I decided to create a new thread on this topic, so it would not get buried in the other thread.
First off, it is blatantly false that the income tax was created to pay for World War 1.
The tax was passed in 1913. The war did not start until 1914, and the US did not get involved until 1917.
So, there is no evidence that it was created to pay for the war.
But it WAS passed in 1913, and just before the Federal Reserve Act, which was passed in the dead of night two days before Christmas.
Regarding the income tax, I decided to go to the ONLY official source of the original statute.
This is found at the Statutes at Large. The SAL are the chronological documentation of ALL bills passed by Congress, starting with the first one by the First Congress, and going through to the most recent one (that has been published -- they are behind a little of the SAL publications).
This is the ONLY official source for ANY statute passed by Congress.
Here is the SAL publication for the 63rd Congress in 1913:
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/llsl//llsl-c63/llsl-c63.pdf
Now, regarding the income tax ... this is REALLY WEIRD:
It looks to me like there was never an official "Income Tax" passed by Congress.
Instead, it was a GENERAL tax, which covered hundreds of things to be taxed, and then the income tax was inserted WAY, WAY, WAY down and buried inside all the legalese of these other taxes.
Starting on page 114, you see under "Chapter 16," the words of introduction to this piece of legislation:
An Act To reduce tariff duties and to provide revenue for the Government and for other purposes
Notice: It does not say an act to impose an income tax. The purpose was to reduce tariff duties and provide revenue.
The next paragraph says:
... there shall be levied, collectd, and paid upon all articles when imported from any foreign country when imported into the United States or into any of its possessions the rates of duty which are by [the following rules].
Notice: There were certain ARTICLES (i.e. types of actions for which a tax would be levied), AND ... ONLY ... for IMPORTING something into the US or its possessions (territories).
This is CRUCIAL, because the federal government does NOT have ANY authority to pass GENERAL LEGISLATION WITHIN THE STATES, except for those items specifically enumerated in the Constitution. One of those enumerated powers if FOREIGN COMMERCE.
When YOU go to work at the office or factory, YOU are NOT engaging in foreign commerce. Only the companies and individuals who BRING FOREIGN GOODS INTO THE USA are engaged in foreign commerce.
So ... this was constitutional, as it was originally written (but NOT as it is currently implemented).
Next, it goes on to list HUNDREDS of "items" that would be subject to this new tax "to REDUCE tariffs and to provide revenue."
A few of these are taxes on:
(1) Boracic acid, citric acid, formic acid, and other acids.
(2) Acetic anhydrid.
(3) Acetone
(4) Dried egg albumin
(7) Ammonia
(10) Barium chloride
(12) Bleaching powder
(13) Caffein
(15) Chalk
(41) Lime citrate
(43) Menthol
(44) Oils of various types
(47) Opium
(68) Sponges
(69) Talcum
(84) Glass bottles
(93) Opera and field glasses
(106) Iron or steel anchors
(119) Automobiles, valued at $2,000 or more
(129) Sword blades, and swords and side arms
(136) Fish hooks, fishing rods and reels
(201) Pickles
(202) Cider
(213) Straw
(217) Apples and other fruits
(237) Brandy and other spirits
(243) Champagne
(300) Carpets
(305) Hair of the Angoran goat
(311) Silk
(351) Human hair
(354) Hats, bonnets, or hoods
(402) Arrowroot in its natural state
(403) Arsenic
(424) Books, engravings, photographs
(477) Drugs, such as barks, beans, berries, buds, bulbs ... [interesting that these were "drugs" back in 1913]
(500) Gum
(501) Gunpowder
(503) Hair of horse, cattle, and other animals
(602) Skeletons
(605) Soda
(614) Stone and sand
In all, there are a list of 657 items that would be considered "articles" for which a tax would be levied ... IF (and only if) ... they were IMPORTED INTO THE US OR FEDERAL TERRITORY ... because Congress had the constitutional authority to regulate FOREIGN COMMERCE.
Now, I will break it down even further, but keep in mind THESE IMPORTANT POINTS:
-
The way the statute was structured was that "Section I" would be a list of all these items that would be "articles" that could be taxed by this new legislation. (The words "Section I" is not there, but the next sections (Sections II, III, and IV) are, and that is very important. So, keep in mind how this statute was structured.
-
ALL of these items/articles are for FOREIGN COMMERCE by way of IMPORT under the foriegn commerce clause of the Constitution ... OR (also VERY important) ... for anything that has to do with these items/articles WITHIN THE FEDERAL TERRITORIES (Washington DC, Puerto Rico, Guam, etc.). ... but NOT the States.
-
The US federal government has TWO constitutional authorities: (1) the subjects that are ENUMERATED in the Constitution, and these apply within the States, such as post offices and foreign commerce, and (2) EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION over everything that goes on WITHIN the federal territories (Washingon DC is treated like a State, in that the Congress is like the State legislature for that and the other federal territories).
Again, this all starts on page 114 of the 63rd Congress for 1913:
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/llsl//llsl-c63/llsl-c63.pdf
NOW ...
At page 166, under "Section II," we have the "Income Tax," although it is NOT OFFICIALLY called that (there is merely a footnote in the margin).
Under Subdivsion 1:
That there shall be levied, assessed, levied and paid annually upon the entire net income ...
This is where they stuck in the "income tax" in the middle of a foreign commerce tax bill. Very sneaky and underhanded -- to say the least.
It then goes on to Section III, which once again goes back to amend a previous law about foreign commerce.
Section IV continues with the foreign commerce authority.
This was a MASSIVE piece of legislation, passed October 3, 1913.
I am not going to read through the entire thing, looking for the "this is only temporary" clause. I doubt it is there because, again, this was a MASSIVE piece of legislation.
I doubt more than a few members of Congress had any real idea what they were voting on.
It was the setup for the Federal Reserve Act, which was passed December 23, 1913.
There is ZERO chance that it was meant to be temporary, though I would not be suprised if the people behind the scenes who pushed both laws were planning on also pushing World War 1 on the Europeans, but the members of Congress probably had no clue (most of them), if that was the case.
Now ... let's dig further.
This legislation was all about taxes on (a) foreign commerce and (b) activities connected to the federal territories (such as Washington, DC).
Who was considered liable for the income tax?
Page 166, A. Subdivision 1:
... every citizen of the United States, whether residing at home or abroad, and to every person residing in the United States, though not a citizen thereof ...
Now, are YOU a "citizen of the United States?"
Let's set aside what that definition means in legal terms. If YOU state, and sign under penalty the truth of the statement, that YOU ARE a "citizen of the United States," then this law APPLIES TO YOU.
Abracadabra ... YOU have volunteered that YOU are one of these people subject to the tax.
This is WHY the US federal government constantly TRICKS you into claiming that you are a "citizen of the United States," because that pushes you into this box.
Checkmate.
Sort of.
That is WHO. But what about the WHAT?
WHAT exactly is taxed?
... a tax ... upon the entire net income from all property owned and of every business, trade, or profession carried on in the United States by persons residing elsewhere.
That was the original language, that is more or less similar to today's language, which we will explore, but first, let's talk about the US Supreme Court case that declared this statute as constitutional.
That was Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad (1916).
Frank Brushaber was a citizen of New York. He owned stock in Union Pacific Railroad, which was a FEDERAL CORPORATION, created by Congress to build the railroads.
He received a dividend, which is covered on page 167:
B. ... dividends ...
So, Frank challenged the income tax on his dividends, but SCOTUS ruled that he had to pay. The real reason for this is that the company paying the dividend was a federal corporation, and receiving a dividend from a federal corporation was a PRIVILEGE and not a right. Therefore, since the Congress created the corporation, it could tax the dividends paid.
But this has morphed into Congress taxing dividends from ALL (non-federal) corporations. BUT ... they have done so by subterfuge, not by honest legal means.
Let's go to the current "Income Tax Code" found at 26 USC, and look under Subtitle F, Chapter 79, "Definitions."
The original act said that an income tax would be imposed on NET income of every "citizen of the United States," and to every "business, trade, or profession" of non-citizens.
But what are these definitions?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7701
(a)(30) United States Person:
(A) a citizen or resident of the United States
What is the definition of "United States?"
(a)(9) The term “United States” when used in a geographical sense includes only the States and the District of Columbia.
