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

Source of income does not matter

Expand Messages
  • nickster97@Yahoo.com
    The sixteenth amendment is broad enough to grant congress the power to collect an income tax regargless of the source of the taxpayers income. United States v.
    Message 1 of 9 , Nov 25, 2003
      The sixteenth amendment is broad enough to grant congress the power to collect an income tax regargless of the source of the taxpayers income. United States v. Russell , 585 f. 2d 868,870 (1978) United States v. Silkman 431 U.S. 919 (1977d



      Tax Consulting Services

      Email to Nickster97@...


      Do you Yahoo!?
      Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
    • Marsha Breazeale
      Please read Stanton v. Baltic Mining. The U. S. Supreme Court disagrees with you. ... From: nickster97@Yahoo.com [mailto:nickster97@yahoo.com] Sent:
      Message 2 of 9 , Nov 26, 2003
        Please read Stanton v. Baltic Mining.  The U. S. Supreme Court disagrees with you.
        -----Original Message-----
        From: nickster97@... [mailto:nickster97@...]
        Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 1:17 AM
        To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Source of income does not matter

        The sixteenth amendment is broad enough to grant congress the power to collect an income tax regargless of the source of the taxpayers income. United States v. Russell , 585 f. 2d 868,870 (1978) United States v. Silkman 431 U.S. 919 (1977d



        Tax Consulting Services

        Email to Nickster97@...


      • Kelly Roe
        And they are correct. But are you a taxpayer? ... From: nickster97@Yahoo.com To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 12:17 AM
        Message 3 of 9 , Nov 28, 2003
          And they are correct.  But are you a taxpayer?
          ----- Original Message -----
          Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 12:17 AM
          Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Source of income does not matter

          The sixteenth amendment is broad enough to grant congress the power to collect an income tax regargless of the source of the taxpayers income. United States v. Russell , 585 f. 2d 868,870 (1978) United States v. Silkman 431 U.S. 919 (1977d



          Tax Consulting Services

          Email to Nickster97@...


          Do you Yahoo!?
          Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now

          To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          tips_and_tricks-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

        • Marsha Breazeale
          Everyone needs to read Stanton v. Baltic Mining, the U. S. Supreme Court opinion where the U. S. Supreme Court (the only guys in America who have the full
          Message 4 of 9 , Dec 2, 2003
            Everyone needs to read Stanton v. Baltic Mining, the U. S. Supreme Court opinion where the U. S. Supreme Court  (the only guys in America who have the full power and authority to interpret the law and apply it and make their opinion stick) says that the 16th Amendment did NOT give Congress any new taxing power that they did not already have.  And the original constitution explicitly borbids a tax on all money received by any American for any purpose; that's called a "capitation tax", and power was NOT granted to Congress to lay and collect such a tax. 
             
            Stanton v. Baltic Mining states very clearly what the correct reading of the 16th Amendment is.  It means that any money received by any American for any purpose, MUST HAVE COME FROM AN ACTIVITY OR EVENT REQUIRING FEDERAL PERMISSION, before Congress has the power to lay and collect a tax upon the activity.  That's what the "indirect" in indirect tax means: the tax is on the activity or the event, NOT on the money itself that came from it; the money is used only to CALCULATE how much tax is paid for having engaged in the taxable "activity". 
             
            Any work performed that required any form of Federal permission, permit, or application approval makes it a "taxable activity" and a sovereign citizen must pay the federal tax on incomes based on any income realized from that activity.  Federal government employment is a taxable activity because it requires Federal permission to do it (the hiring process).  Alcohol, tobacco, firearms, gambling, pharmaceuticals... they all require federal licensing to engage in lawfully.  And a foreigner-- citizen of another country-- who is here working under a green card is here with FEDERAL PERMISSION (the green card) and they owe the tax on any money they earn while they are here.  And a sovereign citizen who goes to work for a company over in London, or Paris, is doing so with the Federal permission of an exit visa-- because their employment over there is protected by the full weight and force of the American military to protect them under TREATY.  All of those incomes are within the power of Congress to indirectly tax.
             
            Any questions?
            NICK WROTE:
            The sixteenth amendment is broad enough to grant congress the power to collect an income tax regargless of the source of the taxpayers income. United States v. Russell , 585 f. 2d 868,870 (1978) United States v. Silkman 431 U.S. 919 (1977d



             
          • Nilbux@aol.com
            In a message dated 12/2/2003 12:20:05 PM Central Standard Time, ... Do they swear oaths to interpret the Constitution or to uphold and defend it?
            Message 5 of 9 , Dec 2, 2003
              In a message dated 12/2/2003 12:20:05 PM Central Standard Time, MBreazeale@... writes:

              the U. S. Supreme Court opinion where the U. S. Supreme Court  (the only guys in America who have the full power and authority to interpret the law

                 Do they swear oaths to interpret the Constitution
                 or to uphold and defend it?
            • Nick
              Marsha, You are talkng two diffent entities. One, which you are correct of your interpretation is the American Citizen who owes no alegience to title 26
              Message 6 of 9 , Dec 2, 2003
                Marsha,

                You are talkng two diffent entities. One, which you are correct of
                your interpretation is the American Citizen who owes no alegience to
                title 26 period. The second is an entity that is government
                franchised using the SS# of the American citizen that signs the w-4,
                pays one half of SS, medicare and an unspecified wage tax on his
                earnings. The American Citizen through the use of his SS# is then
                obligated to make a return of income for the entity.

