national_lawman

[weishaupt1776]

*
Now, Chucky you can twist anything the way you want, but didn't the*Supreme court say:

• "It is equally true that, if he does sell, and in doing so realizes a profit, such profit, like any other, is income, and, so far as it may have arisen since the Sixteenth Amendment, is taxable by Congress without apportionment."* Eisner v Macomber, 252 U.S. 189.
  *
  *But it is apparent from the mere statement of these contentions that each and all of them were adversely disposed of by the decision in the Brushaber case, and they all therefore may be put out of view.
  *Class B.* Under this class, these propositions are relied upon: [240 U.S. 112]
  *(1) That, as the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes only an exceptional direct income tax without apportionment, to which the tax in question does not conform, it is therefore not within the authority of that Amendment.
  *(2) Not being within the authority of the Sixteenth Amendment, the tax is therefore, within the ruling of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, a direct tax and void for want of compliance with the regulation of apportionment.
  *As the first proposition is plainly in conflict with the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment as interpreted in the Brushaber case, it may also be put out of view.* As to the second, while indeed it is distinct from the subjects considered in the Brushaber case to the extent that the particular tax which the statute levies on mining corporations here under consideration is distinct from the tax on corporations other than mining and on individuals, which was disposed of in the Brushaber case, a brief analysis will serve to demonstrate that the distinction is one without a difference, and therefore that the proposition is also foreclosed by the previous ruling.* Stanton v Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916).

*
Now if you take (1) out of context, you can prove Chucky's*point, but you can't do that without creating a fraud or gross mistake.* The only point to be made about the 16th Amendment is that, if you change the context of the origional provision of the constitution, you must do so*by meaningfully stricking it and replacing it with the new provision.* For instance, could you amend the*Constitution by changing the*form of government to a dictatorship desolving the three branches or change it to a kingdom complete with a king?* The 17th amendment changed the*form of the Congress and can't be anything but void, however it was done and*as long as the People go along with it, it will be no matter what the consequences.* The 17th*amendment changed our Congress to a complete democracy contrary to the design of the founders.
*
However, Chucky makes no such waiver, just misquotes Supreme court.* Go read the WHOLE cases for yourself and see.* Chucky is absolutely wrong in his regard and has shot himself in the whole leg as well as foot.* Chucky, what don't you understand in "Stanton" that the judgment dismissing the case was affirmed by the Supreme Court which meant the tax would be paid or collected??????* And Chucky, you want to step into the same shoes as Stanton?* You must have a death wish!
*
Just tell me who lost the Stanton case, Chuck, who was it?* Am I wrong?* The trial court dismissed it and the Supreme court affirmed the trial court.* Am I wrong?* Chuck, you should stick to Latin and French because you can't read English.
*
Chuck also has not the slightest idea of what I espouse or teach*but he is willing to make wild stabs in the dark and compare me to the worst scum on the net.* That should show you something right there about his character.

[weishaupt1776]

Don't get me wrong on this issue, I believe in what Chuck is doing, only his documentation and theory if used is going to get you in trouble and void your process as simply frivolous tax protestor arguments.* I hate to say it, but the IRS is right in this issue.* They are right in the code and process Congress has set up.* Remember code interpretation is in the eyes of the beholder because it is written*vague on purpose to mean anything they want it to.
*
I parted company with Chuck long ago, but here are some of*his erronious concepts.
*
1.* That the US has jurisdiction in the several states generally.* He downplays "Federal" territorial jurisdiction or venue.
2.**That the income tax must be apportioned for individuals.
3.**Reliance on codes.
4.* Income is not defined.* Income is a term of art, which means it doesn't need definition as plainly it is anything that comes in, literally.* Not every common word is defined in the code, only those who special meaning is attributed.
*
Chuck falls into the code trap from which there is no return.* Irwin Schiff did the same and there is not*much difference between the two.** While there needs to be opposition to the evil engineered code trap (income tax), the real bad guys are not the IRS, it is Congress who is its creator.* Congress is largely unapproachable as they hide behind absolute immunity and as long as a majority of the People (democracy) are blind, they will continue without restraint.
*
Don't use any quote of authority that Chuck provides till you have objectively read the whole case, not just the quote.* If it isn't crystal clear to you and the case is still being quoted, then you need to suspect it.* Likewise don't use any that I provide without reading the whole case, objectively.
*
Chuck uses the same old arguments that have failed time and time again, which are patently frivolous.* He very effectively builds good grounds for the IRS to continue to work their congressional*fraud against us.* Chuck needs to back up and make sure he is right, because he is misleading a lot of innocent People, with the same ole Patriot line.
*
You can't go far wrong if you stick to the very basics.

