Questions? (Photo credit: Valerie Everett)
Folks confronting the IRS routinely ask, even demand to know, “What law makes me liable?“
So far as I know, the IRS never answers. We can’t seem to find out whichever specific “law” makes us all liable to pay income taxes.
Insofar as that “special law” remains unspecified and seemingly unknown, it’s reasonable to suppose that may be no law that makes the vast majority of American liable to pay income taxes. After all, if there were such a law, why would the IRS persistently refuse to disclose it? Why not just name the section of the Title 26 that makes all the people liable and stop all this foolishness about “show me the law”?
If there is no law that makes us liable to pay income taxes, does it follow that virtually all IRS collections are unlawful?
Not necessarily.
What if you had pledged or otherwise promised on a private basis to send a percentage of your income to the IRS? Could your private obligation to send currency to the IRS be enforced by a court? Absolutely.
If so, there may a second question to be asked in addition to “What law makes me liable to pay income taxes?” Maybe we should also ask “What private contract, pledge or sevitude makes me liable to pay income taxes?“
I.e.:
Dear Mr. IRS Agent,
1. Is there a law that makes me liable to pay income taxes? Y ___ N ___
2. In which section(s) of the United States Code does that law appear?
3. Is there a private agreement, contract, pledge or servitude that makes me liable to pay income taxes? Y ___ N ___
4. What document, instrument or presumption established the private obligation that makes me liable to pay income taxes?
The fact that the IRS may have no law on which to base the imposition of the income tax does not necessarily mean that the IRS is without legal authority to collect income taxes. The IRS might still have legal authority to collect funds that had been pledged to the IRS and/or US gov-co by means of private agreements.
If I only demand that the IRS “show me the law,” I may have asked only half of the pertinent questions. It may be necessary that I also demand that the IRS “show me the private obligation” that makes me liable to pay income taxes.
If it can be shown that the IRS can’t or won’t show you both law and private obligations that may create your alleged duty to file and pay income taxes, it should be much more difficult for a jury or court to rule in favor of collection procedures.
chris s.
August 14, 2012 at 2:57 PM
I believe the withholding agreement transports you to a magical world , where you are under the control of the IRS.Try getting an HR rep to explain this , they can not , you are not required to fill out a withholding agreement, and their own copywrighted , non positive , private law, says so.So why don’t we just start right here.
31.3402(p)-1 Voluntary withholding agreements.
(a) In general. An employee and his employer may enter into an agreement under section 3402(b) to provide for the withholding of income tax upon payments of amounts described in paragraph (b)(1) of §31.3401(a)–3, made after December 31, 1970. An agreement may be entered into under this section only with respect to amounts which are includible in the gross income of the employee under section 61, and must be applicable to all such amounts paid by the employer to the employee. The amount to be withheld pursuant to an agreement under section 3402(p) shall be determined under the rules contained in section 3402 and the regulations thereunder. See §31.3405(c)–1, Q&A–3 concerning agreements to have more than 20-percent Federal income tax withheld from eligible rollover distributions within the meaning of section 402.
(b) Form and duration of agreement. (1)(i) Except as provided in subdivision (ii) of this subparagraph, an employee who desires to enter into an agreement under section 3402(p) shall furnish his employer with Form W–4 (withholding exemption certificate) executed in accordance with the provisions of section 3402(f) and the regulations thereunder. The furnishing of such Form W–4 shall constitute a request for withholding.
(ii) In the case of an employee who desires to enter into an agreement under section 3402(p) with his employer, if the employee performs services (in addition to those to be the subject of the agreement) the remuneration for which is subject to mandatory income tax withholding by such employer, or if the employee wishes to specify that the agreement terminate on a specific date, the employee shall furnish the employer with a request for withholding which shall be signed by the employee, and shall contain—
(a) The name, address, and social security number of the employee making the request,
(b) The name and address of the employer,
(c) A statement that the employee desires withholding of Federal income tax, and applicable, of qualified State individual income tax (see paragraph (d)(3)(i) of §301.6361–1 of this chapter (Regulations on Procedures and Administration)), and
(d) If the employee desires that the agreement terminate on a specific date, the date of termination of the agreement.
If accepted by the employer as provided in subdivision (iii) of this subparagraph, the request shall be attached to, and constitute part of, the employee’s Form W–4. An employee who furnishes his employer a request for withholding under this subdivision shall also furnish such employer with Form W–4 if such employee does not already have a Form W–4 in effect with such employer.
(iii) No request for withholding under section 3402(p) shall be effective as an agreement between an employer and an employee until the employer accepts the request by commencing to withhold from the amounts with respect to which the request was made.
(2) An agreement under section 3402 (p) shall be effective for such period as the employer and employee mutually agree upon. However, either the employer or the employee may terminate the agreement prior to the end of such period by furnishing a signed written notice to the other. Unless the employer and employee agree to an earlier termination date, the notice shall be effective with respect to the first payment of an amount in respect of which the agreement is in effect which is made on or after the first “status determination date” (January 1, May 1, July 1, and October 1 of each year) that occurs at least 30 days after the date on which the notice is furnished. If the employee executes a new Form W–4, the request upon which an agreement under section 3402 (p) is based shall be attached to, and constitute a part of, such new Form W–4.
Adask
August 14, 2012 at 5:28 PM
Half the reason I host this blog is to receive responses like that from Chris S. Folks like Chris add comments that sometimes offer extremely helpful information. I am delighted to see that kind of input and to learn from it.
sem
August 14, 2012 at 6:46 PM
Food for thought: (from Chris S [below]
…(c) Includes and including
The terms “includes” and “including” when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined
chris s.
August 17, 2012 at 2:39 PM
the point I am making here is , all the pressure applied to fill out a withholding agreement is perpatrated by the corporation , usualy a human resources officer, not having a clue why.
the agreement can be cancelled with a notice attached at the time of filling the wh out .
back before everyone got on board , the employer and employee had to ”agree” to withhold .
and the withholding agreement could be terminated at will
why are all these corps acting as unpaid federal workers, and eating the cost , in regards to reporting on all their employees year after year.
there are no laws in regards to having a ss number to work or live in the united states of america
the hr person at my place of employment , let slip , that there is a fine for asking for a ss number in regards to a non federal issue, I agreed , there is a fine imposed also for not gathering a ss number, but that fine may be waived if noted that the number was requested , and not given ,
you did not become a federal schmuck until — you filled out the withholding agreement .
I sit one office away from an hr rep , and posed all these questions , with a 500.00 reward , no takers.no one can justify legaly what is taking place, and the government absolutley did not put a gun to your head , and make you sign a perjury jurat , saying you were a ”U.S. CITIZEN” or an ”employee” ie a federal franchise…subject to the laws of the federal overlay, and maintaining a residence on federal territory , or the district of criminals ..
thanks for reading.
chris s.
August 14, 2012 at 3:08 PM
you are gonna , kinda sorta just ignore some of these definitions , they realy do not mean what they say they mean , so here goes. oh and it kinda sorta says ”EMPLOYEE” right on the top there…
Sec. 3401. Definitions
(a) Wages
For the purpose of this chapter, the term “wages” means all remuneration (other than fees paid to public official) for services performed by an employee for his employer…
(c) Employee
For purposes of this chapter, the term “employee” includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term “employee” also includes an officer of a corporation.
(d) Employer
For the purposes of this Chapter, the term “employer” means the person for whom an individual performs or performed any service, of whatever nature, as the employee of such person, except that–
(1) if the person for whom the individual performs or performed the services does not have control of the payment of the wages for such services, the term “employer” (except for purposes of subsection (a)) means the person having control of the payment of such wages, and
(2) in the case of a person paying wages on behalf of a nonresident alien individual, foreign partnership, or foreign corporation, not engaged in trade or business within the United States, the term “employer” (except for purposes of subsection (a)) means such person.
(From the forgoing, it should be obvious that a person who works for a private company within the 50 States is not an employee nor does he work for an employer as defined in the Internal Revenue Code.)
Government, today, is nothing more than a criminal enterprise!
a)When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof—
(1) Person
The term “person” shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation
9) United States
The term “United States” when used in a geographical sense includes only the States and the District of Columbia.
(10) State
The term “State” shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.
26) Trade or business
The term “trade or business” includes the performance of the functions of a public office.
30) United States person
The term “United States person” means—
(A)a citizen or resident of the United States,
(B)a domestic partnership,
(C)a domestic corporation,
(D)any estate (other than a foreign estate, within the meaning of paragraph (31)), and
(E)any trust if—
(i)a court within the United States is able to exercise primary supervision over the administration of the trust, and
(ii)one or more United States persons have the authority to control all substantial decisions of the trust.
(c) Includes and including
The terms “includes” and “including” when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined
knosin
August 14, 2012 at 3:13 PM
My comments come from a different perspective because I’m Canadian. In Canada the Income Tax Act uses the word “deem” over 3,800 times in a ~2,500 page statute. Perhaps in the US they just “deem” (presume until otherwise rebutted) that you are a taxpayer making taxable income. That’s what they do up here……so, no law makes you liable; you are presumed to be liable, and are liable, until you can rebut that presumption?
palani
August 14, 2012 at 3:24 PM
Might as well rely upon common law
Cujus per errorem dati repetitio est, ejus consulto dati donatio est. Whoever pays by mistake what he does not owe, may recover it back; but he who pays, knowing he owes nothing; is presumed to give.
Si quid universitate debetur singulis non debetur, nec quod debet, universitas singuli debent. If anything is due to a corporation, it is not due to the individual members of it, nor do the members individually owe what the corporation owes.
Zeke
August 14, 2012 at 3:29 PM
My opinion is that it is a separate agreement that is “voluntary” when one agrees that they have income. The tax is on the “income” from whatever source derived. Basically it a a privilege to use their money (FRN’s) which is private, hence private agreement.
Since the IRS doesn’t define income, most people think it is whatever comes in. The courts have defined income as a corporate profit.
When we told the IRS that we had no income, the agent responded that they (IRS) believe that the form 1099 is income because that is what they “believe”. “What do you think it is”, she asked?
We think it is “sustenance” (a word not in the code). Silence.
Even though we won that argument, they still ignored the conversation and sent a standard letter saying they didn’t receive our 1040 filing. That’s when I hit them with my crafty response to any “collection agency”. I think my brother documented what happened on his website. You can get the download there.
http://www.controljuris.com/
david
August 15, 2012 at 3:51 PM
Zeke:
The courts have asserted “income” is the Corporate “Gain” from corporate profit in all respects. Gain only comes from the total of profit coming in and the deduction of expenses going out.
One other thing, Law is exactly as it is written. Anything interpreted is added to the law without permission from the governed. That makes it unlawful!
david
August 15, 2012 at 5:01 PM
Maybe I should clarify my above comment. “Income” is corporate profit, but taxation of corporate profit is from the “GAIN” received from that profit. Once you deduct the expenses from the profit, then you have the “Gain” to be figured for taxation.
IRS likes to minimize the expenses so they can increase the gain, but the expenses are expenses and need to be paid. There is no interest gained from profit when it comes to expenses. Are you a bank when it comes to receiving profits and gain interest to decrease the amount going out for expenses? Is that some type of fraud being suggested here through the IRS?
Zeke
August 16, 2012 at 6:22 PM
David, this whole thread shows NO ONE knows what the statute says (means) except the attorneys from the “judicial department”. Code pleading is a looser every time for the “free man”.
If as you say the tax is on the “gain” which is reality the “income” then the tax is on the same thing…. AN IDEA! What is the gain from the income? If the income is a worthless piece of paper, for your 8 hours of production, where is the gain (income). If the income or gain is the number written on the worthless piece of paper, does a bigger number increase the gain or income? In other words is the tax on the piece of worthless paper or the worthless number on the worthless piece of paper? Maybe you are trying to say, If one “uses” the gain from the income for a corporate purpose, giving the gain a “value”, then that is what is taxed. Fortunately for me, I use FRN’s as trash and not as currency, so no gain or income (straight trade)!
The fraud you are asking about IS the IRS, which makes everything they do a fraud, even when it appears legitimate.
The simple question of this thread, is answered below. The 16th amendment, whether one agrees or not. That is why if you are asking questions like the one proposed, YOU LOOSE. The better way to go is to give the order! That’s how I finished them off. I ordered them…. didn’t ask! They follow orders. That would be a restraining order, by the way!
Mike
August 14, 2012 at 4:28 PM
When a payer submits an information return to the IRS it is signed under the penalties of perjury, making it an affidavit and creating EVIDENCE. The payer swears that you received payments connected with EMPLOYMENT or SELF-EMPLOYMENT, both of which are defined in the IRS code as Federal occupations. Employee was discussed above. Self-employment is defined as being engaged in a “Trade or Business”. Trade or Business is defined (some three million words away in the code) as the performance of the functions of a public office.
Someone has sworn that you are receiving monies related to your engaging in a Federal prerogative. That activity has been taxed under the code. SInce an unrebutted affidavit stands as truth, you are guilty until you rebut that presumption. Once rebutted properly you have a proper dispute.
The 1998 Taxpayer Reforms shifted the burden of proof to the Secretary if there is a dispute between the taxpayer and the IRS. He must FROM HIS PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE make a determination. That means he must go back through GOVERNMENT BOOKS and discover where they paid you something.
It’s a clever scam that gets a third party payer to create your liability for you.
Jethro
August 14, 2012 at 7:47 PM
Mike, what would you consider to be the (or a) remedy for (fraudulent) payor returns that swear you received self-employment, “Trade of Business” or “effectively connected” income?
david
August 15, 2012 at 4:02 PM
Mike:
In Missouri, a state taxpayer is defined as a “lawful” defined taxpayer of Federal Income. Taxpayer is not defined in the IRS Code and under Title 26 of the USC. This means that interpretation must be administered so, then it becomes unlawful in all respects.
Income from a private employer is an equal exchange of money or benefits for services rendered. Now the “gain” has to be figured. Are you worth less than what you receive in benefits for a service you render? If you are, then you have received a profitable benefit minus expenses required to take care of your necesities. What you have left is the “gain” of your employment.
If you are worth what you receive in benefits for the services you render your employer, then there are no profits experienced. What “gain” did you receive if there is no profit?
david
August 15, 2012 at 4:44 PM
Another thing. Bonuses and gifts provided by an employer also reflect what you are worth to them and to yourself, if you go that far. If you feel you are worth, and only you know what you are worth, what your employer supplies you, then you experience no profit, hence no gain from profit.
If you do not receive bonuses and gifts, do you feel you are worth more than what you receive in compensation? If not, now you have a Loss!
david
August 15, 2012 at 4:50 PM
My reply below should have stated that is if you feel you are worth more than what you were compensated, then you would have a loss. Leave out the “not” in the last sentence and put “so” in its place.
david
August 15, 2012 at 5:06 PM
Private taxpayer is not defined in the IRS Code. Only Corporate taxpayer is defined in the IRS Code. Again am I a Corporation instead of a human being? I breath, eat, see, hear, and taste.
No corporation that I know of can sit up from its shelf it is placed on, on its own, and do that. Only the human beings that are signed to that contract and assist that corporation can do that, but they are human beings too.
Joe
August 15, 2012 at 10:55 PM
David, please have a look at my post below, where the definition of “taxpayer” is given in the Code of Federal Regulations, and in that same CFR section, it is stated that the terms defined in that CFR section have the same meaning as the terms used in chapter 1 of the IRC.
sem
August 14, 2012 at 5:43 PM
You guys all have good ‘ideas’ in this matter, yet; as in the acronym GIGO (computer language) which means Garbage In Garbage Out, if one dosen’t know the question (re Magic Word) how then is it possible to exact an answer (door open). This is the root of the problem and probably (as Al is alluding) the reason that none will be forthcoming. Further, as cemented by the following excerpt (from a previous Adask article ‘Notice Pleading’) it is made to be a tough row to hoe, as:
I.e., if we’re “under a notice pleading system,” the plaintiff need not plead (and then swear to) any FACTS to establish a “prima facie case”. On the other hand, if we’re not “under a notice pleading system,” the plaintiff must “plead” enough FACTS (that can be verified under oath) to establish a “prima facie case”. Whether those facts need be verified in the original complaint (or attached affidavit) in a process that is not “under notice pleading” is unclear to me. But clearly, if the plaintiff does not initiate suit under a notice pleading system, then the plaintiff must allege facts which, sooner or later, the PLAINTIFF can verify under oath.
Black’s 4th defines “prima facie case” in part as,
“Such as will suffice until contradicted and overcome by other evidence. . . . A litigating party is said to have a prima facie case when the evidence in his favor is sufficiently strong for his opponent to be called to answer it. A prima facie case, then, is one which is established by sufficient evidence, and can be overthrown only by rebutting evidence adduced on the other side. In some cases the only question to be considered is whether there is a prima facie case or no. Thus a grand jury are bound to find a true bill of indictment, if the evidence before them creates a prima facie case against the accused; and for this purpose, therefore, it is not necessary for them to hear the evidence for the defense. Mozley & Whitley. And see State v Hardelein, 169 Mo. 579, 70 S.W. 130; State v Lawlor, 28 Minn. 216, 9 N.W. 698.”
Thus, a “prima facie case” is all about the evidence. Without sufficient evidence introduced into the record (probably under oath), there is no “prima facie case”.
PeaceOut
Ps We are probably digging to deep; I sense that said question is hidden in plain view.
sem
August 14, 2012 at 6:39 PM
Further:
Also, I portend that the question/answer may be found in the words of the Congressmen who opposed said Law prior to it’s enactment.
sem
August 14, 2012 at 9:15 PM
Excerpt from Adask:
A person “notifies” or “gives” a notice or notifica¬tion to another by taking such steps as may be reasonably required to inform the other In ordinary course whether or not such other actually comes to know of it. A person “receives” a notice or notifica¬tion when: (a) it comes to his attention; or (b) it is duly delivered at the place of business through which the contract was made or at any other place held out by him as the place for receipt of such communica¬tions. U.C.C. § 1-201(26).
Under the Uniform Commercial Code, the law on “notice,” actual or inferable, is precisely the same whether the instrument is issued to a holder or nego¬tiated to a holder. Eldon’s Super Fresh Stores, Inc. v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 296 Minn. 130, 207 N.W.2d 282, 287.
Constructive notice. Constructive notice is informa¬tion or knowledge of a fact imputed by law to a person (although he may not actually have it), be¬cause he could have discovered the fact by proper diligence, and his situation was such as to cast upon him the duty of inquiring into it. Every person who has actual notice of circumstances sufficient to put a prudent man upon inquiry as to a particular fact, has constructive notice of the fact itself in all cases in which, by prosecuting such inquiry, he might have learned such fact.
Constructive “notice” includes implied actual no¬tice and inquiry notice. F. P. Baugh, Inc. v. Little Lake Lumber Co., C.A.Cal., 297 F.2d 692, 696.
[Thus, the law governing an “actual” notice and a notice that is merely (reasonably?) “inferable” is identical.
However, the idea that some notices are “issued” while others are “negotiated” is a new line of information to be explored. Perhaps “actual” notices are “issued” while “inferable” notices are “negotiated”.
And note that while the reference to “instrument” is unclear, it appears that the UCC might regard a “notice” as an “instrument” that is “held” by the notice recipient. In conjunction with the references to “issued” and “negotiated,” I am reminded of “issuing bonds” and “negotiable instruments” and “holders in due course”. I find it extremely unlikely, but there is a faint and bizarre suggestion here that a notice might be deemed some sort of “financial instrument” whereby the “holder” becomes some sort of “debtor”.]
Therefore:
Never ask a ‘Witness’ a question unless you already know the answer.