What is a "State?"
(a)(10) The term “State” shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.
So ... this whole thing is ONLY for the things that the federal government has CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY for: (a) foreign commerce and (b) exclusive legislation for FEDERAL TERRITORIES, and NOT that 50 States. They had to RE-DEFINE the word "State" to mean something OTHER THAN the 50 geographical States, in order to stay within the constitutional confines of the Constitution.
What is the definition of "Trade or Business?"
(a)(26) The term “trade or business” includes the performance of the functions of a public office.
AGAIN ... staying within the CONFINES OF THE CONSTITUTION.
The way the law is WRITTEN is constitutional. BUT ... it is not promoted the way it is written.
What is the definition of "employee?"
There is only a specialized definition in Subtitle F, and that only applies to something specific that does not apply to most people:
(a)(20) ... For the purpose of applying the provisions of section 79 with respect to group-term life insurance purchased for employees, for the purpose of applying the provisions of sections 104, 105, and 106 with respect to accident and health insurance or accident and health plans, and for the purpose of applying the provisions of subtitle A with respect to contributions to or under a stock bonus, pension, profit-sharing, or annuity plan, and with respect to distributions under such a plan, or by a trust forming part of such a plan, and for purposes of applying section 125 with respect to cafeteria plans, the term “employee” shall include a full-time life insurance salesman who is considered an employee for the purpose of chapter 21.
That is the only definition of "employee" found in Subtitle F.
But ... the definitions in Subtitle F apply to ALL of Title 26 ... UNLESS ... a different definition is found elsewhere that applies more specifically to a particular section of Title 26.
So, let's look at Subtitle C, "Employment Taxes" --
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/subtitle-C
Notice: There are are 6 chapters within Subtitle C.
The employment taxes are collected by the employer, right?
Chapter 24 -- Collection of Income Tax at Sourse on Wages, Section 3401 ("Definitions"):
What is "Employee?"
(c) Employee. For purposes of this chapter, the term “employee” includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term “employee” also includes an officer of a corporation.
So, elected officials of the United States or "a State" (which means Washington DC and federal territories, based on general definitions, and constitutional prohibition from the federal government taxing the States, other than via apportionment), any AGENCY OR INSTRUMENTALITY of Washington, DC, such as Union Pacific Railorad, or Fannie Mae (Federal National Mortgage Association), a corporation created by Congress for buying mortgages, or an officer of such a corporation.
What you will find about the income tax is that it was originally passed as part of a tax bill for foreign commerce and taxes related to the operations of the federal territories, and the modern day definitions still agree with this concept ... BUT ... it has since been fraudulently promoted and unconstitutionally applied and enforced by the Internal Revenue Service, which is NOT a federal agency and its agents are NOT federal employees.
It is a clever con game.
Do I file tax returns? Yes, because I understand the game and I know where to find the "hidden" aspects that are often only found in the federal regulations and only hinted at in the actual statute or code.
But we would all be better off if we just got rid of it, along with the privately owned (and more important: privately controlled) central bank, which has never had a meaningful public audit of what it REALLY does with all of its fake money creation.
High quality, high effort dig Anon! Well done!
Stickied!
Thanks to all.
I will try to answer a few questions I see in this thread.
If anyone has any other questions, I will try to answer today or tomorrow.
AND COPIED....AND SAVED...
OUTSTANDING research and effort for doing this...
Thank you!!
quite the dig there fern..thanks....still makes me wanna puke
This was a tremendous amount of work especially if you are not formerly trained (i.e. law school) to read dense legal documents. In addition, the tracing of the lineage of a document to its predecessor is a real difficult task! Major hat tip to MAG768720!
It is also interesting to see what the scumbags have done by deceiving the public with a "small" income tax.
1862-1872:
Tax rate starts at 3%, goes to a high of 10%, and back down again.
1872-1912:
0% (no income tax at all, except for a 2% tax in 1894, which doesn't count because it was ruled unconstitutional.
*NOTE: The USA became the MOST PROSPEROUS ECONOMY IN WORLD HISTORY during this time of ZERO INCOME TAXES AND NO CENTRAL BANK.
1913-1915:
Tax brackets 1%-7%.
Not so bad, eh?
1916:
2%-16% (gearing up for war)
1917:
2%-67%
WAR! WAR! WAR!
The "small income tax" is now a monster, out of control.
War is what the constitutional provision of APPORTIONMENT is for.
There is NEVER a need for an income tax, not even during wartime.
1918:
Top bracket goes to 77%.
1919-1921:
Top bracket at 73%.
1922-1923:
President Harding (who the mainstream "economists" universally hate,) started pushing for less government and lower taxes.
Top brakets 58%, then 46%.
1924-1931:
Top bracket 25%.
BOOM! The Roaring 20's begins!
This followed a depression in 1920-21, in which Harding refused high government spending. Many statistics indicate the economy was worse than the Great Depression, but it only lasted less than 2 years because there was an adult in the White House, and not a communist child.
Stock market started taking off in 1924, when talk of lower taxes and regulations were in the air.
https://www.macrotrends.net/1319/dow-jones-100-year-historical-chart
1932-1935:
Top bracket of 63%.
There's a new sheriff in town, his name is FDR, and he wants to steal not only your gold, but all your money.
Enter: The beginning of the Great Depression.
1936-1940:
Oh, you liked 63% as your top bracket AND an 8-year long Great Depression to boot? Let's try 79% top tax bracket!
1941:
Top bracket of 81%.
WAR!
1942-1943:
Top bracket of 88%.
Moar WAR!
1944-1945:
Top bracket 94%.
Moar moar moar!!! WAR WAR WAR!!!
1946-1963:
Top bracket of 91%, with a bonus o 92% in 1952-53.
I guess the buck stopped on Harry's desk because he wanted all that money for himself.
And ... I don't like Ike.
And ... JFK talked a good game, but came up empty on this one.
It was actually "Guns AND Butter, welfare state, AND massive immigration" Lyndon Johnson who got the tax rates down from absolute armed robbery to merely screw you if you don't like it levels.
1964:
Top bracket 77%.
1965-1981:
Top bracket: 70%.
1982-1986:
Top bracket of 50%.
President Reagan resets the tax tables.
1987:
Top bracket of 38.5%.
Resets again -- never mind that they ALSO took away almost all "tax shelters" that allowed rich people to not usually pay those super high tax rates.
This created a massive real estate crash, starting in 1989.
1988-1990:
Top bracket 28%.
Completing Reagan's reset, and the beginning of the crash.
1991-1992:
Top bracket 31%.
George H. W. Bush (aka Criminal Bush) said, "Read my lips: no new taxes."
Cool, except that his lips were lying. That was almost always the case whenever his lips were moving.
1993-2000:
Top bracket 39.6%.
The Clintons have always loved HIGHER taxes, not lower.
2001:
Top bracket 39.1%.
Whoo hoo! Yay, Georgie, Jr. A massive drop of 0.5% in the top bracket!
Compassionate conservative! (aka Fake Conservative)
2002:
Top bracket 38.6%.
Wow! ANOTHER 0.5% absoute SMASHING DOWN of those tax rates!
2003-2012:
Top bracket 35%.
2013-2017:
Top bracket 39.6%.
Obama said, "Not so fast! We got some fundamental changin' to do here!"
2018-2021:
Top bracket 37%.
So much for Trump's "great tax cuts," huh?
But on the corporate side ... not really.
BIG corporations dropped from 34% to 21% ... BUT had some tax breaks eliminated.
SMALL corporations (mom and pop) went UP from 15% to 21%.
Don't worship the dude.
IF he and Q team get this corruption flattened, and all the other hopium comes to pass, THEN you can lick his boots.
But not until he PROVES it with his PAST actions (yet to be determined).
2022-2024:
Top bracket 37%.
FJB, regardless.
https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/historical-income-tax-rates-brackets/
Trump's cuts were much bigger for the middle class, which he heavily emphasized. You should include those numbers :)
Thanks fren. I had recalled 90% 1918, but this may be a conflation of 77% 1918 and 94% 1944-45, so now I can be more accurate. The point is that the PTB (powers that be) get to tweak the numbers as they see fit and it ain't for the little folks' sakes.
Thank You for the hard work...........I usually just say you can't win a rigged GAME.
