Re: "Includes" is a simple subject.
- Ed,Once again your BELIEFS are getting in the way of the FACTS.First of all the LEGAL DEFINITIONS of INCLUDES & INCOME have no relationship to their NORMAL, EVERYDAY MEANINGS."It is obvious that these decisions in principle rule the [255 U.S. 509, 519] case at bar if the word 'income' has the same meaning in the Income Tax Act of 1913 that it had in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, and that it has the same scope of meaning was in effect decided in Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330, 335 , 38 S. Sup. Ct. 540, where it was assumed for the purposes of decision that there was no difference in its meaning as used in the act of 1909 and in the Income Tax Act of 1913 (38 Stat. 114). There can be no doubt that the word must be given the same meaning and content in the Income Tax Acts of 1916 and 1917 that it had in the act of 1913. When to this we add that in Eisner v. Macomber, supra, a case arising under the same Income Tax Act of 1916 which is here involved, the definition of 'income' which was applied was adopted from Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, supra, arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, with the addition that it should include 'profit gained through sale or conversion of capital assets,' there would seem to be no room to doubt that the word 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, and that what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by decisions of this Court.
In determining the definition of the word 'income' thus arrived at, this Court has consistently refused to enter into the refinements of lexicographers or economists, and has approved, in the definitions quoted, what it believed to be the commonly understood meaning of the term which must have been in the minds of the people when they adopted the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Co., 247 U.S. 179, 185 , 38 S. Sup. Ct. 467; Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 206 , 207 S., 40 Sup. Ct. 189, 9 A. L. R. 1570." MERCHANTS' LOAN & TRUST CO. v. SMIETANKA, 255 U.S. 509 (1921) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/255/509.htmlSecondly, the SUPREME COURT has long since ruled that the 16th AMENDMENT (which appears to have been NEVER LAWFULLY RATIFIED) added NO NEW POWERS of taxation and that the PERSONAL INCOME TAX is an EXCISE TAX."...Although the Supreme court held this portion of the act to be
unconstitutional, it still recognized that the income was is essence
an excise tax. The Court said that tax on income from business,
privileges, or employments, standing by itself, would be valid as
an excise tax; but the tax on investment income was held to be
invalid because the Court regarded a tax based on income from
property as a tax on the property itself and therefore a direct tax
which must be apportioned among the States (Pollock v. Farmers' Loan
and Trust Co. (1895), 157 U.S. 429; 158 U.S. 601, 637), So the
entire portion of the act relating to income tax was declared
invalid. (Fn. 1)There are still those who think that in this case the Court went
further than necessary in treating a tax based on income from
property as a tax on property itself, and that in any event the
excise-tax principle should have been applied to rents and other
investment income, as was done under the Civil War acts. In other
words, the making and holding of investments, while perhaps not
technically a business, is, at least, a kind of activity or
privilege which can properly be subjected to an excise tax measured
by reference to the income derived therefrom.
The sixteenth amendment authorizes the taxation of income "from
whatever source derived" — thus taking in investment income —
"without apportionment among the several States." The Supreme Court
has held that the sixteenth amendment did not extend the taxing
power of the United States to new or excepted subjects but merely
removed the necessity which might otherwise exist for an
apportionment among the States of taxes laid on income whether it be
derived from one source or another.(Fn. 3.) So the amendment made it
possible to bring investment income within the scope of a general
income-tax law, but did not change the character of the tax. It is
still fundamentally an excise or duty with respect to the privilege
of carrying on any activity or owning any property which
produces income.The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of the tax. "Congressional Record from March 27, 1943 (page 2580). Mr. F. Morse Hubbard, formerly of the legislative drafting research fund of Columbia University, and a former legislative draftsman in the Treasury Department.It is basicly a tax on government granted PRIVILEGES."The term 'excise tax' and 'privilege tax' are synonymous. The two are often used interchangeably."
American Airways v. Wallace, 57 F.2d 877, 880" The eighth section of the first article of the constitution declares that 'the congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.' Excises are a species of tax consisting generally of duties laid upon the manufacture, sale, or consumption of commodities within the country, or upon certain callings or occupations, often taking the form of exactions for licenses to pursue them. The taxes created by the law under consideration, as applied to savings banks, insurance companies, whether of fire, life, or marine, to building or other associations, or to the conduct of any other kind of business, are excise taxes, and fall within the requirement, so far as they are laid by congress, that they must be uniform throughout the United States." POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)The simple FACT is that the EMPLOYMENT refered to in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD and in POLLOCK v.
FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895) was being an OFFICER of a CORPORATION or in SERVICE to the UNITED STATES, as do most of the DEFINITIONS of the TERMS used in Title 26 such as “trade or business” (performance of the functions of a public office), "employment" (working for a government instrumentality), "employee" (officers of corporations & certain regulated activities), and so on.This is why almost all of the SUPREME COURT "tax" cases (LICENSE TAX CASES, 72 U.S. 462 (1866), BUTCHERS' UNION CO. v. CRESCENT CITY CO., 111 U.S. 746 (1884), KNOWLTON v. MOORE, 178 U.S. 41 (1900), MERCHANTS' LOAN & TRUST CO. v. SMIETANKA, 255 U.S. 509 (1921) , EISNER v.
MACOMBER , 252 U.S. 189 (1920), DOYLE v. MITCHELL BROS. CO. , 247 U.S. 179 (1918) , U.S. v. BUTLER, 297 U.S. 1 (1936), POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895), etc) ALL dealt with CORPORATIONS and/or COMMERCIAL ACTIVITITIES/PRIVILEGES and also have NOTHING to do with the EARNINGS of an AVERAGE AMERICAN.The simple FACT is that the average Man's EARNINGS are not INCOME as the USSC has DEFINED it."The Treasury Department cannot, by interpretive regulations, make income out of that which is not income within the meaning of the revenue acts of Congress, nor can Congress, without apportionment, tax as income that which is not income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment." Helvering v. Edison Bros. Stores, 133 F.2D 575"Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised....After examining dictionaries in common use (Bouv. L. D.; Standard Dict.; Webster's Internat. Dict.; Century Dict.), we find little to add to the succinct definition adopted in two cases arising under the Corporation Tax Act of 1909 (Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415 , 34 S. Sup. Ct. 136, 140 [58 L. Ed. 285]; Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179, 185 , 38 S. Sup. Ct. 467, 469 [62 L. Ed. 1054]), 'Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined,' provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets, to which it was applied in the Doyle Case, 247 U.S. 183, 185 , 38 S. Sup. Ct. 467, 469 (62 L. Ed. 1054).
Brief as it is, it indicates the characteristic and distinguishing attribute of income essential for a correct solution of the present controversy. The government, although basing its argument upon the definition as quoted, placed chief emphasis upon the word 'gain,' which was extended to include a variety of meanings; while the significance of the next three words was either overlooked or misconceived. 'Derived-from- capital'; 'the gain-derived-from-capital,' etc. Here we have the essential matter: not a gain accruing to capital; not a growth or increment of value in the investment; but a gain, a profit, something of exchangeable value, proceeding from the property, severed from the capital, however invested or employed, and coming in, being 'derived'-that is, received or drawn by the recipient (the taxpayer) for his separate use, benefit and disposal- that is income derived from property. Nothing else answers the description." EISNER v. MACOMBER , 252 U.S. 189 (1920)http://laws.findlaw.com/us/252/189.html
The simple FACT is that the average Man DOES NOT EARN INCOME, he RECEIVES it such as when he paid a
DIVIDEND on a stock or he is paid INTEREST on a sum of money.26CFR1.6012-1
Sec. 1.6012-1 Individuals required to make returns of income.
(a) Individual citizen or resident--(1) In general. Except as
provided in subparagraph (2) of this paragraph, an income tax return
must be filed by every individual for each taxable year beginning
before January 1, 1973, during which he RECEIVES $600 or more of
gross income, and for each taxable year beginning after December
31,1972, during which he receives $750 or more of gross income, if
such individual is:...[EMPHASIS ADDED]The simple FACT is that the FRUIT of a Man's LABOR, his EARNINGS are his PROPERTY by RIGHT."It has been well said that 'the property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands, and to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property. It is a manifest encroachment upon the just liberty both of the workman and of those who might be disposed to employ him. As it hinders the one from working at what he thinks proper, so it hinders the others from employing whom they think proper.' Smith, Wealth Nat. bk. 1, c. 10.
