PJ 16
CHAPTER 1
REC #2 HATONN
SATURDAY, JUNE 16, 1990 9:00 A.M. YEAR 3 DAY 304
THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION
As we discuss the different portions of your Constitution as written and put forth by your Founding Fathers, you shall see what a wondrous document it is, indeed. You will also be confronted with the duping which has been pressed upon you--the lies
--which you have allowed to sweep over you like a plague of locusts in the spring wheat fields--taking of all your wheat and leaving you with naught but chaff upon which to feed.
The Constitution is not "taught" in the schools any longer--only references unto the document and a cursory overview. The teachers are ill-informed at best. The point is to stop "education" and an ignorant society is the only kind which can be controlled.
As we discuss the "INCOME TAX" laws and amendments as laid forth in the Constitution, I must remind you that the reason for a Constitutional Convention is to bring this into law right under your noses before you realize you have been subject to punitive treatment since onset and put a stop to it.
First, I will tell you right up front for those of you who will shout, "Well, how else could we run our government?, etc." Beautifully!!! The method of gaining money, balancing the budget and maintaining control over your own representatives is built right into the original and wondrous Constitution document. I will only refer to that herein and pass it by for if I keep not to the subject at hand, you become confused and the Journal becomes too lengthy for most to stay unto the ending.
Secondly, I will repeat a bit from the prior Journals which state that the 16th Amendment has never been valid and therefore I will mostly leave it lay until later, also.
NULL AND VOID
The 16th Amendment was never properly ratified so was actually never a proper amendment. But since it has been enacted "as if" it were, we must deal with other measures which will show you that none of the enforcement of Income Tax on persons is valid. Even the police force set up to deprive you of your goods and property is merely a private police corporation set up to enforce unlawful actions against the citizenry. Of course, most of you have never heard of such a thing--that is why I am telling you, just as have some other very daring people who know the laws. Certainly the "robber" is not going to tell you his secrets when he is in the midst of making a fortune from your property in your absence. Further, if he holds a gun to your head, you are going to render up your goods for that would appear wise indeed. Therefore, you must know how to disarm the robber!
ONCE THAT NEW CONSTITUTION IS IN FORCE--YOU WILL NO LONGER HAVE OPPORTUNITY TO DO ANYTHING, SO "ACTION" MUST BE THE NAME OF THIS PORTION OF THE GAME.
I claim not to be a lawyer (thank God for small favors) but I DO KNOW THE LAW
--the real law. The Constitution of the United States was written within the guidelines of the Laws of God and Creation, albeit errors are within because at the writing, circumstances set forth by man were present. Equality was structured within but man interpreted equality to suit himself. However, all you need to rectify all ills is built within the foundationed structure. The Hosts sat at the writing of the law of your lands to insure its basic perfection, for your land was destined to be the testing ground for human upon your placement. You are right to the brink of failing--forever.
TRANSFUSIONS
Since taxes from "you the people" represent the life blood of the dragon and that which allows it to continue in its usurpation of your planet, we shall begin by outlaying the lies and showing you what some have done legally and lawfully to begin to set things to right and regain control of that which you foolishly have allowed to control you. The Income Tax is the place to begin for it is about the most blatantly malused single example.
You must realize that to be effective you must work from the facts of strength--no half-ways and no dickering, as such. If you have been sending forms to the IRS, you have been voluntarily playing their game and they are accepting your filing as a contract for your willing obligation to give them a portion of your income and property.
Will simply refusing to file a form be sufficient? It depends on how much you have been volunteering to give them to squander on their self-righteous spending sprees. If the amount is great--expect every barrage imagined; if there is naught to get from you, they will probably leave you alone following the first follow-up notice and response.
Therefore, I cannot stress firmly enough that before launching off on the path of withdrawal from the system you divest yourself of assets. Get your corporations into birthing in Nevada where ownership is private and shows nothing of great value to come take from you. If you already are paying withholding and fairly minimal amounts you are at a good place to begin to take action without further baggage.
Perhaps I will begin by giving you a rather long observation that the Withholding form (W-2) is totally unlawful and if you are allowing that form to be utilized--you have just admitted to actions of heinous proportion. To agree with use of that form indicates a confession, on your part, of illegal behavior. You are a "taxpayer" ONLY if you engage in illegal methods of action to obtain your income. Therefore, it must be decided whether or not you are a "taxpayer". Then we will move into a discussion of "direct" vs. "indirect" taxes and how they apply to income.
I choose this order of presentation which is really quite out of order, but you need to first establish to yourselves as to whether or not you are actually a "taxpayer" and I presume to prove to you that all but the very tiny percentage of people (outside the government thieves themselves) are truly not "taxpayers", not even eligible to be called "taxpayer".
UPON WHAT IS THE "INCOME TAX" IMPOSED?
Your Supreme Court of the United States of America has held that an income tax is not a "direct" tax, but rather an "indirect" tax in the nature of an excise tax. Now, with that fact firmly in mind, we should ask this next question: Upon what, exactly, is that indirect tax, which is named or called the 'income tax", imposed?
Will this make the "big boys" happy? Of course not, for they have kept this secret for years and just robbed and pillaged, plundered and raped you while you diligently fork over your property. You will quickly see that an indirect tax, such as an "income tax", is not actually imposed upon the money received as income or upon any other property, BUT RATHER UPON AN ACTIVITY OR EVENT WHICH IS TAXABLE FOR REVENUE PURPOSES.