You just have to not play it the way they would prefer. Or BETTER eliminate it , MAGA.
If they auto taxed 0.1% of every transaction there would be no need for any of this bs.
Refreshing. Not a regurgitated news article or twitter post. Thanks fren, well done.
Well I'm dealing with a nasty civil case (divorce) and I can say that I see no option but to overhaul the entire system when the plan comes to fruition. It's not speedy, humans make many errors and assumptions, it's definitely not reasonable or fair, and all in all it seems only to exist to make what would be peaceful as difficult and troublesome as possible which then impacts children and family's forever.
I have said for years if the plan does not completely overhaul and abolish the fed and all the other taxes I will genuinely question it because we are all wage slaves with no ability to be autonomous until we are able to control our money.
Also the more I learn the more I realize idk if any law is written objectively without hidden intentions. The legal world is full of manipulation. It's like that Clinton hearing where he said define the word "is"
We're not just wage slaves, we're also property slaves. If you add in local, school and county property taxes, the average joe homeowner pays well over 50% of his/her gross income in just taxes. They've got you by the fuzzy round things for sure and the vise will certainly be tightening if FJB wins a fraudulent 2nd term.
Well laid out, thank you for the effort.
Wow such a great analysis!! Well done Anon!
To those of you who have read all the way through all of this, I have repeatedly told people here, on GAW, and also on Patriots aka The Donald, that ALL of this shit comes directly from the Massive Changes that Congress made to the BODY of the U.S. Constitution....
Ponder that, Congress Changed the Key Elements in the BODY of the Constitution, and they used the 14th Amendment to do just that....
It's quite Nefarious, and you literally have to gain an actual solid grasp on certain parts of the English Language, both Daily Speak English, and Legal Speak English, to read the changes they made, and to comprehend WTF they are saying in these Changes....
We are ALL considered to be Born as Foreigners to our States, Born INSIDE of Congress Hall, and not at all State Citizens, literally OWNED as Chattel Property by the U.S. Congress, mainly for Taxation, Financial Insurance Investments, and Cannon Fodder....
Yes, Tax Cattle, Insured by the U.S. Govt., so that when one of us dies, they get a Payout, and to go and Fight needless Wars so that Members of congress AND the Federal Banking Reserve Corporation, can make themselves Rich off our lives....
They claim that WE are Traitors to our States, and with that claim, stemming directly from Lincolns War, they believe it gives them the Rights to treat us as Traitors, and Enslave us all, directly under their 13th Amendment....
Just to add to this, there IS an escape route codified in law, but it's not taught for reasons that are obvious when you understand they do not want people to escape. The Matrix is built to deter people from finding this info or putting it to use, but if you look there is a long path of people figuring it out through trial and error, arguing in court, going to prison, etc.
The key is always understanding that we were created by God and not the government. The government can only tax that which it created. They did not create the man or woman, but they did create the name on the birth certificate - the name that is on your bank accounts and social security card and everything else attached to that federal ID number. That is what gets taxed. Your UPPERCASE NAME is a separate legal entity than your flesh body. One is real and one is a fiction. They make you believe they are one in the same and that's how the mind control works.
There's a difference between "you" and your "person". "Person" includes corporations which are fictional entities. Fictional entities are dead and cannot speak for themselves so they must speak through an attorney. Attorneys are certified by private bar associations, which is why they can only say certain things and none of them usually involve your best interest as a defendant.
You have to learn to speak for yourself and be the living man or woman otherwise you will always have attorneys speaking for you and keeping you trapped in the system.
Yup, ALL of that comes directly from the 14th Amendment, absolutely ALL of it....
It turns People into Corporations by Default and Word Magic....
The Actual Real Solution is in 15 Stats, but it's a heavy search to find it....
The Easy way, is to look through the Book that is either the full Index or the Full Table of Contents in order to find the One Asterisk *, it indicates that Past that point in 15 Stats at Large, the LAWS are no longer Positive Law....
It was made Before the 14th Amendment, on purpose, in order to leave for themselves(Congress and Monied Elites), a way OUT of the Trap of the 14th Amendment....
Funny thing is that Expats have used it very effectively, but stupidly, and with throwing away their Federation 14th Amend. U.S. Citizenship, by their own Wording and Actions, have also thrown away their Article 4 Section 2 STATE Citizenship....
No no, don't DO that, instead Pull your Lands out of the Commercial Realm, and revamp them under the Land Grants or Land Patents which are Lawfully Protected from Taxation and Invasion....
The U.S. Marshals are the ones who have been given the Task of Punishing anyone that Trespasses upon those Lands, IF they survive being shot by the Owner....
It all sounds very Intricate, but upon studying all of this, Plus the Right to Travel, not Drive, But Travel without Encumbrances like Drivers License, Insurance etc., it paints a Mirror Picture of how life is supposed to be, and should be....
The difference between Traveling and Driving, is easy, too easy for most people to comprehend....
Traveling is just going from Home to Church, School, Club, Cruising, and Joy Riding, on PERSONAL Terms and Conditions....
Driving is an Occupation, a Job, Employment, by some form of Contract, for Pay, or Remunerated, for an Exchange or for Money....
ALL of the Laws we need in order to Defend ourselves are in place, and Killery tried to call Trump out on them, and he turned the tables on her, if you'll recall her comment about the 14th Amendment....
Because it was written by a Corporation for a Corporation as bylaws. Not for a Republic and it's people , their Government collapsed for lack of quorum in 1861. After their Congress was tricked/bribed into memory holing the Original 13th amendment.
AHA!!!
So you know about TONA....
I suspected as much, Thaks Fren....
they hid OUR Law that would set them on their butts, and threw in their law to set is into their Prisons....
They have been fighting against the idea (America) of FREEDOM from the beginning. " WE MUST HANG TOGETHER OR SURELY WE SHALL HANG SEPARATELY"
What’s TONA?
Titles of Nobility Amendment....
The Original 13th Amendment approved by the States and Congress between 1812 and 1819, that the British tried to undermine with their attacks on the U.S. between 1811 and 1815, or thereabouts....
It's a Valid Amendment, although many ""Scholars"" deny it wrongly....
It was proposed to a small group, after which, many other states were added, and that's where the mess starts, they claim that it should have been approved by the Additional States also, I say nope, just the ones that were States when it was proposed....
Titles of Nobility Amendment.
AKA: The Original 13th Amendment
The story goes (and there was a very prominent US senator who investigated this and claims he verified it) ...
Sometime around 1810, Congress passed a 13th Amendment (there were 12 at the time, as this was long before the "civil war"). There is no doubt they passed it; the only question is whether or not it was properly ratified.
It said:
This amendment started appearing in copies of the Constitution in law books in the 1820's or so. But then it started disappearing in the 1840's.
The War of 1812 is said to have destroyed a lot of documents, including original records of this.
Very suspect.
But nobody can really prove it.
Some people claim this amendment means that attorneys, being members of the BAR (British Accreditation Registry) would be stripped of US citizenship, as well as other presidents and members of Congress.
Of course, it says "without the consent of Congress," so you know that is a HUGE loophole, so it is an interesting factoid of history, but doesn't mean much -- other than possibly some pricks changed the Constitution without our consent.
Ah. Yeah, familiar with that, just haven’t heard it called such before, and didn’t know all those details.
That reminds me, speaking of the 1812 fire and these damned arsonists.. I heard of another “coincidental” fire the other day. Where was it…? We should have a list of them somewhere - “coincidental” fires, explosions, and deaths.
When MAGA is victorious, we will not be a corporation—we will be a bonafide Republic. We will be FREE!
THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS
It makes sense to read it, but learning to speak it and understand it and not mess up are whole other things.
You and u/Space_Monkey are on important philosophical tracks but they do not have the power you think. Of course the spiritual enemy wants to treat us as property and wants to claim nexus over us, but their claims are not valid and we do not consent to them. We are still the sovereigns who created the states that created the fed, and we will still act like it. We do not yield to others the right to write our God-given names in uppercase or the right to contract with any of the several states for citizenship. When we do yield those rights we look silly and people are directed away from the necessary truths of who they are in God and then how God wants them to handle their property in a social system easily manipulated by the godless.
Well in the, not Spiritually, but Worldly, grand scheme of things, we must play the Only Game in town, that is Survive....
