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

[ktlight]

FYI: by Gary Kinghorn (abridged by henrymakow.com)

"IRS taxation is a voluntary contract between consenting parties and cannot be compelled. Since we don't know this, they trick us into "consenting."

"Taxation by Misrepresentation", an E-book by John W. Benson, is by far the best explanation of our income tax system and the laws involved in compelling citizens to pay income tax.

All IRS processes and procedures are based on the revenue procedures employed by the king's revenue officials in the Exchequer (Treasury) in 1791, dressed up in modern garb.

A precedent-setting Supreme Court tax case in 1856 cited several English treatises as authorities on the ancient processes used by the king's Exchequer.

Essentially, the statute staple process is a voluntary contractual process used in merchant law and not common law. The result is that IRS taxation is a voluntary contractual process between consenting parties and cannot be compelled on an individual.

Much of the IRS code and procedures are designed to both conform to this fact, while insidiously hiding its significance from the populace, and doing everything in their power to intimidate tax payers to "volunteer" payment, even if at gunpoint.

In other words, if you are a 14th Amendment "citizen", you are a serf on the land, a liege to your lord, in this case the Federal Government.

The Federal Government, as it would to a serf, "owns" your labor and can rightfully take your income now (the compensation for your labor) as it deems reasonable according to the contractual benefits you "applied for" when you "volunteer" or "contract" yourself into this status.

Remember that under the Constitution, we have unalienable rights and are Citizens (cap "C") of the United States of America (the country, not the corporation).

How do you "volunteer" yourself to become a 14th Amendment citizen-serf, under the definition designed for freed slaves?

Well, by "voluntarily" submitting your IRS Form 1040, you annually assert that you are a 14th Amendment citizen (small "c"). The 13th amendment prohibits involuntary servitude, but does not prohibit "voluntary" servitude according to contract law.

Ergo, you have been had. This is less the Home of the Free and Land of the Brave, than the Home of Fools and the Land of Liars.

So, what do you do now?

John points out in very clear terms in his "Disclaimer" at the very opening of his book that this is a political battle. Do NOT stop filing the usual tax returns and paying the usual taxes that the IRS and the courts require.

This would be like going to a Mafia crime boss and telling him there's no law allowing him to extract his "security" payments. You will not come out better for the conversation. But realize that we have become a nation of thugs and corruption, and not laws, despite your education to the contrary. John pleads with his readers to unite to overturn the entire system and replace it with a fairer and more transparent tax system for all, rather than for a small number to try to win a few battles in courts that, in his view, are simply not going to allow any victories, truth and justice be damned."

source
http://www.henrymakow.com/proof_that_paying_federal_inco.html

[grapevine]

This relates to the USA but not UK though, right . . .?

[Heartsong]

Doesn't relate to the U.S. either. Taxes are not voluntary. Most taxes are collected at the time of payment of wages. It's called withholding. Money is "withheld" at a given percentage. Once a year a person voluntarily justifies the returning of the excess tax by preparing a "return" or tax form. It may be that the individual will owe even more tax after completing the tax form but in either case the government already has the bulk of the money.
For those who are self employed and don't received wages (i.e. are not subject to withholding) there is quarterly estimated payments. Over the course of the year you pay what you estimate your annual tax to be and pay it on the quarter. Once a year you complete tax forms to either apply for your overpayment or to pay additional tax.

If there were a loophole in the system that ligitimately allowed for people to not pay taxes, they would have they would have filled it years ago. No, the tax system is not fairly applied to all people. But the tax people aren't stupid. If it's taxable, you owe it.

[robinr1]

every word of this post is incorrect.........just bc the government will pull a gun on you and lock u in jail doesnt mean the irs or congress ever ratified the income tax or the 16th amendent in 1913. they didnt





Doesn't relate to the U.S. either. Taxes are not voluntary. Most taxes are collected at the time of payment of wages. It's called withholding. Money is "withheld" at a given percentage. Once a year a person voluntarily justifies the returning of the excess tax by preparing a "return" or tax form. It may be that the individual will owe even more tax after completing the tax form but in either case the government already has the bulk of the money.
For those who are self employed and don't received wages (i.e. are not subject to withholding) there is quarterly estimated payments. Over the course of the year you pay what you estimate your annual tax to be and pay it on the quarter. Once a year you complete tax forms to either apply for your overpayment or to pay additional tax.

If there were a loophole in the system that ligitimately allowed for people to not pay taxes, they would have they would have filled it years ago. No, the tax system is not fairly applied to all people. But the tax people aren't stupid. If it's taxable, you owe it.

[Mulder]

Peter Schiff's father has been unfairly imprisoned for not paying his taxes. His arguments are legal & correct, but judges still side against him. See his website:
www.paynoincometax.com/

or read about him:

www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irwin_Schiff

[ktlight]

Here's a PDF of a book called 'How I Clobbered EVERY BUREAUCRATIC CASH-CONFISCATORY AGENCY KNOWN TO MAN
... a Spiritual Economics Book on $$$ and Remembering Who You Are" by: Mary Elizabeth: Croft

http://www.spiritualeconomicsnow.net/solutions/How_I_08.pdf

It is well worth reading.

[Phoenix]

Here's a PDF of a book called 'How I Clobbered EVERY BUREAUCRATIC CASH-CONFISCATORY AGENCY KNOWN TO MAN
... a Spiritual Economics Book on $$$ and Remembering Who You Are" by: Mary Elizabeth: Croft

http://www.spiritualeconomicsnow.net/solutions/How_I_08.pdf

It is well worth reading.

This is AAAAMAZINNGGG! Thank you so much ktlight. Have you read this in full? What is your experience with putting into practice any of the concepts outlined within??

Your friend, phoenix

[xbusymom]

Here's a PDF of a book called 'How I Clobbered EVERY BUREAUCRATIC CASH-CONFISCATORY AGENCY KNOWN TO MAN
... a Spiritual Economics Book on $$$ and Remembering Who You Are" by: Mary Elizabeth: Croft

http://www.spiritualeconomicsnow.net/solutions/How_I_08.pdf

It is well worth reading.

yes but this is in canada or UK, not US. I havent heard of anyone in US getting anywhere close to being successful with thwarting the tax collectors... so far.

[conk]

Don't pay and you are volunteering for jail.

[Peace of Mind]

If you think you will^^, so be it.

They depend on you giving them that sought of power.
As for me, I don’t file at all. I don’t own a credit card or owe loans. They sent me letters years ago and I've send them one too.

Since then...
I still live in the same location and have yet to be visited by them. Perhaps they know I will only go to jail as a corpse, they will have to kill me. I doubt they want that sought of publicity on their hands. Death will be more rewarding than living in some cell wishing to be back in the world amongst people who don't care about the reality they're creating.

Death is inevitable...so why should I be afraid to die for what I believe in.

Peace

[TargeT]

Death is inevitable...so why should I be afraid to die for what I believe in.

Peace
why should you be afraid of anything, ever?


yes, taxes are technically voluntary in the US.. but since the POPULAR BEIEF is contrary to that... the reality is you'll get screwed if you don't pay them.

the source of this pain is poorly worded:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

many people have tried and failed in the US :-/

[Peace of Mind]

This may be true for those that give them that power. In my case...I haven’t failed and don’t plan on it either…no matter what others make real in their paradigm.

Income tax is illegal, plain and simple. I never was one to succumb to injustices. If more people removed their fear we will all be better off. If they kill me because I stood up for what is right, my death will be an honorable one. I’m sure my next life will be a much more rewarding one simply because I choose to live it that way. We are all here to do specific jobs, learn and move on. We are not here to be slaves. Recognize this, live life this way and the universe will work with you. If you keep thinking of ways to empower these evil entities...they will use your thoughts (along with your emotional fear) and manifest that reality for you.

I'm not afraid of them, nor do I think about them in a threatening manner. I have no problem combating this corrupt system because it is FACT that our society has only prospered because of a few brave people were willing to stand up to the oppressors. If only we were all like this…just imagine that!

If you’re afraid to die than you are obviously afraid to live.

Peace

[ktlight]

As I understand it, the IRS needs your permission to demand payments from you and this they get once you have signed up for a social security card.

[Phoenix]

This may be true for those that give them that power. In my case...I haven’t failed and don’t plan on it either…no matter what others make real in their paradigm.

Income tax is illegal, plain and simple. I never was one to succumb to injustices. If more people removed their fear we will all be better off. If they kill me because I stood up for what is right, my death will be an honorable one. I’m sure my next life will be a much more rewarding one simply because I choose to live it that way. We are all here to do specific jobs, learn and move on. We are not here to be slaves. Recognize this, live life this way and the universe will work with you. If you keep thinking of ways to empower these evil entities...they will use your thoughts (along with your emotional fear) and manifest that reality for you.

I'm not afraid of them, nor do I think about them in a threatening manner. I have no problem combating this corrupt system because it is FACT that our society has only prospered because of a few brave people were willing to stand up to the oppressors. If only we were all like this…just imagine that!

If you’re afraid to die than you are obviously afraid to live.

Peace

Peace of Mind, thanks so much for talking about your experience. I want out too. Can you point me in the direction you took to learn what you know?

Phoenix

[turiya]

:
"There will be no trial, as I will come to your magistrate court for settlement and closure."

There sure seems to be layers of this that we do not see, and as in all things quantum, the energy needs to shift before we see manifestation.

If Winston can stand in the private and the public, administer the public side for settlement and closure from within the beast, and retain his sovereignty, my hat goes off to him.

I am watching this one very closely, for it could be a new energetic opening for the rest of us. Winston Shrout Update... Trial Resumes today, Friday, April 21, 2017...


http://media.oregonlive.com/portland_impact/photo/portland-city-hall-4548b9e7b50d6e84.jpg
http://www.angelilaw.com/images/media/oregonian.jpg
Man says he didn't pay taxes for 20 years
but didn't mean to cheat (http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2017/04/winston_shrout_takes_witness_s.html)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C95YTxEXUAA-1wB.jpg
Winston Shrout , from one of his online YouTube videos. (YouTube)

By Maxine Bernstein | The Oregonian/OregonLive
on April 20, 2017 at 5:31 PM,
updated April 20, 2017 at 7:02 PM
Winston Shrout admitted in court Thursday that he hasn't paid taxes for nearly 20 years and created worthless documents that he sent to banks and the U.S. Treasury to relieve debts.

But the 69-year-old -- a Kentucky native, retired carpenter and prominent sovereign citizen who has gained a following across the country and abroad -- said he never intended to harm or defraud anyone.

Shrout took the witness stand in his own defense for nearly two hours at the end of a three-day trial on 13 counts of creating and issuing bogus financial documents and six counts of willful failure to file tax returns from 2009 through 2014.

Jurors deliberated about two and a half hours in the afternoon before stopping for the day.
They will resume Friday.

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

Shrout knew exactly what he was doing, Wexler said. 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 said. He earned a total of $562,224 from a carpentry pension, plus royalties and payments for his seminars, between 2009 and 2014, 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.''


***

During his testimony, Shrout swiveled his chair toward the 12-member jury and read from prepared notes.

He explained how he believed he had authority from Dr. Ray C. Dam of the Office of International Treasury Control to help address the problem of mortgage foreclosures in the United States. He met Dam during a trip to Cambodia in 2010 and said Dam appointed him to be a notary, judge and counsel for the organization.

"The reason why I believe I can act upon this appointment is because the legal opinion of an international lawyer in Switzerland,'' Shrout said.

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.

Shrout said he joined what he estimated are about 65 million other people in what he called "tax avoidance" in the late 1980s after the Internal Revenue Service garnished his wages and he couldn't pick up his regular carpentry paycheck.

He hired a tax consultant then. "I had made errors in my filing. It's easy enough to do,'' Shrout told jurors. He said he learned he had overpaid the IRS about $2,000 and was refunded only 10 percent of that.

"That's what caused me to delve into these matters," he said. "My actions were based on the concept of tax avoidance, which I found to be perfectly legal."

During cross-examination, he didn't acknowledge that he earned "income'" in the six years he's accused of not paying taxes. "I could never find a legal definition of the word income," he testified.

"You can use any word you want, but you did receive funds, right?'' interjected U.S. District Judge Robert E. Jones.

"Correct," replied Shrout, who is representing himself with the help of a standby lawyer, Ruben Iniguez.

Iniguez, an assistant federal public defender, told jurors the entire case rested on Shrout's beliefs and his state of mind -- whether he had a "good faith'' belief that he was acting lawfully.

Jurors may find Shrout "a little crazy," but he didn't act willfully, even if his understanding of the law was unreasonable or wrong, Iniguez said.

"Ignorance of the law – misunderstanding of the law is a defense because the tax law is so damn complicated,'' Iniguez said.

He called each of Shrout's fake bills of exchange "ludicrous on its face.'' While prosecutors described the blue decorative borders, account numbers, red thumbprints and Shrout's signature on the documents as "hallmarks of legitimacy,'' Iniguez said they failed to point out the words, "Void where prohibited by law,'' which clearly made the documents worthless.

Using a Monopoly analogy, Iniguez argued that if someone hands a player game money worth a trillion dollars but it says "void'' on its face, "is that person really trying to defraud you?''

U.S. Tax Division trial lawyer Lee Langston said the void language on the fake documents was Shrout's "escape clause'' should he end up facing criminal prosecution.

Iniguez stressed that "not a single penny was paid out or transacted by anyone'' as a result of the 13 fictitious documents Shrout is accused of sending either to a bank or the Treasury. He argued that the government simply is out to "muzzle'' his client.

"The government doesn't like the fact people espouse these views,'' Iniguez said.


***

Until his arrest, Shrout was "the most prominent sovereign citizen guru remaining who had not been prosecuted on some charge,'' said Mark Pitcavage, senior research fellow with the Anti-Defamation League's Center on Extremism.

"Shrout was highly influential within the sovereign citizen movement — even some other sovereign gurus liked to boast that their seminars taught the 'Winston Shrout method,'" Pitcavage said. "He had a great talent for looking folksy and spouting pseudo-legal gobbledygook that made all sorts of undeliverable promises to his gullible audiences."

The sovereign citizen movement includes people who hold complex antigovernment beliefs, and it's been growing at a fast pace since the late 2000s, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. Sovereigns believe that they — not judges, juries, law enforcement or elected officials — get to decide which laws to obey and which to ignore, and they don't think they should have to pay taxes. They believe the founding fathers set up the U.S. government based on common law, but its been usurped by admiralty law, the law of the sea and international commerce.

