Do Tax Laws Apply To You?

[weishaupt1776]

With due respect to you fielding more than one ball;

Do you believe that people can acquire rights to property by just forcibly taking it from the original owner/controller who hasn't injured anyone, breached a duty/contract, or violated anyone's rights?
Yes or No.

In regards to people claiming they are a resident or whatever, etc . . .
Do you have any Supreme Court Cites regarding the issue of Federal Jurisdiction in IRS issues regarding Subtitle A taxes being imposed on private people?

Also, do you have any cites/statutes that state flat out that people who are NOT U.S. Citizens, are still liable for a Subtitle A income or Subtitle C wage tax?
This is assuming that they are not NR aliens as defined in 26USC.

Remember Judicial Immunity. They can rule however they want under the color of law with no repercussions unlike Brain Surgeons who will never be able to have "medical immunity".
The position of "well the courts have ruled, etc . . . " shows no effort of systematic analysis by people of the relationship between the Constitution, Acts, Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, And the CFR.

Saying that "Judges & Lawyers can interpret the laws only" is the same thing as "Roman Catholic Priests are the only ones who can REALLY interpret the Bible"

Originally Posted by weishaupt1776

Do you believe that people can acquire rights to property by just forcibly taking it from the original owner/controller who hasn't injured anyone, breached a duty/contract, or violated anyone's rights?
Yes or No.

Only under the pretense of manifest destiny

In regards to people claiming they are a resident or whatever, etc . . .
Do you have any Supreme Court Cites regarding the issue of Federal Jurisdiction in IRS issues regarding Subtitle A taxes being imposed on private people?

I dunno - I'd have to look. Probably not - I've never seen a time when the Supreme Court took up a case on appeal when there was unanimous agreement amoung the federal curcuit courts of appeal. In addition, they have denied cert on so many cases that raise that issue, it's obvious that they're willing to let the circuit court cases stand.

Also, do you have any cites/statutes that state flat out that people who are NOT U.S. Citizens, are still liable for a Subtitle A income or Subtitle C wage tax?
This is assuming that they are not NR aliens as defined in 26USC.

If they're not a US Citizen nor a NR alien, than they're illegal immigrants - and last time I checked, even they have to pay taxes.

[weishaupt1776]

Okay so am I, one who was born in Illinois & now living & working upon the soil in Florida, a United States Citizen?

Also, how are property rights acquired, by force or consent?

I'm not trying to grill you, but I am trying to see your rationale in that Title 26 applies to everybody living & working upon the soil within each of the 50 countries comprising the Federation of States.

[weishaupt1776]