You will have to face the fact that most of the hard working men and women in America are working at jobs which do not involve any activity that is taxable for revenue purposes and, therefore, are NOT subject to any income tax. You will also realize that millions of Americans earn their living only by exercising their constitutionally guaranteed, God-given right to exist by engaging in lawful, innocent and harmless activities, but are nevertheless being unconstitutionally deprived of a portion of their wages under the guise, sham, pretext and subterfuge of "withholding taxes" as if they were engaged in revenue taxable activities.
The right to exist and sustain one's self by lawful means is a God-given and constitutionally guaranteed right. An individual is not subject to a charge (tax) on the exercise of this constitutionally guaranteed, God-given right.
The U.S. Supreme Court said, in Murdock vs. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, at page 113. (1943): "A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution".
The individual's natural rights limit the power of taxation! For remember, with the exception of taxing exports, the states gave the federal government full and complete taxing power, but could not have given the federal government any power they themselves did not possess! Therefore, the federal government is also prohibited from imposing a charge (tax) for the enjoyment of a God-given right secured by the U.S. Constitution. You either have a constitutionally guaranteed right to do what you are doing, or you do not. It is as with pregnancy--you are or you are not. Constitutionally guaranteed rights cannot be taxed for revenue purposes. IT IS JUST THIS SIMPLE!
Ah, but the "secret" lies hidden, so watch the hand carefully: The U.S. Supreme Court in 1930, Tyler v. U.S., 281 U.S. 497, at page 502. (1930): "A tax laid upon the happening of an event, as distinguished from its tangible fruits, is an indirect tax..." (We shall discuss this in "Indirect vs. Direct taxation").
Those of you who have been studying this subject will quickly recognize the importance of the statement above. You already realize the fact that "income taxes" are not direct taxes and they are not imposed directly on the income, or on licenses or franchises, or any other form of property. You know that "income taxes" are not imposed upon people. You know that capitation taxes, and taxes imposed upon property (including money), are in the category of direct taxes. You also know that the U.S. Supreme Court has held that Congress' power of income taxation belongs in the category of indirect taxation, and has also held that taxation on income is, in its nature, an excise entitled to be enforced as such.
BUT WHAT EXACTLY IS THE SO-CALLED INCOME TAX?
The U.S. Supreme Court gives you the answer in the Tyler Case (above), by telling you that indirect taxes are not imposed upon the "tangible fruits", but rather upon the happening of an event. Obviously then, such events must be taxable for revenue purposes. Then it can only follow that excise taxes, being indirect taxes, are imposed upon the happening of events or activities, which are taxable for revenue purposes.
VERIFY IMPOSITION OF EXCISE TAXES
You must now realize that it is extremely important to be able to verify that excise taxes are imposed upon activities, and the income derived from these activities is used only to measure the amount of the tax. Once again, the U.S. Supreme Court comes to your assistance. In 1911, Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, at page 154: "We must remember, too, that the revenues of the United States must be obtained in the same territory, from the same people, and excise taxes must be collected from the same activities, as are also reached by the States in order to support their local government". and,
"Conceding the power of Congress to tax the business activities of private corporations....the tax must be measured by some standard...." (pg. 165, Flint, supra.) and,
"It is therefore well settled by the decisions of this court that when the sovereign authority has exercised the right to tax a legitimate subject of taxation as an exercise of a franchise or privilege, it is no objection that the measure of taxation is found in the income...".
Don't go get all bent out of shape now, as to "what about corporations?" Allow us to walk one step at a time. We will later show you that a corporation is simply an artificial "person"; moreover, if a corporation is birthed and birthed in Nevada--there is no state tax, at any rate. Actually, we will show you that, as structured, even state taxes are handled unlawfully and unconstitutionally.
INCOME TAX IS AN EXCISE TAX
Realizing that, and that an excise tax is imposed upon revenue taxable activities, consider these questions: What activity, if any, have you been involved in upon which an excise tax can be imposed? Would this not be the first question to be asked in order to determine whether or not you are subject to the indirect tax called the "income tax"? Unless it can be shown that you have been involved in some activity which is taxable for revenue purposes, there is no factual basis upon which anyone can substantiate a claim that you are subject to the revenue laws.
SECRET OUT OF THE BAG
It will no longer be a secret when the American people realize that most of them are working at jobs which do not involve revenue taxable activities. SURPRISE!?! THIS REALIZATION WILL COME WHEN YOU UNDERSTAND THAT "INCOME TAXES", BEING IN THE CATEGORY OF INDIRECT TAXES, ARE TAXES IMPOSED UPON ANY REVENUE TAXABLE ACTIVITY OR EVENT SUCH AS THE DOING OF BUSINESS UNDER CERTAIN LICENSES OR FRANCHISES, OR THE DOING OF ANY OTHER ACTIVITY WHICH IS TAXABLE FOR REVENUE PURPOSES, AND UNDERSTAND THAT SUCH TAXES ARE MERELY NAMED "INCOME TAXES" BECAUSE THE INCOME FROM THE REVENUE TAXABLE ACTIVITY IS THE GAUGE, OR "YARDSTICK", USED TO MEASURE THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX IMPOSED UPON THE REVENUE TAXABLE ACTIVITY.
If this seems complicated, please allow input and then go back and make your connections. It is too entangled to read thus far and decide on the merit or truth of this document. You WILL understand it by the ending of the Journal. To assist you and save time we will give you the dictionary definition of "excise tax".
{Excise: an internal charge (tax) levied on the manufacture, sale, or consumption of a commodity within a country; any of various taxes on privileges often assessed in the form of a license or other fee.}
Remembering now that an "income tax" is an indirect tax in the nature of an excise, and an indirect tax is a tax laid upon the happening of an event (activity), as distinguished from its tangible fruits, you will realize the importance of classifying a person's activity.
