Fraud vitiates everything, three states have now moved to overturn their 2020 Presidential elections with evidence of fraud. I keep praying the SC will overturn it.
The Supreme Court is bound by the Constitution. In Article I, Section 8, the Constitution grants jurisdiction to the federal government to regulate three areas of commerce: “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes” – in other words, foreign commerce, interstate commerce, and Indian commerce.
The 16th Amendment, the income tax, has been the subject of many Supreme Court decisions. The IRS always cites to the Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916), to inform the public that the 16th Amendment was held to be constitutional by the Supreme Court. What the IRS doesn’t 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.
The Supreme Court, obviously being aware of all of the pertinent details, ruled in the Brushaber case that the federal government always had the power to tax income as an excise tax and, therefore, the 16th Amendment is constitutional.
The Supreme Court then ruled in the very next case it decided, Stanton v. Baltic Mining, 240 US 103 (1916), the following: “… that by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived…”. The ”previous ruling” cited in the Stanton decision was referring to the Brushaber decision.
A few years later the Supreme Court again ruled upon the 16th Amendment’s effect on the federal government’s power of taxation. In Peck & Co. v. Lowe, 247 US 165 (1918), the Supreme Court stated, in part: “The Sixteenth Amendment … does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects …”.
The Supreme Court decisions above all inform everyone that no new power of taxation was granted to the federal government by the 16th Amendment. These decisions all inform everyone that the federal government always had the power to tax income from the beginning. Since no new power of taxation was granted to the federal government by the 16th Amendment and the federal government was held to always have had the power to tax income, then the revenue that’s being derived by the federal government from an income tax must come from one of the regulated commerce jurisdictions granted to the federal government by the Constitution – therefore, this revenue must come from foreign commerce, interstate commerce, commerce. After all, generating income is a commercial activity.
The Supreme Court ruled exactly that in Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920), where the Court stated the following: “The 16th Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the Amendment was adopted.”.
We must reject ... the broad contention submitted in behalf of the Government that all receipts -- everything that comes in -- are incomewithin the proper definition of "gross income" ....
[Southern Pacific Co. v. John Z. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330]
Corporate profits are "income":
[Income] imports, as used here, something entirely distinct from principal or capital either as a subject of taxation or as a measure of the tax; conveying rather the idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activities.
[Emanuel J. Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Co., 247 U.S. 179]
Congress CANNOT change the Constitution:
In order, therefore, that the clauses cited above from Article I of the Constitution may have proper force and effect ... it becomes essential to distinguish between what is and what is not "income," as the term is there used; and to apply the distinction ... according to truth and substance, without regard to form. Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised.
[Mark Eisner v. Myrtle H. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189]
Again, "income" is a gain, a profit:
Here we have the essential matter -- not a gain accruing to capital, not a growth or increment of value in the investment; but a gain, a profit, something of exchangeable value proceeding from the property, severed from the capital however invested or employed, and coming in, being "derived," that is received or drawn by the recipient (the taxpayer) for his separate use, benefit, and disposal -- that is income derived from property. Nothing else answers the description.
[Mark Eisner v. Myrtle H. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189]
The Supreme Court has REPEATEDLY ruled that compensation for professional services is not "income":
In determining the definition of the word "income" thus arrived at, this court has consistently refused to enter into the refinements of lexicographers and economists and has approved, in the definitions quoted, what it believed to be the commonly understood meaning of the term ....
We continue entirely satisfied with that definition, and, since the fund here taxed was the amount realized from the sale of the stock in 1917, less the capital investment as determined by the trustee as of March 1, 1913, it is palpable that it was a "gain or profit" "produced by" or "derived from" that investment, and that it "proceeded," and was "severed" or rendered severable, from, by the sale for cash, and thereby became that "realized gain" which has been repeatedly declared to be taxable income ....
[Merchant's Loan & Trust v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509]
"Income" has been legally and officially defined:
And the definition of "income" approved by this Court is: "The gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined," provided it beunderstood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets. ... It is thus very plain that the statute imposes the income tax on the proceeds of the sale of personal property to the extent only that gains are derived therefrom by the vendor ....
[Goodrich v. Edwards, 255 U.S. 527]
You do NOT obtain "income" by charging for services rendered:
The phraseology of form 1040 is somewhat obscure .... But it matters little what it does mean; the statute and the statute alone determines what is income to be taxed. It taxes only income "derived" from many different sources; one does not "derive income" by rendering services and charging for them.
[Edwards v. Keith, 231 F. 111 (2nd Cir.)]