Shrout helped spread the movement to other countries, traveling to Australia, New Zealand and Great Britain to hold sovereign citizen seminars, Pitcavage said.

"By 2008-2009, he had catapulted himself into the first rank of sovereign gurus, coming up with and promoting the pseudo-legal theories and tactics at the heart of the anti-government extremist movement,'' he said.

"If prosecutors can secure a conviction,'' Pitcavage said this week, "it could possibly even have a welcome dampening effect on the sovereign citizen movement, which has been growing steadily for years now."

-- Maxine Bernstein
mbernstein@oregonian.com
503-221-8212
@maxoregonian[/URL]

The Oregonian (http://twitter.com/maxoregonian)



Looking at the docket, I see a few things I don't like.

Waived counsel and is representing himself "pro se"
A plea was entered, trial date set.

So, the court has jurisdiction. Although it appears that Winston is attempting to file within the court docket, documents which purport to show that he is not subject to their jurisdiction in light of his status as an American national, I'm not sure the court can hear him, or see him now that he is within their jurisdiction.

In personam jurisdiction needs to be challenged outside of the court via "special appearance" before any arraignment. Once arraignment occurs with the presence of counsel, it's over. You cannot win going into their tribunal with their rules, because at that point you are civilly dead and probate takes over. It's all administrative at that point.

Yes, I admit that I am not as educated as you seem in order to maneuver oneself within their fictional Admiralty System. From the March 29 Talkshoe call, he says something that appears to me to be that this indictment was what he was wanting to have happen. As he says:


"I don't think I want to tell this whole story yet. There's some things in the background that I have been working on. [U]And I had to, basically, encourage an attack. Alot of your listeners don't know my history, but I have worked with the 'International' with the Office of International Treasury Control. So, based on that, I have international immunity under treaty with the United Nations. So, it was a key thing to... instigate... or whatever... practically, I had to beg for it.

In any event, there were some background things that I needed to accomplish. And I needed to get them done in a big hurry. One of them... probably some of your listeners might know, others might not know... but the IRS itself came onshore as a Delaware corporation back in 1934 or '35...."Being this is what Winston said, it seems to me that he was specifically looking for such an indictment (courtroom invitation) so he could proceed further with filing documents with the corporate court system for his next phase of his work with the Office of International Treasury Control. Winston did say / imply in that "Notice to Cease and Desist" (page 2 above) that he would deal with this on the administrative side:
"There will be no trial, as I will come to your magistrate court for settlement and closure."



:
"There will be no trial, as I will come to your magistrate court for settlement and closure."

There sure seems to be layers of this that we do not see, and as in all things quantum, the energy needs to shift before we see manifestation.

If Winston can stand in the private and the public, administer the public side for settlement and closure from within the beast, and retain his sovereignty, my hat goes off to him.

I am watching this one very closely, for it could be a new energetic opening for the rest of us.

[Atlas]

Tom Cryer: U.S. Income Tax is a fraud

In June, 1994, Tom met a man who claimed that the Internal Revenue Code did not make him liable to pay income tax. This was a life-changing event for this lawyer, who then began to research into the law in order to prove this man wrong. What he discovered was that there is no income tax liability relative to American citizens. This presented Tom with a dilemma: does he put his head down and pretend not to know the truth, or to honor his oath to support and defend the rule of law and the Constitution? He chose the latter path, and ceased filing income tax.

U4nb62cAM3Q
As Tom says, it is apparent that the US government is stealing trillions of dollars from honest, hard-working Americans. It was using this stolen money to expand its reach far beyond its intended role. It is stealing, and using the sweat and labor of Americans to destroy their country.

Tom stopped filing and paying income tax UNLESS and UNTIL the government could show him it had any right to demand he do either. [...]

[Bill Ryan]

Here's what's happening to Winston Shrout right now:


http://oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2017/04/winston_shrout_takes_witness_s.html

Winston Shrout admitted in court Thursday that he hasn't paid taxes for nearly 20 years and created worthless documents that he sent to banks and the U.S. Treasury to relieve debts.

But the 69-year-old -- a Kentucky native, retired carpenter and prominent sovereign citizen who has gained a following across the country and abroad -- said he never intended to harm or defraud anyone.

Shrout took the witness stand in his own defense for nearly two hours at the end of a three-day trial on 13 counts of creating and issuing bogus financial documents and six counts of willful failure to file tax returns from 2009 through 2014.

Jurors deliberated about two and a half hours in the afternoon before stopping for the day. They will resume Friday.

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

Shrout knew exactly what he was doing, Wexler said. 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 said. He earned a total of $562,224 from a carpentry pension, plus royalties and payments for his seminars, between 2009 and 2014, 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.''

**

During his testimony, Shrout swiveled his chair toward the 12-member jury and read from prepared notes.

He explained how he believed he had authority from Dr. Ray C. Dam of the Office of International Treasury Control to help address the problem of mortgage foreclosures in the United States. He met Dam during a trip to Cambodia in 2010 and said Dam appointed him to be a notary, judge and counsel for the organization.

"The reason why I believe I can act upon this appointment is because the legal opinion of an international lawyer in Switzerland,'' Shrout said.

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.

Shrout said he joined what he estimated are about 65 million other people in what he called "tax avoidance" in the late 1980s after the Internal Revenue Service garnished his wages and he couldn't pick up his regular carpentry paycheck.

He hired a tax consultant then. "I had made errors in my filing. It's easy enough to do,'' Shrout told jurors. He said he learned he had overpaid the IRS about $2,000 and was refunded only 10 percent of that.

"That's what caused me to delve into these matters," he said. "My actions were based on the concept of tax avoidance, which I found to be perfectly legal."

During cross-examination, he didn't acknowledge that he earned "income'" in the six years he's accused of not paying taxes. "I could never find a legal definition of the word income," he testified.

"You can use any word you want, but you did receive funds, right?'' interjected U.S. District Judge Robert E. Jones.

"Correct," replied Shrout, who is representing himself with the help of a standby lawyer, Ruben Iniguez.

Iniguez, an assistant federal public defender, told jurors the entire case rested on Shrout's beliefs and his state of mind -- whether he had a "good faith'' belief that he was acting lawfully.

Jurors may find Shrout "a little crazy," but he didn't act willfully, even if his understanding of the law was unreasonable or wrong, Iniguez said.

"Ignorance of the law – misunderstanding of the law is a defense because the tax law is so damn complicated,'' Iniguez said.

He called each of Shrout's fake bills of exchange "ludicrous on its face.'' While prosecutors described the blue decorative borders, account numbers, red thumbprints and Shrout's signature on the documents as "hallmarks of legitimacy,'' Iniguez said they failed to point out the words, "Void where prohibited by law,'' which clearly made the documents worthless.

Using a Monopoly analogy, Iniguez argued that if someone hands a player game money worth a trillion dollars but it says "void'' on its face, "is that person really trying to defraud you?''

U.S. Tax Division trial lawyer Lee Langston said the void language on the fake documents was Shrout's "escape clause'' should he end up facing criminal prosecution.

Iniguez stressed that "not a single penny was paid out or transacted by anyone'' as a result of the 13 fictitious documents Shrout is accused of sending either to a bank or the Treasury. He argued that the government simply is out to "muzzle'' his client.

"The government doesn't like the fact people espouse these views,'' Iniguez said.

**

Until his arrest, Shrout was "the most prominent sovereign citizen guru remaining who had not been prosecuted on some charge,'' said Mark Pitcavage, senior research fellow with the Anti-Defamation League's Center on Extremism.

"Shrout was highly influential within the sovereign citizen movement — even some other sovereign gurus liked to boast that their seminars taught the 'Winston Shrout method,'" Pitcavage said. "He had a great talent for looking folksy and spouting pseudo-legal gobbledygook that made all sorts of undeliverable promises to his gullible audiences."

The sovereign citizen movement includes people who hold complex antigovernment beliefs, and it's been growing at a fast pace since the late 2000s, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. Sovereigns believe that they — not judges, juries, law enforcement or elected officials — get to decide which laws to obey and which to ignore, and they don't think they should have to pay taxes. They believe the founding fathers set up the U.S. government based on common law, but its been usurped by admiralty law, the law of the sea and international commerce.

Shrout helped spread the movement to other countries, traveling to Australia, New Zealand and Great Britain to hold sovereign citizen seminars, Pitcavage said.

"By 2008-2009, he had catapulted himself into the first rank of sovereign gurus, coming up with and promoting the pseudo-legal theories and tactics at the heart of the anti-government extremist movement,'' he said.

"If prosecutors can secure a conviction,'' Pitcavage said this week, "it could possibly even have a welcome dampening effect on the sovereign citizen movement, which has been growing steadily for years now."

[Atlas]

[...] The government doesn't like the fact people espouse these views [...]
B.C. anti-tax crusader sentenced to 5½ years (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/russell-porisky-anti-tax-crusader-chilliwack-1.3709094) for selling "those nonsensical concepts": (1:02)
hZ7bzi-t64w
Prince Ea: Dear Future Generations
eRLJscAlk1M

[genevieve]

My post veers from the topic of Shrout and his issuing various
financial documents, but here's a very good video explaining
why paying income taxes is indeed voluntary:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNzRBV43skY&t=74s


It's important to understand that once we register as voters or
sign up for a social security card, we "join the club" whether we
know it or not, and thus consent to abide by the club's rules
and regulations. As you might guess, the club is the corporate
UNITED STATES (and the STATES are its franchises).

De-registering is a matter of writing a simple letter to your
county registrar and instructing him/her to remove you from the
voter roll. This removes the presumption that you agree
to abide by the club's rules, regs, codes, etc. which, if you don't
follow, you can be fined/punished for violating.

After de-registering you are still responsible for any crimes you
commit, but crimes are very different from code violations and
infractions (i.e., doing something they say you're not supposed
to do or not doing something that the club requires you to do
based on their rules). Crimes involve harming a real live man/
woman or damaging their property.

I encourage anyone interested in this sort of stuff to read the
(short, but jam packed with valuable info) book linked below.

https://www.scribd.com/document/30767720/Errant-Sovereign-Handbook-by-Augustus-Blackstone


Peace Love Joy & Harmony,
genevieve

[Akasha]

.....until his arrest, shrout was "the most prominent sovereign citizen guru remaining who had not been prosecuted on some charge,'' said mark pitcavage, senior research fellow with the anti-defamation league's center on extremism.

"shrout was highly influential within the sovereign citizen movement — even some other sovereign gurus liked to boast that their seminars taught the 'winston shrout method,'" pitcavage said. "he had a great talent for looking folksy and spouting pseudo-legal gobbledygook that made all sorts of undeliverable promises to his gullible audiences."

the sovereign citizen movement includes people who hold complex antigovernment beliefs, and it's been growing at a fast pace since the late 2000s, according to the southern poverty law center......

What does the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith or the Southern Poverty Law Centre have to do with this subject?

edit: I'm going to let David Icke shed some light on the possible answer to that question:


R6Kyn3Nqy_k

[turiya]

http://www.angelilaw.com/images/media/oregonian.jpg
Man who failed to pay taxes for 20 years
found guilty on 19 federal charges (http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2017/04/man_who_failed_to_pay_taxes_fo.html)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C95YTxEXUAA-1wB.jpg
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 (http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2017/04/man_who_failed_to_pay_taxes_fo.html)
____________________________________

https://www.justice.gov/images/seal.jpg



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 (https://www.justice.gov/tax).

The Department of Justice (https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/oregon-promoter-convicted-making-passing-and-sending-bogus-financial-instruments-us-treasury)

[turiya]

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...

[Satori]

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."

[turiya]

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.
:)

[Satori]

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.

[turiya]

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




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.

[Satori]

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




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.

[turiya]

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?







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.

[ThePythonicCow]

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.

[turiya]

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...

[ThePythonicCow]

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.

[Bill Ryan]

@ 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! :) )


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNzRBV43skY

[AutumnW]

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.

[abmqa]

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

Very interesting video!!

Thanks Bill

[abmqa]

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.

[Satori]

@ 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! :) )


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNzRBV43skY


Bill,

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

[ThePythonicCow]

@ 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 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gK3s5j7PgA), which turiya posted in Trump: The Great American Reset -- Post #512 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?95893-Trump-The-Great-American-Reset&p=1149483&viewfull=1#post1149483), and which I praised in the subsequent Post #517 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?95893-Trump-The-Great-American-Reset&p=1150326&viewfull=1#post1150326).

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 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gK3s5j7PgA).

[Satori]

@ 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 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gK3s5j7PgA), which turiya posted in Trump: The Great American Reset -- Post #512 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?95893-Trump-The-Great-American-Reset&p=1149483&viewfull=1#post1149483), and which I praised in the subsequent Post #517 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?95893-Trump-The-Great-American-Reset&p=1150326&viewfull=1#post1150326).

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 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gK3s5j7PgA).

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.

[ThePythonicCow]

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 (https://www.irs.gov/businesses/corporations/foreign-account-tax-compliance-act-fatca) and the US Treasury Dept (https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/treaties/Pages/FATCA.aspx). 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 (https://mises.org/blog/today-1971-president-nixon-closes-gold-window) 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) (http://www.investopedia.com/university/forexmarket/forex1.asp) 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 (http://www.financialsense.com/contributors/jerry-robinson/the-rise-of-the-petrodollar-system-dollars-for-oil") and to further empower OPEC (https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/03/19/a-short-history-of-opec.aspx) 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.

[ThePythonicCow]

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.

[ThePythonicCow]

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.
Correction - the dollars spent by the Exchange Stabilization Fund don't vanish. Rather these dollars are essentially "laundered", appearing back out the other side in the form of immense bubbles in various stock, bond, forex, derivative, real estate and other such markets. Our bankster overlords have a long established expertise in blowing and popping bubbles, as one of their favorite means of control and wealth extraction.

[Satori]

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 (https://www.irs.gov/businesses/corporations/foreign-account-tax-compliance-act-fatca) and the US Treasury Dept (https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/treaties/Pages/FATCA.aspx). 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 (https://mises.org/blog/today-1971-president-nixon-closes-gold-window) 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) (http://www.investopedia.com/university/forexmarket/forex1.asp) 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 (http://www.financialsense.com/contributors/jerry-robinson/the-rise-of-the-petrodollar-system-dollars-for-oil") and to further empower OPEC (https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/03/19/a-short-history-of-opec.aspx) 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.