TWO CATEGORIES OF ACTIVITIES
1. Activities which only involve the exercise of constitutionally guaranteed rights, such as earning one's living by engaging in lawful, innocent and harmless activities.
2. Activities which are taxable for revenue purposes.
You must come into realization of the importance of making a distinction between these two types of activities because, remember, the U.S. Supreme Court said: "A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution". Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, pg. 113 (1943).
Try another reason: The Oregon Supreme Court said in Redfield v. Fisher, 292 P. 813, pg. 819 (1930): "The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the state; but the individuals' rights to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an EXCISE CANNOT BE IMPOSED". [Emphasis added.]
It is this type of activity or the happening of an event, which is taxable for revenue purposes, that makes a person a "taxpayer" subject to the revenue laws.
One who is merely exercising his constitutionally guaranteed right to exist by engaging in lawful, innocent and harmless activities is a "nontaxpayer" and IS NOT subject to the revenue laws.
As will be referred to in this Journal, the term "taxpayer" is used in the strict or narrow sense contemplated by the Internal Revenue Code and means: a person who is subject to pay his own personal income taxes.
THE INCOME TAX AMENDMENT
The 16th Amendment, which is the so-called income tax amendment, was placed in your Constitution in 1913. As you will see, three years later in 1916, the U.S. Supreme Court continued to recognize the FACT that the power of income taxation is in the category of indirect taxation, and this indirect taxation is in its nature an excise.
Lets look at that 1916 verification of the fact that an income tax is not a direct tax. The Supreme Court said: "The contention that the Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax...is...wholly without foundation..." Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, pg. 118.
Also in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, pg. 112 (1916): "The Sixteenth Amendment conferred NO NEW POWER of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress FROM THE BEGINNING from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged...".
Then again the Supreme Court verified this fact in Brushaper, supra, at pages 16-17: "The conclusion reached in the Pollock Case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class of direct taxes on property, but on the CONTRARY recognized the FACT that taxation on income was in its nature an EXCISE entitled to be enforced as such....".
Please understand that I shall emphasize things at liberty throughout this Journal. I am efforting to give you information and not be grammatically superior or running in a language contest. You can get all the documentation in perfection from other authors which I shall endeavor to list in the appendix. You will not find the books listed in the regular libraries or bookstores but most will be obtainable from Liberty Library, which information I shall also avail you. I cannot take the time of this scribe to list each author separately or give, in any manner, adequate recognition for their work surpasses the "thank you" level of gratitude. YOU GIVE THEM THE RECOGNITION MERITED BY YOUR SUPPORT AND GRATITUDE.
IRS CODE REFERENCES
When the Internal Revenue Code refers to 'taxable income', 'taxable year', `person liable', 'person made liable', etc., it is referring only to those whose incomes are derived from revenue taxable activities. As you have now seen, an indirect tax is not upon the tangible fruits, but upon the revenue taxable activity, and therefore, it is not a direct tax on the income as property. In other words, once a person understands that the "income tax" is in the class of indirect taxes, which are taxes imposed upon revenue taxable activities, it goes without saying that anything in the revenue code referring to income or "income taxes" only applies to those whose activities are taxable for revenue purposes.
You must realize that a government cannot impose a tax on the free exercise
of a constitutionally guaranteed, God-given right, such as the right to lawfully acquire property and the right to exist and sustain one's self by lawfully contracting one's own labor to engage in innocent and harmless actvities for lawful compensation.
While the federal government indeed has the power to impose direct taxes, providing they be apportioned among the states according to their respective numbers, it has not exercised its power of direct taxation since the time of the Civil War. From that time since, all federal taxes for revenue purposes have been, and still are, in the category of indirect taxes; in other words, taxes imposed upon the happening of events (activities) which are taxable for revenue purposes. Even the "VICTORY TAX" of 1942 was nothing more than an additional tax, called the "victory tax not income", which was added to the already established indirect tax named the "income tax". We shall speak of this particular blob upon your records at a later chapter.
Often people will, at this point, ask how the government can provide for the necessary revenue. The fact that this question is even raised demonstrates the failure of the school systems to teach even the fundamental principles of constitutional taxation. Do not worry. Not only can Congress increase the rates of the indirect taxes applied to the proper subject, it also has a tremendous source of revenue available through its power of direct taxation, but has not exercised this tremendous power in over 100 years.
Once you understand how direct taxes are to be applied, you will realize that this method of taxation is extremely fair and does not violate any individual's constitutional rights. Isn't fairness and the protection of the individual's constitutional rights what America is or was all about?
Moreover, a person will realize that when the revenues are lawfully collected from the proper subjects of taxation, the people will exert much better control over the spending habits of their congressmen and put a stop to the thievery and selling of your country. This is why the power of direct taxation has not been used in over a century. Special interest groups have influenced the congressmen. You would find interesting answers if you asked your congressman why the power of direct taxation is not being used as it was during the Civil War, considering the condition of the national debt and all. It certainly is grand food for thought.
Now, back to "taxpayer" and a "nontaxpayer".
"TAXPAYER" vs. NONTAXPAYER
THE FREE EXERCISE OF THE CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED RIGHT TO LAWFULLY ACQUIRE PROPERTY (income or other compensation) BY LAWFULLY CONTRACTING ONE'S OWN LABOR TO ENGAGE IN LAWFUL, INNOCENT AND HARMLESS ACTIVITIES FOR LAWFUL COMPENSATION CANNOT BE (and therefore has not been ) TAXED FOR REVENUE PURPOSES, AND THEREFORE, AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS ONLY ENGAGED IN LAWFUL, INNOCENT, AND HARMLESS ACTIVITIES IS NOT SUBJECT TO ANY "INCOME" OR OTHER REVENUE TAX, AND THEREFORE, IS NOT A 'TAXPAYER", AS DEFINED BY LAW, AND CAN THEREFORE BE PROPERLY DESCRIBED AND DEFINED AS A "NONTAXPAYER"!
