citizen of the United States.

The following section has bearing on the understanding of applying the Uniform Commercial Code to the taxing scheme of the government since it is an organization under UCC 1-201 (28).

(5) Transfers to political organizations.– Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the transfer of money or other property to a political organization…for the use of such organization.

Lets look to Terms (definitions), in Black's Law, of intangible property, before we get to theirs.

“Used chiefly in the law of taxation, this term means such property as has no intrinsic value, but is merely the representative or evidence of value, such as certificates of stock, bonds, promissory notes, and franchises”.

Federal reserve notes are NOT money and can be included as intangible property, since they are not even a note under UCC 3-104, and have no intrinsic value for they are all debt. So, continuing with Section 2501 (d) (2), it states;

For exclusion of transfers of property outside the United States by a nonresident who is not a citizen of the United States, see section 2511 (a).

The W-4 is a Class Tax 5, Gift and Estate tax Form. Is the company giving you a gift whereby you are to pay a tax through withholding, not on income, but a gift on intangible property? Isn't the W-2, which is also listed as a tax class 5 form, stating the total gift of intangible property given to you for the year? Doesn't IRS claim your labor is worth a 0 dollar basis? But isn't that because you are considered an “employee”, per definition as a United States citizen working as a privilege which puts your labor at the “0” dollar basis? Now the transfer of a check made out for dollars and given to you does not mean you have been paid. You simply have a piece of paper which you take to the bank and exchange for more intangible property, don't you? REMEMBER, you have a check MINUS the withheld intangible property which was transferred, or exchanged. Think it sounds plausible. Do you trust my explanation? If you do you are not a thinker and your ignorance is what has led you into their Babylonian world.

Guess again, YOU, not the company, could be making a gift to the government by filing a W-4 gift tax Form couldn't you? Think people THINK, which is it???? Hey, I was easy on you, wait till a commercial judge gets a hold of you. Before you could finish this little paragraph he would have made you, “another patriot that lost.”

Quote:

SUBCHAPTER B– TRANSFERS

26 USC SEC. 2511. TRANSFERS IN GENERAL.

(a) Scope.– Subject to the limitations contained in this chapter, the tax imposed by section 2501 shall apply whether the transfer is in trust or otherwise, whether the gift is direct or indirect, and whether the property is real or personal, tangible or intangible; but in the case of a nonresident not a citizen of the United States, shall apply to a transfer only if the property is situated within the United States.

Here is proof that you can be a nonresident and not a citizen of the United States or you can be a nonresident AND a citizen of the United States, PER TERMS (definitions). This now proves that you are an alien when you are not a citizen of the United States and nonresident.

(b) Intangible property.– “For purposes of this chapter, in the case of a nonresident not a citizen of the United States who is excepted from the application of section 2501 (a) (2)–

(1) shares of stock issued by a domestic corporations, and

(2) debt obligations of–

(A) a United States person, or

(:cool: the United States, a State or any political subdivision thereof, or the

District of Columbia, which are owned and held by such nonresident shall

be deemed to be property situated within the United States.”

This is an impossibility to understand this section for want of proper English grammar construction, or so I thought. Re read the above but leave out the underlined words. A closer look reveals that Number (b) (1) fits the Brushaber decision. A domestic corporation is one fully chartered by Congress like Union Pacific R.R. and Amtrak which is partially owned by Congress. Brushaber was a nonresident alien owning stock which had him “effectively connected” with a “trade or business” with the United States. Well do you have shares of stock in a corporation chartered by Congress? If you do and have not filed a W-4, then all you pay a tax on is the gain from the investment on the stock, nothing else. See 26 USC § 872.

Number 2 is a little tricky. What is the debt obligation of a “United States person?” What is interesting is the following Section 163 (e) (2) (A) of 26 USC. This Section talks about the “debt Instrument” of a “United States person.” This refers you to 26 USC § 1275 (a) (1). I would make a conclusion here that the “debt instrument” is the “debt obligation” of the United States person (7701 (a) (30), found in the W-4 Gift Tax scheme at 26 USC § 2511 (b) (2), which is intangible property. The nonresident alien is excepted from this Section.

What are the debt obligations of the United States? Aren't debt obligations of the United States, Federal reserve notes as listed in Title 18 USC § 8? Isn't it true that obligations of the United States cannot be taxed when reading Title 31 USC § 3124 and subsequent §§ 5118 & 5119? According to these last two sections the United States admits it doesn't pay its debts in the normal course of business. How can you own the debt of another without an agreement? Banks do it all the time when they sell your mortgage to another, usually at a discount, but an agreement must exist between the bank and the bond holder. You have nothing to say about this transfer. You still pay the original bank who then turns over the intangible property to another, who at any time can call in the loan. Don't believe me, check for yourself and read the fine print on your agreement. What does UCC 9-106 have to say about “general intangibles?” Are you owning or merely holding the debt (federal reserve note) of another. If you own it where's the agreement? If you own it why can't you call it in? If you are merely holding it, can't the original owner call it or a portion of it in whenever he wants, and you have nothing to say about it?

