In confused by the 16th amendment then, what does this mean if not that they can tax income? "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."
Technically, "income" means "profit." With regards to the 16th amendment, only a corporation (a "legal entity" or "legal fiction" AKA not a natural person) can accumulate profit. A person engaged in trade, AKA a "like kind exchange," which includes the exchange of labor for other goods and services does not include any profit.
When you get into the exchange of money however (Federal Reserve Notes), things get a little more tricky. Exchanging FRNs for labor is not a like kind exchange because money has no value, on the contrary, it is a note of debt. It is kinda like negative value. Labor on the other hand has positive value. Exchanging something with negative value for something with positive value is not a "fair" exchange, and thus has different rules. Those rules (called the Tax Code) are up to the corporation that owns that "money" (the Federal Reserve). Or more specifically, their agency that makes all those rules, the private organization called the IRS. They dictate the rules of money. The Tax Code and Federal Law (illegally created, but "law" nonetheless) are sometimes congruent, but not always.
I think the way they manage it is because there may be a corporation, a trust, that is created in your name, through Social Security, and that is what is taxed. You are not subject to paying "income taxes" but the corporation, that has the same name as you, is. And you, as a signatory to your Social Security Number (or Taxpayer Identification Number) are legally bound to pay the taxes for that corporation.
I still need to figure out exactly how this is accomplished, but I think that is how it works.
Yes, perhaps. It makes sense. I think maritime law may have something to do with it, but really locking it down with explicit statements of law has proven difficult.
As far as I can find, no one who says this has actually proven it with the actual laws themselves. It's always just statements that make sense, but such statements only look "crazy" unless they are backed by explicit statements of law. Because of this, I think the people who say this may themselves be disinformation agents. That doesn't make it not true. Disinformation agents often give the truth (See Alex Jones). But without the actual explicit documents to prove it, it is not useful info, and in fact tends to do more harm than good in any larger discourse.
Interesting thoughts. However, when you sign on behalf of a corporation, or entity other than yourself, you include your title so as to designate you are acting on behalf of the entity. For example, you would include president, treasurer, director, member, manager, etc.
If you sign just your name, that means you and not an entity.
Since none of us know if some other entity exists to represent us, it would be a clear violation of contract law and any of these contracts would be non-binding.
You can't be a party to a contract if you never legally agreed to be a party to a contract.
If that wasn't the case, I could sign anyone's name on a loan and make them pay it for me. While that might be nice, it's not going to happen. 😉
Since none of us know if some other entity exists to represent us, it would be a clear violation of contract law and any of these contracts would be non-binding.
It may be a "violation of contract law," but then again it may not be. The law is so convoluted, figuring out exactly how all of these frauds are accomplished is incredibly difficult. I've spent a fair bit of time trying to dig through the various legal codes to figure out exactly how this all works, but have been so far unable to do so.
Regardless of how it works however, no matter how it is accomplished is really irrelevant. Our entire system of law, and even concepts of "law" are a fraud.
A "law" is a "creation of reality." Any system (which includes every form of our "legal system") that allows for the violation of the basic principles of Sovereignty of the individual can make anything "legal." Once legal, all "proper lawful citizens" will "follow the law" (AKA pattern their behavior after the reality that was created by "the law").
Just because the idea of "law" is a fraud, that doesn't mean there can't be something akin to "rules" within society (the code is more what you would call "guidelines" than actual rules), but any rule that doesn't respect the Sovereignty (ultimate authority) of the individual is automatically fraudulent, no matter who creates it.
The entire concept of a "ruling body" is thus also a fraud. No body (Sovereign or legal fiction acting as Sovereign) can rule another Sovereign. A Sovereign (ultimate authority) can only act as if they are under someone else's rule. A ruling body coerces that act through jurisdictional fraud. The ruling body claims (through "law") that they have jurisdiction over you (but you are the ultimate authority of you). Through this claim you comply, because you believe them. In other words, this fraud is perpetrated through the creation of a false belief. These false beliefs are created through "law".
Law is nothing but the creation of a false reality, designed specifically to give one Sovereign jurisdiction over another Sovereign, which is impossible, thus an Illusion, thus fraudulent.
If you sign just your name, that means you and not an entity.
I don't know what you mean here, but you (the Natural Person that is you) are absolutely an entity according to the law. If you just sign your name, you are representing the Natural Person that is you. A Natural Person, according to law, is more of an entity (has more rights) than any legal entity (AKA Corporation).
Seems on point to me. All connected to legal name fraud. Birth certificate fraud. Accepting the corporate entity as yourself verbally and/or in writing.
In confused by the 16th amendment then, what does this mean if not that they can tax income? "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."
That amendment was NEVER properly or lawfully ratified. It is as fraudulent as the last handful of elections.
Income tax and IRS are unconstitutional and always will be.
Allof the. are unconstitutional. Government can only tax commerce.