                It is this entity that you do not adress which causes confusion to
                the average taxpayer that understands what you are talking about in
                regards to Supreme Court cases such as Baltic Mining.

                You see, if those cases really meant something, then sometime in the
                past 40 or 50 years, we should have gotten rid of the income tax
                altogether. So, either one of two things are happening.

                1. Either the courts are really that corrupt or..

                2. You do not fully comprehend the real nature of the income tax and
                how it is applied in the several states.

                I bet on the latter.






                --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "Marsha Breazeale"
                <MBreazeale@n...> wrote:
                > Everyone needs to read Stanton v. Baltic Mining, the U. S. Supreme
                Court opinion where the U. S. Supreme Court (the only guys in
                America who have the full power and authority to interpret the law
                and apply it and make their opinion stick) says that the 16th
                Amendment did NOT give Congress any new taxing power that they did
                not already have. And the original constitution explicitly borbids
                a tax on all money received by any American for any purpose; that's
                called a "capitation tax", and power was NOT granted to Congress to
                lay and collect such a tax.
              • Dave Miner
                Nilbux -- You asked: Do they swear oaths to interpret the Constitution or to uphold and defend it? Excellent question, and one that injects two sets of
                Message 7 of 9 , Dec 2, 2003
                  Message
                  Nilbux --
                   
                  You asked: "Do they swear oaths to interpret the Constitution or to uphold and defend it? "
                   
                  Excellent question, and one that injects two sets of reality into the discussion. The first set is theory that, while technically correct , is not reality.  The second set is reality that, while technically incorrect, is what we all experience.
                   
                  Theoretically, the judiciary cannot interpret law.  A law, to be lawful, can have only one meaning and that meaning must be clear.  If the law is so obtuse that it needs interpretation, then it is void for vagueness.  Theoretically, the judiciary can only judge if the law can be applied in the case before him/her and accomplish justice, and then to apply the law as far as the Constitution would allow him/her.
                   
                  In reality, however, this is far from true.  Justice is no longer the objective of the judiciary -- dispensing of the case is usually the primary objective and pursuing a social or legal agenda is often a backup objective.  As a result of this totally different motivation, a judge will allow justice to be totally raped in favor of following procedure so that the case can be dispensed with more quickly.  And often a judge will allow justice or the Constitution to be thrown out in favor of accomplishing that social or legal goal.
                   
                  So, in reality, judges have ceased to be agents of justice and have become agents of change.  This allows for them to pursue social and legal agendas rather than upholding and defending the Constitution.
                   
                  It is sad that America no longer has a system of justice.  All that is left is a system of laws and rules and procedures.
                   
                  Yours in freedom,
                   
                  David L. Miner
                  www.FreedomSite.net

                   

                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: Nilbux@... [mailto:Nilbux@...]
                  Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 1:28 PM
                  To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Source of income does not matter



                     Do they swear oaths to interpret the Constitution
                     or to uphold and defend it?
                • JD
                  You need to check the delegations of authority. ... From: Nick Marsha, You are talkng two diffent entities. One, which you are correct of your interpretation
                  Message 8 of 9 , Dec 2, 2003
                     
                    You need to check the delegations of authority.
                     
                     
                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: Nick

                    Marsha,

                    You are talkng two diffent entities. One, which you are correct of
                    your interpretation is the American Citizen who owes no alegience to
                    title 26 period. The second is an entity that is government
                    franchised using the SS# of the American citizen that signs the w-4,
                    pays one half of SS, medicare and an unspecified wage tax on his
                    earnings. The American Citizen through the use of his SS# is then
                    obligated to make a return of income for the entity.

                    It is this entity that you do not adress which causes confusion to
                    the average taxpayer that understands what you are talking about in
                    regards to Supreme Court cases such as Baltic Mining.

                    You see, if those cases really meant something, then sometime in the
                    past 40 or 50 years, we should have gotten rid of the income tax
                    altogether. So, either one of two things are happening.

                  • Nilbux@aol.com
                    In a message dated 12/3/2003 9:12:22 PM US Eastern Standard Time, ... If judges never denied justice, we would have a monetary collapse.
                    Message 9 of 9 , Dec 17, 2003
                      In a message dated 12/3/2003 9:12:22 PM US Eastern Standard Time, dminer@... writes:

                      So, in reality, judges have ceased to be agents of justice and have become agents of change.  This allows for them to pursue social and legal agendas rather than upholding and defending the Constitution.

                        
                        If judges never denied justice,
                         we would have a monetary collapse.
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.