It has Subsections, like Wife, Children, Friends, Extended Family, Community....
Each one of these is a Form of Contract, aka Agreement....
And even, or maybe especially, in a Theocratical Society, these ties bind a bit more than they do otherwise....
Either way, One is either Stateless, or holds a Citizenship....
If you'll take for Note, in Law, STATELESS, means Nationless, this is primary proof that each State, is a Sovereign Nation unto itself....
WE, are not Sovereigns, especially if we must live in a Community with others of Equal Status, hence we can both be, and hold separate Nationalities, such as a Virginian, a Citizen of Virginia, or a Menonite, or possibly a Utah Mormonite....
All are Protected Class, First Rate Citizens, the difference between the Virginian and the others is that he, the Virginian is Protected by Common Law Contractual Agreement via his State[NATION] Govt, and the Menonite is protected, wherher the Catholic Church like it or not, under Catholic Canon, and the Utah Mormons under their Religious Canon, but ALL Three are seen by the Federal Government as Article 4, Section 2, State Citizens, untouchable by Federal Government, and even State Government is questionable, which leaves only the County Sheriff to uphold Laws, even within the Theocracies if asked....
The problem we come to again, the 14th Communist Amendment....
Yes, we have been under Secret attack for a very long time, quite Nefarious, very evil....
I have citizenship in the kingdom of heaven, and in one of the several states, and in the federal government when it's convenient for me to use. We usually don't have need to throw out state citizenship, so how much more should we guard our heavenly citizenship.
I have sovereignty by coregency with Jesus Christ, and so do a lot of people. Being a coregent does not conflict with any other arrangement because, any disagreement between Jesus and myself, we settle internally (hint: he's always right). For that reason my sovereignty doesn't conflict with anyone else's sovereignty in Christ. If your sovereignty is in Joseph Smith, or Menno Simons apart from Christ, why then it's possible our sovereignties might conflict just like kings do on occasion; but we sovereigns are pretty good at being diplomatic and not coming to blows about it.
The 14th is then just a stray ambiguity interpreted wrongly by our servants' servants and of no injury to our sovereign selves. If someone under color of law pretends to misapply it to us, we simply invoke our sovereignties and citizenships by determining what Jesus wants of the situation and how to use the gifts he has given. (Sometimes, as with Peter, he even tells us to pay a tax so as not to offend!)
Citizenship in Heaven, under Gods Rules is one thing, and rarely has it been a Protection from Mans Laws on Earth....
On the other hand, God Made Nature, and we have effectively Codified Natures Laws and Natural Law, into Laws for Nations, hence DeVattels The Law of Nations, I highly recommend reading it, the entire thing, beginning at the following link, it's a PDF, just for a heads up::
https://files.libertyfund.org/files/2246/Vattel_1519_LFeBk.pdf#%5B%7B%22num%22%3A308%2C%22gen%22%3A0%7D%2C%7B%22name%22%3A%22Fit%22%7D%5D
The best part about this is that the Federation, and the Nations within it, must both abide by it or risk violation of Article I, Section 8, Clause 10:
[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;....
As for the Rightful rendering of Respect, in my understanding we are as Knights, we have our Sovereigns, whose names are not necessary for this convo, and yes I do very much so realize I sound quite Secular, but I enjoy splitting hairs for the purpose of separating the various things of pertinence into their own classes, not that I am Atheist or anything of the sort, quite the opposite....
I see no logical reason to commingle Religion Canon with Secular Law, the Catholics have been doing that forever, and it's just a mess, and so have many other so called ""religions"", all in the futile effort to gain the upper hand, bad strategy, low IQ Effort, like attacking a Fortress from the heaviest guarded side, with just a handful of Warriors....
And once again, as for the 14th, it is written ambiguously on purpose, by if I recall, an Insurance Company Lawyer, with the Direct Purpose of misdirecting those who may read it, and not know how to remove the irrelevant parts found elsewhere in other parts of the Constitution or other Amendments that it either Repeats or Directly violates....
Just for Section 2, Sentence 2, one must know the Amendments, and how to do a Proper Diagram of a Run on Sentence, just to remove the things covered by other Amend., and to correctly put the sentence together when done, and the hidden message is nothing short of a False Accusation, on top of another, on top of Treason....
Air is considered a fluid so we're all sea faring creatures in this sea!
Joking aside, how do we band together and fight this assault they've implemented against all of us and get it undone?
That's a very good question, and one which I, sadly, really don't have an answer to....
The only thing I can say is that we probably should just stop playing their game, in whatever way we can, if that's even possible....
I agree with you and you seem much more knowledgeable than me on this subject. I was describing mainly what I have derived from studying and putting various pieces together and that's how I think of it all the time.
I learned about it because I was being charged with DUI where nothing happened but the cop followed me and friends after leaving a bar and said he saw me drive over the center yellow line, pulled me over, and I refused to give a breath sample on my 5th Amendment right. I felt it was an ambush setup and I didn't trust that the breathalyzer was going to be accurate so I simply refused to blow and they arrested me for it.
The statute in that state said that refusal to blow can be used as evidence and probable cause for an arrest, but only if the person has prior DUIs, which I didn't. I talked to several attorneys who all told me to take a plea deal. I decided to go pro se and went to the first court hearing on my own even though I didn't really know what I was doing. The judge said they would set the case for trial and then a couple weeks later I got a notice in the mail from the prosecutor saying the case was dismissed.
You should grab a few of the older online Legal Dictionaries, and look up, and Compile the Various Definitions of Pro Se, Pro Per, and Sui Juris....
Once you have them all Compiled for cross reference, you'll see something interesting.....
Older Dictionaries are better, and stay away from the Blacks after 4th Edition, that's when they started to FA with the Definitions....
Don't be cryptic.
Just tell us what you found.
Most of us are not going to do that, especially if you keep it a secret.
What did you find out about "pro se" vs. "pro per" vs. "Sui Juris?"
I have heard people say that "pro per" is better than "pro se."
BUT ... I have also heard other people, whose opinion I respect more, say it doesn't matter.
If it doesn't matter, my position is that it is better to speak in a language that the judges and attorneys will understand and respect, if at all possible.
More flies with honey than vinegar type of thing.
Lawyers are not a necessary occupation, and at most we should only use them as Council, to advise on what we should be saying in Court, and not allow them to speak for us....
And that is why I tell people to DO the Research, and do not just give straight direct answers, especially with todays access to all of the info and data we have....
Although it all sounds like it's just the same, it isn't::
Pro se legal representation comes from Latin pro se, meaning "for oneself" or "on behalf of themselves" which, in modern law, means to argue on one's own behalf in a legal proceeding, as a defendant or plaintiff in civil cases, or a defendant in criminal cases, rather than have representation from counsel or an attorney.
Pro per is a Latin abbreviation for "in propria persona", meaning "in their own person". It refers to a situation where a litigant represents themselves, without a lawyer.
^^^Persons^^^, not necessarily People, and aligns with the 14th Amendment, or at least that is how I read it....
Sui juris is a Latin phrase meaning "of one's own right" or "having full legal rights or capacity". It is used in law to describe a person or entity that is not subject to the authority of another.
Sui Juris is Different, and counters the 14th Amendment claims, but all of this takes Research, and it's more than I can simply put here, so please go and DO the Research so you gain the knowledge, as I cannot advise anything more than Do the Research....
OK, I don't disagree with any of that, but it seems like you are saying "pro se" and "pro per" are basically the same thing, which I agree with.
I have heard others say there is some sort of legal distinction between them that matters, but I am skeptical about that claim.
It's the Difference between ""RE-presenting"", and being Present....
In Pro Se and Pro Per, one is RE....
In Sui Juris, one must clearly state that one is Present, and not RE-present....
Yes, law is just that weird, it splits hairs, a lot....
Good for you!
MOST attorneys don't do SHIT for most people. They just want the money.
I spoke with an attorney at a bar once. He said he had a DUI case where the guy he was representing was charged with his 6th DUI.
The attorney and prosecutor had a conversation. The prosecutor offered a deal. The attorney said, "That is a good deal, and we will take it. But stretch it out for awhile. I need to justify my $15,000 fee."
That's how those cockroaches are.
Oh, I am sure there are a few good ones. FEW being the key word.