I think there is some basic misconceptions about the income tax.* If you read the history of the times, for instance Charles Warren's, "The Making of the Constitution", you will see there was a lot of discussion about taxes in general at the time.* It was generally conceived that a "Federal" direct tax upon the People as a whole, would only be laid for supporting defense of*an invasion upon the soil of the country.* They could not fathom any other need and therefore it should be apportioned.* The farmer should never be taxed as that was like biting the hand that feeds you, of course these were the days before any corporate farming existed.
*
The Feds, true to form right out of the chute tried their hand at taxing most notably whiskey, which was a failure as the revenue agents were shot in most cases as the frontiers men didn't believe in that kind of taxation which was titled the "Whiskey Rebellion" and lead to a martial law type conflict.* Taxing Carriages was another venture into that realm of taxation which had its share of problems and court battles.
*
The 16th Amendment was the key to make the income tax constitutional in the general sense and wasn't generally applied till*WWII when it became a payroll tax as a really lawful tax to support the war effort which was a legitimate reason for it.* After the end of the war it just continued as so many temporary taxes do, allowing the government to grow at any rate deemed necessary for the day.* The 16th Amendment doesn't by any express words or implication imply that Art. 1.8.17 is*now exempted as a limitation upon*Congress, nor has the courts ever asserted that it isn't applicable as much today as the time when it was ratified.* Thus the 16th Amendment is for almost all, an entirely moot question as is apportionment.* NOR is it material if it was ratified, as Constitutional provision are limitations on government and not the People directly.* Thus when you get the whole concept in the proper prospective, the amendment is not generic to any issue you have.*
*
While technically according to the law, the tax is lawful, it is applied unlawfully, in violation of Art. 1.8.17 which defined "Federal" jurisdiction and venue specifically.* The only*excuse might be that everyone participates in interstate commerce in one form or another and therefore should be subject to the tax.* However participation in interstate commerce is difficult to prove unless you just say that what you have possession of moved in interstate commerce.* Quite often we cross state lines, buy or sell products across state lines although such is not really interstate commerce.* Interstate commerce is the moving of goods not belonging to you across state lines which is better known as interstate*trucking.* You have a vested right to move you own goods anywhere you want and to do with them what you please, without regulation.* Such is not interstate commerce.
*
Obviously in Lopez and Jones cases there was an attempt to say that without interstate commerce the means to commit the crime couldn't exist, therefore it was the nexus.* Such was declared an excess of venue by the court, holding to the Art. 1.8.17 limitations upon the power of Congress, thus the court had no jurisdiction in the matters.* These are key case which should be read so that you understand the limitation of Congress.* It should be self evident by the words of the*Constitution, however overzealous prostitutors come up with all kinds of fiction to work their evil designs.* Fortunately in these*cases the court didn't go along with the non sense.
*
Now, if state arson and guns in state*schools*are state venue and not the Feds, then the income tax can't apply in the several states because of the limitations of Congress on the same basis.* There is no way that a reasonable party could assume some nexus or venue for any income tax matter.* There has never been an aggression upon our soil since WWII, thus no excuse to raise a general tax.* Even if there was, it could be done with inflation, i.e. putting the needed FRNs in circulation.* There is no need to deprive the*people directly of their property, as it only inflates the need for government services (IRS offices and officers).
*
Thus the tax really violates the intent of the founders in every way.* The*inflation itself is a completely unlawful hidden*tax upon the World.* It is entirely unnecessary as Japan hold a constant zero inflation in their currency, which should be a model for the World, however the US is not only greedy but sneaky in taxation matters.* Notice they never will address the Art. 1.8.17 issue, however they lump it as one of the frivolous arguments because of the many others that stand in confusion which makes it easy to hide among.* The real issues are seldom used:
*
"Any case that overturns Yick Wo v Hopkins, 118 US 356, 370, that People are "not subject to the law" which is code for government;
Any case or statute at large which would change our Federal Gov. to a National Gov. as it concerns the People in the several states. See "The Making of the Constitution" by Charles Warren (around page 147);
Any case or statute at large which would grant power, notwithstanding the Separation of Powers Doctrine, to the executive branch to collect a tax, where the power is granted specifically by the Constitution to the Congress;
Any case or statute at large which give government common law authority to control consumption and destroy the object it taxed by a tax over 10%. See Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259 U.S. 20 (1922);
Any documents or statute at large or session law which empowers the executive branch to take life, liberty or property without judicial proceedings in due process;
And, Any document or statute or session law which would abrogate the natural or common law rights:
To Notoriously Know any nexus to jurisdiction (Art. 1.8.17) and standing (Superior Sovereign) in relation to government (public servants),
To govern oneself,
To earn a living,
To acquire, possess and control property,
To be secure in life, liberty and property,
To be free of Interference with Contracts, Bills of Pains and Penalties and slow Corruption of Blood,
To be left alone, and free from intentional irreparable injury by barratry, domestic violence thru mixed war.
*
Does Congress have the power to cause you to be forced into a situation where no matter what you do, you loose?
Isn't this kind of box a violation of due process and intentional irreparable injury by morally evil design?

[SKYGZR]

IRS Form 1040 is dying a slow death:

It states conspicuously that it is for "U.S. Individuals"
and that's enough fraud right there to choke a horse:

http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/nutshell.htm
(note the 2 classes of people named at 26 CFR 1.1-1)

With "Zero Income", do Americans REALLY want to sign that form
under penalties of perjury?

