Under The Color Of Law
USA INC – exposing the thieves who stole our government – Educate Yourself
Educate Yourself: https://anticorruptionsociety.com/state/
Anatomy of a Birth Certificate – What It Means
http://www.paulstramer.net/2019/03/anatomy-of-birth-certificate-what-it.html
Sovereignty vs. 515 http://annavonreitz.com/sovereigntyvs515.pdf
Tax and Spend – The Next Deep State Harvest — OUR GREATER DESTINY
“It’s NOT a draft bill—it’s 11 pages of a Google doc with shocking surprises It assigns a vast ‘wartime footing’ level amount of taxpayer money to private entities —VCs, the private Federal Reserve, ‘new banks’ and any ‘financial instrument’ the 15 members of the committee decide ‘appropriate.’ It creates a national SMART GRID—which is terrible […]
via Tax and Spend – The Next Deep State Harvest — OUR GREATER DESTINY
Government wants YOU disarmed … — NCRenegade
Remember, the logo of the IRS is a bird of prey with only a left-wing. IRS is a predatory agency created to steal your treasure under color of law. The following was posted today on BREITBART: IRS Has More than 3K Handguns, 3M Rounds of Ammunition AP Photo/Philip Kamrass, File29 Dec 2018481 1:49 A report…
Our Government v. Their Government
You are in the same boat as many Americans — confused, angry, wanting to do
something, but not knowing what to do or how to do it. This is primarily because
you were never taught anything valuable about how your government is supposed to
be organized and operated or why.
The short answer is to organize township (or parish), county, and state
unincorporated jural assemblies. That is Job One, and the good folk of Michigan and
the good folk of Colorado and Florida and Georgia and Texas have already done the
trail blazing for everyone else. As a result, you can use their guidebook published by
the Michigan General Jural Assembly as a template to organize your own local jural
assemblies.
What is a jural assembly? It is an unincorporated association of free men and
women who organize in support of the public and organic law of these United States
(the states holding the land jurisdiction) to enforce the same; they elect the local
Assemblymen, for the townships and counties, and the county Assemblymen then
meeting compose a state jural assembly.
These are the lawful bodies of living men and women who “self-govern” the land
jurisdiction of these United States and who are responsible for enforcing the Law of
the Land including the Organic Law and the United States Statutes at Large.
They are also responsible for electing Common Law Court Justices, Sheriffs on the
Land; form Grand Juries; serve as Trial Jurors and as Electors (not “Voters”),
and serve to administer every aspect of their local and state governments.
Remember the phrase “self-governing”? We are responsible for governing ourselves,
via this process of self-assembly, but, when we fail to do this (or worse, become so
dumbed-down that we don’t realize that we have to do this), it leaves a vacuum of
power begging to be filled.
All this time that people have been roaming about, ranting about the “De Facto”
government versus the “De Jure” government and wondering where their
government went and who stole it from them, I guess it never occurred to them
that they are their own enemies and the missing parties who aren’t doing their own
jobs.
The groups and entities that have stepped forward to fill the gap created by our
“absence” are naturally self-interested. If we are stupid enough not to govern
ourselves, someone else will be glad to do it for us and also glad to charge us
for their services and defraud us and rob us and even murder us for profit.
The lawful government of these United States has been left to rot and ruin because
of ignorance promoted by the “public school” system put in place by incorporated
“states”. These “states of states” are franchises of large private, mostly foreign
owned governmental services corporations.
To understand how all this came about you must go back to the founding of this
country.
The American organic states belong to us in sum total— air, land, and sea
jurisdictions all belong to us and to our progeny, but as part of the settlement of the
Revolutionary War, some concessions were made.
The British had the best navy in the world and stood at the start of the industrial
revolution. They desperately needed our agricultural products. We had no navy to
speak of, only a commercial fleet that was constantly ravaged by privateers, so that
we had a hard time getting our goods to market. So we struck a deal with King
George. He agreed to act as our Trustee on the High Seas and Inland Waterways
(protect our shipping, in other words) and we agreed to let him control our
international trade relations (get first dibs and best prices on American commodities,
in other words).
British Subjects were allowed to remain in America for the purpose of providing
essential governmental services related to this deal. See the Definitive Treaty of
Peace, Paris, 1783, where they are described as “inhabitants” who “reside” here, as
opposed to the “free, sovereign and independent people of the United States” who
live here permanently. See Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 of The Constitution for the
united States of America, which makes this explicit.
All this give rise to two different populations living together on this continent—
American State Nationals and British Subjects. Over time, semantic deceits were
slowly introduced over the two words “United States” which have several meanings.
One meaning of “United States” is the federation of separate sovereign nationstates
known as the Continental United States, and the other meaning, secretively
adopted by members of Congress operating as a Board of Directors for The United
States of America, Inc., is “territories and District of Columbia”.
This second meaning of “United States” is what the Federales are talking about when
they ask if you are a citizen of the United States? That is, are you a citizen of the
territories and District of Columbia, like someone born in DC? Or a member of the
military or federal civil service who temporarily adopts that “citizenship” status while
employed by the Federal Corporation?
If you say, “Yes, I’m a citizen of the United States.” thinking of the federation of the
separate sovereign state, they self-interestedly interpret it to mean that you are or
want to be considered a “citizen of the United States” instead.
Who are they to complain if you want to voluntarily subject yourself to them and
accept having them and their Queen ruling over you?
They will eagerly grant you “dual citizenship” and herd you like sheep into their fold
and begin the process of sheering you without mercy, because they are in business
here. Their only purpose is to provide “governmental services” and make money
doing so.
If they can force you to buy more and more and more “services”— Social Security
all the way to Obummercare— and charge you for it, from their perspective—why
not? If they can create 80,000,000 regulations for you to follow, and then hire a
bunch of thugs to keep you in line and charge you fines every time you color outside
their lines, why not? It’s Big Business. Literally.
The problem is that this was so lucrative it was a temptation the Brits and French
couldn’t refuse. So they colluded together against their clueless American Allies.
At the start of all this, the Virginia Company doing business as The United States
(trading company) took over The Contract and began providing the nineteen
enumerated services our states agreed to receive. That company was bankrupted by
Lincoln and a competing company doing business as the United States of America
(Inc.) took over and operated until 1933 when it was bankrupted and a third version
(French) took over and operated as the UNITED STATES (INC.) until 2015, when this
“governmental services corporation” was declared insolvent.