Could it be the gift tax Form, or application Form of the Federal CONTRIBUTION Act? Did you have a capacity to contract at the time the government misrepresented SS as an “insurance policy,” that you were forced to obtain in order to get a job? Look at UCC for the answer my friends. Where is the UCC 1-201 (3)? Does it contain your UCC 3-401? Doesn't UCC 3-410, and 3-413 criteria have to exist? If not, does UCC 1-103, 1-207 and 2-721 help you out? How many times have you heard of people trying to get out of the Social Security ponzi scheme and it is like talking to a deaf person? What were you promised by Soc. Sec.? There is no recourse to the instrument is there? Are you a willing “party” or are you unwilling through fraud by inducement? Have you knowingly consented with intent to give a gift after being informed of any unalienable rights that you would give up? Well look at UCC 2-607, 2-608, 2-609 and 3-601 (3). And while you are at it look up the complete definition of;

26 CFR § 301.7701-11 Social Security Number. “. . . The terms `account number' and `social security number' refer to the same number.”

But this is not a tax on Federal reserve notes, it is a gift tax and the notes, which in reality are script, a medium of exchange, are not being taxed. (That's why it is frivolous to argue “money issues” as they are presently being argued. The issue is not Art. 1, § 10, Cl.1, silver and gold but ; “What “Thing” has the State you live in declared as “legal tender” to pay a debt as intended by 1:10:1.”) They are extracted from you, by your filling out a W-4 gift class tax 5 Form with your consent. How can you give a gift, then claim exemption? Wouldn't that be like signing a pledge for United Way and then claiming not to withhold any money? Did you knowingly INTEND to make a gift? Did I make mention of that word before? If you did, could it become the “debt obligation” and you being the “United States citizen are the surety guaranteeing the debt by consent?

Look at 26 USC § 2513 (b), 1 & 2 for consent, (were you informed before you consented of all the ramifications of the agreement?), notice the date. By law, the government is supposed to have you fill out a W-4 each and every year so that if you want to, you can revoke your (voluntary?) consent, see 26 USC § 2513 (d). Read Section 2514 and notice the date, October 21, 1942. What is significant about that date? Could it have something to do with the withholding scheme Congress passed to skim off the buying power of the worker so as to control the economy? It might pay you to get the declassified document file # 100, entitled;

“WITHHOLDING TAX hearing 77th Congress,

Data Relative to Withholding Provisions of the 1942 Revenue Act.”

This, dated August 21 and 22, 1942, states exactly this reason for withholding. It also carries the terms “declassified see Gift and Exchange division,” NOT the term income tax, which is a tax class 2. Give credit to a woman with initials B. M. for this found document. How can I impress upon you the medium of exchange tax?

END OF EXCERPT.

I now leave you to ponder and I believe you will have to decide that this premise is true or false. I have given you my research from 1990 that people could not understand, otherwise we would have attacked the USE of the note rather than the note itself. The excise tax is alive and well and yet no one has challenged the government on this premise. Well it is here for you to decide and do further research if you think I am right. If you decide I am wrong then that too is your choice. All I am giving is information. Like I said in the book, Which One Are You? I did not tell people who they were, I asked in the title Which One Are You. I now ask is this a plausible premise as to what and why they are applying an Income tax that is an excise for the use of the private debt obligations? Only you can decide. Sincerely,

The Informer

[fg_admin]

SOURCE: http://www.atgpress….nform/ba034.htm

______________________

The Informer

[size size=”+1″]IS THIS WHAT MAKES YOU SUBJECT TO INCOME TAX?[/size]

[size size=”+1″]YOU BETTER THINK REAL HARD.[/size]

[size size=”+1″]READ EACH WORD AND DON'T MAKE ASSUMPTIONS.[/size]

26 CFR 1.864-4. This section is used to define what it means to carry on a trade or business within the United States among other sections of the code. This section is critical and explains why the IRS answered Interrogatories the way they did that was posted on the net a few days ago. They made admissions but inferred there was other SECTIONS other than 26 CFR 1.861 sources.

The fact that 1.861-8 (f) contains the statement that income that come from an “effectively connected trade or business” with the United States is a source to which the tax on income applies, is a key.

When reading 1.864-4, although it applies to non-resident aliens, gives a clearer picture. That picture shows that whether you are either a US citizen or a non-resident alien, your income from a source “effectively connected with a trade or business with the United States” is taxable. THAT IS BE A REVENUE TAXABLE ACTIVITY. Isn't an excise tax essentially a use tax for a privilege?