No gain, no income -- no income, no tax:
Income is nothing more nor less than realized gain .... It is not synonymous with receipts .... Whatever may constitute income, therefore, must have the essential feature of gain to the recipient .... If there is no gain, there is no income.
[Conner v. U.S., 303 F.Supp. 1187]
"Income" means "gain" -- "gain" means "profit":
Income" ... means "gain" "derived" from, and not accruing to, capital or labor or from both combined, including profit gained through the sale or conversion of capital, the gain not being taxable until realized, and, in such connection, "gain" means profit or something of exchangeable value, and "derived" means proceeding from property, severed from capital, however invested or employed, and coming in, received or drawn by taxpayer for his separate use, benefit, and disposal.
[Staples v. U.S., E.D. Penna., 21 F.Supp. 737]
Wages and profits are two DIFFERENT things:
There is a clear distinction between "profit" and "wages" or compensation for labor. Compensation for labor cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law.
[Oliver v. Halstead, 196 Va. 992; 86 S.E. 2d 858]
Payment for labor is NOT profit:
Reasonable compensation for labor or services rendered is not profit.
[Laureldale Cemetery Assoc. v. Matthews]
[345 Pa. 239; 47 A. 2d 277, 280]
The meaning of "income" has been CONSISTENT in law:
... "Income" has been taken to mean the same thing as used in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, in the Sixteenth Amendment and in the various revenue acts subsequently passed ...
[Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 174]-
Again, "income" has had the SAME MEANING in law:
... and before the 1921 Act this Court had indicated ... what it later held, that "income," as used in the revenue acts taxing income, adopted since the 16th Amendment, has the same meaning that it had in the Act of 1909.
[Burnet v. Harmel, 287 U.S. 103]
"Income" is NOT the same as "gross receipts":
Constitutionally the only thing that can be taxed by Congress is "income." And the tax actually imposed by Congress has been on net income as distinct from gross income. The tax is not, never has been and could not constitutionally be upon "gross receipts" ....
[Anderson Oldsmobile, Inc. v. Hofferbert, USDC Maryland]
[102 F.Supp. 902]
Try to find a principle that is better settled:
Remember that our source is not some "tax protest" group. Just about everything we are telling you comes from the U.S. Supreme Court. It would be difficult, and perhaps impossible, in our system of jurisprudence, to find a principle better settled than the one we have been citing.
[Alan Stang, Tax Scam, Mt. Sinai Press, POB 1220]
[Alta Loma 91701, CALIF. 1988]
I love this. Would you give me a few real world modern everyday examples of what WOULD legally be considered income per these definitions to help me wrap my head around this a little better?
The Federal Zone
Cracking the Code of Internal Revenue
by Mitch Modeleski (fourth edition: electronic version)
Note: Mr. Modeleski analyzes Title 26 of the U.S. Code (IRS tax statues) among others to elucidate the subtleties of our complex Republic and it's modern distortions. This book is about much more than tax protest, it's a mini-course in Citizenship and its eternal responsibilities in preventing tyranny. Certain notations are used throughout the text which are absolutely essential to understanding the concepts presented. dimitri
From what I can tell though, the REAL scam wasn't passing the income tax amendment, SCOTUS ruled that amendment wasn't even necessary as the government always had the right to tax income. It was making sure that everyday Americans didn't know that their work wages didn't count as income. Sounds like maybe everyone needs to go back to their employer and amend their W4 to say "exempt."
Apparently that's not the issue. 16th amendment ratified or not, SCOTUS has apparently stated that it wasn't even necessary--that the government was always able to tax income from any source.
The scam was making everyday ignorant Americans think that their work wages counted as income. But the SCOTUS definition of income clearly excludes that. So we're literally all just paying taxes on our wages because...well...we're stupid.
Apparently it wouldn't even matter if they did because they've already established that the amendment wasn't even necessary, as the government always had the right to tax income.
The scam was making Americans think that their work wages fell under the definition of income. People are just paying it ignorantly. We should all contact our employers ASAP and simply change our filing status to exempt.
The Federal Reserve is a private corporation,
Who puts ink on toilet paper and has convince the public that it is money...
It is private script and if you VOLUNTARILY endorse that private script, then you voluntarily entered into a contract with the Fed Res.
I.E. you owe taxes for using their toilet paper...It's a usage fee called an excise tax.
The 9th circus has said that the FRN is a dual purpose note...it has 2 seals on it where the US Note only has the US Treasury seal on it..
That means you have a choice of which note you wish to use.