PeaceOut
Garrison Michael
August 14, 2012 at 9:37 PM
There is a law which obligates a “person” to pay taxes. It is “voluntary” to “apply” for a social security number (SS5 form), but once received it becomes “mandatory” for the “person” who’s name is in SS5 form Box No.1 to pay taxes. The Law is: “The Social Security Act of 1935″ read it, it’s in there……. They are not going to answer your requests in Court because you are “Presumed to ‘know’ the law” because it “HAS ALREADY BEEN PUBLISHED” so they have already informed/published/noticed all public/persons of their obligation to pay taxes. They will NEVER tell anyone in a court matter “what the law is” because they already have and you are presumed to know it when you are in court matter so that is not a defense. Why would they let the proverbial “secret law” or “cat out of the bag” when they “know” that NO ONE would get a Social Security number if they “knew” it would obligate them to pay taxes? Do you now blame them? It’s our own fault for not realizing what we are signing when we do which obligates us to perform since we have been taught to follow the herd of sheep instead of validating & therefore owning the information ourselves. They just do all that they do for “damage control” that’s all, you would probably do it too if you were in their shoes, but now since you “know” you can change it…….
sem
August 15, 2012 at 7:42 AM
Garrison Michael:
It seems by the punctuation at the end of your comment that there is more to come. Please ‘let it all hang-out’. Inquiring Minds Wanna Know!
Great input.
PeaceOut
Yartap
August 16, 2012 at 1:19 AM
Garrison Michael,
I think your right on target. There is a Maxim of Law which states ……..
“Ask the Wrong Question in court; you will get the Right Answer, and you LOSE.”
Jethro
August 15, 2012 at 9:08 AM
If one were to ask questions about this supposed “law”, would that not rebut the presumption that one “knows the law”?
Whiskey
August 17, 2012 at 3:17 PM
Garrison,
Does the “code” say anything about children completing an SS5 form (contracting for benefits with the SSA)? Seems to me that anyone under the age of majority cannot be compelled to form such a contract, and therefore the unconscionable contract is, thus, null and void. Why is it that when I was just a child my second grade teacher compelled the class to complete and sign the form? Today the number is assigned before ignorant parents can leave the hospital where their new born slave.
Todd
August 27, 2012 at 3:12 AM
Bare with me, I might be one of the “flakes” lol. If applying & receiving a SS# legally obligates that person to pay income tax, & everything involving the hole IRS & Govt system is set up/structured under a corporation, & the fact that I received my SS# as a minor, under the age of 10 yrs old, with out my knowledge, (h3ll, you can’t even be the sole owner of a car until age 18) how can they hold a minor liable for a corporate contract, created under the minor’s name, & not state (in the contract) on behalf of any legal guardian? Or even hold me liable to it after I turn 18/21 & can make my own choice to or not to enter any such corp. contracts?
Ummer
August 27, 2012 at 1:42 PM
Todd, prophet Joseph understood his dream and he was only a child.
Or you could think of it like Pinocchio, or maybe your parents sold you to them.
When it comes to ownership, you can’t own such and such when you’re already under their agreements.
Think of it like slavery, they wont let you do certain things they don’t want you doing. And remember, if you’re using terms like ‘legal’ guardian, that’s not quite ‘lawful’ guardianship.
When you’re part of the legal corporate “laws”, the only way out is to have awareness. You came in without knowing, you’ll leave by knowing. Insight will be your torch on these criminal wolves.
Vincent
August 30, 2012 at 12:54 PM
If a party of a contract does fulfill or commits fraud on part of the contract, it is the other party’s obligation to quit participating in the contract and tell the party not fulfilling it’s end of the deal that they have breached the terms then seek remedy. If the damaged party continues acting on the contract then they are assumed to agree with the breach in contract and the new terms or the breach of contract is considered part of a new agreement. The damaged party loses it ability to seek remedy legally at that point.
Your guardians put you under a contract they had the right to put you under because you were their ward. Once you came free of being a ward to your parent under law, you have an obligation to quit acting on the contract you don’t agree with or want to be a part of. There is legal remedy at that point. If you continue to follow the terms and privileges of SS then by default you are accepting the contract your parent signed you up under and it is equivalent to you signing yourself up for SS.
That is my understanding of the basics of how it works.
Joe
August 14, 2012 at 9:47 PM
chris s. first post is citing Title 26 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
Another pertinent CFR section is found at 26 CFR Sec. 2.1
“26 CFR Sec. 2.1(m) The terms used in this section shall have the same meaning as in chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code.”
”26 CFR Sec. 2.1-1, Definitions
(a) As used in the regulations in this part, except as otherwise expressly provided –
(1) Act means the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, as amended (46 U.S.C. 27)
(2) Section means one of the sections of the regulations in this part.
(5) Taxpayer means a citizen who has established or seeks to establish a construction reserve fund under the provisions of section 511 of the Act and the regulations in this part, and may include a partnership.
(b) Insofar as the computation and collection of taxes are concerned, other terms used in the regulations in this part, except as otherwise provided, have the same meaning as in the Internal Revenue Code and the regulations thereunder.”
Whenever you submit a Form W-4 or Form W-9, you are presumed to be “a citizen who has established or seeks to establish a construction reserve fund” under Section 511 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, as amended. Thus, the submission of that form creates the presumption that you have, of your own volition, chosen to be a “taxpayer,” and have chosen to work in the capacity of a public office holder of the United States, specifically within the United States Merchant Marine. As cited above in chris s.’ second post, this makes you a statutory “employee” engaged in “trade or business.”
The existence of a valid W-4 or W-9 is presumed by the IRS to exist if an entity issues an information return about you, such as a W-2 or a 1099-MISC, and you do not notify both the issuer and the IRS that the information return is “fraudulent.” The IRS has three categories to characterize information returns – Correct, Erroneous, and Fraudulent. When an information return is issued without the underlying authority of a valid W-4 or W-9, it is “fraudulent.” If the Form W-4 was extorted from you as a condition of your being hired, it is fraudulent, because you did not give it of your own volition, but rather, out of your necessity to exchange your labor for functional currency. In other words, your hirer perpetrated a fraud by demanding of you that which the law says may only be given voluntarily.
All W-4 and W-9 agreements are voluntary. As stated previously in 31.3402(p)-2, either the employee” or the “employer” can terminate the agreement at any time. If those who are presently presumed to be “employees” and “employers” understood this, in a minute they could transform themselves into non-statutory workers and hirers, and legally give the boot to Obamacare, Federal Income Tax Withholding, FICA, Medicare Tax, FUTA, State Income Tax Withholding, SUTA, and the rest of GovCo’s cut from “employees” and “employers.” There is even a box to check on the back of Form 941 to indicate that this event has occurred and that this will be the final Form 941 submitted.
sem
August 15, 2012 at 8:18 AM
Things that make you go ~~~Hmmmm~~~.
david
August 15, 2012 at 4:19 PM
Joe:
I will still allude to the CFR or the USC and I may be mistaken in a prior reply and apologize here and now. IRS Code alludes to corporations and registered Merchant Marines. I see nowhere in plain English as Daniel Webster defined the laws, where I personally am required, and that is the key word, to pay any taxes. If you are alluding to a fact that I am a corporation, sorry I am not. I am a human being.
Let’s go to Webster’s Dictionary and define Corporation. A Corporation is a written agreement between two or more human beings to contract together to do business. Will you agree to that?
Now if you agree to that, then a Corporation is a dead entity which does not have a voice of its own. A corporation is nothing more than a bunch of words and symbols on a piece of paper and you are not a signatory to it. You have not signed the contract. You have no voice. Only the ones who have signed that specific contract are bound to that contract and any interference from outside that contract is “Trespass”. A criminal act.
No I am not a lawyer, and all business of a lawyer remains in the confines of the Fraternity, he is a direct party to, and they can use any language they wish within that contract agreement. You and I are not parties to that contract, and so have no voice within that contract or fraternity of the ABA.
david
August 15, 2012 at 4:34 PM
Joe :
All of the assumptions you make are just that: assumptions. Assuming someone is a “statutory employee” is an interpretive comment. Please show me the facts where it states in those exact words that is what is meant.
Anything that is vague in law must be left vague in law to be enforceable. So, if the law is not specific, does not name names, places or things directly, then what direct fact has been stated in the law?
Do you voluntarily admit that the law pertains to you? If you do voluntarily admit to that law, then you are bound by that law.
Joe
August 15, 2012 at 10:58 PM
An office holder in the U.S Merchant Marine is a public office holder of the United States, and ergo, a statutory “employee.” No assuming necessary here. But you are free to believe as you wish.
Yartap
August 21, 2012 at 7:01 AM
Joe,
Have you seen or noticed the connection of your 26 CFR 2.1-1(5) ‘s “construction reserve fund” and chris’s given definition of “State” in 26 USC 3401(10) where it said, “where such CONSTRUCTION is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.”
Is this “construction reserve fund” = Social Security?
Harold
August 14, 2012 at 9:56 PM
Dear IRS, in order to be considered payable, the bill you sent me (like any bill a responsible party receives unexpectedly through the mail) must include, or at least specifically reference, all necessary evidence establishing the existence of the claimed liability. You may send such paperwork with your next correspondence in this matter. Have a nice day.
sem
August 15, 2012 at 7:46 AM
Harold:
Once you respond to a NOTICE (with anything other than reasonble inquiry) you are presumed to have adequate NOTICE. In that case, the next correspondence you receive may be a Summons.
PeaceOut
Vincent
August 14, 2012 at 10:59 PM
Bottom line is if you are a “citizen” you are a “taxpayer”. If you don’t want to be a “taxpayer” then you must separate yourself from your citizenship, but you must also separate yourself from income as well to not owe a tax. A German who works for a German company does not owe a US tax. Yet a German who works for an American company and is paid in dollars must pay a tax.
Your social security number is the number you use when dealing with the IRS. That should be a hint that they are linked. Try filing a tax return without one. The government has the power to regulate what it subsidizes. If you don’t allow yourself to be subsidized by the government with a voluntary adhesion contract know as social security and you don’t deal in income then you don’t have to file a tax return. If you are a “citizen” then you are a “taxpayer”, but if you don’t have any income then you are a “taxpayer” that does not owe any tax.
You can not work for a “corporation” (an entity that has a contract with and regulated by the government) and expect to not be liable to pay a tax on the income from it. You will have to get paid in dollars, or if you get paid in something other than dollars you will have to convert the value to dollars and the job includes benefits like social security unemployment insurance whether you like it or not because the “corporation” has to provide it by law for employees. Companies that the average Joe would call private are government entities. They have tax id numbers and have contracts with the government (FICA covered employment). If you want the privilege to work for them, then you must pay the tax that goes along with the income of commercial paper.
The real question at the end of the year is, did you have enough income to file a tax return?
If you are unhappy with the amount of tax you have to pay, I contend that you make less income. If you don’t want to lower your standard of living and don’t want to have to pay the taxes, then you need to have less income that has more purchasing power.
sem
August 15, 2012 at 7:51 AM
Vincent:
All I can say is, “Makes sense to me!”
PeaceOut
sem
August 15, 2012 at 9:57 AM
Also Vincent:
One cannot simply ‘elect’ or ‘decide’ not to be a citizen. One must pay a TAX to effect such a change. And, believe me…it aint cheap!
PeaceOut
Yartap
August 14, 2012 at 11:56 PM
Dear Mr Adask,
I have received your letter dated August 14th, 2012, which ask Four basic questions. At risk of losing my job, I shall answer your questions “to the best of my ability.”
1. Is there a law that makes me liable to pay income taxes? Y ___ N ___
A: YES
Agent’s Comment: The law is found in the Constitution for the United States as Amendment XVI (16th) in the Section called the “Bill of Rights.” It reads:
“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”
2. In which section(s) of the United States Code does that law appear?
A: It is NOT found in the U.S. Code; but rather, found in the Constitution.
Agent’s Comment: The Internal Revenue Code includes most but not all Federal tax statutes. Some tax statutes are found in other provisions of the United States Code including title 11 (related to bankruptcy) and title 28 (related to the judiciary). Further, some tax statutes are not codified at all (for example, the provisions of tax statutes that list the effective dates of Internal Revenue Code amendments). We do not need the Law “repeated” as Codified to enforce such Law.
3. Is there a private agreement, contract, pledge or servitude that makes me liable to pay income taxes? Y ___ N ___
A: YES
4. What document, instrument or presumption established the private obligation that makes me liable to pay income taxes?
A: The document used is I.R.S. Form SS-5, “Application for Social Security Card.”
Agent’s Comments: The Law which established Social Security states that the funds received may be used for “any Purpose Congress may deem” and is not limited.
An American applying for a Social Security number has become a federal employee by joining a partnership that is attributing an undistributed dividend to that American as a partner in that partnership, said dividend being the link to foreign commerce that subjects that American to Treasury Decision 2313 and the requirement to file an Internal Revenue Form 1040. The undistributed dividend, known as a patronage dividend within the Internal Revenue Code, is offset by the American’s foreign tax credit, FICA.
In Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution grants jurisdiction to the Congress to regulate three areas of commerce: “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”
We (IRS) always cite to the Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916), to inform the public that the income tax was held to be constitutional by the Supreme Court. We (IRS) do not inform the public about Mr. Frank Brushaber, the central character in the Supreme Court case, is that he was a withholding agent for several foreign investors in the Union Pacific Railroad, acting as their fiduciary. Thus, Foreign investors with incomes made inside the U.S. territories is taxable as a form of excise tax.
Further, the Supreme Court implied that the regulation restriction of commerce placed upon Congress limited its reach upon other areas of commerce (i.e., personal incomes). The Social Security Act helped overcome this, by placing participants as Foreign employees and companies.
To further insure the adhesion of public members, Congress and the Courts are defining Interstate Commerce as any type of work performed within one state with the “possibility” of movement across state lines.
I hope this has made clearer the problem you are in. Please, fill free, to call my office, if you have any money to give to us, that you may or may not owe.
Sincerely,
Your IRS Agent
Yartap
August 15, 2012 at 4:54 AM
Sorry Ya’ll, the SS-5 is a Social Security Form, and not a IRS form.
I live by the Code:
“Everyone makes mistakes….I want the man that corrects his mistakes working for me.”
palani
August 15, 2012 at 6:44 AM
“The law is found in the Constitution for the United States as Amendment XVI (16th) in the Section called the “Bill of Rights.”
For the sake of accuracy .. the bill of rights is the first 10 amendments .. not all amendments.
sem
August 15, 2012 at 8:00 AM
Yartap:
You ‘Son-Of-A-Gun;
I knew ur azz was gonna shift n 2 “Forensic Research” mode.
Good Job!
PeaceOut
Yartap
August 15, 2012 at 8:06 AM
palani,
Your Right! Thanks for the Correction.
pop_de_adam
August 15, 2012 at 6:31 AM
To all those utilizing the concept of “your” S.S. security number, it is not and will never be your number, it is the accounts’ number and the account belongs to the social security administration. A maxim: liability lies with the issuer. Did you issue this number? Some might suggest so by whatever application they are likely using(ss-5), your use of of this number likely reinforces and authorizes this presumption.
In addition to all that that Chris S has supplied as coded definition is the section refered to as “levy and distraint”, which is what the revenuers cite when they take your posessions for non-payment or blowing them off. The notice is known as a 668 notice and cites the code at 26 sec 6331, this authoritive citation of code conviently starts at the parts begining with (b), ignoring part (a) of 6331, authority of secretary.
(a) Authority of Secretary
If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the same within 10 days after notice and demand, it shall be lawful for the Secretary to collect such tax (and such further sum as shall be sufficient to cover the expenses of the levy) by levy upon all property and rights to property (except such property as is exempt under section 6334) belonging to such person or on which there is a lien provided in this chapter for the payment of such tax. Levy may be made upon the accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee, or elected official, of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia, by serving a notice of levy on the employer (as defined in section 3401(d)) of such officer, employee, or elected official. If the Secretary makes a finding that the collection of such tax is in jeopardy, notice and demand for immediate payment of such tax may be made by the Secretary and, upon failure or refusal to pay such tax, collection thereof by levy shall be lawful without regard to the 10-day period provided in this section.
Note who maybe levied according to this part of code.
sem
August 15, 2012 at 8:06 AM
Hey Pop_:
I didn’t know you could ‘Go-There’ like that. I’m gonna keep my eye on you dude.
PeacOut
Jethro
August 15, 2012 at 9:05 AM
“any … instrumentality of the United States”
instrumentality
1: something through which an end is achieved or occurs
Could a person who has and/or uses an SSN be that through which the United States is achieving an end?
sem
August 15, 2012 at 9:44 AM
Jethro:
A ‘Knowledgable Question’ is one of which the answer is already known. Therefore, I presume your question is hypothetical; as, the answer is in the question itself?!?
PeaceOut
Yartap
August 15, 2012 at 8:52 AM
I remember applying for my Social Security just like it was yesterday……………..
Social Security Agent: “Zigness zee paper – young mannn.
Me: “I cannot zigness zee paper.”
SS Agent: (firmly) “Zigness zee paper – young man.”
Me: “I cannot zigness zee paper.”
Me: “IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII” (as the SS agent stuck his cigarette in my eye).
SS Agent: (yelling) “Now – zignzzz ze paper!”
Me: “I – I cannot zigness zee paper!”
SS Agent: (angrily) “Whyzzz cantz youzz zigness zee paper?
Me: “Yo – You have brokenz all my fingerzzz!
……………………………….. Boy – was that a bad day or What?
sem
August 15, 2012 at 9:26 AM
Well, kids today will never have the problem Yartap. They are required ‘to be’ registered (immediately) upon birth.
Which adds credence to much of the aforementioned comments.
PeaceOut
pop_de_adam
August 15, 2012 at 4:30 PM
I was watching a video by one Dean Clifford. He suggests at birth the certificates are often filled out with the mother as an informant and also often in her maiden name. This doesn’t alarm many people as it is just “paperwork”, however this may leave many people with the legal appearance as wards or in his words “foundlings” or abandoned children. Often the birth announcements in the newspapers are forwarded by the hospitals themselves, these notices while seemingly benign might actually be akin to lost dog postings where no one ever realizes they are meant to respond and claim their child, and if not claimed the child is then assumed to be abandoned as such a ward of the state.
I simply found the above an interesting take on “birth-registration”, it’s not like if you’re not registed you die. It is simply extraneous. People conventionally register things and not people, unless you are into nazi/holocaust stuff and making lists of potential dissidents. Registration is a potential form of genocide, it may not be realized as such presently, the government in doing this is attempting to render people into items, which are more easily disposed of legally.
Another interesting point in regard to birth-certificates this initial form of ID/registry has far less information/fact than the drivers licenses/IDs that follow a birth certificate. Licenses often have hair color, eye color, height, a photo, all things the birth certificate is lacking, yet this extra information is not dismissed as hearsay, who is to say any of this extra info is actually real? Either the birth-certificate is the superior precedent or the license is defective as it attempts to manufacture more information than the document that is the licenses’ precedent. Cart before the horse?
sem
August 15, 2012 at 5:40 PM
Pop_:
I can dig where you’re coming from in terms of registration; yet, the difference between ‘Licencse and Registration’ is a matter of WHEN moreso than WHO. Which is more a matter of ‘tracking’ than actual TAXATION.
The overall ideal is a very interesting addition though, as it relates to the times we live in (possesion is 9/10ths of the Law). We must keep in mind therefrore, that however diabolic the opposition – it does not equate to stupidity.
Wherefore, please be assured that this site and others like unto it are being closely analyzed by the same. It is necessary, therefore, to understand that which is in the heart – as it relates to the Law, for what is in the heart will (definately) eventually roll off the tongue.
Hence, if you love something, set it free. If it runs away, the love was not shared. We must then “Press On To What We Have Attained”, thereof; for TIME is the most valuable commodity in the earth.
PeaceOut
pop_de_adam
August 16, 2012 at 1:42 AM
Your type of peace is challenged here, do you despise peace?
I produce a passage about the income tax that should turn you around and inform you that no one ever is given any choice about the application of the income tax. You attempt to walk right by it. Do you believe a person charged with a crime has any right to allocution, where in they may have time to explain the facts surrounding their arrest and why they should be excused? If you reject this you are in favor of arbitrary arrest, You are guilty of singularing out specific peoples, deciding some people are more worthy than others. F U.
sem
August 16, 2012 at 9:48 AM
My apology for any misunderstanding, my contention is, ‘first comes tracking then comes taxing’. I appreciate your sensitivity, but I dont see how that relates to peace. I think ‘TRACKING’ is more dangeraous than ‘TAXING’ (drones). Therefore, the answer is no…I do not despise peace; but,I am a strong advocate of survival.