In confused by the 16th amendment then, what does this mean if not that they can tax income? "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."
Abolish the 16th!!!!! It is theft!!!
Technically, "income" means "profit." With regards to the 16th amendment, only a corporation (a "legal entity" or "legal fiction" AKA not a natural person) can accumulate profit. A person engaged in trade, AKA a "like kind exchange," which includes the exchange of labor for other goods and services does not include any profit.
When you get into the exchange of money however (Federal Reserve Notes), things get a little more tricky. Exchanging FRNs for labor is not a like kind exchange because money has no value, on the contrary, it is a note of debt. It is kinda like negative value. Labor on the other hand has positive value. Exchanging something with negative value for something with positive value is not a "fair" exchange, and thus has different rules. Those rules (called the Tax Code) are up to the corporation that owns that "money" (the Federal Reserve). Or more specifically, their agency that makes all those rules, the private organization called the IRS. They dictate the rules of money. The Tax Code and Federal Law (illegally created, but "law" nonetheless) are sometimes congruent, but not always.
I think the way they manage it is because there may be a corporation, a trust, that is created in your name, through Social Security, and that is what is taxed. You are not subject to paying "income taxes" but the corporation, that has the same name as you, is. And you, as a signatory to your Social Security Number (or Taxpayer Identification Number) are legally bound to pay the taxes for that corporation.
I still need to figure out exactly how this is accomplished, but I think that is how it works.
Yes, perhaps. It makes sense. I think maritime law may have something to do with it, but really locking it down with explicit statements of law has proven difficult.
As far as I can find, no one who says this has actually proven it with the actual laws themselves. It's always just statements that make sense, but such statements only look "crazy" unless they are backed by explicit statements of law. Because of this, I think the people who say this may themselves be disinformation agents. That doesn't make it not true. Disinformation agents often give the truth (See Alex Jones). But without the actual explicit documents to prove it, it is not useful info, and in fact tends to do more harm than good in any larger discourse.
I often hear about this, but unless you can show me a real lawyer that endorses this, I'm not convinced.
Interesting thoughts. However, when you sign on behalf of a corporation, or entity other than yourself, you include your title so as to designate you are acting on behalf of the entity. For example, you would include president, treasurer, director, member, manager, etc.
If you sign just your name, that means you and not an entity.
Since none of us know if some other entity exists to represent us, it would be a clear violation of contract law and any of these contracts would be non-binding.
You can't be a party to a contract if you never legally agreed to be a party to a contract.
If that wasn't the case, I could sign anyone's name on a loan and make them pay it for me. While that might be nice, it's not going to happen. 😉
Yeah, only the government can do that. They borrow, we pay. Seems legit. /s
It may be a "violation of contract law," but then again it may not be. The law is so convoluted, figuring out exactly how all of these frauds are accomplished is incredibly difficult. I've spent a fair bit of time trying to dig through the various legal codes to figure out exactly how this all works, but have been so far unable to do so.
Regardless of how it works however, no matter how it is accomplished is really irrelevant. Our entire system of law, and even concepts of "law" are a fraud.
A "law" is a "creation of reality." Any system (which includes every form of our "legal system") that allows for the violation of the basic principles of Sovereignty of the individual can make anything "legal." Once legal, all "proper lawful citizens" will "follow the law" (AKA pattern their behavior after the reality that was created by "the law").
Just because the idea of "law" is a fraud, that doesn't mean there can't be something akin to "rules" within society (the code is more what you would call "guidelines" than actual rules), but any rule that doesn't respect the Sovereignty (ultimate authority) of the individual is automatically fraudulent, no matter who creates it.
The entire concept of a "ruling body" is thus also a fraud. No body (Sovereign or legal fiction acting as Sovereign) can rule another Sovereign. A Sovereign (ultimate authority) can only act as if they are under someone else's rule. A ruling body coerces that act through jurisdictional fraud. The ruling body claims (through "law") that they have jurisdiction over you (but you are the ultimate authority of you). Through this claim you comply, because you believe them. In other words, this fraud is perpetrated through the creation of a false belief. These false beliefs are created through "law".
Law is nothing but the creation of a false reality, designed specifically to give one Sovereign jurisdiction over another Sovereign, which is impossible, thus an Illusion, thus fraudulent.
I don't know what you mean here, but you (the Natural Person that is you) are absolutely an entity according to the law. If you just sign your name, you are representing the Natural Person that is you. A Natural Person, according to law, is more of an entity (has more rights) than any legal entity (AKA Corporation).
Seems on point to me. All connected to legal name fraud. Birth certificate fraud. Accepting the corporate entity as yourself verbally and/or in writing.
That amendment was NEVER properly or lawfully ratified. It is as fraudulent as the last handful of elections.
Income tax and IRS are unconstitutional and always will be.
It was forcefully ratified.
And man this is a good thread!!! Lots of good info in here!!!
u/#pepeguitar