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

Zero Return Attachment

Expand Messages
  • Kevin Hart
    Qwest, One should never sign and use their numbers on any of their forms. When the government wants you to put personal information from you, watch out. They
    Message 1 of 4 , Feb 27, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Qwest,

      One should never sign and use their numbers on any of their forms. When the government wants you to put personal information from you, watch out. They are setting you up in the "their jurisdiction" clause pursuant to the 14th Amendment.

      Once you sign and use their numbers they assign you, you are under the privilege status and they can allow you whatever they feel like when they battle you. This is why a lot of people are losing to the government.

      The attachments are our safety nets. We only use their numbers and sign the attachments with all zeros on the return. After we sign it, we use the words "Non-Assumpsit" after we write out our names out on the attachments. What this does, is limit your involvement in their jurisdiction and allows you to re-claim all your inalienable rights guaranteed by our creator of the universe. It's real easy to do once you understand how it works. Doctor Hartman has stated many times that in order to hide something very well, you put it under their noses, where they won't think of looking. We will have something to put up on the web site http://www.paynoohioincometax.com very soon. It should be up on the download part of the page by the end of next week. If you need an example we will post it up for everyone to see.

      Ask any taxing agency one or two of these questions and see what happens.

      1. If we sign and use your numbers on your forms, are we subjecting ourselves under your jurisdiction?
      2. How does your system read addresses when we use the proper upper and lower case in proper English in our correspondents to you, and yet you send out all of your letters to us incorrectly in all capital letters. Why are you doing this and does this subject us to your jurisdiction if we respond to it? What is your authority for doing this?

      I called them on this and they would not answer any of these questions I raised. What should that tell you.

      Go ahead, call them and ask them yourself. They will not answer it. They hung up on me. In my book, it's checkmate or game, set, and match, or game over. Now, does anyone else have any other questions about this.

      As always, have an income tax-free day and life,
      /s/ Kevin Hart, Non-Assumpsit
      General Manager
      Truth in Taxation Ministries
      http://www.paynoohioincometax.com
      (216) 253-5965
      Qwest <borchardtterry1@...> wrote:
      Is there any reason to just send in a zero return with no attachment. We've seen the legal advise that the IRS consul said a return with all zero's and no deletions or attachments qualifies as a return. Why would I put on an attachment?
    • Mark Ferran
      Persons Subject To The Jurisdiction of the United States Some people have demonstrated honest confusion about the significance of the words subject to the
      Message 2 of 4 , Feb 27, 2004
      • 0 Attachment

        Persons "Subject To The Jurisdiction" of the United States

        Some people have demonstrated honest confusion about the significance of the words "subject to the jurisdiction" found in the Fourteenth Amendment.  Those words of Fourteenth Amendment specify that only those persons born within the United States and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are born citizens of the United States.  The meaning and purpose of the limiting words "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States is examined herein.
         
        The First Section of the 14th Amendment contains the sacred writings of an Extinct (Christian) People: 
         
        "Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
         
        "The Law Clauses" of the 14th Amendment (see "Part 1: Law, a Revolutionary Idea For Peace" at: www.billstclair.com/ferran ) are codifications of God's commandments to Human agents of State Governments: Thou Shalt Not Steal; Thou Shalt Not Murder: You shall have "one Law" for yourself, for your neighbors, and for strangers alike.   It took 1868 years for the human species to inscribe Jesus' Golden Rule of Equal Protection of all "persons" (whether citizens or not citizens) into the Constitution of a Republican form of Government.
         
        "The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says: "Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws."
         
        'The language employed is unqualified in its scope. There is no exception in its terms, and there can be properly none in their application. By the language 'citizens of the United States' was meant all such citizens; and by 'any person' was meant all persons within the jurisdiction of the state. No distinction is intimated on account of race or color. ...  The protection provided was not intended to be confined to those of any particular race or class, but to embrace equally all races, classes, and conditions of men.' " http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Wong/Gray.htm  (quoting 16 Wall. Id. 128, 129).
         
        "The Fourteenth Amendment fundamentally restructured the relationship between individuals and the States and ensured that States would not deprive citizens of liberty without due process of law. It guarantees citizenship to all individuals born or naturalized in the United States and provides that “[n]o State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” As Justice Harlan noted, the Fourteenth Amendment “added greatly to the dignity and glory of American citizenship, and to the security of personal liberty.” Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 555 (1896) (dissenting opinion). When rights are incorporated against the States through the Fourteenth Amendment they should advance, not constrain, individual liberty."  http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-1751.ZC1.html
         
        Intelligent people know that they are "persons" entitled to demand "Due Process of Law" and "equal protection of the laws" (and even to demand citizenship, if they were born in the US).   In addition to the Law Clauses, a question raised by the Supreme Court in Dred Scott v. Sandford was settled by the 14th Amendment.  The amendment declares that ALL persons not subject to foriegn powers born within the United States, no matter what their race or color, would be full and equal citizens of the United States.  It is that full and equal citizen status of Black citizens which some Paytriots-For-Profit refuse to acknowledge today. 
         
        "One great purpose of these amendments was to raise the colored race from that condition of inferiority and servitude in which most of them had previously stood, into perfect equality of civil rights with all other persons within the jurisdiction of the States."  http://www.lectlaw.com/files/case24.htm
         
        "Before the adoption of the recent [13th & 14th] amendments it had become, as we have seen, the established doctrine of this court that negroes, whose ancestors had been imported and sold as slaves, could not become citizens of a state, or even of the United States, with the rights and privileges guarantied to citizens by the national constitution; further, that one might have all the rights and privileges of a citizen of a state without being a citizen in the sense in which that word was used in the national constitution, and without being entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several states. ...  It was openly announced that whatever rights persons of that race might have as freemen, under the guaranties of the national constitution, they could not become citizens of a state, with the rights belonging to citizens, except by the consent of such state; consequently, that their civil rights, as citizens of the state, depended entirely upon state legislation. To meet this new peril to the black race, that the purposes of the nation might not be doubted or defeated, and by way of further enlargement of the power of congress, the fourteenth amendment was proposed for adoption."   http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Civil/Harlan.htm
         
        "What the nation, through congress, has sought to accomplish in reference to that race is, what had already been done in every state in the Union for the white race, to secure and protect rights belonging to them as freemen and citizens; nothing more. The one underlying purpose of congressional legislation has been to enable the black race to take the rank of mere citizens. The difficulty has been to compel a recognition of their legal right to take that rank, and to secure the enjoyment of privileges belonging, under the law, to them as a component part of the people for whose welfare and happiness government is ordained."  http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Civil/Harlan.htm
         