Paul, Your use of a hydraulic system as a metaphor, which involves fluidity, liquidity and pressure, is very apt. The banking system itself, as Jordan Maxwell (and others) points out, use variations of such words as "liquid" and "fluid" when referring to itself: e.g., the stream of commerce, "banks" upon which the money flows (rivers flow between the banks on either side), "liquity" is a common finance/banking term (Do you have liquity? How liquid are your assets?). There are many other examples that escape me for the moment.

Have you read the works of Edwin Vieira, Jr.? He is a brilliant man, and I rarely use that word or say that about anyone. His studies, writings, interviews and lectures focus on monetary history, policy and law, and taxation. You can put his name into a search engine and be directed to his archives. He is a prolific and thoughtful writer. His opus magnum Pieces of Eight, which about the Constutional dollar and monetary history and laws etc... in the USA, is required reading and understanding. The title comes from the Spanish silver dollar coin. If cut into eights, two pieces would be a quarter dollar. "Two bits, for bits, six bits a dollar."

[ThePythonicCow]

Have you read the works of Edwin Vieira, Jr.? He is a brilliant man, and I rarely use that word or say that about anyone. His studies, writings, interviews and lectures focus on monetary history, policy and law, and taxation.
I've sampled him, now and then, over the last decade.

He certainly is brilliant :).

He tends to think more along legal lines, and certainly has an impressive curriculum vitae along those lines, whereas I tend to think more along tin-foil-hat, conspiracy theory, nutcase, lines, so I've never gotten sufficiently intrigued by his work to motivate me to examine it more closely.

In my view, the Fed, the state and federal governments in the US, and other major financial and national government institutions, are not the senior locus of control of the dominant power structure of our civilization, and the theory and practice of law is not one of the disciplines that I have found to be extraordinarilly useful in understanding the real dynamics of power or wealth in our civilization.

I presume that Baron Jacob Nathaniel Rothschild has a better idea than I do where this senior locus of control is, and in what form or in whose hands it resides.

I appreciate that you and I might have different inclinations on such matters :).

[ThePythonicCow]

On the other hand (*), here's a new commentary from Joseph P Farrell on legislation in Texas, my present home state, to make gold and silver legal tender in Texas. If I recall correctly, this resembles proposals made by Edwin Vieira some years ago for a few states in the US to initiate the return of "real", metal backed, currencies.
9Xo1HL8EYGM
Farrell's comment on Youtube for this video: "The state of Texas is joining other American states in considering legislation to recognize gold and silver coins as legitimate currency; while the revolt against the Fed is growing...there's a problem..."

As someone with legal expertise and as someone who enjoys Edwin Vieira, you might find Farrell's comments interesting, and we certainly might find your comments on this interesting as well.

===

(*) ... thus disqualifying myself from serving Truman as an economist :).


https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/81O6tjJtyxL._SX355_.jpg

[Satori]

On the other hand (*), here's a new commentary from Joseph P Farrell on legislation in Texas, my present home state, to make gold and silver legal tender in Texas. If I recall correctly, this resembles proposals made by Edwin Vieira some years ago for a few states in the US to initiate the return of "real", metal backed, currencies.
9Xo1HL8EYGM
Farrell's comment on Youtube for this video: "The state of Texas is joining other American states in considering legislation to recognize gold and silver coins as legitimate currency; while the revolt against the Fed is growing...there's a problem..."

As someone with legal expertise and as someone who enjoys Edwin Vieira, you might find Farrell's comments interesting, and we certainly might find your comments on this interesting as well.

===

(*) ... thus disqualifying myself from serving Truman as an economist :).


https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/81O6tjJtyxL._SX355_.jpg

I support a return to constitutional money: gold and silver coined. But I do not see that happening anytime soon, if at all. If it does happen it will be because of a total economic collapse and because people were compelled to return to the species standard, or some other commodity based standard, for money at a local level. This would also herald in bartering and other forms of exchange.

It is my opinion that there are other major obstacles or pitfalls to the plans of any State of the Union returning to, or installing, a gold/silver (species) monetary system at the state level. Such a program could work in connection with commercial, monetary, fiscal and tax transactions within any state that institutes such a monetary system, but what about that state's, and more to the point, that state's citizens', commercial, monetary and tax transactions with states that have not returned to Constutional money by adopting gold and silver coin as currency? And, most significantly, what about that state's and its citizens' and all such states' and its citizens', commercial and other monetary, commercial and tax-related dealings with the federal government? One way the federal reserve keeps the citizens of the various states demanding federal reserve notes is because that is the only way citizens of the various states of the Union can discharge federal taxes, dues, imposts, fees, licenses, permits, etc... Try to give the federal government gold or silver coin to pay a federal assessment. You won't get anywhere with that. Rather, you will have to first convert the gold or silver coin (or bullion) to " lawful money" and " legal tender" accepted by the federal government. That same conversion will have to take place between a state and its citizens that are on a gold/silver standard and states and its citizens that are not on a gold/silver standard.

A return to Constitutional money can be done and all of the wrinkles can be worked out if people put their minds to it and worked cooperatively, but I do not see it happening (in my lifetime at least) on a planned, logical, and equitable basis as a result of a coordinated effort between the states and the national government. I think Texas and other states recognize this, which is one reason you read or hear of succession whenever the idea of a state returning to Constituional money comes up.

[turiya]

Winston Shrout Update



Please Note: Winston Shrout was due to be sentenced on his Income Tax case on August 1, 2017. Today's date is August 8th, 2017.

Also please take notice: The following interview with Winston Shrout was Published on Aug 4, 2017


The GoldFish Report No. 115 "Country Roads
with Winston Shrout" - Original Issue
(Published on Aug 4, 2017)
http://blogote.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/youtube_video_working.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U39LKEpho9o

Published on Aug 4, 2017

On The GoldFish Report No. 115 Winston Shrout joins Louisa to traverse the long and winding roads of our current financial and legal system. In this program, Winston discusses Original Issue and yes, he means your BIRTH. Winston describes the path that created our birth certificate bond and what we all inadvertently did by signing up for a social security number and what it means to operate in private versus pubic in our double entry accounting system. Winston also explains the remedy for this situation and discusses much more. Please join us next week to continue traversing these Country Roads with Winston. For more information about Winston please visit www.wssic.com. To receive notification of our new Reports please subscribe to this YouTube Channel, follow us on Twitter at @ReportGoldFish, on our 24/7 research news site at www.facebook.com/thegoldfishreport and on our blog at www.thegoldfishreport.wordpress.com and to help support this viewer support research social media, visit www.thegoldfishreport.com. Thanks for viewing!


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...



http://www.angelilaw.com/images/media/oregonian.jpg
Man who failed to pay taxes for 20 years
found guilty on 19 federal charges (http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2017/04/man_who_failed_to_pay_taxes_fo.html)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C95YTxEXUAA-1wB.jpg
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 (http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2017/04/man_who_failed_to_pay_taxes_fo.html)
____________________________________

https://www.justice.gov/images/seal.jpg



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 (https://www.justice.gov/tax).

The Department of Justice (https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/oregon-promoter-convicted-making-passing-and-sending-bogus-financial-instruments-us-treasury)

[turiya]

A new Winston Shrout interview... Published on Aug 11, 2017


From the comments section:

Bubba Fringman (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgr93YLS1PDNl56bfAscNMg) 2 hours ago (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9RjQ-JczpE&lc=z23mzdvrglelx1u20acdp433qhoqbieq55t3qflkd1lw03c 010c)
"Winston was indicted and convicted on 19 counts in Oregon District Court and was due to be sentenced on August 1st, yet there is not a single ounce of news or reference to what happened and how. Could you please clarify how he's still running around while Sean David Morton is a fugitive?"
I have also made my inquiry in this regard, still waiting for some kind of response...
Anyways, here's the latest interview...


The GoldFish Report No. 118 Country Roads
with Winston Shrout: Pre-Paid Account
(Published on Aug 11, 2017)
http://blogote.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/youtube_video_working.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9RjQ-JczpE


Published on Aug 11, 2017

On The GoldFish Report No. 118, Winston explains why we need to "Resurrect our Dead' status and what Pre-Paid Account means. Other topics discussed include private versus public interaction, Accepted for Value, discharge versus set off of debt, Christian Model of Accounting and much more. To learn more about Winston and his educational materials please visit www.wssic.com. To receive notifications of our Reports you can subscribe to our YouTube Channel, follow us on Twitter at @ReportGoldfish, www.thegoldfishreport.wordpress.com you can also follow us and like us on our 24/7 research news page at www.facebook.com/thegoldfishreport and to help support these and other programs please visit www.thegoldfishreport.com to make a contribution. And don't forget to to participate in this Global Eclipse Meditation on August 21, at 11:11 AM and you can get instructions and guided meditation videos from www.2012portal.blogspot.com.


.

[Satori]

All of this is a pitfall for the unwary. Tread very carefully.

There are the rules they create for us and the rules they create for themselves. Please note who makes the rules. It ain't us. There is some overlap, but by-and-large the rules they made/make for us, and which they enforce, and the rules they fashion for themselves, and which they do not enforce (except between each other privately, but rarely publically) keep us tethered in chains of debt and them soaring on wings of wealth.

It, i.e., the subject of central banking/money and fiscal/taxation policies, depicts one of the distinctions between the exoteric and the esoteric. These subjects were once well understood by the citizenry, but have been "dumbed-down" out of us. They then instituted a process to code commonly understood terms by making up fancy words that are often hard to pronounce and in a foreign language. They then required one to have a degree, a license, a permit etc. to give any opinion or advice on the topic of finance, law, medicine, engineering etc. all in the name of protecting us. In a word, they took plenary control. The goal is now and always to retain control.

[turiya]

Still not in prison... or in jail... Winston Shrout and his lastest Goldfish Report Interview (Published on Aug 18, 2017)...


The GoldFish Report No. 120 - Country Roads
w/ Winston Shrout
"The Many Roles of St. Germaine"
(Published on Aug 18, 2017)
http://blogote.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/youtube_video_working.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uyzDKUAgyo

[turiya]

Winston is still not in prison... or in jail...
the interview published on August 25th 20017...




From the comments section:


l55centaur (https://www.youtube.com/user/l55centaur) 1 hour ago (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwwpLGbKauk&lc=z230xj15wmidwfvi304t1aokg5wovc2mpalidx0jvixjbk0 h00410)
What happened with the Oregon sting operation of the OITC?
I've been waiting to hear how that case ended up Winston? Thanks. LT




The GoldFish Report No. 122 - Country Roads
with Winston Shrout: Bankruptcy
(Published on Aug 25, 2017)
http://blogote.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/youtube_video_working.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwwpLGbKauk

Published on Aug 25, 2017

On The GoldFish Report No. 122, Winston teaches us all how to think far outside the box beginning with a little experiment with Louisa [as a good demonstration of common core success...LOL ]. In classic Winston style, he explains the history of our current model including 'Pledge' and 'Title' and the present 'Futile System" we are in and how we can navigate through it. Winston further explains Articles of Confederation, Office of the POTUS, and Bankruptcy and how it is the basis for all our wars and how the birth certificate system reconciled this debt. Winston finished with HOPE and the fact that it is time, now that the debt is redeemed, to bring about prosperity for humanity, and much more. To learn more about Winston and his educational materials please visit www.wssic.com. To receive notifications of our Reports you can subscribe to our YouTube Channel, follow us on Twitter at @ReportGoldfish, www.thegoldfishreport.wordpress.com you can also follow us and like us on our 24/7 research news page at www.facebook.com/thegoldfishreport and to help support these and other programs please visit www.thegoldfishreport.com to make a contribution.

[Bill Ryan]

Winston is still not in prison... or in jail...


A naive question from a Brit. :) (Apologies if this is off-topic, but maybe others have the same confusion.)

What's the difference in the US between prison and jail? In the UK, the two terms are interchangeable.

[Star Tsar]

This should alleviate your confusion Bill...

http://sheriff.org/faqs/displayfaq.cfm?id=4f892698-5c5d-40f8-b159-c9a0b6ed66f3





From Bill: Thank you! :thumbsup:

Mod hat on: Can you please use a more readable font (Verdana is the default, but others are readable, too) — and also in a larger size? THX.

[turiya]

Winston is still not in prison... or in jail...


A naive question from a Brit. :) (Apologies if this is off-topic, but maybe others have the same confusion.)

What's the difference in the US between prison and jail? In the UK, the two terms are interchangeable.

Hi Bill

Not much of a difference, imo. My (April 22) post #22 was as follows:


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...

Satori responded to my Post #22 (also on April 22) with Post #23 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?39990-Income-Tax-is-Voluntary---But-they-ll-jail-you-anyway-&p=1147976&viewfull=1#post1147976) in saying:


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."

Hence, my post is just a continuing reply to Satori's post #23 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?39990-Income-Tax-is-Voluntary---But-they-ll-jail-you-anyway-&p=1147976&viewfull=1#post1147976), to my post #22 - that said Winston is still not in jail (or prison).

The reason for why he is not in jail / prison is not found anywhere on the internet for precisely what has happened with Winston Shrout's August 1st sentencing date that was to take place with the Oregon District Court.

Just pointing the fact out that Winston is still not in jail... or as Satori has preferably stated... he's not in 'prison' either. [insert smile icon]
:)

[thunder24]

Jail is below state level. State level and fed level is prison. From my understanding

[turiya]

If you're locked up, you're locked up...

Winston Shrout is STILL NOT locked up!




:)

[Ron Mauer Sr]

Winston is still not in prison... or in jail...


A naive question from a Brit. :) (Apologies if this is off-topic, but maybe others have the same confusion.)

What's the difference in the US between prison and jail? In the UK, the two terms are interchangeable.

My interpretation:
Jail is local for short time confinement.
Prison is much larger for long term confinement.

[Satori]

If you're locked up, you're locked up...

Winston Shrout is STILL NOT locked up!




:)

Good for him. Assuming this is correct. If he was convicted as your post #22 (I think) stated, and if he is not in jail, then he is released on some form of home confinement awaiting sentencing. If and when he is sentenced for his criminal conviction and assuming he does not fly the coop or take other drastic action, he will go to prison. If he is not now in jail or prison, he may have an appeal pending and he may be released from custody, i.e., jail, pending an appeal.

