+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 5 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 87

Thread: Income Tax is Voluntary! (But they'll jail you anyway)

  1. Link to Post #21
    United States Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    3rd February 2012
    Posts
    5,512
    Thanks
    4,666
    Thanked 24,838 times in 5,080 posts

    Default Re: Income Tax is Voluntary! (But they'll jail you anyway)


    Man who failed to pay taxes for 20 years
    found guilty on 19 federal charges



    Winston Shrout , from one of his online YouTube videos. (YouTube)

    By Maxine Bernstein | The Oregonian/OregonLive
    on April 21, 2017 at 2:52 PM,
    updated April 21, 2017 at 3:06 PM
    A federal jury Friday returned across-the board guilty verdicts against Winston Shrout, a prominent sovereign citizen charged with 13 counts of issuing fake financial documents to banks and the U.S. Treasury and six counts of willful failure to file tax returns from 2009 to 2014.

    The jury foreman stood and read each guilty verdict for each of the 19 counts as Shrout watched from his seat at the defense table. Shrout displayed no expression.

    He will be sentenced at 11 a.m. on Aug. 1.

    U.S. District Judge Robert E. Jones polled each of the jurors to ensure the 12-member panel was unanimous in its findings. As the jury foreman began reading each of the verdicts, one juror teared up. A fellow juror reached out to hold her hand as the rest of the verdicts were announced.

    The judge ordered Shrout to turn over his passport and restricted him from any travel outside of Oregon without prior court permission.

    The jury deliberated for about five hours over two days following a three-day trial.

    Government lawyers argued Shrout aimed to cheat the Treasury and banks, and preached his illegal schemes to hundreds of others in paid seminars across the country and abroad.

    He purposely sent a package of 1,000 homemade International Bills of Exchange, each purporting to be a legal tender for a trillion dollars, to a small community bank in Chicago "hoping to slip one by an unsuspecting banker,'' U.S. Tax Division trial lawyer Scott Wexler told jurors.

    Investigators found a copy of the U.S. Tax Code and the U.S. Department of Justice's criminal tax manual on Shrout's laptop computer, seized one night in the parking lot of The Grotto in Portland after he concluded a seminar there. The computer also contained an alert from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, cautioning banks and federal savings institutions to be on the lookout for the circulation of such fictitious financial documents, Wexler said.

    Shrout was driven by "simple greed,'' Wexler told jurors during his closing argument. He earned a total of $562,224 from a carpentry pension, plus royalties and payments for his seminars, between 2009 and 2014, the years he failed to file tax returns, the prosecutor said.

    "He intended to get and keep as much money as he could,'' Wexler said. "The defendant knew he didn't have legal authority to print legal tender of the United States from his home computer... The defendant didn't file his tax returns because he didn't want to.''

    The 69-year-old took the stand in his own defense, claiming he was given authority to make the financial documents from the Office of International Treasury Control in order to help relieve debts from mortgage foreclosures. The office Shrout cited, though, is considered by the U.S. government a fraudulent organization that claims ties to the United Nations and the Federal Reserve.

    His standby lawyer Ruben Iniguez stressed that "not a single penny was paid out or transacted by anyone'' as a result of the 13 fictitious documents Shrout sent. He argued that the government was simply out to "muzzle'' his client.

    Shrout also testified that he hadn't paid taxes for about 20 years, joining what he estimated are about 65 million other people in what he called "tax avoidance.'' Iniguez, in his closing argument, argued that Shrout held a firm and sincere belief that he didn't have to pay taxes.

    Shrout declined comment after the verdicts were announced.

    Making, creating and issuing fictitious financial instruments is a felony. Each count could bring up to 25 years in prison, according to prosecutors. The failure to file tax returns is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in prison.

    -- Maxine Bernstein
    The Oregonian
    ____________________________________





    Justice News



    Department of Justice
    Office of Public Affairs

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    Friday, April 21, 2017

    Oregon Promoter Convicted for Making, Passing and Sending
    Bogus Financial Instruments to U.S. Treasury and Financial Institution
    and Failing to File Tax Returns
    A Hillsboro, Oregon promoter was convicted today following a jury trial of making, passing and submitting fake financial instruments to a financial institution and the U.S. Treasury and failing to file tax returns, announced Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General Stuart M. Goldberg of the Justice Department’s Tax Division.

    According to the superseding indictment and the evidence presented at trial, from approximately 2008 through 2015, Winston Shrout, 69, formerly of St. George, Utah, created and submitted more than 1000 bogus financial instruments with the intent of defrauding financial institutions and the U.S. Treasury. Shrout held seminars and private meetings to promote and market the use of these fake financial instruments to pay off debts, including federal taxes. Shrout sold recordings of his seminars, templates for fake financial instruments and other materials through his website.

    The evidence presented at trial also proved that Shrout failed to file his 2009 through 2014 tax returns despite earning $562,224 from presenting at seminars, licensing fees associated with the sale of his products and annual pension payments.

    Sentencing is scheduled for Aug. 1. Shrout faces a statutory maximum sentence of 25 years in prison for each count of making a fake financial instrument and one year in prison for each count of failing to file a tax return. He also faces a period of supervised release, restitution and monetary penalties.

    Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General Goldberg commended special agents of IRS–Criminal Investigation, who conducted the investigation, and Trial Attorneys Stuart Wexler and Lee Langston of the Tax Division, who prosecuted the case.

    Additional information about the Tax Division and its enforcement efforts may be found on the division’s website.

    The Department of Justice
    Last edited by turiya; 22nd April 2017 at 21:49.

  2. Link to Post #22
    United States Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    3rd February 2012
    Posts
    5,512
    Thanks
    4,666
    Thanked 24,838 times in 5,080 posts

    Default Re: Income Tax is Voluntary! (But they'll jail you anyway)

    Although, the above post was moved to this thread...

    Please note:
    P.S. Winston is Not in Jail, yet. Sentencing is scheduled for August 1 2017...
    And, My Source says he will still not go to jail!

    So, stay turned...

  3. Link to Post #23
    Avalon Member
    Join Date
    26th May 2010
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM, USA
    Age
    73
    Posts
    2,450
    Thanks
    11,327
    Thanked 22,062 times in 2,419 posts

    Default Re: Income Tax is Voluntary! (But they'll jail you anyway)

    Oh, he's going to prison (not jail) alright. I have not heard of this case before today and I have not read anymore than what is on this thread, but I'll say two things: 1) he probably does not have the means to buy himself out of prison at this point, and 2) if he sincerely believes he is a sovereign, he did everything wrong vis-a-vis opposing the federal income tax and seeking to "avoid" (sometimes code for "evade") or minimize taxes. If jurors were crying and holding hands, they did not want to return that verdict but they believed what he did was wrong and what they did is right under the circumstances and given the instructions of law that was read to them by the court.

    I am no supporter of the federal income tax. I believe it is not just unconstitutional but anti-constitutional and I believe the 16th Amend was not ratified by the requisite States, nor was it, therefore, properly certified by the then (1913) Secretary of State--but, if you are going to go at this alone, there is a right way and a wrong way to assert your sovereignty and avoid taxes. Also, and I'm not saying this guy is one (because I don't know) but there are a lot of frauds out there taking avantage of others by selling hair-brained tax avoidance schemes that get people into deep trouble with the IRS as "tax avoiders."