............
The Supreme Court defines "income tax", as an excise tax "imposed with respect to the doing of business in corporate form". If you are not engaged in any corporate activities then you are not liable for an "excise income tax." This Supreme Court decision also states that Congress cannot tax an individual's income directly. All direct taxes must be imposed on the states with apportionment. U.S. Constitution Art. 1 Sect 2. Cl. 3 and Sect 9 Cl. 4.
......
Involuntary Servitude
UNITED STATES V. KOZMINSKI, 487 U. S. 931 (1988)
“For purposes of criminal prosecution under § 241 or § 1584, the term "involuntary servitude" necessarily means a condition of servitude in which the victim is forced to work for the defendant by the use or threat of physical restraint or physical injury or by the use or threat of coercion through law or the legal process. This definition encompasses cases in which the defendant holds the victim in servitude by placing him or her in fear of such physical restraint or injury or legal coercion”
TITLE 12
CHAPTER 3 > SUBCHAPTER XII> § 411
§ 411. Issuance to reserve banks; nature of obligation; redemption
Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are authorized. The said notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues.
In 1966, Congress being severely compromised, passed the "Federal Tax Lien Act of 1966", by which the entire taxing and monetary system i.e. "Essential Engine" (See: Federalist Papers No. 31) was placed under the Uniform Commercial Code. (See: Public Law 89-719 , Legislative History, pg. 3722, also see; C.R.S. 5-1-106 ). The Uniform Commercial Code was of course promulgated by the National Conference of Commissioners On Uniform State Laws in collusion with American Law Institute for the "banking and business interests." (See: Handbook Of The National Conference Of Commissioners On Uniform State Laws. (1966) Ed. pgs. 152 &153). The United States being engaged in numerous United Nation conflicts, including the Korean and the Viet Nam Conflicts, which were under direction of the United Nations (See: 22 U.S.C.A. 287d), and agreeing to foot the bill (See: 22 U.S.C.A. 287j), and not being able to honor their obligations and rehypothecated debt credit, openly and publicly dishonored and disavowed their "Notes" and "Obligations" (12 U.S.C.A. 411 ) i.e. "Federal Reserve Notes" Through Public Law 90-269, Section 2, 82 Stat. 50 (1968) to wit:
"Sec. 2. The first sentence of section 15 of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 391) is amended by striking 'and the funds provided in this Act for the redemption of Federal Reserve Notes'."
I don't think any such case was brought before the current SCOTUS session... did it? SCOTUS must have a case before it before it can render a decision. The court doesn't just willy-nilly take on social or legal issues because they feel like it.
Didn't have to be. SCOTUS ruled that it wasn't even necessary, as the government has always had the power to tax income.
But as another poster here just revealed, SCOTUS defined income, and wages are not included in that definition. If we want to stop paying taxes on our wages all we have to do is mark "exempt."
Then these faggots owe me money..
Fraud vitiates everything, three states have now moved to overturn their 2020 Presidential elections with evidence of fraud. I keep praying the SC will overturn it.
I saw Arizona house introduced a bill. Still has to be voted on. Who else has?
The Supreme Court is bound by the Constitution. In Article I, Section 8, the Constitution grants jurisdiction to the federal government to regulate three areas of commerce: “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes” – in other words, foreign commerce, interstate commerce, and Indian commerce.
The 16th Amendment, the income tax, has been the subject of many Supreme Court decisions. The IRS always cites to the Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916), to inform the public that the 16th Amendment was held to be constitutional by the Supreme Court. What the IRS doesn’t 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.
The Supreme Court, obviously being aware of all of the pertinent details, ruled in the Brushaber case that the federal government always had the power to tax income as an excise tax and, therefore, the 16th Amendment is constitutional. The Supreme Court then ruled in the very next case it decided, Stanton v. Baltic Mining, 240 US 103 (1916), the following: “… that by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived…”. The ”previous ruling” cited in the Stanton decision was referring to the Brushaber decision.
A few years later the Supreme Court again ruled upon the 16th Amendment’s effect on the federal government’s power of taxation. In Peck & Co. v. Lowe, 247 US 165 (1918), the Supreme Court stated, in part: “The Sixteenth Amendment … does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects …”.
The Supreme Court decisions above all inform everyone that no new power of taxation was granted to the federal government by the 16th Amendment. These decisions all inform everyone that the federal government always had the power to tax income from the beginning. Since no new power of taxation was granted to the federal government by the 16th Amendment and the federal government was held to always have had the power to tax income, then the revenue that’s being derived by the federal government from an income tax must come from one of the regulated commerce jurisdictions granted to the federal government by the Constitution – therefore, this revenue must come from foreign commerce, interstate commerce, commerce. After all, generating income is a commercial activity.