...As in our intercourse with our fellow-men certain principles of morality are assumed to exist, without which society would be impossible, so certain inherent rights lie at the foundation of all action, and upon a recognition of them alone can free institutions be maintained. These inherent rights have never been more happily expressed than in the declaration of independence, that new evangel of liberty to the people: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident'-that is, so plain that their truth is recognized upon their mere statement-'that all men are [111 U.S. 746, 757] endowed'-not by edicts of emperors, or deerees of parliament, or acts of congress, but 'by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.'-that is, rights which cannot be bartered away, or given away, or taken away, except in punishment of crime-'and tha among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and to secure these'-not grant them, but secure them- 'governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.' Among these inalienable rights, as proclaimed in that great document, is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant the right to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give to them their highest enjoyment. The common business and callings of life, the ordinary trades and pursuits, which are innocuous in themselves, and have been followed in all communities from time immemorial, must therefore be free in this country to all alike upon the same conditions. The right to pursue them, without let or hinderance, except that which is applied to all persons of the same age, sex, and condition, is a distinguishing privilege of citizens of the United States, and an essential element of that freedom which they claim as their birthright. It has been well said that 'the property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands, and to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property. It is a manifest encroachment upon the just liberty both of the workman and of those who might be disposed to employ him. As it hinders the one from working at what he thinks proper, so it hinders the others from employing whom they think proper.' Smith, Wealth Nat. bk. 1, c. 10. " BUTCHERS' UNION CO. v. CRESCENT CITY CO., 111 U.S. 746 (1884)The simple FACT is that the average Man's PROPERTY can only be TAXED by a DIRECT TAX subject to APPORTIONMENT and not an EXCISE TAX such as the PERSONAL INCOME TAX.'Direct taxes bear immediately upon persons, upon the possession and enjoyments of rights; indirect taxes are levied upon the happening of an event or an exchange.' KNOWLTON v. MOORE, 178 U.S. 41 (1900)Now many ATTORNIES or ACCOUNTANTS will try to get you to believe that because of 26 USC 7701(c), the TERM "includes" is NOT a LIMITATION of the meaning of a DEFINITION in Title 26.The terms “includes” and “including” when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.They conviently ignore several things such as:
Now if a man is a JURISTIC PERSON such as OFFICER of the UNITED STATES or a CORPORATION that EMPLOYMENT is CONSIDERED a PRIVILEGE and then he can be the SUBJECT of an EXCISE TAX.26 USC 7701(a)(26) Trade or businessThe term “trade or business” includes the performance of the functions of a public office.It says TERM which is SINGULAR, not TERMS which would be PLURAL.Now 26 USC 1402 says:(a) Net earnings from self-employmentThe term “net earnings from self-employment” means the gross income derived by an individual from any trade or business carried on by such individual, less the deductions allowed by this subtitle which are attributable to such TRADE OR BUSINESS, plus his distributive share (whether or not distributed) of income or loss described in section 702 (a)(8) from any trade or business carried on by a partnership of which he is a member; except that in computing such gross income and deductions and such distributive share of partnership ordinary income or loss— ...[EMPHASIS ADDED]Notice how it uses the defined TERM “trade or business,” just without the quotation marks?Now let's look at the DEFINITION of EMPLOYEE in 26 USC 3401 (c) and CANONS of STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.(c) Employee
- 26 USC 7701(a) states that "When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof—" and then gives SPECIFIC DEFINITIONS.
- There are NO other MEANINGS that are DISTINCTLY EXPRESSED in the DEFINITIONS of most of the TERMS defined in Title 26 because CONGRESS EXPRESSLY DEFINED them.
- 26 USC 7701(a) & (c) must be in construed in HARMONY.
- If a TERM has MULTIPLE MEANINGS in the SAME SECTION, that would make it AMBIGUOUS.
- The RULES OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.
