Notice Of Levy - IRS Liable

[ThomPaine]

good points on the 16th being a clarificatory 'ammendment' and not really changing anything. Though many people call this the income tax ammendment, nothing could be further from the truth. Many cases have shown that items of income taxable after the ammendment were also taxable before the ammendment and vice versa. The ammendment gave no NEW taxing powers and only served to clarify that the income tax was (and always has been) an indirect tax. An indirect tax for those who dont know is basically an excise tax. What is an excise tax? A tax on a priviledge or an activity. The income derived from these activities is not what is taxed, they only serve to determine the amount of the tax owed. The activities and priviledges are what is actually being taxed.

A good example of this is purchasing cigarettes at the store. If you go to the store to buy cigs, you pay a tobacco tax. You cant buy cigs and not pay it. You pay the same that everyone else does on that pack of cigs if they were to buy it, no more no less. If you buy expensive cigs, you pay the same in tax, as it is a fixed amount, not a percentage. The tax is on the activity of purchasing cigarettes or alcohol or firearms, etc... (funny how those all seem to group together like that..) If you dont want to pay the tax, dont purchase cigarettes or just bum them off your friends....

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by ThomPaine

good points on the 16th being a clarificatory 'ammendment' and not really changing anything. Though many people call this the income tax ammendment, nothing could be further from the truth. Many cases have shown that items of income taxable after the ammendment were also taxable before the ammendment and vice versa. The ammendment gave no NEW taxing powers and only served to clarify that the income tax was (and always has been) an indirect tax. An indirect tax for those who dont know is basically an excise tax. What is an excise tax? A tax on a priviledge or an activity. The income derived from these activities is not what is taxed, they only serve to determine the amount of the tax owed. The activities and priviledges are what is actually being taxed.

A good example of this is purchasing cigarettes at the store. If you go to the store to buy cigs, you pay a tobacco tax. You cant buy cigs and not pay it. You pay the same that everyone else does on that pack of cigs if they were to buy it, no more no less. If you buy expensive cigs, you pay the same in tax, as it is a fixed amount, not a percentage. The tax is on the activity of purchasing cigarettes or alcohol or firearms, etc... (funny how those all seem to group together like that..) If you dont want to pay the tax, dont purchase cigarettes or just bum them off your friends....

The Sixteenth Amendment did do something very significant. It brought the otherwise private disputes arising from private credit from the Fed into the courts of the US.

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/articl...lic-money.html

A major purpose behind the 16th Amendment was to give Congress authority to enforce private law collections of revenue. Congress had the plenary power to collect income taxes arising from government granted privileges long before the 16th Amendment was ratified, and the amendment was unnecessary, except to give Congress the added power to enforce collections under private law: i.e., income from whatever source. So, the Fed got its amendment and its private income tax...

I thought as you in your post for the longest time - that Congress just made a redundancy in order to clarify taxation that was already clarified inherently in taxation. It made a lot better sense after reading the above 1984 article about private credit from the Fed.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[ThomPaine]

very interesting.....though I am not 100% sold on the private credit, public money thing yet (mainly bc I dont understand it enough) I always seem to learn something on this board....I have so many things saved that I will probably never get around to reading...

Thom

EDIT: found this doing some 16th amendment research, though these are not statutes and this page is not all encompassing by any means, i found the reading and points interesting:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...nt16/02.html#1

I would be curious, David, to see your explanation of how the 16th gave no new taxing powers to Congress (several cases have supported this) but somehow gave "congress the added power to enforce collections under private law", basically the private income tax info from the quote above.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by ThomPaine

I would be curious, David, to see your explanation of how the 16th gave no new taxing powers to Congress (several cases have supported this) but somehow gave "congress the added power to enforce collections under private law", basically the private income tax info from the quote above.

Good call. I had not really thought it through except that the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified only because it had to be. That is to say, in the same respect to remedy as Title 12 U.S.C. §411 was enacted to provide remedy to the elastic currency issued legally by the Federal Reserve Act - 1913.

A major purpose behind the 16th Amendment was to give Congress authority to enforce private law collections of revenue. Congress had the plenary power to collect income taxes arising from government granted privileges long before the 16th Amendment was ratified, and the amendment was unnecessary, except to give Congress the added power to enforce collections under private law: i.e., income from whatever source. So, the Fed got its amendment and its private income tax...