None of these “governmental services corporations” have a damned thing to do with
us or our lawful government really. They are subcontractors providing services, like
a lawn maintenance company that you hire to trim your hedges and mow your lawn
and rake your leaves. The various “United States Congresses” that have sat as
Board of Directors for these corporations and who are supposed to be riding herd on
these subcontractors and looking out for your best interests have long ago grabbed
the bit in their teeth and operated as self-interested oligarchs instead.
Each one of these separate governmental services corporations has its own
regulations. The old “United States of America” that operated both in and out of
bankruptcy from 1868 to 1999 formulated the entire 50 Titles of Federal Code that
everyone still refers to.
The UNITED STATES (INC.) repealed all 50 Titles and kept only part of Title 50 as
the basis of its operations and that is its only internal law, aside from Washington,
DC Municipal Code.
And now that the UNITED STATES (INC.) is insolvent, THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA, INC., a spin-off of the World Bank and the UN Corporation, is here
providing government services on speculation, on a “for hire” basis, but they have
already been told, “Thanks, but no thanks”, based on the prior performance of
Rothschild affiliates who ran the old United States of America, Inc. into the ground
and also contrived to fraudulently involve us in their bankruptcy and who also began
the mechanized process of entrapping us via semantic deceit and secretively
changing our birthright political status via fraud and non-consensual private
contracting processes.
All the above explains why we cannot just “charge them under the Smith Act” and
other such suggestions.
The “Smith Act” and all the other various “Acts” undertaken by the “United States
Congress” were private corporate laws embraced by a corporation that no longer
exists. It’s bankruptcy settled in 1999. All 50 Titles of Federal Code became
obsolete at that moment.
Then the UNITED STATES (INC.), a French-based governmental services corporation
running under a small part of Title 50 and Washington DC Municipal Code, took over
the “federal” services contract and ran our credit into the ground for another 15
years without our consent and without any of our international Trustees— the
Popes, the British Monarch, or the United States Postmaster — objecting to this fraud
and thievery.
At the current moment we remain running our own states-on-the-land government
via jural assemblies operated under the Organic and Public Law of the United States,
known as the United States Statutes-at-Large; and, for the moment, THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA, INC., funded by the World Bank and operated by the UN
Corporation, has stepped in without a contract to provide the necessary services on a
“for hire” basis and just for shits and grins is operating according to the old Federal
Code, without formally adopting it.
Karen Hudes has falsely described this situation as an “interregnum” during which
time there is no government but, in fact, we have been here clicking along in spite of
the frauds and bankruptcies and “wars” and everything else that these
“governmental services corporations” have engaged in. The so-called “Federal
Government” which has never been a sovereign government of any kind may be in
complete disarray, but we, the people, of these United States, are not.
Enemies of our peace, freedom and standing have not only mischaracterized us as
“citizens of the United States”, they went before the United Nations Trust
Committees and the UN Security Council and claimed that we no longer exist as fifty
sovereign nation-states. They complained that we have not exercised our
government on the land jurisdiction, that we have no national currency left in
circulation—- both lies, and, they claimed that we no longer had representation in
the international community—- thanks to the fact that the UNITED STATES, INC.
went insolvent without naming a Successor to Contract.
Whereupon we issued new Sovereign Letters Patent to the United Nations Secretary
General and the United Nations Trust Committees and the United Nations Security
Council, informing them that yes, we are still very much alive and kicking and that,
By The Way, we have negotiated an agreement with two of the sovereign indigenous
nations that have representation in the United Nations, the Lakota Sioux and the
Athabascan Nation, and issued a Declaration of Joint Sovereignty to memorialize the
agreement.
Thus we are still standing, still have our Constitution in full affect, and are still
operating our actual government. We still have the United States Silver Dollar in
circulation. We still have our Public Law under enforcement. We have named new
“federal” agents for the purposes of international negotiations and trade. We will in
our good time act through our jural assemblies to name fiduciary Deputies as
delegates to a Continental Congress to settle this hash, and in the meantime, it
should be well-understood by all parties that we are empowered and entitled to
enforce the Law of the Land, which includes the actual Constitution and the United
States Statutes-at-Large, against all and any federal employees or federal state-ofstate
employees, such as “State of Washington” or “WASHINGTON” or “State of
Colorado” or “COLORADO” franchise employees found trespassing against any of us
or on our soil in violation of their corporate charters or our Public Law.
[A further conundrum and confusion was created back in the 1950-60’s when
organizations serving as state and county governments were lured by the promise of
“federal revenue sharing” to incorporate—- an act that transformed them from being
legitimate governments operating our landed estates to being private corporate
franchises operating in the international jurisdiction of the sea. Any time you see the
word “of” as in “State of Ohio” or “STATE OF OHIO” or see a name in all capitals like
“WISCONSIN” you know that you are dealing with one of these deceptively named
corporate franchises.]
I trust this goes a long way toward answering your question why we can’t seem to
get enforcement of all the federal and state laws and Acts of Congress that are on
the books. It’s because the corporations that adopted these private laws, called
“statutes” and “regulations” and “codes”, no longer exist. The only actual
government still standing on this Continent is that of the people, for the people and
by the people; and the only Law still standing is our Organic Law and our United
States Statutes at Large.
As more Americans wake up and say, “WTF? I wasn’t born in Puerto Rico! I ain’t no
flipping “citizen of the United States”——!” and as more and more Americans
organize Jural Assemblies to enforce the actual Organic and Public Law in their
townships, counties, and states—- it will all start to make a lot more sense.
The French Government is culpable for not restraining and not insuring the lawful
operation of both the UN Corporation and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and
its subsidiaries including the UNITED STATES and the STATE OF ____ franchises
these organizations established here.
The British Government and the Government of Westminster are culpable for
practicing press-ganging, inland piracy, unlawful conversion, and numerous other
known international crimes against us and against our lawful government mostly via
their undeclared foreign agents, including the members of the American Bar
Association.