What is a trade or business? I had defined this, in detail, in my book Which One Are You. What I did not define SPECIFICALLY as a “Trade or Business” in that section of my book, but elsewhere, was the following that is found in 26 CFR 1.864. A trade or business is defined as dealing with the banking system. The Federal Reserve System has been delegated the fiscal agent of the United States to carry on the United States Trade or business using the debt obligations of the United States as the medium of exchange and transfer of same. This becomes one of the key elements of the tax on income because it is based on the amount of Federal Reserve “notes” and is why there is no dollar sign such as this [size size=”+2″]$ [/size]appearing on any assessment, and, therefore, the liability that IRS does not want to talk about. It is presumed you know that the figures are in dollars. NOT SO. Prove they are MONEY dollars when none exist. Did you not transfer your check for worthless pieces of paper as stated by the Federal Reserve? It's right on the Internet under Federal Reserve and I posted it twice on e-mails. Monopoly dollars, yes.

When you get paid by check it is drawn on a bank by the company using that very banking system. You cash that check on the bank it is drawn without having an account. Any other bank you present it to will require you to have an account. Most banks will cash a check for under a thousand without an account. By law, all banks are “sister” banks under the same law and have to cash that check. When it is cashed you receive the debt obligations of the United States in a “transfer”. It is not money as it only represents money. I am not here to go into all the laws, statutes and Regs., and will not because to do so this would be 1000 pages and I will let you do the research. I am just giving you why you MAY be subject to the income tax. For those of you that have Which One Are You, go to pages 160 to 162 then to pages 52 and 74 in that order. For those of you that don't, you will have to buy the book if you want to know.

The handling of these debt obligations and the income tax were both passed in the same year for a reason. The reason is evident when you get done reading this short article. Those debt obligations are the Federal Reserve Notes that represent IOU's of the United States to the Banking system that the United States created in 1913. The use of the Federal Reserve “notes” is an absolute commercial process no matter how you cut it. You are dealing in commercial paper that is not defined as money or a “Note” in the UCC. It is a private scrip with a trade mark imprinted on the face of the note. Yes, Federal Reserve Notes are trademarked because they belong to a private banking cartel. That's why the government cannot charge you with counterfeiting money of the United States. Even the Federal Reserve says they are worthless paper until used to exchange for substance. You can be charged with infringing on the trade mark by printing Federal Reserve “notes” carrying the trade mark. Now, do you think the government is going to admit to this in a court case and blow the whole scam to wide open? You bet your sweet bippy they won't. You can only counterfeit MONEY as described in their CONSTITUTION, and Federal Reserve “notes” are not money since they only are worthless pieces of paper representing money. But, can they be representative of money because you cannot redeem the “notes” for MONEY at par. MONEY is never REDEEMABLE. Go ahead and take a dollar to a bank and demand the real MONEY that it is supposed to represent. They will not do it. The letter I have from the Comptroller's office, by Russell Munk, states that they can only be exchanged for the same paper money as there is no MONEY available backing the “note”. Sure because it is private scrip. Now those that have my book will know what transfer means. Are you not transferring the debt and they want their cut for the Use of that transfer? The Transfer is the excise taxable activity carrying on a “trade or business” with the United States agents, the banks.

Now read very carefully 26 CFR 1.864 and you will see that any dealings with the banking system, in any form, deposits, withdrawals, etc., are considered “carrying on a trade or business with the United States”. That's why they don't care who the hell you are, citizen, non-resident alien, foreigner, neutral, whatever. They all use scrip, don't they? What is one of the sources mentioned in 1.861-8? Banking, any kind of banking. So the use of the Federal Reserve Notes is subject to an income tax for the excise privilege of using the private trademarked scrip of the fiscal agent of the United States banking system in “transfer”. Check out Title 12, 31 and 26. It is all there if you would but pick it up and read it.

Once you transfer a certain amount of private IOU debt obligations you are subject to the liability that comes from using the private scrip in the trade or business of the United States. Why are they debt obligations? Now you see why they are first liens on all property that you think you own, but do not. This comes directly from the Federal Reserve page itself where they say the notes are worthless. Here are a few excerpts:

Quote:

“Federal Reserve notes represent a first lien on all the assets of the Federal Reserve Banks, and on the collateral specifically held against them. Federal Reserve notes are not redeemable in gold, silver or any other commodity, and receive no backing by anything This has been the case since 1933. The notes have no value for themselves, but for what they will buy. In another sense, because they are legal tender, Federal Reserve notes are “backed” by all the goods and services in the economy.”

[SOURCE: http://www.ustreas.g…al-tender.shtml]

Now do you know why the government wants a part of the first lien in the form of taxes to pay the federal reserve its' interest? Not one stinking dime goes to pay the government services they say you get. It goes to the Credit of the United States debt owed the Federal Reserve. On the back of all canceled checks returned to you from the bank it says, PAY TO THE CREDIT OF THE UNITED STATES TO ANY FED. RES. BANK. Are you not dealing in “a Trade or Business” of the United States when dealing in banking holding and receiving these debt obligations to which they can call in a portion of the lien denominated “Income Taxes” that are true EXCISES for the use of the debt obligations? Here is more:

Quote:

Question

I thought that United States currency was legal tender for all debts. Some businesses or governmental agencies say that they will only accept checks, money orders or credit cards as payment, and others will only accept currency notes in denominations of $20 or smaller. Isn't this illegal?

