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

Re: Source of income does not matter

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 9 , Dec 2, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 9 , Dec 2, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 9 , Dec 2, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
           
          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 4 of 9 , Dec 17, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            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.