The international city-state District of Columbia and its government known as the
District of Columbia Municipal Corporation are similarly guilty of these crimes against
the American People, and have attempted to run a “government of the person, by
the person, and for the person” in a mockery of our lawful government on the land.
As a result of criminality on the part of those both elected and appointed to act as
our Trustees internationally and nationally, and the corporations they have operated
against us in Breach of Trust, we have been plundered under color of law, suffered
identity theft in contravention of the Geneva Convention Protocols of 1949, suffered
credit theft and theft of our actual resources, and are now being threatened by these
same thugs as they are now offering to literally kill off their Priority Creditors, the
American People, in the same way they killed off the Jewish People who were their
Priority Creditors in Nazi-Era Germany.
Every American needs to be alerted to these actual circumstances and every
community needs to be organized in the event that international negotiations related
to these matters break down and the British, French, Israeli, and District of Columbia
so-called “US” forces have to be restrained.
You are all encouraged to spread the word from the members of Congress on down
to the lowest levels of “their government” that we are fully aware now and that the
false claims against us and our property must come to an immediate full stop.
Federal employees, especially agency employees and appointed administrators, must
be reeducated.
Any attempt by the IMF dba UNITED STATES dba “STATE OF OHIO” and other
franchises to attack Americans using agencies including the “FBI” and “CIA” and
“FEMA”, etc., will be instantly recognized as the acts of foreign commercial
mercenary armies on our shores, not the result of any civil war or unrest naturally
arising within America or as the result of American politics, race relations, or
religious antagonisms at all.
We know who we are and we know who did this to us and we know why they did it.
We have stated it clearly and plainly before the whole world, before all the
assembled governments, and before the people of all nations. We have notified the
Pope, the Queen, the Secretary of the Treasury, the United States Treasurer, the
United States Post Master and the United Nations Secretary General and literally
thousands of other officials.
If the IMF and its subsidiaries or the FEDERAL RESERVE and its subsidiaries—either
one—are allowed to take any action whatsoever against the peaceful and noncombatant
American People under the false pretense that we are or ever were
legitimately and knowingly operating as “persons” or as “citizens of the United
States” these acts of genocide will be recognized as precisely the acts of criminals
seeking to kill off their Priority Creditors and nothing more than that— just the
vicious and immoral and unjustified actions of the guilty against the innocent.
It has not been enough for them to steal us blind; now they seek to blame us for
their criminality and to force us to pay for their debts at the point of a bayonet.
No American is forced to continue any contract with the “United States” military
under these circumstances of fraud and false undisclosed contract. No American is
obligated in any way to fire upon Americans. No American who takes part in any
unlawful court actions or foreclosures or seizures of property or confiscations of any
kind will be held guiltless.
It is time for all elected officials and all bureaucrats to be on High Alert and to
remember the results of the Nuremberg Trials—- “just following orders” is not an
excuse for murder, plundering, piracy, unlawful conversion, press-ganging,
enslavement, involuntary servitude, identity theft, credit theft, conspiracy against
our Constitution and the other crimes that the IMF and FEDERAL RESERVE have
jointly indulged in on our shores.
Let it also be clearly understood that Americans all maintain our absolute right to
defend ourselves and our families and our property with deadly force if need be.
Should the Pope and other international trustees fail their duty as they have
repeatedly done in the past, any and all bloodshed on this continent will rest
squarely on their shoulders.
Click to access ourgovvstheirgov.pdf
—————————————
See this article and over 200 others on Anna’s website here: http://www.annavonreitz.com
To support this work look for the PayPal button on this website.
DID CONGRESS & TRUMP PROVIDE THE ULTIMATE TAX REMEDY? HIDDEN IN THE RULES?
THEY JUST BROKE THE ABUSIVE U.S. TAX SYSTEM WITH THE NEW INCOME TAX LAW (H.R. 1 – Dec. 2017)
LINK TO BILL – then click on Constitutional Authority Statement
The new federal personal income tax law, H.R. 1, – that was just enacted into law by Congress in December 2017, and already made effective as of January 1st, 2018, has the immediate legal effect of:
1. completely disemboweling and destroying the I.R.S.’ current personal income tax collection and enforcement practices and operations, by removing them entirely and completely from all legitimate constitutional authority to act to enforce the direct taxation of income under the 16th Amendment, as practiced for the last 60 years;
2. strips the federal Department of Justice naked in the courtroom of all of its illegitimate constitutional arguments that have been made in the courtroom for the last 60 years, to sustain the federal court’s (both district and tax courts’) erroneous enforcement of a direct and unapportioned tax upon the income of We the American People under alleged authority of the 16th Amendment; and
3. completely exposes the federal judiciary’s unlawful enforcement of the federal personal income tax under the 16th Amendment over the last 60 years of American history, as nothing but a complete and total judicially committed fraud that plainly and clearly can now be seen as the true judicial conspiracy of sedition that it is,
– to undermine and remove the constitutional limitations placed upon the federal taxing powers, in order to enforce the unconstitutionally direct taxation of the labors and work (“wages” and “salaries“) of the American People, in order to fund, not the legitimate operation of the government, but the constitutionally unauthorized progressive, liberal, Fabian, socialist programs effecting the re-distribution of wealth that have been by used by the politicians to create the welfare based, class warfare system of taxation that has resulted in the divisive destruction of America, its people’s Freedom, Liberty, private property, and equal rights;
– by expanding the judicial authority beyond that which is constitutionally authorized, to enable the federal judiciary to constitutionally usurp the legislative authority of the Congress, through the judicial enforcement of only the perverted judicial Fabian opinions they issue, in place of the actual written constitutional tax law that is authorized and exists.
What ? You may say – that’s crazy. What the hell are you talking about ?
It’s the same tax it’s always been ! There’s nothing new in the law that could do that ! Yea, – that’s right, it’s the same income tax law that it has always been, and now they have admitted it on the Congressional Record, and their world is about to change, – well, actually, implode.
Congress has no idea of what they have done, or of the true extent or size of the catastrophe within the tax enforcement system, that they have wrought with the new income tax law, and few Americans, if any have realized it yet,
– but any honest lawyer will tell you (after reading this) that everything you are about to read (and have read up to this point in this article) is irrefutably true.