Answer

The pertinent portion of law that applies to your question is the Coinage Act of 1965, specifically Section 102. This is now found in section 392 of Title 31 of the United States Code. The law says that: “All coins and currencies of the United States (including Federal Reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal Reserve banks and national banking associations) . . . shall be legal-tender for all debts, public and private, public charges, taxes, duties and dues.”

This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal law mandating that a person or organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.

Don't believe me? Click on this http://www.ustreas.gov/opc/opc0034.html#quest6 and read it from the horses mouth.

Don't like it? What are you going to do about it? What am I going to do about it? What can you do about it? Absolutely nothing! Every one gripes and complains. Only a few have tried to do anything about it. It fell on 98 percent of the population's deaf ears. They don't want to go back to real money. They believe in the confidence game of private scrip, in that it is money to them because it allows them to purchase things of value. It is nothing more than first lien debt that is a tax on that scrip whenever it transfers (changes hands) so it can be continually taxed.

Example:

You get paid a certain amount of scrip. The IRS collects a portion through “income tax” (scrip taxes) leaving you with less scrip. With what is left you buy a Refrigerator from a dealer. He pays on the income from that sale at business tax rate, so part of your already taxed scrip gets paid to IRS again. The dealer buys from the Mfg.. The Mfg. pays a tax on its income from selling to the dealer, which again is part of the scrip you received that was already taxed. Finally it comes to the Mfg.. He pays an income tax on that sale to the dealer, so more scrip is paid. So on the original amount you received the tax lien was collected upon many times over. Let us say that you worked for that Mfg.. How did that Mfg. obtain that money to begin with? He borrowed. From whom? The bank. What did he borrow to pay you? Debt obligations denoted as ledger accounts. Did the Mfg. transfer to you a ledger account (check)? Yes he did. Did he have to account for his outlay to the IRS in the form of a W-2 for his business purposes? Yes. Did you cash that ledger account for a debt obligation, Federal Reserve note, that had a first lien on it already at a bank? Yes. And is that bank a part of the fiscal agent of the United States? Yes. Is then, everyone dealing in banking under the Uniform Commercial Code using scrip that is privately made? Yes. Can the owner of that scrip call in a portion of it to offset the debt owed it by the United States? Yes. Is the IRS the collecting agency for the federal reserve to collect the debt the United States owes to the Federal Reserve? Yes.

Do you think that Congress, the real criminal thieves, will admit this is what is happening? Do you think the IRS is going to admit this, but rather say “there are other statutes” and not admit what they are? Do you think any court will allow such an argument? Will they pass it off as frivolous? You bet they will. They are all in on the scam and have been since taking real money away from the people. But is silver and gold really money belonging to the people if they themselves have not mined it, assayed it, had it melted down and coined it at a mint for the cost of minting as was previously done? Think about it. What did the Lord Almighty say when Peter showed Him a coin with the picture of Caesar on it? “Render unto Caesar what is Caesars'.” People, common man, YOU ARE NOT Caesar and never were. So is the United States coin actually Caesar's (U.S. which is defined as Congress Assembled) coin all over again? Did not Peter have to pay a tribute for using Caesars coin? I'll let you decide if a private Federal Reserve scrip is their paper or your paper. When you exchange your labor for private paper, then as Ernie Ford sang, “You owe your soul to the company store.” Especially when you claim to be a United States citizen.

Well you can take it or leave it, the choice is yours. I'm just suggesting this is another hidden fact Government thieves don't want you to know. This is just the tip of the iceberg. What is the common denominator in all tax scams? What does everyone use in daily transactions if not paper scrip and checks that are the trade and business of banking of the fiscal agent of the United States? If the Lord Almighty came down and asked you what he asked of Peter, what would you pull out of your pocket and show him? Here is part of the Reg.1.864-4 and remember what UNITED STATES they are talking about, therefore, you are non resident in the United States, therefore alien to the jurisdiction EXCEPT you are still liable, read the following:

Quote:

(5) Special rules relating to banking, financing, or similar business activity—

(I) Definition of banking, financing, or similar business.

A nonresident alien individual or a foreign corporation shall be considered for purposes of this section and paragraph (b)(2) of § 1.864–5 to be engaged in the active conduct of a banking, financing, or similar business in the United States if at some time during the taxable year the taxpayer is engaged in business in the United States and the activities of such business consist of any one or more of the following activities carried on, in whole or in part, in the United States in transactions with persons situated within or without the United States:

(a) Receiving deposits of funds from the public,

(b) Making personal, mortgage, industrial, or other loans to the public,

(c ) Purchasing, selling, discounting, or negotiating for the public on a regular basis, notes, drafts, checks, bills of exchange, acceptances, or other evidences of indebtedness,

(d) Issuing letters of credit to the public and negotiating drafts drawn thereunder,

(e) Providing trust services for the public, or

(f) Financing foreign exchange transactions for the public stocks or securities with active conduct of a banking, financing, or similar business.

