• "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding metals, finance, politics, government and many other topics"

Constitutional income. Do you have any?

Cigarlover

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
9,779
Likes
19,880
#1
I decided to put this to rest once and for all. There's now debates in a couple of different threads around here. Time to put it all in one place and put this issue to rest.

“Acts of Congress are to be construed and applied in Harmony with and not to thwart the purpose of the Constitution.” [Phelps v. U.S., 274 U.S. 341, 344 (1927)]

“Courts should construe laws in Harmony with the legislative intent and seek to carry out legislative purpose. With respect to the tax provisions under consideration, there is no uncertainty as to the legislative purpose to tax post-1913 corporate earnings. We must not give effect to any contrivance which would defeat a tax Congress plainly intended to impose.” [Foster v. U.S., 303 U.S. 118, 120-1 (1938)]

Very important to keep these 2 things (Above) in mind when attempting to use case law.


So what was the intent of the legislature?

After we look at what our President proposed, the next thing we must look at to discern legislative intent are the Congressional debates on the Sixteenth Amendment in 1909. Three different written versions of the Sixteenth Amendment were proposed before the one we have now was approved by Congress and sent to the states for ratification. Below is a summary of each in written form:

Table 3-2: Versions of Proposed Sixteenth Amendment prior to approval

VersionText of proposed AmendmentVote on proposed amendment
Senate Joint Resolution (S.J.R.) No. 25“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes and inheritances.”Rejected

Senate Joint Resolution (S.J.R.) No. 39“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect direct [emphasis mine] taxes on incomes without apportionment among the several States according to population.” [44 Cong.Rec. 3377 (1909)]Rejected

Senate Joint Resolution (S.J.R.) No. 40“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.” [This is the version of the Sixteenth Amendment we have now]Approved 77 to 15 on July 5, 1909.


The first two, obviously, were voted down, but what were they? Both versions that were voted down included proposals to levy a direct tax on the states without apportionment and one of them proposed to eliminate the apportionment requirements found in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 and Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution!

Senator Brown from Nebraska wrote all three versions of the Sixteenth Amendment that were voted on by Congress, which included S.J.R. No. 25, S.J.R. No. 39, and S.J.R. No. 40, in that order. S.J.R. No. 40 was the one finally approved. The Senate voted in favor of the 16th Amendment we have now (S.J.R. No. 40) at 1 o’clock on July 5, 1909. Senator Aldrich had earlier tried to ram it through the Senate on Saturday, July 3rd, a holiday weekend, for an immediate vote without debate when only 52 senators were present. A few senators protested and the vote was set for the following Monday. As a result of the minimal debate that did take place on July 3rd, several amendments were proposed to S.J.R. No. 40 that came up for a vote at the appointed hour of 1 P.M. Monday, July 5th.

The first of these was an amendment to S.J.R. No. 40, proposed as S.J.R. No. 25 by Senator Bailey of Texas to provide that conventions of each of the several States be required to ratify the constitutional amendment as opposed to the state legislatures. This was voted down.

Next was the second amendment to the proposed Sixteenth Amendment in the form of S.J.R. No. 39. This amendment by Bailey to add the language “and may grade the same” to modify the term “income tax” as a way to provide that the tax may be graduated. Bailey proposed this language on Saturday, July 3rd. By Monday, July 5th, when this came up for a vote, Bailey realized it would fail and tried to have it withdrawn. Bailey wanted it withdrawn because, according to Bailey:

“Mr. President, I am satisfied that this amendment will be voted down; and voting it down would warrant the Supreme Court in hereafter saying that a proposition to authorize Congress to levy a graduated income tax was rejected.” [44 Cong.Rec. 4120 (1920)]

In other words, Senator Bailey understood that once Congress rejected a particular provision while amending the Constitution, Congress would be forever barred from implementing that provision by way of statute in the future. This legal principle applies to all legislation, even to income taxes. It is also why the Framers had the Constitution mandate that Congress keep a journal.

Bailey was told by the Senate’s Vice President that he could not withdraw the amendment and that it must be voted on. The rules required it. Senator Aldrich intervened and somehow the rules were suspended and the amendment was withdrawn without a vote.

Next was an amendment by Senator McLaurin of Mississippi. His proposed amendment to S.J.R. No. 40 was as follows:

“The SECRETARY. Amend the joint resolution by striking out all after line 7 and inserting the following: ‘The words ‘and direct taxes’ in clause 3, section 2, Article I, and the words “or other direct,’ in clause 4, section 9, Article I. Of the Constitution of the United States are hereby stricken out.” [44 Cong.Rec. 4109 (1909)]

Senator McLaurin’s amendment would have stricken out the requirement for apportionment of direct taxes from Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 and Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution and made the income tax into an unapportioned direct tax! The Senate rejected this, as this amendment failed by voice vote. Had this amendment passed, it would have provided authority for a species of income tax that was inherently a direct tax to be levied without apportionment, and it would have changed the original wording of the Constitution to forever do away with the prohibition against direct taxes.

Lastly, there was an amendment by Senator Bristow of Kansas to replace S.J.R. No. 40 with S.J.R. No. 39. S.J.R. No. 39 read:

“The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect direct[emphasis mine] taxes on income without apportionment among the several States according to population.”

This substitute amendment also included a provision to elect senators by popular vote. After some debate this was also rejected by voice vote.

