Al Adask Blog on "this state"
Just noticing there are several posts/categories on the topic here: http://adask.wordpress.com/
I want to get back there and read them. I find Al to be pretty credible. I was just noticing that Colorado’s Income Tax law makes lots of references to “this state”.
Here’s an excerpt from a brief that may shed some additional light on the phrase:
In Idaho State Tax Commission v. Payton, 688 P. 2d 1163, 1164 (Idaho 1984) (Payton hereafter) appellant contented that the imposition of an income tax is prohibited by the Idaho and United States Constitutions. The Court held that the appellant’s position was without merit and cited to Shaffer v. Carter, 252 U.S. 37 (1920)(Shaffer hereafter) wherein the United States Supreme Court ruled:
“The rights of the several states to exercise the widest liberty with respect to the imposition of internal taxes always has been recognized in the decisions of this court... .
“That a State may tax callings and occupations as well as persons and property has long been recognized...
This part of the ruling relied upon by the Court is alright as far as it goes. The Shaffer Court continued:
"Unless restrained by provisions of the federal Constitution, the power of the state as to the mode, form, and extent of taxation is unlimited, where the subjects to which it applies are within her jurisdiction." (Citations omitted). (Emphasis mine).
The purpose of this memorandum has been to point out, and place emphasis on this phrase from this opinion, “Unless restrained by provisions of the federal Constitution”. It looks to me like Idaho courts have completely overlooked restraints imposed by the federal Constitution as are described above. Restraints of the federal Constitution may not matter, or be asserted, by the “millions of taxpayers” Judge Durtschi makes reference too in Mitchell, but, they matter to me and I am asserting them as evidenced by this writing. The Shaffer Court continued:
“And we deem it clear, upon principle as well as authority, that ... a state may impose general income taxes upon its own citizens and residents whose persons are subject to its control...” . 252 U.S. at 51-52, 40 S.Ct. at 225.
Payton concludes the thought by saying, “Hence, a state imposed income tax does not violate the Federal Constitution.” I am not going to let this Court turn all of my above arguments and authority into a strawman argument that I contend the income tax violates the Federal Constitution. I do contend that issuing a mandate compelling me to file a tax return under authority of I.C. 63-3030A would violate my rights. It is amazing to me trained legal minds sitting in Idaho Supreme Court could quote from the Schaffer decision that includes the statement “…a state may impose general income taxes upon its own citizens and residents whose persons are subject to its control…” and not ascribe legal meaning to the phrase. I begin my analysis with some questions, what is the State of Idaho? When the State of Idaho is described as a piece of dirt lying within certain geographical boundaries, dirt is in no position to control anyone; citizens, residents, persons, or sojourners. Next question: Is everybody physically present in the geographical boundaries of the State of Idaho controlled by the State of Idaho? If you start applying the minimum contacts test of International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 US 310 (1945) you discover that it is not everyone physically present in the State of Idaho that is subject to the State’s control. Next I look to the Constitution of the State Of Idaho, Article I Declaration of Rights and find:
Section 1. Inalienable rights of man. All men are by nature free and equal, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property; pursuing happiness and securing safety.
To me this indicates that it is not even the Citizens or residents of the geographical area of Idaho are not “subject to the state’s control” as that is the opposite to being “free”. How about this then? Those subject to the State’s control are those “the supreme court or any district courts” are authorized to issue a writ of mandate to by I.C. 7-302:
“…any inferior tribunal, corporation, board or person, to compel the performance of an act which the law especially enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station…”
In Total Success Invest. v. Ada Highway Dist., 227 P. 3d 942, 950 (IdahoApp. 2010) (Total Success hereafter) a proceeding involving Idaho Code § 7-302 wherein the “WaMu” was named as a defendant, it was held:
Idaho Code § 7-302 only grants courts with the authority to issue writs of mandate against parties that owe a duty "resulting from an office, trust or station." As the district court found, WaMu does not owe such a duty. TSI conceded that WaMu was not a proper party during the hearing in 2008 but made no effort to dismiss WaMu. Id. @ 950.