  4. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Satori For This Post:

    abmqa (25th April 2017), Atlas (24th April 2017), Bill Ryan (23rd April 2017), ThePythonicCow (23rd April 2017)

  5. Link to Post #24
    United States Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    3rd February 2012
    Posts
    5,512
    Thanks
    4,666
    Thanked 24,838 times in 5,080 posts

    Default Re: Income Tax is Voluntary! (But they'll jail you anyway)

    Quote Posted by Satori (here)
    Oh, he's going to prison (not jail) alright. I have not heard of this case before today and I have not read anymore than what is on this thread, but I'll say two things: 1) he probably does not have the means to buy himself out of prison at this point, and 2) if he sincerely believes he is a sovereign, he did everything wrong vis-a-vis opposing the federal income tax and seeking to "avoid" (sometimes code for "evade") or minimize taxes. If jurors were crying and holding hands, they did not want to return that verdict but they believed what he did was wrong and what they did is right under the circumstances and given the instructions of law that was read to them by the court.

    I am no supporter of the federal income tax. I believe it is not just unconstitutional but anti-constitutional and I believe the 16th Amend was not ratified by the requisite States, nor was it, therefore, properly certified by the then (1913) Secretary of State--but, if you are going to go at this alone, there is a right way and a wrong way to assert your sovereignty and avoid taxes. Also, and I'm not saying this guy is one (because I don't know) but there are a lot of frauds out there taking avantage of others by selling hair-brained tax avoidance schemes that get people into deep trouble with the IRS as "tax avoiders."
    Sorry Satori. Enlightened you are not, as of yet, anyways....

    The so-called 'Income' tax is absolutely constitutional, its has simply been misapplied. Most people, including all your tax consultants, including all those that sat on that jury, have been brainwashed into believing that the Income tax applies to them. The next time you receive a Notice from the Internal Revenue Service, write them a letter telling them you will be glad to pay the tax only if they can show you how you've made yourself 'subject to' or 'liable for' the taxes imposed. You will never receive any reply back...

    Like I said, Winston Shrout will not be sentenced. He will not got to jail or prison.
    You can take that to the bank.... only if they're not already on a bank holiday, by then.
    Last edited by turiya; 23rd April 2017 at 01:39.

  6. Link to Post #25
    Avalon Member
    Join Date
    26th May 2010
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM, USA
    Age
    73
    Posts
    2,450
    Thanks
    11,327
    Thanked 22,062 times in 2,419 posts

    Default Re: Income Tax is Voluntary! (But they'll jail you anyway)

    Quote Posted by turiya (here)
    Quote Posted by Satori (here)
    Oh, he's going to prison (not jail) alright. I have not heard of this case before today and I have not read anymore than what is on this thread, but I'll say two things: 1) he probably does not have the means to buy himself out of prison at this point, and 2) if he sincerely believes he is a sovereign, he did everything wrong vis-a-vis opposing the federal income tax and seeking to "avoid" (sometimes code for "evade") or minimize taxes. If jurors were crying and holding hands, they did not want to return that verdict but they believed what he did was wrong and what they did is right under the circumstances and given the instructions of law that was read to them by the court.

    I am no supporter of the federal income tax. I believe it is not just unconstitutional but anti-constitutional and I believe the 16th Amend was not ratified by the requisite States, nor was it, therefore, properly certified by the then (1913) Secretary of State--but, if you are going to go at this alone, there is a right way and a wrong way to assert your sovereignty and avoid taxes. Also, and I'm not saying this guy is one (because I don't know) but there are a lot of frauds out there taking avantage of others by selling hair-brained tax avoidance schemes that get people into deep trouble with the IRS as "tax avoiders."
    Sorry Satori. Enlightened you are not, as of yet, anyways....

    The so-called 'Income' tax is absolutely constitutional, its has simply been misapplied. Most people, including all your tax consultants, including all those that sat on that jury, have been brainwashed into believing that the Income tax applies to them. The next time you receive a Notice from the Internal Revenue Service, write them a letter telling them you will be glad to pay the tax only if they can show you how you've made yourself 'subject to' or 'liable for' the taxes imposed. You will never receive any reply back...

    Like I said, Winston Shrout will not be sentenced. He will not got to jail or prison.
    You can take that to the bank.... only if they're not already on a bank holiday, by then.
    Turiya,

    You are right about one thing, the IRS will not respond to such a letter, not with a substantive response to the assertion. It may respond in other ways, however, depending on the circumstances. They tend to ignore any such assertion, whether in a letter or otherwise. The IRS and US Treasury, and the courts, consider such assertions frivolous and without merit, even if it is not frivolous with respect to a particular individual and has merit.

    I have no "Source" about this case as you seem to have. So far my source is you and your posts. If I may say, your certitude that this man will not be sentenced or go to prison rings a bit ominous to me. I get the sense that you have been told and believe that he has another plan in mind that will preclude him from getting that far. Of course I could be completely off the mark there, but the absolute conviction (no pun intended) of your conclusion and certainty leads me to think that he has some other plan in mind.

    I respectfully disagree with you that the the federal income tax is constitutional. Yes, the federal courts say that it is and call a challenge to the constitutionality of the 16th amendment frivolous and without merit. Even for those not in privilege with the federal government and to whom the argument has merit. So on that score you are right. (The courts have called many acts of government constitutional when in fact they are not. But, we are told, that the law is what the highest court says it is.) But based upon my studies, the 16th amend was not ratified by 2/3 of the states, thus it was not an amendment to the Consitution and cannot be the basis for a federal tax on income. However, that makes no practical difference because the courts say it is a valid amendment and that therefore the federal government has the power to tax our incomes.

    Also, even if a law is constitutional, but it is misapplied, it is unconstitutional to the extent it is misapplied. In the constitutional jurisprudence there is a whole body of law on the subject of a law being constitutional "on its face", but unconstitutional "as applied."

    I suspect that you and I are more in agreement than what our posts depict. Either way, I bid you well.

  7. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Satori For This Post:

    Atlas (23rd April 2017), Bill Ryan (23rd April 2017)

  8. Link to Post #26
    United States Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    3rd February 2012
    Posts
    5,512
    Thanks
    4,666
    Thanked 24,838 times in 5,080 posts

    Default Re: Income Tax is Voluntary! (But they'll jail you anyway)

    Satori -

    Tell me what you know about the so-called "income" tax...
    Please tell me what is the subject of this so-called 'income' tax?

    There are only two possibilities that it can be, please tell me which one it is:
    Is it a direct tax or an indirect tax ???

    THREE CATEGORIES

    1) A tax on People (capitation tax - a direct tax)
    2) A tax on Property (a direct tax - apportioned among the States according to population)
    3) A tax on an Event or Activity (duties, imposts and excises - an indirect tax on an activity or event)

    Please choose one DIRECT or INDIRECT. And we can go from there...

    Keep in mind... the name of the tax does not determine the nature of the tax (capitation, property, duty, impost or excise), as well as the name of the tax does not determine the subject of of the tax. So the fact that we have a tax called an "income" tax does not necessarily mean that "income" is the subject of the tax.