I am not trying to be right about this. My interest is in getting things right, not being right. I do not wish jail or prison on him. As I said earlier in another post on this thread, I am not familiar with the specifics of his case. But I am familiar with the law, including to some extent criminal sentencing procedures.

[turiya]

Oh, he's going to prison (not jail) alright. 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.

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.
:)



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.


...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...

WHY SOME PEOPLE GO TO JAIL
(The Biggest "Tax Loophole" of All by Otto Skinner)

Flawed Argument #3. The individual claims that the Sixteenth Amendment was not properly ratified and, therefore, he is not required to file income tax returns.

This is like saying that if the Sixteenth Amendment had been properly ratified, the individual would be required to file. While the Sixteenth Amendment may not have been properly ratified, it did not create anything new except to prevent the courts from treating the so-called "income" tax as a direct tax. This flawed argument stems from the mistaken belief that an income tax is a direct tax and that the Sixteenth Amendment (if properly ratified) authorized an unapportioned direct income tax. Here again, the individual is, in effect, saying that the United States Supreme Court was wrong in the Stanton Case and other cases. (See below & Post #28 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?39990-Income-Tax-is-Voluntary---But-they-ll-jail-you-anyway-&p=1148190&viewfull=1#post1148190))

In delivering the opinion in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916), Chief Justice Edward Douglas White stated that:



Moreover in addition the conclusion reached in the Pollock
Case did not in any degree involve holding that income
taxes generically and necessarily came within the class of
direct taxes on property, but on the contrary recognized the
fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise
entitled to be enforced as such....
Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, 16-17 (1916). (Emphasis added.)
Later, explaining what was settled in the Brushaber Case, the same Chief Justice Edward Douglas White stated:



y the previous ruling [Brushaber Case] it was settled
that the Sixteenth Amendment conferred [B]no new power of
taxation but simply prohibiited the previous complete and
plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress
from the beginning [of our national government under the
Constitution] from being taken out of the category of
indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged....
Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, 112 (1916).
(Emphasis and explanation added.)In 1930, the United States Supreme Court explains that an indirect tax is not a property tax, but rather a tax laid on the happening of an event.



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

The following are a couple more interviews with Winston Shrout (still not in jail, or prison). In the second video posted, Winston Shrout @ 55m54s demonstrates that he has this understanding - that the income tax is an indirect tax - as in an excise tax, which is a tax on a revenue taxable activity or event... He shows this understanding when he says,

"Will this exchange of currencies will it be taxed? It can't be [taxed].... [shaking head]... It can't be. This is not an 'income'. This is an exchange. I took this dinar over here & I exchanged it for this currency over there.... Its not a taxable event... Its not a taxable event." (Emphasis mine.)





The GoldFish Report No. 124 - Country Roads with
Winston Shrout: Knights Templars and AscensionThe GoldFish

(Published on Sep 1, 2017)
http://blogote.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/youtube_video_working.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cP6uiqejq4w

____________________

The GoldFish Report No. 126 - Country Roads
w/ Winston Shrout: Global Currency Revaluation

(Published on Sep 8, 2017)
http://blogote.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/youtube_video_working.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ll9zloULHdo

[Satori]

By virtue of the 16th Amendment, validly ratified or not, the federal income tax is a "direct tax" given the definition of what the elements of a direct tax are and what distinguishes a direct tax from, for instance, an indirect tax. Anyone who says the individual income tax is not a direct tax is misinformed as to the state of the law and rules on the subject.

The fact that the tax on incomes is by definition a "direct tax" does shed any light on the question of whether the 16th Amendment was properly ratified, whether the direct income tax on our incomes violates the US Constitution, nor on the fact that the Court having the final word on the subject treats any challenge to the lawfulness of the federal income tax as frivolous and without merit.

I completely agree and have long stated that "money" received for our labor is an "exchange", and should be a non-taxable event; not unlike, for example, the IRC Sec. 1031 tax free exchange of real estate. When we provide labor, it is equal to the value of the "money" or other consideration (e.g., room and board) we receive for it. There is no gain or profit in such a transaction and there should therefore be no tax, direct or indirect, on what we receive in exchange for our labor. Such a transaction is an equivalent exchange. It is a legal fiction to fail to recognize this. (We live in a world filled with legal fictions.) But, the IRS etc... do not recognize this fact and create the legal fictions. Congress and others do so because it allows government to create money, tax it, and thereby exceed and usurp its constitutional limitations and disabilities, all the while assuming more and more power and control over We, The People.

The direct tax on our incomes relegates We, The People to the level of slaves or indentured servants. I think we agree on that.

This fact was well known and understood by the drafters of the Constitution and everyone else in the US prior to 1913, and prior to the institutionalization of this particular legal fiction. It is understood by only a few now.

[turiya]

Anyone who says the individual income tax is not a direct tax is misinformed as to the state of the law and rules on the subject.

The referenced information that was provided as to what variious justices of the United States Supreme Court have ruled on the matter of the whether the so-called "income" tax is a direct vs indirect tax. And now, you are saying the Supreme Court justices that ruled in these cases are misinformed. And still, you have not provided any references that would be in support of your claim.

That to me tells me all that I need to know about you.

Just one question for you... when was the last time you filed an income tax form?
Thank you for your last reply. Have a nice day.

[Satori]

It's your business, but I would not be so quick to state that publicly. The statute of limitations does not run on "non-filers." One reason for most people to file a federal tax return (and perhaps a state return depending on where you live), even if you declare no taxable income, is to start the statute of limitations.

Good luck to you, not in just this area, but in all of your life's endeavors.

[turiya]

It's your business, but I would not be so quick to state that publicly. The statute of limitations does not run on "non-filers." One reason for most people to file a federal tax return (and perhaps a state return depending on where you live), even if you declare no taxable income, is to start the statute of limitations.

Good luck to you, not in just this area, but in all of your life's endeavors.

I only meant to have it up for you.... now gone.

The brainwashing goes deep, as most all individuals have been led to believe that they are a so-called 'taxpayer' as that term is defined in the Internal Revenue Code. As stated by the United States courts in its ruling:




The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax
assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers and
not to nontaxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No
procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers, and no attempt is
made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due
course of law. With them Congress does not assume to
deal, and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of
the revenue laws.
Economy Plumbing and Heating v. United States, 470 F.2d 585, at 589 (Ct.Cl. 1972) (Emphasis added.)

Note 3 of this case reads as follows:

3. The term "taxpayer" in this opinion is used in the strict
or narrow sense contemplated by the Internal Revenue
Code and means a person who pays, overpays, or is subject to pay his own personal income tax. (See Section 7701(a)(14) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.) A "nontaxpayer" is a person who does not possess the foregoing requisites of a taxpayer.
Economy, supra, fn. 3, at 590. (Emphasis added.)

Do you possess the requisiites of a "taxpayer"? Wouldn't that depend upon the subject of the tax? Is it people, property or activities?

Internal Revenue Code section 7701(a)(14), to which the Economy Court referred, reads as follows:




Sec. 7701. Definitions.

(a)
When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly
expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent
thereof--

(14) Taxpayer. The term "taxpayer" means any person
subject to any internal revenue tax.
26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(14). (Emphasis added.)The term "taxpayer" is also defined in section 1313(b) of the Code as follows:




Sec. 1313. Definitions.

(b) Taxpayer.

Notwithstanding section 7701(a)(14), the term "taxpayer"
means any person subject to a tax under the applicable revenue law.
26 U.S.C. 1313(b). (Emphasis added.)

In other words, if one is not engaged in an activity that is described within the Internal Revenue Code (under a statute number) in which one derives an 'income' from, then one is not subject to, or liable for the tax that would be imposed for doing so. If one is not deriving an income from a revenue taxable activity, then one is not a so-called "taxpayer", as that term is defined within the IRC.

Granted, the courts are corrupt, the same with the judges & the rest of the system of justice - i.e. "Just Us."

Siigning up for a Social Security Number, this provides what is called prima facie evidence that one is a so-called "taxpayer". So then, obviously one has to be quite wary of leaving a "paper trail" as to how one makes their living.

This is not a path that I would personally recommend to the average 'Joe' or 'Jill'.
I've only lived it because I am pretty adamant person who doesn't make for a good & cooperative slave.

Best regards to you, Satori.
(Btw, I like your name - I know what it means -
I had my first satori many years ago.)

[ThePythonicCow]

That to me tells me all that I need to know about you.

Just one question for you... when was the last time you filed an income tax form?
Thank you for your last reply. Have a nice day.
This is just (at this time anyway) my personal opinion, not a justification for moderation ... but the (what seems to me to be) sarcasm implicit in your last line of my quote, and the (what seems to me to be) covert rudeness in your first two lines of my quote, are (in my view) unwelcome here, uncalled for, and without foundation.

[ThePythonicCow]

In other words, if one is not engaged in an activity that is described within the Internal Revenue Code (under a statute number) in which one derives an 'income' from, then one is not subject to, or liable for the tax that would be imposed for doing so. If one is not deriving an income from a revenue taxable activity, then one is not a so-called "taxpayer", as that term is defined within the IRC.
I agree with this, and find it to be uncontroversial. The IRS does not expect or require, in my understanding, tax filings from people who have no taxable income (income from taxable activities.)

I filed no income tax report for last year, and my sister, whose affairs I handle, has filed no income tax report for many decades ... in both cases because there was no taxable income. Simple :).

Of course, if, like Al Capone (http://history.howstuffworks.com/history-vs-myth/capone-tax-evasion.htm"), one has such taxable income, but attempts to hide that income from the IRS, then they might bring down the Wrath of Khan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_II:_The_Wrath_of_Khan) on you if they discover that hidden income stream.

[genevieve]

Here's an interesting document that makes clear the income tax is voluntary.


Peace Love Joy & Harmony,
genevieve

[Satori]

Here's an interesting document that makes clear the income tax is voluntary.


Peace Love Joy & Harmony,
genevieve

Yes, it is "voluntary." But that is another legal fiction. There is really nothing voluntary about it. It is by compulsion of law and fear of adverse consequences that most people file a state and/or federal income tax return. Plus, we have been trained to think we must file a tax return. Indeed, if one fails to file an income tax return when a return was required according to law, rules and regulations, then one is subject to liability for the tax due, if any, plus interest and penalty on any unpaid tax. Criminal sanctions may apply too.

There are many people who do not have enough earned income to be required by law to file a return. If no tax return is required then of course there is no need to file one. But it is a minority of people who are employed and/or who have "income" fall into this category.

I am by no means a supporter of the tax on our incomes. But, I'm not going to kid myself either about the meaning of the applicable laws, rules, and regulations and the potential consequences of being a "non-filer" if a "voluntary" income tax return is due. I know people who have gone down that road, as well as some other roads in the monetary and fiscal tax world, only to regret it. Fear is one of the major "voluntary" compliance tools for the IRS and US Treasury.

[TrumanCash]

The 13th Amendment to the Constitution declared that "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

The Social Security Administration website openly states that it is "voluntary".

Form letters from the SSA state that the IRS has jurisdiction over the SSA (and that of course would include the Social Security number).

The SSA letters reveal that they do not have franking privileges pursuant to the US Constitution and the SSA is not even located in Washington, DC, so it is not a constitutional entity per se--just a corporation created by a Congress that has no constitutional authority to do so.

Disguised as a "dead beat dad's) law, Title 42, Section 666, paragraph "13" of the United States Code (USC) requires that as a condition to receiving federal funds States must establish procedures requiring that the social security number (SSN) of any applicant for a professional license, driver's license, recreational license, occupational license, or marriage license be recorded on the application.

This SSN requirement occurred in 1996 when Title 42, Section 666, paragraph 13 was amended by Section 317 of the "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996" (Public Law 104-193). The intent was to make this uniform throughout all the States and this applies to everyone, not just "dead beat dads".

Social Security cards used to state that they cannot be used for identification. They no longer state this and now it seems that's all that they are used for, making it nearly impossible for people to live without it.

Therefore, it seems that the tacit implication is that if you "volunteer" for a Social Security number, it cannot qualify as "involuntary servitude" under the 13th Amendment.

But the Bar Association, et al, no longer follows the US Constitution (except when it benefits them or the government).

So the question remains--How does one "unvolunteer" from the Social Security number when it must be challenged in the corrupt Bar Association court system?

[genevieve]

The main takeaway for me in the Revocation of Election regarding the income tax being voluntary is that you are not a U.S. citizen if you don't reside in Washington, D.C. or territories held by the U.S. or if you aren't employed by the federal government.

If neither of those applies to you, you are not subject to income tax--unless you voluntarily fill out the IRS's forms, which we all do because we've been snookered to think we're U.S. citizens.

When we register to vote, we check the box "U.S. citizen" and so identify ourselves as such (most of us are mistaken) and then we DO have to pay taxes.

But in fact, most of us are simply American Nationals, having been born on the land of one of the nation states--each state being its own sovereign nation.

And although there have been lots of underhanded shenanigans over the years, American Nationals are still recognized and are not subject to income taxes (and a whole lot of other B.S.) as long as they don't volunteer by self-identifying as a U.S. citizen.

Peace Love Joy & Harmony,
genevieve

[turiya]

The brainwashing goes deep, as most all individuals have been led to believe that they are a so-called 'taxpayer' as that term is defined in the Internal Revenue Code. As stated by the United States courts in its ruling:



The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax
assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers and
not to nontaxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No
procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers, and no attempt is
made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due
course of law. With them Congress does not assume to
deal, and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of
the revenue laws.
Economy Plumbing and Heating v. United States, 470 F.2d 585, at 589 (Ct.Cl. 1972) (Emphasis added.)

Note 3 of this case reads as follows:

3. The term "taxpayer" in this opinion is used in the strict
or narrow sense contemplated by the Internal Revenue
Code and means a person who pays, overpays, or is subject to pay his own personal income tax. (See Section 7701(a)(14) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.) A "nontaxpayer" is a person who does not possess the foregoing requisites of a taxpayer.
Economy, supra, fn. 3, at 590. (Emphasis added.)

Do you possess the requisiites of a "taxpayer"? Wouldn't that depend upon the subject of the tax? Is it people, property or activities?

Internal Revenue Code section 7701(a)(14), to which the Economy Court referred, reads as follows:



Sec. 7701. Definitions.

(a)
When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly
expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent
thereof--

(14) Taxpayer. The term "taxpayer" means any person
subject to any internal revenue tax.
26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(14). (Emphasis added.)The term "taxpayer" is also defined in section 1313(b) of the Code as follows:



Sec. 1313. Definitions.