The Supreme Court ruled exactly that in Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920), where the Court stated the following: “The 16th Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the Amendment was adopted.”.
Income is NOT everything that “comes in”:
[Southern Pacific Co. v. John Z. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330]
Corporate profits are "income":
[Emanuel J. Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Co., 247 U.S. 179]
Congress CANNOT change the Constitution:
[Mark Eisner v. Myrtle H. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189]
Again, "income" is a gain, a profit:
[Mark Eisner v. Myrtle H. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189]
The Supreme Court has REPEATEDLY ruled that compensation for professional services is not "income":
[Merchant's Loan & Trust v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509]
"Income" has been legally and officially defined:
[Goodrich v. Edwards, 255 U.S. 527]
You do NOT obtain "income" by charging for services rendered:
[Edwards v. Keith, 231 F. 111 (2nd Cir.)]
No gain, no income -- no income, no tax:
[Conner v. U.S., 303 F.Supp. 1187]
"Income" means "gain" -- "gain" means "profit":
[Staples v. U.S., E.D. Penna., 21 F.Supp. 737]
Wages and profits are two DIFFERENT things:
[Oliver v. Halstead, 196 Va. 992; 86 S.E. 2d 858]
Payment for labor is NOT profit:
[Laureldale Cemetery Assoc. v. Matthews] [345 Pa. 239; 47 A. 2d 277, 280]
The meaning of "income" has been CONSISTENT in law:
Again, "income" has had the SAME MEANING in law:
[Burnet v. Harmel, 287 U.S. 103]
"Income" is NOT the same as "gross receipts":
[Anderson Oldsmobile, Inc. v. Hofferbert, USDC Maryland] [102 F.Supp. 902]
Try to find a principle that is better settled:
[Alan Stang, Tax Scam, Mt. Sinai Press, POB 1220] [Alta Loma 91701, CALIF. 1988]
"Gainful" employment must have been another sneaky thing.
Ok, that's interesting, because it doesn't seem to say income tax anywhere - just taxes on commercial activities - is that right?
Yes...
Wages are not income...
I posted several court decisions that confirm that
I love this. Would you give me a few real world modern everyday examples of what WOULD legally be considered income per these definitions to help me wrap my head around this a little better?
http://www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/deoxy.org/fz/fedzone.htm
The Federal Zone Cracking the Code of Internal Revenue by Mitch Modeleski (fourth edition: electronic version)
Note: Mr. Modeleski analyzes Title 26 of the U.S. Code (IRS tax statues) among others to elucidate the subtleties of our complex Republic and it's modern distortions. This book is about much more than tax protest, it's a mini-course in Citizenship and its eternal responsibilities in preventing tyranny. Certain notations are used throughout the text which are absolutely essential to understanding the concepts presented. dimitri
Just a thought exercise to try and expand my understanding, I doubt it will be this.
True, but isn't the issue people seem to have is that the 16th was never ratified correctly in the first place?
It w I uldnt be repealing it, it would be recognizing this fact that it never made it to Amendment status in the first place
Thank you, it's not always clear how all the systems in the US interlink.
kek!
However, I understood that the income tax was never passed legally? I might be mistaken
I ain't no expert on this, so grain o' salt, but...
I do believe there's a different process for repealing an amendment to The Constitution.
A big get and super boom if we get it is a rational, Consitutional Constructionist ruling against the EPA that's due soon.
No, not possible.
It takes a new amendment to cancel a previously passed amendment.
The 16th was not legally ratified, if they rule the process was unlawful then it falls on its own.
I don't believe it will happen, but while we're hoping.
Well . . . dayum. That's a solid idea, I think.
Took a minute to find,
If this is documented as claimed, all they would have to do is allow it to be presented.
Talk about s conflict of interest though, as all judges feed from the 16th hog trough.
https://michaelruark.blog/2020/09/12/states-did-not-legally-ratify-the-16th-amendment/
Wow, great find.
Yes: If the content holds up, there is no question but that fuckery was involved and the 16th is just as legit as Biden's Presidency.
Thanks for sharing. I encourage you to create a Post for it.
From what I can tell though, the REAL scam wasn't passing the income tax amendment, SCOTUS ruled that amendment wasn't even necessary as the government always had the right to tax income. It was making sure that everyday Americans didn't know that their work wages didn't count as income. Sounds like maybe everyone needs to go back to their employer and amend their W4 to say "exempt."