    The United States Supreme Court agrees with this - as folows:
    The name by which the tax is described in the statute
    is, of course, immaterial.
    Dawson vs Kentucky, 255 U.S. 288, at 292 (1921)
    [page 12]
    Will await your reply...
    Thanks

    Quote Posted by Satori (here)
    Quote Posted by turiya (here)
    Quote Posted by Satori (here)
    Oh, he's going to prison (not jail) alright. I have not heard of this case before today and I have not read anymore than what is on this thread, but I'll say two things: 1) he probably does not have the means to buy himself out of prison at this point, and 2) if he sincerely believes he is a sovereign, he did everything wrong vis-a-vis opposing the federal income tax and seeking to "avoid" (sometimes code for "evade") or minimize taxes. If jurors were crying and holding hands, they did not want to return that verdict but they believed what he did was wrong and what they did is right under the circumstances and given the instructions of law that was read to them by the court.

    I am no supporter of the federal income tax. I believe it is not just unconstitutional but anti-constitutional and I believe the 16th Amend was not ratified by the requisite States, nor was it, therefore, properly certified by the then (1913) Secretary of State--but, if you are going to go at this alone, there is a right way and a wrong way to assert your sovereignty and avoid taxes. Also, and I'm not saying this guy is one (because I don't know) but there are a lot of frauds out there taking avantage of others by selling hair-brained tax avoidance schemes that get people into deep trouble with the IRS as "tax avoiders."
    Sorry Satori. Enlightened you are not, as of yet, anyways....

    The so-called 'Income' tax is absolutely constitutional, its has simply been misapplied. Most people, including all your tax consultants, including all those that sat on that jury, have been brainwashed into believing that the Income tax applies to them. The next time you receive a Notice from the Internal Revenue Service, write them a letter telling them you will be glad to pay the tax only if they can show you how you've made yourself 'subject to' or 'liable for' the taxes imposed. You will never receive any reply back...

    Like I said, Winston Shrout will not be sentenced. He will not got to jail or prison.
    You can take that to the bank.... only if they're not already on a bank holiday, by then.
    Turiya,

    You are right about one thing, the IRS will not respond to such a letter, not with a substantive response to the assertion. It may respond in other ways, however, depending on the circumstances. They tend to ignore any such assertion, whether in a letter or otherwise. The IRS and US Treasury, and the courts, consider such assertions frivolous and without merit, even if it is not frivolous with respect to a particular individual and has merit.

    I have no "Source" about this case as you seem to have. So far my source is you and your posts. If I may say, your certitude that this man will not be sentenced or go to prison rings a bit ominous to me. I get the sense that you have been told and believe that he has another plan in mind that will preclude him from getting that far. Of course I could be completely off the mark there, but the absolute conviction (no pun intended) of your conclusion and certainty leads me to think that he has some other plan in mind.

    I respectfully disagree with you that the the federal income tax is constitutional. Yes, the federal courts say that it is and call a challenge to the constitutionality of the 16th amendment frivolous and without merit. Even for those not in privilege with the federal government and to whom the argument has merit. So on that score you are right. (The courts have called many acts of government constitutional when in fact they are not. But, we are told, that the law is what the highest court says it is.) But based upon my studies, the 16th amend was not ratified by 2/3 of the states, thus it was not an amendment to the Consitution and cannot be the basis for a federal tax on income. However, that makes no practical difference because the courts say it is a valid amendment and that therefore the federal government has the power to tax our incomes.

    Also, even if a law is constitutional, but it is misapplied, it is unconstitutional to the extent it is misapplied. In the constitutional jurisprudence there is a whole body of law on the subject of a law being constitutional "on its face", but unconstitutional "as applied."

    I suspect that you and I are more in agreement than what our posts depict. Either way, I bid you well.
    Last edited by turiya; 23rd April 2017 at 23:33.

  9. Link to Post #27
    Avalon Member
    Join Date
    26th May 2010
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM, USA
    Age
    73
    Posts
    2,450
    Thanks
    11,327
    Thanked 22,062 times in 2,419 posts

    Default Re: Income Tax is Voluntary! (But they'll jail you anyway)

    Quote Posted by turiya (here)
    Satori -

    Tell me what you know about the so-called "income" tax...
    Please tell me what is the subject of this so-called 'income' tax?

    There are only two possibilities that it can be, please tell me which one it is:
    Is it a direct tax or an indirect tax ???

    THREE CATEGORIES

    1) A tax on People (capitation tax - a direct tax)
    2) A tax on Property (a direct tax - apportioned among the States according to population)
    3) A tax on an Event or Activity (duties, imposts and excises - an indirect tax on an activity or event)

    Please choose one DIRECT or INDIRECT. And we can go from there...

    Keep in mind... the name of the tax does not determine the nature of the tax (capitation, property, duty, impost or excise), as well as the name of the tax does not determine the subject of of the tax. So the fact that we have a tax called an "income" tax does not necessarily mean that "income" is the subject of the tax.

    The United States Supreme Court agrees with this - as folows:
    The name by which the tax is described in the statute
    is, of course, immaterial.
    Dawson vs Kentucky, 255 U.S. 288, at 292 (1921)
    [page 12]
    Will await your reply...
    Thanks

    Quote Posted by Satori (here)
    Quote Posted by turiya (here)
    Quote Posted by Satori (here)
    Oh, he's going to prison (not jail) alright. I have not heard of this case before today and I have not read anymore than what is on this thread, but I'll say two things: 1) he probably does not have the means to buy himself out of prison at this point, and 2) if he sincerely believes he is a sovereign, he did everything wrong vis-a-vis opposing the federal income tax and seeking to "avoid" (sometimes code for "evade") or minimize taxes. If jurors were crying and holding hands, they did not want to return that verdict but they believed what he did was wrong and what they did is right under the circumstances and given the instructions of law that was read to them by the court.

    I am no supporter of the federal income tax. I believe it is not just unconstitutional but anti-constitutional and I believe the 16th Amend was not ratified by the requisite States, nor was it, therefore, properly certified by the then (1913) Secretary of State--but, if you are going to go at this alone, there is a right way and a wrong way to assert your sovereignty and avoid taxes. Also, and I'm not saying this guy is one (because I don't know) but there are a lot of frauds out there taking avantage of others by selling hair-brained tax avoidance schemes that get people into deep trouble with the IRS as "tax avoiders."
    Sorry Satori. Enlightened you are not, as of yet, anyways....

    The so-called 'Income' tax is absolutely constitutional, its has simply been misapplied. Most people, including all your tax consultants, including all those that sat on that jury, have been brainwashed into believing that the Income tax applies to them. The next time you receive a Notice from the Internal Revenue Service, write them a letter telling them you will be glad to pay the tax only if they can show you how you've made yourself 'subject to' or 'liable for' the taxes imposed. You will never receive any reply back...

    Like I said, Winston Shrout will not be sentenced. He will not got to jail or prison.
    You can take that to the bank.... only if they're not already on a bank holiday, by then.
    Turiya,

    You are right about one thing, the IRS will not respond to such a letter, not with a substantive response to the assertion. It may respond in other ways, however, depending on the circumstances. They tend to ignore any such assertion, whether in a letter or otherwise. The IRS and US Treasury, and the courts, consider such assertions frivolous and without merit, even if it is not frivolous with respect to a particular individual and has merit.

    I have no "Source" about this case as you seem to have. So far my source is you and your posts. If I may say, your certitude that this man will not be sentenced or go to prison rings a bit ominous to me. I get the sense that you have been told and believe that he has another plan in mind that will preclude him from getting that far. Of course I could be completely off the mark there, but the absolute conviction (no pun intended) of your conclusion and certainty leads me to think that he has some other plan in mind.