My own experience is similar. It was a speeding ticket, not DUI. I made lots of mistakes, but I hit them with something they didn't know how to handle.
The ticket would have been $150, but if I went to trial, it could have been as high as $300.
I told the prosecutor before talking with the judge that I was not going to agree to a plea for a lower fee.
She offered this and that, and eventually offered me to pay $20 and it would go away. I said, "NO."
LOL.. Shows how serious they really were if they would let it go for 20 bucks.
She asked (incredulously), "Why?"
I said because I was going to challenge subject matter jurisdiction.
SMJ requires a proper charging document, which I knew they didn't have (but I didn't tell her that).
When I finally spoke to the judge (traffic court, which is not a REAL court, but merely an administrative hearing disguised as a court), the first thing she said was, "I understand that you want to challenge subject matter jurisdiction. What do you mean?"
Well, I KNEW I HAD HER at that moment. Obviously, since I did not tell the judge this, I knew that the judge and prosecutor talked about my case between themselves WITHOUT ME PRESENT (they have zero respect for anyone who is not "represented by a licensed attorney").
This action on their part was an "ex parte hearing," which is a VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS.
If a court (judge) violates due process, the judges LOSES JURISDICTION and must dismiss the case!
But I didn't say anything about that. Just kept my mouth shut other than to say, "Yes, I am challenging subject matter jurisdiction."
At this point, the judge is REQUIRED to have MY ADVERSARY PROVE that the court had jurisdiction. But that never happened.
They ALWAYS cut corners, because that is how they "do business" everyday. This is why they don't like people like you and me holding them to the LAW. They have no respect for the law. They only virtue signal that they do.
Anyway ... the judge turned into a RAGING BITCH and refused to let me say anything, and set a date for trial.
Fine. I'm cool with that, because I was ready.
On the day of the trial, I show up. And I am told that the "prosecutor is not here today." Not the cop, but the PROSECUTOR.
As if. That is their ONLY job, to show up and prosecute traffic tickets so the city/state can ring the cash register.
Anyway, no prosecutor, no trial. Case dismissed.
Cost: $0.
Value of experience: Priceless.
Congratulations! That's how to fight the system, the worst that can happen is you get dinged by the state and you accept it because you dug in over a matter of conscience. The system protects itself, encourages everyone to behave its preferred way (i.e. against self-interest), and obfuscates its Nietzsche-described lack of teeth by pretense and quiet avoidance.
I read the entire thing and appreciate the work you put into it. Thanks anon.
Great read, thank you!
Qpost:“Banks control Gov'ts, Gov'ts control people”; “ROTHSCHILD OWNED & CONTROLLED BANKS: The FED and the IRS”🤬😤😡, see comments
https://greatawakening.win/p/17shvo09sv/
Yeah, the way we understand things now, it's pretty clear that the Fed and the personal income tax paved the way for collateralization that could be used as US war entry once the Lusitania hit. Evidence, Wilson had spent 4 years getting the PIT ready since passing the corporate income tax of 1909, prep that included the 16th amendment and having the Supremes vet the corporate version; plus the 1% initial tax was adjusted to 90% during WWI (about 1918 IIRC), so they knew they would be able to do it.
Your reference to SAL is correct. Income tax is still regarded as validly passed. Note that because they didn't want anyone to test, or know, whether they meant a direct or indirect tax, they deliberately made all such taxes have a 2-year expiration just in case they were ruled "direct". Every year or two another such bill passed until they were clear they could perpetuate them as "indirect", which was more like 30s or 40s. The same thing happened with the personal income tax of 1862-1872 started by Lincoln, which ended only because of nonsupport.
Correct.
Mostly correct. If you affirm you are, it's not so much that it "applies to you", it's that they have legal justification for inferring it applies to you even if it doesn't. But there are several traps here and that's just one, and sometimes in some definitions you really are a citizen of the US, so you're right to demur on the question of what you really are.
Careful readers will note that you then switched from the SAL to the US Code, but that's okay in this case because the slight differences are not significant (sometimes they are).
So you are correct that 26 USC 7701(a) subsections (9), (10), (26), (30) lay out definitions that each refer only to items within federal jurisdiction and not to occupations of personal right, such as work for pay, which has always been protected as pursuit of happiness by the Declaration and as a property right by the 14th Amendment.
When there are enough indications throughout the code and regulations that the laws have always applied to federal jurisdiction only, and not to personal rights, we draw the conclusion that the law is required to operate that way and that application to personal rights is an overreach, only permitted by millions of sheeple.
You also correctly note that 26 USC 3401(c) does the same thing, which therefore is a confirmation. IIRC the sections 3101, 3201, 3301, 3401 (chapters 21-24) each define "employee". Three of them again are written to sound broad but when analyzed only apply to federal jurisdiction. The other, 3201, refers only to Railroad Retirement, and there the definition of employee is the broad definition you'd expect of including all laborers, but only if they work for a federal railroad. Very telling contrast.
What's important is that the IRS has responded to all these observations by invoking 26 USC 7701(c), the "inclusion" clause. That says specifically that naming of some things does not necessarily exclude other things. The Supremes have added that it does not necessarily include them either. It is left as an exercise to the reader to determine that it only applies to things of the same class as those enumerated, meaning that if DC is included then Puerto Rico is also included as being of the same class. Since occupations of natural right, and the several states, are of different class due to their difference in federal jurisdiction, it becomes necessary to decide for oneself whether one, or one's labor, is an "included" item or not.
Since you refer to hidden aspects, and since I'm not a gnostic, I'll simply mention (to ensure the direction is not lost) that Form 4852 is designed to correct information returns that make inaccurate statements about the categories and judgments you discuss here, particularly the amounts of "income" applicable to chapter 21, 23, 24 taxes.
So you get a 92% from me on your presentation, excellent and to the point without getting side-tracked as so many do, but leaving out chapters 21/23, 7701(c), and Form 4852, which are each significant to the data here.
Agreed.
Correct, and there is a specific reason for that.
The Statutes at Large are the ACTUAL statues passed by Congress, in CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER, from the first one passed by the 1st Congress through today.
The United States Code is an indexed version, where those statutes are ordered by subject matter, which makes them much easier to find.
In the early days, it didn't matter because someone could just look them up in the SAL.
But eventually, they figured out that this would be near impossible (especially without computers) to find ALL the statutes that (a) created, (b) modified, (c) added to, and (d) repealed a particular statute (or even a particluar sentence or phrase within a statute) on a particluar subject.
So, in the 1870's (IIRC) they started to organize them into the "code" so they could be found by subject matter.
But over more time, they started thinking that maybe someone doing the indexing might be forgetting some things, either on accident or on purpose.
In the 1950's (IIRC), they set up a congressional task force to go through ALL the 50 titles of the USC to verify if everything that was ever passed by Congress, by way of subject matter, was correctly copied from the SAL to the USC -- leaving nothing out, and adding nothing in.
But even that was too big a task. Today, you will note that there is a statement that SOME titles of the USC are "positive law," which means they were verified that ALL of the SAL's were included into the USC for that particular title (subject matter).
That is only about HALF of the USC, though. The rest has never been officially verified -- INCLUDING Title 26, the tax code.
The SAL are the ONLY true, valid law that is considered evidence of "what the law is" on something.
But it is way too unweildy to really use. Legally speaking, the USC is considered "the law" UNLESS the SAL can be shown to differ. In that case, the SAL is the law, not the USC.
But for practical purposes, it would be impossible to pull up definitions that may have been changed, added, etc. over the past 100+ years.
So, I showed the ORIGINAL 1913 income tax in its entirety by way of SAL, and then went to USC for current day status of definitions.
Also, I agree with your conclusion, but did not want to go into depth with yet another aspect of this issue.
Thanks for your imput, and people should probably look into what you say in your last paragraph.
Yes, with a little tweaking. The 1870s was a wise organization step that created the Revised Statutes (RS) that totally superseded the SAL to 1874 (positive law), but that could not counter the need for a new set of SAL arising thereafter.
The Code came up over time as Congress realized the organization of new statutes could not be done as easily as in 1874 and so it had to be done piecemeal, starting in 1926. You note that those Code chapters that were approved as full reflections were designated as positive law, while those that couldn't be due to complexity were just promulgated as "code" (for which the positive law remains the pile of SAL). The 1950s was when the internal revenue portion was majorly revised (IRC 1954, not counting 1939 and 1986), but in each case IRC, aka Title 26, couldn't be made positive law. Too complex. I can guarantee the language of 7701(c) changed over the period of various SAL incarnations.