PeaceOut=(graceful exit)
sem
August 15, 2012 at 5:59 PM
Get it together David:
Goliath ain’t no joke, baby!
PeaceOut
david
August 15, 2012 at 8:54 PM
Hi Sem:
Thanks for the kudos. Please do the favor and show me where I am wrong if you will, Daniel Webster wrote the Webster’s Dictionary with the Declaration and the Constitution in mind so that no mistakes on definitions could be made.
A Corporation is not a human being person. It does not live. It does not Breathe. It does not think or rationalize. Or can not do any of the other of the five senses on its own, BUT those who are direct members of that Corporation do. They are human beings, not the company itself. I challenge every Corporation to get up off of its back and open its mouth and speak. It won’t happen. Only the human beings will do that.
As far as the Goliath issue, I am david, and I am small. So think about it, if you want to go biblical. Hehe!
sem
August 15, 2012 at 10:57 PM
Hey David:
I was referring only to your attemps at sef-correction; not the facts presented. The opportunity to use the above remark was just too tempting.
PeaceOut
pop_de_adam
August 16, 2012 at 2:05 AM
Because I don believe peace is your objective and you may not recognize what a turncoat Daniel Webster may have been, here is a disappeared website salvaged by the “internet archive”
http://web.archive.org/web/20050205152619/http://www.webstersruse-ter.com/websters.htm
MAR MAY Jun
21
2005 2008 2009
3 captures
5 Feb 05 – 21 May 08
Close
Help
According to the Facts, Concerning Etymology
——————————————————————————–
I became intrigued after studying the etyma of the Constitution, and the varied defined differences between words in different dictionaries. The words in regard to the 1787 meanings, and today’s meanings will amaze all of you. The following I promise will fascinate you.
I am going to quote key words and define them. Notice, their progressive and subsequent change, and the years in which the changes happened. Note: The status quo since the 1828 era of our congress concerning the word, amendment, “in law,” *postulates (assumes as true) that they (Congress) have the authority to change the articles, “once ratified,” in the National Constitution. And: That they (our congress) can and do, any Thing, because of “their postulated” exclusive right to rule. “Well, all I can say is, ‘Hold on to your shorts.’”
NOTE ESPECIALLY THE DEFINITION OF “AMENDMENT.” (in law) (REMEMBER AT LAW, TODAY THAT CONGRESS CAN AMEND A BILL UNTIL IT BECOMES LAW. AFTER THE BILL BECOMES LAW, A NEW BILL WOULD HAVE TO BE CREATED IN ORDER TO AMEND THE PREVIOUS LAW. The definition for Amendment (in Law) still applies. It means the Correction of an Error committed and espy’d before Judgment.
Note: The Selected Definitions of Law Terms & Etymons as Found in Dictionaries in the Era (Time Period) in Which the American Organic Law Documents were written and before.
(I) A rare Universal Etymological English Dictionary of 1675, of the King’s English, by N. Bailey, to wit;
“Amendment: n.s. [emendatio], Lat.] (in law,) the correction of an errour committed, ‘and espied before judgement.’ (emphasis added)
“To espy: [espier, F.] To perceive or discover, to observe or watch.”
“Ex Post Facto: (in law) A term used of a thing done after the time when it should have been done.”
(II) An Universal Etymological English Dictionary, (1721) by N. Bailey, London; republished in (1969) by Georg Olms Verlag, Hildesheim and New York. Printed in Germany Herstellung: fotokop wilhelm weihert, Darmstadt Best-Nr. 5102 625 (CALL NUMBER @ Univ. of Calif., San Diego: PE 162O B31721A)
Amendment, [in Law] the correction of an Error committed and espy’d before Judgment.
To ESPY, [Espier, F.] to perceive or discover, to observe or watch.
Ex Post Facto (in law) A term used of a thing done after the time when it should have been done.
Citizen: [Citoyen, F (French), of Civis L.(Latin) An inhabitant of a City, a Free-man."
LICENSE [licentie L.] Liberty, Permission, leave. F.
(III) A New General English Dictionary (1740).
Peculiarly calculated for the USE and IMPROVEMENT of such as are unacquainted with the LEARNED LANGUAGES. by Thomas Dyche, William Pardon, Third Edition, with the ADDITION of the several MARKET Towns in England and Wales,; giving a general Description of the Places, their Situation, Market-Days, Government, Manufactures, Number of Representatives sent to Parliament, Distance from London, both in computed and measured Miles, &. LONDON: Printed for RICHARD WARE, at the Bible and San in Warwick-Lane, An MDCCXL. Republished by Georg Olms Verlag, Hildesheim and New York, 1972 (CALL NUMBER # @ Univ. of Calif., San Diego: PE 1620 . . .)
“AME’NDMENT: (S.) improving, growing better, or correcting what is amiss; (in Law), it is the rectifying, or supplying a mistake or omission in a process, discovered before judgment.”
“Citizen: (S.) a freeman or inhabitant of a city, or body corporate.”
“Espy: [espier, F.] to perceive or discover before judgment, to catch sight of.”
EX POST FACTO: a Term used of a thing done after the time when it should have been done. L.
(IV) Dictionary of the English Language, 1805: IN WHICH THE WORDS ARE DEDUCED FROM THEIR ORIGINALS; AND ILLUSTRATED IN THEIR DIFFERENT SIGNIFICATIONS BY EXAMPLES FROM THE GUEST WRITERS TO WHICH ARE PREFIXED, A HISTORY OF THE LANGUAGE, AND AN ENGLISH GRAMMAR., BY SAMUEL JOHNSON, LL.D., IN FOUR VOLUMES. THE NINTH EDITION; CORRECTED AND REVISED., VOL. I., II., and III. LONDON; 1805 (CALL NUMBER @ Univ. of Calif., San Diego: PE 1620 J6 1805), 1805, to wit;
“AMENDMENT, n.s. [emendatio, Lat.] It signifies, (in law) the correction of an errour committed in a process, and espied before or after judgment; and sometimes after the party’s seeking advantage by the errour. Blount, Vol. I.”
“A’RTICLE. n.s. [articulus, Lat.] 2. A single clause of an account; a particular part of any complex thing . . . Vol I.”
“CI’TIZEN. n.s. [civis, Lat., citoyen, Fr.] 1. A freeman of a city; not a foreigner; not a slave.
‘A11 inhabitants within these walls are not properly citizens, but only such as are called freemen.’ Raleigh’s History.
‘When he speaks not like a citizen, you find him like a soldier.’ Shakespeare.”
(V) Dictionary of the English Language. Note: 1832 is exactly as the 1805 edition.
(VI) Oxford Dictionary of the English Language, 1800s. Cover page not clear. Page 395 has many references regarding the word, “amendment,” also, authors and year(s) published.
“The action of amending, whether in process, or as completed. 1. Removal of faults, correction, reformation, of faults or errors in things, as a book, a law, comma, etc. C. Law. Correction of error in a writ or process. Also: 1607, Cowel Interpr. (1637) DjB amendment . . . A correction in an errour committed in a processe, ‘and espied before judgement.’” (emphasis added)
Note: The difference in Amendment and year.
(VII) A. CRITICAL PRONOUNCING DICTIONARY AND EXPOSITOR OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE; TO WHICH ARE PREFIXED PRINCIPLES OF ENGLISH PRONUNCIATION: THE WHOLE INTERSPERSED WITH OBSERVATIONS, ETYMOLOGICAL, CRITICAL, AND GRAMMATICAL. BY JOHN WALKER, LONDON: T. NELSON AND SONS, PATERNOSTER ROW; EDINBURGH; AND NEW YORK. MDCCCLXVI (CALL NUMBER #@ Univ. Of Calif., San Diego: PE 1620 W3 1866)
“AMENDMENT, . . . 1. A change from bad for the better; reformation of life; recovery of health; in law, the correction of an error committed in a process.”
CITIZEN. s. 103. A freeman of a city; a townsman not a gentleman; an inhabitant.”
LICENSE, li’sense, v.a. Exorbitant liberty, contempt of legal and necessary restraint; a grant of permission; liberty, permission.
Note: Every English dictionary, especially after, albeit all after, Noah Webster’s dictionaries have deleted the words, “and espied before judgement,” after the 1828 Vols. I and II were published. Then and now, accepted by the Congress of the United States of America (a legislative democracy). And; “This is only the tip of the iceberg.”
You Can Always Take a Webster at his Word
——————————————————————————–
(VIII) Vol I of II, Re: Noah Webster (1828). “Amend: to correct, to rectify by *expunging (deleting) a mistake; as to amend a law.”
“Amend: to correct, to supply a defect; to improve or make better; by some ‘addition’ of what is wanted, as well as expunging what is wrong, as to amend a bill before a legislature. Hence it is applied to the correction of authors, by restoring passages which had been omitted, or restoring the true reading.” (emphasis added)
Note the word, “addition.”
“Amendment: 2. a word, clause or paragraph ‘added’ or proposed to be ‘added’ to a bill before a legislature.” (emphasis added)
“3. (in law) the correction of an error in a writ or process.”
Mr. Noah Webster did a little “altering” and “expunging” himself
In 1828 Noah Webster published the words, “added-addition,” to the meaning of amendment, (in law) for a convoluted reason. And;
Mr. Noah Webster expunged the words, “and espied before judgement,” from the meaning of amendment, for a convoluted reason.
Today, Webster’s “amended” meaning of the word(s) amend-amendment and ex post facto have become the status quo, in the judiciary, the legislature(s), the executive, and together with the combined ignorance of the sovereignty, unlawfully incorporated within the National Constitution.
(Note: In the foregoing explications (in brevity) it should be noted that it is not my intent to plagarize.)
On my in-depth study of Noah Webster as a personality or character, I found conclusive evidences in the writings and attestations in the following biographies on this rather powerful and most resourceful man and his work as a *lexicographer.
The forgoing comments, compilations and quotes are from —; “Noah Webster” by Richard Moss, (Twaynes United States Authors Series), “Noah Webster,” by John S. Morgan (“Mason” Charter). “The Long Journey of Noah Webster,” by Richard M. Rollins (University of Pennsylvania Press), and “Noah Webster Vols I & II,” compiled by Emily Ellsworth Fowler Ford and edited by Emily Ellsworth Ford Skeel (printed by Burt Franklin, New York).
After reading these biographical books on Webster’s life, quotes and author explications of this particular and even pecu-liar (if I may) person I am amazed that these authors never considered or uncovered Webster’s-Ruse incorporated in his 1828 two volume set of his dictionary . . . ?
Some defined Noah Webster as a patriot, a statesman, a rebel, a literary saint, a genius, a bigot, a snob,— a (want to be) elite sycophant, an esoteric, an idiot or one whose life’s work should be held for naught, along with being a self-proclaimed Christian. I think traitor and conspirator should be also added to the list. This latter conclusion may seem to be judgmental, but, I am sure Benedict Arnold had good reason in his mind also . . .
“In regards to the National Constitution, Webster believed that an elite should govern not only politically but culturally as well. He worked incessantly to join that elite. He was one of the first to understand that America would be shaped by the opinions of the people and that books, pamphlets, and newspapers would shape that opinion. From the early 1780s Webster made it his task to become one of those chosen to write the words that would influence the nation. He never relinquished his faith that he could change the minds of the young and the old.”
Richard Moss
1974
The years after Webster published the 1806 dictionary were both bitter and productive. Webster remained a disillusioned Federalist in a nation experiencing the trauma of rapid social and political change. He wrote that “if Vermont would remain firm to the old Federalist principles, I should be tempted to remove to that state, to be freed from our democracy . . . “We deserve all our public evils. We are a degenerate and wicked people.”
N.W. 1806
“If gentle words and gentle means will not reclaim the wicked, they must be dealt with in a more severe manner.”
Noah Webster
Webster had set out on a campaign to prove that the pen was indeed mightier than the sword.
The Constitution in part was an important document in Webster’s life. The Bill of Rights he detested also as they were both “Unalterable.” (not flexible)
“During the year that Webster was editor of The American Magazine, he wrote a series of essays on politics using the pseudonym ‘Giles Hickory.’ These pieces were rambling and hastily written, but they also clearly identified the most fundamental conflicts of the late 1780s. Some opponents of the Constitution demanded a Bill of Rights and other Constitutional devices that would make the fundamental frame of government unalterable by the legislature. Webster saw the Republican government in a much different way than did these Antifederalists. At the core of his criticism of the Antifederalists was Webster’s belief that sovereignty must rest with the elected representatives of the people, not the people themselves. As Giles Hickory, he argued against a Bill of Rights and an unalterable Constitution as inefficient and unnecessary . . . ” And;
“A device such as a Bill of Rights assumed that the people’s liberty could be guaranteed in an unalterable Constitution. Webster on the other hand, believed that ‘liberty is never secured by such paper declarations; nor lost for want of them.’ ‘He contended that government was essentially organic, taking its form from the genius and habits of the people.’ Furthermore, ‘the nature of government would and should change as the temper of the people changed. Any list of rights or any written Constitution should not, and could not, be unalterable since the force of changing habits and needs would be irresistible.’ In demanding such unalterable forms Americans had, in Webster’s view, relied too heavily on European experience. European governments had always invested an individual or a political body with rights and powers independent of the suffrages of the body of the subjects. A Bill of Rights against the encroachments of kings and barons, or against any power independent of the people, is perfectly intelligible; but a Bill of Rights against the encroachments of an elective legislature, that is, against our own encroachments on ourselves, is a curiosity in government.” And;
“Webster was baffled by the people’s fear that an elected government was a threat to their rights and liberty. Such a fear must be ‘directed against themselves, or against an invasion which they imagine may happen in future ages.’ He pointed out that the present age [then] had no right to make laws for those not yet born’—a point often made by proponents [in favor] of a Bill of Rights, such as Jefferson. Webster also wondered why the Antifederalists had such faith in present legislatures and special conventions and so little in future ones. Unhampered by unalterable measures, bodies meeting in the future could and should adjust the laws to meet unforeseen developments. Furthermore, Webster asked, “What was the difference between the regular legislature and a specially elected convention?’”
The Giles Hickory essays had no effect on the establishment and ratification of the Bill of Rights nor the Constitutional Convention, still Webster and his beliefs and comments were persistent and his views were put to print . . .
By 1788-1789 Webster’s political position was made clear, he had the freedom of the press, for he had the press. He had come to include what had been a basic premise of political theory in the eighteenth century: ‘Men in every state must be subject to a supreme, absolute power.’ As he stated, ‘there could be no power residing in the state at large, which does not reside in the legislature.’ His ideas were in direct conflict with the political thinking in America since 1776, still he continued. As one Connecticut town expressed itself, ‘There is an original, underived and incommunicable authority and supremacy, in the collective body of the people, to whom all delegated power must submit . . . [speaking of the arrogance of Webster]. To men like Webster this absurd notion could only lead to disorder and inefficiency. In the long run Webster thought that the notion that if the people were absolutely sovereign, it would develop legal and historic reality through the growth of popular participation in politics and the constant appeals of public figures to the people.” As that happened, between 1790-1825 Webster predictably, was appalled.
If Webster could, he would have put absolute sovereignty in the hands of the legislature rather than with the people. “His 1828 dictionary let time bury the mistakes of our forefathers.”
Thus, it is not surprising that we should find such contradictions in Webster’s political thinking. Thomas Jefferson, after all, declared that the dead should not exercise a tyranny over the living, while at the same time calling for an unalterable Bill of Rights. Webster despised Jefferson and Jeffersonians.
“Time clouds even the best minds.”
Webster’s essays seduced the minds of many Americans. The feeling that America was trying an awesome and novel experiment and with the whole world laden with monarchy, tyranny, and oppression, all were waiting for the first signs of failure. Common political wisdoms such as the following were often used—
“Power abused leads to tyranny, Liberty abused leads to anarchy.”
With thoughts of chaos due to the Bill of Rights and its unalterable mandates, time had proven the national Constitution and the Bill of Rights went hand in hand. He underestimated, however, the extent to which the people had become accustomed to their enlarged political role . . .
However, Democracy raised its ugly head. In a short decade later, the presidency would become the prize in a bitter party conflict. In less than five years measures of the new Federal government, democracy proponents would produce vicious debates and mobs in the streets. National politics, in short, would soon conform, in large part, to the same democratic impulses and equalitarian spirit that disrupted the state legislatures. When Webster saw all this, his faith in political solutions was shaken and slowly he began to turn to religion. He later claimed responsibility for the turmoil due to his essays. (Men like Madison would later part company with Webster.)
Nevertheless, Webster would not remain silent for long. When the hated Thomas Jefferson was elected in 1800, Webster wrote to both Jefferson and Madison. Not long after the Jeffersonians had taken office, Webster vented himself to Jefferson (Jefferson later published it.),
“Your measures, sir, invert the whole order of society. The natural sentiment of man is to respect virtue, religion, grave manners, eminent talents, the wisdom of experience, and the hoary [gray] head. Your practices tend to depress eminence of talents, to point the finger of scorn at a veneration of religion, to exalt the young over the head of the old, to discard solid worth, and to dignify with honors and emoluments of government the departed, the licentious [abandoned] and the profane . . . if mankind can long endure this monstrous inversion of principles, of sentiments, and of habits—if they can lay aside their respect for age, wisdom, experience, and virtue, and look up with veneration to the illiterate, the debauchee, the blasphemer, the infidel—if they can calmly bear to see the hoary judge driven from the seat of justice to make way for the beardless tyro [beginner]—the world has now the opportunity of determining these questions by the experiment, and on the event of this experiment depends the fate of your official character and of your administration.”
“This letter helps explain the transition in Webster’s position between 1798 and 1802. Before Jefferson’s election Webster, while dismayed by the violent political battles in the United States and France, could take great comfort in the knowledge that men whom he saw as a natural aristocracy like Washington, Adams, and others were at the helm. With the Federalists’ defeat in 1800 Webster’s fears and anxieties had no counterbalance; the elite upon whom he staked so much was out of power, and the new administration was composed of men he could not trust.
For Webster this crisis was much more than a political problem; it was profoundly moral as well. The new men in power were in Webster’s view ‘men who openly revile and hold in contempt the religious institutions of their country . . . ‘” and so on—
Webster clearly was in contempt of Jefferson’s Administration in his 1802 Fourth of July oration.
Between 1800—and his death in 1843 Webster devoted most of his energy to the study of language and the making of dictionaries and rarely commented on political matters. Webster became more resolutely anti-democratic, seeking as he had in the early 1800s, devices to mute the voice and vote of the people. In Webster’s old papers “The Commercial Advertiser” and the “Spectator”, now edited by William Leete Stone, Webster used two more aliases, namely “Marcellus” and the other “Sidney” in order to invert the thinking of the Democratic Population. He wrote with a sneer. Never was he more *didactic (intend to teach a moral lesson) or arrogant, than in these publications imbuing the American minds. If Webster had not become a monarchist, he had certainly become a stout champion of the rich. He defended “rich capitalists” against all charges, that they were not “drones in society” living on the industry of the “working bees.” Also, that ‘their loans to government were a blessing.’
“Webster wrote a series of letters to various newspapers under the title “The Prompter” in his early career on political views to the editor, at first unsigned, later he confessed his own sense of the role he would like to play in society: The Prompter, ‘the man who, in plays, sits behind the scenes, and looks over the rehearser, and with moderate voice, corrects him when wrong, or assists his recollection . . . ‘ Webster saw this role as very necessary and as one in which he could do much good. This was more than an author’s pose; it was a reflection of Webster’s belief that although he was not cut out for public office, he was suited to act, as judge of the morals and the behavior of ‘the numerous actors upon the great theater of life . . . ‘
“From this mountaintop, arrogant Webster had a prompter claim. ‘And no way is so good as mine. The question is not, whether this or that is the better way, but whether it is my way or your way. Orthodoxy is my doxy, and heterodoxy is your doxy.’ The prompter’s readers were preached at but generally they never knew it . . . ”
Time passed and Webster became even more jaded with democracy, the Jeffersonians, the Antifederalists and politics. He devoted most of his labors to his new dictionary. Both he and his son William traveled abroad to study in Europe, and in January 1825, (more later on this date) “An American Dictionary” was completed. The religious tone of the work was set by the dedication. “An American Dictionary was dedicated to Webster’s Christian God—’that great and benevolent being’ who ‘sustained a feeble Constitution.’