    I respectfully disagree with you that the the federal income tax is constitutional. Yes, the federal courts say that it is and call a challenge to the constitutionality of the 16th amendment frivolous and without merit. Even for those not in privilege with the federal government and to whom the argument has merit. So on that score you are right. (The courts have called many acts of government constitutional when in fact they are not. But, we are told, that the law is what the highest court says it is.) But based upon my studies, the 16th amend was not ratified by 2/3 of the states, thus it was not an amendment to the Consitution and cannot be the basis for a federal tax on income. However, that makes no practical difference because the courts say it is a valid amendment and that therefore the federal government has the power to tax our incomes.

    Also, even if a law is constitutional, but it is misapplied, it is unconstitutional to the extent it is misapplied. In the constitutional jurisprudence there is a whole body of law on the subject of a law being constitutional "on its face", but unconstitutional "as applied."

    I suspect that you and I are more in agreement than what our posts depict. Either way, I bid you well.

    To answer your question directly, the federal income tax is a "direct tax." That is one reason for the language of the 16th Amend. The Constitution had to be amended to make a direct tax on income constitutional and lawful, without regard to uniformity or apportionment. I didn't realize there would be a quiz.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to Satori For This Post:

    abmqa (25th April 2017)

  11. Link to Post #28
    United States Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    3rd February 2012
    Posts
    5,512
    Thanks
    4,666
    Thanked 24,838 times in 5,080 posts

    Default Re: Income Tax is Voluntary! (But they'll jail you anyway)

    Thank you, Satori. Just curious as to what your understanding is.... Or, better to say... What your misunderstanding is.

    Most people don't understand what kind of tax they have been dealing with most all of their lives.
    So, don't feel bad, cuz you're not alone.

    Now back to discussing the distinction between direct and indirect taxes. We now know that (at least according to the original Constitution) all direct taxes must be apportioned (divided) among the States according to population and all indirect taxes must be uniform. We next need to learn the difference between a direct tax and an indirect tax. For this information, we will turn to the courts, expecially the United States Suppreme Court.
    We will first discuss indirect taxes (duties, imposts and excises).

    A tax laid upon the happening of an event, as distinguished from its tangible fruits, is an indirect tax.
    Tyler vs United States, 281 U.S. 497, at 502 (1930).

    Some people think that the excise taxes on cigarettes and whiskey are taxes on the cigarettes or whiskey as property, but this is not so. The subject of these taxes is the manufacturing, importing or distilling of these products. A "sales" tax is not on the property sold but rather on the event (or activiity) of the sale. The subject of an indirect tax (such as an excise tax) is never the property, but rather the event, activity, incident or occasion.
    NOTE: The terms "activity", "event", "incident"
    and "occasion" are used interchangeably in regard
    to indirect taxation.

    The United States Supreme Court tells us that:

    Excises are "taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale or
    consumption of commodities within a country, upon
    licesnses to pursue certain occupations, and upon corporate
    privileges." Sooley, Const. Lim., 7th ed., 680.
    Flint vs Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, at 151 (1911).
    When you are trying to decide whether the subject of a so-called "income" tax would be people, property or activities, always keep in mind that the subject of indirect taxes (duties, imposts and excises) is never property, but rather some taxable activitiy.

    The fact that a direct tax must be apportioned is again verified by the United States Supreme Court in 1937. In one of the "social security" tax cases, Steward Machine Company was arguing that the tax collected from the corporation under the name of "unemployment taxes" was, for various reasons, unconstitutional. The Supreme Court held that it was a valid excise tax. The Court further clarified the fact that taxes on property and capitation taxes were indeed direct taxes and did indeed require apportionment.
    The subject matter of taxation open to the power of the
    Congress is as comprehensive as that open to the power of
    the states, though the method of apportionment may at
    times be different. "The Congress shall have power to lay
    and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises." Art. 1, § 8.
    If the tax is a direct one, it shall be apportioned according
    to the census or enumeration. If it is a duty, impost, or
    excise, it shall be uniform throughout the United States.
    Together, these classes include every form of tax
    appropriate to sovereignty. [citations omitted.] Whether
    the tax is classified as an "excise" is in truth not of
    critical importance. If not that, it is an "impost" [citations
    omitted], or a "duty" [ciitations omitted.] A capitation or
    other "direct" tax it certainly is not.
    Steward Machine Co. vs Davis, 301 U.S. 548, at 581-582
    (1937)
    Also, in 1960 case, the United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, confirms the fact that taxes on property must be apportioned. In an income tax case, Penn Mutual Indemnity Company challenged the tax as a direct tax on property and, therefore, unconstitutional beccause it was not apportioned among the States as the Constitution requires of direct taxes. Without going into many of the details of the case, certain excerots will be cited.
    This is an income tax case where the Tax Court has
    sustained the Commissioner [of Internal Revenue] as
    against the taxpayer, 1959, 32 T.C. 653.

    Indeed, the requirement for qpportionment is pretty strictly
    limited to taxes on real and personal property and capitation
    taxes
    .

    It is not necessary to uphold the validity of the tax imposed
    by the United States that the tax itself bears an accurate
    label. Indeed, the tax upon the distillation of spirits,
    imposed very early by federal authority, now reads and has
    read in terms of a tax upon the spirits themselves, yet the
    validity of this imposition has been upheld for a very great
    many years.

    We do not think it profitable, however, to make the label as
    precise as that required under the Food and Drug Act.
    Congress has the power to impose taxes generally, and if
    the particular impostion does not run afoul of any
    constitutional restrictions then the tax is lawful. call it what
    you will.
    Penn Mutual Indemnity Co. vs C.I.R. 277 F.2d 16, at 17,
    19-20 (3rd Cir. 1960). (Emphasis and explanation added.)

    So once again it is confirmed that a tax on property is a direct ta and as such it must be apportioned among the States according to population.

    Additionally, we learn that the name of the tax does not determine the nature of the tax (capitation, property, duty, impost or excise), as well as the fact that the name of the tax does not determine the subject of the tax. So the fact that we have a tax called an "income" tax does not necessarily mean that "income" is the subject of the tax.
    The United States Supreme Court agrees (as previously posted).

    The name by which the tax is described in the statute is, of
    course, immaterial.
    Dawson vs Kentucky, 255 U.S. 288, at 292 (1921).
    Can we be fairly certain up to this point that the so-called "income" tax and so-called "social security" tax cannot be considered taxes on property, since neither one is apportioned among the States as would be required of direct taxes? That seems to be reasonable enough, but up to this point we have not identified the subject of either the so-called "income" tax or the so-called "social security" tax.

    We can also be fairly certain that the so-called "income" tax and the so-called "social security" tax cannot be considered direct taxes of any sort. But what is the subject of either of these taxes?

    A particular United States Supreme Court case which explains just how an indirect tax can be imposed on a revenue taxable activity (the lawful subject of the tax), and just how the income derived from that activity can be unsed merely to measure the amount of the tax, can be found in the United States Supreme Court Reports of 1911. Numerous corporations took their issues to court and the cases were consolidated in the landmark case of Flint v.. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911).