Next, S.J.R. No. 40, the version of the Sixteenth Amendment that we have now, was voted on and passed 77 to 15. So what can we conclude from all of this? Well, first of all we can conclude that the Senate understood it was the practice of the Supreme Court at the proceedings of Congress to see what the intent of the Congress was. If Congress voted on a measure and rejected it, then the Supreme Court would interpret that vote as a clarification of the intent and purpose of Congress. Here is how Sutherland’s rules on statutory construction explains it:

“One of the most readily available extrinsic aids to the interpretation of statutes is the action of the legislature on amendments which are proposed to be made during the course of consideration in the legislature. Both the state and federal courts will refer to proposed changes in a bill in order to interpret the statute as finally enacted. The journals of the legislature are the usual source for this information. Generally the rejection of an amendment indicates that the legislature does not intend the bill to include the provisions embodied in the rejected amendment.” [Sutherland on Statutory Construction, sec. 48.18 (5th Edition)]

We also learned that twice the Senate was offered the opportunity to vote on a measure to provide that the income tax being considered by the 16th Amendment would provide for a direct tax within the constitutional meaning of the term “direct tax.” Twice in the hour or so prior to the final Senate vote on the income tax amendment, the Senate rejected the opportunity to bring direct taxes within the scope of the 16th Amendment. This issue was squarely before the Congress, and Congress rejected it.

“It is plain, then, that Congress had this question presented to its attention in a most precise form. It has the issue clearly drawn. The first alternative was rejected. All difficulties of construction vanish if we are wiling to give to the words, deliberately adopted, their natural meaning.” [U.S. v. Pfitsch, 256 U.S. 547, 552 (1921)]

“When a court reviews an agency’s construction of the statute which it administers, it is confronted with two questions. First, always, is the question whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of the Congress.” [Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984)]


I think the intent of the legislature is clear.
Snoop in your legal research you really should have started here. From here then go to the actual statutes passed by congress. From there you can determine if your case law is good or not. Most of your case law is now debunked by the simple fact that the intent of congress has now been presented. However since I see you already attempted to refute this I will now provide you with the statutes congress passed and how all of that worked leading up to where we are now.......Not as complicated as many try to make it.. See my next post.
 

Cigarlover

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
9,779
Likes
19,880
#2
You can came here and beat up on me, someone who dropped out of HS at 17 but I hope you at least pay attention to one of your peers. A peer who is allowed to practice law in

Alabama Supreme Court;
United States Supreme Court;
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit;
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit;
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit;
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit;
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit;
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit;
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit;
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit;
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit;
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit;
United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama;
United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee;
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan;
United States District Court for the District of Colorado;
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin;
United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida.

So when it comes to the truth about the income tax I'm going to defer to his knowledge and understanding of law.

I've gone through all of the videos I am posting. I am giving you starting points in the videos so that you don't waste your time on the useless banter. So I hope everyone listens to this. This is going to be the easiest breakdown on constitutional income that you will ever hear. You also gt a history lesson on how this all came to be.. You can listen at 1.25 or 1.5x speed as well and not really miss anything.

in this video starting at about the 28 minute mark he goes through pollack and right up to the 16th. Snoop, please pay close attention. Once you realize the true intent of congress all your case law is null void. I'm a few videos further along now. All I can say is Snoop, your not going to be happy.. You can baffle and bewilder everyone on here with your case law and YOUR interpretation of it. As I go through these videos I am taking notes so you know where in the video to start watching. Seems like most videos have 15 minutes of BS in them of these 2 just bantering.


In this video start at the 7 minute mark


In this video start at the 18 minute mark

Start at 12 minutes in

Start at 7 minutes in.
 

Cigarlover

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
9,779
Likes
19,880
#3

start at 11 minutes in.

Some parts in this video series were about constitutional money. Part 10 for example. Other parts I left out as they were just a summary of previous videos for the most part.
 

Cigarlover

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
9,779
Likes
19,880
#4
If your craving more you can go to Larry Becrafts site where he has all of the tax acts hyperlinked.
http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/

As I stated earlier Larry is one of the best. Consistently beats the government in their willful failure to file scams.

In the video series you will hear how the tax acts were passed at every step of the way.. For instance, Every couple of years the tax acts were updated. The new ats always referred to the older acts and stated "In lieu of" So the tax act of 1921 would have been in lieu of 1918. and 1924 in lieu of 1921 ect. Me Becraft goes into this in I think it's video 8. He also goes right up to 1986 and as you will hear everything is based off of these early tax acts.
Lets be clear here. NOTHING HAS CHANGED IN THE REVENUE ACTS OVER THE YEARS EXCEPT THE WORDSMITHING TO HIDE THE TRUTH.
You can hear it in video 8 from an expert on the issue.

Notice in the beginning of this it discusses individuals.. This is the original meaning of individual and how it was to be used. Words have meanings and intent has meaning. This is why the special definitions I mentioned in other posts have importance.