Understood, thanks.
The 16th was never legally ratified, if they rule the process was unlawful then it falls on its own.
https://michaelruark.blog/2020/09/12/states-did-not-legally-ratify-the-16th-amendment/
I don't believe it will happen, but while we're hoping.
Apparently that's not the issue. 16th amendment ratified or not, SCOTUS has apparently stated that it wasn't even necessary--that the government was always able to tax income from any source.
The scam was making everyday ignorant Americans think that their work wages counted as income. But the SCOTUS definition of income clearly excludes that. So we're literally all just paying taxes on our wages because...well...we're stupid.
Is there even a case before SCOTUS that they could rule on that would allow them to say the 16th amendment was never legally ratified?
The court can't just issue opinions on anything they want. There must be a legitimate case before them.
Apparently it wouldn't even matter if they did because they've already established that the amendment wasn't even necessary, as the government always had the right to tax income.
The scam was making Americans think that their work wages fell under the definition of income. People are just paying it ignorantly. We should all contact our employers ASAP and simply change our filing status to exempt.
What bliss to even entertain a thought that excellent.
The Federal Reserve is a private corporation, Who puts ink on toilet paper and has convince the public that it is money...
It is private script and if you VOLUNTARILY endorse that private script, then you voluntarily entered into a contract with the Fed Res.
I.E. you owe taxes for using their toilet paper...It's a usage fee called an excise tax.
The 9th circus has said that the FRN is a dual purpose note...it has 2 seals on it where the US Note only has the US Treasury seal on it..
That means you have a choice of which note you wish to use.
............
The Supreme Court defines "income tax", as an excise tax "imposed with respect to the doing of business in corporate form". If you are not engaged in any corporate activities then you are not liable for an "excise income tax." This Supreme Court decision also states that Congress cannot tax an individual's income directly. All direct taxes must be imposed on the states with apportionment. U.S. Constitution Art. 1 Sect 2. Cl. 3 and Sect 9 Cl. 4.
......
Involuntary Servitude
UNITED STATES V. KOZMINSKI, 487 U. S. 931 (1988)
“For purposes of criminal prosecution under § 241 or § 1584, the term "involuntary servitude" necessarily means a condition of servitude in which the victim is forced to work for the defendant by the use or threat of physical restraint or physical injury or by the use or threat of coercion through law or the legal process. This definition encompasses cases in which the defendant holds the victim in servitude by placing him or her in fear of such physical restraint or injury or legal coercion”
TITLE 12
In 1966, Congress being severely compromised, passed the "Federal Tax Lien Act of 1966", by which the entire taxing and monetary system i.e. "Essential Engine" (See: Federalist Papers No. 31) was placed under the Uniform Commercial Code. (See: Public Law 89-719 , Legislative History, pg. 3722, also see; C.R.S. 5-1-106 ). The Uniform Commercial Code was of course promulgated by the National Conference of Commissioners On Uniform State Laws in collusion with American Law Institute for the "banking and business interests." (See: Handbook Of The National Conference Of Commissioners On Uniform State Laws. (1966) Ed. pgs. 152 &153). The United States being engaged in numerous United Nation conflicts, including the Korean and the Viet Nam Conflicts, which were under direction of the United Nations (See: 22 U.S.C.A. 287d), and agreeing to foot the bill (See: 22 U.S.C.A. 287j), and not being able to honor their obligations and rehypothecated debt credit, openly and publicly dishonored and disavowed their "Notes" and "Obligations" (12 U.S.C.A. 411 ) i.e. "Federal Reserve Notes" Through Public Law 90-269, Section 2, 82 Stat. 50 (1968) to wit:
"Sec. 2. The first sentence of section 15 of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 391) is amended by striking 'and the funds provided in this Act for the redemption of Federal Reserve Notes'."
https://www.scribd.com/document/194568846/John-B-Nelson-Summary-of-the-US-Takeover
I don't think any such case was brought before the current SCOTUS session... did it? SCOTUS must have a case before it before it can render a decision. The court doesn't just willy-nilly take on social or legal issues because they feel like it.
The 16th was never ratified by enough states.
Didn't have to be. SCOTUS ruled that it wasn't even necessary, as the government has always had the power to tax income.
But as another poster here just revealed, SCOTUS defined income, and wages are not included in that definition. If we want to stop paying taxes on our wages all we have to do is mark "exempt."
would be cooler if they added a 4th day (boom)