    On August 15, 1909, Congress passed "The Corporation Tax" law, (Ch. 6, 36 Stat. 11). This revenue act was written without the use of abstract or cryptic language. In clear and unequivocal language, the statute names the lawful subject of the tax which is the activity of carrying on or doing business by specified organizations. (In other words, it is the exercise of the privilege that is the lawful subject of the tax. Section 38 of the Act reads in part as follows:
    That every corporation, joint stock company or association
    organized for profit and having a capital stock represented
    by shares, and every insurance company . . . shall be
    subject to pay annually a special excise tax with respect to
    the carrying on or doing business by such corporation, joint
    stock company or association, or insurance company
    ,
    equivalent to one percentum upon the entire net income
    over and above five thousand dollars received by it from all
    sources during such year. . .a .
    "The Corporation Tax" law, (Ch. 6 36 Stat. 11).

    (Emphasis added.)
    The corporations challenged the 1909 Act on numerous grounds. One of the grounds upon which the Act was challenged was that it was a direct tax on the corporate francise. The corporations claimed that to tax the income from this form of property (the franchise) would be the same as a direct tax on the property and thus unconstitutional. Additionally, the corporations claimed the national government could not tax a State granted privilege. The United States Supreme Court explains in Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911), why it was not a direct tax and that the national government could indeed tax whatever the States could tax.
    As the latter organizations share many of the benefits of
    corporate organization it may be described generally as a
    tax upon the doing of business in a corporate capacity. . . .
    In other words, the tax is imposed upon the doing of
    business of the caracter described, and the measure of the
    tax us to be the income, ....
    Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, at 146 (1911).

    Duties and imposts are terms commonly applied to levies
    made by governments on the importation of exportation of
    commodities. Excises are "taxes laid upon the
    manufacture, sale or consumption of commodities within a
    country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, and
    upon corporate privileges." Cooley, Const. Lim., 7th ed., 680
    Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., supra, at 151.

    The tax under consideration, as we have construed the
    statute, may be described as an excise upon the particular
    privilege of doing business in a corporate capacity, i.e.,
    with advantages which arise from corporate or quasi-
    corporate organization; or, when applied to insurance
    companies, for doing the business of such companies. As
    was said in the Thomas Case, 192 U.S. 363 supra, the
    requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of
    privileges, and the element of absolute and unavoidable
    demand is lacking. If business is not done in the manner
    described in the statute, no tax is payable.
    Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., supra, at 151-152.
    (Empahsis added.)

    We must remember, too, that the revenues of the United
    States must be obtained in the same territory, from the same
    people, and excise taxes must be collected from the same
    activities, as are also reached by the States in order to
    support their local government.
    Flint v. Stoney Co., supra, at 154 (Empasis added.)

    Conceding the power of Congress to tax the business
    activities of private corporations . . . the tax must be
    measured by some standard....
    Flint v. Stoney Co., supra, at 165 (Empasis added.)

    It is therefore well settled by the decisions of this court that
    when the sovereign authority has exercised the right to tax
    a legitimate subject of taxation as an exercise of a franchise
    or privilege, it is no objection that the measure of taxation
    is found in the income.
    Flint v. Stoney Co., supra, at 165
    (Empasis added.)
    Clearly, in 1911, the United States Supreme Court has stated that a tax on a revenue taxable activity can be measured by the income derived from that activity, which in this case was the exercise of a government granted privilege.

    In equally clear language, the courts have stated that capitation taxes and taxes on property imposed by Congress must be apportioned among the States as is required by the United States Consitution of direct taxes. And of course, the so-called "income" tax and so-called "social security" tax are not apportioned among the States. Thus, they cannot be considered as capitation taxes, or taxes on property, which are direct

    Take a look at your tax tables for the so-called "income" taxes. These tax tables are uniform for every State. This is, again, the requirement for indirect taxes. An excise tax must be uniform for every State within the United States. Hence, the so-called "income" tax can only be an indirect tax. As in the case of an Excise tax.

    If the so-called "income" tax was a direct tax, then according to the Constitution it would have to be apportioned among each of the States according to its population, as is the requirement for direct taxes. This means federal income tax tables would be different for every State, because State populations are not the same.

    Then, what do you suppose the subject of the so-called "income" tax really is?





    Quote Posted by Satori (here)
    Quote Posted by turiya (here)
    Satori -

    Tell me what you know about the so-called "income" tax...
    Please tell me what is the subject of this so-called 'income' tax?

    There are only two possibilities that it can be, please tell me which one it is:
    Is it a direct tax or an indirect tax ???

    THREE CATEGORIES

    1) A tax on People (capitation tax - a direct tax)
    2) A tax on Property (a direct tax - apportioned among the States according to population)
    3) A tax on an Event or Activity (duties, imposts and excises - an indirect tax on an activity or event)

    Please choose one DIRECT or INDIRECT. And we can go from there...

    Keep in mind... the name of the tax does not determine the nature of the tax (capitation, property, duty, impost or excise), as well as the name of the tax does not determine the subject of of the tax. So the fact that we have a tax called an "income" tax does not necessarily mean that "income" is the subject of the tax.

    The United States Supreme Court agrees with this - as folows:
    The name by which the tax is described in the statute
    is, of course, immaterial.
    Dawson vs Kentucky, 255 U.S. 288, at 292 (1921)
    [page 12]
    Will await your reply...
    Thanks
    To answer your question directly, the federal income tax is a "direct tax." That is one reason for the language of the 16th Amend. The Constitution had to be amended to make a direct tax on income constitutional and lawful, without regard to uniformity or apportionment. I didn't realize there would be a quiz.
    Last edited by turiya; 24th April 2017 at 11:00.

  12. Link to Post #29
    United States Administrator ThePythonicCow's Avatar
    Join Date
    4th January 2011
    Location
    North Texas
    Language
    English
    Age
    76
    Posts
    28,587
    Thanks
    30,505
    Thanked 138,445 times in 21,493 posts

    Default Re: Income Tax is Voluntary! (But they'll jail you anyway)

    Quote Posted by turiya (here)
    Thank you, Satori. Just curious as to what your understanding is.... Or, better to say... What your misunderstanding is.

    Most people don't understand what kind of tax they have been dealing with most all of their lives.
    So, don't feel bad, cuz you're not alone.
    Perhaps you are not alone either. Perhaps the reality is not as you seem so confident that it is.

    In any case, I suspect that a bit more modesty in the certainty with which one holds one's position, and a bit more openess to the considered views and expertise of others, would be welcome by many of the gentle readers of this thread.

    ... and perhaps even some of those readers, perhaps Satori, perhaps myself, perhaps someone else who has not yet posted on this thread, might offer some insight or evidence that would benefit the understanding of all of us on this important topic. We'll likely never know however, since such offerings are seldom made, to those who have chosen not to receive.
    My quite dormant website: pauljackson.us

  13. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to ThePythonicCow For This Post:

    abmqa (25th April 2017), Satori (24th April 2017), Tinman (24th April 2017)

  14. Link to Post #30
    United States Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    3rd February 2012
    Posts
    5,512
    Thanks
    4,666
    Thanked 24,838 times in 5,080 posts

    Default Re: Income Tax is Voluntary! (But they'll jail you anyway)

    Quote Posted by Paul (here)
    Quote Posted by turiya (here)
    Thank you, Satori. Just curious as to what your understanding is.... Or, better to say... What your misunderstanding is.

    Most people don't understand what kind of tax they have been dealing with most all of their lives.
    So, don't feel bad, cuz you're not alone.
    Perhaps you are not alone either. Perhaps the reality is not as you seem so confident that it is.