In reference to wage withholding, the Revenue Act of 1918 limited such withholding to non-resident aliens and foreign corporations:

(a) That all individuals, corporations and partnerships, in whatever capacity acting, including lessees or mortgagors of real or personal property, fiduciaries, employers, and all officers and employees of the United States, having the control, receipt, custody, disposal, or payment, of interest, rent, salaries, wages, premiums, annuities, compensations, remunerations, emoluments, or other fixed or determinable annual or periodical gains, profits, and income, of any nonresident alien individual (other than income received as dividends from a corporation which is taxable under this title upon its net income) shall (except in the cases provided for in subdivision (b) and except as otherwise provided in regulations prescribed by the Commissioner under section 217) deduct and withhold from such annual or periodical gains, profits, and income a tax equal to 8 per centum thereof:

See extracts (§§ 221 and 237).

This same scheme was set forth in the §§ 221 and 237 of the Revenue Act of 1921, 42 Stat. 227, ch. 136. Wage withholding was limited to non-resident aliens and foreign corporations in the following federal income tax acts:

I. §§ 221 and 237 of the Revenue Act of 1924, 43 Stat. 253, ch. 234, and Regulations 65, Arts. 361-376 and 601, Treasury Decision 3640, 26 T.D.I.R. 745.

II. §§ 221 and 237 of the Revenue Act of 1926, 44 Stat. 9, ch. 27, and Regulations 69, Arts. 361-376 and 601, Treasury Decision 3922, 28 T.D.I.R. 558.

III. §§ 144 and 145 of the Revenue Act of 1928, 45 Stat. 791, ch. 852, and Regulations 74, Arts. 761-781.

IV. §§ 143 and 144 of the Revenue Act of 1932, 47 Stat. 169, ch. 209, and Regulations 77, Arts. 761-781.

V. §§ 143 and 144 of the Revenue Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 680, ch. 277, and Regulations 86, Arts. 143-1 through 144-1.

VI. §§ 143 and 144 of the Revenue Act of 1936, 49 Stat. 1648, ch. 690, and Regulations 94, Arts. 143-1 through 144-2.

VII. §§ 143 and 144 of the Revenue Act of 1938, 52 Stat. 447, ch. 289, and Regulations 101, Arts. 143-1 through 144-2.

VIII. §§ 143 and 144 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, 53 Stat., and Regulations 103, Arts. 19.143-1 through 19.144-2.
 

Cigarlover

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
9,779
Likes
19,880
#5
My constitutional student Mr Snoop, It has been a pleasure educating you. I really think you have great potential. You are relentless in your quest to try and bury me with BS case law.. Now you understand why I call it BS.. The evidence I have provided is the irrefutable truth about congressional intent and statutory construction.

I would encourage you to pay close attention Snoop as this is the definitive class on the subject. No need to provide case law here as we can now read and discuss the law itself. Plain easy to read statutes that all Americans could easily understand at the inception of the income tax. In our current versions, nothing has changed except the word smithing that the IRS uses to intentionally hide the facts.

There is some great historical information on taxation in those videos as well. You cant ignore it snoop.

For others who want the truth in book form you can look up Phil harts book which is the title of this thread or Dave champions book income tax shattering the myths.
 

chieftain

Too much pawpcorn
Joined
Jan 4, 2020
Messages
2,900
Likes
4,194
#6
I don't mean to rain on your parade CL, but I have a few issues with Larry Becraft. Granted it is standard boiler plate crap, but the disclaimer (which I've seen in one form or another many times) needs addressing:

The purpose of this web site is simply to communicate and provide information. While I am an attorney licensed to practice law, this site has no advertising purpose and is not designed to provide specific legal advice to anyone nor to solicit clients. If you live in state other than Alabama and if you are seeking legal advice, I suggest that you contact and discuss your particular legal problem with a lawyer from the state where you reside. Further, pursuant to the Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct and if the posting of this site should be construed as an advertisement, I must inform you as follows:

No representation is made that the quality of legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.

This website is purely a public resource of general information which is intended, but not promised or guaranteed, to be correct, complete, and up-to-date. This website is not a source of advertising, solicitation, or legal advice, and thus the material provided on this website is not intended to create, and the receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Internet subscriber and on-line reader should not rely on information provided herein, and should always seek the advice of competent counsel in the reader's state. The owner of this website is an attorney licensed only in the state of Alabama. Furthermore, the owner of this website does not wish to represent anyone desiring representation based upon viewing this website in a state where this website fails to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that state. Do not send the owner of this website or anyone listed herein information until you first speak with me.
I know I'm nitpicking but every time I see that disclaimer or a variation, alarm bells ring in my head. If the information being presented and labelled as education is valid and factual, there would be no requirement for such a disclaimer. To me, it says that "this is bullshit and the disclaimer is my way to protect my ass when you get caught out using it in the legal arena".
 

Cigarlover

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
9,779
Likes
19,880
#7
I'm pretty sure there is an ethics code of conduct or something similar in Alabama and he is required by law to put that out there.
Since he has successfully defended numerous people on willful failure to file cases, I would say his reputation speaks for itself. Also the information he is providing is factual in regards to statutes. Not even snoop will be able to refute that although I am sure he will try.
 

ZZZZZ

Platinum Bling
Platinum Bling
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Dec 23, 2017
Messages
6,951
Likes
15,292
Location
Northern Arizona
#10
Does that make the government right?
Of course not. Just sayin' that TPTB don't give a flying fark about the law or what is right or wrong.

They will kill you if you disagree.

Tyranny at its worst.
.
.
 