A review of all appellate decisions in Idaho involving I.C. 63-3030A reveals that appellate courts of Idaho have never discussed or diminished this requirement. With respect I.C. 7-302’s reference to “corporation, board or person” the Total Success decision sheds additional light on. It is not EVERY “corporation, board or person” courts have authority to issue writs of mandate too, but ONLY those parties that owe a duty "resulting from an office, trust or station." Interesting to note that even a “person”, a term to which I ascribe legal import and consider a term of art, must owe their duty as a result of holding an “office, trust, or station”. I state in my verified response to this Court’s alternative writ filed with this Court at paragraph 4:
“…I am unaware of any involvement on my behalf involving an office, trust or station. I have carefully reviewed the petition of the State of Idaho looking for the establishment of my involvement in an office, trust or station. If the State of Idaho is aware of my involvement in an office, trust or station they do not set forth the facts establishing that in their petitions/complaints that I have found.”
Which brings me to those dastardly W-2 information forms possessed by the state, obtained by way of I.C. 63-3037, “Information returns. (a) All persons, in whatever capacity, including…employers, making payment to another person of interest, rent, salaries, wages, except as provided by subsection (b) of section 63-3035, Idaho Code, and section 63-3036, Idaho Code,…shall make returns to the state tax commission setting forth the amount of such gains, profits and income,…Such returns shall correspond to the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code”.
Most employers fall into the category of “millions of taxpayers” referenced in the Mitchell decision; they could care less about whether or not the people that work for them are employees as defined in 26 U.S.C. 3401(c), “Employee For purposes of this chapter, the term “employee” includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term “employee” also includes an officer of a corporation.” It would not occur to the typical “employer” that if the people that work for them are not “employees” it would not be possible for them to be their employer either.
Call me at: 720-675-7230
On Skype: legalbear
Best times to call: 8:30 am to 9:00 pm MST
Join my Yahoo Group Tips & Tricks for Court by sending an email to:
My blog: legalbearsblog.com
Tax sites: IRSTerminator.com IRSLienThumper.com IRSLevyThumper.com
(formatted like this so this email doesn't end up in your spam folder)
Re: Al Adask Blog on "this state"Hello tips,
The following is also attached as a WORD.docx document, for those who would like to see it in the formatted edition.
Thank you for sharing all of the information that you do. This is a GREAT group. It is right up there with the THINKER'S ROUND TABLE yahoo group. It is hard to select a favorite between those two.
- - - -
What Is An Instrumentality?
By - Bernie Besherse
5 November 2012
This is a PARTIAL critique of information about “in this state” that were made public by Al Adask, and Barry was noticing there are several posts/categories on the topic here: http://adask.wordpress.com/
I share Barry’s high degree of respect for Al Adask. I have met Al, and he actually gave me an opportunity to speak briefly at one of his Dallas meetings. I found Al Adask to be a very kind and gracious man, full of love for the Creator.
As all of us know by this time, the "Powers That Be" (PTB) will often slip in a single “word of art” that changes the entire meaning of a law, so the law does not mean anything at all like what the street meanings would indicate.
In My (possibly) Humble Opinion (IM(p)HO), the only weak link in Al’s entire blog that Barry posted hinges on the last paragraph, in Al Adask's LACK OF treatment of the legal meaning of the word "instrumentality."
"Most employers fall into the category of “millions of taxpayers” referenced in the Mitchell decision; they could care less about whether or not the people that work for them are employees as defined in 26 U.S.C. 3401(c), “Employee For purposes of this chapter, the term “employee” includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term “employee” also includes an officer of a corporation.”
“It would not occur to the typical “employer” that if the people that work for them are not “employees” it would not be possible for them to be their employer either."
Black's Law Dictionary, 5th edition does not give a definition for “instrumentality,” but it does give definitions for “instrument” and “instrumentality rule.”