Notwithstanding the rules in subpara-graphs (2) and (3) of this paragraph with respect to the asset-use test and the business-activities test, any dividends or interest from stocks or securities, or any gain or loss from the sale or exchange of stocks or securities which are capital assets, which is from sources within the United States and derived by a nonresident alien individual or a foreign corporation in the active conduct during the taxable year of a banking, financing, or similar business in the United States shall be treated as effectively connected for such year with the conduct of that business only if the stocks or securities giving rise to such income, gain, or loss are attributable to the U.S. office through which such business is carried on and—

(a) Were acquired—

(1) As a result of, or in the course of making loans to the public,

(2) In the course of distributing such stocks or securities to the public, or

(3) For the purpose of being used to satisfy the reserve requirements, or other requirements similar to reserve requirements, established by a duly constituted banking authority in the United States, or —-”

Now to prove that the same apply to US citizens read this small part from 1-861

Quote:

(2) The term ''resident of the United States'', as used in this paragraph, includes

(I) an individual who at the time of payment of the interest is a resident of the United States,

(ii) a domestic corporation,

(iii) a domestic partnership which at any time during its tax-able year is engaged in trade or business in the United States, or

(iv) a foreign corporation or a foreign partnership, which at any time during its taxable year is engaged in trade or business in the United States.*** corporation on—

(a) Deposits with persons, including citizens of the United States or alien individuals and foreign or domestic partnerships or corporations, carrying on the banking business in the United States,

(b) Deposits or withdrawable accounts with savings institutions chartered and supervised as savings and loan or similar associations under Federal or State law, or

(c ) Amounts held by an insurance company under an agreement to pay interest thereon,

Have a good day

The Informer

[fg_admin]

SOURCE: http://www.atgpress….nform/ba039.htm

____________

The Informer

The Entire Patriot Community is Deficient in Knowledge

The income and all tax scams from property taxes to sales taxes, is a privilege tax.

There is not any argument put forth by patriots since 1976 when I got into this…based on this statement and proven, by a case I put forth on atgpress.com. I started an article with the question. Does this make you liable for an income tax? I did not say it was. I had no proof at that moment in time. I had deduced this on analytical reasoning, of facts in hand knowing the history of banking from 1791 and prior banking in the colonies back to the first currency act administered by the British board of trade, in 1751. Then a further search for that article after I wrote it provided the same information for anything else you pay from sales tax, property tax and the like. That is why it was posed as a question. Not one, so-called tax protester, even wrote to atgpress questioning this or asking any question at all, even after I found the proof for my question. I posted that right under the question in banking. It was titled USE and TRANSFER. No attorney ever wrote, complaining it is wrong like they always do. So who is the creditor, the real creditor, when the private collecting corporation (IRS) of the Vatican collects income tax? IRS can NEVER be a Creditor and don't let any agency of the corporation tell you any different as has FMS, in cases. There may be up to four very well defined creditors asking IRS to collect the debt from you. Taxes are a debt and can be found on various sites including U.S. government sites. It is so much debt that FDCPA and other corporation sites actually say an income tax is a debt, subject to FDCPA. I know for a fact as I have been there, done that, and won a case for a man on the matter. The courts know which one. But the people have no clue.

Here are those four:

1. The Agency for International Development

2. The BATF

3. The United States employment agency

4. The Federal Reserve

…. not in that order. Yes, they all have contracts with the private IRS. For example the A.I.D. in TDO 91 shows that contract.

Now let's go to the States. They are basically tied to which of the four private corporations named above that have the most influence in state matters? If you said the Federal Reserve you would be correct. No one in America has ever thought of this. So I guess I am the first to show what many people believe about the Federal Reserve. They are owned and controlled by the Vatican 's Black Pope is why. Technically he is the Creditor. BUT his front organization, The Federal Reserve is the Creditor. When the Vatican created the States and United States as his corporations, he also had to create a collecting agency called IRS in 1861. Remember, the Pope was the first person in history that created the income tax. Proof is in James Montgomery's articles posted on atgpress. He also had to lead, through his CEO, which are of course the Presidents he installed. And so it was that the Vatican 's Bank of England got its foot in the door when Hamilton and Washington created the first Bank of the United States in 1791, totally against the peace time Constitution. All Washington did was create the War Powers act to circumvent the peace time Constitution, which forbade the creation of Banks in the Corporation of the United States that you call “government”, that you seem to think was created for your protection. Not so.