    In any case, I suspect that a bit more modesty in the certainty with which one holds one's position, and a bit more openess to the considered views and expertise of others, would be welcome by many of the gentle readers of this thread.

    ... and perhaps even some of those readers, perhaps Satori, perhaps myself, perhaps someone else who has not yet posted on this thread, might offer some insight or evidence that would benefit the understanding of all of us on this important topic. We'll likely never know however, since such offerings are seldom made, to those who have chosen not to receive.
    I do believe that your view & insinuation, Paul, is quite incorrect. It should have been quite obvious to you, and anybody else. That it was not me that moved to enter into this dialogue. Be sure to see how & where this exchange began. It certainly did not begin, here, with me. I do not see the problem that you seem to want to paint over on this.

    As to the statements that I have made in my short two-three post reply to Satori... As to your suggestion for providing "a bit more modesty", my response is as such:
    The references laid out below each of the posted citations, this would in itself, show that I have shown plainly of being a bit more modest... as this is not a forceful exchange. And in particular shows quite a bit of modesty. For I've clearly shown that it is not my opinion, it is not my position, but the position & opinion of the Supreme Court Justices that have ruled in the cases that have been posted. For what better authority could one find than the United States Supreme Court, itself, and what findings they have stated.

    I am just repeating what they have stated. Perhaps, you are a bit confused & are taking their profound position(s) & statements as my own. Please do not confuse my words with the words of the Supreme Court Justices' words.

    Again, this is not my opionion but the opinion as stated coming from the United States Supreme Court cases.

    But alas, some choose to overlook the stated facts by the highest court of this land. And to promote a kind of disdain for the information that is provided by a lesser individual - again, the words are not mine to claim. But they are posted only meant to inform an associated PA member - in a friendly way. There is no overbearing, condemnation that is believed by you, Paul, to have been made, here. One can easily check on the references that have been provided beneath each of the above citations. Again, this is not my immodest bravado, as you choose to perceive it, but only displaying the prominent opinion(s) laid out by the Supreme Court Justices.

    Seems you do not favor the sharing of information. As I would wonder how often you, yourself, have ever looked within case law reference books... just wondering, Paul.

    Sad... to see it. You prefer to cut the discussion short with this type of censorship.
    I would have thought better of you, my friend, for not being so obvious with where you have chosen to stand with this particular PA member.

    With that said, I only wish the best to you, with regards...
    Last edited by turiya; 24th April 2017 at 15:29.

  15. Link to Post #31
    United States Administrator ThePythonicCow's Avatar
    Join Date
    4th January 2011
    Location
    North Texas
    Language
    English
    Age
    76
    Posts
    28,587
    Thanks
    30,505
    Thanked 138,445 times in 21,493 posts

    Default Re: Income Tax is Voluntary! (But they'll jail you anyway)

    Quote Posted by turiya (here)
    I do not see the problem that you seem to want to paint over on this.
    I agree that you do not see the concern that I had, and still have.
    My quite dormant website: pauljackson.us

  16. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ThePythonicCow For This Post:

    abmqa (25th April 2017), Atlas (25th April 2017)

  17. Link to Post #32
    UK Avalon Founder Bill Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th February 2010
    Location
    Ecuador
    Posts
    34,274
    Thanks
    209,041
    Thanked 457,576 times in 32,794 posts

    Default Re: Income Tax is Voluntary! (But they'll jail you anyway)

    @ Satori:

    I don't pretend to be any kind of authority on any of this. (And may barely even understand major parts of it!)

    But I found this video very interesting — and to a layman, very professional and seemingly plausible. Could you possibly comment? (If this is an unreasonable request, please ignore it! )


  18. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Bill Ryan For This Post:

    abmqa (25th April 2017), Atlas (25th April 2017)

  19. Link to Post #33
    Canada Avalon Member
    Join Date
    4th November 2012
    Posts
    3,020
    Thanks
    5,475
    Thanked 13,120 times in 2,678 posts

    Default Re: Income Tax is Voluntary! (But they'll jail you anyway)

    I am assuming this Strout guy will avail himself of Medicare at some point and uses the highway system? I understand those who withold taxes because they disagree with the U.S being on a war footing and don't want to help pay for it. But if they don't pay, they should also not rely on any govt agency at any time, for anything.

  20. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to AutumnW For This Post:

    abmqa (25th April 2017), TargeT (25th April 2017)

  21. Link to Post #34
    United States Avalon Member abmqa's Avatar
    Join Date
    22nd March 2015
    Age
    63
    Posts
    208
    Thanks
    716
    Thanked 999 times in 185 posts

    Default Re: Income Tax is Voluntary! (But they'll jail you anyway)

    Wow!! The definitions as stated in these tax laws are extremely counter-intuitive!

    Very interesting video!!

    Thanks Bill

  22. The Following User Says Thank You to abmqa For This Post:

    TargeT (4th May 2017)

  23. Link to Post #35
    United States Avalon Member abmqa's Avatar
    Join Date
    22nd March 2015
    Age
    63
    Posts
    208
    Thanks
    716
    Thanked 999 times in 185 posts

    Default Re: Income Tax is Voluntary! (But they'll jail you anyway)

    Quote Posted by AutumnW (here)
    I am assuming this Strout guy will avail himself of Medicare at some point and uses the highway system? I understand those who withold taxes because they disagree with the U.S being on a war footing and don't want to help pay for it. But if they don't pay, they should also not rely on any govt agency at any time, for anything.
    I'm not absolutely sure, but I thought that the highway system is paid for through taxes on gasoline.

    I will probably take a lot of heat for this comment, but I personally believe that all medical care should be free for all people and should not be a "for profit" venture.

  24. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to abmqa For This Post:

    Blacklight43 (28th April 2017), Nasu (25th April 2017), TargeT (25th April 2017)

  25. Link to Post #36
    Avalon Member
    Join Date
    26th May 2010
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM, USA
    Age
    73
    Posts
    2,450
    Thanks
    11,327
    Thanked 22,062 times in 2,419 posts

    Default Re: Income Tax is Voluntary! (But they'll jail you anyway)

    Quote Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
    @ Satori:

    I don't pretend to be any kind of authority on any of this. (And may barely even understand major parts of it!)

    But I found this video very interesting — and to a layman, very professional and seemingly plausible. Could you possibly comment? (If this is an unreasonable request, please ignore it! )


    Bill,

    I just saw your post. Please allow me sometime to review the video and get back to you.

  26. The Following User Says Thank You to Satori For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (27th April 2017)

  27. Link to Post #37
    United States Administrator ThePythonicCow's Avatar
    Join Date
    4th January 2011
    Location
    North Texas
    Language
    English
    Age
    76
    Posts
    28,587
    Thanks
    30,505
    Thanked 138,445 times in 21,493 posts

    Default Re: Income Tax is Voluntary! (But they'll jail you anyway)

    Quote Posted by Satori (here)
    Quote Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
    @ Satori:

    I don't pretend to be any kind of authority on any of this. (And may barely even understand major parts of it!)

    But I found this video very interesting — and to a layman, very professional and seemingly plausible. Could you possibly comment? (If this is an unreasonable request, please ignore it! )

    Bill,

    I just saw your post. Please allow me sometime to review the video and get back to you.
    In my amateur opinion, this is another instance of a persistent psyops - presenting the false position that it matters whether or not, and in what way or not, the US Federal Income Tax is legal or constitutional.