How did the Sixteenth Amendment give this power to Congress whereas Congress did not have the authority prior to the Federal Reserve Act?

ARTICLE XVI

Income tax. 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.

Funny how it is right there on the face of the matter. It is the courts that have the authority to enforce private agreements - judiciary in equity and in law.

As long as people are endorsement bond for the elastic currency created with every bank loan, then the US is not obligated. Obligations of the US do not come into play if people will pledge themselves chattel for the national debt instead. Congress gave itself the authority to make sure the chattel-sheeple would live up to the obligations they committed themselves to - good faith or not.

That is why so many patriot treatise-writers are a little perplexed about the Sixteenth Amendment being redundant with the text of the Constitution itself. They do not realize that before 1913 people had to settle their private disputes in judicial courts, or at least with judicial oversight over the administrative processes. The Sixteenth Amendment was Congress giving itself authority to enforce income tax disputes. Anybody signing endorsement for a paycheck was approving authority that otherwise cannot be delegated - one body or person cannot bestow authority upon itself - authority must be delegated. Endorsement is that delegation of authority within the scope of private contract and any disputes about that contract.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[ThomPaine]

I think the hard thing to realise here is that text does not mean what a lot of people think that it means. They look at it and say, see it says right here Congress can collect taxes on everything without apportionment. Wrong on soooo many levels.

Firstly, the 16th amendment gave no new taxing powers to Congress. Several SC cases have supported this so we will put that to rest.

Secondly, we ask if it did not give any new taxing powers to Congress, what could they legally tax BEFORE this amendment was passed? We could debate this until the cows come home, but suffice it to say that TOMES of evidence exist to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that their taxing authority did not extend to earnings from labour from the average joe working and living in anytown USA. I am trying to make this simple and avoid all the US vs State vs Alien vs National stuff, so bear with me...

Note: I disagree with the 1984 article that you posted saying that the 16th Amendment did give new powers of taxing on private income and they dont really explain that in the article, though i will read it again for clarifiction and repost if needed.

Lets break down the amendment piece by piece, keeping in mind that no NEW taxing powers were given by the Amendment:

Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes. What kind of taxes? There are only two types, direct (subject to apportionment) and indirect (excise tax) There are no direct taxes currently in use by the "Federal" govt today. If I am wrong on that I am sure someone will correct me. This originally referred to items like poll taxes I believe. There are also several cases (SC and others) that have affirmed that the 'income' tax is an indirect tax. It always has been and always will be. This brings us to the next part of the amendment, actually skipping one part for a second. If there are no direct taxes and the 'income' tax is an indirect tax (not subject to apportionment) isnt the amendment simply confirming that the income tax IS an indirect tax, which is not subject to apportionment. A new type of tax is not being created here folks. Its simply says that Congress can lay and collect taxes that are not subject to apportionment. What are these taxes?? They are indirect excise taxes, of course, which they have long had the power to collect....

Now lets back up a second to the part that we skippped, 'from whatever source derived' Of course that is a very general statement and only an idiot (i'm someone will try it) would take that at face value. There are quite a few principles of law at work here, so here we go...

One is that a general vague definition or statement is typically over ruled by a more specific one. SO, does congress have the power to collect taxes from someone living in Paris and walking down the street to work in the corner store?? Of course not, they pay any taxes they owe to the French government, not the IRS. So the whatever source has limits... What about collecting taxes on life insurance policies or munis or grant money or gifts under 10K??? Nope, nope and nope....there are types or sources of income that are tax free, so again we have limits, even within the often controversial code, but we dont want to tear into thousands of pages of code just yet..