(b) Taxpayer.

Notwithstanding section 7701(a)(14), the term "taxpayer"
means any person subject to a tax under the applicable revenue law.
26 U.S.C. 1313(b). (Emphasis added.)In other words, if one is not engaged in an activity that is described within the Internal Revenue Code (under a statute number) in which one derives an 'income' from, then one is not subject to, or liable for the tax that would be imposed for doing so. If one is not deriving an income from a revenue taxable activity, then one is not a so-called "taxpayer", as that term is defined within the IRC.

Of course, if, like Al Capone (http://history.howstuffworks.com/history-vs-myth/capone-tax-evasion.htm%22), one has such taxable income, but attempts to hide that income from the IRS, then they might bring down the Wrath of Khan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_II:_The_Wrath_of_Khan) on you if they discover that hidden income stream.

Capone was receiving so-called "taxable income" for being in the business as a distiller or importer of distilled spirits. Which is a revenue taxable activity described within the Internal Revenue Code under a numbered statute (as are ALL revenue taxable activities). Being the crook he was, he thought he was above the purview of the Internal Revenue Service - How WRONG he was on that note.

The Internal Revenue Code is clear in showing which persons are liable for a tax. For example, 26 U.S..C. 5703(a)(1) states:




The manufacturer or importer of tobacco products shall be
liable for the taxes imposed by section 5701.
26 U.S.C. 5703(a)(1). (Emphasis added.)

Another example is what brought Capone to be arrested & convicted...



26 U.S. Code § 5005 - Persons liable for tax

(a) General

The distiller or importer of distilled spirits
shall be liable for the taxes imposed thereon
by section 5001(a)(1).
26 U.S.C. 5005(a)(Emphasis added.)

One can also view the notion that the Income Tax is voluntary from this viewpoint:

One has a choice as to whether to be engaged in a revenue taxable activity, or not. According to the revenue laws, No one is being forced into making their living - wages, salary, income, remuneration, payment, etc. - by being engaged in a revenue taxable activiity, or event. Those activities are listed by statute number, as is shown (above) with the distiller of distilled spirits.

Knowing what the nature of the so-called "income" - an indirect tax in the nature of an excise tax on the happening of an event or activity - this is also paramount in having an understanding that the "income" tax is voluntary. Otherwise, a mistaken notion can lead to an extreme hardship as experienced by many that have not understood the nature of the "income" tax - a tax on activities, not on the income per se. Understand that it is the income that is derived from a particular activity which is used to measure how much tax one is required to pay. Again, this is why the tax is named the "income tax". This is because it is the amount of income that is derived from the revenue taxable activity that is used as a measure to determine how much tax one is subject to pay.

Why Some People Go to Jail
"The Biggest Tax Loophole of All" by Otto Skinner, Chapter 7

Flawed Argument #7. The individual claims that the tax is voluntary. Therefore, he is not required to file tax returns. The individual includes at least one more flawed argument to supposedly support his reasoning.
This flawed argument stems from the Flora Case cited earlier, which stated that our system of taxation is based on voluntary assessment and payment. This may seem like splitting hairs, but it is the "self-assessment" and not the tax that is voluntary. The prima facie evidence supplied by the individual indicates that the individual independently and voluntarily determined that he was subject to or liable for a revenue tax. An essential characteristic of a tax is that it is not a voluntary payment, but an enforced contribution. Unless rebutted, this prima facie evidence will be successfully used by a government prosecutor to supposedly "prove" that the individual "recognized" his obligation to file.

Prima Facie Evidence means evidence on its face. This type of evidence need to be countered with a rebuttment. If it isn't, it will stand as being factual. So, its very, very key for when the IRS agency comes a-calling, it is vital to rebut any presumption as to whether you are a "taxpayer". This can be done administratively by a simple letter back to them with questions that place the burden of proof back onto the IRS accusers.


Disclaimer: Be sure to seek the proper legal counsel to
get the appropriate legal advice involving such matters.

Best regards...

[Michelle Marie]

This may be true for those that give them that power. In my case...I haven’t failed and don’t plan on it either…no matter what others make real in their paradigm.

Income tax is illegal, plain and simple. I never was one to succumb to injustices. If more people removed their fear we will all be better off. If they kill me because I stood up for what is right, my death will be an honorable one. I’m sure my next life will be a much more rewarding one simply because I choose to live it that way. We are all here to do specific jobs, learn and move on. We are not here to be slaves. Recognize this, live life this way and the universe will work with you. If you keep thinking of ways to empower these evil entities...they will use your thoughts (along with your emotional fear) and manifest that reality for you.

I'm not afraid of them, nor do I think about them in a threatening manner. I have no problem combating this corrupt system because it is FACT that our society has only prospered because of a few brave people were willing to stand up to the oppressors. If only we were all like this…just imagine that!

If you’re afraid to die than you are obviously afraid to live.

Peace

You are a true Light Warrior.

I love your NO FEAR approach. Many people take this stand - more than we are aware of.

This will create change.

:thumbsup:MM

[turiya]

Still not in jail, or in prison... here's another interview with Winston Shrout... Starts off w/ questions, then gets back into talking about commerce @ 58.00...



The GoldFish Report No. 130 - Country Roads w/
Winston Shrout: DNA Repair & Fiscal Time

(Published on Sep 15, 2017)

http://blogote.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/youtube_video_working.jpg (http://blogote.com/how-to/fix-youtubethis-video-is-no-longer-available-problem-2/1373/)

[turiya]

Thomas Paine1774 of TruePundit.com attempts to explain the unconstitutional basis for the so-called "income" tax... True, the present way the tax is being 'misapplied' is 'fraudulent', which the Deep State does use to their benefit... Unfortunately, Thomas, like most, fails to understand precisely what kind of tax it is - hint: its NOT a direct tax on income! The IRC was written by bankers using deceptive banker language - they are the Masters of Deception, imo... click on the image to read the entire article...



https://www.curezone.org/upload/_T_Forums/Turiya_Files_/AVALON/TRUMP/GENRL_TWEETS/THOMAS_PAINE_TRUE_PUNDIT.png (https://twitter.com/Thomas1774Paine/status/1032930680647430144)

TAX FRAUD ALLEGATIONS ARE A MECHANISM OF DEEP STATE COMMUNIST CONTROL

https://i1.wp.com/truepundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/171030_INT_muellerManafortTrump.jpg.CROP_.promo-xlarge2.jpg?fit=550%2C392&ssl=1 (https://truepundit.com/tax-fraud-allegations-are-a-mechanism-of-deep-state-communist-control/)
TAX FRAUD ALLEGATIONS ARE A MECHANISM OF DEEP STATE COMMUNIST CONTROL
When the U.S. income tax law passed in 1913 like a thief in the night, literally, when 90% of the U.S. Congress and Senate were home for the Christmas Holidays, few people in America knew exactly what this meant.
As part of the Federal Reserve Act, which brought us our sprawling Central Bank that many early U.S. Presidents such as Andrew Jackson fought against, including wars, the Sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1913.
It states: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”
A few decades prior around 1894, the income tax was in fact declared unconstitutional by Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution which states: “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.” [Side note: 'direct' tax - today's so-called "income tax" is an indirect tax - like an EXCISE! - there is plenty of room for debate on this...]
In 1894, Congress passed the Wilson-Gorman Tariff, which created an income tax of 2% on income of over $4,000.
Charles Pollock contested that the tax was unconstitutional under Article 1, Section 9.

3:00 AM - 24 Aug 2018

[turiya]

...Income tax is illegal, plain and simple.



Simple answer: If the first step toward understanding something is a missed step, then every subsequent step taken after that will also be a misstep, which will lead you further & further away from the reality of what you want to understand.

Its the Jekyll Island central bankers - Masters of Deception - that wrote the IRC - Internal Revenue Code - using banker language. The so-called "income tax" is NOT a direct tax on income per se. It is an indirect tax, as in the form of an EXCISE!

Understanding the tax laws & the words that are used within the IRC is not somethng to overlook.

Examples:

1) What is the Rule of Apportionment? And what kind of tax does it specifically pertain to?
2) The Rule of Uniformity? And what kind of tax does it specifically pertain to?

This is the first step. If its overlooked, then you will never understand the nature of the so-called 'income' tax.


http://www.curezone.org/upload/_T_Forums/Turiya_Files_/WINSTON_SHROUT/TAXES/OTTO_SKINNER_TAX_CHART.png

After looking at the chart above, then take a look at your federal income tax tables...

If the so-called 'income' tax is a 'direct' tax (on income as property), then shouldn't the tax tables be different for each State? That's what apportionment means - apportioned according to the population of each State. On the contrary, the same tax tables are distributed to every State, following the Rule of Uniformity! Which is the Constitutional requirement for 'indirect' taxes.

Also consider this, if everyone was subject to & liable for the so-called 'income' tax - i.e. a 'direct' tax on income - then why is not the revenue tax a subject that is taught in the public school system? The answer is obvious - Everyone is not necessary subject to & liable for this revenue tax. (See what the Economy case states in Post #62 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?39990-Income-Tax-is-Voluntary---But-they-ll-jail-you-anyway-&p=1179772&viewfull=1#post1179772))

[shaberon]

The main takeaway for me in the Revocation of Election regarding the income tax being voluntary is that you are not a U.S. citizen if you don't reside in Washington, D.C. or territories held by the U.S. or if you aren't employed by the federal government.

If neither of those applies to you, you are not subject to income tax--unless you voluntarily fill out the IRS's forms, which we all do because we've been snookered to think we're U.S. citizens.

When we register to vote, we check the box "U.S. citizen" and so identify ourselves as such (most of us are mistaken) and then we DO have to pay taxes.

But in fact, most of us are simply American Nationals, having been born on the land of one of the nation states--each state being its own sovereign nation.

And although there have been lots of underhanded shenanigans over the years, American Nationals are still recognized and are not subject to income taxes (and a whole lot of other B.S.) as long as they don't volunteer by self-identifying as a U.S. citizen.

Peace Love Joy & Harmony,
genevieve

Nationals are not subject to statutes, but are subject to code. Most of the things you would object to are statutes.

But, we're not...we have fried National-ism at every step, including having the S. S. #, any interest-bearing account, licenses, insurance, real estate, any government benefit, voting, all of those kinds of things are your consent to be a citizen. And a citizen of a foreign power: the federal government is a foreign agency except in its courts, military bases, etc., it is basically a foreigner wherever you live.

The income tax itself is not apportioned, it is indirect. I'm not sure that helps get out of it.

Citizen and Democracy are certainly two big lies...the U. S. is not a democracy, and you wouldn't be a citizen if you weren't tricked into it. You would really need to rescind the citizenship instead of protesting taxes based on the possibility. Once a citizen, you're not getting out of it without some fairly substantial un-making, and until then, you are still subject to all the tyranny the system has to offer. Drop it and you can do whatever you want, besides theft and violence.

[Satori]

But, how many of us on Spaceship Earth who are not already living in a State of Nature would willingly return to the State of Nature, simply to avoid tax on "income"?

And, those of us who do decide to live in a State of Nature would likely not be subject to the anti-Constitutional federal tax on income because, for one thing, those living in a State of Nature in the USA would not earn enough income to be subject to said tax. This is one reason why governments oppose any movements and efforts by any significant numbers of people to return to the State of Nature--not that it takes much effort in the modern-day world to successfully quell such movements. Such a movement, if successful, would sound the death knell for centralized big government. Centralized government gives such movements perjorative names or terms like anarchy, or conspiracy theory, and drums any such notions out of the minds of people through public and private indoctrination, called education.

Yes, ours is a Republic, if we can keep it. But, our Republic employs democratic processes. All too often that is the cause of much discord. The two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner thing. Majority rule and consensus politics is not all that it's pitched to be.

There is much misunderstanding and misinformation (both often well-intentioned) and, unfortunately, intentional disinformation on the subject of citizenship, the Fourteenth Amnd, the scope and legality of the federal income tax, sovereignty, gold fringed flag and so on...

Tread very carefully in this area. There are many pitfalls for the unwary.

[turiya]

The main takeaway for me in the Revocation of Election regarding the income tax being voluntary is that you are not a U.S. citizen if you don't reside in Washington, D.C. or territories held by the U.S. or if you aren't employed by the federal government.

If neither of those applies to you, you are not subject to income tax--unless you voluntarily fill out the IRS's forms, which we all do because we've been snookered to think we're U.S. citizens.

When we register to vote, we check the box "U.S. citizen" and so identify ourselves as such (most of us are mistaken) and then we DO have to pay taxes.

But in fact, most of us are simply American Nationals, having been born on the land of one of the nation states--each state being its own sovereign nation.

And although there have been lots of underhanded shenanigans over the years, American Nationals are still recognized and are not subject to income taxes (and a whole lot of other B.S.) as long as they don't volunteer by self-identifying as a U.S. citizen.

Peace Love Joy & Harmony,
genevieve

Again, as stated in Post #69 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?39990-Income-Tax-is-Voluntary---But-they-ll-jail-you-anyway-&p=1180324&viewfull=1#post1180324), the argument that one is not subject to the "income" tax because it is voluntary tax is a fraudulent argument. 'Voluntary' within this context means that it is the assessment that is voluntary (see above).

It also is 'voluntary' because... since the "income" tax is an unapportioned indirect tax for being engaged in a certain 'revenue taxable' activity that one voluntarily engages in. Not all activities are taxable for revenue purposes. One can choose to engage in an activity that is NOT taxable for revenue purposes. One is not forced to engage in any activity. One has a choice in the matter. Thus, one makes a voluntary decision as to whether they will engage in an activity that is taxable for revenue purposes, or not. Hence, one volunteers to make oneself subject to / liable for the revenue tax, or not.

But of course, just about 99% of the American population has been brainwashed into believing that they are a 'taxpayer' (as that term is defined within the Internal Revenue Code (IRC)), and that everyone else must be a taxpayer as well. So, one still needs to do their own due dilligence (work for themselves, and watch the paper trail that one leaves behind), as the mulitiude of employers, independent contractor payers, as well as accountants, attorney & tax consultants within this country will have you fill out & sign paperwork that pertains to a worker that is for "taxpayers" & then forwards that paperwork (W-4 & 1099 forms) on to the IRS. This is all the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) needs to use as prima facie evidence (evidence on its surface) that shows you are, indeed, a 'taxpayer' (as that term is defined within the IRC).