Cigarlover

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
9,779
Likes
19,880
#11
Of course not. Just sayin' that TPTB don't give a flying fark about the law or what is right or wrong.

They will kill you if you disagree.

Tyranny at its worst.
.
.
I cant disagree there. :).. I just feel like the truth shouldn't die with my generation. I know that it isn't with me.. My daughter actually called me tonight saying she had an issue with someone mis classifying her money as income. She called them and argued with them over it and got them to change it. She knew the law. Showed them the law and told them if they knew of a law that superseded it she would be happy to comply.

And all those years I thought she wasn't listening. :)
 
Last edited:

BarnacleBob

Moderator, Equal opportunity annoyer!
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
17,184
Likes
35,342
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee
#12

newmisty

Transcending the 5 Elements
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
35,349
Likes
56,188
Location
Qmerica
#13
My constitutional student Mr Snoop, It has been a pleasure educating you. I really think you have great potential. You are relentless in your quest to try and bury me with BS case law.. Now you understand why I call it BS.. The evidence I have provided is the irrefutable truth about congressional intent and statutory construction.

I would encourage you to pay close attention Snoop as this is the definitive class on the subject. No need to provide case law here as we can now read and discuss the law itself. Plain easy to read statutes that all Americans could easily understand at the inception of the income tax. In our current versions, nothing has changed except the word smithing that the IRS uses to intentionally hide the facts.

There is some great historical information on taxation in those videos as well. You cant ignore it snoop.

For others who want the truth in book form you can look up Phil harts book which is the title of this thread or Dave champions book income tax shattering the myths.
Grabs umbrella lol
 

newmisty

Transcending the 5 Elements
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
35,349
Likes
56,188
Location
Qmerica
#14
Of course not. Just sayin' that TPTB don't give a flying fark about the law or what is right or wrong.

They will kill you if you disagree.

Tyranny at its worst.
.
.
They ain't killed us yet.
 

BarnacleBob

Moderator, Equal opportunity annoyer!
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
17,184
Likes
35,342
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee
#15
THE DISPATCH OF MERCHANTS
by William L. Avery, A.M

A short presentation on the subject of sources of the liability for the so called Income Tax as grounded in the Law Merchant through the Federal Reserve and other statutes.

INTRODUCTION

Gallant tax-fighters and other live Patriots have hauled considerable law into the courts on tax and money issues. Yet, whatever evidence of law they bring and however extensively they research their cases, they are ruled against and even imprisoned in criminal courts. We have yet to gain a single decision on substantive law to free us from the corporate feudalism suffocating the world in the name of anti-Communism. So, there has got to be a reason why we meet failure after failure beyond the charge that the judges are all corrupt and godless.

The truth seems to be that we have simply not yet hit upon the vital nerve which will convulse the whole swindling law (formally constitutional law) upon which the judges are compelled to give their decisions. It is the only answer that makes sense. Is this answer discoverable so that we can beat those that function by these laws at their own game? The writer believes that he has discovered the answer through various heated confrontations and pleadings in several courts.

Indeed, in September of 1975, the writer succeeded in cornering the county judge on the money and tender issue, and by badgering and blistering him until he choked with rage, compelled him to blurt out the secret allowing him to sign a writ of assistance (remember those?) against the writer for doggedly refusing to bargain with banker swindlers over the right to his own property. The recent Complaint, in a civil action in Federal Court, resulting from this act is added as part of the appendix to this book.

Well, the answer is in the money, all right, but far beyond what has been pleaded so far. It ties into other substantive issues raised by Bill Hanks on non-liability of natural persons for income taxes on franchises granted by the states. This is the only genuine basis for overturning the illegal personal (individual) income tax, which is a nullity to begin with and absolutely "voluntary" for reasons that will be covered later.

The entire tax scheme is grounded in the so called "commerce clause" of Article I, section 1, clause 3, of the Federal Constitution, allowing Congress to "regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes." The Supreme Court held in Gibbons v. Ogden in 1824 that commerce "comprehends traffic, trade, navigation, communication, the transit of persons and the transmission of messages by telegraph; indeed every species of commercial intercourse."

This clause was written to prevent the States from wrecking the Union upon erroneous theories of "interposition" to "nullification" and to guarantee the "free flow of interstate commerce," certainly a legitimate aim. However, to regulate and guarantee are not the same as sponsor and promote.

Nevertheless, commencing with the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887, monolithic private enterprise succeeded in expropriating the Federal government to its own uses by several clever laws. One such was the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890, whose wording protects far different "persons" than one might suspect. By it, even the innocent unemployed are "in restraint of trade" by the mere fact of being unemployed.

The fundamental premise has been to compel as many private individuals as possible to become "merchants" subject to these laws, where they could be subject to no others, and had actually been promoting the "free flow of interstate commerce," but right straight into one monopolized ocean of private control outside the government.

This result is achieved through the United Nations treaty, upon which, by the commerce clause and the "law of nations," every human being has become, in one way or another, a "merchant" subject to an international super-something called the "Law Merchant." This is strictly a voluntary law nowhere written down and it is strictly a private law of negotiable instruments, sales, insurance, and other matters binding only upon the honor of "merchants," as the personal income tax.