Your United States courts have ruled (and here are two evidences); Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236, at 238 (1922) and Economy Plumbing and Heating v. U.S.; 470 F.2d 585, at 589 (1972): "The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. THEY RELATE TO TAXPAYERS, AND NOT TO NONTAXPAYERS. The latter are without their scope. NO PROCEDURE IS PRESCRIBED FOR NONTAXPAYERS, and NO attempt is made to ANNUL any of their RIGHTS and remedies in due course of law. With them Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither of the SUBJECT nor of the OBJECT of the revenue laws".
So, who are the "taxpayers", and who are the nontaxpayers? As the United States courts have said, the revenue laws relate only to "taxpayers", and not to nontaxpayers. The courts further state that there is no attempt made to annul the rights and remedies of nontaxpayers in due course of law.
Nontaxpayers cannot legally be prosecuted under laws that relate only to "taxpayers". Because of this fact, it is extremely imperative that you know the difference between a "taxpayer" and a nontaxpayer, and even more imperative that you CLAIM YOUR PROPER STATUS!
What makes the difference? All taxes imposed by the federal government today are in the category of indirect taxes. You now further know that indirect taxes are imposed upon the happening of an event or activity which is taxable for revenue purposes. You can, therefore, conclude that a person must be engaged in an event or activity which is taxable for revenue purposes before he would be subject to any internal revenue tax. Such a person would be a "taxpayer" as that term is legally defined by statute. ALL OTHER INDIVIDUALS ARE IN THE CATEGORY OF NONTAXPAYER; those who are "neither of the subject nor of the object of the revenue laws".
Remember our definitions; the term "taxpayer" is used in the strict or narrow sense contemplated by the Internal Revenue Code and means a person who is subject to pay his own personal income taxes. Further note: The nature of a revenue taxable activity is such that it cannot be pursued as a matter of constitutional right!
Dharma, before we break these down into detailed outlay, let us take a break and attend other things this day. We must have no errors in this Journal in concept for all must remember the ultimate: everything the government does is legal even if unlawful. I suggest all ones study this information most carefully in detail prior to acting in partial ignorance. We shall do a much better performance if we take respites and total breaks from the subject material at point. Thank you.
Hatonn to clear, please.
.
PJ16
CHAPTER 2
REC #1 HATONN
SUNDAY, JUNE 17, 1990 8:53 A.M. YEAR 3 DAY 305
A PERFECT PRAYER FOR FATHER'S DAY
I am grateful indeed for this message sent unto us, for it repeats the Master's lesson for speaking unto our Father/Mother but requires thought instead of simple foolish repetition:
"MY SPIRIT, YOU ARE OMNIPOTENT. YOUR NAME IS HOLY MAY YOUR REALM BE INCARNATE IN ME. MAY YOUR POWER REVEAL ITSELF WITHIN ME, ON EARTH AND IN THE HEAVEN. GIVE ME TODAY MY DAILY BREAD, AND THUS, LET ME RECOGNIZE MY TRANSGRESSIONS AND ERRORS, AND I SHALL RECOGNIZE THE TRUTH. AND DO NOT LEAD ME INTO TEMPTATION AND CONFUSION, BUT DELIVER ME FROM ERROR. FOR YOURS IS THE REALM WITHIN ME AND THE POWER AND THE KNOWLEDGE FOREVER, AMEN"...... SANANDA
You ones in this group have seen the wondrous work of the Father who sustains you. In his grace he gives back unto you that which you presume lost forever. 'Tis right you call the little sparrow "Albird", for it is. It is truly a lesson of lessons--you must release that which you love and yet, you must recognize it when the Father returns it unto you. If you always care for each and all, you will not miss of the Great Spirit's coming for you are not given to know in what form he shall visit thine places for your lessons of love and giving of thine heart love and nurturing unto your brethren of all creatures
--for ALL is of the Creation. "As you do unto the least of these; so do ye unto ME"! So be it. The Creator knows of the fall of even the sparrow or the lamb missing from the fold and He will not leave that fragment. You need no rituals and no books of great human teachings--you are the fragment and you are tended in constant love and cherishment. Just as Elizabeth picked up the little sparrow and you have taken him as your own little handicapped fledgling, so God tends you through your handicapped journey home. May you learn to see each lesson and blessing for the wondrous gift which it portends. AHO!
Let us return to the Journal. I know it would seem a long way from God to the IRS and an enslaved people, but, God is coming forth to set you free if you will but pay attention.
TAXPAYER
For this discussion, the term "taxpayer" will be used only as it applies to an "income tax" so that you are not confused.
Let us look at the person who is engaged in activities which are taxable for revenue purposes. This, friends, is a real "culprit". He has been given the more glamorous name of "taxpayer" but he is a real culprit. The term "taxpayer" has been legally defined by statute, and has a very limited and very narrow definement.
A "taxpayer" can be considered a "wrong-doer", a "tort-feasor" (a little lawyer language should perk you up), a "malefactor", a "lawbreaker", a "scofflaw", and so on. At the very best he is one who, because of his revenue taxable activities, has incurred an obligation to society and is required to make restitution in the form of a fine (TAX). Yes, this "culprit" is LIABLE.
Let us look into what makes a person subject to, liable for, and thus obligated to make restitution to society in the form of a tax. I shall be most disappointed if any of my circle defines themselves in this manner.