- In LAW, INCLUDED & INCLUDING normally mean LIMITED TO as evidenced bythe EXCEPTION to the RULE CONGRESS made in 28 USC, Chapter 167- Federal Debt Collection Procedure:“Section 3003, Rules of Construction(a) For purposes of this chapter(1) the terms “includes” and “including” are not limiting;”
For purposes of this chapter, the term "employee" includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term "employee" also includes an officer of a corporation.There is NOSCITUR which is Latin for ‘know it from its associates’. The meaning or interpretation of a word can be gathered from the context or by reference to the meaning of the words associated with it. This rule of interpretation propounds that “a word is known from the company it keeps.” Jarecki v. G.D. Searle & Co., 367 US 303, 81 S Ct 1579, 307, 6 L Ed.2d 859, 863 (1961); or that “English words derive colour from those that surround them.” Bourne v Norwich Crematorium Ltd  1 WLR 691, 696,  2 All ER 576, 578“The constructional problem is resolved by the second principle Alloyd overlooks, which is that a word is known by the company it keeps (the doctrine of noscitur [ GUSTAFSON v. ALLOYD CO., ___ U.S. ___ (1995) , 13] a sociis). This rule we rely upon to avoid ascribing to one word a meaning so broad that it is inconsistent with its accompanying words, thus giving "unintended breadth to the Acts of Congress." Jarecki v. G. D. Searle & Co., 367 U.S. 303, 307 (1961). ” Gustafson v. Alloyd Co. (93-404), 513 US 561 (1995).
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/513/561.htmlObviously a worker in the PRIVATE SECTOR does not work for "the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing."Then there is EJUSDEM GENERIS which in Latin means "of the same kind.""The wording of §1 calls for the application of the maxim ejusdem
generis, the statutory canon that "[w]here general words follow
specific words in a statutory enumeration, the general words are
construed to embrace only objects similar in nature to those objects
enumerated by the preceding specific words. 2A N. Singer, Sutherland
on Statutes and Statutory Construction §47.17 (1991); see also
Norfolk & Western R. Co. v. Train Dispatchers, 499 U. S. 117, 129
(1991)." CIRCUIT CITY STORES, INC. v. ADAMS, 532 US 105, 114-115 (2001)
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/532/105.html"Under the principle of ejusdem generis, when a general term follows a specific one, the general term should be understood as a reference to subjects akin to the one with specific enumeration. See Arcadia v. Ohio Power Co., 498 U.S. 73, 84 -85 (1990)." NORFOLK & WESTERN R. CO. v. TRAIN DISPATCHERS, 499 US 117 (1991)
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/499/117.htmlNor is a worker in the PRIVATE SECTOR of the SAME KIND as an "officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing" or an "officer of a corporation.""Ab initio un excluso." It is a RULE of STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION that what is NOT INCLUDED is EXCLUDED.
Such as anyone other than a "officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing" or an "officer of a corporation."This is EVIDENCED by the FACT that other types of EMPLOYEES are SPECIFICLY referred to in Title 26.26 USC 7701(a)(20) Employee
For the purpose of applying the provisions of section 79 with respect to group-term life insurance purchased for employees, for the purpose of applying the provisions of sections 104, 105, and 106 with respect to accident and health insurance or accident and health plans, and for the purpose of applying the provisions of subtitle A with respect to contributions to or under a stock bonus, pension, profit-sharing, or annuity plan, and with respect to distributions under such a plan, or by a trust forming part of such a plan, and for purposes of applying section 125 with respect to cafeteria plans, the term “employee” shall include a full-time life insurance salesman who is considered an employee for the purpose of chapter 21, or in the case of services performed before January 1, 1951, who would be considered an employee if his services were performed during 1951."Inclusio unis est esclusio alterius." This DOCTRINE decrees that where law EXPRESSLY describes the PARTICULAR situation to which it shall apply, an IRREFUTABLE INFERENCE MUST be drawn that what is OMITTED or EXCLUDED was INTENDED to be OMITTED or EXCLUDED.Such as anyone other than a "officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing" or an "officer of a corporation."The sad fact is that many sections of the IRC have been amended to hide the limited nature of the PERSONAL INCOME TAX as clearly shown by the NOTES for 26 USC 3121 among other sections.Subsec. (b)(5). Pub. L. 98–21, § 101(b)(1), amended par. (5) generally. Prior to amendment par. (5) read as follows: “Service performed in the employ of any instrumentality of the United States, if such instrumentality is exempt from the tax imposed by section 3111 by virtue of any provision of law which specifically refers to such section (or the corresponding section of prior law) in granting such exemption;”.