So that's correct. When I've looked at the SAL for some of these (not all), I've been able to track the background and verify that the same problem applies, the law nominally limits its application to federal jurisdiction but it widely interpreted as if it doesn't. The important point, that should get people's attention, is that these limitations do appear, most notably in 7701 and 3401, and wherever else they are required to appear to maintain the scheme, and there is never a case where a limitation to federal jurisdiction should be stated that it cannot be found in the SAL and code.
Why is "trade or business" a public office? Why is "state" DC? Why is "employee" a US employee or corporate officer? If you don't know the answers, you need to find out. When you do your own research, you'll find the law keeps raising the same point over and over until you can decide for yourself what the point means. There is much misinfo out there too, and it can be swept aside logically, but this post is very on point and will help people find the right path.
Interesting stuff, OP. I'm wondering if you've ever read the Revenue Act of 1862 because that seems to be the true origin of the lncome Tax. It established the office of Commissioner of Internal Revenue and the first progressive lncome Tax. I'll include the wikipedia link here just to show it's worth looking into but the Act itself isn't too difficult to read and is easily recognizable as the lncome Tax (except that it only applied to Federal earnings).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1862#Progressive_income_tax
Correct, Lincoln funded the Civil War with a personal income tax that then continued 7 years after the war ended, with legal haggling continuing another 30 years after that. Yes, the income tax only applied to federal "income".
Are you saying the Revenue Act of 1862 was repealed at some point? As far as I can tell, it remains the basis of the existing tax.
It was renewed every two years until expiring in 1872. Each renewal had a 2-year sunset in it because of the Constitutional limit on direct taxes. It's the basis for the federal "right" to collect income tax, plus the 16th amendment making it possible for this right to extend without considering the source of the income, but the "right" was not invoked between 1872 and 1909 except retroactively.
I have never heard that it expired. I will look into that.
I wouldn't say there is Constitutional "limit" on the Federal Government with regards to direct taxes; it's more like a clear prohibition the only exception being the mechanism of apportionment. Whatever the 16th adds to the Constitution, the prohibition on direct taxes remains in the Constitution and is actually mentioned twice.
Regardless, the Rev Act of 1862 imposes (or imposed) an excise tax, not a direct tax.
Yes, apportionment is a limit on direct tax, but another limit is the powers of Congress: "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years" (1.8). It is understood that no (direct) appropriation for any use shall be over two years; but duties, imposts, and excises are not limited by age since they are limited by uniformity.
The point is that from 1862 to really the 1940s there was, IMHO, a desire not to test the waters, which would have happened by making the tax indefinite rather than ending and renewing every two years. Look up the dates of Revenue Acts, usually every 2 years like clockwork. I think 1944 was when the temperature of the Supremes was sufficiently comfortable for Congress to act as if income tax were indeed an excise tax. By that time of course people were not only willing not to sweat the difference since there was a war on but also unwilling to take on the added burden of learning avoidance methods that apply to every excise. Some comedian said flatly the way to avoid the income tax is to have no income, but its meaning was lost on the new generation that was willing to let the government pretend to define income and then never do so. The Supremes in fact declared that to define income would be potentially "precarious" to the entire structure.
Well, I think your last point is THE point. There's no clear definition. As for me, if they aren't going to define it, then I will. Let them rebut me with a definition if they want.
btw, seen this?: https://www.cnbc.com/2023/12/05/us-supreme-court-ponders-meaning-of-income-in-tax-dispute.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moore_v.United_States(2024)&oldid=1214422677
Hadn't heard, but the press is wrong: the Supremes will never define "income" in this climate. They will only narrow the possibilities with further tests, in favor of one faction or another, and that will only mean the prevailing of one tax accountant's theory over another and the rearranging of various deck chairs. The sovereign citizen retains the rights to govern himself accordingly, and each person's decisions about how to follow the law, and about peaceful civil disobedience, are matters of conscience.
Let's look up both the 1861 and 1862 revenue acts.
The easiest way to look up a statute from the Statutes at large (that I know of):
(1) Find out where in the SAL it can be found. Wiki, in their first line, says that the Revenue Act of 1861 can be found at 12 Stat 292.
12 = 12th Volume of
Stat = Statues at Large
292 = Starts on page 292 of the 12th volume
(2) Go to https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/statute
(3) Find it by clicking on Search and typing in: 12 Stat 292.
(4) Looks like first link is it, so click on it. Then, choose the PDF on the left of the page, and you get this:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-12/pdf/STATUTE-12-Pg292.pdf
Just like in 1913, this bill was not specifically an income tax. It was a more general tax, with income inserted into it.
Look down the margins to see the descriptions to find the section you want.
NOTICE: On page 294, at the bottom (SEC. 8), there was a DIRECT TAX imposed by way of APPORTIONMENT. This is EXACTLY what I said in another post about how wartime was supposed to be financed via apportionment. Each State was ordered to pay a specific amount, based on their represenation in Congress, for the war.
I'm guessing the southern states said, "Yeah, right!" but I don't know.
Scroll down to page 309 (SEC. 49), "Income Tax."
You can see in the margin it was repealed in 1862, and replaced by another income tax, which can be found at 12 Stat 432 (per Wiki).
I won't read it in depth, but on a quick read, it sure looks VERY draconian. You either pay, or you go to prison until you pay. Your property will be seized and sold on 10 days' notice.
Ouch.
The Revenue Act of 1862 replaced it:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-12/pdf/STATUTE-12-Pg432-4.pdf
Section 89 repeals the 1861 tax.
I suppose if someone wanted to, they could compare and contrast the 1861 vs. 1862 and figure out why they changed it.
But not my cup of tea at the moment.
Yes, the rev act of 1861 was repealed and replaced by the act of 1862. The 1862 act also has the income tax...
It's my recollection that the 1862 version was to begin the same date as the 1861 and so it replaced (repealed) it before it could take effect; that is, it was just the beta draft of the 1861 tax. Not much diff though.
More interesting in 1862 than Sec. 89 is Sec. 90, which specifically says it's a "duty" (an indirect tax). They knew assaults were coming. They wanted to nominally blunt the assault that a tax derived from property was a direct tax (which is why the renewals too); and they wanted to extend the reach to "any other source whatever" while still aware that it only applied to their jurisdiction (e.g. not Chinese sources untouched by the US nexus), which is a feint; and they wanted to propose that it was within their duty power, a position vacated later when the Supremes finally reviewed 100 years of history in Brushaber and made it (ambiguously) "in the nature of an excise".
But the topper is that the categories are not the same as today. "Income" originally referred to gains from business and clearly did not include (and excluded) the exchange of labor for pay, a natural right. NO WAGES ARE IN VIEW, only salaries (emoluments) such as from government or other nexus activity. When it was discovered that labor arises naturally from fed people, a whole new collateralization scheme arose in someone's mind and the project was permitted various trial balloons (punctuated by the Civil, Great, and End-All Wars) until it reached "sustainability" (but not scalability, the current downfall). Now ""wages"" are defined as ""income"" (and I understand GMOs are defined as vaccines). The proof, showing that this new-slavery, imposed upon unwitting volunteers, was discovered early, is the last clause of the Revenue Act of 1864 (the two-year renewal): it is the aperitif that demonstrates that Lincoln's men wanted the "DC" trapdoor right away, 13 Stat 223, 306. It really has to be seen to be believed: scroll to the end, section 182.
Right after the Government of the Republic collapsed for lack of a quorum......and no "reconstruction" occurred.
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government,..."
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript
I found the following interesting also: March 8, 1920 The Supreme Court says stock dividends are “not taxable under the 1916 income tax law”.
https://guides.loc.gov/chronicling-america-16th-amendment
I think that was Eisner v. Macomber, but it is not what that website says.
SCOTUS said that dividends that were NOT paid in cash (they were paid with more shares of stock) were not subject to the income tax. This is different from cash dividends.
You gotta be careful and look it up yourself.
Guess they had some dividend income at the time ( bigger than the grift/blackmail)
Wowza! That’s an amazing dig, fren. Kudos. Very interesting I’m so glad you were able to lay it out for the rest of us in understandable terms.