FRONT DOOR
What is the label on the front door to the Internal Revenue Code? TAXPAYER! If you are NOT one of these "culprits", exemptions do not appITW: 4 forms do not apply, 1040 forms do not apply, and all the other voluminous statutes, rules, regulations and/or penalties of the internal revenue laws simply DO NOT APPLY! You are "WITHOUT THE SCOPE" of the revenue laws! (Refer back to the "Economy" case in the prior chapter).
The Internal Revenue Code (Title 26 of the United States Code), defines the term "taxpayer" in two sections; 1313(b) and 7701(a)(14).
Sec. 1313. Definitions:
(b) Taxpayer
Notwithstanding section 7701(a)(14), the term "taxpayer" means
any person subject to a tax under the applicable revenue law. 26 U.S.C. 1313(b).
Sec. 7701. Definitions:
(a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof--
(14) Taxpayer
The term "taxpayer" means any person subject to any internal revenue
tax.
26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(14).
The term "taxpayer" clearly applies only to those persons subject to a tax under the applicable revenue law. But, who are these persons who have become subject to an income tax?
What must happen to make one subject to an "income tax"? We first need to know the definition of "subject to".
"sub'ect to": Liable, subordinate, subservient, inferior, obedient to; governed or affect by; provided that; provided; answerable for. Homan v. Employers Reinsurance Corp., 345 Mo. 650, 136 S.W.2d 289, 302. BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, 5th Edition, page 1278.
Therefore, in order for an individual to be subject to the "income tax", he must be liable, or answerable for something he has done.
BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY: liable: Bound or obligated in law or equity; responsible; chargeable; answerable: compellable to make satisfaction, compensation, or restitution. (Homan v. Employers Reinsurance Corporation)
Obligated; accountable for or chargeable with. Condition of being bound to respond because a wrong has occurred. Condition out of which a legal liability might arise. (Pacific Fire Ins. Co. v. Murdock Cotton Co). Justly or legally responsible or answerable.
The IRC, at sections 6001 and 6011, deals with a person who has made himself liable by committing an act for which he is obligated to make restitution.
Sec. 6001:
Every person liable for any tax imposed by this title....shall keep records, render such statements, make such returns, etc.... 26 U.S.C. 6001 (in part).
Sec. 6011(a) General rule:
When required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary any person made liable for any tax imposed by this title....shall make a return or statement.... 26 U.S.C. 6011(a) (in part).
So--what part of the Internal Revenue Code "makes" you liable? Surprise! The Internal Revenue Code does not make anyone liable for an "income tax". So, stop looking there for the answer. THE CODE SIMPLY APPLIES TO "ANY PERSON MADE LIABLE", AND A PERSON MAKES HIMSELF LIABLE BY ENGAGING IN ACTIVITIES WHICH ARE TAXABLE FOR REVENUE PURPOSES. The nature of a revenue taxable activity is that it is so infected with culpability and is so utterly inappropriate for constitutional protection and so affects the public's interest that the public therefore has a right to compensate itself and punish the "wrong-doer" with its revenue taxing powers. IT IS THAT SIMPLE, INDEED. Perhaps into this category of "taxpayers" should fall Congress as well as the IRS????
THE NONTAXPAYER
This Journal is, therefore, compiled for you, THE NONTAXPAYER. If someone has acted in such dastardly fashion as to owe retribution, then he should pay. Now, if you have made yourself liable, then you look up your own references; see exception provided in 26 U.S.C. 6012(a)(1)(A) & (C).
It is not feasible to list all revenue taxable activities, but you can rely quite comfortably upon one thing; THE FOLLOWING ARE NOT AND CANNOT BE TAXED FOR REVENUE PURPOSES: THE FREE EXERCISE OF THE CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED RIGHT TO LAWFULLY ACQUIRE PROPERTY (income or other compensation) BY LAWFULLY CONTRACTING ONE'S OWN LABOR TO ENGAGE IN INNOCENT AND HARMLESS ACTIVITIES FOR LAWFUL COMPENSATION! WHY? BECAUSE A STATE MAY NOT IMPOSE A CHARGE FOR THE ENJOYMENT OF A RIGHT SECURED BY THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.
A "taxpayer", by definition, therefore, is one who is obligated to make restitution or repayment for some thing he has done which is culpable in nature, does not meet the requisites of lawful, innocent and harmless, and does not warrant constitutional protection.
Then, obviously, if an individual's acts have been lawful, innocent and harmless, he owes no restitution to anyone.
In reference to "an individual", the U.S. Supreme Court said: "He owes nothing to the public so long as lie does not trespass upon their rights". Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, at 74. (1906)
Oh, you think some of these rulings might be old and outdated? NOT UNLESS YOUR CONSTITUTION IS RE-WRITTEN, MY GOOD FRIENDS! NOT UNLESS YOU ALLOW YOUR CONSTITUTION TO BE RE-WRITTEN!!!
So, you want an example? Say that John Doe earns his living by being a janitor; an activity which is certainly lawful, innocent and harmless. Does anyone then have the right to claim part of what he has earned, simply because he earned it??? As in, "OK, John, YOU earned some money and WE claim part of it". I would suppose the very thought of this claim being valid is ludicrous to you.
If John obtains a second job of maintenance, and is now working twice as many hours a day instead of the one job of eight hours, does anyone have a right to claim any part of John's extra earnings? As in, "OK, John, YOU are now getting more money. WE demand an even bigger cut of your money".
Nobody within their rational mind could honestly believe that John owes anybody anything, let alone a bigger cut, because John works harder on two jobs. Anyone who wants part of what John has worked for has the heart and mind of a thief and an extortion artist who causes one to pay "protection racket" sums and is a "protection enforcer", indeed, and probably has a job with organized crime. If not, he should apply for a job as such--or with the "legal" criminal elements.