So, know it well... your employer/payer is culpable (whether aware of it, or not) in providing the paperwork that fraudulently shows that you are subject to / liable for a so-called federal "income" tax.


The income tax itself is not apportioned, it is indirect. I'm not sure that helps get out of it.

Granted, the courts, judges & attorney are quite crooked. They all make their money off of the defendant. One has to basically understand the tactics that are being employed so as to entrap the average 'Joe-six pack'. Understand how to shift what is called the "burden of proof" onto the other side. This can be done administratively, without a need to spend time in a courtroom.

As a U.S. citizen, one automatically is 'presumed' to be guilty, unless the presumption is rebutted. If you do not respond to the letter, then eventually a subpoena (an invitation to court) will be sent to you. One must repsond, otherwise a request for your presence in court will be forthcoming.

For example, upon receiving a letter from the IRS, within this letter is contained a presumption... that presumption is that you are a 'taxpayer'. And, you will be a 'taxpayer' as long as you don't rebut this presumption. A simple way of doing this would be to respond to the letter. In your response, simple say something like the following:

"I would gladly pay the amount that is stated within the letter that was received, but only if you can show me how I have made myself liable for &/or subject to the tax. So, if you can please show me how I've made myself liable for the tax? Will await for your reply. Thank you."

The above is the basis for why Sherry Jackson made her video. It is an attempt to educate the people.


IRS fraud!! No Law requiring Americans
to pay Income Taxes on their Labor!
(Jul 6, 2013)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdStd8w35XQ


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1UT2Ms5E2k

[turiya]

Tread very carefully in this area. There are many pitfalls for the unwary.

Satori

Meet Winston Shrout - still not in jail or prison.... :)



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GY2JBQqjRpE

[turiya]

Nationals are not subject to statutes, but are subject to code. Most of the things you would object to are statutes.

shaberon

I do believe Codes & Statutes are the same. U.S. citizens are subject to both. Sovereigns are subject to neither. For example, there are very few are sovereigns that would be exempt from military tribunals. See Winston Shrout video...

Winston Shrout is the 'to-go-to-guy' that is the expert on Admiralty Law, imo.


GoldFish Report #261 Excerpt:
U.S. Citizens Subject to Both Codes & Statutes
(August 28, 2018)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qMhjzWfz6Q

[genevieve]

Anna von Reitz is a very good source of information in general, and
specifically with regard to clarifying and asserting one's status as an
American State National (as distinguished from a U.S. citizen). Her
posts can be found here:

http://annavonreitz.com/
-- Her site with all her articles, no comments

http://www.paulstramer.net/
-- With comments/dialogue, few responses from Anna--by viewers mostly

https://www.facebook.com/avonreitz?fref=ts
-- With comments/dialogue, some responses to viewers by Anna

https://mainerepublicemailreport.com/
-- No comments

I believe it's important to clarify one's status, and not just in relation to income taxes. "They" think you're a member in their club, so you've got to let them know otherwise.

Peace Love Joy & Harmony,
genevieve

[Satori]

Tread very carefully in this area. There are many pitfalls for the unwary.

Satori

Meet Winston Shrout - still not in jail or prison.... :)



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GY2JBQqjRpE

Thank you. I think you or someone else introduced him to us a while back. I bid him well.

If you read and understand my post, nothing therein is inconsistent with Mr. Shrout's apparent success. I did not watch the video and I am not familiar with any details of his claims, so that's all I can say. All I know from your post is that he is not in jail or prison. That is good.

The point of my post is to caution against believing everything one hears, reads or sees on this subject (and all others), and to be very careful with how you go about challenging tax authorities. They are not invincible and they can be beat, but that is the vast exception, not the rule.

I am not attempting to urge people to role over and take it, to the contrary. The income tax is the bane of our economic existence. I simply urge proceeding with great preparation and study.

[turiya]

Tread very carefully in this area. There are many pitfalls for the unwary.

Satori

Meet Winston Shrout - still not in jail or prison.... :)



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GY2JBQqjRpE

Thank you. I think you or someone else introduced him to us a while back. I bid him well.

If you read and understand my post, nothing therein is inconsistent with Mr. Shrout's apparent success. I did not watch the video and I am not familiar with any details of his claims, so that's all I can say. All I know from your post is that he is not in jail or prison. That is good.

The point of my post is to caution against believing everything one hears, reads or sees on this subject (and all others), and to be very careful with how you go about challenging tax authorities. They are not invincible and they can be beat, but that is the vast exception, not the rule.

I am not attempting to urge people to role over and take it, to the contrary. The income tax is the bane of our economic existence. I simply urge proceeding with great preparation and study.

Yes, of course. I understand your post. Doing one's own due dilligent research takes responsibility, of which many tend to steer themselves away from doing so.

The central difference between us is what we choose to view as being the 'bane' of our economic existence.


anti-Constitutional federal tax on income
You say it is the so-called 'income' tax, as in your statement above... that it is unconstitutional... that it is a direct tax on income. With this I would agree, if it were indeed the case! But it is not. It is not a direct tax on income. As stated previously, an apportioned tax (according to a State's population) on income would be absolutely unconstitutional.

However, this is not the case. As, it has clearly been shown, the so-called 'income' tax is an indirect tax - not on income - but on certain activities. The amount of 'income' that is derived from a 'certain' activity is used to measure the amount of tax that one needs to pay. Engaging in such activity makes one liable for & subject to the tax that is imposed for such engagement into that activity.



As is stated within the 1943 House Congressional Record:





The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such.
It is an exise tax with respect to certain activities and
privileges which is measured by reference to the income
which they produce. The income is not the subject of the
tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of tax.
House Congressional Record, 3-27-43, page 2580.
(Emphasis added.)

The United States Supreme Court explains an excise tax.



Excises are "taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale or
consumption of commondities within a county, upon
licenses to pursue certain occupations, and upon corporate
privilieges." Cooley, Const. Lim., 7th ed., 680.
Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, at 151 (1911).
(Emphasis added.)
Hence, what I would say that lay at the crux of the problem is the ease at which the human population can be so easily 'mind-controlled!' That is what I would say is the 'bane' of not only our econmic existence, but our existence as human beings as a whole.

In other words, it is a gullibility factor - believing in anything that one says - that lay at the crux of the problem that so many people are having. It is a massive mind-control that has been implented upon the American public. It is not a conspiracy theory, per se. It is a fact.

So, On the contrary, it is my understanding, that the tax is absolutely constitutional. Its only the massive misapplication of the revenue laws that has been misconstued. It has been a massive deception campaign on the American population as a whole that is what lay at the crux of the problem.

If a greater percentage of the American people did their own due diligence - took the time to learn for themselves what kind of tax that they have be subjecting themselves to - for most ALL of their lives - then the courts would not be allowed to act in the corrupted manner that they are operating in.

It is because the majority of the people have allowed themselves to be manipulated by the politicians, and more significantly by the corrupted corporate news 'propaganda machine' media (MSM), then there would not be the grandiose problem that exists regarding the so-called "income" revenue tax.

[Satori]

Tread very carefully in this area. There are many pitfalls for the unwary.

Satori

Meet Winston Shrout - still not in jail or prison.... :)



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GY2JBQqjRpE

Thank you. I think you or someone else introduced him to us a while back. I bid him well.

If you read and understand my post, nothing therein is inconsistent with Mr. Shrout's apparent success. I did not watch the video and I am not familiar with any details of his claims, so that's all I can say. All I know from your post is that he is not in jail or prison. That is good.

The point of my post is to caution against believing everything one hears, reads or sees on this subject (and all others), and to be very careful with how you go about challenging tax authorities. They are not invincible and they can be beat, but that is the vast exception, not the rule.

I am not attempting to urge people to role over and take it, to the contrary. The income tax is the bane of our economic existence. I simply urge proceeding with great preparation and study.

Yes, of course. I understand your post. Doing one's own due dilligent research takes responsibility, of which many tend to steer themselves away from doing so.

The central difference between us is what we choose to view as being the 'bane' of our economic existence.


anti-Constitutional federal tax on income
You say it is the so-called 'income' tax, as in your statement above... that it is unconstitutional... that it is a direct tax on income. With this I would agree, if it were indeed the case! But it is not. It is not a direct tax on income. As stated previously, an apportioned tax (according to a State's population) on income would be absolutely unconstitutional.

However, this is not the case. As, it has clearly been shown, the so-called 'income' tax is an indirect tax - not on income - but on certain activities. The amount of 'income' that is derived from a 'certain' activity is used to measure the amount of tax that one needs to pay. Engaging in such activity makes one liable for & subject to the tax that is imposed for such engagement into that activity.



As is stated within the 1943 House Congressional Record:





The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such.
It is an exise tax with respect to certain activities and
privileges which is measured by reference to the income
which they produce. The income is not the subject of the
tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of tax.
House Congressional Record, 3-27-43, page 2580.
(Emphasis added.)

The United States Supreme Court explains an excise tax.



Excises are "taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale or
consumption of commondities within a county, upon
licenses to pursue certain occupations, and upon corporate
privilieges." Cooley, Const. Lim., 7th ed., 680.
Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, at 151 (1911).
(Emphasis added.)
Hence, what I would say that lay at the crux of the problem is the ease at which the human population can be so easily 'mind-controlled'! That is what I would say is the 'bane' of not only our econmic existence, but our existence as human beings as a whole.

In other words, it is a gullibility factor - believing in anything that one says - that lay at the crux of the problem that so many people are having. It is a massive mind-control that has been implented upon the American public. It is not a conspiracy theory, per se. It is a fact.

So, On the contrary, it is my understanding, that the tax is absolutely constitutional. Its only the massive misapplication of the revenue laws that has been misconstued. It has been a massive deception campaign on the American population as a whole that is what lay at the crux of the problem.

If a greater percentage of the American people did their own due diligence - took the time to learn for themselves what kind of tax that they have be subjecting themselves to - for most ALL of their lives - then the courts would not be allowed to act in the corrupted manner that they are operating in.

It is because the majority of the people have allowed themselves to be manipulated by the politicians, and more significantly by the corrupted corporate news 'propaganda machine' media (MSM), then there would not be the grandiose problem that exists regarding the so-called "income" revenue tax.

Under this logic, one can avoid what you conclude is an indirect excise tax on incomes only by not producing "income." Given the very broad definition of "income" good luck there. One would have to be homeless and/or completely dependent on others to avoid such a tax.

And riddle me this: What is the purpose, in 1913, of the ratification of the 16th Amendment to the US Constitution (the so-called Law That Never Was) if [since] under the Constitution before that amendment the activity of producing income was subject to an indirect excise tax?

The generally accepted definition of an indirect tax, is that it is a tax on certain transactions and activities. Theoretically, one can avoid the tax by not engaging in the transaction or the activity. E.g., don't smoke, don't drink alcohol, don't buy imported products.... But, don't work? Don't produce income?

Also, one reason such a tax is deemed indirect is that it is not paid by the taxpayer directly to the tax authority. There is a "middle man", the one that or who provides the goods or services in connection with which the taxpayer engaged in such activity. The taxpayer pays the "middle man" directly for the goods or services, and also pays the tax directly to the middle man, and the "middle man" is required to pass the tax on to the tax authority. The tax is collected indirectly from the taxpayer through the middle man and paid directly by the middle man to the tax authority.

With respect to a direct tax, the taxpayer pays the tax directly to the tax authority. A tax on income is such a tax. Before withholding of income tax on incomes circa 1941 (a "temporary" war measure that remained permanent, as planned), taxpayers paid the tax directly to the tax authority in some interval, such as quarterly or annually. People who do not work for an employer, but who are self-employed (and who pay taxes), still pay the tax directly, as it is not withheld from their incomes--from whatever source derived. This is at least one meaning of a direct tax. Does a tax on income become an indirect tax for those who are employed and their employer withholds the tax and then pays the tax authority? Not in the opinion of the tax authorities.

Also, the US Supreme Court case you cite is dated 1911, 2 years before the passage of the Federal Reserve Act and the alleged ratification of the 16th Amendment. It is in my view a correct statement of the law, prior to 1913. It should be correct now. This is one reason I say the income tax is anti-constitutional.

And, I'd need to read more than what you quoted from the Congressional record of 1943 to understand the meaning of the quote in the context it was made. For all we know the speaker was defending the income tax by classifying it in terms of an excise tax, which people of that day were more familiar with and which did not carry the negative baggage associated with a direct tax on incomes.

Again, all I'm saying is be careful in this area.

[turiya]

Will refer back to an earlier statement that you made.... along w/ this your most recent...


...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.


And riddle me this: What is the purpose, in 1913, of the ratification of the 16th Amendment to the US Constitution (the so-called Law That Never Was) if [since] under the Constitution before that amendment the activity of producing income was subject to an indirect excise tax?

I can quite frankly tell you what the SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT did NOT do.
And, this is supported by case law...


"DID THE SUPREME COURT CHANGE ITS MIND? (http://informationjunkie.com/tbloa/The%20Biggest%20Loophole%20of%20All%20(2001).pdf)"


Some people have erroneously claimed that the United States Supreme Court changed its mind, or changed the meaning of the Brushaber and Stanton decisions of 1916 in the Eisner decision of 1920. The only possible reasons for an honest misunderstanding of Eisner is that these people simply do not understand that income is not, and cannot be, the subject of any tax, or do not understand that the word "on" can mean "with regard to or respect to or in consideration of" as defined in Webster's previously cited, or possibly they have not read and studied the entire case.

People incorrectly claim that the Eisner Court "plainly stated" that what was accomplished by means of the Sixteenth Amendment was the elimination of the apportionment requirement for the direct tax known as the income tax. This is the type of misstatement that creates all kinds of confusion. The fact is, the Eisner Court made no such statement. The Eisner Court made no statement that there ever existed any such thing as: "the direct tax known as the income tax."

The portion of the Eisner Case supposedly utilized as a basis for such claims referred to above, is as follows:



As repeatedly held, this [the Sixteenth Amendment] did not extend the taxing powers to new or excepted subjects, but merely removed the necessity which might otherwise exist for an apportionment among the States of taxes laid on [with regard to or with respect to or in consideration of or measured by] income. Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, 17-19; Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. 240 U.S. 103, 112 et seq.; Peck & Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165M 172-173. (Emphasis is mine.)