An instrument, according to Black's Law Dictionary, 5th edition, pgs 719 - 720 is:
Instrument. A written document; a formal or legal document in writing, such as a contract, deed, will, bond, or lease. A negotiable instrument (defined in U.C.C. § 3- 104), or a security (defined in U.C.C. § 8- 102) or any other writing which evidences a right to the payment of money and is not itself a security agreement or lease and is of a type which is in ordinary course of business transferred by delivery with any necessary endorsement or assignment. U.C.C. § 9-1 05( 1).
Anything reduced to writing, a document of a formal or solemn character, a writing given as a means of affording evidence. A document or writing which gives formal expression to a legal act or agreement, for the purpose of creating, securing, modifying, or terminating a right. A writing executed and delivered as the evidence of an act or agreement. Moore v. Diamond Dry Goods Co. , 47 Ariz. 128, 54 P.2d 553, 554. Anything which may be presented as evidence to the senses of the adjudicating tribunal.
See also Bearer instrument; Bill; Commercial paper; Negotiable instruments; Note.
On page 720, we also find a definition for "Instrumentality Rule," which also may apply.
Instrumentality rule. Under this rule, corporate existence will be disregarded where a corporation (subsidiary) is so organized and controlled and its affairs so conducted as to make it only an adjunct and instrumentality of another corporation (parent corporation), and parent corporation will be responsible for the obligations of its subsidiary. Taylor v. Standard Gas & Electric Co., C.C.A.Okl., 96 F.2d 693, 704.
The so-called "instrumentality" or "alter ego" rule states that when a corporation is so dominated by another corporation that the subservient corporation becomes a mere instrument and is really indistinct from controlling corporation, then the corporate veil of dominated corporation will be disregarded, if to retain it results in injustice. National Bond Finance Co. v. General Motors Corp., D.C.Mo., 238 F.Supp. 248, 255.
I do not think that I am going too far out on a limb when I offer the definition of "instrumentality" as being “any ‘person’ or thing created by an instrument, bound by an instrument, or obligated on the face of an instrument.” At least one lawyer that I have studied under agrees with that definition.
One's Social Security Card is, undeniably, a legal instrument. The Social Security Card bears one's name, and a Number (SSN) that is identified with the bearer's name. The SSN is a writing given which evidences a right to the payment of money. The SS Card is a writing given as a means of affording evidence. It is even used as an ID card. The SSN is a document which gives a formal expression to an agreement for the purpose of creating or securing a right. The SSN/Card is executed as the evidence of an agreement.
In the case of the obligations under the "Contributions" to which one obligated on the face of this instrument.
One of the many applicable laws is found in Title 28 USC § 3002(15)(C), which reads:
28 USC § 3002 - Definitions
As used in this chapter:
(15) “United States” means—
(A) a Federal Corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
(C) an instrumentality of the United States.
We see, here, that whoever or whatever is an instrumentality of the United States, actually IS the United States. Whatever debts are owed by the United States are owed by the instrumentality of the United States.
The one named on the instrument (the SS Card) would be the instrumentality. Because the instrument is issued by the United States, the bearer of the SSN/SS Card would be an instrumentality of the United States.
Proverbs 22:7 says that the borrower is the slave of the lender. It is a demonstrable fact that the USA is bankrupt, and owes servitude to the creditors on the loans cataloged in the Treaty of 1782, as well as the other loans received from the IMF, Federal Reserve, and other sources. Bankruptcy is a legal disability.
Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, page 415 -
“Disability may be either general or special; the former when it incapacitates the person for the performance of all legal acts of a general class, or giving to them their ordinary legal effect; the latter when it debars him from one specific act. Disability may also be either personal or absolute; the former where it attaches to the particular person, and arises out of his status, his previous act, or his natural or juridical incapacity; the latter where it originates with a particular person, but extends also to his descendants or successors. The term civil disability is used as equivalent to legal disability, both these expressions meaning disabilities or disqualifications created by positive law, as distinguished from physical disabilities.”
Title 28, USC is positive law, so 28 USC 3002 applies.