Three years passed before it was published in New York. Hamilton and Madison and others had long since turned their backs on Webster, but one very powerful friend, John Jay, a man whom Washington had appointed as the first chief justice of the Supreme Court was awaiting Webster’s version of his new dictionary. Hot off the press, Webster, at night, in a rain storm, delivered two complete sets to Jay . . .
Now this poses or propounds the mind to question. What was the urgency? Why did he not wait until the next day or send it by courier?
Note: In “The New Jersey Plan” submitted to the committee at the Constitutional Convention,” to alter and amend as they shall think proper” . . . the correction of all errors, both in Law and Fact.”
In convention June 15, 1787
“Too much liberty is the worst tyranny.”
N.W. 1786
Webster made his intentions in his 1828 dictionary quite clear. The values expressed within the work were his. Quote: “In many cases, I have given brief sentences of my own,” he declared, “and often presenting some important maxim or sentiment in religion, morality, law or civil policy.” To his daughter Emily, he confessed, “that I had used the definitions in my work in less than scholarly objective ways.” “I suppose you must have noticed that I have not forgotten my own country and friends,” he told her.
Another significant indication of the framework within which Webster wrote was his work in etymology. “The pronunciation and spelling of words is not central to an understanding of my work”——”and has been dealt with adequately elsewhere. “Yes, Noah, we know.”
Four years before his death he wrote an essay in which he summed up his entire life’s work in linguistics, philosophy, etymology, and lexicography. “It was obvious to my mind that popular errors proceeding from a misunderstanding of words are among the efficient causes of our political disorders.”
N.W. 1839
“In 1806 Webster gave lexicographic legitimacy to cent, dime, and dollar for the first time as units of measure in the American monetary system.”
The Compendious Dictionary of 1806
Although Webster slandered Johnson and all other lexicographers, Johnson was popularly given credit as the great innovator in the field of lexicography. Johnson owes much to his predecessor, Nathaniel Bailey, whose scholarly dictionary went through many editions starting in 1675. (Note: Mr. Morgan [author] stated in Webster’s biography, “N. Bailey’s first of many editions started in 1721,” but, I personally own a 1675 edition, so I have taken liberty to correct his quote.)
Nevertheless, the dictionary met with widespread critical approval, although a few die-hard Bostonians didn’t like it and some Britishers scorned it, but on thinly *veiled (well hidden, enshrouded) nationalistic grounds. James Madison atoned for previous digs at Webster by praising his: “Learned research, elaborate discrimination, and taste for careful definition.”
Excuse me! Hell-o! If this was only a dictionary, why all the fuss?——because it was not just any ole dictionary, now was it? It was the dictionary a selected group was waiting for.
Congress adopted his 1828 dictionary as the standard in its halls, and various American courts made it standard. Many foreign governments declared it their official dictionary for English. Is that why Webster went to Europe? For approval?
Common sense, if it was just a dictionary, why all the sought after accolades on bull fertilizer.
We know why, and we know possibly who.
Unfortunately, exhumation won’t tell us anything we the people don’t already surmise or know.
Now to really narrow it down to a much thinner veil, more than half of the original 2500 copies run went to England, only 3000 copies were sold altogether. Webster, according to sources, had a publisher named Sherman Converse publish the 1828 version, but, Converse claimed in court he couldn’t keep up with supply and demand and bankrupted his company.
Isn’t it strange that a dictionary accepted by the United States Congress and the higher judiciary would not want to see this masterpiece in wide circulation?
The Judicial, the Legislative, and the Executive Branches 177 years later use and rely on Webster’s 1828 ruse-ter.
Years later after the ruse was orchestrated reprints in a single form began to surface upon request of the state judiciaries and legislatures for reference and reverence.
The outspoken Thomas Jefferson, who was “the major catalyst in keeping the “National Constitution” and its wording, clauses and meaningful importance, in check . . . died on July 4th, 1826 at the age of 83 years. Also his friend and colleague- John Adams died minutes after Jefferson. His last words were, “Jefferson lives.”
“Any man who has a mind to whip a dog can easily find a stick.”
In 1828, with Thomas Jefferson and John Adams out of the picture, Webster’s ruse to circumvent was accepted by a majority acceptance in the Congress of the United States of America. All with blind exception and ignorance, but the few, or the none but one. We will never know who all were involved. Do you need more proof?
“Most soft soap is made from lye.”
The Federalist Papers
——————————————————————————–
In the actual wording of The Federalist Papers, published throughout the thirteen colonies before ratification, also to be considered and approved by the Citizens, making them Sovereignty.
The Federalist Papers were very perspicuous in regard to the “True Meaning” of the words, amend-amendment.
Here now, copied verbatim, are the last six (6) paragraphs of the last Federalist paper, number LXXXV (85th). Also; note for your total comprehensibility, I will take the liberty of briefly explicating some of the words, to wit;
“It appears to be susceptible (likely to allow or be affected by something) of absolute demonstration that it will be far more easy to obtain subsequent than previous amendments (corrections, etc.) to ‘the Constitution.’ The moment an alteration (amendment) if made in the present plan it becomes, to the purpose of adoption, a new one, and must undergo a new decision of each state. To its complete establishment throughout the Union it will therefore require the concurrence of thirteen states. If, on the contrary, ‘The Constitution’ proposed (completed) should once be ratified by all the states as it stands, alterations (amendments) in it may at any time be effected by nine states. Here, then, the chances are as thirteen to nine if favor of subsequent amendment, rather than of the original adoption of an entire system.”
“This is not all. Every Constitution for the United States must inevitably consist of a great variety of particulars in which thirteen independent states are to be accommodated in their interests or opinions of interest. We may, of course, expect to see in any body of men charged with its original formation, very different combinations of the parts upon different points. Many of those who form a majority on one question may become the minority on a second, and an association dissimilar to either may constitute the majority on a third. ‘Hence the necessity of molding and arranging all the particulars which are to compose the whole in such a manner as to satisfy all the parties to the compact; and ‘hence’, also, an immense multiplication of difficulties and casualties in obtaining the collective assent to a ‘final’ act. The degree of that multiplication must evidently be in a ratio to the number of particulars and the number of parties.” (Stop)
(Note the segment that I emphasized in quotations, “Hence the necessity of molding and arranging all the particulars which are to compose the whole in such a manner as to satisfy all the parties to the compact.”)
Speaking of “compact” (agreement or contract), does it sound once ratified, that it could be a flexible document? To change to the contrary? — No! To mold is to frame!
To frame; “is to use ingenuity in making or doing or ‘achieving an end.’”
Can you see the rigidly firm in will or purpose that would become the Supreme Law of the Land, upon ratification? (Now let’s continue.)
“But every Amendment to ‘the Constitution’, ‘if once established,’ would be a single proposition, and might be brought forward singly. There would then be no necessity for management or compromise in relation to any other point—’no giving or taking.’ The will of the requisite number would at once bring the matter to a decisive issue and consequently whenever nine, or rather ten, states were united in the desire for a particular amendment, that amendment must infallibly (incapable of error) take place. There can, therefore, be no comparison between the facility of effecting an amendment and that of establishing, in the first instance, ‘a complete Constitution.’” (A finalization upon ratification.)
“In opposition to the probability of subsequent amendments, it has been urged that the persons delegated to the administration of the national government will ‘always be disinclined to yield up any portion of the authority of which they were once possessed.’ For my own part, I acknowledge a thorough conviction that any amendments which may, upon mature consideration, be thought useful, will be applicable to the organization of the government, ‘not to the mass of its powers; and on this account alone I think there is no weight to the observation just stated.’ I also think there is little weight in it on another account.
The intrinsic difficulty of governing Thirteen States at any rate, independent of calculations upon an ordinary degree of public spirit and integrity will, in my opinion, constantly impose on the national rulers the necessity of a spirit of accommodation to the reasonable expectations of their constituents. But there is yet a further consideration, which proves beyond the possibility of doubt that the observation is futile. It is this: That the national rulers, whenever nine states concur, will have no option upon the subject. By the Fifth Article of the plan, the Congress will be obliged ‘upon the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the states [which at present amount to nine], to call a convention for proposing amendments which shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of ‘The Constitution,’ when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states, or by conventions in three-fourths thereof. The words of this Article are peremptory (mandatory). The Congress ‘shall call a convention.’ Nothing in this particular is left to the discretion of that body. And of consequence (amour propre) all the declamation about the disinclination to a change (amendment) vanishes in air.” (Stop)
Not Noah Webster’s definition of ex-post-facto, but the King’s English in the era of the organic United States Constitution. To wit;
“Ex post facto; a term used of a thing done after the time when it should have been done.”
Our sovereignty, organic National Constitution, emphatically states in more than one place, that “no ex post facto law” (and that means ALL legislatures), “shall be passed.” No contrary Articles/clauses after ratification, is guaranteed.
Note. I am also going to prove that, upon ratification of the Constitution for the United States of America, all state constitutions were, and are to be, nullified (forevermore), to the contrary notwithstanding. (A discriminatory conflict of interests/ex post facto law.)
I realize that the United States supreme court has already ruled upon the meaning of Article VI, clause 2, but they (the Justices), ruled according to Noah Webster’s dictionaries, Vols. I and II. (Let’s continue where we left off.)
“Vanishes in the air.” Nor, however difficult it may be supposed to unite two-thirds or three-fourths of the state legislatures in amendments which may affect local interests, can there be any room to apprehend any such difficulty in a union on points which are merely relative to the general liberty or security of the people. “We may safely rely on the disposition of the state legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority.” (However, they did not!)
“If the foregoing argument is a fallacy, certain it is that I am myself deceived by it for it is, in my conception, one of those rare instances in which a political truth can be brought to the test of mathematical demonstration. Those who see the matter in the same light with me, however zealous they may be for amendments, must agree in the propriety of a previous adoption as the most direct road to their own object.” (Their own objection.)
“The zeal for attempts to amend, ‘prior to the establishment of ‘The Constitution.” must abate in every man who is ready to accede to the truth of the following observations of a writer equally solid and ingenious: ‘To balance a large state or society,’ says he, ‘whether “monarchical” or “republican,” on general laws, is a work of so great difficulty that no human genius, however comprehensive, is able, by the mere dint of reason and reflection to effect it. The judgments of many must unite in the work; experience must guide their labor; time must bring it to perfection, and the feeling on inconveniences must correct the mistakes which they inevitably fall into in their first trials and experiments. (amendments)
These judicious reflections contain a lesson of Moderation to all the sincere lovers of the Union, and ought to put them upon their guard against hazarding anarchy, civil war, a perpetual alienation of the States from each other, and perhaps the military despotism of a victorious demagogue. (Admiralty-Equity Democracy) in the pursuit of what they are not likely to obtain, but from time and experience. It may be in me a defect of political fortitude, but I acknowledge that I cannot entertain an equal tranquility with those who effect to treat the dangers of a longer continuance in our present situation as imaginary. A nation without a national government is, in my view, an awful spectacle. The establishment of a constitution, in time of profound peace, by the voluntary consent of a whole people, is a prodigy, to the completion of which I look forward with trembling anxiety. I can reconcile it to no rules of prudence to let go the hold we now have, in so arduous an enterprise, upon seven out of thirteen states, and after having passed over so considerable a part of the ground, to recommence the course. I dread the more the consequences of new attempts because I know that powerful individuals, in this and other states, are enemies to a ‘general national government’ in every possible shape.”
(emphasis added)
Publius [Hami1ton]
Note: Noah Webster attended the convention in the summer of 1787 as a spectator.
“Put not your faith and trust in any man but instead bind him down with the chains of the constitution.”
Thomas Jefferson 1743 – 1826
I guess we all owe many thanks for The Federalist Papers, Mr. James Madison, who many say is actually responsible for their construction, and is known, too, as “The Father of the Constitution.” Also, Mr. Alexander Hamilton and Mr. John Jay for their work which made the Papers possible. The Quill and The Sword would not be possible- without evidence.
It was Noah Webster’s dictionaries, inasmuch as their flexible inconsistency, with other lexicographers to which was the real prompt or catalyst for my even studying etymology. I guess we cannot relate to this old proverb: “You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but not all the people all of the time.” for they damn near did that. I guess we can more relate to the old general proverb most of us grew up with in regard to honesty and the contrary.
“O’ the tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.”
So there we have it, absolutely, without a doubt, our framers-molders of the National Constitution, emphatically, adamantly, and very perspicuously, made clear beyond any doubt that an amend-amendment must be made according to the wording. No ex post facto law shall be passed after ratification. State constitutions and laws to the contrary are repugnant and void.
Amendment; in synopsis—[in law]. “The Correction of an Error committed and espied before judgment, (sic) (Note: Capital “C” on the word “Correction” and capital “E” on “Error.”) Those two key words, that only mean “a correction of an error, caught before ratification,” or otherwise, to the contrary notwithstanding (totally unlawful).
Ex post facto—(in law): “A term used of a “Thing” done ‘after’ the time when it should have been done.”
Meaning: “contrary articles/clauses,” “after ratification, after the fact, after a Thing done,” is “ex post facto.”
Sovereignty must mandate that our government, legislative, judicial and executive branches, read The Federalist Papers, and this website “discern them thoroughly.” Then, trash all ex post facto laws, statutory and otherwise, upon the perspicuous mandates contained in “the National Constitution” that “they all” have taken an oath to preserve, protect and defend, “Any-Thing” to the contrary to be “notwithstanding (“nevertheless”). As we say back home, “The jig is up.”
Furthermore, the “Bill of Rights” were all entitled, “Articles,” not “Amendments.”
“Articles in addition to, and Amendment ‘of,’ ‘The Constitution’ ‘of’ The United States ‘of’ America, ‘proposed’ by Congress, and ‘ratified’ by the legislatures ‘of’ the ‘several states,’ ‘pursuant’ to the Fifth Article of the original Constitution.”
Articles; in synopsis; “[articular, F.] To make or draw up conditions.”
Note: The word, “addition,” in the preamble to the Bill of Rights. This is where Noah Webster sowed the seeds of his ruse.
“Articles in addition to,” not “Amendments in addition to.”
By changing the meaning of amend-amendment (in law) in his dictionary, WE THE PEOPLE inherited the status quo of today’s chaotic flexible three-branch government, “an elected dictatorship.” A democracy, (capricious laws)
An Amendment, in The Federalist Papers, was an extended right to correct what was amiss, even after ratification, but only “a temporary one.” This is why no “Webster” amendment was ever made until after his 1828 dictionary. “Articles in addition to.” This is why it was called, “The Bill of Rights,” not “The Bill of Amendments.”
Noah Webster’s definition of Amendment connotes “too” instead of “to.” According to the wording. “You may correct later, if you find any flaws, but, it is imperative that the National Constitution be ratified now.” Further, notice the words, “The Constitution.” The word, “the,” has a meaningful relation in what it does or does not connote.
Let us now take your facsimile of our National Constitution and look first to the wording of the preamble to The Constitution. If you don’t have one stop… go to your local book store or library. Also buy a computerized dictionary with a thesaurus to speed your learning along.
Preamble to the National Constitution
——————————————————————————–
The wording, “This Constitution.” was only used in two places, one was in the Preamble, and the other was in Article VI clause two, aka “the National Supremacy Clause. To wit;
“This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any Thing in ‘the Constitution’or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.” (emphasis added)
Until ‘the Constitution’ was completed, the words “this Constitution” were, according to correct English usage in linguistic phraseology, properly used throughout the original Constitution, with the “exception” of the two (2) noted times.
“Stay with me. ‘This’ and ‘The,’ are important.”
First, what exactly is a constitution in synopsis? Let’s consider the following of the King’s English, in the old English dictionaries, to wit;
Constitution: “An ordinance or decree; the state of the body; the form of government used in any place; the law of a kingdom.”
Second, let’s consider what today’s Webster’s of 1828, “clause 4, says.” (Note Webster’s creativity)
Constitution: “The established form of government in a state, kingdom or country; a system of ‘fundamental’ rules, principles and ordinances for the government of a state or nation. In free states the constitution is paramount to the statutes or laws enacted by the legislature, limiting and controlling its power; and in the United States, the legislature is created and its powers determined by ‘the constitution.’”
Rebuttal.
What Constitution? “The Constitution?” And why did he “not” capitalize the word, “Constitution?” As he did, “United States?” Was it an insignificant flexible document? and:
clause 5 [in part]: “A particular law, ordinance or regulation, made by the authority of ‘any superior, civil or ecclesiastical . . . ‘” (emphasis added)
Rebuttal.
“Boy! Does that connote?” “Any superior.”
clause 6. “A system of fundamental principles for the government of rational and ‘social’ beings.” (emphasis added)
Rebuttal.
Social: “Relating to pleasant companionship; naturally living or growing in groups; relating to human society; and; in thesaurus, “to social” (B) (adjective) Inclined by nature to association or community life with others of the same species.” (emphasis added)
Rebuttal.
What does this connote in actuality according to the words used by Webster’s explication? Remember the story, “Welcome Hogs?”
“WE THE PEOPLE” are now “we the controlled social people,” and I do mean controlled. Controlled of our own volition, via contracts, ignorance of law, ignorance of fact, apathy——via drone laziness, TV, sports, and all the status quo inducements by the power of persuasions made by those who would seduce the blind masses into submission and servitude. Oh, yes! And let’s not forget the press. We rebels will never get good press.
To say this is the best country on the face of the earth “today,” means, it’s the best democracy. That’s like comparing oranges to apples. Compared to what?
I asked a few English professors who were not familiar with the Constitution, or any laws, for that matter. I asked each and every one of them the same questions, regarding the English language in reference to the word usage, “this Constitution,” speaking of its entirety up to and including the Bill of Rights, in regard to the wording, “the Constitution,” which was used only after ratification. Each and every one concurred to the following. (in epitome)
“The Congress via conventions could make amendments to the Constitution. as per the Fifth Article. Therefore, in regard to the usage wording, ‘this Constitution,’ speaks of the original before any change or addition. The future tense of it would be called, ‘the Constitution.’ Once completed or otherwise, it could never be referred to as ‘this Constitution’ again. It would be incorrect to ever call it, ‘this Constitution,’ referring forwardly, or to refer back, or as a whole. It would most definitely be referred to as ‘the Constitution.’” “Positive confirmation.”
To try to prove me wrong, knowing the truth as we now do, you will only enhance my findings, as the facts and the truth are overwhelming.
I would totally recommend to all Americans, “Read and discern thoroughly The Federalist Papers. They can be found in your library.”
I imagine, to the elite on Nob Hill, we’re all a bunch of trash, and they only indulge us with their propagandistic fertilizer because they need our votes to legalize their ruse to destroy. They have prostituted our most sacred lives under color of law in a sundry of colorable jurisdictions.
Nevertheless, I am not the fire; the factual truth, however, is. Do not just read the words called truth. Discern them, for lies has many fathers.
Maybe for some, I did not explicate enough, for others, too much. I am merely trying to inform, educate and entertain the truth, hopefully without being to superfluous or redundant in my explication. Like the ole’ stone cutter, I did not create the stone, but I saw the treasure within.
I, as most Americans, went through life without any need to ever study law, or get past the preamble of the Constitution, and that was in Junior High School. However, before my two youngest children were born, some twenty-seven years ago, I received a notice of demand for an audit from the infamous IRS, aka “Internal Robbery Squad.” The audit became a nightmare or a gestapo-like affair. I was accused of selling a property and not reporting a capital gain. To which I replied, “I never bought or sold that property. I never heard of it.”
To make a long story short, the auditor, by the name of Mr. T. White, in Dayton, Ohio, informed me of a disallowance of all my business and personal expenditures. To say that I became acrimonious would put it lightly. He insistently said, “It is now the proper policy of the Internal Revenue Service to refer your case to the Federal Tax Court.”
“The metamorphosis took shape.” Now, as one Japanese commander exclaimed after Pearl Harbor was attacked, “I fear we might have awakened a sleeping giant,” for I have become over the years much more than a thorn in the side of “Legal Democracy.”