Subsec. (b)(6). Pub. L. 98–21, § 101(b)(1), amended par. (6) generally. Prior to amendment par. (6) read as follows:
“(A) service performed in the employ of the United States or in the employ of any instrumentality of the United States, if such service is covered by a retirement system established by a law of the United States;
“(B) service performed, by an individual in the employ of an instrumentality of the United States if such an instrumentality was exempt from the tax imposed by section 1410 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 on December 31, 1950, and if such service is covered by a retirement system established by such instrumentality; except that the provisions of this subparagraph shall not be applicable to—
“(i) service performed in the employ of a corporation which is wholly owned by the United States;
“(ii) service performed in the employ of a Federal land bank, a Federal intermediate credit bank, a bank for cooperatives, a Federal land bank association, a production credit association, a Federal Reserve Bank, a Federal Home Loan Bank, or a Federal Credit Union;
“(iii) service performed in the employ of a State, county, or community committee under the Commodity Stabilization Service;
“(iv) service performed by a civilian employee, not compensated from funds appropriated by the Congress, in the Army and Air Force Exchange Service, Army and Air Force Motion Picture Service, Navy Exchanges, Marine Corps Exchanges, or other activities, conducted by an instrumentality of the United States subject to the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Defense, at installations of the Department of Defense for the comfort, pleasure, contentment, and mental and physical improvement of personnel of such Department; or
“(v) service performed by a civilian employee, not compensated from funds appropriated by the Congress, in the Coast Guard Exchanges or other activities, conducted by an instrumentality of the United States subject to the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Transportation, at installations of the Coast Guard for the comfort, pleasure, contentment, and mental and physical improvement of personnel of the Coast Guard;
“(C) service performed in the employ of the United States or in the employ of any instrumentality of the United States, if such service is performed—
“(i) as the President or Vice President of the United States or as a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner of or to the Congress;
“(ii) in the legislative branch;
“(iii) in a penal institution of the United States by an inmate thereof;
“(iv) by any individual as an employee included under section 5351 (2) of title 5, United States Code (relating to certain interns, student nurses, and other student employees of hospitals of the Federal Government), other than as a medical or dental intern or a medical or dental resident in training;
“(v) by any individual as an employee serving on a temporary basis in case of fire, storm, earthquake, flood, or other similar emergency; or
“(vi) by any individual to whom subchapter III of chapter 83 of title 5, United States Code, does not apply because such individual is subject to another retirement system (other than the retirement system of the Tennessee Valley Authority);”.In order to be the INDIVIDUAL TAXED you have to be a TAXPAYER as DEFINED in the IRC, in a "trade or business" as DEFINED in the IRC or EMPLOYED as DEFINED in the IRC and have WAGES as DEFINED in the IRC and so on...Not to mention the FACT that most of us have NEVER been PAID in LAWFUL MONEY as is easily shown by the NOTICE that use to appear on all FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES:
The TRUTH is that the average Man IS NOT an OFFICER of the UNITED STATES or a CORPORATION or an EMPLOYEE as DEFINED and the FRUITS of his LABOR are his PROPERTY by RIGHT and those EARNINGS are not INCOME as the SUPREME COURT has DEFINED and they are not WAGES as DEFINED in the IRC and he and can ONLY be taxed through a DIRECT TAX subject to APPORTIONMENT and NOT through an EXCISE TAX like the PERSONAL INCOME TAX and he was paid in LEGAL TENDER and not LAWFUL MONEY."THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS PUBLIC AND PRIVATE, AND IS REDEEMABLE IN LAWFUL MONEY AT THE UNITED STATES TREASURY, OR AT ANY FEDERAL RESERVE BANK."Now most people FALSELY BELIEVE that LEGITIMATE government services are PAID for by the PERSONAL INCOME TAX.
"With two-thirds of everyone's personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal debt and by Federal Government contributions to transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their Government. " GRACE COMMISSION REPORT (1984)That is NOT TRUE since the LEGITIMATE cost of providing "needed" government services always have been and still are paid for by EXCISE TAXES other than the PERSONAL INCOME TAX.SOCIAL SECURITY, WELFARE and many other so-called "entitlements" are OPTIONAL, PRIVATE programs instituted by CONGRESS and are not authorized by the CONSTITUTION.If anyone believes otherwise, then show us the LAW that REQUIRES an American to have a SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER and explain this:
THE PAPERWORK/PRIVACY ACT AND YOUR APPLICATION
The Privacy Act of 1974 requires us to give each person the following notice when applying for a Social Security number.