        "[W]hile [Chief Justice] Taney sympathized with [Dred] Scott's dilemma, he was bound by law to find that Scott had no right to sue, as under the laws of the land he was in fact, not a citizen and did not have the rights afforded to a citizen. ...  Taney made it clear that it was up to the legislature to correct the wrong, not the court.  The legislature of that time did correct the problem by the proper path.   They amended the Constitution to include as citizens, all naturally born or naturalized persons regardless of race. The fourteenth amendment was ratified and became law. ...  The Dred Scott situation has been corrected, and rightfully so.http://www.sierratimes.com/03/02/10/mulloy.htm
         
        The Citizenship Clause of Fourteenth Amendment corrected this iniquity between segments of the population and clearly declared that Every "person" who was "born" within any state or US Territory is deemed to be a member of the Posterity (a member of "the People" who is a "citizen of the United States") for whose benefit the Constitution of 1787's protections were written, and can become a citizen of any US state simply by residing there.  www.billstclair.com/ferran
         
        "The first section of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution begins with the words, 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.' As appears upon the face of the amendment, as well as from the history of the times, this was not intended to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship, or to prevent any persons from becoming citizens by the fact of birth within the United States, who would thereby have become citizens according to the law existing before its adoption.   ...   And it was observed that the language used, in defining citizenship, in the first section of the civil rights act of 1866, by the very congress which framed the fourteenth amendment, was 'all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed.' 112 U.S. 99 -103, 5 Sup. Ct. 44-46."  U.S. v. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Wong/Gray.htm
         
        "It is declaratory in form, and enabling and extending in effect. Its main purpose doubtless was, as has been often recognized by this court, to establish the citizenship of free negroes, which had been denied in the opinion delivered by Chief Justice Taney in Scott v. Sandford (1857) 19 How. 393; and to put it beyond doubt that all blacks, as well as whites, born or naturalized within the jurisdiction of the United States, are citizens of the United States. Slaughter House Cases (1873) 16 Wall. 36, 73; Strauder v. West Virginia (1879) 100 U.S. 303 , 306; Ex parte Virginia (1879) Id. 339, 345; Neal v. Delaware (1880) 103 U.S. 370 , 386; Elk v. Wilkins (1884) 112 U.S. 94, 101 , 5 S. Sup. Ct. 41. But the opening words, 'All persons born,' are general, not to say universal, restricted only by place and jurisdiction, and not by color or race, as was clearly recognized in all the opinions delivered in the Slaughter House Cases, above cited."  U.S. v. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Wong/Gray.htm
         
        "[I]n view of the Constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law."

        http://faculty.uml.edu/sgallagher/supremecourt.htm

        "Citizenship in this country necessarily imports equality of civil rights among citizens of every race in the same state.  It is fundamental in American citizenship that, in respect of such rights, there shall be no discrimination by the state, or its officers, or by individuals, or corporations exercising public functions or authority, against any citizen because of his race or previous condition of servitude.  In U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 555 , it was said that 'the equality of rights of citizens is a principle of republicanism.' "  http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Civil/Harlan.htm

        "The declaration contained in the [Fourteenth] amendment that citizens of the United States shall be deemed citizens of the State wherein they reside is merely a reiteration of the law as it existed before the amendment and as it had been announced by Chief Justice Marshall in Gassies v. Ballon(7) where it is said: "A citizen of the United States, residing in any State of the Union, is a citizen of that State." The declaration that all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States was the
        announcement of a new law of Federal citizenship, carrying with it a new law of State citizenship and altering, as it was intended to alter, the rule of citizenship established by the decision of the Supreme Court in
        the case of Dred Scott v. Sandford.(8) To that extent the amendment worked a radical change."
         
        But, this "change" had no practical effect upon white persons living in 1868 who already were born citizens of a state, and therefore were born citizens of the United States according to the previous (common law) rules of citizenship:
         
        "The object of the fourteenth amendment, as is well known, was to confer upon the colored race the right of citizenship. It, however, gave to the colored people no right superior to that granted to the white race. ...  The same rule must be applied to both races; ... The fourteenth amendment, by the language, 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' was intended to bring all races, without distinction of color, within the rule which prior to that time pertained to the white race.' Benny v. O'Brien (1895) 58 N. J. Law, 36, 39, 40, 32 Atl. 696.    The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States."    U.S. v. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Wong/Gray.htm
         
        "Passing by questions once earnestly controverted, but finally put at rest by the fourteenth amendment of the constitution, it is beyond doubt that, before the enactment of the civil rights act of 1866 or the adoption of the constitutional amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign government, were native-born citizens of the United States.   ...   In the forefront, both of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution, and of the civil rights act of 1866, the fundamental principle of citizenship by birth within the dominion was reaffirmed in the most explicit and comprehensive terms.   ....   [T]he negative words of the civil rights act, 'not subject to any foreign power,' gave way, in the fourteenth amendment of the constitution, to the affirmative words, 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.'  This sentence of the fourteenth amendment is declaratory of existing rights, and affirmative of existing law, as to each of the qualifications therein expressed,-'born in the United States,' 'naturalized in the United States,' and 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof'; in short, as to everything relating to the acquisition of citizenship by facts occurring within the limits of the United States.  ...   In 1871, Mr. Fish, writing to Mr. Marsh, the American minister to Italy, said: 'The fourteenth amendment to the constitution declares that 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.' This is simply an affirmance of the common law of England and of this country, so far as it asserts the status of citizenship to be fixed by the place of nativity, irrespective of parentage. The qualification 'and subject to the jurisdiction thereof was probably intended to exclude the children of foreign ministers, and of other persons who may be within our territory with rights of extraterritoriality.' 2 Whart. Int. Dig. p. 394. "  U.S. v. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Wong/Gray.htm
         
