Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

RE: [tips_and_tricks] Federal Judge Warns U.S. Attorney That Tax Protester Will Be Allowed to Present Evidence

Expand Messages
  • Marsha Breazeale
    Mr. Swan, Do you understand that Congress is authorized by the Constitution for the United States of America to lay and collect an indirect tax on incomes
    Message 1 of 2 , Nov 4, 2003
      Mr. Swan,
      Do you understand that Congress is authorized by the Constitution for the United States of America to lay and collect an indirect tax on incomes "from whatever source derived"?  And you are familiar with both of the landmark Supreme Court cases, Pollock and Brushaber?  The two of them, together, define the term "indirect tax", and settle once and for all that the 16th Amendment only set out explicitly that the federal tax on incomes could never be removed from the classification of indirect taxes to which it inherently belongs.  An indirect tax is a tax incurred by a taxable activity.  An activity that the doer willfully engages; one that requires Federal permission to do legally.  Manufacture, distribution and sale of alcohol, tobacco, firearms, pharmaceuticals; gambling (including stock market and commodities market transactions); insurance (another form of gambling)-- any activity that REQUIRES a Federal license to do it legally, IS TAXABLE, and the income derived from it is the measure by which the tax upon it is calculated.
       
      So before you go too much farther with your argument that the tax is not "mandatory", please bear in mind that any activity which requires a Federal license to do legally is subject to the federal tax on incomes, and that the income derived from that activity is the measure by which the tax is to be calculated.  Al Capone and Heidi Fleiss (the New York madam, remember?) both got convicted of TAX EVASION, not racketeering (Capone) or prostitution (Fleiss).  That's because the Capone court ruled that any activity that is REGULATED by the Federal governement is a permissive activity, and thus is subject to excise tax (federal tax on incomes).  "REGULATED" was ruled by the Chicago court in 1933 to include "outlawed".
       
      So Steven, my only question is, WHAT WAS YOUR TAXABLE ACTIVITY?  What did you do to earn the money, that required Federal licensing to do it legally?  If what you did required no federal license, THEN the payment of the tax is purely voluntary, not mandatory.
       
      If you own a children's clothing shop (sole proprietorship), all of your income from it is not derived from an excise activity, so you are not liable for the income tax, IF YOU ARE A SOVEREIGN CITIZEN of one of the States of the United States of America.  But if the next block over from you is another children's clothing shop, and it is run by a Frenchman (also a sole proprietorship) who is a natural born citizen of France and is living here under a permanent work visa, guess what?  He's here by FEDERAL PERMISSION, and any money he earns here, from any source at all, is all taxable.  But if you, a Sovereign Citizen, own a LIQUOR store, guess what?  All of your income is taxable, because that income was derived from an activity that required Federal permission (liquor stamps on the bottles) to engage in.  And the list goes on and on.
       
      LOOK FOR THE FEDERAL PERMISSION.  Does this make the real issue a little clearer to you?
      -----Original Message-----
      From: Steven Swan [mailto:stevenswan@...]
      Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 9:23 AM
      To: Tips and Tricks
      Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Federal Judge Warns U.S. Attorney That Tax Protester Will Be Allowed to Present Evidence

       

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.