[ThomPaine]

Continuing down that same road, we must realise that the power of the amendment cannot extend beyond other powers that Congress already had, unless that amendment created new powers, which it did not. Do dont assume that you know what something means or says. There is an ATF statute (dont have the number handy) that says something to the effect of all firearms shall be registered or numbered or something of the sort. A friend of mine found this a few years ago and went nuts, What do you mean I have to register all my guns or number them or whatever it was that he was pissed about....So i go and do some research for him. "...For the purposes of this section/chapter whatever it was, the term firearm shall be defined as follows. ..." and it goes on to talk about explosives and automatic weapons, etc. It says nothing in there about a deer hunting rifle or the shotgun behind your bedroom door. However if the average joe were to read that he wouldnt know that. It says all firearms must be blah blah blah and deer hunting rifles and shotguns are firearms, right?? WRONG...The key here is to realise that things are not what they seem on the surface, even in the Constitution and not to take things without doing some research.

Finally, we have a case (McCullough v Virginia) that reinforces the maxim that statutes must be read in light of the Constitution and cannot extend beyond those existing limits. So if Congress doesnt have the power to collect taxes on the $10 an hour that you make working at Starbucks, then no statute or code or pamphlet or anything else can give them that power. That is not to say that this has never happened, I am not that stupid, I am just saying that its not legal or correct. The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution says: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people. Keep that in mind as you read the 16th amendment and Title 26.

So, in summary we have:

The 'income tax' as the average american knows it is perfectly legal (Constitutional), yet grossly mis-applied, as it is very limited in its true scope. It is an indirect (excise) tax and it was not created by the 16th amendment or any other amendment. They are volunteering into a system that may obligate them to pay this tax. Congress is happy to have your permission to do something that they dont otherwise have the authority to do and will happily take your money to pay interest on the FRNs that they are printing to run the country, which at last count was over two trillion dollars per year.

I will not even get into arguments about the income tax being unconstitutional (its not) or the 16th amendment not being properly ratified (who cares) or wages are not income (who cares) because none of that matters. The scope of the income tax that we have today is basically what is was 90 years ago. Yes, many things have changed along the way and there are tens of thousands of pages of codes now, but the foundation has NOT changed and Congress did not magically inherit any new powers to tax things during that time, that they could not tax before hand.

Thom

[clarkee]

Originally Posted by Bulletproof Monk

You're right Henry,

Why would you be suing anyone for displaying the public records of someone else???

I'm not the STRAWMAN, and as I didn't create it I have no copyright rights over it, so I can't go there either..

The ATO (Australian Tax Office) describes a sole trader as an "individual" or "person".

I'm not one of those either, because if you look in the corporations act you'll find that actually, a sole trader (soul?) is a member organisation of a securities exchange...

Nope...not one of those either...

So you see, all of this fictitious court mumbo jumbo/statutes/laws/rules etc only applies to PERSONS or ENTITIES or corporate soles.

Oh...and the other thing...there's no lawful money to earn anyhow, so how the hell can you pay tax on it even if you were a "taxpayer?

BULLETPROOF

I agree with you 100%. I've said it all alone, all documents that are in your all CAPS name are not you. Codes, regulations, statutes and the likes pertain to the artificial person. Trying to find out a way around the utility companies. Look, it's plain and simple, the government has created slaves out of us all at birth by there on will. Unfortunately, we the one's who this fraud is perputrated on will have to deal with it on a case by case basis or as things arise. It's a crying shame that we have to fight to save our own asses from an organized crime organization who has committed every crime under Title 18 USC. Yes, I said Title 18 a code that pertains to fictitious entities like the group in Washington DC.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by clarkee

I agree with you 100%. I've said it all alone, all documents that are in your all CAPS name are not you. Codes, regulations, statutes and the likes pertain to the artificial person. Trying to find out a way around the utility companies. Look, it's plain and simple, the government has created slaves out of us all at birth by there on will. Unfortunately, we the one's who this fraud is perputrated on will have to deal with it on a case by case basis or as things arise. It's a crying shame that we have to fight to save our own asses from an organized crime organization who has committed every crime under Title 18 USC. Yes, I said Title 18 a code that pertains to fictitious entities like the group in Washington DC.

Yes. They come in through the utilities.

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...f_the_grid.jpg

This fellow built several houses up to code then a shed that he later added to. No utilities. They have left notices and so he had to resort to remedy. Point being you do not have to get the bill in the mail. That is when you appear for the ALL UPPER CASE entity in equity - when you tear open the bill.

You could locate the office and pay in advance, cash. - Never appear for the artifice by opening its mail. Simple.



Regards,

David Merrill.