Some will attempt to justify the taking of John's earnings with the groundless statement, "Everyone should pay their fair share". A fair share of what? A fair share of what John has worked for? There is absolutely NO connection between what John has earned and any debt he may have to anyone. Remember, friends, John's activities are lawful, innocent and harmless! Anyone who wants the "government" to share in John's earnings has a desire for a collectivist form of government and is in no way supportive of the U.S. Constitution or God's laws.
And yet, John's employer, who as a matter of law is expected to know better, is probably withholding from John's pay under the guise, pretext, sham and subterfuge of "withholding taxes". The only way this is even legal is because anything the guy with the gun says is "legal" if the rules are "voted in". BUT, IT IS MOST CERTAINLY AN UNLAWFUL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL DEPRIVATION OF PROPERTY AND THIS MUST BE BROUGHT TO AN ABRUPT HALT OR YOU, AS A PEOPLE, ARE DOWN THE TUBES.
Now, even worse, John's employer is probably falsely reporting John's name to the taxing agencies as if John was engaged in a revenue taxable activity and as if John was subject the "income tax' and tax withholding. And the employer, who as a matter of law is expected to know better, will probably have the audacity to falsely claim that the law requires him to withhold.
EVEN IF JOHN FILLED OUT A W-4 FORM WITH 'EXEMPT' WRITTEN ON IT, THE FORM ITSELF IS NULL AND VOID. JOHN HAS NOT MADE HIMSELF LIABLE AND THEREFORE IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE INTERNAL REVENUE LAWS. The form simply does not apply to John.
However, the employer will very likely send this form to the taxing agencies as if John was engaged in an activity that is taxable for revenue purposes. This false and unlawful misrepresentation to the taxing agencies will have a direct and proximate result of the employer procuring a false and unlawful withholding order from the agency to withhold John's wages as if he was engaged in a revenue taxable activity.
Then, further, the employer will very probably have the audacity to claim that he was only doing what the "government" told him to do.
Now, hold on a minute! Who sent John's name and the form to the agency in the first place? Who should know better than anyone else, which, if any, of their employees are engaged in revenue taxable, culpable, criminal, lawless and answerable taxable activities? (THE UNLAWFUL WITHHOLDING OF FUNDS IS CRIMINAL CONVERSION, EXTORTION, ABUSE OF CORPORATE PRIVILEGE, AND IS DEPRIVING THE INDIVIDUAL OF PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW). Where do I get such an idea? Direct from the rules regarding W-4 forms which we shall cover more in depth a bit farther on in this Journal.
Employers seemingly choose not to know better (which is voluntary as well as culpable ignorance--and some of you should begin with your law-suits for it is time some start having credible, lawful and legitimate law-suits). From the Hale Case, cited above, the individual must trespass upon the public's rights before he owes the public anything.
Now you need an example of "trespass" or "damages"? (Sic sic) Where were your teachers when you "thought" you were in school learning proper things? OK, here is an example of trespass or damage to an individual's property to demonstrate how and when an obligation to make restitution is incurred. If you, from your own negligence or on purpose, drive your car into somebody's fence, who is liable and why? You are, of course, because you have committed an act which resulted in an adverse affect or damage to someone else for which you are now obligated to make restitution. Even if there is not a statute on the books to cover this offense, you are still obligated under common-law to make restitution to the person whose property was damaged. When did you incur this liability? It is not next summer or next month or next year--or next April 15th--you became liable at the time you did the damage.
If the person who is damaged decides to allow the "wrong-doer" until April 15th to pay for the damages, that's OK. If the person who is damaged decides to allow the "wrong-doer" an "exemption" for any damages under a certain amount, say $1,000 a year, that, too, is quite fine. Nevertheless, the obligation has still been incurred, and it was incurred at the time the act was committed.
This principle will justify the withholding of wages at the time the wages are paid to the person who, because of his revenue taxable activity, has made himself liable, or subject to, and therefore obligated to make restitution, forthwith, now--immediately!
Let us demonstrate the fact that culpability or liability is a necessary requisite before one becomes obligated to pay an "income tax", and also to demonstrate that the income is merely the gauge by which the amount of the obligation or tax is measured. Let us regress all the way back to your year 1864.
The revenue act of that year imposed a tax retroactively to the prior year. This would appear at first to be an ex post facto law (a little more legaleze for confusion), but it is not. Remember, the activity of doing the "dastardly deed" for which the "wrong-doer" ("taxpayer") was liable, had already taken place. There was no need for a statute to be on the books at the time the act was committed for obviously the crime was so heinous that Society had a common-law right of recovery.
The Supreme Court said in Stockdale v. Insurance Companies, 20 Wall. 323, at 331. (87 U.S. 323): "The right of Congress to have imposed this tax by a new statute, although the measure of it was governed by the income of the past year, cannot be doubted; much less can it be doubted that it could impose such a tax on the income of the current year though part of that year had elapsed when the statute was passed. The joint resolution of July 4th, 1864 (how many of you really believe that Congress works on July 4th?), imposed a tax of five-per cent upon all income of the previous year, although one tax on it had already been paid....".
Look at the above Stockdale citation for it also can be found in a 1916 Supreme Court case of Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R., 240- U.S. 1, at page 20. This was after the 16th Amendment. Frank Brushaber made the same argument against the retroactive character of the Tariff Act of 1913--good for him. To dispose, however, of Mr. Brushaber's frivolous argument, the Supreme Court cited the above quote from the Stockdale Case.
This certainly confirms that in these two cases the obligation was incurred at the time the act was committed, and perhaps of greater importance, they demonstrate that in regard to an income tax", the income is merely the gauge by which the amount of the tax is measured. Therefore, the tax is not on the income, but rather on the revenue taxable activity.