    It doesn't matter, so long as US law and constitution are not the senior instruments of control in the US. (P.S. -- Nor are either the various US institutions such as the Congress, the Office of the President, and the Supreme Court, or the voting citizens of the US, the senior instrument of control in the US.)

    The above video is a professionally produced presentation of certain US laws and other such legal documents. This video distracts us from the actual balance of power in the present US, in which state and federal constitution, law, and regulation are subordinate to some elite globalists and their bankster agents.

    This regretable circumstance, that some elite globalists and their bankster agents are a more senior agent of control, is nicely documented in John Titus' new documentary All the Plenary's Men, which turiya posted in Trump: The Great American Reset -- Post #512, and which I praised in the subsequent Post #517.

    The US Federal Income Tax is closely tied to the Federal Reserve, the "central" bank owned by those same elite and their bankster agents. Both were created in 1913, the one to control and lend into existence the money used by the US government, corporations and citizens, and the other to collect the income stream needed to fund the interest payments on that debt.

    So long as such globalist elite and their bankster agents remain senior to US law and constitution, no serious challenge to the US monetary system (dollars are lent into existence at the discretion of a bankster owned and controlled institution) and federal income tax system will be allowed to succeed.

    The first rule of the fight club is "Don't talk about it." Or, in this case, the first rule of maintaining a dominant position of control is to hide it and distract from it, so that the subjects of that control don't even know what to resist.

    That is why such psyops as the above video are useful to the elite bastards who continue to keep us, as governments, corporations and individuals, in debt serfdom. It is entirely intentional, in my intuitive judgement, that the above video distracts us from the real circumstances of our debt serfdom.

    I recommend John Titus' new documentary All the Plenary's Men.
    Last edited by ThePythonicCow; 4th May 2017 at 04:47.
    My quite dormant website: pauljackson.us

  28. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to ThePythonicCow For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (4th May 2017), TargeT (4th May 2017), thunder24 (4th May 2017)

  29. Link to Post #38
    Avalon Member
    Join Date
    26th May 2010
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM, USA
    Age
    73
    Posts
    2,450
    Thanks
    11,327
    Thanked 22,062 times in 2,419 posts

    Default Re: Income Tax is Voluntary! (But they'll jail you anyway)

    Quote Posted by Paul (here)
    Quote Posted by Satori (here)
    Quote Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
    @ Satori:

    I don't pretend to be any kind of authority on any of this. (And may barely even understand major parts of it!)

    But I found this video very interesting — and to a layman, very professional and seemingly plausible. Could you possibly comment? (If this is an unreasonable request, please ignore it! )

    Bill,

    I just saw your post. Please allow me sometime to review the video and get back to you.
    In my amateur opinion, this is another instance of a persistent psyops - presenting the false position that it matters whether or not, and in what way or not, the US Federal Income Tax is legal or constitutional.

    It doesn't matter, so long as US law and constitution are not the senior instruments of control in the US. (P.S. -- Nor are either the various US institutions such as the Congress, the Office of the President, and the Supreme Court, or the voting citizens of the US, the senior instrument of control in the US.)

    The above video is a professionally produced presentation of certain US laws and other such legal documents. This video distracts us from the actual balance of power in the present US, in which state and federal constitution, law, and regulation are subordinate to some elite globalists and their bankster agents.

    This regretable circumstance, that some elite globalists and their bankster agents are a more senior agent of control, is nicely documented in John Titus' new documentary All the Plenary's Men, which turiya posted in Trump: The Great American Reset -- Post #512, and which I praised in the subsequent Post #517.

    The US Federal Income Tax is closely tied to the Federal Reserve, the "central" bank owned by those same elite and their bankster agents. Both were created in 1913, the one to control and lend into existence the money used by the US government, corporations and citizens, and the other to collect the income stream needed to fund the interest payments on that debt.

    So long as such globalist elite and their bankster agents remain senior to US law and constitution, no serious challenge to the US monetary system (dollars are lent into existence at the discretion of a bankster owned and controlled institution) and federal income tax system will be allowed to succeed.

    The first rule of the fight club is "Don't talk about it." Or, in this case, the first rule of maintaining a dominant position of control is to hide it and distract from it, so that the subjects of that control don't even know what to resist.

    That is why such psyops as the above video are useful to the elite bastards who continue to keep us, as governments, corporations and individuals, in debt serfdom. It is entirely intentional, in my intuitive judgement, that the above video distracts us from the real circumstances of our debt serfdom.

    I recommend John Titus' new documentary All the Plenary's Men.
    I returned to this thread today with the intention of responding to Bill's post, but I see that Paul has essentially said what I intended to say. And, which I have said to some extent in other posts over the past few years.

    My delay in getting back to this topic was occasioned by a family reunion that began last Friday night and concluded yesterday. My brother from Sedona, AZ, and my 87 year old mother and my sister, both from Sacramento, CA, came in to ABQ for a visit. Thus, it is not the case that what I have to say, which will add little, if anything, to what Paul said is the result of additional study on my part. I was in fact goofing off with my family and glad I did. It was nice to get us all together again.

    I began studying the topic of monetary policy and taxation in earnest not long after 911. I'm sure that we have all had the experience of getting on the internet to study one topic, which then leads to links to related and not so related topics and then you find yourself looking into a topic that is seemingly unrelated to the topic that you originally set out to research. That happened to me with 911; it led to in-depth research and study of monetary and taxation policy. Interestingly, in the final analysis, 911 and monetary policy and taxation are not unrelated. (So to other major events of any real moment, such as the JFK assassination....) It does come down to central banking. The root of all that ails us is central banking in its current form: fractional reserve, legal tender and un-payable and confiscatory interest, and the uses to which "money" is put or withheld. Particularly since 1913, so-called money is lent (and conversely borrowed) into existence with usury. Those people and commercial enterprises that The-Powers-That-Be want to succeed are able to borrow money and receive favorable tax treatment; those that TPTB do not want to succeed cannot borrow money (not in sufficient amounts) and receive unfavorable or less favorable tax treatment. The average person falls in to the latter category. What does that tell us? Serfdom, and the like and worse. The hand the gives is over the hand that receives.

    It is no coincidence that 1913 heralded in the Federal Reserve Act and the 16th Amendment to the US Constitution. That was all part of the Fabianist, collectivist global program. These are twin sisters and the flipside of the same coin. You must have a tax on incomes when your global program will in the long run inflate the money supply into oblivion. The "jurisdictional" basis for taxation, and the traditional, well-understood and legally recognized basis for taxation fell by the wayside beginning in roughly 1913. By 1913 they knew from experience, albeit on a smaller scale, that eventually monetary inflation was unsustainable and that money would not only become worth less, it would become worthless. An historical example of worthless money is Germany pre WWII. There are more recent historical examples. A federal tax on income provided a means to take some of the "money" out of circulation and thereby, to some extent, mitigate monetary inflation. But only for a while and only to a small degree. And yes, the income tax that is collected by the IRS for the US Treasury is used to pay the interest (usury) on the money that has been lent/borrowed into existence. Little, if any, of the money collected by the income tax is used to pay for any of the so-called services or entitlements provided by the US Government. Those items, and everything else, are in the main and largely "paid" for by continued and increasing borrowing from the Federal Reserve or other central banks around the globe.