This was an incredible post. Bravo!
I have been fighting the California income tax agency for years. Their "interpretations" of statutes have little correlation to the actual words in the text of the statutes. The agency say their "interpretations" are correct and the fact that the "interpretations" are often the exact opposite of what the statute actually says is irrelevant to them. It is shocking to me that legislators and regulators all say "well if they interpret it that way, so be it," and don't care that the laws of being blatantly violated. It is also shocking that judges will play games to evade making a ruling on the bad "interpretion" of the laws so that these crimes against constituents can continue.
Can't win a crooked game protected by a crooked system run by crooked people.
Do you know why Commifornia Supreme Court stayed in SF when Capitol Moved ?
No, I don't. Will you share the reason?
They were already corrupt having come mostly from Europe or East seeking fortune:
Solomon HeydenfeldtJanuary 1852–January 1857
Hugh C. Murray*October 1851–September 1857
Nathaniel BennettDecember 1849–October 1851
Henry A. Lyons*December 1849–March 1852
Serranus Clinton Hastings*January 1850–January 1852
First Chief Justice & First Attorney General:
" In his statement Hastings attested that “until the investigations of this committee” he had been “entirely ignorant” of the “outrages” committed by Walter Jarboe and the other members of the Eel River Rangers.[23] However, the same investigation resulted in several mentions of Hastings as being an organizer and financer of Jarboe's Rangers and requesting U.S. military and California government help to suppress the Yukis. In the archives is also a letter from Jarboe to Hastings saying he (Jarboe) planned to attack a group of 500 Indians"
Second:
Henry Augustus Lyons[1] (October 5, 1809 – July 27, 1872) was the second Chief Justice of California, appointed to the court by the California State Legislature at the formation of the state. He was the first Jewish justice on the court.[2][3]
"Lyons left his family to travel to California during the Gold Rush, ultimately settling in the Sonora area.[5] In 1849, he ran for State Senate.[13] In 1849, he sought a seat on the newly formed state Supreme Court."
Bennett:
"On June 27, 1818, Bennett was born in Clinton, New York,
"In 1835, he studied at Hamilton College for one year, and then completed his degree at Yale University."
" On October 3, 1851, he resigned from the court,[18] having accepted "financial inducements" from a group of influential land owners who were hoping the court would reverse his decision in Woodworth v. Fulton (1850) 1 Cal. 295."
No need to belabor the point although "Clinton" popping up is an interesting coincidence
Edit; New to me: Alexander Wells , 7th Justice His Daughter : "Gertrude Van Cortlandt Wells (1849–1944), who married Schuyler Hamilton, Jr. (1853–1907), the son of Schuyler Hamilton and grandson of Alexander Hamilton, in 1877. ... she married the Baron Raoul Nicholas de Graffenried.[11] He was the son of Baron Emanuel de Graffenried, Ambassador from Switzerland to Austria, and his wife, Baroness Gabrielle de Barco, lady-in-waiting to the Empress of Austria, assassinated at Geneva, while traveling the Swiss Alps "
VERY interesting. Thank you!
Levi Strauss since 1853 , 'Frisco original
SCOTUS currently has cases pending that they are expected to decide on soon.
Has to do with the "Chevron doctrine," which allows agencies to "interpret" what the legislature meant, even if it is complete fraud how they interpret it.
If SCOTUS strikes down that doctrine, that MIGHT be helpful. I know Cali is even worse than IRS, and has ZERO interest in what the law actually says.
I didn't realize the significance of that case. Adding it to my prayer list. TY!
I think Cali is so corrupt that the only option is to throw out every single government agency and start over with people who have never worked for the government before. The corruption is woven into the fiber of the current government structure and there is no salvaging it.
I have some information that might be helpful to you, and it has to do with Cali.
If you are still following this thread, let me know.
This is amazingly nice work. At first, I bristled at the title of your post, but that was my belief triggering my emotions. I really appreciate your work here in elaborating on something so obscure, yet relevant.
But here "What is the definition of "United States?"
(a)(9) The term “United States” when used in a geographical sense includes only the States and the District of Columbia."
I'd be curious to see the LEGAL definition. I know up here in canada, if you follow the circuitous path of defining canada, you wind up with a strip of ocean floor surrounding the geographical area of canada.
That (26 USC 7701(a)(9)) is the legal definition, for internal revenue purposes, with deference to the SAL, with other exceptions, and with "State" defined in the next clause (a)(10). But there are dozens of conflicting definitions of "United States" in the law for many purposes. Sometimes in law "United States" means the 50 states plus possessions, as we typically use the term; but very often not. Thank you for pointing out that Canada is doing the exact same thing, I'll need to find that later.
https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83045487/1916-04-25/ed-1/seq-7/#date1=1756&index=3&rows=20&words=income+tax+taxes&searchType=basic&sequence=0&state=&date2=1963&proxtext=income+tax&y=0&x=0&dateFilterType=yearRange&page=1
News Article from 1900's complaining about the Income Tax.
That dude must have been an ancestor to Bernie Sanders.
HOLY SMOKES, what a doofus.
I’ve read thousands of posts here at GAW over the years and never considered one for a permanent sticky but this post definitely deserves that designation.
Bravo, excellent dig and well done!
Hey, thanks.
But if they do that, let me re-write it a bit because some of it doesn't read well.
I tried to edit it, but could not (maybe because it is so long).
(I think if you get it to 12000 characters it will post. Or try it in a different URL. I never know.)
Excellent dig and quite maddening. So I am a citizen of my geographical State and a resident of the United States? Those shyster lawyers have really F’ed things up. We the people have paid enough.
It's much more complicated than that. Focus on residency will not help you. Focus on whether the federal government has jurisdiction over your personal labor for pay will help you.
u/MAG768720 u/swamprangers u/space_monkey u/joseq u/standingoak
Bless you all! Fantastic stuff!
This might be the best post I’ve ever seen here.
I’d be interested in a good guide to learn the jurisdiction / living man switch. Have tried studying it before but it’s difficult to really grasp in how to apply it, even though it seems fundamentally fairly simple.
And here is one of MAG’s original posts, which is great for sharing with normies.
https://greatawakening.win/p/17t1k7RrFh/x/c/4ZBIebLaAdF
thx
I don't know what you mean by that.
I did have a speeding ticket during the Covid scam, and got the case dismissed by challenging jurisdiction.
I am pretty sure I was on point, but also they might have just said screw it, and didn't want to tie up resources on a traffic ticket.
Excellent digging anon
Damn Sam, I feel like I just watched a Perry Mason marathon with all the legalese put forth. Great job btw. Time for a drink to digest all of this, bits at a time.
Awesome post, fren. I had not read about this before.
MAG768720 is a preacher and a teacher. —Thank you—
LOL.
I don’t know about the rest of you guys but I’m a non-federal non-residential non-alien. I’m not covered by the irc but a non-residential alien is pretty fucking close.
Here’s a word document (docx) that roughly goes over how I filed if anyone wants to go down this rabbit hole.
https://api.discreetshare.com/download/663c20ab9b89fdf03bb013b7
Time for a tax revolution. Without it we will never be free.
Outstanding work.
Maybe I'm not reading this right, but it sounds to me like only people residing outside the US. It says:
"... a tax ... upon the entire net income from ... <wealth-generation>... carried on in the United States by persons residing elsewhere."
How did I miss this?
Edit: I didn’t, just forgot to revisit it and annotate notes. Whoops!
[still!] Fantastic stuff!
Great dig u/MAG768720 thank you!
What’s the best way to search the SAL? It’s new to me.
Also does ChatGPT have any of this available in its source content?
First of all, OP, excellent dig and a very commendable post. Thank you. However, I am going to respectfully poke a hole in some of its 2nd half.
Notwithstanding my user name, I am not an expert in the law. If I may be so bold, then, I think you are mistaken about your points about the definitions of State and of employee. Anyone may correct me if I'm wrong.
In regards to the excerpts you posted in the 2nd half of your post, you argue that those excerpts don't apply to something that the legislation supposedly defined. Your excerpts follow the pattern "x includes y."
I don't think you can take that to mean the definition, but rather an expansion of the definition. You cannot equate that with "x is defined narrowly as y." It means that x contains y as well as everything commonly known to be x.