Sections 205(c) and 702 of the Social Security Act allow us to collect the facts we ask for on this form.
We use the facts you provide on this form to assign you a Social Security number and to issue you a Social Security card. You do not have to give us these facts, however, without them we cannot issue you a Social Security number or a card.If you can't, then it's NOT MANDATORY, is it?The simple FACT is that our nation did quite well WITHOUT a general income tax on the people.It wasn't even until the so-called "Victory Tax" during World War 2 that the average American was TRICKED into paying the so-called "income tax."In fact, our NATIONAL DEBT & the COST of LIVING did not start to SKYROCKET until AFTER the PERSONAL INCOME TAX & the FEDERAL RESERVE were STARTED.Between 1865 & 1914 the NATIONAL DEBT hovered between TWO & THREE BILLION DOLLARS.Since the implementation of the SOCIALIST goals of the COLLECTIVISTS, the NATIONAL DEBT has INCREASED TWO HUNDRED THIRTY TWO THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED FIVE (232605% the COST OF LIVING has INCREASED by APPROXIMATELY ONE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED FIFTY-ONE (1951%) PERCENT.The UNDENIABLE FACT is that the PERSONAL INCOME TAX has been FRAUDULENTLY used & MISAPPLIED to take the EARNINGS of the people.Now if one KNOWINGLY, WILLINGLY & VOLUNTARILY CONSENTS to be REGULATED & TAXED under the FICTION OF LAW that you are a CREATION of the STATE and/or involved in some COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY/PRIVILEGE, that's one's RIGHT."The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a
citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own
way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the
state or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his
doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him.
He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing
therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His
rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to
the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due
process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his
rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of
himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a
warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does
not trespass upon their rights.
Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the state. It
is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It
receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them
subject to the laws of the state and the limitations of its charter.
Its powers are limited by law. It can make no contract not
authorized by its charter. Its rights to [201 U.S. 43, 75] act as a
corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of
its creation. There is a reserved right in the legislature to
investigate its contracts and find out whether it has exceeded its
powers. It would be a strange anomaly to hold that a state, having
chartered a corporation to make use of certain franchises, could
not, in the exercise of its sovereignty, inquire how these
franchises had been employed, and whether they had been abused, and
demand the production of the corporate books and papers for that
purpose.The defense amounts to this: That an officer of a
corporation which is charged with a criminal violation of the
statute, may plead the criminality of such corporation as a refusal
to produce its books. To state this proposition is to answer it.
While an individual may lawfully refuse to answer incriminating
questions unless protected by an immunity statute, it does not
follow that a corporation, vested with special privileges and
franchises, may refuse to show its hand when charged with an abuse
of such privileges." HALE v. HENKEL, 201 U.S. 43 (1906)It's called VOLUNTARY SERVITUDE and it has not be abolished.Just don't inflict is on others and stop trying to make us believe BS."The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. The corporation is an
artificial entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the state; but theindividuals' Right to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an excise cannot be imposed." Corn v. Fort, 95 S.W. 2d 620 (1936)Now I realize that the vast majority of the population have been CONNED into believing a lot of things since we've been MISEDUCATED, MISINFORMED & INDOCTRINATED while living under EMERGENCY WAR POWERS, EXECUTIVE ORDERS & PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATIONS our ENTIRE LIVES."Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency. In fact, there are now in effect four presidentially-proclaimed states of national emergency: In addition to the national emergency declared by President Roosevelt in 1933, there are also the national emergency proclaimed by President Truman on December 16, 1950, during the Korean conflict, and the states of national emergency declared by President Nixon on March 23, 1970, and August 15, 1971.These proclamations give force to 470 provisions of Federal law. These hundreds of statutes delegate to the President extraordinary powers, ordinarily exercised by the Congress, which affect the lives of American citizens in a host of all-encompassing manners. This vast range of powers, taken together, confer enough authority to rule the country without reference to normal Constitutional processes.Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may:
seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens."