Thus, the simplest way to compel everyone to become a "merchant" under this unwritten law is to compel him to accept bills of exchange as money. These compulsory bills of exchange are none other than the Federal Reserve Notes, series 1963, 1969, and 1974, legalized as "money" on March 18,1968, being also irredeemable perpetual annuity bonds, or small change for government securities.

The basis for this action was laid in the Federal Reserve Act which makes commercial paper the fundamental "lawful money" which form the reserves of member banks. This means private notes, acceptances, and bills of exchange, become lawful money but not legal specie, for specie defeats the swindle by destroying credit and debt.

It likewise means checks. Thus, by the daily passing of Federal Reserve Notes and endorsing of checks and the use of Credit Cards, every individual, whatever his calling, becomes a credit merchant subject to summary judgment under the private custom of merchants, whose primary rule is the liability to inform on oneself upon one's own acts, goods, and dealings.

Now, this Law Merchant has never been the public positive law of any particular country, but the mere private, consensual, voluntary practice of international merchants and traders. Although partially incorporated into various uniform state codes on negotiable instruments, much of it is not necessarily in print. Indeed, some of it changes with women's fashions.

Thus, it is this unwritten private law of which the judges are bound to take "judicial notice" in their rulings. The principle being that, whatever else can be pleaded, any supposedly national law of civil constitutional right claimed violated can be ruled immaterial on the basis of this unseen, unspoken, imprinted, "natural" law. It never needs to be given in evidence, and always favors the practicing "merchant" communizer as against the quasi "merchant" citizen who hasn't the faintest idea that the judge sees him as a merchant, unable to understand.

This is the "law" under which anti-Communist communizers promote "with God's help, a better world" of Mercantile Super Republic, in which the "personal responsibility" of self-incrimination will be the fundamental rule, protected under the 14th Amendment.

Incorporation of this Law Merchant into the English common law by Lord Mansfield subsequent to 1756 set off the American Revolution. This proves that it has never been a part of our own law, even by deceit.

These are the issues of law upon which we can recover our privacy, our freedom, our nation, and our money at par.

The following pages present detailed discussions of these issues, and likewise present many obvious bases on which defenses and attacks in the courts can very effectively be made. The content of these pages, at the least, will for the first time provide us with a footing equal to that of our tormentors and perhaps even more advantageous.

The author was for several years an editor and translator of the commercial codes of many West European nations, and most South and Central American nations, and of the corporate income taxes of the same, including court case decisions.

The substance of the outline of historical background on the pages immediately following should first be well digested before proceeding.

The most disastrous course we can pursue is to blame our plight on "the Government" when, as will be seen, it is private interests alone which are enslaving us in the name of freedom.

Bill Avery
Franklin, New York
July 4, 1976

Continued:

https://famguardian.org/subjects/ta...ion on the,Federal Reserve and other statutes.
 

Cigarlover

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
9,779
Likes
19,880
#17
GOOD MORNING SNOOP.
I'm going to try to make this simple for you.
We have agreed that the courts must decide in accordance with the statutes.
We have also agreed that we have no withholding taxes on Americans for at least 30 years after the 16th was passed. The reason for that is below in quotes.
The revenue act of 1918 is very clear on whose wages can have withholding. All subsequent tax acts are in Lieu of the previous act all the way up to today. It's really very simple. Don't over complicate it with case law that simply doesn't apply to 95% of Americans.

Your case law does apply to the income tax. Your case law can only apply to a tax on income as defined in the statutes and on the people who are also defined in the statutes.
This concept is no different than when you have corrected me and said that the case law I have provided only applies to slaughterhouses ect...



“Courts should construe laws in Harmony with the legislative intent and seek to carry out legislative purpose. With respect to the tax provisions under consideration, there is no uncertainty as to the legislative purpose to tax post-1913 corporate earnings. We must not give effect to any contrivance which would defeat a tax Congress plainly intended to impose.” [Foster v. U.S., 303 U.S. 118, 120-1 (1938)]
In reference to wage withholding, the Revenue Act of 1918 limited such withholding to non-resident aliens and foreign corporations:

(a) That all individuals, corporations and partnerships, in whatever capacity acting, including lessees or mortgagors of real or personal property, fiduciaries, employers, and all officers and employees of the United States, having the control, receipt, custody, disposal, or payment, of interest, rent, salaries, wages, premiums, annuities, compensations, remunerations, emoluments, or other fixed or determinable annual or periodical gains, profits, and income, of any nonresident alien individual (other than income received as dividends from a corporation which is taxable under this title upon its net income) shall (except in the cases provided for in subdivision (b) and except as otherwise provided in regulations prescribed by the Commissioner under section 217) deduct and withhold from such annual or periodical gains, profits, and income a tax equal to 8 per centum thereof:
PAYMENT OF TAX AT SOURCE.
SEC. 237. That in the case of foreign corporations subject to taxation under this title not engaged in trade or business within the United States and not having any office or place of business therein, there shall be deducted and withheld at the source in the same man- ner and upon the same items of income as is provided in section 221 a tax equal to 10 per centum thereof, and such tax shall be returned and paid in the same manner and subject to the same conditions as provided in that section: Provided, That in the case of interest described in subdivision (b) of that section the deduction and with- holding shall be at the rate of 2 per centum.
 

the_shootist

I identify as already vaccinated, bitches!
Midas Member
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
58,001
Likes
110,527
Location
Earth
#18

ZZZZZ

Platinum Bling
Platinum Bling
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Dec 23, 2017
Messages
6,951
Likes
15,292
Location
Northern Arizona
#19
These are the only 2 posts I understand in this thread. The big legal brains here (said with great respect) have my head spinning
That's the problem with 99% of the laws on the books. The laws are written by lawyers with the express intent of being so vague, confusing or otherwise impossible to comprehend that it takes their $500 an hour brethren to decipher them.