FACT: For the last 60 years the IRS has been issuing income tax collection correspondence to Americans asserting that American citizens owe the payment of an income tax on their work, because of the adoption of the 16th Amendment. This claim to legal authority is all over their website; it is in their “frivolous Arguments” propaganda publications, where they repeatedly assert the income taxing authority under the 16th Amendment, and label as frivolous any reference made to the limitations on the taxing powers imposed under Article I of the Constitution; and, it is in the pleadings made on the record of the court by the United States as a plaintiff, in every tax case prosecuted in the federal courts in the last 30 years.
FACT: The Department of Justice attorneys argue in every single income tax case prosecuted in the federal courts, that the income tax is owed by the individual defendant as a function of the 16th Amendment alone, without use or need of any “applicability” of the authorized indirect Article I, Section 8, impost, duty and excise taxing powers.
FACT: For the last 60 years the federal courts have been wrongfully allowing and upholding the constitutionally prohibited, and therefore unconstitutional, direct taxation of the alleged gross income of the American People, created as a function of all of their labors and work, as a direct tax without apportionment, under alleged authority conferred under the 16th Amendment to tax “… income, from whatever source derived, without apportionment, and without regard to any census or enumeration. ”
FACT: The 16th Amendment has no enabling enforcement clause in it, that would constitutionally authorizes the U.S. Congress to write any law to enforce any power alleged newly created or authorized under authority of the Amendment alone.
FACT: There are Amendments to the Constitution, both before and after the 16th Amendment, that do have and clearly contain an enabling enforcement clause within them, irrefutably proving the absence within the Amendment, of such alleged grant of any new enforceable power, is intentional.
FACT: In assessing the legal effect of the 16th Amendment, the Supreme Court plainly said in 1916 that “the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation“. “. . . The provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged . . .”
Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, 112-13 (1916)
FACT: The Article I, Section 8, clause 1, authorities to tax only indirectly, by uniform impost, duty and excise, do not reach the labors of the American people with legal effect. This is why the federal government has argued for sixty years that the 16th Amendment was the sole basis for the enforcement of the income tax imposed by Section 1 of Title 26 United States Code (Title 26 is also called the I.R.C.). In speaking of the power to tax by ‘duties,’ ‘imposts,’ and ‘excises,’ the Supreme Court has consistently said:
” ‘We think that they were used comprehensively, to cover customs and excise duties imposed on importation, consumption, manufacture, and sale of certain commodities, privileges, particular business transactions, vocations, occupations, and the like.’ Duties and imposts are terms commonly applied to levies made by governments on the importation or exportation of commodities. Excises are ‘taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale, or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, and upon corporate privileges.‘ Cooley, Const. Lim. 7th ed. 680. The tax under consideration, as we have construed the statute, may be described as an excise upon the particular privilege of doing business in a corporate capacity, i. e., with the advantages which arise from corporate or quasi corporate organization; or, when applied to insurance companies, for doing the business of such companies. As was said in the Thomas Case, 192 U. S. supra, the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of privileges, and the element of absolute and unavoidable demand is lacking. If business is not done in the manner described in the statute, no tax is payable.
If we are correct in holding that this is an excise tax, there is nothing in the Constitution requiring such taxes to be apportioned according to population. Pacific Ins. Co. v. Soule, 7 Wall. 433, 19 L. ed. 95; Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 , 26 L. ed. 253; Spreckels Sugar Ref. Co. v. McClain, 192 U.S. 397 , 48 L. ed. 496, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 376.“ Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. , 220 US 107, 151-152 (1911)” Thomas v. United States, 192 U.S. 363 , 48 L. ed. 481, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 305 “Excises are “taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, and upon corporate privileges … the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of the privilege and if business is not done in the manner described no tax is payable…it is the privilege which is the subject of the tax and not the mere buying, selling or handling of goods. ” Cooley, Const. Lim., 7th ed., 680.” Flint, supra, at 151; Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911)1
Which is mirrored in Black’s Law Dictionary: “Excise taxes are taxes “laid upon the manufacture, sale or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, and upon corporate privileges.” Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, 31 S.Ct. 342, 349 (1911); or a tax on privileges, syn. “privilege tax”. Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Edition
“The subject matter of taxation open to the power of the Congress is as comprehensive as that open to the power of the states, though the method of apportionment may at times be different. “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises.” Art. 1, § 8. If the tax is a direct one, it shall be apportioned according to the census or enumeration. If it is a duty, impost, or excise, it shall be uniform throughout the United States. Together, these classes include every form of tax appropriate to sovereignty. Cf. Burnet v. Brooks, 288 U. S. 378, 288 U. S. 403, 288 U. S. 405; Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U. S. 1 , 240 U. S. 12.” Steward Mach. Co. v. Collector, 301 U.S. 548 (1937), at 581
“The [income] tax being an excise, its imposition must conform to the canon of uniformity. There has been no departure from this requirement. According to the settled doctrine the uniformity exacted is geographical, not intrinsic. Knowlton v. Moore, supra, p. 178 U. S. 83; Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., supra, p. 220 U. S. 158; Billings v. United States, 232 U. S. 261, 232 U. S. 282; Stellwagen v. Clum, 245 U. S. 605, 245 U. S. 613; LaBelle Iron Works v. United States, 256 U. S. 377, 256 U. S. 392; Poe v. Seaborn, 282 U. S. 101, 282 U. S. 117; Wright v. Vinton Branch Mountain Trust Bank, 300 U. S. 440.” Steward Mach. Co. v. Collector, 301 U.S. 548 (1937), at 583 “Whether the tax is to be classified as an “excise” is in truth not of critical importance. If not that, it is an “impost” (Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 158 U. S. 601, 158 U. S. 622, 158 U. S. 625; Pacific Insurance Co. v. Soble, 7 Wall. 433, 74 U. S. 445), or a “duty” (Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 8 Wall. 533, 75 U. S. 546, 75 U. S. 547; Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U. S. 429, 157 U.
S. 570; Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U. S. 41, 178 U. S. 46). A capitation or other “direct” tax it certainly is not.” Steward Mach. Co. v. Collector, 301 U.S. 548 (1937), at 581-2
1 Again, Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. is controlling and Constitutional law, having been cited and followed over 600 times by virtually every court as the authoritative definition of the scope of excise taxing power.