THEREFORE, IT IS A FACT THAT A "TAXPAYER", FOR THE PURPOSES OF "INCOME TAXES", IS ONE WHO IS OBLIGATED TO MAKE RESTITUTION FOR HAVING ENGAGED IN AN ACTIVITY WHICH CREATED A LIABILITY.
It is also very important to note that the mere filing of forms does not make the individual a "taxpayer" subject to the tax. The signing of the form does not change a non-taxable activity into as taxable activity! It is the engaging in a revenue taxable activity that makes a person subject to an income tax; period!!! If a person is not subject to the tax, he is not a "taxpayer" as contemplated by the Internal Revenue Code.
APPLICATION OF THIS POINT
This principle has been applied by the U.S. Court of Claims in the Economy Case cited earlier. The court explains that the filing of forms does not change a person's status from nontaxpayer to taxpayer.
The filing of the claims for refund by the plaintiffs did not help them, because the claims were unnecessary and of no consequence since plaintiffs were not taxpayers who had overpaid their taxes. Economy, supra, at 589.
Persons who are not taxpayers are not within the system and can obtain no benefit by following the procedures prescribed for taxpayers, such as the filing of claims for refunds. Economy, supra, at 589.
The payment of Lieb's taxes with the money due plaintiffs under the contract did not convert such contract funds into an overpayment of their taxes nor make taxpayers of the plaintiffs. Neither did the mere filing of claims for refunds make plaintiffs taxpayers when none of the requisites of the status of taxpayers were present. (note 3), Economy, supra, at 590.
Note 3 of this case reads as follows: "3. The term "taxpayer" in this opinion is used in the strict or narrow sense contemplated by the Internal Revenue Code and means a person who pays, overpays, or is subject to pay his own personal income tax. (See Section 7701(a)(14) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.) A "nontaxpayer" is a person who does not possess the foregoing requisites of a taxpayer." Economy, supra, nt.3, at 590.
I thank one, 0.S., for pointing out a most interesting turn in this particular case. It is that the plaintiffs were claiming to be "taxpayers" and the "government" was correctly claiming that the plaintiffs were not "taxpayers". The plaintiffs had already recovered the funds taken by IRS to pay Lieb's taxes in a contract action and not for a refund of overpaid taxes. In this action, however, they were trying to claim they were "taxpayers" so they could qualify for 11 years of interest allowed "taxpayers" under the internal revenue laws. Therefore, you must conclude that the "government" does know the difference between a "taxpayer" and a nontaxpayer. IT IS SUGGESTED THAT YOU CLAIM YOUR PROPER STATUS!
You will note that the rules and laws are bent in every direction to prove "their" case against the innocent--you must learn to interpret the rules literally and give them back that which they present to you as "proof". The work and research has all been done quite sufficiently for you and we most certainly honor those ones who have done this detailed and tedious work in order to assist you. Is the alarm clock ringing yet?? Who is awakening?? Come on, chelas, you might actually find there is life after walking death.
Even if John (the janitor) signed a form called a W-4 and gave it to his employer, it still did not create a tax liability, and did not make John a "taxpayer" as contemplated by the internal revenue laws. If you do not possess the foregoing requisites of a "taxpayer" as cited in Note 3 of the Economy Case above, the internal revenue laws just do not apply and naught you do can make them apply. If you are not subject to an income tax, you simply have no personal income tax. Money may have been withheld from your paycheck under the guise, pretext, sham, and subterfuge of "withholding taxes", but that did not make it a tax. Not only is such withholding a conversion of funds, but it is taking private property for public use without just compensation; another violation of your 5th Amendment rights.
In the so-called "income tax" cases, both civil and criminal regarding individuals, the opposition always comes into court waving previously signed W-4 forms and 1040 forms which the individual signed under penalty of perjury. Since these forms apply only to "taxpayers", they imply that the individual is a "taxpayer" and is thus subject to the income tax. The judge then proceeds to advise the jury "on the law" as it applies to a "taxpayer". What is worse, and how sad it is, the individuals, and their so-called attorneys, have failed to raise the issue that the forms are NULL AND VOID because the individual was not engaged in any revenue taxable activity for which he was liable to make restitution in the form of a tax. He was merely exercising his constitutional right to exist.
Remember:
"A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right
granted by the Federal Constitution" Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, at 113 (1943).
"The right to labor and to its protection from unlawful interference is a constitutional as well as a common-law right. Every man has a natural right to the fruits of his own industry". 48 Am Jur 2d, Sec. 2, pg 80.
Before this Journal is completed please remind me to see to it that Handbook Instructions for Jurors be added thereto. By golly, I feel as if I am beginning in pre-school with your educations. Worse, the instructions apply to "common-law" and you have now "assumed" the status of "Admiralty" or "merchant" law. You must bear with us as we try to orderly give this information in some semblance of useable/understandable format. Patience is often the virtue that will save you a lot of your wondrous and so sought-after wealth and keep your property yours. Are you beginning to see what a big, sick and putrid joke has been perpetrated upon you as a people?
You see, the above does not mean just part of the fruits of your own industry; it means you have a right to ALL (TOTAL, 100 PERCENT, 100%) of the fruits of your own industry.
LET THE WHOLE WORLD KNOW YOU ARE NOT
A 'TAXPAYER"
If you do not possess the requisites of a "taxpayer" and most of you do not, then let the whole wondrous world know, up front, that you are a NONTAXPAYER!