Laws should be so clear and simple that everybody with a room temperature IQ can understand them. For example the Ten Commandments.
.
.
 

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
8,519
Likes
14,554
#20
That's the problem with 99% of the laws on the books. The laws are written by lawyers with the express intent of being so vague, confusing or otherwise impossible to comprehend that it takes their $500 an hour brethren to decipher them.

Laws should be so clear and simple that everybody with a room temperature IQ can understand them. For example the Ten Commandments.
.
.
It's much the same in economics. Fed governors and statist economists make everything sound very complex...but it's not. Unnecessarily added complexity and ambiguity always exists for the benefit of some at the expense of others. Lawyers and bankers/economists tend to be very good at their chosen professions...that being graft/deception/theft.
 

ZZZZZ

Platinum Bling
Platinum Bling
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Dec 23, 2017
Messages
6,951
Likes
15,292
Location
Northern Arizona
#21
Economics is very simple: supply vs. demand



Everything else is noise and political spin.
.
.
 

EO 11110

CENSORSHIP KILLS
Mother Lode
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
18,646
Likes
18,021
Location
clown world
#22
hasn't 'income' been renamed capital gains by the vipers

and same vipers renamed wages, calling it income?

income = profit separated from capital invested. profit is taxed

wages/salary = no profit, even swap of labor for money, should not be taxed
 

Cigarlover

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
9,779
Likes
19,880
#23
hasn't 'income' been renamed capital gains by the vipers

and same vipers renamed wages, calling it income?

income = profit separated from capital invested. profit is taxed

wages/salary = no profit, even swap of labor for money, should not be taxed
According to snoop, congress has no limit on taxation and can in fact tax us 100% which means we are all slaves if you take his view or the view he is attempting to support.
I disagree with his view and am attempting to educate him on what the statutes really say. Which is close to what you have posted
 

BarnacleBob

Moderator, Equal opportunity annoyer!
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
17,184
Likes
35,342
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee
#24
According to snoop, congress has no limit on taxation and can in fact tax us 100% which means we are all slaves if you take his view or the view he is attempting to support.
I disagree with his view and am attempting to educate him on what the statutes really say. Which is close to what you have posted
While a 100% tax is a confiscation, thus it cannot be considered a tax, 99.999% however could be considered a tax.... in 1944, the top rate peaked at 94 percent. So yes, CONgress could conceivably lay a tax of 99.999%....

History of Federal Income Tax Rates: 1913 – 2021

In 1944, the top rate peaked at 94 percent on taxable income over $200,000 ($2.5 million in today’s dollars3). That’s a high tax rate.

https://bradfordtaxinstitute.com/Free_Resources/Federal-Income-Tax-Rates.aspx
 

GOLDBRIX

God,Donald Trump,most in GIM2 I Trust. OTHERS-meh
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
17,498
Likes
25,862
#25

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
8,519
Likes
14,554
#26
While a 100% tax is a confiscation, thus it cannot be considered a tax, 99.999% however could be considered a tax.... in 1944, the top rate peaked at 94 percent. So yes, CONgress could conceivably lay a tax of 99.999%....

History of Federal Income Tax Rates: 1913 – 2021

In 1944, the top rate peaked at 94 percent on taxable income over $200,000 ($2.5 million in today’s dollars3). That’s a high tax rate.

https://bradfordtaxinstitute.com/Free_Resources/Federal-Income-Tax-Rates.aspx
So a 60% tax rate, makes you 60% state property...60% enslaved.

Government has no right to steal the fruits of a man's labor. Particularly an illegitimate government that rigs elections and recognizes no constraints.

A tax on salary/wages is theft...pure and simple.
 

Silver

Midas Board Mmbr
Midas Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
8,083
Likes
14,390
#28
Is cash Constitutional? From your hand to mine, nobody knows jack.
 

Cigarlover

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
9,779
Likes
19,880
#29
Is cash Constitutional? From your hand to mine, nobody knows jack.
Gold and silver is constitutional money however, congress does have the authority to coin money and can certainly do that with a paper currency. However that authority was delegated to congress and congress does not have the authority to re-delegate that to the fed.
 