    In my view, the video is simply a dressed-up and perhaps more professionally presented re-hash of "jurisdictional" arguments that have been made many a time and ruled by the federal courts, including the Tax Court and the US Supreme Court, especially after 1913, to be frivolous and without merit. Federal courts are the courts that have jurisdiction over challenges to the federal income tax. It is the height of folly and the epitome of futility to think that any challenge to the federal income tax based upon the claim that the federal government lacks jurisdiction to tax the income of We The People, will ever be successful.

    Do I wish what I just said were otherwise? Yes. Do I wish that there was no federal tax on our incomes, as was the case before 1913 (with very few transient exceptions)? Yes again. Do I think that the jurisdictional argument(s) made in the video in the OP will ever be successful in all cases? No. Has it been successful in some cases? I have yet to see such a case. When someone points me to what they say is such a case, any favorable result for the "taxpayer" (I dislike that word immensely, like "consumer" and other such titles stamped on us.) was based upon some other principle arising under the tax laws, not the claimed lack of jurisdiction to tax our incomes.

    The video asserts that any challenge to the 16th Amendment, as "The Law That Never Was", is a "nonstarter." With one word they attempt to sweep away that avenue of attack and focus instead on the "jurisdictional" challenge. This argument did not work for Peter Hendricks and his wife (The author of Cracking The Code) nor did it work for anyone else. (Joe Bannister and a few others did not prevail based upon a challenge to jurisdiction. Their acquittals were based upon other legal principles.) The "jurisdictional" argument is as much a non-starter as is a Constitutional challenge to the 16th Amendment. This is for the reasons Paul lays out in his post. Too often people who make videos and put on seminars about how the federal government lacks, or may lack, jurisdiction to tax our incomes, are motived by the desire to enhance their incomes.

    Ironically, and sadly, it can be observed that the more truth and substance there is to a systemic or global challenge to the federal income tax, the more of a non-starter it will be. TPTB will not allow any systemic and systematic challenge to the federal income tax to be successful. Not if they can prevent it.

    PS:

    I returned to this post to add that there are clearly persons (individuals and corporations), as well as certain commercial transactions, over which the federal government has no jurisdiction to access a direct income tax. If the government does so, a challenge to any such tax should be successful. But the claim that "persons" and individuals who do not live in Washington DC, or some other federal enclave, or who are not deriving their income directly through transactions with the federal government and are thus not in contract or privilege with the federal government, are beyond the jurisdiction of the federal government to tax their incomes, is simply a non-starter and doomed to fail under current circumstances and established tax laws.
    Last edited by Satori; 4th May 2017 at 22:13.

  30. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Satori For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (4th May 2017), ThePythonicCow (4th May 2017), thunder24 (4th May 2017)

  31. Link to Post #39
    United States Administrator ThePythonicCow's Avatar
    Join Date
    4th January 2011
    Location
    North Texas
    Language
    English
    Age
    76
    Posts
    28,587
    Thanks
    30,505
    Thanked 138,445 times in 21,493 posts

    Default Re: Income Tax is Voluntary! (But they'll jail you anyway)

    Quote Posted by Satori (here)
    A federal tax on income provided a means to take some of the "money" out of circulation and thereby, to some extent, mitigate monetary inflation. But only for a while and only to a small degree.
    Since you have quite agreed with my view, just in more complete and articulate terms, I can only say "Bravo - Well said!"

    Well, almost "only". I would add one small gloss.

    The Federal Income Tax is a primary way of draining Dollars out of the system within the national confines of the US. The banksters push out the influence of the US Federal Income tax as best they can to include any person or corporation or government that has, or ever had, a presence within the US, by such means as the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA), as described by the IRS and the US Treasury Dept. However the US Federal Income Tax is still primarily a domestic US instrument.

    Once the last semblance of any link between gold and Dollars was severed by US President Nixon in 1971 (and hence Dollars could no longer be drained from the system by exchanging them for US gold), another broader and larger scale mechanism was required to drain US Dollars from international Forex (FX) markets. The primary mechanism for draining world Dollars was put in place by Henry Kissinger, working with the Saudi's and (ostensibly) for President Nixon, to create the PetroDollar and to further empower OPEC in the early 1970's. The long lines at US gas pumps in the 1970's in the various US "energy crises" were one indication of this major world monetary transition, which essentially created a world-wide Dollar tax on petroleum.

    As I have discussed in some prior posts, I sometimes view the world monetary system as a sort of hydraulic system, requiring fluid flows and pressures, sources, sinks, and values, to control. US Dollars are lent into existence, in both domestic and foreign markets, to individuals, corporations and governments, and by various means, those Dollars flow about the system, providing many opportunities for the minions of the elite to extract "rents" (as Michael Hudson would call them) and to exert control, along the way. Then US Dollars are sucked back out of the system, thus maintaining the requisite fluid flows and pressures, by such means as the PetroDollar.

    In essence, the PetroDollar consists of OPEC nations converting most of the US Dollars paid to them for oil into US Treasuries, which Treasuries they will mostly never see again. Thus those trillions of Dollars find their way back to the New York financial center, where they can be put to one final use, funding the Exchange Stabilization Fund, which has a "license to kill" (as James Bond would say) in the world's stock, bond and forex markets.

    So, the Federal Income tax is but the first of several major mechanisms established to maintain the requisite "fluid flows and pressures" in the world US Dollar market. The PetroDollar, and also the global lending, arms and drug markets, are other major such mechanisms.
    Last edited by ThePythonicCow; 4th May 2017 at 22:46.
    My quite dormant website: pauljackson.us

  32. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ThePythonicCow For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (4th May 2017), Satori (5th May 2017)

  33. Link to Post #40
    United States Administrator ThePythonicCow's Avatar
    Join Date
    4th January 2011
    Location
    North Texas
    Language
    English
    Age
    76
    Posts
    28,587
    Thanks
    30,505
    Thanked 138,445 times in 21,493 posts

    Default Re: Income Tax is Voluntary! (But they'll jail you anyway)

    There is a very widespread meme about the media, both main stream and alternative, that the Fed (US Federal Reserve) can "just print" however many trillions of Dollars it wants to "print" (via a few keystrokes on their computer.)

    This is in my view a false and deliberately misleading meme.

    The world's US Reserve Dollar based monetary system is not like a grandiose version of the CEO of Parker Brothers (the one time owner of the board game of Monopoly) playing the game of Monopoly with his young children, when he has easy access to literally tons of "Monopoly Money" at the flick of a finger. That would be like a gigantic hydraulic system that was just an interesting display in some technology museum, but disconnected from any useful mechanisms of mining, production, or transportation.

    Rather the world's US Reserve Dollar based monetary system is deliberately and in diverse ways bolted tightly to the world's legal, economic, and financial activity, so that it can better control and extract "rents" from, that activity.

    That is a key reason why the "Global Monetary Reset" that I have been predicting for perhaps a decade now will happen anytime now, within months, is taking so long, and won't happen "over night". There's a lot of major "plumbing" to be reworked, and many powerful players with diverse and conflicting interests. This has been, and will continue to be, a long, drawn out, bloody, complicated, affair.
    Last edited by ThePythonicCow; 4th May 2017 at 22:53.
    My quite dormant website: pauljackson.us

  34. The Following User Says Thank You to ThePythonicCow For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (4th May 2017)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 5 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts