Income is NOT everything that “comes in”:

 We must reject ... the broad contention submitted in behalf of the Government that all receipts -- everything that comes in -- are incomewithin the proper definition of "gross income" ....

[Southern Pacific Co. v. John Z. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330]

Corporate profits are "income":

 [Income] imports, as used here, something entirely distinct from principal or capital either as a subject of taxation or as a measure of the tax;  conveying rather the idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activities.

[Emanuel J. Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Co., 247 U.S. 179]

Congress CANNOT change the Constitution:

 In order, therefore, that the clauses cited above from Article I of the Constitution may have proper force and effect  ... it becomes essential to distinguish between what is and what is not "income," as the term is there used;  and to apply the distinction ... according to truth and substance, without regard to form.  Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised.

[Mark Eisner v. Myrtle H. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189]

Again, "income" is a gain, a profit:

 Here we have the essential matter -- not a gain accruing to capital, not a growth or increment of value in the investment;  but a gain, a profit, something of exchangeable value proceeding from the property, severed from the capital however invested or employed, and coming in, being "derived," that is received or drawn by the recipient (the taxpayer) for his separate use, benefit, and disposal -- that is income derived from property.  Nothing else answers the description.

[Mark Eisner v. Myrtle H. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189]

The Supreme Court has REPEATEDLY ruled that compensation for professional services is not "income":

       In determining the definition of the word "income" thus arrived at, this court has consistently refused to enter into the refinements of lexicographers and economists and has approved, in the definitions quoted, what it believed to be the commonly understood meaning of the term ....

       We continue entirely satisfied with that definition, and, since the fund here taxed was the amount realized from the sale of the stock in 1917, less the capital investment as determined by the trustee as of March 1, 1913, it is palpable that it was a "gain or profit" "produced by" or "derived from" that investment, and that it "proceeded," and was "severed" or rendered severable, from, by the sale for cash, and thereby became that "realized gain" which has been repeatedly declared to be taxable income ....

[Merchant's Loan & Trust v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509]

"Income" has been legally and officially defined:

 And the definition of "income" approved by this Court is:  "The gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined," provided it beunderstood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets.  ...  It is thus very plain that the statute imposes the income tax on the proceeds of the sale of personal property to the extent only that gains are derived therefrom by the vendor ....

[Goodrich v. Edwards, 255 U.S. 527]

You do NOT obtain "income" by charging for services rendered:

 The phraseology of form 1040 is somewhat obscure ....  But it matters little what it does mean;  the statute and the statute alone determines what is income to be taxed.  It taxes only income "derived" from many different sources;  one does not "derive income" by rendering services and charging for them.

[Edwards v. Keith, 231 F. 111 (2nd Cir.)]

No gain, no income -- no income, no tax:

 Income is nothing more nor less than realized gain ....  It is not synonymous with receipts ....  Whatever may constitute income, therefore, must have the essential feature of gain to the recipient ....  If there is no gain, there is no income.

[Conner v. U.S., 303 F.Supp. 1187]

"Income" means "gain" -- "gain" means "profit":

 Income" ... means "gain" "derived" from, and not accruing to, capital or labor or from both combined, including profit gained through the sale or conversion of capital, the gain not being taxable until realized, and, in such connection, "gain" means profit or something of exchangeable value, and "derived" means proceeding from property, severed from capital, however invested or employed, and coming in, received or drawn by taxpayer for his separate use, benefit, and disposal.

[Staples v. U.S., E.D. Penna., 21 F.Supp. 737]

Wages and profits are two DIFFERENT things:

 There is a clear distinction between "profit" and "wages" or compensation for labor.  Compensation for labor cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law.

[Oliver v. Halstead, 196 Va. 992; 86 S.E. 2d 858]

Payment for labor is NOT profit:

 Reasonable compensation for labor or services rendered is not profit.

[Laureldale Cemetery Assoc. v. Matthews] [345 Pa. 239; 47 A. 2d 277, 280]

The meaning of "income" has been CONSISTENT in law:

 ... "Income" has been taken to mean the same thing as used in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, in the Sixteenth Amendment and in the various revenue acts subsequently passed ...

                    [Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 174]-

Again, "income" has had the SAME MEANING in law:

 ... and before the 1921 Act this Court had indicated ... what it later held, that "income," as used in the revenue acts taxing income, adopted since the 16th Amendment, has the same meaning that it had in the Act of 1909.

[Burnet v. Harmel, 287 U.S. 103]

"Income" is NOT the same as "gross receipts":

 Constitutionally the only thing that can be taxed by Congress is "income."  And the tax actually imposed by Congress has been on net income as distinct from gross income.  The tax is not, never has been and could not constitutionally be upon "gross receipts" ....

[Anderson Oldsmobile, Inc. v. Hofferbert, USDC Maryland] [102 F.Supp. 902]

Try to find a principle that is better settled:

 Remember that our source is not some "tax protest" group.  Just about everything we are telling you comes from the U.S. Supreme Court.  It would be difficult, and perhaps impossible, in our system of jurisprudence, to find a principle better settled than the one we have been citing.

[Alan Stang, Tax Scam, Mt. Sinai Press, POB 1220] [Alta Loma 91701, CALIF. 1988]

The Supreme Court is bound by the Constitution. In Article I, Section 8, the Constitution grants jurisdiction to the federal government to regulate three areas of commerce: “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes” – in other words, foreign commerce, interstate commerce, and Indian commerce.

The 16th Amendment, the income tax, has been the subject of many Supreme Court decisions. The IRS always cites to the Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916), to inform the public that the 16th Amendment was held to be constitutional by the Supreme Court. What the IRS doesn’t inform the public about Mr. Frank Brushaber, the central character in the Supreme Court case, is that he was a withholding agent for several foreign investors in the Union Pacific Railroad, acting as their fiduciary.

The Supreme Court, obviously being aware of all of the pertinent details, ruled in the Brushaber case that the federal government always had the power to tax income as an excise tax and, therefore, the 16th Amendment is constitutional. The Supreme Court then ruled in the very next case it decided, Stanton v. Baltic Mining, 240 US 103 (1916), the following: “… that by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived…”. The ”previous ruling” cited in the Stanton decision was referring to the Brushaber decision.

A few years later the Supreme Court again ruled upon the 16th Amendment’s effect on the federal government’s power of taxation. In Peck & Co. v. Lowe, 247 US 165 (1918), the Supreme Court stated, in part: “The Sixteenth Amendment … does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects …”.

The Supreme Court decisions above all inform everyone that no new power of taxation was granted to the federal government by the 16th Amendment. These decisions all inform everyone that the federal government always had the power to tax income from the beginning. Since no new power of taxation was granted to the federal government by the 16th Amendment and the federal government was held to always have had the power to tax income, then the revenue that’s being derived by the federal government from an income tax must come from one of the regulated commerce jurisdictions granted to the federal government by the Constitution – therefore, this revenue must come from foreign commerce, interstate commerce, commerce. After all, generating income is a commercial activity.

The Supreme Court ruled exactly that in Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920), where the Court stated the following: “The 16th Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the Amendment was adopted.”.

Maritime Law...

bookmark

Not sure if this will work, but you might research it

Bloodroot

Respiratory Health

In terms of respiratory wellness, bloodroot has commonly been used as a remedy for conditions like the common cold, influenza, lung infections, and various sinus issues. This can also act as an expectorant, eliminating phlegm and mucus, which can attract and collect bacteria and other pathogens

Thanks..

interesting subject

thanks

The constitution already limits their authority

=============

Jurisdiction of the U.S. federal government is defined by Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution, quoted as follows:

"The Congress shall have the power . . . To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (NOT EXCEEDING TEN MILES SQUARE) as may, by cession of particular states and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the Government of the United States, [District of Columbia] and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock yards and other needful Buildings; And - To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers..." [emphasis added]

and Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2:

"The Congress shall have the Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."