Really now!

Whenever anyone asks, just tell them:
you filed everything you were required to file
then take the Fifth!

Occam's Razor: the simplest solution is the best solution.

the arguments are all frivolous according to Supreme Court

Well, well, well: footnote 23 in Chrysler Corp. v. Brown is "frivolous"?

SINCE WHEN? And, when did the Supreme Court ever describe
one of their own opinions as "frivolous"?

ASK IRS THAT QUESTION!

Are they impersonating the Judiciary again, this time?

They are obviously misusing the term "frivolous"
because constitutional questions are NEVER "frivolous".

Where are the apportionment provisions for the DIRECT TAXES
which IRS is attempting to extort from the American People?

It's strange how so many people seem to forget fundamentals so fast.

31Q&A has already been filed in several State and federal
courts cases (I expect you to remember this, so I don't
need to keep repeating it). I realize repetition is one of the
keys to learning, but repeating myself dozens of times is
asking too much of me:

http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/31Q&A.in.evidence.htm

... without ANY rebuttals from opposing parties.

That's where it matters, and they fell flat on their faces.

TAKE THEM OUT, I SAY!

Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and
Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13, 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agenc...ey.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

[Ice]

"The stock of Reserve Banks is owned entirely by the commercial banks that are members of the Federal Reserve System. Dividends are paid semiannually to stockholders at a fixed rate of 6 percent."

Note what this states... it NEVER states that the Federal Reserve Bank is owned by member banks. It states that "Reserve Banks" are owned by commercial banks. There is a list of "Owners" of the Federal Reserve Bank. Show me a statement that directly relates to who owns THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK and I'll fall in line with you. May I suggest that you read with a more "critical" eye?

Just because there has been a "Federal Reserve System" established it does not mean that the "owners" of THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK have given up their ownership of THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK.

"At the end of 1993, 4,338 banks
were members of the Federal Reserve System—3,360 national
banks and 978 state banks—out of 11,212 commercial banks
nationwide."

No. I'm not declaring this statement to be a lie. I'm saying that you still haven't proved up your claim. The FEDERAL RESERVE BANK and the Federal Reserve System are 2 entirely different entities. Words of Art are often employed in order to hide facts. And those not willing to research for "absolute" fact can be easily misled.

The list of owners is posted somewhere in the forum. Spend more time reading the older threads and you will find more info that just might change some of your current notions.

And by the way, this isn't "my" site. I'm just one of the senior members... been here from the beginning. We do appreciate the fact that you appreciate the site. And I'm sure that other members will assist with your concerns and questions. Open dialogue is needed on a much grander scale... the more folks that partake of this type of dialogue, the more control the People can regain. And that is what it is all about.

The entire purpose of the form of government we have is the safeguards that have been put in place to prohibit a tyranical form of government... to guarantee each man his Freedom... his natural rights. We do not need such a huge government... small is better in this regard.

I may not have answered all your questions... but I'm sure other members can assist. I'm not here too much... kinda busy. But I'll pop in now and then and see how it's going.

Ice

[David Merrill]

Dear Ice;


That is a very informative Post. It brought to mind the Credit River Money Decision. In 1968 attorney Jerome Daly was wise enough to open a common law forum and bring out testimony under oath. You can call (719) 520-6200 and order up certified copies of the document.


www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/P1.jpg
Credit River Money Decision Page 1
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/P2.jpg
Credit River Money Decision Page 2
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/P3.jpg
Credit River Money Decision Page 3
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/P4.jpg
Credit River Money Decision Page 4


Regards,

David Merrill.

You will never get out of paying taxes.

Never

Just that question.

You freely use the word "never" without further explanations.

Why do you turn yourself in so rapidly?

Why are you so easy to spot?

I hate obtuse minds.

[weishaupt1776]

Originally Posted by buck08

You will never get out of paying taxes.

Never

I agree w/buck08. I pay gasoline tax, tax on my phone bill, 7% sales tax.
Notice that he didn't specify the Subtitle A income tax