        The Fourteenth Amendment simply re-enacted the law of citizenship-by-birth that was settled by the English common law before Dred Scott v. Sandford upset it:
        "[At the] time of the Declaration of Independence, ...  the law of England as to citizenship by birth was the law of the English colonies in America.   ...  [A]ll persons born within the colonies of North America, while subject to the crown of Great Britain, were natural-born British subjects.   ...    'Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children ...  born in a country, while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government, and owing ... allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth.' Id. 164.   ...  And in his treatise on the Conflict of Laws, published in 1834, [Joseph Story]  said that, ... 'there are certain principles which have been generally recognized, by tribunals administering public law [adding, in later editions, 'or the law of nations'], as of unquestionable authority'; and stated, as the first of those principles: 'Persons who are born in a country are generally deemed citizens and subjects of that country.' Story, Confl. Laws, 48.   ...   The supreme court of North Carolina, speaking by Mr. Justice Gaston, said: 'Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the king of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; those born out of his allegiance were aliens.' 'Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European king to a free and sovereign [169 U.S. 649, 664] state.' 'British subjects in North Carolina became North Carolina freemen;' 'and all free persons born within the state are born citizens of the state.' 'The term 'citizen,' as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term 'subject' in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from the man to the collective body of the people; and he who before was a 'subject of the king' is now 'a citizen of the state." State v. Manuel (1838) 4 Dev. & b. 20, 24-26.    ...    "Subject' and 'citizen' are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives; and though the term 'citizen' seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, 'subjects,' for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.'"  U.S. v. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Wong/Gray.htm
         
        "The real object of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution, in qualifying the words 'all persons born in the United States' by the addition 'and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the national government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases,- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state ...."   U.S. v. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Wong/Gray.htm
         
        The Fourteenth Amendent "made all persons citizens except those who preferred to remain under the protection of a foreign government." http://billstclair.com/ferran/fourteenth.html
         
        The Purposes of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment went beyond securing citizenship status and rights of black freedmen.  See: The Original Intent of the 14th Amendment at www.billstclair.com/ferran
         
        According to the rule that a citizen of the United States may become a citizen of any state that he chooses to reside in: "The states have not now, if they ever had, any power to restrict their citizenship to any classes or persons [born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof]."   http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Wong/Gray.htm (quoting 16 Wall. 112)  This rule of compusory state-citizenship was to secure the state-citizenship right of American citizens from the north who wished to take up residence in the South as well as the state-citizenship of blacks who wished to migrate to the North.
         
        The "persons ...  subject to the jurisdiction" limitation upon who could be born a citizen was not a new principle in 1868.  Prior to the Fourteenth Amendment, the question of who is born a citizen had long been characterized in terms of whether the person was born within or instead beyond the "jurisdiction of the United States":
         
        "In 1802, all former [Naturalization] acts were repealed, and the provisions concerning children of citizens were re-enacted in this form: 'The children of persons duly naturalized under any of the laws of the United States, or who, previous to the passing of any law on that subject by the government of the United States, may have become citizens of any one of the said states under the laws thereof, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of their parents being so naturalized or admitted to the rights of citizenship, shall, if dwelling in the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States; and the children of persons who now are, or have been citizens of the United States shall, though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States: provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never resided within the United States.' Act April 14, 1802, c. 28, 4 (2 Stat. 155).    [I]t was enacted by the statute of February 10, 1855, c. 71, that 'persons heretofore born, or hereafter to be born, out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or shall be at the time of their birth citizens of the United States, shall be deemed and considered and are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States: provided, however, that the rights of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers never resided in the United States.' 10 Stat. 604; Rev. St. 1993. "  http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Wong/Gray.htm
         
        "'The phrase 'subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign states, born within the United States.' 16 Wall. 73.   ...  The only adjudication that has been made by this court upon the meaning of the clause 'and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' in the leading provision of the fourteenth amendment, is Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 , 5 Sup. Ct. 41, in which it was decided that an Indian born a member of one of the Indian tribes within the United States, which still existed and was recognized as an Indian tribe by the United States, who had voluntarily separated himself from his tribe, and taken up his residence among the white citizens of a state, but who did not appear to have been naturalized or taxed or in any way recognized or treated as a citizen, either by the United States or by the state, was not a citizen of the United States, as a person born in the United States, 'and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' within the meaning of the clause in question.   That decision was placed upon the grounds that the meaning of those words was 'not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance'; ...    'Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indian tribes (an alien, though dependent, power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more 'born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' within the meaning of the first section of the fourteenth amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.' "  U.S. v. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Wong/Gray.htm 
         
        "The words 'in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' in the first sentence of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution, must be presumed to have been understood and intended by the congress which proposed the amendment, and by the legislatures which adopted it, ... as the equivalent of the words 'within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States,' and the converse of the words 'out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States,' as habitually used in the naturalization acts. This presumption is confirmed by the use of the word 'jurisdiction,' in the last clause of the same section of the fourteenth amendment, which forbids any state to 'deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' It is impossible to construe the words 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' in the opening sentence, as less comprehensive than the words 'within its jurisdiction,' in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons 'within the jurisdiction' of one of the states of the Union are not 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.' "   U.S. v. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Wong/Gray.htm 
         
        Thus, the term "subject to the jurisdiction [of the United States]" refers collectively to the persons born subject to any of the several jurisdictions of the several united States, plus persons subject to the political jurisdiction of the Government of the United States (e.g., in the Territories that were not "states").
         
        "Mr. Justice Harlan and Mr. Justice Woods, dissenting, were of opinion that the Indian in question, having severed himself from his tribe and become a bona fide resident of a state, had thereby become subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, within the meaning of the fourteenth amendment, and, in reference to the civil rights act of 1866, said: 'Beyond question, by that act, national citizenship was conferred directly upon all persons in this country, of whatever race (excluding only 'Indians not taxed'), who were born within [169 U.S. 649, 682] the territorial limits of the United States, and were not subject to any foreign power.' And that view was supported by reference to the debates in the senate upon that act, and to the ineffectual veto thereof by President Johnson, in which he said: 'By the first section of the bill, all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States. This provision comprehends the Chinese of the Pacific states, Indians subject to taxation, the people called 'Gypsies,' as well as the entire race designated as blacks, persons of color, negroes, mulattoes, and persons of African blood. Every individual of those races, born in the United States, is, by the bill, made a citizen of the United States.' 112 U.S. 112 -114, 5 Sup. Ct. 51, 52. "  http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Wong/Gray.htm
         
        The use of the term "jurisdiction of" the United States in the Fourteenth Amendment had and has nothing to do with defining the types of legislative "powers" that Congress may exert over a person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.  That issue was controlled by Article 1 of the Constitution.  The Fourteenth Amendment had no effect upon the legislative power of Congress over individuals.
         