============

Criminal jurisdiction of the federal courts is restricted to federal reservations over which the Federal Government has exclusive jurisdiction, as well as to forts, magazines, arsenal, dockyards or other needful buildings."
United States Code, Title 18 45 1, Par. 3d

.....

Title 18 USC at 7 specifies that the "territorial jurisdiction" of the United States extends only OUTSIDE the boundaries of lands belonging to any of the 50 states.

thanks for posting this

I agree...It will never happen

Authority - AFFIDAVIT V. MOTION Bench: I have considered the Defense Motions & they are all DENIED.

Real Man: I did not file any motions, I filed affidavits.

Bench: Well I am treating your documents as motions!!

Real Man: AGAIN, I did not file any motions, I filed affidavits; it is a criminal offense to file a false affidavit, I notice I am not under arrest for filing a false affidavit so it is clear that my affidavits are true, correct, and accurate; an affidavit is a statement of truth so my UNCONTESTED AFFIDAVITS are the TRUTH; I’m sure this court isn’t deliberately DENYING THE TRUTH in order to FALSIFY THE RECORD!!! I’m certain it isn’t this court’s intent to FALSIFY THE RECORD AND CREATE DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS...is it???

...........

MORRIS V NATIONAL CASH REGISTER, & GROUP V FINLETTER

Defendant is likely to be the only individual, now or in the future, who is willing and able to place a sworn affidavit affirming the herein disclosed facts under penalties of perjury, into the record of this case and as such, in absence of sworn counter-affidavit signed under the penalties of perjury regarding these same facts, laws, caselaws and evidence, Defendant should be the only prevailing party.

Morris v National Cash Register, 44 S.W. 2d 433, clearly states at point #4 that “uncontested allegations in affidavit must be accepted as true.”, and the Federal case of Group v Finletter, 108 F. Supp. 327 states,

“Allegations in affidavit in support of motion must be considered as true in absence of counter-affidavit.”

The highest form of complaint-even higher than a grand jury indictment-is a sworn affidavit placed into the public record by one of the sovereign People. Actions commence in the county court (common law) by affidavit of the sovereign. There is no need for a grand jury to be convened and no cause for the police to go out and investigate-all that's required is for a sovereign to write an affidavit and declare "This crime occurred to me" and put it into the county recorder's office. Already, we have seen decisions to resign made by a number of public officers in lieu of contesting the complaints made against them

Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many Citizens, because of their respect for what appears to be law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights due to ignorance.”

Sims v. Aherns, 271 SW 720 (1925)

...............

"The rights of the individuals are restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies of government."

City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944

..............

“Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many Citizens, because of their respect for what appears to be law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights due to ignorance.”

US v Minker, 350 US 179 at 187(1956)

Constitution of 1871???

We the people created the States

The States created the Federal Government

........

Maxom of Law...

'The creator is master of it's creations"

..............

So how is it that our 'Servants' have become our 'Masters'???

LOL...

I don't but him flying commercial for a friggin second

hopefully this will destroy them

thank you

“If you wish to keep slaves, you must have all kinds of guards. The cheapest way to have guards is to have the slaves pay taxes to finance their own guards. To fool the slaves, you tell them that they are not slaves and that they have Freedom. You tell them they need Law and Order to protect them against bad slaves. Then you tell them to elect a Government. Give them Freedom to vote and they will vote for their own guards and pay their salary. They will then believe they are Free persons. Then give them money to earn, count and spend and they will be too busy to notice the slavery they are in.”

........

How I Manage My Slaves; Slaves need electricity so that they can stay up later to work and study to be able to pay their electric bills and pay for all of their fine labor saving machines which enable them to finish their work in time to get some recreation which will help them feel more like going back to their jobs to earn money to live their wonderful lives as slaves.

They are lucky to be allowed to buy all of the wonderful things which make work and play so much easier. If they didn t buy these fine things they would have no reason to work for money.