“I have pursued mine enemy and destroyed them and I will not retreat until I have consumed them. “
Book of Samuel
These facts and findings that have been exposed herein were never before uncovered or published or possibly never considered, will undoubtedly be somewhat devastating to our three (3) branch government, and to those who up to now have subverted our mandates, etc. Sobeit, they will expiate (atone). We must not and cannot, blame all peoples in our three (3) branch government. Some of them upon taking office had good purpose in mind or at heart. In the political arena, the higher the office, the more need to control. Most will submit, or perish to the will of the power behind the ruse. Over the years, several lawyers, judges and government officials have confessed to me, “I for one, hope you can do something. My hands are tied.” Do not forget they are Americans also. They have families too. “Some” are caught up in this system, others are blind. “They all have superiors,” and when “they command,” regardless of the position they are in, all must comply with the law of the times.
STAND ON MY SHOULDERS
Regardless of my vociferates of anger when I started on my quest to prove everyone in government wrong, I now see my country in a new quest for the truth, and I have no ill feelings towards anyone who betrayed me at the moment or doubted me dor putting what seemed to be impossible on my plate.
During the start of the War of 1776, there was a man who took six of his sons into battle with him. His name, I cannot remember, his deed, I cannot forget. All but two of his sons were killed in the first two years of the War For Independence. He and his two remaining sons were captured by the British. He, an officer, together with his sons, were held on a prison ship in Boston Harbor. His two sons were captured months before, and lay dying like animals from scurvy, rat bites and fever. Hundreds of others were in the same condition.
The British commander told the captured officer, “I have it within my power to grant you and your sons amnesty for all the crimes against the King of England. If you swear under oath an allegiance to the King and that you will cease your participation against him, you and your sons may leave at will…”
Some men would gladly have taken that chance for liberty, but not this man of pride and valor. He merely replied, “We, sir, will also have to die with the many before us.”
I owe that man and his sons, and countless scores of other fathers and sons to date, for our liberty. We, owe them everything, for our freedom, codified and mandated in our most sacred documents. For without all of their combined efforts to establish the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, it would be fruitless for us to even ponder or garner these truths.
The Unknown Soldier
There’s a graveyard near the White House
Where the Unknown Soldier lies,
And the flowers there are sprinkled
With the tears from mother’s eyes.
I stood there not so long ago
With roses for the brave,
And suddenly I heard a voice
Speak out from the grave:
“I am the Unknown Soldier,”
The spirit voice began,
And I think I have the right
To ask some questions man to man.
“Are my buddies taken care of?
Was their victory so sweet?
Is that big reward you offered
Selling pencils on the street?
“Did they really win the freedom
They battled to achieve?
Do you still respect that Croix de Guerre
Above that empty sleeve?
“Does a gold star in the window
Now mean anything at all?
I wonder how my girl feels
When she hears a bugle call.
“And that baby who sang
‘Hello, Central, give me no man’s land’
Can they replace her daddy
With a military band?
“I wonder if the profiteers
Have satisfied their greed?
I wonder if a soldier’s mother
Ever is in need?
“I wonder if the kings, who planned it all
Are really satisfied?
They played their game of checkers
And eleven million died.
“I am the Unknown Soldier
And maybe I died in vain,
But if I were alive and my country called,
I’d do it all over again.”
Billy Rose
“We cannot change the absolute; however, it does not lessen the memory.”
J.S.
To uphold and maintain our National Constitution is our only stronghold at law and the success of liberty.
“We must separate the wheat from the chaff.”
The fire and mass destruction could not be conceived of by the prophets of Revelations, for all they had was an oil lamp, or heat intensified via a bellows. Every thing in print is not etched in stone.
“Savor the following words that were put to law.”
Article I, Section 8, clause 5, to wit;
“To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures.” (The Law of the Land out of Deuteronomy 25, 13-15.)
Article I, Section 10, clause 1, to wit;
“No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; (march and seize) coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make Any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder; ex post facto Law or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.” (The Law of the Land still valid in all fifty (50) states.)
The word, “idle,” means worthless, inactive, lazy, spending time doing nothing, inert, passive, etc.
“But I say to you, for every `idle’ word men may speak, they will give account of it in the Day of Judgment. For by your `words’ you will be justified, and by your `words’ you will be condemned.”
Book of Matthew
Professed Christians, legal tender and parts of legal tender (laminated coins) are not the lawful weights and measures, or the lawful dollar of the Coinage Act of 1792, or the lawful dollar mandated in Article I, Section 10, in the National Constitution of the United States of America. However you thought or you were taught, legal tender usage is not only hypocrisy, but blasphemy. Christ was betrayed by Judas for thirty pieces of silver, not thirty bucks. Silver is what one renders unto Caesar, not democracy feign dollars. A dollar according to the Coinage Act is a unit of “measure.” Legal tender is a unit of credit or insurance to discharge the debt . . . Will you or submit to democracy and democracy’s King? (IN AMERICA, WE THE PEOPLE ARE CAESAR)
“Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.”
Book of Timothy
In the syntactical construction of words, and the etymological true meanings of them, one must discern the printed manner of those who would circumvent or guise the truth, as Noah Webster. Although he is not, nor was by far the only culprit, he was just the one that I caught with his hand in the cookie jar.
We take for granted or assume truth is printed in a smoothly comprehensible fashion. Let’s take the famous quote by Patrick Henry.
“Give me liberty or give me death.”
Believe it or not, this connotes immensely.
Today, let’s review briefly some of, in part, what the word, “Liberty,” means and its synonyms.
Liberty: “quality or state of being free; action going beyond normal limits; the power or condition of acting without compulsion,” etc.
Synonyms: “freedom, “license”‘
“Give me freedom or give me death.” “Give me license or give me death.”
Now, we all know that Patrick Henry was not speaking of license. Freedom means Liberty, in the King’s English, but, free-man, means of a city, corporation or company, in the King’s English. However, license means, liberty, permission, leave. Now let’s consider the word, “liberty,” (in law) right out of the King’s English.
“Liberty [in law] is a privilege by which men enjoy some favour or benefit beyond the ordinary “Subject.” (Slave) (emphasis added)
The word, “Subject,” is capitalized in the definition at law. Remember, at the front of the book I stressed the point that capitalization is very important in studying law or words at law. You will also remember that old maxim that “Prior law governs,” “always.”
To change the meanings of words once used at law, to modify or alter, in any fashion, either by addition or amendment, you what? “You change the authority.” “Prior law governs,” means “prior usage governs.” Discern the original facts of usage.
“When the pot boils, the scum will rise.”
To the citizen-subject, the law of God and the law of man are exactly like an opera. They understand little, if any; yet they stand and give attention to those who ask for accolades. Then they scorn those who bear witness to the things they do not understand or believe.
“We must have no fear of knowledge and truth, but lies, ignorance and deceit will be the catalyst of our destruction.”
J.S.
Now let’s go back to the year 1787, to the creation of our grass roots America, and to the men who made history. For whatever reason in their master plan these words were put to pen… THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION (again notice the date).
Article I
——————————————————————————–
“Section 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”
(explicated briefly)
The Senate being the elite known as the upper house which today consists of two Senators from each State, numbering one hundred (100), an integral part of the electoral college, casting each one vote.
“Section 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
“No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained the Age of twenty-five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.”
(explicated briefly)
The House of Representatives is known as the lower house, numbering today four hundred thirty-five (435) members from the fifty (50) states of the Union, each casting one vote in the electoral college. (Notice the capitalization of the words, such as Person, People, Citizen, etc.)
“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other Persons.* The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand**, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six. New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten. North Carolina five. South Carolina five and Georgia three.” (explication in brevity)
*Changed by Section 2 of the infamous Fourteenth article of amendment. Note: This change by lawful right did not affect the constitutional authority.
Also note: That “no” article of amendment (or Amendment, if you will) to the Constitution was to the contrary until after Webster’s dictionaries of 1828 were introduced to Congress.
**Ratio in 1965 was one to over four hundred ten thousand (410,000.)
And;
as per Article I, Section 9. clause 4, to wit;
“No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”
Article I, Section 9, clause 4, in regard to direct taxes and uniformity of capitation, etc., was in regard to Article I, Section 9, clause 1, “amended by themselves before ratification.” Note: Also, if they changed it then before ratification, how did Congress think they could change it to the contrary after ratification, on February 3, 1913, in the sixteenth so-called amendment without being ex post facto? Hell-O!
“When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.”
“The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.”
“Section 3. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, [chosen by the Legislature thereof,]*** for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.”
***Changed by Section 1 of the seventeenth Article of Amendment, ratified April 8, 1913. By whom? (more later)
“Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one-third may be chosen every second Year; [and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies."]*
*Changed by clause 2 of the seventeenth Article of Amendment, ratified April 8, 1913. By whom? (more later)
“No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.”
“The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.”
“The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.”
“The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of the Members present.”
“Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor. Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”
“Section 4. The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of chusing Senators.”
“The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall [be on the first Monday in December]* ‘unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day. ‘” (emphasis added)
*Changed by Section 2 of the Twentieth Article of Amendment. Note, also, that this clause gave permission for an amendment of date.
“Section 5. Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.”
“Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.”
“Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one-fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.”
“Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.”
“Section 6. The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective
pop_de_adam
August 17, 2012 at 6:27 AM
There is a difference betwixt “Daniel” and “Noah” Webster. One that should be explored.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_Webster
Yartap
August 15, 2012 at 6:39 PM
Damn Right! He ain’t no joke.
I thought I would share part of this blog gotten from the DailyPaul.com. If the writer is true to his words, then he gives some very interesting points about getting out of Social Security. The main topic for the blog was “Opening a Bank Account without a Social Security Number. ”Please Read the titled, “Been There, Done That,”as follows:……….
Submitted by Desert Rat on Thu, 09/17/2009 – 01:18. Permalink
“I went the whole SSN cancellation route, including all the registered letters and quoting the federal statutes that you show. Bottom line.”
“I received a letter from SSA stating that I cannot cancel my SSN because that number does not belong to me, it was created and is owned by the SSA. It was created and was assigned exclusively for my use upon approval of my application. It was MY number for use in commerce. They simply returned my SS card and politely stated that if I had problems with the SSN all I had to do is to stop using it. They also said that the number would stay assigned to me for the duration of my life, should I wish to change my mind and use it.”
“However, I did manage to open a bank account without supplying a SSN. But, my account was always being flagged and reported to the IRS. Months later, I was examining details of my account and lo and behold, I saw my SSN pop up (they don’t need you to tell them what it is). At the end of about two years, the bank (B of A) froze my account at the request of the IRS. Two days after that, over $7,000.00 was removed from my account and sent to the IRS with no explanation. I got a letter from the IRS that they wanted to talk to me. I went and they accused me of money laundering and said that I needed to document all sources of my income over the past five years or I wouldn’t get my $7,000.00 back. I was doing business on the internet without a SSN and couldn’t document anything as I didn’t keep records. So, guess what? Bye, bye $7K”
………… Social Security told him, “[A]ll I had to do is STOP USING IT.” (Social Security Number) [Emphases Mine]. Now, that can be a hard thing to do. We can all see his mistake, the depositing of money with the enemy (Bank). Alfred has tried to impress upon us the same (“stop using it”). Could IT be that simple, yet close to impossible to achieve?
Many use the following Laws “to think” that they can get out of “giving” their Social Security Number and get out of Social Security;” but, most do not read the Laws carefully, nor understand them. The following is advice given for getting a Bank Account without a SSN. The author gives the Laws used, and I will give Comment in brackets following each law the author gives.
TITLED: No SSN for opening Bank Account?
1) “I informed them that I had terminated my SSN legally in accordance with 20 CFR 3 A7 404.1905
[Wrong, 20 CFR deals with the “Totalization” w/ Another country, the “agreement termination” is between countries, and NOT individuals and the SSA. Many believe, wrongly, that this is the Regulation that ends the Social Security requirement.] and
2) I informed them that the bank could not be held legally responsible by anyone for failing to obtain a SSN from me pursuant to 31 CFR 103.34(a)(1)
[this is True, but a list of Account Holders who’s SSN’s are not given shall be listed and given to the IRS secretary, YOUR FLAGGED!] and
3) I informed them that under the Internal Revenue Code Section 6041, that they were not even required to provide any taxpayer identification numbers on the Form 1099 that they file with the IRS at the end of the year,
[True, if the money amount is under $600 / year, otherwise it must be reported] and
4) I informed them that pursuant to 26 CFR 301.6109-1(c) that they were under no legal obligation to obtain a SSN from me, [Not True, the Bank must make an attempt to obtain the Number or find it out, then report to the IRS Secretary as required by 31 CFR 103.34(a)(1), see above, the name, address and township of said Account Holder.] and
5) I informed them that 42 USC 408 (8) makes it a FELONY to use threat, duress, or coercion to try to force a person by fear or deceit to provide his SSN in an unlawful manner.” [True, but does this apply to the Banks? They are a Quasi Agents for the Government; or is it, the government is a Quasi Agent of the Banks?]
Ummer
August 15, 2012 at 8:13 PM
You know… I was wondering, are there any religious violations of this tax law? Because I can see for a muslim, I can see that this tax system would be as good as usury in regards to taxing on the same rather than on profit. It’s a messy exemption though. Maybe there’s something more simpler to this fraudulent system.
So yeah, what does God and his messengers say about tax? Which leads me to ask, do we return what is there’s ie that Federal Reserve Note. Is it more expedient for American’s to bring back a US Reserve Note and abandon that Federal Reserve note.
Is the law that makes us liable as simple as… it’s their property which they’ve given to us and want it back?
Is that why any other currency challenge to their federal reserve note is hampered? That they cannot tax on anything other than that which is valued in their property?
So I guess I and the video The American Dream was wrong to suggest that the tax is on the same rather than profit, because the currency is not the same. That in 1955 you may have bought in US reserve notes, and in 2010 you sold your items in exchange for Federal Reserve notes. And then they send out a form asking you if you have any of their property. … hmmm … ???
and that if you don’t return them what is theirs, they claim theft?
Or that they gave the notes on a trust with the expectation of getting some back ie in the form of a loan?
Maybe when they give the notes out, it’s as a loan … and the tax … are the return payments?
Just a matter of finding the hard copy text saying this all. I guess the point of “voluntary” is the point of voluntary to take the loan or their notes.
Of course, Cesar punished anyone who didn’t use what was his. When it comes to that point, who is going to defeat Cesar? And we know what came after Cesar, Neros and more nutters.
Though they may have allowed for religious rights… did they allow for local’s currency? The issue from this is the issue Jesus had with the local’s and their dodgy currency behavior.
Vincent
August 16, 2012 at 12:22 AM
Money, that was given by God and used for most of history, is gold and silver.
Ummer
August 16, 2012 at 12:48 AM
Gold, silver … anything that has value and lasts over time, and doesn’t die. Honey… could be currency, grain, spice, rice, … no not a camel, no not a car as it devalues, no not a computer (as used in CPI) or other technology since they depreciate in value.
All this time, we’ve been using ungodly currency, and crying over it when they take back what has their name on it.
Ummer
August 15, 2012 at 8:21 PM
Question, do the homeless people have to pay taxes? If not why not? What does an address mean when it comes to tax?
When you make an address, did you make yourself a corporation?
Yartap
August 15, 2012 at 11:00 PM
Ummer,
Question, do the homeless people have to pay taxes? If not why not?
A: Yes, Homeless people are obligated to pay (FED income and FICA) taxes, if they signed up for Social Security.
What does an address mean when it comes to tax?
A: An address means nothing, but rather, a “residence” (legal term) means everything. In terms of the homeless, the government classifies them as “Transients” (moves around) or “Homeless.” The government will establish their residence at one’s location as “legal residence.” Their assigned address my be a government agency or local U.S. Post Office. (e.g., Many in the Military assign their “residence” with the local voter registrar’s office in Florida. This allows them to not pay state income taxes (not in Fla.). Their families may live in Georgia while they are over seas or assignment, thus, residence in Fla. Requires states taxes of Fla. To be paid, not state income taxes in Ga.)
When you make an address, did you make yourself a corporation?
A: No. Signing up for Social Security created your Straw Man / Corporation.
I hope this helped.
Ummer
August 15, 2012 at 11:04 PM
So basically back to the point of if you want to use their property… etc etc
pop_de_adam
August 16, 2012 at 1:51 AM
People worry about the demise of the federal postal services, I wish for it, can you imagine anything more damaging to the IRS than the demise of the postal service, Their “notice” service is null.
sem
August 15, 2012 at 11:03 PM
A person “receives” a notice or notifica¬tion when: (a) it comes to his attention; or (b) it is duly delivered at the place of business through which the contract was made or at any other place held out by him as the place for receipt of such communica¬tions. U.C.C. § 1-201(26).
sem
August 15, 2012 at 9:12 PM
Ummer:
As I’m sure you already know, ‘Jesus’ was a “homeless” wayfarer. He said, “render unto Ceasar what is Ceasars’, render unto the Lord what is the Lord’s.” Now, that’s DEEP! It also adresses the essence of your question.
Yartap: The gist of your comment suggest that even if one followed the prescribed Law of paying the TAX (which ain’t cheap) to be relieved of US citizenship, said individual cannot buy his SSN?!?
(Although, it ‘seems’ that both would occur simultaneously)
PeaceOut
Ummer
August 16, 2012 at 1:33 AM
SSN is as good as a mark of the beast in my opinion, since corporation law and it’s various outcomes are his invention… as far as I understand.
Yartap
August 16, 2012 at 4:18 AM
Ummer,
I take the words, “mark of the beast,” literally. How does a Lion (beast) claim territory or property as ruler? The beast “marks” it (urinates on it). This stakes its claim as ruler.
How does one get the mark? One must openly “receive” it or freely accept it. Then one must praise it as the norm of life. This creates blind eyes to the evils of the beast.
So, what is the Mark, and what is the Beast?
The mark is the “receiving” of a loan or debt. Now, the banker has your property pledged by giving you money created out of thin air (fractional reserve banking). Remember: “The Debtor is servant to the Creditor.”
And the beast is USURY! This is the root problem. Even, most of our Founders excepted it and loss site of its dangers.
(If one borrows All the Money in the world at a Quarter percent Usury (interest), then when he pays All the Money in the world back, the underlining question is this: “Where will he find the quarter percent money for the interest? It does not exist! Thus, Usury is a thief crime / a trick / a deception.)
Ummer, you are close, when you say that “Social Security is as good as the mark of the beast.” But, Social Security is not the mark, but rather, the “adhesion” contract that holds us in the system of the beast (Usury). We voluntarily submit to the adhesion and are held debtors with the use of the beast’s currency. And no man could buy or sell without having received the mark (loaning the beast’s currency into existence to create a debt).
This is what I believe. I hope this helps.
Yartap
Ummer
August 16, 2012 at 4:57 AM
Yartap,
you know… I don’t take it literally… I take it the other way.
Mark as in when a dog leaves it’s mark over territory. Almost like a sign for others to know that the beast was there.
No the beast is not usury, the beast is a real creature. Usury is the highest of all sins.
The beast is a beast of genius when it comes to leaving marks and ruling the place… he pisses from his dimension, everyone here submits to him here. He shoots there, and his loyal subordinates are ready to behave like vampire slaves and he doesn’t have to do any hard work, they do the hard work for him like parasites they are. Making him top dog. Beast beyond beasts. A beast that turns us from being above him, into us being lowly muts…
Yartap
August 16, 2012 at 12:46 AM
sem,
Man, you are one dude that thinks deep. I can’t keep up. But, if I think your asking ……
Ownership of the Social Security Number is the Creator’s (US corporate government’s).
The government puts it this way, “If the SSA accepts (make agreement) your Application” (SS-5), then you are made fiduciary of a Foreign Straw Man Corporation / Trust, which must comply with all of the Creator’s regulations and Laws.
The government will only deal with the Corporation / Trust. You represent the corporation / trust. The corporation and corporation’s SS number will always exist, even If you denounce fiduciary status and become a citizen outside the US territory’s jurisdiction. Your life’s length or capacity is NOT the same as your assigned corporation’s life. As long as your corporation has “commerce” to conduct, another fiduciary will be found. Once your corporation’s “commerce” ends (no business for one to carry on), your corporation’s number is set aside within the death records. Benefits for the corporation (if the corporation meets a set criteria and are available) are administered on behalf of the Corporation / Trust (Not You, personally) to other qualified Corporations / Trust.