        "In virtually the first test of congressional authority to prohibit private discrimination, the Civil Rights Cases reflected the firmly constructionist view that the recent Fourteenth Amendment operated only against government actions.  [T]he Fourteenth Amendment only prohibited the states from abridging individual rights, and did not operate against the individual.  [P]rivate interference with ... rights and obligations enjoyed by the individual under state [Law], would likewise not fall under the jurisdiction of Congress, but of the states."  http://www.csamerican.com/SC.asp?r=109+U.S.+3
         
        "The first section of the fourteenth amendment,-which is the one relied on,-after declaring who shall be citizens of the United States, and of the several states, is prohibitory in its character, and prohibitory upon the states. It declares that 'no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' It is state action of a particular character that is prohibited. Individual invasion of individual rights is not the subject- matter of the amendment.   ...   It not only does this, but, in order that the national will, thus declared, may not be a mere brutum fulmen [e.g., empty prmoises], the last section of the amendment invests congress with power to enforce it by appropriate legislation. To enforce what? To enforce the prohibition. To adopt appropriate legislation for correcting the effects of such prohibited state law and state acts, and thus to render them effectually null, void, and innocuous. This is the legislative power conferred upon congress, and this is the whole of it. It does not invest congress with power to legislate upon subjects which are within the domain of state legislation; but to provide modes of relief against state legislation, or state action, of the kind referred to. It does not authorize congress to create a code of municipal law for the regulation of private rights; but to provide modes of redress against the operation of state laws, and the action of state officers, executive or judicial, when these are subversive of the fundamental rights specified in the amendment. Positive rights and privileges are undoubtedly secured by the fourteenth amendment; but they are secured by way of prohibition against state laws and state proceedings affecting those rights and privileges, and by power given to congress to legislate for the purpose of carrying such prohibition into effect; "  CIVIL RIGHTS CASES, 109 U.S. 3 (1883)=http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Civil/
         
        Justice Harlan, dissenting from the above holding in the Civil Rights Cases, argued that the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment actually contracted the power and jurisdiction that Congress traditionally exercised for the protection of individuals as against individuals: "whereas, prior to the [Thirtheenth and Fourteenth] amendments, congress, with the sanction of this court, passed the most stringent laws-operating directly and primarily upon states, and their officers and agents, as well as upon individuals-in vindication of slavery and the right of the master, it may not now, by legislation of a like primary and direct character, guard, protect, and secure the freedom established, and the most essential right of the citizenship granted, by the constitutional amendments.  I venture, with all respect for the opinion of others, to insist that the national legislature may, without transcending the limits of the constitution, do for human liberty and the fundamental rights of American citizenship, what it did, with the sanction of this court, for the protection of slavery and the rights of the masters of fugitive slaves. If fugitive slave laws, providing modes and prescribing penalties whereby the master could seize and recover his fugitive slave, were legitimate exertions of an implied power to protect and enforce a right recognized by the constitution, why shall the hands of congress be tied, so that-under an express power, by appropriate legislation, to enforce a constitutional provision, granting citizenship- it may not, by means of direct legislation, bring the whole power of this nation to bear upon states and their officers, and upon such individuals and corporations exercising public functions, as assume to abridge, impair, or deny rights confessedly secured by the supreme law of the land? "  http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Civil/Harlan.htm
         
        "The prohibitions of the Fourteenth Amendment are directed to the States, and they are to a degree restrictions of State power. It is these which Congress is empowered to enforce, and to enforce against State action, however put forth, whether that action be executive, legislative, or judicial. Such enforcement is no invasion of State sovereignty. No law can be, which the people of the States have, by the Constitution of the United States, empowered Congress to enact.  ...  We have said the prohibitions of the Fourteenth Amendment are addressed to the States. ...  They have reference to actions of the political body denominated a State, by whatever instruments or in whatever modes that action may be taken. A State acts by its legislative, its executive, or its judicial authorities. It can act in no other way. The constitutional provision, therefore, must mean that no agency of the State, or of the officers or agents by whom its powers are exerted, shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Whoever, by virtue of public position under a State government, deprives another of property, life, or liberty, without due process of law, or denies or takes away the equal protection of the laws, violates the constitutional inhibition; and as he acts in the name and for the State, and is clothed with the State's power, his act is that of the State."  http://www.lectlaw.com/files/case24.htm
         
         
         
         
        The Constitution (i.e., the Fourteenth Amendment) recognizes two modes for becoming a citizen of the United States: Birth and Naturalization.  The right to automatic jus soli citizenship is limitted to persons who at the time they were born, were "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.   This limitation was intended to deny citizenship to persons who were not entitled to citizenship by birthright.
         
        In the U.S. v. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Supreme Court said:
        "Wong Kim Ark was born in 1873, in the city of San Francisco, in the state of California and United States of America, and was and is a laborer. His father and mother were persons of Chinese descent, and subjects of the emperor of China.  ...   The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who at the time of his birth are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution: 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.' "  http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Wong/Gray.htm  
         
        In deciding that Wong Kim Ark was NOT "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States when he was born, the Supreme Court explained:
        "The language of the constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law.  ...   The interpretation of the constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.   ...   The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance-also called 'ligealty,' 'obedience,' 'faith,' or 'power'-of the king. The principle embraced all persons born within the king's allegiance, and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual,-as expressed in the maxim, 'Protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem,'-  ...   But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the king's dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the king.  ...  Two things usually concur to create citizenship: First, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign; and, secondly, birth within the protection and obedience, or, in other words, within the ligeance, of the sovereign. That is, the party must be born within a place where the sovereign is at the time in full possession and exercise of his power, and the party must also at his birth derive protection from, and consequently owe obedience or allegiance to, the sovereign, as such, de facto."  http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Wong/Gray.htm 
         
        "Congress can revoke statutory citizenship under certain conditions, as long as the revocation complies with due process requirements. On the other hand, constitutional U.S. citizenship (that is, citizenship acquired under the 14th Amendment) cannot be revoked by Congress, because it is "guaranteed" by the Fourteenth Amendment (although it can, of course, be voluntarily renounced by the citizen)."  http://www.cefus.net/background/citizenship.html
         
        Thus, if you did not want to be born a "citizen of the United States" and you do not wish to remain subject to the jursidiction of the United States, you can leave the country and renounce your Birthright.  This legal process is called Voluntary Expatriation.
         
        "Some argue today that the Fourteenth "Amendment's "subject to the jurisdiction of" [language] requires an allegiance not possible by illegal aliens, tourists, and temporary workers."   http://www.fileus.com/dept/citizenship/hamdi/hamdi-complaint.html   That view is supported by the Supreme Court's comment that:  "Chinese persons, born out of the United States, remaining subjects of the emperor of China, and not having become citizens of the United States, are entitled to the protection of and owe allegiance to the United States, so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here; and are 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States."  http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Wong/Gray.htm   The children of persons not  "permitted by the United States to reside here" may not be entitled citizenship by birth.   Conversely, in general, persons born to parents who are "permitted by the United States to reside here", are born "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, and is entitled to automatic citizenship. 
         