So you blew it before; previously signed W-4 forms and 1040 forms, signed under penalty of perjury, provide the courts with prima facie evidence that the individual is a "taxpayer", as defined, and is therefore subject to the internal revenue laws. If prima facie evidence is not contradicted, it will be accepted as fact. IT IS MANDATORY THAT THE NONTAXPAYER PRESENT THE COURT WITH A STATEMENT, ALSO SIGNED UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, CONTRADICTING THE PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE, OR THE COUR WILL ARRIVE AT THE CONCLUSION THAT THE NONTAXPAYER IS INDEED A "TAXPAYER".
Then, without the nontaxpayer knowing why, the judge will then sign a document called "Finding of Facts and Conclusions of Law" containing statements such as, "To the extent that any Conclusions of Law are deemed to be Finding of Facts, they are incorporated into these Finding of Facts" and "To the extent that any Finding of Facts are deemed to be Conclusions of Law, they are incorporated into these Conclusions of Law". However, when a statement, signed under penalty of perjury, contradicting the aforementioned prima facie evidence is furnished to the court by a nontaxpayer, the results might be quite a bit different.
NOW FOR THE NONTAXPAYER
Remembering the fact that the "income tax" is an indirect tax in the nature of an excise, and that an indirect tax is a tax imposed upon activities which are taxable for revenue purposes, consider what the Oregon Supreme Court had to say about the individual's rights and an excise tax. Also consider the fact that acquiring property is also a natural right.
Redfield v. Fisher, 292 P. 813, at 819 (1930): "The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the state; but the individuals rights to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an EXCISE cannot be imposed".
This is a wondrous case to cite and with which to become very familiar because the court thoroughly considered the nature of the tax and the difference between a tax directly on income (as property) as opposed to a tax on revenue taxable activities, such as doing business in a corporate capacity. In fact, the Oregon Supreme Court said, "We deem it necessary at the outset to determine the nature of the tax..." in the Redfield Case.
The Murdock Case states in unequivocal terms that a state may NOT impose a charge (tax) upon the enjoyment of a right. The act of lawfully earning one's own living in an innocent and harmless activity is indeed a right secured by the U.S. Constitution, and it is indeed a right upon which a state may not impose a charge.
Oh, so you are catching on? Could it be that the various states are also breaking constitutional law by forcing an "income tax" upon you unwary citizens? Could it be the "income tax" regulations and enforcements are unlawful constitutionally, at all levels? My, that does open up a whole can of wondrous excitement, does it not? Isn't this just about the most fun game we have conjured up in a week or so? Why, this is much more feasible to play with than all the counterfeit printers in the Antarctic, or "fill-in" notable personages, or, or, or. This gets right down to your own Constitutional "RIGHTS" and here you were just about to sell that old rag of a document right down the trash heap. Are you perhaps reconsidering the merit of the old prattlings of your Founding Fathers? Well, hold tight, for we have only just barely begun the truth of it!
This same principle also applies to the federal government. Remember, except for a prohibition against taxing exports, the states gave the federal government complete and all-embracing taxing power, but could not have given the federal government any power that they themselves did not possess. Ah Ha! Caught them in the act, didn't you? The U.S. Constitution does not otherwise limit the taxing power of the federal government, but merely lays down the two rules by which this power is to be applied. That is, the rule of apportionment as to direct taxes (and this will balance the budget constitutionally), and the rule of uniformity as to indirect taxes.
Therefore, the federal government also cannot impose a charge (tax) upon a right secured by the U.S. Constitution. Furthermore, the taxing power of the federal government is sufficiently vast so as to provide all the funds it could ever need through lawful taxation. AS STATED EARLIER, CONGRESS HAS NOT EVEN USED ITS POWER OF DIRECT TAXATION SINCE THE CIVIL WAR!
You must remember always, that in order to qualify as a constitutionally protected right, your activity MUST be lawful, innocent and harmless.
O.S. has given us some other citations which will help you further understand and I will hereby give credit for the research and quote:
The U.S. Supreme Court said:
"The liberty mentioned in that (14th) amendment means, not only the right of the citizen to be free from the mere physical restraint of his person, as by incarceration, but the term is deemed to embrace the right of the citizen to be free in the enjoyment of all his faculties; to be free to use them in all lawful ways; to live and work where he will; to earn his livelihood by any lawful calling; to pursue any livelihood or avocation, and for that purpose to enter into all contracts which may be proper, necessary, and essential to his carrying out to a successful conclusion the purposes above mentioned." Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578, at 589. (1987).
OOPS! You don't know where your inalienable rights came from; those rights upon which the governments cannot impose a charge?
Ah so:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Could it be that same old DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, from July 4th, 1776?
The U.S. Supreme Court said in Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746, at 756-757 (1883):
"As in our intercourse with our fellow-men certain principles of morality are assumed to exist, without which society would be impossible, so certain inherent rights lie at the foundation of all action, and upon a recognition of them alone can free institutions be maintained. These inherent rights have never been more happily expressed than in the Declaration of Independence, that new evangel of liberty to the people: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident'--that is so plain that their truth is recognized upon their mere statement--'that all men are endowed'--not by edicts of Emperors, or decrees of Parliament, or acts of Congress, but 'by their Creator with certain inalienable rights'--that is, rights which cannot be bartered away, or given away, or taken away except in punishment of crime--'and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and to secure these'--not grant them but secure them--'governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"'.
Dharma, since this chapter is getting too lengthy to allow absorption, please allow us a respite. We shall take up with 'evangel of liberty' because I see that not even .5 percent of the readers have a notion about what it means. Well, it's good news. Hatonn actually only brings good news unto the nontaxpayers. You see, doom and gloom or wondrous hope and joy is totally in the mind of the beholder!
Salu,
Hatonn to clear.
Tags, 상세검색
PJ#016, YOU CAN SLAY THE DRAGON