According to the UCC, a corporation does not have Rights. When you place a Claim of Rights under the UCC or “at arms length”, it is for the benefit of the corporation / trust you represent. It is not for YOUR personal Rights to be placed in play, but rather, your CorporTrust’s (new word, Ya’ll) Rights. YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS! AT ALL!
I believe that the U.S. foreign Corporation or any of its agents cannot play in the venue of the former United States of America. And they will not allow and can not allow you to ever enter that venue again. Oh, they will let you think that you are in that venue. But, remember this, “Are they authorized or allowed to be in that venue?
sem
August 16, 2012 at 10:48 AM
No, Yartap…it is you who is deep:
If the information found in your comment is verifiable; as, from above:
The government puts it this way, “If the SSA accepts (make agreement) your Application” (SS-5), then you are made fiduciary of a Foreign Straw Man Corporation / Trust, which must comply with all of the Creator’s regulations and Laws.
As it relates to the following excerpt (previous posting from Adask):
The “relief” might be at law, but is probably equitable. If so, the plaintiff must show that he could possibly prove a set of facts that proved he had EQUITABLE TITLE to the “relief” (benefit) requested. This, in turn, implies that the plaintiff must allege 1) facts sufficient to prove the existence of a fiduciary relationship between himself and the defendants wherein he is the beneficiary and the defendants are fiduciaries; and 2) a breach by the defendants of their fiduciary obligations relative to the plaintiff.
The problem for the plaintiff is alleging that government employees owed him a fiduciary obligation. Under the Constitution and de jure government, the government officer has a fiduciary obligation to each of the People. However, under the employer-employee doctrine, an employee has a fiduciary obligation to the employer—but not the “customer”. Thus, as gov-co employees (and only “de facto officers”), the government “official” would have no fiduciary obligation to the injured plaintiff and could not be charged with a breach of such non-existent fiduciary obligation.
In combination with:
My ignorance is particularly amazing because, as you’ll see if your read the attached case, the “collective entity doctrine” seems to closely parallel and may even explain the “ADASK”/ “Adask” name dichotomy that I’ve been fixated on for over fifteen years. I.e., I subscribe to the theory that the all-upper-case name “ALFRED N ADASK” signifies some sort of artificial entity that is other than the man whose proper name is “Alfred Adask”. I read the collective entity doctrine” as coming very close to suggesting that either 1) “ALFRED N ADASK” is a “collective entity”; or 2) the relationship between “ALFRED N ADASK” and “Alfred Adask” may constitute or create a “collective entity”.
The implication seems ‘to be’:
United States Citizen = Natural Born Slave.
PeaceOut
Yartap
August 16, 2012 at 6:43 PM
sem,
You amaze me with your ability to retrieve information and place it forward. Truly you are a gift from God to us all. Thank you Lord for sem. May You keep him and bless him. Amen.
Alfred’s thoughts are profound. The logic he presents makes clear the dilemma we face. We have been captured or box-in by a gov.co, controlled by the international elite, that has slowly removed our sovereignty by the collectivism of a democracy belief.
Our solutions are to abolish or to separate from or to manipulate the system we are under. I believe, the later solution is our most viable relief.
Charles
August 16, 2012 at 1:11 AM
If there was a law making us liable, the IRS would have cited it by now. Since they have not, we can assume no such law exists. So what does make us liable then? Questions like this are exactly what the courts are there to settle. Give the IRS an opportunity to explain itself. Nothing in the law allows anyone to forcibly collect a debt without documenting the basis of their claim when properly challenged. If it turns out the IRS has a special exemption from following civil due process, let this be revealed for the record.
liberty tree
August 16, 2012 at 1:29 AM
You’re right Al, and most CPA’s don’t understand that. I’ve noticed they like to send a notice to get you to agree or disagree on their terms which likely puts you legally under their jurisdiction. I had them do it to me
when they we’re blatantly wrong
sem
August 16, 2012 at 11:37 AM
Addendum:
For the sake of absolving any misunderstanding(s), the expression “PeaceOut” is slang for “Graceful Exit”. I do not advocate or any otherwise commision harming another mans’ blood.
Adask
August 16, 2012 at 7:45 PM
Zeke wrote, in part, “The simple question of this thread, is answered below. The 16th amendment, whether one agrees or not.”
If Zeke means that when I ask “where’s the law?,” the IRS can answer “the 16th Amendment”–I disagree.
The 16th Amendment reads in part, “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes . . . .” OK–Congress has that power. So where is the STATUTE that Congress passed that exercised that power?
Just because Congress has a particular “power” doesn’t mean that Congress has exercised that power. Whenever Congress exercises a “power,” they do so by means of enacting statutes.
My question is not “Where’s the constitutional authority?” My question is “Where’s the LAW?” Or more precisely, “Where’s the STATUTE?”
I can find the 16th Amendment. I can’t find the STATUTE that implements the constitutional power granted by means of the 16th Amendment.
Yartap
August 17, 2012 at 2:08 AM
…………………… MOTION TO AMEND PREVIOUS POST ………………..
Al,
For your Question #2 (below) these are the code sections that “imposes” an income tax. There is more detailed section in the code that declare to “impose” an income tax, but I have only printed out the “General rule.” Your questions are as follows:
1. Is there a law that makes me liable to pay income taxes?
A: YES
Comment: The law is found in the Constitution for the United States as the Amendment XVI (16th). It reads:
“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”
2. In which section(s) of the United States Code does that law appear?
A: The following Code imposes the income tax:
26 CFR § 1.1-1 Income tax on individuals.
1. (a) General rule.
(1) Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States and, to the extent provided by section 871(b) [below] or 877(b) [relating to special treatment of those deemed expatriates for the purpose of tax-avoidance, and thus not presented here -PH], on the income of a nonresident alien individual.
26 USC § 871(b)
(b) Income connected with United States business – graduated rate of tax
(1) Imposition of tax
A nonresident alien individual engaged in trade or business within the United States during the taxable year shall be taxable as provided in section 1 [regular tax rates and rules] or 55 [alternative minimum tax rates and rules] on his taxable income which is effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the United States.(2) Determination of taxable income
In determining taxable income for purposes of paragraph (1), gross income includes only gross income which is effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the United States.
NOTE THIS COMMENT !: Please note: that 26 USC § 871(b) calls Foreigners “nonresident alien individual.” Now note: that 26 CFR § 1.1-1(a)(1) calls an individual a “citizen or resident,” but further note: the section is based upon 26 USC § 871(b) when it concludes, “ to the extent provided by section 871(b)…”
……………… HELP ME! WHAT CAN THIS MEAN!!!!!!! or IMPLY…………………..
3. Is there a private agreement, contract, pledge or servitude that makes me liable to pay income taxes?
A: YES
4. What document, instrument or presumption established the private obligation that makes me liable to pay income taxes?
A: The document used is Social Security Form SS-5, “Application for Social Security Card.”
Agent’s Comments: The Law which established Social Security states that the funds received may be used for “any Purpose Congress may deem” and is not limited.
An American applying for a Social Security number has become a federal employee by joining a partnership that is attributing an undistributed dividend to that American as a partner in that partnership, said dividend being the link to foreign commerce that subjects that American to Treasury Decision 2313 and the requirement to file an Internal Revenue Form 1040. The undistributed dividend, known as a patronage dividend within the Internal Revenue Code, is offset by the American’s foreign tax credit, FICA.
In Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution grants jurisdiction to the Congress to regulate three areas of commerce: “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”
The IRS always cite to the Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916), to inform the public that the income tax was held to be constitutional by the Supreme Court. The IRS dors not inform the public about Mr. Frank Brushaber, the central character in the Supreme Court case, is that he was a withholding agent for several foreign investors in the Union Pacific Railroad, acting as their fiduciary. Thus, Foreign investors with incomes made inside the U.S. territories is taxable as a form of excise tax.
Further, the Supreme Court implied that the regulation restriction of commerce placed upon Congress limited its reach upon other areas of commerce (i.e., personal incomes). The Social Security Act helped overcome this, by placing participants as Foreign employees and companies.
To further insure the adhesion of public members, Congress and the Courts are defining Interstate Commerce as any type of work performed within one state with the “possibility” of movement across state lines.
_____________________________________
Al, the line of logic follows as this:
1. Government is restricted from imposing income tax by Constitution’s restriction upon Congress in the types of commerce (i.e.: Foreign, Interstate and Indian tribes) it may regulate.
2. Congress may impose the income tax upon those areas of commerce (Foreign, Interstate and Indian tribes) granted by the Commerce Clause.
3. Social Security is voluntary, by applying for it we are placed in a foreign position.
4. Now, Congress has the authority to impose the income tax upon those who volunteer for SoSo Security.
Yartap
August 17, 2012 at 4:06 AM
……………………………MOTION TO “ONE MORE TIME”……………………………….
Al,
It is late, but I’ve got it now. I thought I had something with 26 CFR § 1.1-1 Income tax on individuals as it related to 26 USC § 871(b). But, I mis-read the regulation, and I understand the wording better and there is NOTHING there. I’m sorry.
But, I do know that 26 USC § 1 “imposes” the income tax upon various descriptions of people. This statute is the code section which answers your Second question (2. In which section(s) of the United States Code does that law appear?).
If this is incorrect, please, tell us why.
pop_de_adam
August 17, 2012 at 6:16 AM
If you look at the entirety of the constitition it only really should act upon the government itself there are no grants upon the “people”, unless it is interpreted so, if it is so we my have a case of “conspiracy against rights”.
The law in the US was created as a hedge against any power of the government above the people as such government has itself as its’ own subject, any laws it creates here are specifically functional upon itself. The Internal Revenue Code is meant to govern them, guide them. Do not be fooled into assuming these rules are for yourself, the authoritive law here is the constitution, a body of law meant to constrain the government, thus any published law by them may be presumed to act only upon them. They may be their only subject and servant, them not you.
perhaps now you see treason.
sem
August 17, 2012 at 8:10 AM
Yartap:
We must conclude that if the question is:
The 16th Amendment reads in part, “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes . . . .” OK–Congress has that power. So where is the STATUTE that Congress passed that exercised that power?
And the answer is not found with:
Garrison Michael
August 14, 2012 at 9:37 PM
There is a law which obligates a “person” to pay taxes. It is “voluntary” to “apply” for a social security number (SS5 form), but once received it becomes “mandatory” for the “person” who’s name is in SS5 form Box No.1 to pay taxes. The Law is: “The Social Security Act of 1935″ read it, it’s in there……. They are not going to answer your requests in Court because you are “Presumed to ‘know’ the law” because it “HAS ALREADY BEEN PUBLISHED” so they have already informed/published/noticed all public/persons of their obligation to pay taxes.
The perhaps we may examine:
sem
August 14, 2012 at 6:39 PM
Further:
Also, I portend that the question/answer may be found in the words of the Congressmen who opposed said Law prior to it’s enactment.
Less…the original question evades us still.
PeaceOut
Ps May the Lord keep and Bless you (and all other Truth Seekers) as well!
Pss A relevant passage of scripture to this venture is 1Ti 1:5-1:10.
PeaceOut
sem
August 17, 2012 at 9:03 AM
Also:
As a relevant aside;
What to Do When Every Market Is Manipulated
Hint: cut the strings
by Chris Martenson
Wednesday, August 15, 2012, 10:34 AM
What do the following have in common?
LIBOR, Bernie Madoff, MF Global, Peregrine Financial, zero-percent interest rates, the Social Security and Medicare entitlement funds, many state and municipal pension funds, mark-to-model asset values, quote stuffing and high frequency trading (HFT), and debt-based money?
The answer is that every single thing in that list is an example of market rigging, fraud, or both.
How are we supposed to make decisions in today’s rigged and often fraudulent market environment? Where should you put your money if you don’t know where the risks lie? How does one control risk when control fraud runs rampant?
Unfortunately, there are no perfect answers to these questions. Instead, the task is to recognize what sort of world we happen to live in today and adjust one’s actions to the realities as they happen to be. The purpose of this report is not to stir up resentment or anger — although those are perfectly valid responses to the abuses we are forced to live with — but to simply acknowledge the landscape as it is so that we can make informed decisions.
Adask
August 17, 2012 at 9:14 AM
Yartap,
In reference to 26 USC 1, you wrote, “If this is incorrect, please, tell us why.” I can’t tell you. I don’t know. Maybe you’re right, maybe not. I have at least as many questions as you do, and probably not many more answers.
But I do know that in one Supreme Court case (I can’t recall which one), the Supremes reportedly declared that the 16th Amendment didn’t give Congress any additional powers. In other words, the Congress always had the power to impose an income tax.
Seems odd, doesn’t it?
Unless we refer to Article 4.3.2 of the Constitution which gives Congress exclusive legislative jurisdiction over the TERRITORIES and “other property belonging to the United States”. I.e., Congress has ALWAYS had to power to lay and collect taxes on income, on corn cobs, and on beanies with propellers on them–within the TERRITORIES. Congress can do or tax any thing it likes–within the TERRITORIES. Within the TERRITORIES, the powers of Congress are virtually unlimited.
Within the States of the Union, the powers of Congress are LIMITED and enumerated in Article 1 of the Constitution. While Congress always had the power to impose an income tax in the territories, it may be that Congress did not have any power to impose an income tax within the States of the Union–until the 16th Amendment was ratified.
More, if my recollection is correct that the Supreme Court declared that the 16th Amendment gave Congress no new powers, then it would appear that that even the 16th Amendment did not increase Congressional power to tax within the States of the Union.
Congress may have “power to lay and collect a tax on incomes”–but WHERE does it have that power? That power is not universal. Clearly, they can “lay and collect taxes on incomes” within the TERRITORIES and Washington DC. The Congress cannot “lay and collect taxes on incomes” in Uganda, China or France. The question is: Does Congress have authority to “lay and collect taxes on incomes” within the States of the Union?
I don’t think they do. I can’t prove it. I could be wrong. But I believe that one determinant as to whether you are or are not subject to mandatory income tax depends on whether you live within a territory or a State of the Union.
This goes to the “The State/this state” hypothesis. If you live in “this state,” income tax is mandatory. If you live within “The State,” income tax might be voluntary.
And then, we get to the second focus of the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Congress declared in Article 4.3.2: in addition to having exclusive legislative jurisdiction over all TERRITORIES of the United States, Congress has equal power over all “PROPERTY belonging to the United States”. I don’t believe that I (the living man made in God’s image whose proper name is “Alfred Adask”) am deemed to be property of the United States. But I can imagine that “ALFRED N ADASK” might signify an entity other than myself. If so, who created “ALFRED N ADASK”? Who owns it? Is it possible that “ALFRED N ADASK” is presumed to be “property of the United States”? If so, does Congress have power under Article 4.3.2 to “lay and collect taxes on the income” of that “property”?
Am I subject to income taxes because I live in a territory like “TX 75044″? Or because I’m doing business under the name of a “property of the United States” called “ALFRED N ADASK”? Or maybe both . . . ? Neither . . . ? Is “ALFRED N ADASK,” by itself, harmless. Is “ALFRED N ADASK”–in combination with a Social Security Number–hazardous to my economic health?
Inquiring minds, etc..
Yartap
August 17, 2012 at 10:14 AM
Al,
I’m on it Boss – I’ll get back to you with info from another area.
Yartap
chris s.
August 17, 2012 at 10:25 AM
here we are , a lot of great info , no plan. if there is anyone that has a detailed map out of this non sense, please share it , but where we are right now is everyman for himself, to make all the same mistakes of everyone before us , title 26 is copywrighted, and not in the federal register , that should tell you something right there.maybe there is no man behind the curtain at all, you are most definitley in the matrix , ruled and governed by laws, and force , no ordinary man could possibly understand, so april 15th , sign under penalty of perjury, that you are a U.S. citizen, a person , and hope they do not come down on you , myself I have not filed in 4 years , and can not force myself to go sit in the confessional chair at my CPA’S office, I am at a moral impass, and can not ignore the fraud that perpatrates this nation to the core.
Adask
August 17, 2012 at 12:28 PM
The first step in solving any problem is diagnosis. When we can clearly define the problem, a solution will become apparent.
I don’t have absolute knowledge of IRS laws, nor do I have a “strategic” plan to avoid the IRS. However, I do have a tactical solution that, so far, has worked quite well. I recognize the fact that I DON’T KNOW what law makes me liable and/or whether I am liable, or even if the name “ALFRED N ADASK” signifies me or some other entity. I am confused, bewildered and uncertain when it comes to IRS laws.
But the 1040 includes a jurat whereby I am supposed to swear that that everything I write in the 1040 is true. Well, how can I take such oath if I don’t understand ALL of the relevant law? And given that virtually no living man truly understands the labyrinth we call Title 26, I cannot be easily presumed to know the relevant law.
So what should I do?
I ask questions. I recognize the fact that I (and you) don’t know the answers to a lot of questions about Title 26. I recognize that the IRS is supposed to know the answers to my questions (at the bottom of their various notices they usually include a line of text that says something like, “If you have any questions, please call 1-800-555-9999.”). That tells me that they recognize an obligation to answer my questions.
However, I am old and easily confused, so I don’t like to ask questions over the phone. Instead, I like to pose my questions in writing so they can’t be misunderstood. I like to send my questions to the IRS by Registered Mail so the questions I send are admissible as evidence in court. Then, I like to wait to on answers from the IRS to help me to decide if I should or should not file, should or should not pay, income taxes.
Unfortunately, the IRS must be as confused, bewildered and uncertain about the income tax laws as I am because they never answer my questions. And then, oddly, after I pose my questions, the IRS collection efforts appear to cease.
I am reminded of the old saying that “If life gives you lemons, make lemonade.” In a similar sense, if the IRS laws give you confusion, USE that confusion. If the IRS has an obligation to answer our questions (and I believe their notices create our right of inquiry and their obligation to answer our questions), then one purpose for this series of comments is simply to discover those questions that are most fundamental, and learn how to pose those questions to each other and then to the IRS in a manner that is clear. Then, instead of merely posing those questions here, some of us may decide to pose those questions (in response to an IRS notice) to the IRS.
If the IRS can’t answer our questions, how can we proceed? How can be sign anything under penalty of perjury, if we don’t understand the relevant laws we’re swearing to?
What will the IRS do? Tell us if have any questions, we can’t ask the IRS but must instead hire a tax attorney to answer our questions? But if they say on their Notices, “If you have any questions, please call 1-800-555-999,” is that offer to answer our questions fraudulent? If they make fraudulent offers in the mail, does that constitute mail fraud? But if the IRS requires any of us to hire a tax attorney to answer our questions, wouldn’t it follow that the IRS must require every alleged “taxpayer” to hire an attorney as part of his preparation of a 1040? How many taxpayers could afford an additional $1,500 to $5,000 each April 1st to hire an attorney to answer taxpayer questions before a 1040 could be filed? And what if the attorney you hired can’t answer your questions? What if your attorney gave you incorrect answers to your questions? Would you still be liable if you didn’t file/pay income taxes? What if your attorney gave you incorrect answers? Would your attorney incur some personal liability if his answers about income tax laws misled you into filing/paying when you had no obligation to do so?
I am an ignorant man. I don’t have the answer to even one of the previous questions. But if the IRS were to approach me again with the intent of encouraging me to file/pay income taxes, those are some of the questions that I would want answered by the IRS before I could proceed. Is the IRS capable of answering such questions? My limited experiences suggests the answer may be No.
It appears that it is not practical to require Americans to consult a tax attorney every year before they file/pay income taxes.
It appears that the income tax laws are so complex and confusing that virtually no layman and few attorney really understand the relevant laws.
It appears that the only party able and obligated to answer our questions may be the IRS, itself.
And that suggests another couple of questions for the IRS:
1. Is the IRS obligated to answer my questions? Y ___ N ____
2. If the IRS is not obligated to answer my questions, who is? ________________
My point is that your confusion and lack of knowledge may be one of your strongest defenses to the IRS. Stop acting as if you’re so damn smart that you know it all. Stop acting as if you should “know it all”. Admit your ignorance, and pose relevant questions to whoever in government is “here to help you”.
You might be surprised at how effective a series of questions can be.