But there was still a lot to be done. You see these international people plan 200 years ahead. Not like the Americans that plan two years in advance. So fast forward to the early 1890's when the Private Federal Reserve was in operation on the side lines, issuing Federal Reserve Notes about mid 1890's to “test the water” so to speak. Yes, history does show Federal Reserve note circulation in that time period. But history books do not show this. What? Do you think they are going to tell you of the impending scam to be laid on you? Most knowledgeable coin and money dealers will tell you this. They are few, but most other coin and paper money dealers know them. When the Vatican actually reinforced the civil war, when Lincoln is quoted , “The war [i.e., the American Civil War of 1861-1865] would never have been possible without the sinister influence of the Jesuits.”: Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865; 16th President) . It had in place, to now control all banking world wide. The Pope had not yet controlled the banks that helped the south and this was the real reason for the civil war that really wasn't a civil war for black men to be free. They were his corporations so he could do anything he wanted. The people thought they created the States from the corporate colonies. He did create corporate states unbeknownst by the ignorant Americans. History books are controlled by the powerful elitists among you.

Now shall we proceed to the USE and TRANSFER of Federal Reserve notes? From a 1914 Supreme Court case, WHEELER v. SOHMER [Wheeler v. Sohmer, 233 U.S. 434 (1914); SOURCE: http://supreme.justi…3/434/case.html], when Federal Reserve notes, were gold and silver backed at PAR. The Federal Reserve operated right along side the independent sub treasury, with its U. S. Note…from what you all called the U. S. Treasury. Now after all that Gold was held by the Federal Reserve and Congress abdicated all their power to coin money and set the value. The Black Pope's Vatican decided it was the time to put into place what the Black Pope Peter Beckx (1853-1887) of 1861 put into place for this event to take place…the IRS. Please read “going after the wrong people” for a detailed history of what has happened about which none of you are aware, right here on atgpress.

A professional researcher tries not to leave any stone unturned. This is why this is written now to re-advise you, what with the international banking in shambles. Don't ever expect to come back unless you keep plowing all their money back into the system by USING it. Whether checks or cash. Try using coined money and refuse paper scrip that is worthless as stated on the U.S. Department of Treasury site: http://www.ustreas.g…l-tender.shtml.

In the year 1921, as shown in 'Going After The Wrong People', the Independent U.S. Treasury, which all states also kept their money and which dealt in specie (Gold and Silver) was eliminated by the ACT of 1920. The Private Federal Reserve owners could not control the money as it had planned in 1791. See how long it takes, so people from one generation to the next have no clue as to what is going on? This is why Americans today, and yes that includes those of you reading this, are so deficient in knowledge and believe the Myths fostered on all Americans by the private corporate education system of the corporations that control you.

So please do read the 1914 case in USE and TRANSFER, where the Federal Reserve Note was money and met the Criteria in the Old Negotiable Instruments Law, (N.I.L.) which is now the UCC. That was 1914. And the tangible Note was tangible because it was at Par with silver and gold and the cent, which is what the DOLLAR is based on. Not the content of silver or gold in the coin. One must read the statements before the banking and currency committee of the 16 th Congress, Congressional hearings, where T. Cushing Daniel explained to a dumb Congress what a “DOLLAR” was. And it was disclosed that the Federal Reserve acts as a Sovereign, even over Congress, the States and the People of America.

What else is not told the people, who just love the banks to their own death, is this letter read to Congress at that hearing. I cannot key in the whole letter of Secretary H. Parker Willis dated December 30, 1916, to Daniel's letter to him stating, “The Bank of England was appointed by the Federal Reserve Board, in December, 1916, as its agent, through the influence of the Federal Reserve bank of New York, the central bank of the system, of which Benjamin Strong was, and is now, the Governor.” So you see people, the Bank of England controlled by the Vatican in the 1300s is now the owner of the United States and States. This is a complete turn around from when the make believe war of 1776 was fought…so that 200 years later you all are beholden to that Bank again…taxation without representation.

Today the Federal Note is worthless as stated on the US treasury website. They were at one time tangible property. They are now intangible property. I would strongly suggest you read that case in USE and TRANSFER. All your income taxes are based on the privilege of the USE of the Private trademarked FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE. It has a lien on everyone of them the minute they are issued; in favor of the Federal Reserve in Admiralty. That property your deed describes? It has a transfer tax applied. It has an excise tax stamp on it. In the case, in USE and Transfer, find that you are paying that excise tax for the USE of the Federal RESERVE Note, that is now not even a note under UCC as it was in 1914. It is not a tax on property at all. You are paying a tax for the Use of that funny money in transferring that payment in FRN'S to another U.S. citizen or State citizen having a presumed Character of the artificial person. Yes, it is the same as a sales tax I found in North Carolina . Read this direct quote from the court from the Case and find it, on why you pay a real estate tax.