BarnacleBob

Moderator, Equal opportunity annoyer!
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
17,184
Likes
35,342
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee
#30
A Federal Reserve Note, being a private written obligation, is what we call commercial paper. Though it bears no interest, it is based on obligations which do bear interest, and is negotiable, allegedly issued "for value received," that is for United States securities or other "lawful money" of the United States. They are "as good as gold," but only between merchants. Thus, to compel you to accept them, you yourself must somehow be made a merchant despite yourself or your inclinations. Unlike United States Notes, Federal Reserve Notes are not the equivalent of specie, since it is a commercial obligation, and not in any way payable in specie to intermediaries. They can be redeemed only in United States Bonds.

https://famguardian.org/subjects/ta...rchants.htm#III CONFISCATION OF REAL PROPERTY
 

GOLDBRIX

God,Donald Trump,most in GIM2 I Trust. OTHERS-meh
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
17,498
Likes
25,862
#31
Gold and silver is constitutional money however, congress does have the authority to coin money and can certainly do that with a paper currency. However that authority was delegated to congress and congress does not have the authority to re-delegate that to the fed.
I think the FED orders the fiat paper from the Treasury and how they get around that. The mint stamps coinage but the FED distributes the coinage as it does the fiat notes.
My WAG
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
11,869
Likes
7,960
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
#33
Might it be called the "doctrine of 'Law Merchant?'" Doctrine fits better than law merchant.
This result is achieved through the United Nations treaty, upon which, by the commerce clause and the "law of nations," every human being has become, in one way or another, a "merchant" subject to an international super-something called the "Law Merchant." This is strictly a voluntary law nowhere written down and it is strictly a private law of negotiable instruments, sales, insurance, and other matters binding only upon the honor of "merchants," as the personal income tax.
Take the "Doctrine of competing harms, or ( I think) "doctrine of chance."
There are a myriad of 'doctrines' that are used in law. Always hidden and never spoke of but sometimes they actually make it into briefs in open court. I'll paraphrase: there was a guy who was convicted on his past stupid endeavors in which he neither contested at those particular times. All these indiscretions were allowed in open court to convict and the question before this/the appellate court was whether the judge had erred in allowing this prior stuff? What it all came down too was if the jury could convict on propensity of mensa or state of mind? The jury convicted and all this dealt with was a few bumped cars and the guys ability to not get along with his girlfriend of the time.

just google "doctrine of" and see what pops up; you will be amazed.

edited to add: when googling doctrine of law merchant this is what pops up.
The law merchant was developed in the early 11th century in order to protect foreign merchants not under the jurisdiction and protection of the local law. Foreign traders often were subject to confiscations and other types of harassment if one of their countrymen had defaulted in a business transaction.
 
Last edited:

BarnacleBob

Moderator, Equal opportunity annoyer!
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
17,184
Likes
35,342
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee
#34
Might it be called the "doctrine of 'Law Merchant?'" Doctrine fits better than law merchant.

Take the "Doctrine of competing harms, or ( I think) "doctrine of chance."
There are a myriad of 'doctrines' that are used in law. Always hidden and never spoke of but sometimes they actually make it into briefs in open court. I'll paraphrase: there was a guy who was convicted on his past stupid endeavors in which he neither contested at those particular times. All these indiscretions were allowed in open court to convict and the question before this/the appellate court was whether the judge had erred in allowing this prior stuff? What it all came down too was if the jury could convict on propensity of mensa or state of mind? The jury convicted and all this dealt with was a few bumped cars and the guys ability to not get along with his girlfriend of the time.

just google "doctrine of" and see what pops up; you will be amazed.

edited to add: when googling doctrine of law merchant this is what pops up.
The law merchant was developed in the early 11th century in order to protect foreign merchants not under the jurisdiction and protection of the local law. Foreign traders often were subject to confiscations and other types of harassment if one of their countrymen had defaulted in a business transaction.


@ Mikie....

The law merchant was developed in the early 11th century in order to protect foreign merchants not under the jurisdiction and protection of the local law. Foreign traders often were subject to confiscations and other types of harassment if one of their countrymen had defaulted in a business transaction.
The "law merchant" was instrumental after the 100 & 30 years wars in the formation of the Hanseatic League (1100's) & the Treaty of Westphalia (1600's)... resulting in the organization of Western Civilization & the creation of the not so holy "Holy Roman Empire" (HRE). The HRE was the commercial organization of European Royalty, Monarchs, Emporers, & regional money powers into an global investment group to promote free trade among the group to grow their wealth & political power.... this resulted in the expansion of western civilization. A COMMON religion, customs, mores, languages & LAWS grew & amalgamated together as trade & commerce flourished & brought new technologies to Europe, England, Spain & Portugal, etc... The law merchant was installed to protect Asian, Eurasian, Indian & Muslim "silk road" traders as they expanded trade routes deep into Europe. Prior to law merchant & the organization of the HRE, it was common for local domestic merchants to accuse foreign traders of heinous crimes to avoid paying for goods & services, secondly, trade was subverted when local merchants & consumers would clip coins... the formation & organization of the HRE & law merchant created a common standard of weights, measures & TAXES to protect ALL of the trading parties & promote fair trade....

The expansion of the British Empire was financed by the investors of the HRE, as England is a sea faring island nation that did not require the expense of a standing army to protect themselves from bordering neighbors... secondly they were master sailors which promoted safer faster & more efficient trade routes around the world. The "Crown City" (Miracle Mile) was erected as the central financial center to perform investment & banking activites for HRE trade & invested conducted by British maritime activities... there were also secondary financial centers in Paris & Frankfort to coordinate & conduct business & investment activities with the Crown City. The King of England was employed & granted the privilege of using his navy & army to protect merchant trading ships & trade colonies for the investors.

Unknown to most Americans, the English & European trading companies that set up the original North American colonies were OWNED & financed by the HRE investment group.... The American Revolution was, removing all the bullshit, basically the HRE terminating the King of Englands security services... The King got greedy and began exploiting the colonists, the colonists in answer quit producing excess products for export, which terminated profits for both the investors & the king.... the Colonists per the Treaty of Paris 1783 were granted self rule but remained Constitutors, as the [e]states & colonies were owned as a perpetual corporation held in TRUST by a Constitution for the members of the HRE.