[weishaupt1776]

"We are of opinion, however, [240 U.S. 11] that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the Sixteenth Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation -- that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes.* And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it, as follows:"* Brushaber v UPR Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)*
The court here goes on to elaborate why the assumption was erroneous and why Brushaber must lose his case.
Here again, dismissal was affirmed.
*
You can make all the excuses you want, but either Chuck is right or I am right.* So who is right?* I am not talking about how you might want it to be, but what it is because here is the highest authority in the land saying it.
*
Now, Chucky Concess says:* "Dear Lawmen: Every time someone opens the U.S. citizenship debate, there is a furor aroused. Some people misunderstand the Court ruling and leap to unfounded conclusions. Below are my comments on those court rulings. I have never held that there was no such thing as territorial jurisdiction, although that is not the only kind of jurisdiction. There is also personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction. Taxes fall under subject matter jurisdiction."
*
Now, I have shown that subject matter jurisdiction and venue are two different critters:
*
"This notably "generous to plaintiffs" provision will be recognized instantly as one describing venue choices, not subject matter jurisdiction.* Cf.* 28 U.S.C. § 1391 ("Venue generally")."* Henderson v U.S., 517 U.S. 654 (1996).
*
It is first necessary to have venue to have any*kind of jurisdiction as I detailed in my*5/25 email to Chucky, which is borne out in:
*
Were the Court to adopt the Government's expansive interpretation, hardly a building in the land would fall outside § 844(i)'s domain, and the statute's limiting language, "used in," would have no office.* Jones v. United States, 529 U.S. 848 (2000).
*
Just like in Lopez quoted in Jones, the court had subject matter jurisdiction but not venue.* Venue is the place where the action happened.* Chuck errors in this respect because he doesn't understand venue and jurisdiction, especially when it comes to "Federal".
*
Now, you can say that no one has defined income but that is ignorance to the extreme:
*
"It is equally true that, if he does sell, and in doing so realizes a profit, such profit, like any other, is income, and, so far as it may have arisen since the Sixteenth Amendment, is taxable by Congress without apportionment."* Eisner v Macomber, 252 U.S. 189.
*
Of course all the anti-IRS briefs quote this case.* Chuck obviously doesn't understand terms of art and legal terms and how they are often used interchangeably.* I am not saying the way it is used is not a fraud, to the contrary but for different reasons.
*
Now as far as apportionment it should be clear:
*
But it is apparent from the mere statement of these contentions that each and all of them were adversely disposed of by the decision in the Brushaber case, and they all therefore may be put out of view.

Class B.* Under this class, these propositions are relied upon: [240 U.S. 112]
*(1) That, as the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes only an*exceptional direct income tax without apportionment, to which the tax in question does not conform, it is therefore not within the authority of that Amendment.
*(2) Not being within the authority of the Sixteenth Amendment, the tax is therefore, within the ruling of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, a direct tax and void for want of compliance with the regulation of apportionment.
As the first proposition is plainly in conflict with the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment as interpreted in the Brushaber case, it may also be put out of view.* As to the second, while indeed it is distinct from the subjects considered in the Brushaber case to the extent that the particular tax which the statute levies on mining corporations here under consideration is distinct from the tax on corporations other than mining and on individuals, which was disposed of in the Brushaber case, a brief analysis will serve to demonstrate that the distinction is one without a difference, and therefore that the proposition is also foreclosed by the previous ruling.* Stanton v Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916).

You will find that Stanton lost by dismissal right out of the chute, just like Brushaber.**Am I wrong, Mac?
*
If there are any others that think I am wrong, please show me the error of my ways.* By the way, I didn't use anyone else's erroneous work to come up with this information, I read the cases that*say 180 deg. from what Chuck says.* Either he is right and I am wrong, or I am right and he is wrong.* We aren't going to play the IRS game which is "Either he is right and I am wrong or I am wrong and he is right".