        The First Section of the Fourteenth Amendment, as written, had nothing at all to do with extending "the jurisdiction" and legislative power of the Federal Government over individuals.   It did not extent the Federal Government's territorial jurisdiction.  It does not claim to extend the Federal Government's jurisdiction over persons, except by granting Congress a "power" to PROTECT "citizens" and other "persons" from abuse by the several "states".  It does not increase the power of the Federal Government over individuals, only "states."   The Fourteenth Amendment citizenship rule simply declares a rule (citizenship by birth) that applies (and grants citizenship) only to those who are born "subject to the jurisdiction" and protection of the United States.  That did not change the law except to abolish the old rule that Black "persons" could not become citizens.    No white people living at that time 1868 had an doubt about the meaning of that provision of the 14th Amendment.   They knew and intended that that language simply abolished the rule of Dred Scott which denied citizenship to black people. 
         
        Myths that the Fourteenth Amendment made state legislatures obsolete are absurd.  Myths that the Fourteenth Amendment granted Congress the power to enact "All needed legislation" for the protection of the Health, safety, etc. of persons in the states as against crime are absurd.   The Myths peddled by some Paytriots For Profit who say that only black people (descended from slaves) can be born "citizens of the United States" pursuant to the rule prescribed in the Fourteenth Amendment are absurd, and racist, and have no legitimate place in the minds of Christians. 
         
        Think of what is happening within this forum as a model of what is happening in this Country.   There are Throngs of Deceivers in our Courts, and among our general population (Paytriots for Profit), who Deny that all "persons" are entitled to the express Law guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendent.   On both sides of the Bench, subversives are making Life, Liberty and Property insecure by means of False Doctrines and Lying Divinations about the meaning of the Plain English words of that Amendment.  This is nothing more than a continuation of the battles in Sodom in which the Priests and the Criminals agreed that nothing in the Written Word of God forbade the Princes to engage in Larceny and Murder, nor to become the "companions of Theives."  
        This is nothing less than the WAR AGAINST GOD, and this war has been raging for thousands of years.  
         
         21  How the faithful city
                 has become a whore!
                 She that was full of justice,
             righteousness lodged in her--
                 but now murderers!
        ...
         23  Your princes are rebels and companions of thieves.
             Everyone loves a bribe and runs after gifts. They do not defend the orphan,  and the widow's cause does not come before them. 
         24  Therefore says the Sovereign, the LORD of hosts, the Mighty One of Israel:
             Ah, I will pour out my wrath on my enemies,
                 and avenge myself on my foes!
         25  I will turn my hand against you;
                 I will smelt away your dross as with lye
                 and remove all your alloy.
         26  And I will restore your judges as at the first,
                 and your counselors as at the beginning.
             Afterward you shall be called the city of righteousness,
                 the faithful city.
         
        "Ezekiel 22:25-28 reads
        (25)"There is a conspiracy of her princes within her like a roaring lion tearing its prey; they devour people, take treasures and precious things and make many widows within her (26) Her priests do violence to my law and .... Her officials within her are like wolves tearing their prey; they shed blood and kill people to make unjust gain. ( 28) Her prophets whitewash these deeds for them by false visions and lying divination's. They say, 'This is what the Sovereign Lord says' - when the Lord has not spoken."
         

        The commandment in the Fourteenth Amendment that the People in each state must give to every "person" within their jurisdiction the "equal protection of the laws," is a codification of the Ancient Hebrew "One Law" (for citizens and strangers alike) principle and a codification of Jesus' Golden Rule (i.e., you and your neighbors should be treated equally by all humans administering the power of the sword).   "It sought equality of treatment of all persons ... similarly situated. .... It means that no person or class of persons shall be denied the same protection of the laws which is enjoyed by other persons or other classes in the same place and under like circumstances." Truax v. Corrigan, 257 US 312, 331, 338 (1921). http://billstclair.com/ferran/markferran1.html

        The Due Process of Law commandment in the Fourteenth Amendment is a codification of the rules prescribed in Exodus and Deuteronomy that the King shall read and keep within the Law, and deviate neither to The Right Nor to The Left, nor shall he commit theft, nor murder.  "The due process clause requires that every man shall have ... the benefit of the general law, ... so that every citizen shall hold his life, liberty and property and immunities under the protection of the general rules which govern society.  It of course tends to secure equality...." Truax v. Corrigan, 257 US 312, 331, 338 (1921).  http://billstclair.com/ferran/markferran1.html
         
        The Judeo-Christian pedigree of the Law Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment is why the Devil now seeks to use deceit and earthly hosts of deceit to tear down that Christian Law.  That is why you have laymen and professional Teachers of the Law today, like the Whitewashed Tombs of old, declaring that only certain people are "neighbors" entitled to the protection of the Golden Rule prescribed in the Fourteenth Amendment.  The methods of the Devil have not changed.   The words of the Constitution have not changed.   What has changed is that the Churches no longer teach the Constitution as containing the Expressed Will of God on Earth, and the People no longer recognize that God's Commandments already were, after much bloody struggle and Martyrdom, written into the Constitution of the United States.  The Christian People who wrote and understood the meaning and purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment are all but extinct.
         
        At this time, you must choose sides in the War against the Commandments of God inscribed in the Fourteenth Amendment.  
         
        The Fourteenth Amendment "was intended to justify legislation [e.g., 42 USC sections 1983, 1985, 1986], extending the protection of the National government over the common rights of all citizens of the United States [and of all persons "subject to" their jurisdiction and protection], and thus obviate objections to the legislation adopted for the protection of the emancipated race."  Congress clearly has to power to prescribe rules and modes for the Criminal Prosecution and civil suits against State-Court Judges:  READ  Ex Parte Virginia:  http://www.lectlaw.com/files/case24.htm
         
        The first legislation enacted by Congress (in 1871)  to extend the "protection of the National government over the common rights of all citizens" and of all persons subject to their jurisdiction was titled "An Act to Enforce the Provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment" approved April 20, 1871 (now codified in 42 USC sections 1983, 1985, 1986). 

        "This statute, enacted to aid in "'the preservation of human liberty and human rights'" Owen v. City of Independence, 445 US 622, 636 (1980), reflects a congressional judgment that a "damages remedy against the offending party is a vital component of any scheme for vindicating cherished constitutional guarantees."  As remedial legislation, [the Act to Enforce the Provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment] is to be construed generously to further its primary purpose."