So, the granted taxing powers are conclusively defined within the U.S. Constitution: “Mr. Chief Justice Chase in The License Tax Cases, 5 Wall. 462, 72 U. S. 471, when he said: “It is true that the power of Congress to tax is a very extensive power. It is given in the Constitution, with only one exception and only two qualifications. Congress cannot tax exports, and it must impose direct taxes by the rule of apportionment, and indirect taxes by the rule of uniformity.
Thus limited, and thus only it reaches every subject, and may be exercised at discretion.” And although there have been from time to time intimations that there might be some tax which was not a direct tax nor included under the words “duties, imposts and excises,” such a tax, for more than one hundred years of national existence, has as yet remained undiscovered, notwithstanding the stress of particular circumstances [that] has invited thorough investigation into sources of revenue.” And with respect to the power to tax income the Supreme Court has said:
“The act now under consideration does not impose direct taxation upon property solely because of its ownership, but the tax is within the class which Congress is authorized to lay and collect under article 1, [section] 8, clause 1 of the Constitution, and described generally as taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, upon which the limitation is that they shall be uniform throughout the United States. Within the category of indirect taxation, as we shall have further occasion to show, is embraced a tax upon business done in a corporate capacity, which is the subject-matter of the [income] tax imposed in the act under consideration. The Pollock Case construed the tax there levied as direct, because it was imposed upon property simply because of its ownership. In the present case the tax is not payable unless there be a carrying on or doing of business in the designated capacity, and this is made the occasion for the tax, measured by the standard prescribed. The difference between the acts is not merely nominal, but rests upon substantial differences between the mere ownership of property and the actual doing of business in a certain way.” Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. , 220 US 107, 150 (1911) Which is repeatedly supported: “As has been repeatedly remarked, the corporation tax act of 1909 was not intended to be and is not, in any proper sense, an income tax law. This court had decided in the Pollock Case that the income tax law of 1894 amounted in effect to a direct tax upon property, and was invalid because not apportioned according to populations, as prescribed by the Constitution. The act of 1909 avoided this difficulty by imposing not an income tax, but an excise tax upon the conduct of business in a corporate capacity, measuring, however, the amount of tax by the income of the corporation, with certain qualifications prescribed by the act itself. Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. 220 U.S. 107 , 55 L. ed. 389, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 342, Ann. Cas. 1912 B, 1312; McCoach v. Minehill & S. H. R. Co. 228 U.S. 295 , 57 L. ed. 842, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 419; United States v. Whitridge (decided at this term, 231 U.S. 144 , 58 L. ed. –, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 24.” Stratton’s, supra at 414 So imposts and duties are taxes on imported and exported goods, i.e. : commodities and articles of commerce that are imported into, and or exported from, the United States of America. Imposts are also taxes on foreign “persons” and their activities in the United States (foreign individuals & companies, & organized operations like a foreign trust, charity, etc.). Imposts and duties are also taxes, where imposed, on persons in the U.S. territories and possessions, and on America citizens who are living and working in a foreign country under a tax treaty with the United States that allows the federal taxation of the American persons in that foreign country, under the active tax treaty.
So taxation, by impost and duty, by definition, fundamentally does not reach the labors of the American people conducted in the fifty states, where the labor does not involve any import or export, or other foreign activity. And Excise taxes are now accepted as being constitutionally defined by both law and precedent (over 600 times) as: “taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, and upon corporate privileges … “.
But Title 15 U.S.C. Section 17, plainly and clearly states that: “The labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce… “. Under the U.S. Constitution this law removes “the (domestic) labor of a human being (American citizens)” from subjectivity to any and all taxation by excise under Article I, Section 8.
This is of course why the United States’ IRS, DOJ, and the entire federal judiciary (at this point) PREVIOUSLY have had to claim in court for 50 years that – it is the 16th Amendment that authorizes the income tax, and not Article I, Section 8. Thus, under Article I of the Constitution, there is an admitted total lack of subjectivity of the citizens to any and all impost, duty or excise taxation on Labor, i.e.: the indirect taxation of the citizen’s labor, or a tax upon the exercise of his or her Right to Work resulting in the payment of “salary” or “wages“, does not apply to citizens, because it is not statutorily authorized, now made enforceable, as it is fundamentally outside of the legal reach, and scope of legal effect, of all of the granted Constitutional authorities to tax indirectly under authority of Article I, Section 8, clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution.
The reason why this is so important to understand, is because this basic information, concerning the proper, limited, application and enforcement of the constitutional, and constitutionally granted, powers to tax, is essential in properly and fully understanding the legal issue of the limited subject-matter jurisdiction of the federal courts that exists with respect to the taxation of the individual citizens. A proper and complete understanding of this legal issue, immediately leads to the realization that there is no constitutionally granted subject-matter jurisdiction that can be taken over a civil action to adjudicate and or enforce the claims that are alleged by the United States in any Complaint filed in a legal action that is filed in the federal courts to pursue the enforcement of the payment of a personal income tax against an individual American citizen as defendant. In the United States of America, under the Constitution of the United States of America, our federal courts are courts of only limited, specifically enumerated, constitutionally granted, powers, that only exist as written in the law. The courts cannot enforce ideas, or a philosophy, or custom or habit, or ritual, or beliefs, or even common sense.
The courts can only enforce the written law of the statutes of the Titles of United States Code. Nothing else. And of course, under the Constitution of the United States of America, a statute (law), can only be written by Congress where,
first: – the Constitution grants a specific power to be exercised by the Congress (as is done in Article I, Section 8); and second: the Constitution specifically grants the authority to the Congress to write law (as is done in Article I, Section 8, clause 18), with specific applicability to the enforcement of the power(s) granted, that was, or were, exercised in operational practice (enforcement) by the government (IRS).
So, the three required elements of our constitutional law in America, necessary to establish the subject-matter jurisdiction of the courtthat can be taken over any legal action, sufficient to allow that court to entertain and adjudicate the action in the court, are:
(1) a specific power must be granted by the Constitution or Amendment for Congress (the United States) to exercise;
(2) a specific grant of authority for Congress to write law must be made by the Constitution or Amendment, with respect to the administration and enforcement of the specific power granted in (#1) above 2; and,
(3) a specific statute must be legislatively enacted by an authorized Congress, with specific application to the enforcement of the specific power alleged granted and exercised in (#1) above, and made enforceable with authorized law under (#2) above.