A proper regard for its genesis, as well as its very clear language, requires also that this Amendment shall not be extended by loose construction, so as to repeal or modify, except as applied to income, those provisions of the Constitution that require an apportionment according to population for direct taxes upon property, real and personal. This limitation still has an appropriate and important function, and is not to be overridden by Congress or disregarded by the courts.
Eisner, supra, at 206. (Explanation added.)

The Eisner Court proceeds to discuss what is and what is not "income" as cited previously, tying in all the important facts to establish that "income" for puposes of the Sixteenth Amendment is profit or gain received by the person who is subject to the tax. With the subject of an excise tax being the happening of an event (or activity), and not the income which is the tangible fruit, the only person who can be subject to an excise tax is the person who is involved in the revenue taxable activity.

In the Eisner Case, the United States Supreme Court cited with approval the cases of Brushaber and Stanton which held that taxation on income was in its nature an excise. If the Court had changed its mind, it would have said so.

It is important to note that there was no question presented to the Eisner Court as to whether the activity was taxable. The issue the Court was asked to deal with involved a distinction between an increase in value of stock (capital) held by the "taxpayer" as opposed to profit or gain (income) actually being received by the recipient (the taxpayer) for his or her separate use, benefit and disposal. A tax on the capital, regardless of any increase in value, would have been a direct tax on the property. The Court determined that this increase in value was not to be considered "income" within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment.

In your studies of the "income" tax issue, you will probably come across many erroneous claims, such as the one shown above. Therefore, it seems timely to point out here that before you accept anybody's "theory" as to what a court case says, you should read the case for yourself. When I say anybody's "theory", I include the "theories" of judges and attorneys, as well as the "theories" of other laymen.
The Biggest Tax Loophole of All, Principles of Constitutional Taxation, Chapter 2 (pages 61-62) by Otto Skinner

SOURCE (http://informationjunkie.com/tbloa/The%20Biggest%20Loophole%20of%20All%20(2001).pdf)

[turiya]

Under this logic, one can avoid what you conclude is an indirect excise tax on incomes only by not producing "income." Given the very broad definition of "income" good luck there. One would have to be homeless and/or completely dependent on others to avoid such a tax.

[...snip...]

The generally accepted definition of an indirect tax, is that it is a tax on certain transactions and activities. Theoretically, one can avoid the tax by not engaging in the transaction or the activity. E.g., don't smoke, don't drink alcohol, don't buy imported products.... But, don't work? Don't produce income?

Also, one reason such a tax is deemed indirect is that it is not paid by the taxpayer directly to the tax authority. There is a "middle man", the one that or who provides the goods or services in connection with which the taxpayer engaged in such activity. The taxpayer pays the "middle man" directly for the goods or services, and also pays the tax directly to the middle man, and the "middle man" is required to pass the tax on to the tax authority. The tax is collected indirectly from the taxpayer through the middle man and paid directly by the middle man to the tax authority.

With respect to a direct tax, the taxpayer pays the tax directly to the tax authority. A tax on income is such a tax. Before withholding of income tax on incomes circa 1941 (a "temporary" war measure that remained permanent, as planned), taxpayers paid the tax directly to the tax authority in some interval, such as quarterly or annually. People who do not work for an employer, but who are self-employed (and who pay taxes), still pay the tax directly, as it is not withheld from their incomes--from whatever source derived. This is at least one meaning of a direct tax. Does a tax on income become an indirect tax for those who are employed and their employer withholds the tax and then pays the tax authority? Not in the opinion of the tax authorities.

Also, the US Supreme Court case you cite is dated 1911, 2 years before the passage of the Federal Reserve Act and the alleged ratification of the 16th Amendment. It is in my view a correct statement of the law, prior to 1913. It should be correct now. This is one reason I say the income tax is anti-constitutional.

And, I'd need to read more than what you quoted from the Congressional record of 1943 to understand the meaning of the quote in the context it was made. For all we know the speaker was defending the income tax by classifying it in terms of an excise tax, which people of that day were more familiar with and which did not carry the negative baggage associated with a direct tax on incomes.

Again, all I'm saying is be careful in this area.

Now, who is it that is moving away from logic, reason & rational thinking, here?


Chapter 13

LETTER TO THE EMPLOYER
(Intro)

If you have any questions in your mind as to whether or not your job involves any activity that has been taxed for revenue purposes, this author suggests you obtain advice from a knowledgeable attorney [good luck w/ that one]. Have the attorney provide you with a written statement as to his opinion. If s/he believes that your particular activity is taxable for revenue purposes, have him/her state which authority determined that particular activity to be taxable for revenue purposes, and in which section of the internal revenue laws, if any, is a tax imposed on that particular activity.

For example, in Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, The U.S. Supreme Court held that the business activities of private corporations were taxable for revenue purposes, and The Corporation Tax law of 1909 imposed a tax on that activity.

Unfortunately, you will probably find many attorneys (?) who have not even read, let alone studied, the important landmark decisions in regard to taxation, and do not even know the difference between a direct tax and an indirect tax. Unless an attorney is thoroughly familiar with the court cases cited in this book and many other related cases, s/he could hardly be considered competent to give advice to an individual who has not been engaged in any revenue taxable activity.

If your attorney thinks the Sixteenth Amendment authorized a direct tax, or that it conferred some sort of new taxing power, or extended the taxing power to new or excepted subjects, you might provide him or her with a copy of this book [SOURCE (http://informationjunkie.com/tbloa/The%20Biggest%20Loophole%20of%20All%20(2001).pdf)], and suggest that he or she start with page 112 of the Stanton Case provided in Exhibit B of this book.

Do not consider this letter to be a magic silver bullet. You should expect opposition, mainly because of the lack of understanding on the part of most Americans regarding taxes. For example, most people have been led to believe that "social security" taxes go into a special fund, when in fact they go into the general fund not earmarked in any way. See Helvering v. Davis cited previously. This fact alone will surprise many Americans, including attorneys.

I urge you to read and study each and every court case, statute, regulation and constitutional provision upon which you rely, and also those upon which your opposition relies. Copies of these documents can be obtained from law libraries and some from large public libraries.

Do not be surprised if your opposition is not exactly open and honest in its response to you. You might find that your opposition's attorneys will cite only portions of statutes or regulations, leaving out important qualifying phrases such as "liable for" or "subject to". Such omissions will tend to cause the unwary reader to believe that the statute or regulation applies to everyone, and not just to those who are liable for (subject to) a particular tax. Also, the opposition might misapply court cases that simply do not address the issues you are raising, thus, cleverly sidestepping the real issues you are trying to raise.

The better you know your issues, the better you will be able to discuss them intelligently with your employer or anyone else.

This letter has been designed to put and keep the burden of proof on the employer. I suggest you try to keep it that way. For example, a nontaxpayer (as defined in the Economy Case) should deny being a "taxpayer" as defined in the Code when he is being treated or referred to as if he were a "taxpayer", rather than claiming to be a nontaxpayer. This puts the burden of proof onto those who are assuming the individual is a "taxpayer" for purposes of the Code. If you claim to be a nontaxpayer, you have placed the burden of proving your statement upon yourself.


MARK OF THE BEAST

Many people believe that the social security number or other identifying number is the mark of the beast referred to in the Bible. Because of this belief, these people refuse to use an identifying number and feel that to be denied the right to obtain a job without a number is religious discrimination. It is possible to bring a Title 42 lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a) if an employer dismisses an individual because the individual declined to provide a social security number or other identifying number based on his religious belifs. See the EEOC Case previously mentioned. The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission handles religious discrimination suits.

A study of this issue will reveal that in order for a paintiff to prevail on a claim of religious discrsimination, the religious belief must be sincere, and whether or not the belief is sincere is a question of fact to be determined by the fact-finder (the jury). Additionally, in order for a paintiff to prevail, the employer must have been informed of the religious belief, and the employee must have been disciplined in some manner for failure to comply with a conflicting employer's employment requirement.

If an individual is denied a job or is terminated because he has not provided an identifying number, the question arises as to whether the employer's actions were based on the employer's requirement or a federal requirement.

While I have seen court papers in which the employer tried to claim it to be a federal requirement, I have yet to see a federal or State law that prohibited an employer from hiring an individual or required an employer to terminate an individual because the individual did not provide a number.

The laws and regulations that supposedly require an employee to apply for a number are directed at the employee, not at the employer. For example, the regulation (26 CFR 31.6011(b0-2(a)), promulgated under 26 U.S.C. 6011, only applies to the employee who is in employment for wages subject to withholding of income taxes, and then, only requires such employee to make an application. It does not require the employer to take action against the individual. The regulation is directed at the employee, not the employer. Therefore, any action against an individual by the employer is the employer's independent decision, and is not based on any federal requirement for him to take action against the individual. This was the basis for the Title 42 religious discrimination suit previously discussed. It seems it was a feeble excuse for the employer to have claimed he was only following federal law.

In addition to the above, the statute (26 U.S.C. 6011) applies only to any person made liable. The regulation cannot alter or go beyond the scope of the statute. Therefore, neither the statute nor regulation can apply to an individual who has not be made liable for a tax. If the employer is not provided with a social security number, he does not have this prima facie evidence indicating that the individual is subject to social security taxes, and this places more of the burden of proof on the employer.

If the IRS attempts to take action against the individual for not applying for a number or for not submitting a number to the employer, then the burden of proof is upon the IRS to prove the individual is subject to (liable for) a revenue tax.

It is important to make a distinction between the issue of religious discrimination and the issue as to whether or not you are subject to a tax.

If one is subject to a tax, he cannot use a religious belief as an excuse for not paying a tax or for not conforming to the tax laws. For example, if a "taxpayer" has a religious belief that forbids him from paying for the abortion of children, or paying for war in a foreign land, or because he does not believe in welfare, the "taxpayer" still has no excuse for not paying his taxes or for not conforming with the other requirements of the tax laws, even if Congress chooses to spend funds for these purposes.

Because a religious belief is personal, the letter to the employer is void of any reference to religious belief, he might add to the letter that his religious belief forbids him from using an identifying number even if he were subject to a tax. An example is found in the EEOC Case documents. The important point, I think, is to make a clear distinction between the issue of religious discrimination and the issue as to whether or not you are subject to or liable for a tax.

The bottom line is that the employer has no authority to take adverse action against an individual for not supplying an identifying number. Without the prima facie evidence of "taxpayer" status of the individual, the employer will have a much more difficult time trying to justify adverse actions against the individual.

Remember that the employer has absolutely no authority to determine who is and who is not subject to (liable for) a tax, and the revenue laws relate only to those who are subject to (liable for) a tax.

If an employer continues to want to withhold when he cannot prove the subject of the tax or prove who, if anyone, is subject to (liable for) the tax, then we have to question who the real criminals are in our country. The taking of a persons money based on a mere assumption cannot possibly meet the constitutional requirements of due process of law guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.

Protecting and defending you constitutional rights is serious business.

(Letter to Employer forthcoming) ...:)

[turiya]

Under this logic, one can avoid what you conclude is an indirect excise tax on incomes only by not producing "income." Given the very broad definition of "income" good luck there. One would have to be homeless and/or completely dependent on others to avoid such a tax.

Satori

Please do whatever it is that you do to determine what is 'logical' after reading the following 'Letter to the Employer'. It obviously passes the 'muster' [test], Imo.

Please have at it. :)
The Letter to the Employer is broken into 2 parts. The 1st part deals with the supposed (false notion) 'requirement' of a Social Security Number & a signed IRS Form document must be provided to an employer in order to contract for work.

As already discussed. The brainwashing goes deep. The Masters of Deception - a.k.a the Rothschild & Rockefeller central bankers - have done a supreme job in how they've laid out their deception in the wording that is contained within the Internal Revenue Code.


https://i.imgur.com/dNAH1KZ.gif (https://imgur.com/gallery/dNAH1KZ)
A Multiplicity of Agent Smiths

As in the movie, The Matrix , the Masters of Deception have set their scheme up so that 'We the People' will (unwittingly) act as 'agents' (as in a multiplicity of Agent Smiths) for the control system (in this case, the control mechanism is the IRS) under the threat of fine or imprisonment. They've worked their magic in a way that has people at each others' throats. People 'rat' on other people because they think they are not paying their 'fair share' in taxes. The use of the 'fear' factor has worked extremely well.

With the coming collapse of their economic system (debt-based fiat currency), it will be interesting to see just how these bankers will implement their next phase of control as their banking system falls apart.

Be sure that you know how to walk carefully through a mine field, before you even think about running through it.





:)
Chapter 13
(http://informationjunkie.com/tbloa/The%20Biggest%20Loophole%20of%20All%20(2001).pdf)

LETTER TO THE EMPLOYER (http://informationjunkie.com/tbloa/The%20Biggest%20Loophole%20of%20All%20(2001).pdf)
(Part 1)

NOTICE


Re: Demand for full payment of earnings and demand employer cease and desist withholding of earnings under the guise, pretext, sham and subterfuge of withholding taxes from employee who is not subject to income or other revenue tax, and payment of all moneys unlawfully withheld.


THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE REQUIREMENT TO SUPPLY A
SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER OR "TAXPAYER" FORM W-4.

Dear ___Employer's Name___

Please take notice that I , (your name), hereby demand full payment of my earnings and demand that you cease and desist withholding any of my earnings under the guise, pretext, sham, and subterfuge of withholding taxes.

At the time I applied for a job with you, I was falsely led to believe that I was required by law to complete and sign a Form W-4 and also required to supply a social security number. I have since learned certain facts regarding the signing of forms and the supplying of numbers supposedly required by the revenue laws.

I submit that there is no law that requires an individual to complete and sign a Form W-4 in order to obtain or to keep a job. I also submit that there is no law that requires an individual to supply a social security number in order to obtain or to keep a job.

I submit that it is only required under the internal revenue statutes and regulations that an employer request from an individual a completed and signed Form W-4 and request from an individual and identifying number such as a social security number. As you will see, the employer needs only to sign an affidavit stating that the request for a social security number has been made.

I submit that there is no law that prohibits an employer from hiring an individual, and no law that requires an individual be terminated, in the event the individual does not sign tax forms or submit a social security number.

I submit that any penalties relating to an individual's alleged "failure" to sign required forms, submit required information, and/or supply required numbers is a matter between the Internal Revenue Service and the individual; and that an employer has absolutely no authority to penalize an individual in any manner or to deprive an individual of any rights or privileges merely because the individual has not supplied such number or submitted such forms.