        Gomez v. Toledo, 446 US 635 (1980).

        While the Supreme Court has not always construed this legislation generously, the Supreme Court has never denied that Congress has the power to abolish the Doctrine of Judicial Immunity in Federal Court/Federal cases (e.g., in section 1983 cases).  I believe that the Fourteenth Amendment gives Congress the power to Abolish or mitigate the Doctrine of Judicial Immunity in State Courts and in every state-law case as well (in order to "enforce" the guarantees of the First Section of the Fourteenth Amendment).  Arguably, Congress, according to the Fifth Section of the Fourteenth Amendment, has the Power to enact the legislation proposed by www.Jail4Judges.org binding upon every Judge in every State.   

        Concerning the Thirteenth Amendment:

        "Undoubtedly, while negro slavery alone was in the mind of the congress which proposed the thirteenth article, it forbids any other kind of slavery, now or hereafter.  If Mexican peonage or the Chinese coolie labor system shall develop slavery of the Mexican or Chinese race within our territory, this amendment may safely be trusted to make it void. And so, if other rights are assailed by the states, which properly and necessarily fall within the protection of these articles, that protection will apply, though the party interested may not be of African descent."
        U.S. v. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Wong/Gray.htm
         
        See 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1994. - Peonage abolished:

        "The holding of any person to service or labor under the system known as peonage is abolished and forever prohibited in any Territory or State of the United States; and all acts, laws, resolutions, orders, regulations, or usages of any Territory or State, which have heretofore established, maintained, or enforced, or by virtue of which any attempt shall hereafter be made to establish, maintain, or enforce, directly or indirectly, the voluntary or involuntary service or labor of any persons as peons,

        (Message over 64 KB, truncated)

      • Kevin Hart
        Mark, You are correct in the reading of the scriptures pertaining to attorneys and you do understand the difference. There s hope for you on this part. As far
        Message 3 of 4 , Mar 5, 2004
        • 0 Attachment

           

          Mark,

           

          You are correct in the reading of the scriptures pertaining to attorneys and you do understand the difference. There's hope for you on this part.

           

          As far as The fruit of the anti-constitutional teachings you presented will be Anarchy and Death statement that you made is concerned. I disagree with it entirely. I will address it by giving you proof that the government is engaged in full-scale fraud. If you have a PACER Account with the Federal Government Clerk of Court office on the internet, you can look up my case and judge for yourself. Here's the case numbers you can look up and see it online. The first case is 1: 02CV 147 in the Northern District of Ohio filed on January 24, 2002. The Second case is in the US 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, case number 03-4037.The third case went to the Ohio Supreme Court case number 03-1954 which can be requested by a Freedom of Disclosure under Ohio Revised Codes 149.43 and 149.44. It can be modeled similar to the FOIA for the federal government. This last case was removed to the Southern District of Ohio in Columbus, Ohio. That case number is C2-03-1133.

           

          At this point the case hasn't been answered by the government even though they were given many opportunities to do so. Right now, the government hasn't answered the charges of Forensic Accounting Fraud charges I brought up against them and their under-handeniness of using the courts as a tool for terrorism. I had this claim under the inalienable clause in all the Constitutions for united States of America and Ohio, as well as using the Declaration of Independence provisions concerning this natural right given to me by my creator of the universe. The last case number is C2-03-1133 where it sits right now.

           

          An income tax is constitutional as long as the provisions of it is enforced as an indirect excise tax covered under the provisions of the statement in our new attachment that states:

           

          In Code Section 61 of the IR Code that "wages" or "salaries" or "compensation for personal services" is taxable as "income" as these items appeared and were included in Section 22 of the 1939 Code. In Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Company 348 US 426, footnote #11. I had no "income" in a "Constitutional sense" as the word "income" is used in Section 61 of the Internal Revenue Code. In going from the 1939 Code (Sec. 22) to the 1954 Code, both the House and Senate declared that "income" within the meaning of Section 61 is "based upon the 16th Amendment and the word �income� is used in its constitutional sense." This change in the meaning of "income" was explained in House Report No 1337 (note 10 at A 18), and Senate Report No 1622 (at note 10 at 168). For confirmation see footnote 11, in C.I.R. v, Glenshaw Glass Co. 348 U.S. 426. Income in its "Constitutional sense" means income "separated from its source" as occurs when a corporate profit is determined. The tax is on "profit" and not on the "sources" that produced the profit. This "Constitutional meaning" of "income" is rooted in the holding in Brushaber v. Union Pacific RR, 240 U.S. 1 in which the Supreme Court said:

           

          "The whole purpose of the (16th) Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from apportionment from a consideration of the sources whence the income was derived."

           

          Therefore in taxing "income" the sources (i.e. wages, dividends, rents, interest, capital gains) that produced that "income" cannot be "considered" or taxed directly, except by the rule apportionment. Further proof that the "Constitutional meaning" of "income" is corporate profit (since in taxing "profit" the sources themselves are not "considered" or taxed) is provided in the Supreme Court decision of Merchant�s Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509(at pages 518 & 519.). In that decision the Supreme Court stated, "The word (income) must be given the same meaning in all of the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909 and what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by decisions of this court."

           

          Further proof that the "constitutional meaning" of "income" is corporate profit (since in taxing "profit" the sources themselves are not "considered" or taxed) is provided in the Supreme Court decision of Merchant�s Loan & Trust Company v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509 (at pages 518 & 519.).

           

          "The word (income) must be given the same meaning in all of the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909 and what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by decisions of this court."

           

          So "income" in a "constitutional sense" (as referred to in House Report Number 1337, and Senate Report Number 1622) as applied to Section 61 of the 1954 Internal Revenue Code is synonymous with corporate profit. So, obviously, Congress by eliminating such references in the 1954 Code did not intend that the

          wages and earnings of private citizens would fall within the meaning of "income" as "defined" in Code Section 61 of the 1954 Code. So, obviously, Congress by eliminating such references in the 1954 Code did not intend that the wages and earnings of private citizens would fall within the meaning of "income" as "defined" in Code Section 61 of the 1954 Code.

           

          This is confirmed in Treasury Decision 2313 which I'm attaching to this e-mail as a PDF to you.

          As far as what the bible states about the income tax. I'm also enclosing an article by Sam Adams called "Rendering Caesar His Due". In my opinion it's entirely on the mark about the income tax from a biblical point of view. If you can show me where I misunderstand it, I will at least keep an open mind on this.

          The government needs some taxes to operate. I agree that what it does for the most part is take from citizen A to give to citizen B and they get their cut for the privilege to do so by most Americans.