Does the legal disability extend to one’s descendants or successors? This is the USC that defines Federal Personnel:
Title 5 USC § 552a. Records maintained on individuals
(a) Definitions.— For purposes of this section—
(13) the term “Federal personnel” means officers and employees of the Government of the United States, members of the uniformed services (including members of the Reserve Components), individuals entitled to receive immediate or deferred retirement benefits under any retirement program of the Government of the United States (including survivor benefits).
THEREFORE, having children or spouse who could receive a survivor benefit makes you “federal personnel” and subject to the Federal Employee Salary Tax Act of 1939, as amended into the present day IRS code.
Until one remedies the condition of being Federal Personnel, and the legal disability of having and/or using a SSN, then one cannot be free of all of the obligations for filing income tax returns and jumping through all of the other hoops set up for citizens of the United States.
I hope that this drives home the absolute NEED for knowing and understanding the legal definitions of each and every word they find in statutes like 26 USC 3401(c).
Peace be unto all.
- It appears this analysis assumes and implies more than the facts actually show. A SS card merely is a piece of paper belonging to the Social Security Administration and is given to any person who has filled out and submitted a SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION Form SS-5 (10-2003) OMB No. 0960-0066. There is no stated purpose on the application for this Card and there is no reason to believe that this card or the information provided on the application legally constitutes a stipulation of fact to be treated as a federal employee for purposes of fedeal tax. The form is full of misleading terms and words, and the applicant signs under the penalty of perjury that the information is "true and correct to the best of my knowledge". It should not be accepted that the law regarding this form and the SS Card creates a one-way trap for the unwary from which one can never escape. In most cases the person or company one is working for has stipulated to the IRS to be treated as an "employer" under the IRC for the purposes of administering internal revenue code sections. These agreements work against the best interests of the working person (who should have no such agreement with the IRS). The force of the law (based on the company's agreement with the the IRS) should not bear upon the worker, as long as s/he has made the necessary averments of truth, facts and law to the IRS and to the company or person s/he is working for. No person working for another necessarily should be bound and by some agreement that other person has with a third party if the worker has another contract in place with the person s/he is working for which specifically does not accept the stipulations made with the IRS by the hiring entity. It would be a constitutional violation and create a cause of action to deprive a person of his/her property including his/her income unless s/he has agreed to waive those rights. If the IRS were bound strictly by its own statutes it would be virtually nonexistent and have little influence on anyone except those persons specifically identified by statute. Because of agreements and the consequences of contracts the IRS can and does apply the force of "law" and the federal courts disregard whatever the IRC actually states in every case. A person may be deemed an "employer" or an "employee" even if the person is not so defined in the IRC, because there is an agreement in place to be treated as such. Merely possessing a Social Security Card does not in and of itself create a benefit to the person. But if the person has attempted to use the card to obtain a benefit then s/he may be treated as if s/he is a Federal personnel (employee or instrumentality). See 5 USC § 552a(a)(13)("the term "Federal personnel" means officers and employees of the Government of the United States, members of the uniformed services (including members of the Reserve Components), individuals entitled to receive immediate or deferred retirement benefits under any retirement program of the Government of the United States (including survivor benefits)."). Since this is not the truth one should not be bound to accept a lie as if it were the truth in order to gain a benefit. It would be unreasonable to assume that "entitle[ment] to receive immediate or deferred retirement benefits" attaches immediately upon receipt of a SS card.
> What Is An Instrumentality?
> By - Bernie Besherse
> 5 November 2012
> This is a PARTIAL critique of information about ?in this state? that were made public by Al Adask, and Barry was noticing there are several posts/categories on the topic here: http://adask.wordpress.com/
- On your Visa card is the number of an account. On your bank statement is the number of an account. SSN are numbers of accounts. The account is held in a territorial office over which territorial laws apply to that agency and territory. The account numbers are the stated property of SSA.People who crazily promote the idea that SSN's bind someone to some kind of slavery give a power to government that even IT doesn't claim.