The poor people who take their food from the land and who sleep where ever they can, deprive themselves of the need to work for money. This further deprives them of a need to buy and store fine labor saving devices. They don’t seem to realize the fact that they are holding back progress. If they could be forced to consume more and work, we could increase our gross national production which is useful to keep this excellent system going for us. Consumption can be increased by making welfare and government grant money more available.

It is becoming necessary to provide better working conditions to stop slaves from dropping out. As more drop out and provide for their own needs and direct their own lives it leaves less people to control them. It is necessary to keep them dependent on jobs or government money to maintain our control.

We must find ways to keep them from dropping out of our schools too. Here we mainly teach them to obey orders, respect our laws and love their country, coincidently, we teach them a trade or profession with which they will minister to our needs and whims or to the needs of our other servants. We could teach them on-the-job much faster and better but it takes more time to complete their obedience training.

Those who take care of their own needs are difficult to enslave. We must encourage people to become dependent in every area that it is possible to do so.

This is exactly what people need to learn before they do anything.

People need to learn the various 'benefits' that they use to entrap you so you can counter them as needed.

......................

We've all been taught from the beginning of life that we are serfs, peons, paupers. Unwinding this conditioning is the key to your success, no matter what comes up in your life. Thus, learning how to defend against a traffic ticket, or this method or that method of avoiding paying income taxes only gets you so far. The system is designed to ensnare you at every turn. If they can't get you in one way, they'll find another...and another...and another....

Thus, comprehending "common law" isn't about "learning something new" so much as it is about UNLEARNING what just ain't so. When you finally have your "ah ha" moment, you'll finally be ready to trade in all your corporate-granted "privileges and benefits" in exchange for your natural/God/Creator/Universal rights you were born with.

In the United States (the country), there are, in fact TWO “social contracts” or “social compacts”, and each protects a different subset of the overall population.

You can only be a party to ONE of these two social contracts/compacts at a time, because you can only have a domicile in ONE jurisdiction at a time. These two jurisdictions that Congress legislates for are:

1. The states of the Union under the requirements of the Constitution of the United States. In this capacity, it is called the “federal/general government”.

2. The U.S. government, the District of Columbia, U.S. possessions and territories, and enclaves within the states. In this capacity, it is called the “national government”. The authority for this jurisdiction derives from Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution. All laws passed essentially amount to municipal laws for federal property, and in that capacity, Congress is not restrained by either the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. We call the collection of all federal territories, possessions, and enclaves within the states “the federal zone” throughout this document. The “separation of powers doctrine” is what created these two separate and distinct social compacts and jurisdictions. Each has its own courts, unique types of “citizens”, and laws.

....................

Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution, quoted as follows:

"The Congress shall have the power . . . To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (NOT EXCEEDING TEN MILES SQUARE) as may, by cession of particular states and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the Government of the United States, [District of Columbia] and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock yards and other needful Buildings; And - To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers..."

and Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2:

"The Congress shall have the Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."

Thank You

hopefully this turns out to be true,

But I ain't holding my breath

Thanks for posting it

The author mentions another rabbit hole in describing a search for KJB background. That immediately brought me back to the deepest rabbit hole in the universe and low and behold we have the same MO.

So it looks like the fearsome Republican Senators like Matt Gaetz forgot to ask Jumanji Black-Woman the most important opening questions, such as proof of her existence. Maybe a notarized birth certificate. Maybe some undoctored photos of her with Patrick that are more than two years old. Photos of her with her birth family. Maybe a real highschool yearbook in the hand. And I guess Tucker Carlson's request for her LSAT scores is not looking so strange either. Maybe he was giving us the hint: they don't exist at all.

This would explain at the very least Mittens switching his non-support of KJB to a yes vote.

And yes I know Matt Gaetz is not a senator...

So we have maybe two SCOTUS judges and one POTUS without a birth cetificate...

It won't let me register...

Keeps saying it doesn't like the password that I chose

And yes, I have tried at least 4 different ones