These fundamental elements of constitutional law, controlling the ability of a federal court to lawfully take a granted subject-matter jurisdiction over a legal claim made by complainant (like the United States) in the federal district court, combined with the irrefutable lack of any enabling enforcement clause that exists in the 16th Amendment as adopted, make the United States’ claims in the courts that the 16th Amendment is the foundational authority for the enforcement of the income tax against the individual citizens, on the mere basis of being a “person” with alleged “gross income”, appear dubious at best, and a complete and total lie at worst, as this lack of granted constitutional authority to write law under the 16th Amendment also explains the alleged tax-protestors’ claims of the last 50 years, that – if the tax is under the 16th Amendment, then the tax must be voluntary, as no law is constitutionally authorized to be written by Congress, and therefore no law can exist, or does exist, under the 16th Amendment that effects the income of the citizens directly, without the underlying foundational use of the impost, duty and excise taxing authorities of Article I first being made applicable.
i.e. : a specific enabling enforcement clause of the Constitution, or one of its Amendments, must be shown to have been made applicable to the specific taxing power alleged constitutionally granted, and operationally practiced under (#1) above;
So the lower federal district and circuit courts have over time, seditiously reversed the Supreme Court’s original and true holding in 1916 – that the income tax is authorized and is constitutional under the granted and enforceable indirect Article I taxing authorities, as a measure of the amount of the indirect tax that is imposed on the income derived from the impost, duty or excise taxable activities or persons,
– who are made subject by the tax law to the payment of the uniform impost, duty or excise;
– which does not constitute an unconstitutionally unapportioned direct tax. The Supreme Court plainly held in 1916, in the Brushaber v. Union Pacific RR Co., 240 US 1 (1916) and Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916) cases, that the income tax is an indirect tax under Article I, and is not a direct tax under the 16th Amendment.
Again: “. . . The provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged .”
Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, 112-13 (1916) “It is clear on the face of this text that it does not purport to confer power to levy income taxes in a generic sense – an authority already possessed [under Article I, Section 8] and never questioned – or to limit and distinguish between one kind of income taxes and another, but that the whole purpose of the Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from apportionment from a consideration of the source whence the income was derived.” Brushaber, supra, at 17-8 “The various propositions are so intermingled as to cause it to be difficult to classify them. We are of opinion, however, that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the Sixteenth Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation, that is, a power to levy an income tax which although direct should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes.
And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it, . . .” Brushaber, supra, at 10-11 “…it clearly results that the [direct tax] proposition and the contentions under it, if acceded to, would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another; that is, they would result in bringing the provisions of the Amendment exempting a direct tax from apportionment into irreconcilable conflict with the general requirement that all direct taxes be apportioned. … This result … would create radical and destructive changes in our constitutional system and multiply confusion.” Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 12
“The Sixteenth Amendment, although referred to in argument, has no real bearing and may be put out of view. As pointed out in recent decisions, it does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects, but merely removes all occasion, which otherwise might exist, for an apportionment among the States of taxes laid on income, whether it be derived from one source or another. Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, 17-19; Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, 112-113.” These holdings in 1916 of course merely reasserted the Court’s long-standing recognition of the constitutional fact that the federal taxation of labor (without apportionment to the states for payment of the direct tax), is not a constitutionally granted taxing power, as labor has historically been perceived by the courts as a constitutionally protected Right, and outside of the granted internal Excise taxation powers. “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 endowed’ — not by edicts of Emperors, or decrees 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 that 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,
. . . “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 [right] . . .” Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations, Bk. I. Chap. 10.” [in Justice Field’s Concurrence in Butchers’ Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746, 756 4 S.Ct. 652 (1884)] Justice Field was not alone in his assessment. He was joined in his concurrence by Justice Bradley, who, joined by JJ. Harlan and Woods, also concurred, but on the basis of Field’s reasoning, stating at p. 762:
“The right to follow any of the common occupations of life is an inalienable right; it was formulated as such under the phrase “pursuit of happiness” in the Declaration of Independence, which commenced with the fundamental proposition that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” This right is a large ingredient in the civil liberty of the citizen.” “Included in the right of personal liberty and the right of private property partaking of a nature of each- is the right to make contracts for the acquisition of property. Chief among such contracts is that of personal employment, by which labor and other services are exchanged for money or other forms of property. If this right be struck down or arbitrarily interfered with, there is a substantial impairment of liberty in the long established constitutional sense.” Justice Pitney in Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1, 14, 59 L.Ed. 441, L.R.A. 1915C, 960, 35 S.Ct.Rep. 240 (1915) “But the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, considered as individual possessions, are secured by those maxims of constitutional law which are the monuments showing the victorious progress of the race in securing to men the blessings of civilization under the reign of just and equal laws, so that, in the famous language of the Massachusetts Bill of Rights, the government of the commonwealth ‘may be a government of laws and not of men.’ For, the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself.” Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886) But the lower federal district and circuit courts have reversed this clear indirect “income tax” holding that was made by the Supreme Court in 1916, by invoking as controlling, not these true, controlling Supreme Court cases cited above (Brushaber & Stanton), but instead they invoke one of their own contradictory inferior opinions from the below list of inferior circuit court decisions that openly simply declare, erroneously (and obviously so), that the federal personal income tax is authorized by the 16th Amendment as a direct unapportioned tax that is laid on all of the income of all persons.
- United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir. 1990), (which simply asserts the tax is direct and unapportioned, reversing Brushaber without actually citing or quoting any text from that case opinion);
- Parker v. Comm’r, 724 F.2d 469 (5th Cir. 1984). (which also asserts the tax is direct and unapportioned, reversing Brushaber without citing or quoting any actual text from the case opinion);
- Lovell v. United States, 755 F.2d 517 (7th Cir. 1984), 11 The Broken Tax System www.Tax-Freedom.com (which simply cites to Parker v. Comm’r. to make its assertions);
- United States v. Sloan, 755 F.2d 517, 519 (7th Cir. 1984), (which simply cites to Lovell and Collins to make its assertions);
- In re Becraft, 885 F.2d 547, 548 (9th Cir. 1989), (which simply cites to Lovell and Parker to make its assertions). And so, as a result of the federal courts improperly using for the last 40 years these inferior, isolated, self-circular court decisions (upholding the direct unapportioned taxation of income under the 16th Amendment), actually reversing the Supreme Court’s true holding (upholding only indirect uniform taxation of income under Article I, Section 8), the federal personal income tax has been enforced for 60 years in the lower federal Tax Court and district and circuit courts, erroneously, as a direct unapportioned tax, in blatant violation of the prohibition on such direct taxation that is still constitutionally prohibited by Article I, Section 2, clause 3 and Article I, Section 9, clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution.