          The government today is totally illegitimate in it scope of its authority on me and others who have claimed their unalienable rights under the natural laws of a Sovereign God.

           

          The government has brought the problems it has upon itself with the usurpation of the powers it has taken over the years.

           

          The crop shares you speak of was release from their bond every fifty years. If that were the case, our history would show that we should have been release from it at least once and now coming up to the second time. Why hasn't that happened here?

           

          Since the government encourages others to enter into involuntary servitude, no one needs to do so and they can claim their unalienable rights at any time they wish. This again is constructive fraud on We The People.

           

          Remember, the governments of this nation are terrorists in their power and scope of their control. The government in almost all cases creates the anarchy. As a result of this we are ranked number ten in the world for being the freest nation of the world. We use to be number one. What happened to change that and why was it done?

           

          We The People are the check and balances against domestic invasion since the government can't and won't protect us by taking our property from us without due process and other violations of the bill of rights.

          Mark, since you posed a question. I will pose one for you. Do you want an income tax or a Bill of Rights guaranteed by the Constitutions for the united States of America and the several state in this nation? You can only choose one of them. Pick wisely sir, the whole world will know where you stand on this issue.

           

          Remember, the income tax is connected with the Communist Manifesto Planks envisioned by the Communist Party. The Democratic Party embraces most the goals of the Communist Manifesto as most of the highest party members are card carrying communist and are proud to tell you that privately. I know of a lot of originations that are communist in its scope and will carry its goals of promoting it at every opportunity they get.

           

          Hopefully that should convince you that organized crime in America begins and ends with the government.

           

          As always, have an income tax-free day and life,

          /s/ Kevin Hart Non-Assumpsit

          General Manager

          Truth in Taxation Ministries

          http://www.oragainationspaynoohioincometax.com

          (216) 253-5965



          Mark Ferran <mferran@...> wrote:
          Kevin, Most of what you quote Jesus as saying about "lawyers" applies to you.  You are a "lawyer" although not an "attorn-ey."  By advising people in the manner that you elected to do, you are representing yourself as being knowledgable of the laws.  Thus, you must be judged as a lawyer. Jesus did not condemn all lawyers, for Jesus himself was a lawyer, from the age of 12.  He only condemned those lawyers who'se teachings were iniquitable and which would bear bad fruit. The fruit of the anti-constitutional teachings you presented will be Anarchy and Death.  If Americans in every state are not entitled and empowered to unite to provide a "common defense" against enemies foreign and domestic, then they will be picked off citizen-by-citizen and state-by-state.  The common defense requires "taxation" of some kind to some degree, to insure that all who are entitled to equal protection also bear an equal burden to provide that protection in proportion to their property (e.g., their annual income property).  The concept of the annual income tax is set forth in the Bible in the Crop-share taxes.  Such income taxes never were "voluntary."  
           



          /s/ Kevin Hart, Non-Assumpsit kchart12@... General Manager, Truth in Taxation Ministries Office # (216) 253-5965 Fax # (216) 803-2575 Do you know that all income taxes are voluntary? Give yourself an instant raise, check it out and find out why. http://www.paynoincometax.com and http://www.paynoohioincometax.com 

        • Mark Ferran
          Maybe you misunderstood what I said before. I DO NOT CARE about the Federal Income Tax Laws. I sat through the beginning weeks of Income Tax Law twice in
          Message 4 of 4 , Mar 5, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            Maybe you misunderstood what I said before.  I DO NOT CARE about the Federal Income Tax Laws.  I sat through the beginning weeks of Income Tax Law twice in law-school, and withdrew from the course twice, out of total boredom.  I still do not care to waste my intelligence on the Federal Income Tax.  It is not any more interesting to me now than it was then.
             
            You mention your copious litigation and then you state: "I had this claim under the inalienable clause in all the Constitutions for united States of America and Ohio, as well as using the Declaration of Independence provisions concerning this natural right given to me by my creator of the universe."  Your statement referring to "the inalienable clause" is gibberish.  See Part 1 at www.billstclair.com/ferran  Your statement about "using the Declaration of Independence provisions' in court to compel a judge to act a certain way is also gibberish.  This tells me you do not have any clue about what you have a legal (respected) right to demand from a supposed court of Law, nor the slightest idea how to go about asking for it.
             
            You refer to your civil cases as Forensic Accounting Fraud "charges."  This is also gibberish.  The word "charges" is associated with criminal proceedings, not civil cases (except perhaps RICO act cases).  Again, it seems as though you do not have any clue about what you have a right to demand from a supposed court of Law, nor the slightest idea how to go about asking for it.  I do not know, and do not care what you mean by "Forensic Accounting Fraud."
             
            You have the same "natural right given to me by my creator of the universe" as an inhabitant of Rwanda who is about to have his head cleaved open by a machete wielded by his neighbor while the Chief of Police stands by grinning.  You have the same "natural right given to me by my creator of the universe" as an inhabitant of Iraq about to have his testicles fried by DC current while suspended from a hook on the ceiling of a Police Headquarters.  You have the same "natural right given to me by my creator of the universe" as an inhabitant of Ukraine did while Stalin confiscated the private farms and starved to death their former owners by the millions.  You have the same "natural right given to me by my creator of the universe" as a white inhabitant of Zimbabwe who had his farm taken by force, leaving him and his entire family dead, with a dozen dead cows to rot around with him.
             
            Can you imagine the absurdity of the claim made while living by any of these humans beings that the government had no "authority" over them at all because they "claimed their unalienable rights under the natural laws of a Sovereign God"?  That approach did not work in Rome and never has worked on this planet, and never will.  That is why an extinct race of Christians who once inhabited this land we call America wrote down in their written Constitutions the rights they most earnestly insisted must be respected by their rulers. 
             
            To the extent that you seek to rely upon rulers to voluntarily respect your "natural right[s] given to me by my creator of the universe" instead of demanding they know and respect your basic expressly written right to the Equal Protection of the LAWS that are written down and agreed to and sworn to be upheld by your fellow men (and the rulers) in this country, you are a pitiful fool.  When by words you brand yourself as an illiterate fool in a court, you should not be surprised when your case is disposed of (or ignored) accordingly. 
             