Quote:

“[30] The provision in the New York Inheritance Tax Statute, imposing a transfer tax on property within the State belonging to a non-resident at the time of his death, is not unconstitutional under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as applied to promissory notes the makers of which are non-residents of that State. Buck v. Beach, 206 U.S. 392, distinguished. “

You are paying a sales tax for the same privilege of transferring that Federal Reserve Note when buying or selling a commodity. It's not on what you buy, but the Privilege to use that private note to pay for what you buy. There never is a direct tax. You might think you pay a direct tax, but you never did. You pay a PRIVILEGE tax. An Excise tax that is equal for all. So throw away all the outdated and wrong income tax and Traffic arguments you ever used. That is why no patriot has ever won a precedent setting income tax case. Nor a property tax case. Your income tax liability statute is found on the comments in the USE and TRANSFER. NO attorney, patriot or other wise, knows this and why they, as persons are as incompetent as they say you are when going to court. By their own law they are incompetent. Now why is it called a Privilege tax. Well the con job you call the Constitution never addresses rights. It only specifies “Privileges and Immunities” and is NOT for you. You never created that compact. The Padleford case distinctly said the private common person, NEVER created that Constitution and had no right to complain of a breach of contract. That's why all the common people were denied the opportunity to challenge Obama on Presidency. Only the States could challenge Obama. So all US citizens have no rights and only Privileges…which is why they call it a privilege to transfer property to another Citizen and that is a privilege that is taxed…not the Property. Same when you go to work and receive FRN's it is a privilege for the company to transfer your wages in exchange for your tangible property, Labor, and are taxed on that Privilege of Transfer that just so happens to be your liability to USE those Private Notes that IRS collects a portion to return to the federal Reserve. BUT those FRNs are now worthless paper. As long as the people do not catch on and stop using Bills of exchange…FRN's, that are debt obligations of promises to pay, they will continue to rape the people blind.

I have told Americans time and time again, if they want to correct the Problem, get the hell out of all banking. But, you are too comfortable using what taxes you to death and even after death in inheritances and estate taxes. Yes it is a privilege to die that your estate is taxed to other citizens for the Privilege of Transfer of the USE of those worthless pieces of Paper.

No patriot so far has ever figured this out. If they had they would have chimed in long ago when I posted the two articles on atgpress. From the WHEELER v. SOHMER, Case

Quote:

“[45] The question presented by the contention, this court said, was whether, under the statute as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the State, the properties were subject to taxation, and, if so subject, whether any rights secured by the Federal Constitution were thereby infringed.

The tax was sustained, but it will be observed that negotiable paper was not assessed at all or dealt with as an entity separate from what it represented. The notes which represented the credits taxed were, it is true, in New Orleans , but in possession of the agent of Stempel. Not they, but the rights of which they were the evidence were taxed. The broad declaration, therefore, that negotiable paper had such tangibility as to be of itself a taxable entity was not called for. The true value of the case and its application to the case at bar can be estimated when we consider the other cases.”

MY COMMENTS BELOW

The Federal Reserve has the right to tax their notes that are the debt obligations of the United States . They had transferred them to you via the company you worked, or if you worked as yourself, they were transferred to you by a man for whom you did work. You in turn transfer them to others and no matter where the notes [physically are], their situs, as stated by the court, lies in the Federal Reserve system. This is the liability stated in the IRS CODE if you are a US citizen and a PERSON. It is NOT 6011, 6012 or 6001, or 26 USC 1.1-1. They are only supplements to the real liability statute found at the end of the USE and TRANSFER article. When you get a cancelled Check Back when paying income taxes, does it not say PAY TO ANY FEDERAL RESERVE BANK? THAT DEAR TAXPAYER IS THE REAL CREDITOR. IF The United States, was written on the back PAY TO THE UNITED STATES. For Example: You would probably be a U.S. employee as stated in Title 27 CFR Section 70.161 (a) (4) (1) (A) (b) or (4) (ii) or (iii). Right from the Federal Register page 47623, Vol 55 No. 220 Wednesday November 14, 1990. This is where U.S. and State employees are dumped for collection purposes. See in the Federal Register page 47604, third column 27, CFR part 70, under List of subjects. That would be the Creditor. Ok, on the Federal Reserve…where is the contract you ask? Well for most Americans it is that bank signature contact card. It, in reality, is a 400 page contract. It is NOT to verify your signature. That can be done in many ways. The other way is simply the USE of Federal Reserve Notes and now in comes the supplements if you say, Hey I am not in banking! There is a back up. They have thought of everything. US citizen 26 USC 1.1-1 for one. RESIDENT in a State for #2 and how about Person in 26 USC 7701 (a) (1). Ok, let's put the double whammy on you when you say I am not a US citizen. Ever read the words defining person in 7701 (a) (1)? Wow, Individual is a TERM defining the TERM person. How many times, unknowingly, have you stated you are an individual on any document? Even if it is a FOIA request ? How about an “INDIVIDUAL” income tax Form? Read the TERM, as it is no longer a Word in law. In the Title 5 USC 552 A (6) what does the term “individual” mean? I rest my case. Try as you might to get out you seemingly cannot do it. But as I have written extensively on the subject, there is a way out. Believe me I have used it to get out. It stares people in the face whenever you pick up a Title 26 Statute. The IRS spends 1/3rd of title 26 on the term to use to get out. So much so I wrote a book on it in 1990. It is called “Which One Are You”. But alas, no one wanted to use it. It was a nasty word and so foreign no one wanted to touch it. See how the money changers dupe people into believing one set of Terms and then through WORDS of common meaning, demean the very way to legally get out of all control of the corporations you call States and United States? What are they operating? Have you ever heard of R.I.C.O.? That's what they are plying on you. Due to your Deficiency in understanding you are the same as the people Elliot Ness was helping get free of the Mafia protection racket; now practiced by the corporation named United States and all its Private corporate agencies listed on Dun and Bradstreet as private corporations.