Which brings us back to the focus of this exposé, and the beginning of this paper,
– the new tax law H.R. 1 (Dec. 2017), made effective as law as of January 1, 2018. You see in 2011 the United States Congress passed another new law directly affecting the new tax law, requiring that all legislative Bills brought forward to the House floor for debate, contain within them a plain and clear statement identifying and declaring the alleged constitutional clause with the grant of authority that serves as the constitutional foundation to the congressional claim of a granted authority to write law with respect to the administration of the powers claimed therein, and proposed exercised under the new legislation.
So, what did they put in the Constitutional Authority Statement for H.R. 1, the new income tax law now in effect ? Did they actually write “the 16th Amendment” was the authority, as argued for 50 years, or something else ? NO! It’s either there or it isn’t.
First, it should be noted that the re-enactment of Title 26 U.S.C. (I.R.C.) Section 1, as done in H.R. 1, of course constitutes a re-enactment of exactly the same income taxing powers, and scheme of taxation (or lack thereof), as previously existed under the previous version of the income tax law, i.e. : the 1986 IRC code provisions of Title 26 U.S.C. (IRC) Section 1. Congress has simply adjusted the number of tax-brackets from seven to four, with different earnings thresholds and tax-rates associated with each of the four new tax-brackets, and with a new set of allowed or disallowed deductions and exemptions for everyone.
But, it is basically and essentially, an undeniable reimplementation of exactly the same scheme of graduated, bracketed, gross-income taxation (under IRC § 61) of taxable income (IRC § 63), as that (scheme of taxation) which has existed since 1913.
Supposedly, under this new law, nothing substantial or constitutionally foundational is believed to have been changed concerning or controlling the fundamental taxing power exercised, to tax income, and everything about the scheme is basically left unchanged, schematically identically the same as before (since the recodification of the tax law in 1986, which was also recodified (a new written version was created) in 1939 and 1954).
The “Constitutional Authority Statement” for the new law (26 USC (IRC) Section 1) plainly states: (next page) Lets look at that, closer:
As never before…It now plainly states that the Constitutional Authority for the enactment of the new income tax law enacted under H.R. 1, is not the 16th Amendment at all, but relies solely on “ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 1 of the Constitution of the United States.” for its authority. If the 16th amendment was intended as the authority, it would have been listed. It is NOT!
Uh-oh! You mean it isn’t the 16th Amendment after all? … and that claim of constitutional authority under the 16th Amendment as legal foundation to sustain the imposition and enforcement of the personal income tax, can never be made by the IRS, or in court by the United States attorneys, again, – ever !! In neither civil, nor criminal, tax prosecutions?
Finally, the true and correct constitutional authority for the federal personal income tax is plainly and clearly specified in the law, on the Congressional House record, as being established under ONLY Article I, Section 8, clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which contains only the grant of the required constitutional authority to tax, indirectly, by impost, duty and excise, which powers, by law (Title 15 USC Sec. 17) do not lawfully reach the labors or income of the American People with force of law though the proper and lawful invocation and enforcement upon individual persons of only the granted indirect taxing powers.
The new income tax law, H.R. 1, by completely removing the 16th Amendment as an arguable constitutional basis and legal foundation, or as the applicable constitutional authority that is allegeable as the constitutional authority for the imposition, withholding, collection, and enforcement of the personal income tax in the federal courts as a direct tax,
– completely strips the IRS, the DOJ, and the federal judiciary of all of their lawful ability to legally enforce on American citizens after January 1st, 2018, the federal personal income tax in the federal courts as it has been practiced since 1945.
Its’ over. The IRS, the DOJ, the federal judiciary are all eviscerated. The monstrous income tax FRAUD perpetrated by the federal courts on the American People is fully exposed now, naked to the world, and the behavior and opinions of the federal judiciary are exposed as nothing but the treasonous sedition they have always been. i.e. : communistic and not constitutional. Repugnant, disgusting, corrupted, polluted, perverted, ultra vires judicial behavior and opinions, all committed for sixty years outside of the granted constitutional authority that exists for the court to lawfully act under, is all exposed. Naked to the world.
The Emperor wears no clothes. This new constitutional clarification now proves it has all been conspiratorial judicial theft. Nothing more, and nothing less. The judicial crimes of the last sixty years, fraudulently perpetrated on the American People by the federal judiciary in the name of tax has all been pure unlawful and wrongful conversion of the constitutionally protected private property of We the People, under color of law, under color of office, and in the name of tax only;
– for there is no law because none is authorized, and there is no enforceable direct tax or taxing power conferred under the 16th Amendment as previously used and deceptively claimed, because no such power is constitutionally made enforceable against the individual ‘person’, as opposed to one of the “several states”.
Article 1, Section 2, clause 3 – “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned amongst the several states which may be included within this Union”
All American citizens, in all 50 states, are all now EXEMPT – as they always were, but is now clarified by constitutional as now clarified by congress), from any required payment or withholding of the federal personal income tax from their paycheck, earned at their place of employment in one of the fifty states, and everyone should therefore now claim EXEMPT on their W-4, as provided in law thereupon, under the supremacy-clause exemption from withholding, that is made at Title 26 USC (IRC) Section 3402(n), for informed employees to claim.
Go ahead, “Google” it, – “H.R. 1 Constitutional Authority Statement”. See for yourself. Without the use of the misapplication of the 16th Amendment to erroneously allege a direct tax on income that is owed by all “persons”, there can be no lawful enforcement of the personal income tax on the income of the American People, by any Department, Agency, Service, or any other group of men that exist within the federal government,
– like the IRS, the DOJ, the federal judiciary, or even the “United States of America” (as a plaintiff in the courts), without there first being the clear applicability of some impost, duty, or excise tax to measure, that lawfully and properly taxes the underlying taxable (business, commodity, or trade based) activity from which the income is derived.