Zeke
August 17, 2012 at 4:14 PM
There cannot be a statute making someone liable for a tax, because the tax is voluntary. Just like in a mortgage, there is no statute that makes you liable to pay the note you created for the mortgage. You created the agreement and thereby gave the beneficiary the right to sue for performance on the note. NO STATUTE.
As for a detailed map out of “this nonsense”, I believe and it is my opinion that you cannot get there from the question that is proposed. First, the IRS or anyone else for that matter does not have any requirement to answer any question… even if you think they “have to”. No law requires them to do anything. Further, they lie! all the time, and they are legally allowed to. So the question cannot lead you to map out of this nonsense.
Words used in court have a different meaning than they do on this or any other conversation that is outside of court. Why not start with the invitation that the IRS sends to people. Since the invitations are different, there may be different answers, depending upon the relationship between the parties.
Picking the most general invitation from the IRS is the first letter stating that they did not receive your 2011 tax return and “if you are not required to file, please tell us why?” They ask a question similar to this and EVERYTHING depends on how you answer this question.
The discussion, and believe me I have had many with many agents, always comes down to the definition of “income”. That’s because I guide it that way! Since there are many definitions of this word, it means different things in different contexts. For example if you are an IRS agent, the word, or numbers, 1099 mean “income”. If you are a man who reads case law, it means anything other than paper denominated in dollars.
So if I allege that I had no income, the burden shifts to the agents to show that I am required to file. How are they going to show I’m required to file if they can’t define income?
Now for the crescendo! They can and do disregard many or all arguments and conversations and proceed as if their presumptions are correct. They bulldoze ahead. Therefore the situation leaves the action back in your hands to take the necessary steps. My diligent study for the past 30 years has lead me to conclude the best move I have to stop the attacks made by government is an equitable remedy in the nature of injunction.
In my opinion, learning how to “restrain” government and government agents is the roadmap out of this nonsense.
sem
August 17, 2012 at 9:27 PM
But Zeke:
That goes into what Al suggested in much of his past essays:
Questions/Questions/Questions. Therefore, one must be previously well informed. Particularly, if you do not trust the answer(s) you are likely to receive.
sem
August 18, 2012 at 10:54 AM
A tax may be defined as a “pecuniary burden laid upon individuals or property owners to support the government [...] a payment exacted by legislative authority.”[1] A tax “is not a voluntary payment or donation, but an enforced contribution, exacted pursuant to legislative authority” and is “any contribution imposed by government [...] whether under the name of toll, tribute, tallage, gabel, impost, duty, custom, excise, subsidy, aid, supply, or other name.”[1]
Yartap
August 20, 2012 at 4:22 PM
chris s.
I’ve been meaning to thank you for your information, which helped me jump-start my research that I have submitted to Al.
I understand the dilemma we are in. And I have wondered about the solution. I am skeptical about going to the IRS, Social Security or the Courts for getting relief. But, I kept and keep hearing Al say, “ask questions.” And it got me to thinking.
What if we were to disclose our “new-found” or “just discovered” information and ask the right questions of the IRS or SSA for their answers (to our satisfaction) as to “why” our information is not true. Then conclude in the same letter, we write, if these things are true, then state our understanding as to what we believe is true and hold to these truths.
This may take a few corresponding letters (all certified), but I believe that we can corner them, because they will not be able to answer correctly to “our” satisfaction.
What our goal is and what we will be doing is setting up a “tacit” agreement with the IRS or SSA. Once established, then we have a record of our “new” tacit agreement.
I believe that the line of attack could be questioning our “eligibility” for Social Security. We are questioning their acceptance of our application (SSA-5). We declare that unknown to us at the time of our application, we did not meet the legal U.S. code’s “definitions” of “Person, Citizen, American employer, Taxpayer, U.S. Citizen nor U.S. resident” (these are the words I have found) as required to qualify for acceptance of Social Security. That we still, to this day, do not meet the requirements as established by Social Security. Therefore, our application (SSA-5) cannot be excepted and is null and void due to our being unqualified. And we ask them to respond to our discovery from only the code, naming exact location of title, section and paragraph.
Now, we give them a set time (10 days by UCC standard) to respond with their answers, which answers will try to hold us into the SS program.
If they do not respond, then we issue the same letter again with reference to the first letter and give another 10 days to respond.
If they do not respond again, then we send to them our “Tacit Agreement” stating our new understanding of being out of the SS program and not qualified.
If they do respond (and they will), this is where we box them in with our court cases, law and code, until “we” are satisfied.
Once, we are “not” satisfied, and declare to them that their answers have “failed;” we issue the “tacit agreement” stating our new understanding of being out of the SS program and not qualified. We declare the SS number is void. We ask for our money or contributions to the trust fund back. In our new agreement, we must state that we cannot and they cannot break the laws of the US; and they must keep their “oath of office” by allowing and keeping such declaration.
Will this work? I don’t know. It can possibly stand as evidence on our behalf. This is why I present this as a possible solution. I need everyone’s input.
Thanks again Chris,
Yartap
Vincent
August 22, 2012 at 7:56 AM
I can tell you that SS will not return any money put into the program. That is a lost. They will also never take the number out of their system.
SS is a voluntary program that you have to sign up for (or be signed up by your parents) in which you choose to participate in every time you use your number. No laws saying you need to be a part of it and no law requires you to use your number. Parents love to sign up their kids so they can get tax breaks and enroll their kids in government provided education etc.
If you choose to work for an employer, then the work is covered by SS and you are paid in income. You must pay both SS tax and income tax on that. You are choosing to convert your labor into income and to do so with a SS covered organization.
The SS “contract” (adhesion contract) would not apply to someone who never signed up for the system, and does not participate in the system. Don’t forget art. 1, s. 10, cl. 1 of the constitution:
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
You are eligible to voluntarily contract with whoever you like including SS and no state shall impair the obligations you agreed to (knowingly or not).
If you don’t like the terms of the contract the IRS and SS have put you under you need to stop participating and quit working for GE, Ford, the post office, and whoever else. Quit using your SS number, and send your card back to the SS admin and tell them that you are no longer participation because of fraud on their behalf due to misrepresenting the contract. If you keep participating you are agreeing to the terms of the contract by default. Just don’t ever try to use your number again and nullify your fraud claim.
Yartap
August 22, 2012 at 10:33 AM
Vincent,
I believe that you are absolutely right.
sem
August 17, 2012 at 10:35 AM
Dayum:
This sheet is being tighly woven. For the sake of our synapses, please allow the following:
Joke of the Day
I was visiting my son last night when I asked if I could borrow a newspaper. ‘This is the 21st century,’ he said. ‘we young people don’t waste money on silly newspapers. Here, you can use my iPad, if you can figure it out.’
I can tell you this, that damn fly never knew what hit it… and, my son learned a thing or two about manners as well.
God Bless
chris s.
August 17, 2012 at 2:24 PM
I most certainly do not claim to know it all , by far , just enough to know there is something terribly wrong, I consider that turning a corner, and maybe a couple steps in the right direction, with a viable strategy to engage the irs , at least in an administrative / default action. keep doing what you are doing , these are what I consider , the only relevant conversations , in regards to legal , constitutional , issues , I ever get to have …
thanks
sem
August 17, 2012 at 3:45 PM
They go it all covered (Resistence Is Futile…You Will Be Assimilated!).
PeaceOut
sem
August 17, 2012 at 3:55 PM
Yet:
with all the gobble-d-gook…the ORIGINAL QUESTION GOES UNANSWERED!
Damed Good Question Al.
Ps Maybe Yartap will find something?!?
Anon4fun
August 17, 2012 at 7:09 PM
@Zeke <>
Partially correct, but incomplete. It’s the IRS that makes the IRS have to answer your questions when they take a course of action in which notice is required by law. It’s looking more and more like a precondition of being noticed is having all your questions about the content of the notice answered.
chris
August 17, 2012 at 9:14 PM
http://famguardian.org/Publications/GreatIRSHoax/GreatIRSHoax.htm
sem
August 18, 2012 at 10:43 AM
Al:
Considering Zeke’s comment above, does not the ORIGINAL QUESTION become a moot point as:
Zeke
August 17, 2012 at 4:14 PM
…There cannot be a statute making someone liable for a tax, because the tax is voluntary. Just like in a mortgage, there is no statute that makes you liable to pay the note you created for the mortgage. You created the agreement and thereby gave the beneficiary the right to sue for performance on the note. NO STATUTE. …
And if so, does it not bring up the question of “designed abstinance from inquiry”? If so, is there a ‘Plan’ that may be developed therefrom, as:
[“Actual” is supposed to implicate the “actual” or “real” world. That may or may not apply in this instance. However, it appears that an “actual” notice is not fictional or wholly presumed. They might presume that you have knowledge of 100 material or relevant facts, but only after they’ve first sent—and you’ve received without question—a first partial but “actual” notice. An actual notice appears to some written instrument, sign, symbol, uniform, speech or gesture intended to directly convey notice in a particular transaction directly to one or more particular persons. Apparently, there must be at least some partial, “actual” notice to invoke the Notice process. You might guess that if you expressly denied receiving that first partial notice, that you could derail the “administrative” Notice process. But the system is ready for that. You will be presumed to have received constructive notice by virtue of trying to avoid receiving any “actual” notice. That brings us back to square one: The only reliable defense may be to TAKE THE NOTICE and then ask QUESTIONS, QUESTIONS, QUESTIONS.] or
(3) constructive. Constructive notice may be subdivided into:
(a) Where there exists actual notice of matter, to which equity has added constructive notice of facts, which an inquiry after such matter would have elicited; and
(b) where there has been a designed abstinence from inquiry for the very purpose of es-caping notice.
[What does a “designed abstinence from inquiry” mean? I would expect item # (b) to apply to those who try to derail the administrative notice process by intentionally refusing to accept any notice. But the phrase “designed abstinence from inquiry” does not appear to mean a mere refusal to accept notice. Instead, it implies that even after notice has been received, the recipient somehow has “designed” to “abstain” from “inquiry”.
PeaceOut
Adask
August 18, 2012 at 1:26 PM
Questions concerning whether the tax is mandatory or voluntary aren’t moot. The fundamental purpose for the questions is to discover if the tax is mandatory or voluntary. It’s one thing for me to say the taxes are “voluntary,” but I don’t have any authority. It’s another thing entirely for the IRS to admit the taxes are, or are not, “voluntary”. If the IRS can be compelled to admit that my income taxes are voluntary, then all I have to do is stop volunteering.
A second purpose for the questions is to discover WHERE the tax might might mandatory and WHERE it might be voluntary. I.e., I have no doubt that the income tax is MANDATORY in any territory, Washington DC, and in “this state”. But I strongly suspect that the same tax would be VOLUNTARY within a State of the Union. If I could pose questions that would compel the IRS to admit WHERE the income tax is mandatory and where it is VOLUNTARY, I’d be a very happy camper.
I am inclined to believe that the most effective response to any “actual” Notice is to ask questions based on that “actual” (but incomplete) Notice. I believe that they are obligated to answer your questions. If so, and if you can ask questions that are so insightful or fundamental that the notice sender is unable or unwilling to provide answers, then either 1) they have to drop their proceeding against you; or 2) they continue the proceeding against in violation of procedural due process. In THEORY, if they violate procedural due process, a trial court or appellate court should dismiss any charge against you.
As for “designed abstinence from inquiry,” It seems to describe someone who has intentionally NOT asked any more questions based on the original notice.
But note that you are comparing two definitions:
(a) Where there exists actual notice of matter, to which EQUITY has added constructive notice of facts, which an inquiry after such matter would have elicited; and
(b) where there has been a designed abstinence from inquiry for the very purpose of escaping notice.
Definition “(a)” apparently applies in a court of EQUITY. Definition “(b)” doesn’t say where it applies. I am left to presume that definition “(b)” applies in a court of LAW.
You are asking what the meanings of the two definitions are. I am asking WHERE the meanings of the two definitions are–in EQUITY or at LAW?
This may be a very helpful insight. In courts of equity, incomplete notice may be allowed–and a resulting right and even duty of inquiry on the part of the RECIPIENT may be required.
On the other hand, in a court of LAW, incomplete notice may be intolerable. The burden of providing complete notice may be absolutely and initially imposed on the Notice SENDER. If so, a savvy notice RECIPIENT who realized that the original notice was somehow incomplete, might commit a “designed abstinence from inquiry” in order to perhaps “demur” from the charges and expect or petition the court of LAW to dismiss the case based on the notice SENDER’s incomplete notice.
This hypothesis (if true) might be very useful. For example, if the notice SENDER is required in EQUITY to answer the notice RECIPIENT’S questions, but fails to do so, could that be construed as evidence that the case must be intended to be heard AT LAW rather than in EQUITY? So far as I know, gov-co never wants to go to courts of LAW. It may do so from time to time, but gov-co always seems to want courts of EQUITY or perhaps ADMINISTRATION. I could be wrong, but I doubt that gov-co has standing to appear in a court of LAW.
So, if they don’t answer my Letter of Inquiry, does the case default to a court of LAW? If so, will the gov-co probably refuse to continue? Inquiring minds, . . .
There is a schism between your definition “(a)” and “(b)” that should be explored and perhaps exploited like a fracture line in a diamond.
I’ll bet it’s true that an incomplete notice (which creates a right of inquiry) is only allowed in EQUITY.
A complete notice might be required at LAW.
If so, any incomplete notice might open the door for the RECIPIENT to challenge the case being heard in EQUITY.
This is a whole new line of conjecture.
sem
August 18, 2012 at 11:02 AM
Recap (from above):
A tax may be defined as a “pecuniary burden laid upon individuals or property owners to support the government [...] a payment exacted by legislative authority.”[1] A tax “is not a voluntary payment or donation, but an enforced contribution, exacted pursuant to legislative authority” and is “any contribution imposed by government [...] whether under the name of toll, tribute, tallage, gabel, impost, duty, custom, excise, subsidy, aid, supply, or other name.”[1]
Based on the above, the citizen will be taxed and there ain’t a damned thing they can do or say about it.
Adask
August 18, 2012 at 12:39 PM
OK–if a “tax” may be defined as “a pecuniary burden . . . to support the government,” please define “pecuniary burden” and “government”.
I.e., at the level of the States of the Union, can a “pecuniary burden” be imposed in terms of a fiat currency rather than in terms of gold and silver coin? After all, Article 1.10.1 mandates that “No State shall make . . . any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.” Doesn’t it follow that all lawful taxes imposed by the State of the Union must be denominated in gold or silver? If a purported tax at the State of the Union level is not denominated in gold or silver, is it really a “pecuniary burden”? Is it really a “tax”? If not, what is it?
The Supreme Court has crafted a policy of immunity for any de facto officer. It appears to me that most officers/employees of our “state” government are “de facto” because our purported “government” is of “this state” and not of a State of the Union (“The State”).
If it were true that “this state” is some sort of territorial fiction and/or conglomerate of private corporations acting as agencies of the “United States,” do these various “state” agencies really constitute a “government”? If so, how do they differ from the protection racket that might be run by the Mafia, Bloods, Crips or MS13? If I pay protection money to one of these alternative “de facto governments,” can I deduct my protection money from my income tax as a “tax” paid to “government”?
To read a definition and declare that there’s “not a damn thing” anyone can do about it is a hasty and invalid opinion.
Definitions are the the law of the law.
There are probably 75 words in the definition you quoted. Each of those words has its own definition. Most of those words have multiple definitions. Let’s suppose that each of those 75 words has 3 definitions. Then the total number of possible meanings for your definition of “tax” might be 75 to the 3rd power–over 400,000 possible meanings. Which of those 400,000 possible meanings is the one true meaning for which “there’s not a damn thing” that can be done about it?
If those 75 words had an average of just two different definitions per word, there’d still be over 5,000 possible meanings for your definition of “tax”. Which one is THE definition over which there’s “not a damn thing anyone can do”?
Language is both extraordinarily powerful and extraordinarily fragile. In the final analysis, the meaning of any word depends on its context–and, especially, the AGREEMENT of the parties to the use of a particular word.
For example, if I’m speaking and I make the sound “we,” what does that sound mean to you? Does it men “we” (you and I)? “Wee” (small)? “Whee!” (isn’t this fun!)? or “Oui” (French for Yes)? Much of this aural ambiguity is eliminated when we put our thoughts in writing, but even then ambiguity is constantly present since most words have multiple definitions. We arrive at meaning and a “meeting of the minds” by AGREEMENT. We agree that when I say “we,” I don’t mean “wee,” “whee!,” or “Oui”.
But what happens if we can’t agree as to the definitions of the words we are sharing? What if I were to define a “pecuniary burden” as only denominated in lawful money (gold/silver coin at the State level)? What if I were to define “government” (as the State level) as only that entity created by our State constitution and without any agency that’s working for the “United States”?
What would happen to the definition of “taxes” which for which you claim “there’s not a damn thing” we can do about it?
We are ensnared in a godless and unconstitutional system by means of our adversary’s sophisticated use of words. I appears possible that we might also escape that snare with our own sophisticated use of words.
sem
August 18, 2012 at 2:30 PM
Al:
Your argument is very forceful and dynamic; however, when “we” the People elect representatives who in turn legislate – and those legislators ‘enforce’ that a contribution EXACTED “pursuant to LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY”;(which by the way explains why there is no Statute) then perhaps the operational word is EXACTED (One [1] word), as:
exact (v.) mid-15c., from L. exactus, pp. of exigere (see exact (adj.)). Older in English than the adjective and retaining the literal sense of the Latin source. Related: Exacted.toll (n.) “tax, fee,” O.E. toll, variant of toln, cognate with O.N. tollr, O.Fris. tolen, O.H.G. zol, Ger. Zoll, representing an early Germanic borrowing from L.L. tolonium “custom house,” from L. telonium “tollhouse,” from Gk. teloneion “tollhouse,” from telones “tax-collector,” from telos “tax” (see tele-; for sense, cf. finance). Originally in a general sense of “payment exacted by an authority;” meaning “charge for right of passage along a road” is from late 15c.finance (n.) c.1400, “an end, settlement, retribution,” from M.Fr. finance “ending, settlement of a debt” (13c.), noun of action from finer “to end, settle a dispute or debt,” from fin (see fine (n.)). Cf. M.L. finis “a payment in settlement, fine or tax.” The notion is of “ending” (by satisfying) something that is due (cf. Gk. telos “end;” pl. tele “services due, dues exacted by the state, financial means.” The French senses gradually were brought into English: “ransom” (mid-15c.), “taxation” (late 15c.); the sense of “management of money” first recorded in English 1770.
Hence, the adversarys’ sophisticated use of words not only demonstrates his overall intent; but, morseso his level of intelligence.
For example, is not gold and silver transactions EXACTED by ‘Seignorage’ (forgive the spelling).
Therefore at every turn, there is a FINANCE CHARGE.
The Expression “FREEDOM AIN’T FREE” comes to mind. Also, Mutiny comes to mind as the only means of overcoming such enforcement.
Please be reminded – I’m as excited as you are to overcome said abomination; however, it becomes more and more obvious that the necessay level of sophistication will have to be double the of the adversary.
peaceeOut
Adask
August 18, 2012 at 3:54 PM
I disagree that our level of sophistication must be “double” that our our adversaries.
I’m a pretty good reader. If I had to guess, I’d say I might be able to read at a 22nd grade level. But I believe the people who write the laws that oppress are probably reading and writing at a 25th grade level. I doubt that I have sufficient intellect to get coffee for the wordsmiths who write the laws that ensnare us. These guys are geniuses who are much more intelligent than I am.
Doesn’t matter.
It always takes far more intelligence to write a document than it does to read that same document. I.e., it may be impossible for anyone who wasn’t at least a PhD to write a particular article, but that article might still be read and understood by an intelligent high school student.
Given enough time, I can unwind and understand just about anything anyone has written–no matter how much more intelligent they may be–provided that their document was intended to be understood by average lawyers or judges (let alone laymen) in this country.
I don’t have to be bright enough to write the laws that ensnare us, I need only be bright enough to read those laws. Same goes for you.