IMG_20210129_092801_01_01.jpg


It was for this reason that the people would not accept the Constitution 1787 without a Bill of Rights....

Its not surprising that the federal & state income tax & crimes are now considered commercial crimes... we have now come full circle in a wash, rinse, repeat cycle... we are back where the beginning began with the law merchant, as the displaced & hidden investors & merchants seek to expand trade & commerce once again into new markets to fully capture the world....

JMO
 

Cigarlover

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
9,779
Likes
19,880
#36
Hi Snoop, no need to real to this. This thread is for people who want to read the statutes and comment on them. You have made your point in the other thread with the wall of texts about what the case law says.
You once asked me where the courts got it wrong. When I try topping that out you bury me with case law distracting from the fact that the courts got it wrong. So here in this thread we can discuss the statutes as written. You can read them and comment on them. Case law not allowed

An honest assessment of the situation is as follows.
Congress wrote the law
IRS wrote the statutes conforming to the law..
Year after year it was the same thing until one year they started to hide things.
The more they hid the truth the harder this was to understand. Since few really understand it even the courts and prosecutors got it wrong. Either intentionally or just because it's not easy to follow.
Then we get case law that is wrong. We get pro se defendants who don't know WTF they are doing in a court room and although the intent of the argument is correct, they screw it up on court.
Now you have bad case law stemming from Pre se litigants screwing things up and also a code that is intentionally misleading.
The truth is still in the code but it literally takes 100's or even thousands of hrs to traverse the code and learn the truth.

The videos I have posted can help you follow the truth throughout history on how the changes occurred and where the truth is hidden.
 

chieftain

Too much pawpcorn
Joined
Jan 4, 2020
Messages
2,900
Likes
4,194
#37
Here's a question, if the 16th Amendment was ratified lawfully, why is there so much heated debate about it and it's legality?
 

Cigarlover

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
9,779
Likes
19,880
#38
Snoop just delete your wall of text here ok. I'm only going to ask nicely once before I ask the mods to delete it for you. I don't want you coming in here and ruining another thread. Nobody reads your walls of text. Pointless.
I've already stated, this is to read the statutes but as usual you cant seem to grasp the simple concept. Your case law does not apply to the statutes as written.

In reference to wage withholding, the Revenue Act of 1918 limited such withholding to non-resident aliens and foreign corporations:

(a) That all individuals, corporations and partnerships, in whatever capacity acting, including lessees or mortgagors of real or personal property, fiduciaries, employers, and all officers and employees of the United States, having the control, receipt, custody, disposal, or payment, of interest, rent, salaries, wages, premiums, annuities, compensations, remunerations, emoluments, or other fixed or determinable annual or periodical gains, profits, and income,
of any nonresident alien individual (other than income received as dividends from a corporation which is taxable under this title upon its net income) shall (except in the cases provided for in subdivision (b) and except as otherwise provided in regulations prescribed by the Commissioner under section 217) deduct and withhold from such annual or periodical gains, profits, and income a tax equal to 8 per centum thereof:

Maybe you cant read.. I enlarged the real important point.

So now your going to sit here and claim that congressed passed the 16th so they could tax everyone but they failed to tax everyone in the statutes written. The IRS also wrote the incorrect statutes but congress just let it slide until the 1940's?

Do you really expect anyone to buy that bullshit? You can post all the case law you want in the other thread. This thread isn't for that discussion. If you would like to explain why congress and the IRS decided to write incorrect statutes (according to you) then by all means please try to explain it in your own words.
You and the courts have intentionally misinterpreted the 16th in order to misrepresent the facts. The facts are stated above plus one additional fact that you sort of blew off in the other thread.

If your case law is correct then the 16th turned free Americans into slaves. If congress can tax unlimited than we are all slaves. Simple as that. I know your case law says they can tax anything anyway they please.

Bottom line is you and I are going to go around and around in circles because you refuse to see the logical conclusions in my arguments. If you cant see that then you cant see where the courts got it wrong (My claim not yours)

That really leaves few possibilities, Either your intentionally trolling or you work for the government.
 

BarnacleBob

Moderator, Equal opportunity annoyer!
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
17,184
Likes
35,342
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee
#39
All one needs to read is Brushaber v Union Pacific RR & Stanton v Baltic Mining Co. to realize that Amendment 16 is a nullity... SCOTUS said the 16th gave no new powers of taxation to Congress... PERIOD! The so called "income tax":is actually a voluntary bastard Article I, section 8, cl 1 merchant tax laid on the franchise of limited liability & the use of synthetic credit & legal tender federal reserve notes in lieu of gold & silver specie.
Any civil or quasi-criminal cases in equity arising from the so called code are tried in Article I legislative law merchant commercial settings...

Prove me wrong!!!
 

Bigjon

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
4,613
Likes
4,534
#40
The intent of the 16th amendment was to create an income tax law for Federal employee's. The federal govt already had the ability to impose such a tax on it's employee's.
Why? I'm not sure. I think it is the magician's trick to have you look here, while he does something with his other hand.

I think, that other thing is the creation of US Citizens.