            Taxes are not per se inconsistent with the rights prescribed and secured by the "Bill of Rights" because we have or are supposed to have "Taxation with Representation."  The Power to Tax,  being part of the general power to take private property necessary for public purposes, is an inherent power in every State, and can only be limited or restrained by written Constitutions.  Not even Jesus himself ever attempted to interfere with this power of Earthly government.  To the extent that you claim that you can deliver, for a price, what Jesus did not claim he could deliver on Earth (Equal Protection of thy Neighbor without Human Government and Taxes), you are engaged in an obvious and wicked fraud.  The Power of New York State to impose an Income Tax on its inhabitants and upon those who gainfully work here is totally independent of the "sixteenth amendment" and is not limited by it, and is independent of any definitions that you prefer to give to various words.  If you and others are paying a tax, it is because your representatives in office decided you collectively would not remove them from office for doing so.  As it turns out, they were right.  You don't like the form of the tax, nor its extent.  That is not surprising.  What form of tax would you prefer?  Who cares?  I don't.  Tell it to your Congressman/Senator/Lobbyist.
             
            There may be some truth to your imperfect statement that "I agree that what it does for the most part is take from citizen A to give to citizen B and they get their cut for the privilege to do so by most Americans.", depending on what you actually mean.
             
            There may be some truth to your imperfect statement that " The government has brought the problems it has upon itself with the usurpation of the powers it has taken over the years." depending on what you actually mean.
             
            Every Article by John Gaver that I have read at  http://www.actionamerica.org is excellent, insightful, important, intelligent, and exactly correct.  All responsible Americans should read and study these articles, including:
             
            Federal Extortion Federal Lawmakers Are Using Income Tax Dollars To Buy Powers Reserved to the States http://www.actionamerica.org/constitution/amend10.html
             
             
            The Right To Keep And Bear Arms at http://www.actionamerica.org/guns/ 
            Tick - Tick - Tick The Economy Bomb
             
             
            I sincerely recommend you to read these articles.  Then, I invite you to compare them with some of my own articles at www.billstclair.com/ferran
             
            Mark R. Ferran BSEE scl JD mcl
             
            My public "references":
             
            "Mark Ferran is a prominent legal analyst and essayist."

            http://www.trumpetamerica.org/Step07.txt

            "Mark Ferran has written several good articles on the issue of the defense of land ownership."

            http://www.fear.org/opinion.html

            "Mark Ferran has done good work on property rights."

            http://www.constitution.org/cs_peopl.htm

            "Landowner Mark Ferran wants ATV-riders to stay off his property. This week Mark Ferran laid down the law. Specifically, he taped it up at Town Hall, the local library and the general store."

            Albany Times Union, STAKES RAISED IN ATV FIGHT, 05/23/2002

            "Sign me up for the Mark Ferran fan club; the man is a hero."

            Fred LeBrun, Albany Times Union Political Commentator

            http://www.timesunion.com/archives/summarylist.asp?DBQUERY=Mark+Ferran++&DBLIST=al01&SORT=d%3Ah&NITEMS=25&qtype=q_string

            Even some NY ATV-riders agree: "He's no dummy and he does have a BIG problem with trespassers. I think our guy may be a fan of his. Ferrans' father, Rocco Ferran, was a very respected local politician in the 70's in that county. Mr. Ferran is not our enemy. He wants his rights protected, same as we want ours.

            http://stillwaterreservoir.com/wwwboard/messages/1517.html
             
             
            ----- Original Message -----
            Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 10:19 PM
            Subject: [JAIL-SoundOff] Zero Return Attachment
             

            Mark,

             

            You are correct in the reading of the scriptures pertaining to attorneys and you do understand the difference. There's hope for you on this part.

             

            As far as The fruit of the anti-constitutional teachings you presented will be Anarchy and Death statement that you made is concerned. I disagree with it entirely. I will address it by giving you proof that the government is engaged in full-scale fraud. If you have a PACER Account with the Federal Government Clerk of Court office on the internet, you can look up my case and judge for yourself. Here's the case numbers you can look up and see it online. 

             

            ... I had this claim under the inalienable clause in all the Constitutions for united States of America and Ohio, as well as using the Declaration of Independence provisions concerning this natural right given to me by my creator of the universe. The last case number is C2-03-1133 where it sits right now.

             

            The government needs some taxes to operate.

             

            The government today is totally illegitimate in it scope of its authority on me and others who have claimed their unalienable rights under the natural laws of a Sovereign God.

             

            The government has brought the problems it has upon itself with the usurpation of the powers it has taken over the years.

             

            Remember, the governments of this nation are terrorists in their power and scope of their control.

             

             

            Mark, since you posed a question. I will pose one for you. Do you want an income tax or a Bill of Rights guaranteed by the Constitutions for the united States of America and the several state in this nation? You can only choose one of them. Pick wisely sir, the whole world will know where you stand on this issue.

             

            Remember, the income tax is connected with the Communist Manifesto Planks envisioned by the Communist Party. The Democratic Party embraces most the goals of the Communist Manifesto as most of the highest party members are card carrying communist and are proud to tell you that privately. I know of a lot of originations that are communist in its scope and will carry its goals of promoting it at every opportunity they get.

             

            Hopefully that should convince you that organized crime in America begins and ends with the government.

             

            As always, have an income tax-free day and life,

             

            /s/ Kevin Hart Non-Assumpsit

            General Manager

            Truth in Taxation Ministries

            http://www.oragainationspaynoohioincometax.com

            (216) 253-5965



            Mark Ferran <mferran@...> wrote:
            Kevin, Most of what you quote Jesus as saying about "lawyers" applies to you.  You are a "lawyer" although not an "attorn-ey."  By advising people in the manner that you elected to do, you are representing yourself as being knowledgable of the laws.  Thus, you must be judged as a lawyer. Jesus did not condemn all lawyers, for Jesus himself was a lawyer, from the age of 12.  He only condemned those lawyers who'se teachings were iniquitable and which would bear bad fruit. The fruit of the anti-constitutional teachings you presented will be Anarchy and Death.  If Americans in every state are not entitled and empowered to unite to provide a "common defense" against enemies foreign and domestic, then they will be picked off citizen-by-citizen and state-by-state.  The common defense requires "taxation" of some kind to some degree, to insure that all who are entitled to equal protection also bear an! equal burden to provide that protection in proportion to their property (e.g., their annual income property).  The concept of the annual income tax is set forth in the Bible in the Crop-share taxes.  Such income taxes never were "voluntary."  
             



            /s/ Kevin Hart, Non-Assumpsit kchart12@... General Manager, Truth in Taxation Ministries Office # (216) 253-5965 Fax # (216) 803-2575 Do you know that all income taxes are voluntary? Give yourself an instant raise, check it out and find out why. http://www.paynoincometax.com and http://www.paynoohioincometax.com 

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