[weishaupt1776]

Either the income tax is subject to apportionment to be constitutional or it isn't as defined by the highest legal authority in the land.* If you don't acknowledge that even though human and subject to error, these Justices are the most knowledgeable in law, then you have to pitch out the baby with the bath water, literally Yick Wo and every other case can't be relied upon which totally will defeat you into a lawless anarchy condition.* Chuck said and you must know this:

• "Our position is simple. A direct tax must be apportioned. Any lawfully
  imposed tax can be imposed on any citizen and it must have subject matter
  jurisdiction, not merely territorial jurisdiction.* Taxes fall under subject matter jurisdiction."

Does Chucky maintain that the tax is unconstitutional because it is direct and*isn't apportioned?
Does Chucky rely on the Stanton and Brushaber cases to support his reasoning?
*
Did Stanton win his case?
Was Stanton's case dismissed before any trial?
Did the Supreme court affirm the dismissal?
Did this case involve Stanton's personal property or rights to property?
Because a corporation was involved, did this make this case a corporate income tax?
Was the property in question that of Stanton's personal property for which the corporation owed to Stanton?
*
Did Brushaber win his case?
Was Brushaber's case dismissed before trail?
Did the Supreme court affirm the dismissal?
Did this case involve the personal property or rights to property of People?
Because a corporation was involved, did this make this case a corporate income tax case?
Was the property in question that of*People?
*
Did the Supreme court explain apportionment by reliance on the Brushaber case in the Stanton case?
Did the Supreme court say that the tax did not have to be apportioned to be constitutional?
If you think these two cases are corporate income tax cases, then if a corporation withholds tax from you, does that make it a corporate income tax case?
Is personal jurisdiction necessary as well as subject matter jurisdiction for the court to hear a case?* See Hagans v Levine.
Is venue or territorial jurisdiction necessary for any Federal case?* See Lopez and*Jones.
Is rem jurisdiction also*necessary in cases where property is concerned?
*
Would you*use dismissed cases to support your contentions in law as the same circumstances apply?
*
I think you will see from your answers, logically, both Chuck and I can't be right together.* And this is only on the issues of jurisdiction and apportionment.*

[weishaupt1776]

There are not two income taxes, just one and it is applied to all persons and individuals always without apportionment.* The rules are just different for the corporate tax, as they are allowed to apply credits and deduct expenses.* As you will see and as I have explained, Stanton and Brushaber were both addressing individual*income of a stockholder.* It is that all other direct taxes on what isn't income must be apportioned, thus say for the Congress to tax your land would be unconstitutional unless apportioned and this is what Chuck is eluding to in error.* In other words for the IRS to tax you upon what you could have gotten but didn't because you used it, is not constitutional because it isn't apportioned and because it isn't on income.* This is all rather irrelevant however to the case of the compensation for labor as it isn't income in any sense of the word, it is missed income because of circumstances.* People don't normally have these* problems with the IRS as all they generally have is compensation for labor, maybe a little interest, bond*or stock dividends.
*
*"If the statute lays taxes on the part of the building occupied by the owner or upon the rental value of that space, it cannot be sustained, for that* would be to lay a direct tax requiring apportionment.* Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 580-581; 158 U.S. 601, 635-637, 659; Brushaber v. Union Pac. R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, 16-17; Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 205; Dawson*v. Kentucky Distilleries & Warehouse Co., 255 U.S. 288, 294; Bromley v. McCaughn, 280 U.S. 124, 136; Willcuts v. Bunn, 282 U.S. 216, 227.* The rental value of the building used by the owner does not constitute income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment.* Eisner v. Macomber, supra, 207; Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415, 417; Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Co., 247 U.S. 179, 185; Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170, 174; Taft v. Bowers, 278 U.S. 470, 481-482; MacLaughlin v. Alliance Ins. Co., 286 U.S. 244, 249-250.* Cf. Burk-Waggoner Oil Assn. v. Hopkins, 269 U.S. 110, 114.
Helvering v. Independent Life Insurance Co., 292 U.S. 371 (1934).
*