I submit that the Internal Revenue Code and the regulations promulgated pursuant to the Code do not contain an absolute requirement that an employer provide an employee's social security number or other identifying number to the Internal Revenue Service.

I base the above statements on the following information.


NO SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER REQUIRED.

The Internal Revenue Code section 6109(a)(3) states:

Any person required under the authority of this title to make a return, statement or other document with respect to another person shall request from such other person, and shall include in any return, statement, or other document, such identifying number as may be prescribed for securing proper identification of such other person.
26 U.S.C. 6109(a)(3). (Emphasis added.)

The regulation interpreting section 6109 provides:

If he does not know the taxpayer identifying number of the other person, he shall request such number of the other person. A request should state that the identifying number is required to be furnished under authority of law. When the person filing the return, statement, or other document does not know the number of the other person, and has complied with the request provision of this paragraph, he shall sign an affidavit on the transmittal document forwarding such returns, statements, or other documents to the Internal Revenue Service so stating.
26 CFR 301.6109-1(c) (In part, emphasis added.)If a document must be filed and the employer has been unable to obtain the number but has made the request, then the employer needs only to include an affidavit stating that the request was made.


The Internal Revenue Code section 6723 states:
In case of a failure by any person to comply with a specified information reporting requirement on or before the time prescribed therefor, such person shall pay a penalty of $50 for each such failure, .....
26 U.S.C. 6723. (In part.) However, Internal Revenue Code section 6724(a) provides for a waiver of any penalties assessed under the Code upon a showing of reasonable cause. Section 6724(a) provides:


No penalty shall be imposed under this part with respect to any failure if it is shown that such failure is due to reasonable cause and not to willful neglect.
(26 U.S.C. 6724(a). (Emphasis added.) Since the Internal Revenue Code provides a waiver of any penalties for "any failure" to obtain a social security number, it is not mandatory that you obtain such number or supply such number to the Internal Revenue Service. The fact that an individual will not sign a tax form or supply a number after you have made the request, eliminates willful neglect on your part.

Even under the Immigration Reform and Control Act, codified at 8 U.S.C. 1324a(b), documents other than a social security card can be used for identification purposes; a birth certificate being one of them.

NO FORM W-4 IS REQUIRED
Just like the request for a social security number (or "taxpayer" identifying number), the Internal Revenue Code merely requires that the employer request a Form W-4 (or withholding exemption certificate) from each employee. The Code instructs that in the event the employee does not furnish such certificate, such employee shall be considered as a single person. Note that the Internal Revenue Code only relates to those persons who are subject to (liable for) a revenue tax. See Economy Plumbing and Heating Co. v. United States, 470 F.2d 585, cited below.

Just like the social security number, you will also see that there is no absolute requirement for withholding exemption certificates or withholding allowance certificates (such as Form W-4) required to be signed by an individual in order for him or her to obtain a job. You will see that such forms apply only to individuals who are claiming some sort of statutorily authorized allowance or exemption.

The Internal Revenue Code provides:


On or before the date of the commencement of employment
with an employer, the employee shall furnish the employer
with a signed withholding exemption certificate relating to
the number of exemptions which he claims, which shall
in no event exceed the number to which he is entitled.
26 U.S.C. 3402(f)(2)(A). (Emphasis added.) Here the language is clear. Such a form is required only in the event some sort of exemption is claimed. Please be advised that I make no claim at all. I do not claim "exempt", I do not claim "zero" and I do not claim any other number of exemptions. I simply [B]make no claim at all. I submit that you will find no law requiring an individual to complete such certificate if such individual makes no claim. It goes without saying that an individual cannot be foreced to claim a "benefit" or be forced to sign a government form which is not absolutely required by law in order to contract for a job.

Furthermore, the regulation issued pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 3402(f)(2)(A) states that an employer is only required to request a withholding exemption certificate" and tells you precisely what to do in the event you are not furnished such certificate.


(a) [I]On commencement of employment. ......... The
employer is required to request a withholding exemption
certificate from each employee, but if the employee fails to
furnish such certificate, such employee shall be considered
as a single persona claiming no withholding exemptions.
26 CFR 31.3402(f)(2)-1(a). (In part, emphasis added.) Summarizing all of the above, it is clear that the statutes and regulations issued pursuant to the statutes do not provide you with any protection for refusing to hire an individual or for dismissing an individual simply because the individual has not supplied a social security number or signed tax forms.
(This ends the part of the Letter to the Employer regarding the supposed requirement for an person to provide a Social Security Number & other personal information on an IRS form document in order to contract for work. Part 2 forthcoming.)

[turiya]

Chapter 13
(http://informationjunkie.com/tbloa/The%20Biggest%20Loophole%20of%20All%20(2001).pdf)

LETTER TO THE EMPLOYER (http://informationjunkie.com/tbloa/The%20Biggest%20Loophole%20of%20All%20(2001).pdf)
(Part 2)

WITHHOLDING


It goes without saying that one cannot have taxes withheld unless s/he is subject to (liable for) a tax.

I deny being subject to or liable for any so-called "income" tax, or any so-called Social Security" tax or any other revenue tax. I submit that you will find no place in the Internal Revenue Code that makes me subject to or liable for any tax. I suggest that you not merely assume that I am subject to or liable for a tax and withhold from my contracted earnings on the basis of that assumption. Such actions will not pass muster under the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.

The Internal Revenue Code is clear in showing which persons are liable for a tax. For example, 26 U.S.C. 5703(a)(1) states:



The manufacturer or importer of tobacco products shall be
liable for the taxes imposed thereon by section 5701.
26 U.S.C. 5703(a)(1). Again, I submit that you will find no place in the Internal Revenue Code that makes me subject to or liable for any tax.

Furthermore, I deny being a "taxpayer" as that term is defined in the Internal Revenue Code. I also deny that I have any "taxable income" or "taxable year" as these terms are defined in the Internal Revenue Code.

If you act on a mere assumption that I am subject to or liable for any revenue tax, you will then carry the burden of proof as to the lawfulness of your actions.

You should note that the courts have clearly stated the revenue laws relate only to those who are subject to or liable for a tax.



The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax
assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers and not to nontaxpayers. The latter are without their scope.
No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers, and no
attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in
due course of law. With them Congress does not assume to
deal, and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of
the revenue laws.

Note 3. The term "taxpayer" in this opinion is used in the
strict or narrow sense contemplated by the Internal Revenue
Code and means any person who pays, overpays, or is
subject to pay his own personal income tax. (See Section
7701(a)(14) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.) A
"nontaxpayer" is a person who does not possess the
foregoing requisites of a taxpayer.
[I]Economy Plumbing and Heating Co. v. United States, 470
F.2d 585, 589-590 (U.S. Court of Claims, 1972).
(Emphasis added.)In other words, all of the statutes and regulations under the internal revenue laws apply only to those who are subject to or liable for a revenue tax.

I submit that you do not have the authority to determine who is and who is not subject to or liable for a tax. Before you proceed to act on a mere assumption that I am someone who is subject to ir liable for a particular tax, I suggest you try to determine whether the subject of the tax is in the category of people, property or activities, and then try to find a place in the Internal Revenue Code that imposes a tax on that particular subject.

I submit that there is no tax within the Internal Revenue Code imposed on people or property. A federal court stated:



Indeed, the requirement for apportionment is pretty strictly
limited to taxes on real and personal property and capitation
taxes.
Penn Mutual Indemnity Co. v. C.I.R., 277 F.2d 16 (3rd Cir. 1960).
I submit that there is no tax imposed by the internal revenue laws that has been apportioned among the States as the United States Constitution requires of direct taxes. Obviously, since there are no federal taxes apportioned among the States, including social security taxes, there is no tax imposed on either people or property.

The United States Supreme Court stated:



In the matter of taxation, the Constitution recognizes the
two great classes of direct and indirect taxes, and lays down
two rules by which their imposition must be governed,
namely: The rule of apportionment as to direct taxes, and the rule of uniformity as to duties, imposts and excises.
Pollack v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, at
557 (1895); and
Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S.1, at 13
(1916). (Emphasis added.)

and,

The conclusion reached in the Pollack Case did not in any
degree involve holding that income taxes generically and
necessarily came within the class of direct taxes on
property, but on the contrary recognized the fact that
taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be
enforced as such...
Brushaber, supra, at pages 16-17 (1916). (Emphasis added.)Satori - This part is for you :)
In the event your attorney claims that the Sixteenth authorized a direct tax without apportionment, let me advise you that the United States Supreme Court said:



the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of
the Sixteenth Amendment conferred [B]no new power of
taxation but simply prohibited the previous compete 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....
Stanton v. Baltiv Minining Co., 240 U.S. 103, at 112.
(Emphasis added.)

and,

The Sixteenth Amendment.... does not extend the taxing
power to new or excepted subjects....
Peck & Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165, 172 (1918).

and,

A tax laid upon the happening of an event, as
distinguished from its tangible fruits, is an indirect tax....
Tyler v. United States, 281 U.S. 497, at 502 (1930).
(Emphasis added.)The 1943 House Congressional Record reiterates these basis facts.



The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such.
It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and
privileges which is measured by reference to the income
which they produce. The income is not the subject of the
tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of tax.
House Congressional Record, 3-27-43, page 2580.
(Emphasis added.)

The United States Supreme Court explains an excise tax.
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., 220 U.S. 107, at 152 (1911).
(Emphasis added.)Unless you can find a place in the Internal Revenue Code that imposes a tax upon any activity or event which I am involved in, then you have no basis to assume or presume that I am subject to or liable for a tax.

While withholding is authorized under certain conditions, section 3402(a)(1)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code states that withholding must:



...reflect the provisions of chapter 1 [of the Code]...
26 U.S.C. 3402(a)(1)(B). (Explanation added.) Chapter 1 of the Code involves the so-called "income" tax which is an indirect tax in the nature of an excise which is a tax imposed upon some taxable event or activity. I submit that you will not find a place in the Internal Revenue Code that imposes a tax on any activity or event which I am involved in, and no place in the Code that makes me subject to or liable for any revenue tax.

Also, I submit that before you proceed to act based upon someone else's statment claiming I am liable for or subject to any internal revenue tax, that you make certain that that person has the authority to make that determination. I submit that there is no statute authorizing anyone to determine whether or not I am subject to any internal revenue tax. Personnel within the taxing agencies may have authority to determine the liability (amount of tax owed) of a "taxpayer" as that term is defined in the Internal Revenue Code (one who is subject to or liable for a revenue tax), but I submit that no person has been granted the authority to determine whether or not I am subject to or liable for any internal revenue tax.

I submit that you will not be able to find any person who will sign a statement under the penalty of perjury claiming that I am subject to or liable for any particular revenue tax.

The United States Supreme Court has ruled:




Our system of taxation is based upon voluntary assessment
and payment, not upon distraint.
Flora v. United States, 362 U.S. 145, 176 (1960).I have determined that I am neither subject to nor liable for any internal revenue tax.

Again, I submit that you will find no person who has been granted the authority to determine whether or not I am subject to or liable for any internal revenue tax. If you think there is a document granting any person such authority, I suggest you obtain a hard copy of that document before you proceed to withhold money from my earnings under the guise or pretext of supposedly withholding taxes.

I submit that the only requirments for forms to be signed and numbers to be supplied under the revenue laws apply only to a "taxpayer" as that term is defined in the Internal Revenue Code; i.e., one who is subject to and/or liable for an internal revenue tax.

I submit that such numbers and forms were obtained from me by you under conditions of mistake of fact, duress, and/or coercion. Therefore, I hereby revoke my signature on any and all such forms in your possession, and I demand that you remove any social security number or "taxpayer" identification number from any and all records in your possession.

Since you do not have the authority to determine whether or not I am subjet to any internal revenue tax, I demand that you do not send any Form 1099, Form W-4, Form W-2, or any other forms concerning me to the IRS or any government agency. Any release of private information concerning me will be in violation of my rights of privacy under the law.

If any such agency requests information concerning me, I suggest you demand documented proof (if any exists) that I am a person subject to or liable for a revenue tax and provide me with copies of such documents.

If you cannot and do not provide me with true copies of an official determination that I am subject to or liable for a revenue tax, signed by a person with proper authority to make that determination, the detailed basis for that determination clearly identifying the precise subject of the tax in question and clearly stating whether the subject of the tax is in the category of people, property, or activities, and clearly stating the precise section of the revenue laws imposing a tax on that particular subject and the precise section of the revenue laws that makes me subject to or liable for that tax, I will presume that my position is correct and that any withholding of my lawful earnings will be an unlawful conversion of my property.

If you act without the proper authority, I seriously doubt that the IRS will come to your aid.

Please advise me in writing within 10 day of receipt of this letter of the action you intend to take.

Sincerely,

/s/______signature_______
typewritten name


_______________________

Its very, very difficult for most people to pry themselves out of a deep state of brainwashing hypnosis, especially one that has been going on for more than just a few decades - ever since the passage of the Federal Reserve Act.

I know the difficulty - and, it is very, very difficult. I know, because it was difficult for me to come out of it. Even after reading Otto Skinner's excellent research on this subject it took me several years to digest it fully.

The first step is to accept the fact that you have been duped for so many, many years. And realizing the fact that everyone else around you has also been deluded, and is living in a false reality, and would more than likely attempt to turn you in to the IRS for not doing what they are doing - paying a so-called "income" tax to the IRS - as they think everybody else should do as they are doing. (Yes, this is the 'Matrix'.)

It is time for the awakening to take place.
Best regards.






:)

[turiya]

Side note: There are several layers to this reality that human perception can access. It is dependent on the depth of awareness. Or, said differently... it is dependent on how strongly attached one has become to the brainwashed conditioning propaganda that one has been subjected to. This relation is inversely proportional - the greater the attachment, the less one is available to perceive the other layers.

Cutting the attachment, and other realities come into view. :)



GoldFish Report #251; SS5; Contracts,
Short History of Philipines and Taxation
(September 2, 2018)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpaDyBANkCY

Description:

Excerpt from Goldfish Report No. 251 w/ Winston Shrout. Still not in prison, or jail. :) No monetary gain sought with the publishing of this video. For educational purposes only. Right of Fair Use Claim.


http://www.curezone.org/upload/_T_Forums/Turiya_Files_/WINSTON_SHROUT/PLAN_OF_THE_EXPLERTS.png
The Plan of the Experts