So, all, and I mean ALL patriot and tax protesters arguments are absolutely no good. They are so far off point that in less than 45 seconds reading any brief I trash it and tell them they will lose. Of course they get angry at me. But hey, it's their ass in a sling, not mine. They can't fathom the truth. They don't want to know the truth. They already know the truth. That is the big lie that has become truth to them. Hey, I am talking to you. Why do you think you are so special when not having a letter from IRS saying you are no longer have a tax obligation and you no longer have a SSN, as you are a nontaxpayer? Yes, it is an EXCISE (PRIVILEGE) TAX. Yes, you voluntarily paid the Excise tax. Now can you see why they say it is a voluntary Tax? YOU voluntarily USE Federal Reserve Private trade-marked Notes, do you not? You transfer these notes when buying property, any property, from land to baby diapers, don't you? So you voluntarily exercise the Privilege of Transfer do you not, as a citizen and artificial person who is resident in the state and do so every day of your life? Get in your commercial vehicle with a wallet full of funny money or credit cards. You are transporting small articles of merchandise. End up at Wal-mart. Transfer those small articles of merchandise for food or a TV. Now for the privilege the state takes a sales tax based on the Privilege of buying NOT on the price but on the Privilege of the products you transferred the worthless FRN's either directly or bank credit card. It's all explained in that 1914 Case. All Terms now…No words used in law. Now why did I obtain the status of Man, the non resident in contract and an Alien, NON TAXPAYER, where in the real Creditor that you might call the Federal Reserve comes after you with their private collection agency called IRS? They sent me a letter to that effect? I was NOT in Banking and Had No DL or cars registered to me, whereby I used that commercial vehicle to transfer those small articles (FRNS) in any transfer business. That Federal Reserve note is what has caused the mess we all are in today and why the Pope's CEO, Obama was placed to protect the banking system and NOT to protect you, the Slave of the private banking system of the Black Pope.

I know anyone can read what appear to be WORDS in this article. But, do you know there are a mix of WORDS and TERMS? If you do not know that WORD and TERM are two different meanings I suggest you read TERMS – Not- WORDS on atgpress.com, to maybe understand what is said. If you do not understand, that shows how the education system has taken away understanding from you. The best thing to do to stay out of trouble is to understand or be a good slave to the system and pay everything the Private Corporation tells you to pay. All the Courts quotes are TERMS. They have no meaning resembling a WORD. They use “it”, “they”, “and” words like that but all the key TERMS like resident, person, nonresident are all TERMS. I think you all should read this Wheeler case 10 times because what they say is so foreign to your thought process, TCD will kick in quite rapidly. Then you give up and go back into slavery again thinking it's hopeless. It's only hopeless because of this quote.

Quote:

“Reason and Ignorance, the opposites of each other, influence the great bulk of mankind. If either of these can be rendered sufficiently extensive in a country, the machinery of Government goes easily on. Reason obeys itself, and Ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.”

“The Rights of Man,”

Thomas Paine

What it means is you make it hopeless by your ignorance. You can turn that around as the Canadian people have done when they said this to me by mail after using my old stuff to get free from Canada 's corporate governance.

[Note from Jackie:]

“PERSON…..I read that probably 20 times….maybe more. I went through it with Bouvier Law 1856 in order to get the gist of what was said by the states' hired mercenaries. The states' acts and subsequent codes (Matrix) always leave a back door to escape. Most believe the answer is a too complicated affair to involve ones self. It is what you make it. I must admit that once one has got it…between the ears then, it just gets easier and easier from here on in. Who knows where it's going to go but, I can assure you this…No one is going to pull the wool over my eyes, in or out of court. We must all look to renew our fundamentals for without them….nothing works .”

So as he says it. You can make it as hard as you want or as easy as you want. Nothing is free and easy. It takes hard work and understanding as all statutes start at a minimum of 12th grade level of understanding, to some that are just so bad that Einstein can't comprehend what it says. Just like the one 43 word sentence in the first income tax, 38 Stat 166, in the very first page. That does not make you liable nor does it apply to you as page 202 and 203 states. How many have read the first income tax… all 37 pages of it?

The Informer

March 6, 2010

[fg_admin]

Stija,

Thanks for pointing that out. Obviously there is a conflict and the article is flawed. We'll fix it as time permits.