"In this case -- that of a stockholder against a corporation to restrain the latter from voluntarily paying the income tax imposed by the Tariff Act of 1913 -- the defendant corporation notified the government of the pendency of the action and the United States was heard as amicus curiae in support of the constitutionality of the Act."* Brushaber
*
"As repeatedly held, this did not extend the taxing power to new subjects, but merely removed the necessity which otherwise might exist for an apportionment among the states of taxes laid on income.* Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, 17-19; Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, 112 et seq.; Peck & Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165, 172-173.....
The fundamental relation of "capital" to "income" has been much discussed by economists, the former being likened to the tree or the land, the latter to the fruit or the crop; the former depicted as a reservoir supplied from springs, the latter as the outlet stream, to be measured by its flow during a period of time.* For the present purpose, we require only a clear definition of the term "income,"*as used in common speech, in order to determine its meaning in the amendment, and, having formed also a correct judgment as to the nature of a stock dividend, we shall find it easy to decide the matter at issue."* Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, (1920)
*
Notice the court is saying that "income" is a word of art, in this case only determined by facts.* It has the meaning of all that comes in plus includes all those items the IRS attributes to the word.* This is a go nowhere argument.
*

As in Brushaber v. Union P. R. Co., ante, p. 1, this case was commenced by the appellant as a stockholder of the Baltic Mining Company, the appellee, to enjoin the voluntary payment by the corporation and its officers of the tax assessed against it under the income tax section of the Tariff Act of October 3, 1913, c. 16, 38 Stat. 166.* As to the grounds for the equitable relief*sought in this case so far as the question of jurisdiction is concerned are substantially the same as those which were relied upon in the Brushaber case, it follows that the ruling in that case upholding the power to dispose of that controversy is controlling here, and we put that subject out of view.
*Further, also like the Brushaber case, this is before us on a direct appeal prosecuted for the purpose of reviewing the action of the court below in dismissing on motion the bill for want of equity.* Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103
*
ON this group almost all of us are People, Superior Sovereigns who are defrauded by the Congress ************s in code to the executive branch.* I don't speak about corporations in reference to members of this group and that is not relevant to me as I have said corporations are creations of government and they must obey the law no matter what it is, even to their destruction as expressed in Bailey v Drexel Furniture Co.

[weishaupt1776]

The income tax is a bastard tax, it doesn't logically fit any of the examples and the courts are divided on what type of tax it is.* Does it really make a difference what type of tax it is?* I don't think it does, and I think it is irrelevant in that respect.* It is authorized by amendment to be laid without apportionment which is simple and straight forward, however it is more a matter of how it is done and to whom.* The way it is used is a fraud, generally.
*
I personally think it is a direct tax, although the payroll tax is indirect in reality it might as well be direct.* I really think this is irrelevant as well as it can be argued either way*and still no one is going to agree.* Collected**at the source could be called indirect but is actually direct in effect.* The court has said many times that Congress can't do indirectly what it can't do directly, which would fit this issue, however again it is a go nowhere argument.
*
Yes, the courts say that income is not synonymous with gross receipts and correctly so.* A corporation deducts expenses, Individuals get deductions as well, the standard deduction at the*very*least, so you question is non sense.* The standard deduction is supposed to be the bare minimum for sustaining your life, you know the scraps from the table that you would give your servant so he could still work.* The tax is never based on gross receipts, so this is a go nowhere argument.
*
I don't disagree with Chuck's going after the agents, but it will never be effective and will be dismissed just as the Stanton and Brushaber case was, if he doesn't get his act together and stop chasing his tail.* He is also teaching mistruth which is worst of his misdeeds, because he is indoctrinating those, who haven't the time and resources to check it out for themselves,*to following false precepts which is going to get them in trouble sooner or later.
*
There is a precept that is fool proof and that is that the code is not law and even if it were, I am not subject to it by Supreme court decree.* I am the Superior Sovereign and not subject to my creations, which is "universal common*law".* I am however subject*to redress if I infringe upon the rights of another Sovereign Man, Woman or Child.

Don't get me wrong, Chuck's idea of going after agents has some merit and I*applaud him for that, but when it comes to my attention that he is teaching error for basic principles, where a large following is from my group*and he*is misquoting Supreme*Court decisions, then I have a duty to expose the truth.* Read the cases for yourself, don't take my word for it.* If I am wrong then show me where I am wrong, and if he is wrong, then show him where he is wrong.
*
Even at the end of his 21*page letter which he claims is gospel truth, he asks for correction.* His only problem is that to admit to his error would destroy his basic premise, which would frustrate his work and following.* But he feels evidently no duty to answer to the truth of the matter which is unfortunate for him.* He has not refuted my*contention that he is taking out of context in the cases the explaination by the court of the pleadings of the Plaintiffs to support his contention which is the same as the Plaintiffs; their pleadings were dismissed on failure to state a claim in each case.
*
If you quote losing cases with the same arguments they made, how can you win?