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.
Thank you for reporting your research and hoped-for results! Passports might be a wedge for one to have state citizenship without federal citizenship, but it's a very difficult route. I'm not going to throw too much cold water on it because you sound like you want to be honest about it even if it goes wrong.
It's all unrelated to "American republics", which the fine ad hoc work of u/MAG768720 shows just to be the North and South American countries that are republics and attendees of the 1940 Havana Conference.
How did Lincoln tax everyone in 1861 before the alleged act of municipal corporation?
Where is your website about living without the SSN? Going Amish is the easiest route.
Who can you point to that has the most successful promulgation of the right to travel without license, registration, name, identification, etc.? I've tried many, so I'm interested in what public figure you support. Then we can judge the method for ourselves rather than get a generic invocation.
If you spent as much time directing people to methods of barter and community that express our freedom from federal nexus as you do bashing others for not understanding them, you'd get something other than ridicule.
Hi lash, isn't it interesting that u/MAG768720 and I don't know each other but are providing mutually agreeable data and sources, and you are just showing off a meme you heard and then digging in?
I watched intently as those who held such theories went to court and refused to answer questions that they believed were incriminating, such as "what is your name". The system railroads just as easily without a name, which is the primary proof it doesn't work. I've also seen court and admin proofs that it does work to quote and understand and apply the law and the canons of construction, but supplying those proofs is beyond the scope of Swamp Rangers and you wouldn't be interested anyway. OP just noted that even a simple jurisdiction challenge or show-cause threat will work wonders for small fish, which is a much better record than the all-caps folks. I love telling the judge "In fact I'm looking forward to voir dire."
TLDR: Fool around, find out, report back, but don't fight fellow patriots in the meantime.
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?
(I think if you get it to 12000 characters it will post. Or try it in a different URL. I never know.)
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.
Well, I was thinking earlier I should see what Q said about taxes. He wasn't silent as I surmised.
1256: What’s at risk? $250B x 2 / year. What the taxpayers don’t know. Why aren’t NK developments receiving WW praise? We endure.
1609: POTUS tax reform (more take home money) - not good enough - IMPEACH.
1824: Ask yourself, if the U.S. GDP is greater than the total of all others combined (G7), which allows us to negotiate from a position of strength, why would previous President's 'knowingly' [unequally] distribute America's wealth away by making unbalanced trade deals? Why was America's wealth being distributed WW? Why was the American taxpayer essentially subsidizing the the rest of the world? The AMERICAN TAXPAYER has no equal anywhere in the world. ACCESS to the AMERICAN CONSUMER (U.S. Market) is ESSENTIAL for every major country in the world. AMERICA WAS SYSTEMATICALLY BEING WEAKENED. OUR MILITARY WAS SYSTEMATICALLY BEING WEAKENED. AMERICA IS BACK TO LEADING. AMERICA FIRST. THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN POTUS HAS NO STRINGS ATTACHED.
2854: CA estimated $2T in debt? Homelessness population on the rise? Highest tax rates in the Country? Undocumented Immigrants in California vs Nation?
4014: How do you fix [taxpayer bailout?] the long-broken economies of CA & NY?
It seems Q would be aware of the ongoing IRS "Dirty Dozen" battles and may be alluding to them as part of "what the taxpayers don't know". The primary thing they don't know is implied to be that they are debt slaves collateralizing the satanists. But I don't see that awakening to the statutory construction of inclusion is a very great awakening in the minds of most, and I don't think those who are aware regard it as a successful lever. (I could be surprised.) I think that given the emphasis on the de facto movement of the collateral, heavy in 1824, and the reliance on mainstream collective wisdom, affirming Trump's "tax reform" in 432 and 1609, we should conclude that taxation and aurum and related issues will only be deliverable as whatever the proposed regime thinks they can offer. The hype here was so palpable in 2021 but since then I've noted 95% of the talk on these topics comes from anons and not from Q. Q's focus seems to be that the taxpayers-to-satanists relationship must change, when the taxpayers are ready. So I can only conclude that the Supremes are "punting" (as Thomas said about Obama's birth, and as CIR v. Groetzinger said collectively); and that we who have been given sovereignty by Jesus must educate rightly in all areas, including this one the same as including every other.
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!)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
I doubt more than a few members of Congress had any real idea what they were voting on.
Correct.
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.
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.
Article does not say all 50 states. He has about 10 and hopes to align with a few more and get his We The People Party in a few more.
In other news, article puts Constitution Party at almost 12 states but its nominee Randall Terry (founder of Operation Rescue) says 14 now with 20-30 expected.
Last sentence I agree with! "The synagogue of satan is not just composed of so-called Jews, it's composed of people of like minds that are under their influence."
It's always been the satanists. Real Jews who seek the Jewish Messiah are not as likely to get involved and are thus exempt from being the synagogue of satan, by Jesus's own words.
This is snippets left over from Steven Anderson's interviews of various Jews for Marching to Zion plus his interview of Texe Marrs. It only shows that the hexagram is not really ancient in Judaism but it does have recent roots in Masonry. However, that fact goes too far for the original theory, because the hexagram has nothing to do with Amos or Stephen prophesying about the star of Chiun or Remphan, because there were no hexagrams in Israel at all until about 300.
The actual history of hexagrams and of the star of Remphan shows that the form of the "star" in Amos's and Stephen's day was much more likely to be the caduceus or "$" than the asterisk or "*". BOLO Big Pharma.
Let's call out the real satanists. If we go after Medinat Israel for using a hexagram, we go after the USA for using the same in the reverse of the Great Seal (and, according to this video, the obverse too). Picking on hexagrams is not to be our activity, it's to be going after the real enemies wherever they are found. Ending the Federal Reserve and Planned Parenthood are sufficient for the short term.
YES BUT.
Islam is also notable for being green-only as on other flags. The horsemen have leeway over every quarter of the earth, so don't get limited by a single fulfillment. Another biggie is this one:
And thus I saw the horses in the vision, and them that sat on them, having breastplates of fire, and of jacinth, and brimstone: and the heads of the horses were as the heads of lions; and out of their mouths issued fire and smoke and brimstone.
Fire = RED
Jacinth = Hyacinth = BLUE
Brimstone = Sulfur = YELLOW
Where would that indicate? Don't get too localized, the story is global, and so is the kingdom.
The message is clearly intentional, but I think the meaning of "HIP" is someone's tagalong because I don't see such a person being identified. Sometimes such messages contain unused filler characters too. More data welcome.