Senate Report 93-549, War and Emergency Powers Acts (1973)And that was BEFORE the PATRIOT ACT.We've been living under PARENS PATRIAE our entire life through PRIVATE LAW that is enforced through the SUPREMACY & COMMERCE CLAUSES.PUBLIC LAW - "A law or statute that applies to the PEOPLE generally of the nation or state adopting or enacting it, is denominated a public law, as contra distinguished from PRIVATE law, affecting only an INDIVIDUAL or small number of PERSONS." Black's Law Dictionary, 6th edition
PRIVATE LAW - was that portion of the law which defines regulates, enforces, and administers relationships among INDIVIDUALS, associations, and corporations. As used in contradistinction to public law,...." Black's"As the Supreme Court recently reaffirmed in United States v. Lopez, 115 S. Ct. 1624 (1995), the Commerce Clause, U.S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 3, empowers Congress to: (1) regulate the use of the channels of interstate commerce; (2) "regulate and protect the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce;" and (3) regulate or prohibit "activities that substantially affect interstate commerce." 115 S. Ct. at 1629-30. "Where economic activity substantially affects interstate commerce, legislation regulating that activity will be sustained." Id. at 1630 (citations omitted). Taken from the UNITED STATES' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT in Lancaster V. City of Mobile, Alamaba
http://www.ada.gov/briefs/lancastbr.pdfThe FACT is that most people don't even understand that our government was instituted to secure our UNALIENABLE RIGHTS, not to REGULATE & CONTROL us."The Constitution is not an instrument for government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government, lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." Patrick HenryMost don't even realize how SOCIALIZED America has become.Nor do they understand the COLLECTISM that has INFECTED both our educational and legal systems.Today most people have no concept of what TRUE FREEDOM is.Piece by piece the POWERS THAT BE have dismantled the CONSTITUTION REPUBLIC & installed a LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY.And in our APATHY & IGNORANCE, we have allowed it to happen and most of us didn't even realize what was going on in front of our faces.So now we have a nation where most believe that Man equals PERSON; being one of the People of the several
states equals US CITIZEN; being a SOVEREIGN equals being a SUBJECT; a REPUBLIC is a DEMOCRACY; RIGHTS equal PRIVILEGES; FEDERAL equals NATIONAL; COURT vested with the JUDICIAL POWER of the
STATE equals an legislatively created ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL; common English equals LEGALESE; Common Law equals STARE DECSIS; STATESMEN equals POLITICIAN; United States of America equals UNITED STATES; and FREEDOM & LIBERTY means EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW.
I think these two writers may have summed it all up:"Individual sovereignty is not a license for all individuals to do
anything they want, it is not moral relativism and it is not anarchy
where each individual decides subjectively which rights of other
people one will respect and which laws one will obey and which will
be ignored, individual sovereignty is universal sovereignty of the
individual to live freely and not infringe upon the right of other
individuals to enjoy the same freedom, that is the law, that is what
is enforced and that is what all individuals are obligated to
respect. Individual sovereignty is the basis from which all rights
are derived and upon which all legitimate government is founded and
it is the only way that a truly good and just society may emerge." -
"The price of liberty is far more than simple vigilance. The price
includes the integrity to accept complete personal responsibility
for our lives, safety, property and welfare. The price that so many
find hardest to pay, however, is the integrity to leave everyone
else alone to do the same."--UnknownPatrick in California
"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect
liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to
freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by
evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in
insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without
understanding." -- Justice Louis D. Brandeis, dissenting, Olmstead
v. United States, 277 US 479 (1928)
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Informed Citizens <ED44@s...> wrote:
> "from whatever source derived" is as "inclusive" as you can get. It "excludes" NOTHING. Congress, in "excluding" some income, for particular favored "persons", such as corporations, special tax write offs for the wealthiest among us, is depriving the PEOPLE of their entitlements.
> Article XVI. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
> Patrick, once again, reveals he is opposed to the supreme Law of the Land, Our Constitution of the United States, and the Declaration of Law of July 4, 1776, it was enacted to enforce for the protection of the PEOPLE (the posterity). He thinks he is entitled to be ABOVE THE LAW. But he never provides any cogent argument in support of his belief that he is special - a "Titled Noble".
> Patrick, Please provide us with your Royal Pedigree.