For example, mammals include dolphins. However, you cannot accurately say mammals are defined narrowly as dolphins. So where you said:
OK. I am happy to reconsider my position. I want to know the truth, either way.
Actually, yes I can. The word "includes" has a long legal history of meaning the definition is confined to what the term defines, as well as anything within its "class."
No, not "commonly known," but those things that are in the "same class."
Let's look at the FULL language of that definition for "State":
They COULD HAVE defined it like this:
But they DIDN'T.
Why?
Because they WANTED people to do what you are doing.
They wanted people to ASSUME the States are included in the definition.
BUT ...
DC is a FEDERAL TERRITORY. Therefore, it is NOT of the "same class" as the 50 States.
It cannot be "included" with the 50 States because it is a DIFFERENT JURISDICTION, and the Constitution (even with the 16th Amendment) does NOT grant Congress the power to DIRECTLY tax the People if they do not have any direct federal tie.
This is why the Brushaber case was taken up. It was just confusing enough to slide through. Union Pacific Railroad was a corporation that was CHARTERED BY THE FEDS, making any dividends received something connected to a federal privilege, rather than a fundamental right.
Also interesting is that I have heard (have not read it myself, but I have full confidence in the person who read it from the document) that the IRS came out with a statement to its agents right after the Brushaber decision. In that letter, it said that the SCOTUS had recently ruled that a NON-RESIDENT ALIEN'S receipt of dividends were taxable.
Frank Brushaber declared himself, in his original complaint, to be a "citizen of New York."
The States are ALIEN to the federal government, and NOT a part of it.
This is why they allow double jeopardy cases to go ahead, where a State prosecutes someone, and then the feds prosecute for the same exact crime. Two different sovereigns.
So, you cannot have the word "includes" in a definition of "State" without also saying, "The term 'State' shall include Alabama, Alaska, ... etc., and also the District of Columbia."
If you ONLY say it includes DC, then the CLASS of items under "includes" is NOT any of the States.
Notice, it says "The term 'States" ..." and they DO NOT mention ANYTHING about the actual States. They ONLY list DC. The fact that they are defining "States" is irrelevant. It could have been the term "Jabberwoky includes DC."
They did it ON PURPOSE.
Very confusing, I know. But this is the word games they play.
So yes, the word "includes" CAN mean things not listed, but ONLY if they are of the SAME CLASS. And federal jurisdiction is NOT of the same class as State.
They HAD to say "... where such construction is necessary ..." BECAUSE if they didn't have that in there, then it would be unconstitutional.
The construction IS NECESSARY, BECAUSE they ONLY have LIMITED jurisdiction, per the Constitution.
It is up to YOU to understand it, or your attorney. But even if your attorney does understand it, not 1 in 1,000 of them would ever have the BALLS to challenge the law as it is written. Most of them are fucking cowards.
No! Absolutely not! You can NEVER simply "imply" that the legislature must have meant this or that.
That would make the law VOID FOR VAGUENESS.
I know that the regulators (government employees) have long been doing this garbage in their regulations.
And SCOTUS is taking up cases on this very subject (the Chevron doctrine).
We will see, but I expect them to strike down that doctrine as unconstitutional.
The words the legislature uses MUST be taken VERBATIM.
You cannot simply add things you like to what the legislature wrote.
That is NOT Rule of Law.
BTW, I found a definition for "State" in the tax code that I believe supports my position.
Note: As I said earlier, the general definition in Subtitle F can be modified elsewhere to mean something different in another part the code, which is what they do here:
So ... why couldn't they be THAT specific for the other section?
They COULD be, but they DON'T, because they WANT people to be deceived.
In this section, they go on to list cities and municipalities under the definition of "State," because some cities, like NYC, also collect an income tax and they WANT information sharing between these other tax collectors.
My point is: They have the capacity to be VERY SPECIFIC, but when they are not, they might be hiding something.
In this case, the definition that only includes DC as a "State" is really stating that the federal government is what that term applies to, generally in the code, unless another definition is given for a specific chapter or section, like here.
Notice: They use the term "means" here rather than "includes." They don't use "includes" because it would require a list that is of the SAME CLASS, and these are not the same class, so they have to list them all, individually.
In Subtitle F, they don't do that because the ONLY class they have authority to do anything with (for the entirety of the internal revenue code) is federal jurisdiction. They only list DC and go on to say "wherever such construction is necessary" ... which is necessary EVERYWHERE in the code.
They COULD define "State any way they want, such as "State means/includes all 50 States that have a population of 5,000,000 residents or more." IOW, they can make up terms to mean something that is FAR DIFFERENT from the common understanding of what the term usually means in everyday language.
That is now legalese works.
I think I have beaten this horse to death, though, so ... carry on.
Thanks for taking the time to respond in such detail. I do see what you mean and am ready to believe it as a possibility. I also see you know more about the law than I do. I do think you make good arguments and I've always been prepared to be wrong on this. However, I think your example of the definition of State, you will notice that they say "the term State means" whereas in the other example they say the term State "includes". I'm not 100% convinced about what you're saying, but I'm far from 0% convinced too. I can't say whether they are deliberately trying to make things confusing, but they are. I know enough from hanging around here that the powers that be are not above obfuscating creating loopholes and cheat codes to screw us over to their benefit. Anyways, thanks for the intellectual stimulation.
u/MAG768720 is essentially correct about legal construction.
What you describe is the ordinary English language, in which people use "includes" all the time as nonlimiting because they have things in mind that are not being said. Laws are not written in ordinary English, but in English confined to very narrow limits so that there is no ambiguity.
The courts have long discussed the use of "includes" in taxation, which is why 26 USC 7701(c) defines "includes" itself, but it is again ambiguous because it says it does not exclude; and the Supremes then interpreted that it does not include either. So we are left to derive meaning via standard statutory construction.
If you see the same pattern over and over in the law, and always on a matter where the ordinary citizen can rope himself/herself into becoming a taxpayer volunteer, it indicates intent. When you see the legal objections written by the IRS deal with the issue always backhanded and roundabout in such way that the person can be misled again in exactly the same way, it indicates intent. I passed my level of "coincidence" long ago, and it is safe for me and for Swamp Rangers to say so. Each person must determine the meaning of the law for himself/herself.
Oh, to OP: 26 USC 7701(a)(10) IS THE EXACT CODIFICATION OF 13 Stat 233, 306. Interesting?
Good way to put it.
It's weird. Look at page 304, and a few sentences above where Sec. 174 starts.
This actually does not support my position, it would seem.
It looks more like sloppy writing by whichever committee put this together.
I went through the whole thing looking for "state" and did not see anything where DC would need to be "included" where it was not already listed.
Looks more like the last section on page 306 was nothing more than an afterthought.
But that section, as I traced through SAL, is exactly the origin of 26 USC 7701(a)(10), though there are code variations over time and it's the RS that are current positive law on it: that is, each enactment contains this same clause carried over in the same place except when it's marked as moved or slight wording changes. So if just an afterthought it's essential to every income tax in America since 1864, i.e. every but the very first one. Plus it's one of the top five most important anomalies in the code by the OP standard, you note. So, it interests me.
Sec. 174 does not disprove, again a disproof would only be inferred in conversational English, not in law. The laws of US football define the word "ball" very narrowly, and (even though "includes" is not at issue) nobody gets to take the word "ball" elsewhere in the law and say it means the ordinary use of "ball" and thus any spheroid, like a soccer ball. In conversation when the word "ball" is used even though a narrow definition may have also been offered, context will determine if the definition does not apply; but in law the whole is its own context and so the definition always applies throughout, and nothing else does. So if a law says "ball includes football" and then later "balls and footballs", it's redundant; but if a human says it, it's likely (but not necessary) that the human is indicating other (e.g. soccer) balls in view. (It's hard to say and I don't have ready examples to show. I know there are even legal contexts, though not US statutory construction, where we might use a different canon and say "balls and footballs" by canon default must mean that context has changed and the inclusion class added to; but their existence doesn't change the preselected canons by which these legislators wrote this law.)
So in the many times I've looked it's hard to find a perfect on-point example as a "smoking gun". The 1864 clause and its placement at the very end is telling enough to me. If I find a better one I'll be telling people, for sure. Thanks again for the OP plus.