See, the laws that ensnare us are always based on a fundamental contradiction and deceit. The bastards in government aren’t supposed to “ensnare” us. They are supposed to enact laws that protect our “freedoms”. No matter how brilliant the authors of these laws may be, they still have to use their words in way that conceals their fundamental objective: to subject us to bondage without clearly saying so. So far as I can see, this “ensnarement” is usually, perhaps always, based on the presumption that we have somehow “consented” to our own bondage.
If you can learn to read well enough to spot the language that ensnares us and presumes our consent–and if you can produce evidence from other documents (say, the Declaration of Independence”) that contradicts the language of bondage and presumptions of consent, you might be able to slow or stop your adversary’s attack.
There’s no guarantee. We are confronting a group of thugs who are dedicated to treason. They are capable of great injustice or violence. But they are extremely camera shy. They fear public exposure.
The object is not to defeat them with law. The object is to defeat them with politics. I.e., if you devise an argument that makes very good sense to a jury on a political basis, you adversary may choose to avoid a political confrontation.
All of this is easy to say, and hard to do.
But I don’t need to be twice as smart as my adversary to “outsmart” them. If they are willing to write anything–no matter how smart they are–their documents contain fraud. I can usually find that fraud. I can read. That makes me a dangerous man.
Insofar as you learn to read, you can also be dangerous. That doesn’t mean you’ll necessarily win your confrontations. But you might. And you will almost certainly make ‘em blink.
Ummer
August 19, 2012 at 12:57 PM
Wouldn’t Jesus be more smarter than them?
Anon4fun
August 18, 2012 at 2:42 PM
It only stands to reason that the sender would have to answer whatever questions the recipient must ask to clarify (essential elements of) the notice, in situations where notice is necessary. While such questions remain unanswered, words have been sent and received, but the communication that is required of them has not been accomplished.
Zeke
August 18, 2012 at 3:22 PM
Sem, Yes to the definition of tax, however this particular tax is on income, and not on an individual or property owner… and my name is definitely not “income” capitalized or otherwise. In Hagar v Reclamation district 108, three years after the Juilliard case, the court ruled that “acts of congress that make notes of the United States legal tender, do not apply to an involuntary contribution exacted by a state (tax), but only to contracts, implied, written or verbal.” A real tax must be paid in gold or silver coin.
I just read Al’s response and it seems he and I are on the same page as to the taxes, but he writes a lot more than I do. Now I’m going to attempt to respond to his next writing which he is has brought up the concepts of Law and Equity which again is on point but I give seminars about this and it is difficult for me to explain it in a few pages which still wouldn’t do the topic justice.
I think the tax court and administrative courts are courts of equity. I believe our remedy is to take them into an equity court. For those who may be a little confused, there can be “good equity” and “bad equity”, because every thing that is not law, is equity. The “clean hands doctrine” has an important role in this concept. This is just how I view the situation, there is not a law or statute that defines equity this way. The “bad” or “good” is relative.
The notice form from the IRS if we are on the same page, would be the “summons”. Most other notices from them are sent in the mail and very rarely served properly by law. The summons must be served personally. This is what I believe you are calling the “notice process”. My idea of getting out of this process is to move the court to quash the service of the summons. This is done by attacking the summons and the lack of verified facts that render the summons insufficient. No government or corporation can sue an individual unless it can come up with a verified statement of facts, which means they need an individual’s statement.
When government or anyone else, proceeds in an improper manner, we can stop them with an “equitable remedy” by restraining order. However, in order to get into the equity court there are two fundamental situation that the injured party must allege. 1) That he/she is being irreparably harmed, and 2) there is no speedy, adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. This last statement is the real clincher so to speak. It means that in the dispute between the IRS and the individual, the individual cannot win! No Remedy At Law! (but Zeke, you said their court is an equity court, so which is it?) Yep, there is no law in their court, so no remedy at law. I think this also means that whether the IRS answers your question truthfully, falsely or not at all, doesn’t matter because you cannot win in their equity court. There is no law for you to win with. NO CONSTITUTION!
sem
August 18, 2012 at 7:43 PM
I sense that you guys are making me out to be the ‘HEAVY’; sobeit, so long as I am not made to be the ‘DEVIL’S ADVOCATE’.
That said, the overall understanding of the fundamental apparatuses (by those who do) is seriously, considerable (irregardless of the ‘flavor’ of said). Being on the same page is more than simply agreeing on each point; is it not more a matter of the addressing the points presented and developing ideal/idea.
In this vane, may I suggest that we ‘reason’ together, so as to exploit the opportunity of the “Good Fight”…while both staying above the fray and pressing on to what we have attained.
There is much above to be considered (100+ replies), as there is much to be considered … overall!
May we be wise in this?
PeaceOut
Ps “Reading is fundamental”.
Andy
August 18, 2012 at 8:19 PM
The provision that makes all US citizens liable for income tax is clearly stated in the USC. I’m sure a little research will turn up which title and article it’s under.
Andy
August 18, 2012 at 9:11 PM
I’m sorry, made a mistake. It’s actually in the Code of Federal Regulations, they hid it well. http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/1.1-1
Andy
August 18, 2012 at 9:20 PM
I’m aware this has probably already been discussed. I tried to read ALL the comments but my eyes started bleeding lol no not really. Any I have heard the trick is that originally “Income” was defined only as gains from investments, so they changed the meaning over time and voila: A survival tax.
Andy
August 18, 2012 at 10:44 PM
It’s also theorized that the IRS’s position may be that of “Ignorance to the law is no excuse” in regards to the inquiry and hence feels it’s reasonably evident. They have a list of so called frivolous arguments and they routinely impose large fines for what they consider frivolous suits. http://www.irs.gov/taxpros/article/0,,id=159932,00.html
Adask
August 19, 2012 at 3:05 AM
I don’t make arguments. I ask questions. Arguments may be frivolous. Relevant questions are not.
Jethro
August 20, 2012 at 9:08 AM
Interesting to note that these “frivolous arguments” may include “a **taxpayer’s** inquiry” (see #2), which apparently the IRS may ignore with the only potential repercussions being the waiver of civil penalties. However, I see no mention of nontaxpayer inquiries.
palani
August 19, 2012 at 6:29 AM
@ Andy
“Ignorance to the law is no excuse” is self-evidence of ignorance. The entire rule is “Ignorance of law, consists in the want of knowledge of those laws which it is our duty to understand, and which every man is presumed to know.” Further “Ignorance of fact, is the want of knowledge as to the fact in question.” It would follow then that “Ignorance of the laws of a foreign government, or of another state; is ignorance of a fact.” Being domestic to a government establishes a duty to understand it’s laws and is presumption that you know it’s laws. Life becomes much simpler when you don’t make a foreign government domestic.
palani
August 19, 2012 at 6:30 AM
Might as well leave a source for the above information … Bouvier 1856 Law Dictionary under the topic of IGNORANCE.
sem
August 19, 2012 at 11:31 AM
REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS
The process whereby courts review decisions or adjudications regarding disputes made by an administrative body division of a government agency charged with interpreting or enforcing legislative mandates. In the instance of most federal statutes this is ultimately done by the District court with various further appellate remedies dependant on the particular circumstances.
Ordinarily one expects review of an administrative decision to be limited to the record before the administrative body, and for the court to be required to affirm if substantial evidence on the whole record supports the administrative determination. 5 U.S.C. S 706; Ojai Unified Sch. Dist. v. Jackson, 4 F.3d 1467, 1471 (9th Cir. 1993).
The Administrative process is the main reason that we must ask (ourselves) questions, even before asking others. Knowing the questions (and, therefore when to pose it) is 50% of the battle. The ‘Gate-Keeper’ is quite aware of this, as:
“The general rule in appraising the sufficiency of a complaint for failure to state a claim is that a complaint should not be dismissed ‘***unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.‘ CONLEY VS. GIBSON (1957), 355 U.S. 41, 45, 46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 102, 2LEd 2d 80; SEYMOUR VS. UNION NEWS COMPANY, 7 Cir., 1954, 217 F.2d 168; and see rule 54c, demand for judgment, FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 28 USCA: “***every final judgment shall grant the relief to which the party in whose favor it is rendered is entitled, even if the party has not demanded such relief in his pleadings.” U.S. V. WHITE COUNTY BRIDGE COMMISSION (1960), 2 Fr Serv 2d 107, 275 F2d 529, 535.
The idea then (as Al referenced above), is to pose a question that causes the ‘Administrator(s)’ to “blink”. Upon achieving such a milestone; you can bet there will be a ‘Review’.
PeaceOut
Lyndon
August 19, 2012 at 3:20 PM
It seems to me, one poster in particular has committed a great deal of time and effort to this topic in an attempt to dissuade and misinform readers.
In ANY court the burden of proof rests upon the party making the claim. How could it ever be otherwise? The opportunity of fraud would be endless if it were otherwise. Asking questions puts the burden of proof on the party making the claim. It forever was and must be so.
Citing code and quoting dictionaries does not make a proof. To prove a claim, a party requires evidence. Citing more code is simply circular reasoning and does not constitute evidence.
The question is not so much: “what law makes income tax mandatory”; rather, the question should be: “what law exists, and what evidence and facts do you rely on to prove the law is applicable to me?”
Or, if anyone should dare say a contract is being enforced, the question must be asked: “what contract, and does the instrument you seek to enforce have all the elements of a valid contract?”
All this chatter about policy and procedure is much ado about nothing, is what we call moot, if no evidence and facts are put forth to prove that the law someone is interpreting is proven to be applicable. Even under this color of law, which all this constitutional nonsense is, if one is not using another’s account numbers and titles, what proof could possibly be produced?
Adask
August 19, 2012 at 3:46 PM
I would not argue that the obligation to pay income tax flows from a contract. Contracts require a meeting of the minds signified by TWO signatures.
I suspect that the 1040 is not a contract since there’s only one signature. I’d argue that the 1040 constitutes a PLEDGE since there’s only one signature. That single-signature pledge is probably based on private law, but if you pledge over the phone to to PBS during their annual “Pledge Drive,” your pledge can be enforced. Similarly, if you pledge to the IRS, your pledge would seem to also be enforceable.
Ummer
August 19, 2012 at 5:09 PM
What about forged contracts? What about contracts where you don’t realize what you’re reading? What about the kind of contract like in that Santa Clause film?
No?
sem
August 19, 2012 at 5:01 PM
One “poster” in particular knows from experience that when a person enters the courtroom half-cocked, that person wil experience the real meaning of the double edged sword.
First of all a plaintiff must respond to Affirmative Defences. Secondly, the only exceptable way to do so is with Opposing Points and Authorities. Thirdly, it is the very points of Law (precedence) that is being argued:
For instance:
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), was an early substantive ruling by the United States Supreme Court regarding the burdens and nature of proof in proving a Title VII case and the order in which plaintiffs and defendants present proof. It was the seminal case in the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. (Read closely…BURDEN-SHIFTING FRAMEWORK).
“Reading Is Fundamental”. Start by reading said Authority and you will realize the significance of diligence.
PeaceOut
Ps There’s much more going on than just that which meets the eye.
sem
August 19, 2012 at 5:10 PM
Further:
In accordancee with the subject line; The Second Question For The IRS (FOR ALL THOS WHO CAME IN LATE) is exactly what we are in pursuit of. Perhaps you may want to join the “Pursuit”, or do you wish to simply question the endeavor?
Yartap
August 19, 2012 at 8:51 PM
Hi All,
I’m back – I have obtained a lot of information, but my computer crashed trying to download it. So, I’ll have to get that fixed.
I have tried to email the info to Al. Maybe he can publish it for me – if he gets it.
Basicly, the code is a mess and trying to figure it out is complex. But, we have known a lot about the concept of the Commerce Clause’s restriction upon the income tax. This is our bases.
indio007
August 31, 2012 at 4:24 AM
Income tax is voluntary for one simple reason. Having income is voluntary.
No one is forcing you to have income.
You can always charge par value and break even.
I read in an ancient law book (Laws of Oleron?) That the law shuns a profit.
It’s easy to see why. Profit is the amount you charge OVER fair value.
The gov’t is taxing greed.
On another note wanna stop being liable for income tax?
Riddle me this….
If you endorse a federal reserve note before you spend it …is it an asset or a liability to YOU?
Federal Reserve Notes are promissory notes. Technically they are foreign bills of exchange.
If I endorse a FRN before I spend it do I have income?
The answer is no.
Stop using Fed credit.
Use your own.
If you want to eliminate some US debt while your at it, cancel the Treasury Secretary’s endorsement.
Garrison Michael
August 31, 2012 at 6:50 AM
Definitions:
Income = Net Corporate Profit
Federal Reserve Notes = United States Securities (they are Registered)
My questions, Why would you want to hold on & spend someone else’s Private Script (FRN’s) knowing the liability that it carries when you state to stop using Fed Credit & to use your own (a paradox)? (you can NEVER make FRN’s yours) and, Where on the FRN can you so-called indorse it WITHOUT defacing a United States Security and committing a crime?
and, Neither a Credit nor a debt instrument is taxable nor considered income.
Writing over the Secretary of the Treasury’s signature would be like someone writing over your signature on a loan or credit card application and then using that application for their own financial gain purposes, and if caught, would be looking at answering these questions with the Secret Service before they indict you.This is ONLY a two party transaction between the Unites States Treasurer (the Debtor) and the Secretary of the Treasury (Trustee for the Creditors over the Bankruptcy of the United States) and not YOU!…I’m just very confused by the motives behind these statements and if acted upon en masse we would probably see many people going to prison after the Fed starts noticing the the money supply (US Securities) are being defaced.
indio007
September 1, 2012 at 10:35 AM
Are you high? No one will go to jail. And Federal Reserve Notes aren’t US securities. The US doesn’t issue them and they are payable on demand. Both of those facts exclude them as US securities.
Secondly
How is endorsement defacement? I have an appellate case that admits that Federal Reserve Notes are Promissory Notes. The US is bound be UNICTRAL Bills and Notes and the States are bound by the UCC. Even if they weren’t so bound, the custom of merchants contemplates endorsement of promissory notes.
Thirdly,
You need go read 18 U.S.C. § 333 again.
Specifically,
“with intent to render such bank bill, draft, note,
or other evidence of debt unfit to be reissued”
Endorsement is in no way intended to prevent to bill from being reissued. In fact the intent is to assume liability for payment. This actually allows the bill to be reissued sooner than it otherwise would be.
Garrison Michael
September 1, 2012 at 12:37 PM
No I am not high. You just have a misconception of what you know. I am presuming that you have NEVER handled ANY Counterfeiting & Currency Defacing Cases personally. Just look & read under Title 18 United States Code Chapter 25 sections 470 thru 481 and you will see that FRN’s ARE US Securities, and yes, they are Registered with the SEC. Also read Title 18 Chapter 17 section 333 the defacing law that you are also violating and misquoting from. You are mixing Federal Reserve Notes in with ALL other types of Promissory Notes and that’s where your mistake is at, at that presumption. US Federal Reserve Notes ARE NOT “assignable”, meaning they CANNOT be “Indorsed” (not “endorsed”, that’s a different meaning) and transfered (in ownership) or reissued like other types of notes/securities can, and that the Fed Note/Security is Private Bank Script between the Parties “ONLY”, i.e. The United States & Federal Reserve Bank, ONLY! They are used as currency by the transfer of it by the current holder of it, and I’m not speaking of a holder-in-due-course of it, since the Federal Reserve Bank transfer/assigned it to The United States, the United States is the ONLY holder-in-due course of it, that’s why they can enforce it. They are considered bearer notes/securities, and you CANNOT transfer or assign it by indorsement as ONLY the holder of it, transfer is done by just handing it over to someone. Your isolated & out of context reference above to 18 USC 333 is correct in its full context when read in whole & not in part because if you indorse “their” Note/Security you would be defacing it rendering it UNFIT to be REISSUED (the banks would pull it from circulation and Uncle Sam will come after you) thereby violating that law in which you quoted from which is the United States defacing law.
indio007
December 8, 2012 at 11:29 AM
Thx for your legal opinion. I’ll stick with the opinion of the courts.
You on the other hand are simply making shit up.
Private bank scrip? Says who?
Indorsed is different than endorsed?
That’s news to me. Show me.
Lastly cause I don’t have time to rip this apart.
Intent is an element of the crime.
It says right there in plain language.
Without alleging intent the charge will not survive demurrer.
If it is alleged “intent to render FRN’s unfit to be reissued” will be a question of fact for the jury.
That’s going to be pretty hard when the gov’t can’t describe any scenario where indorsement would make them unfit to be reissued regardless of intent.
Richard
September 21, 2012 at 9:11 PM
Greetings. Thank you and blessings to all.
General comment as to Al’s position on smarter people. May I suggest you avoid placing anyone on a higher pedestal (standing) than yourself. If it helps, look in the mirror and repeat the following “you shall have no other gods before me”. That is to say if you are even a sliver of the divine, then you yourself are divine. [not to be misconstrued]
Back to the question. What private contract, pledge or servitude makes one liable to pay income taxes?“
As per Chris S.’ observation fraud permeates the nation to the core. Fraud permeates the ss number/account, for instance, by and through failure to provide full disclosure on the SS-5. Then there is that age of majority concept (minors contracting with the beast). Validity, or lack thereof, is the key here regarding contracts as per Lyndon’s comment.
Due to the pervasive contradiction and ambiguity of the non-sense (laws, codes, regulations, irs publications, etc. ad nausea) and the fact that an average man or woman could not possibly make sense of it all, the “tax” laws are null and void.
But if you want to pay your tithe, or enforced contribution – read tax, to the church of State (or any instrumentalities thereof, e.g. corporations) then by all means – do so. Please note however the W-4 is a “voluntary” withholding agreement. Voluntary servitude is legal/lawful. As for a “pledge”, I suppose you would have to know the details of any verbal or written contract whereby you “promise” to give your life-force to another, esp. the gov.-co.
In answer to the question: There cannot be any “valid” private contract without at minimum a common basis of understanding achieved through a meeting of the minds and full disclosure. Therefore the answer is none.
gary lee, [Russell], sui juris
April 14, 2013 at 5:37 PM
Alfred,
after doing a bit of research based on Scott Bartle’s questioning of the Australian Government’s “authority”, as well as believing that as soon as you answer” any IRS or GovCo letter, you are accepting that they have “jurisdiction”, I think you are correct about asking questions, rather than making statement, citing laws or court cases, HOWEVER, I think the questions being asked need to be maybe a little different.
When I get stopped by a traffic officer now, of course the firt thing they always do is demand “license, registration and proof of insurance”. First thing I do is ask THEM for ID: driver’s license and State or whatever ID. They claim they have some kind of authority or jurisdiction over me, and I want to know what it is. As Scott would say: “Who ARE you????”
They usuallypoint to their badge or car, claiming authority thereby. I show them a picture from “CHiPs” tv show (here in California) and say that these guys look just like you, and I know they are not real”. I also have a printout from one of their training academies in which they are told very specifically to tell their family members to NEVER accept a badge as ID of a law enforcement officer (has something to do with “Svereign Citizen Movement”, whoever and whatever that is).
They will always absolutely refuse to show their drivers license or state ID (but they think that I am supposed to just show them mine, because they said so?), so, no ID, I am leaving!
Point is, maybe the questions that you ask them should be “who are they?”, which you did a lot of in your “response to the CP 59″. Making them prove who they are in the first place might make it unnecessary to ask all the rest of the questions, in which you may be admitting that they do/or may have jurisdiction.
As I am not GARY RUSSELL at the capitalized/zip-coded address in the first place, I figured it is probably some sort of “federal” crime for me to open letters not addressed to me, the living man, so I just black out the bar code at the bottom as well as the window with the NAME and ADDRESS and put RTS on the envelope, as well as on the backside I write “Please forward to: Timithy Geithner, Department of the Treasury is the custodian of this “Person”/Trust/Corporation/Franchise, 1500 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington DC, 20220″
I do this for bothe FTB and IRS docs, thought the IRS almost never sends anything anymore. they do their occaisional “fishing trips”, but only once or twice in the last couple years. they are territorial in jurisdiction, and like you I live in one of the several states of The United States of America, not in some federal district of DC.
“Who are you?” seems an appropriate initial response to anyone claiming to have some sort of authority over me or contract with me.
Thanks for your great posts!