Therefore, if there is no impost, duty, or excise tax that exists in the written law of the United States Code (the written laws) that applies to the underlying taxable activity, resulting in “taxable income”, then there is no amount of “gross income” to measure as tax. And, since there is no impost, duty, or excise tax that exists in the written law of the United States Code (the written laws) that reaches either the “wages” or “salary” of the American People, earned by Right, as those terms (“wages” and “salary“) are not included in IRC Section 61 defining the sources of gross income constituting taxable income of an American citizen;
– but the terms are specifically included in IRC Section 1441(b), wherever “wages” or “salary” are earned by the non-resident alien person that is identified in law under IRC Section 1441(a). And, since it is only the foreign person (Follow this LINK and CLICK on Person see the definition – and also look up definition of individual in the code – it’s likely not you), who is made subject under the provisions of IRC Sections 7701(a)(16), to the collection of the federal personal income tax imposed in the code sections of Subtitle A (Chapters 1-6) of Title 26, which is where the original 1913 income tax laws are found in today’s law.
Subtitle A is the body of law that was enacted by Congress in 1913 as the federal personal income tax law, enacted under the original income tax legislation of the Underwood-Simmons Tariff Act of Oct. 3, 1913, then it has now become impossible (under the new H.R. 1 income tax law, ONLY under Article I, Section 8, authorities) for any party or person to lawfully withhold or collect any federal income tax from the payments made to an informed American citizen in one of the fifty states!
Oh, by the way, a Tariff, as enacted within the Underwood-Simmons Tariff Act of Oct. 3, 1913, is one form of an impost, which taxing power, when exercised in the 50 states, is limited in constitutional operation to the taxation of only foreign persons and imported foreign goods, commodities, and other taxable “articles of commerce“. An impost, in the form of an enacted tariff, has no internal application to the domestic activity of American citizens conducted by Right within the fifty states, without any involvement with foreign goods or foreign persons.
So, as I said in the beginning: The new federal personal income tax law, H.R. 1, that was just enacted into law by Congress in December 2017, and already made effective as of January 1st, 2018, has the immediate legal effect of:
1. Completely disemboweling and destroying the I.R.S.’ current personal income tax collection and enforcement practices and operations, by removing them entirely and completely from all legitimate constitutional authority to act to enforce the direct taxation of income under the 16th Amendment, as practiced for the last 60 years; Exposing 60 years of IRS THEFT & UNLAWFUL CONVERSION BY FRAUD.
2. Strips the federal Department of Justice naked in the courtroom of all of its usual illegitimate constitutional argumentsthat have been made in the courtroom for the last 60 years, to sustain the federal court’s (both district and tax courts’) erroneous enforcement of a direct and unapportioned tax upon the income of We the American People under alleged authority of the 16th Amendment (Exposing 60 years of DOJ FRAUD AND/OR STUPIDITY); and
3. Completely exposes the federal judiciary’s unlawful enforcement of the federal personal income tax under the 16th Amendment over the last 60 years of American history, as nothing but a complete and total judicially committed fraud that plainly and clearly can now be seen as the true judicial conspiracy of sedition that it is, to undermine and remove the constitutional limitations placed upon the federal taxing powers, in order to enforce the unconstitutionally directtaxation of the labors and work (“wages” and “salaries“) of the American People, in order to fund, not the legitimate operation of the government, but the constitutionally unauthorized progressive, liberal, Fabian, socialist programs effecting the re-distribution of wealth that are used to create the welfare-class and class warfare systems that are resulting in the destruction of America, Freedom, Liberty, private property, and equal rights, by expanding the judicial authority beyond that which is authorized, to enable the federal judiciary to constitutionally usurp the legislative authority of the Congress, through the judicial enforcement of only the perverted judicial Fabian opinions, in place of the actual written constitutional tax law that exists.
This clearly exposes 60 years of JUDICIAL FRAUD, ERROR, and ARROGANCE.
Now you also know that not only is this not crazy, it is ALL irrefutably TRUE. Oh yea, by the way, it is the 2nd plank of the Communist Manifesto that calls for the graduated and communistic taxation of a population that is kept divided by the different classes of the population defined in the non-uniform tax law by the creation of the different tax-brackets established therein; with different rates of tax for each bracket as under the communistic system of unconstitutional taxation that we suffer under today (for the last 72 years- since 1945), rather than the system of uniformity in taxation that is constitutionally required of both the authorized direct, and indirect taxation of We the People in America and our activities. That 2nd Plank of the Communist Manifesto, explicitly states:
“A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.”
So, now you know where the income tax enforcement operations of the IRS, the DOJ, and federal judiciary really came from, for the last 60 years, because it isn’t Article I of the Constitution of the United States of America, or the 16th Amendment.
Now our government servants, and especially the federal judiciary, stand condemned by their own ignorance and arrogance, and sedition. By its own congressional admission, now made in the written formal Congressional Record of the United States of America, they are nothing but as guilty as sin itself. And now, there is only one path left by which they may escape to find their way back to justice and righteousness, repent.
COMMENT AND CALL TO ACTION – It’s time to move in on every case pending or case already judged in the past and open the prisons doors for those enslaved under this fraud, by bringing a Mandatory Judicial Notice of this argument into that case or appeal, to prove there was never constitutional jurisdiction for the IRS to bring cases in Tax Court or US District Court citing the 16th amendment, now or in the past. Then after winning these cases or in conjunction with your action to stop those cases, sue for constitutional violations using this new found information and congressional rules as the evidence.
published on You Are Law, on January 18, 2018
Basic content provided by: Thomas Freed (tell him you were sent by TJ at Youarelaw.org)
Tom@IRSzoom.com of –
Navigate:
http://wetheonepeople.com/did-congress-trump-provide-the-ultimate-tax-remedy-hidden-in-the-rules/ = this article
http://wetheonepeople.com/propagandists-liars-need-be-destroy-fake-news-awards/
http://wetheonepeople.com/gop-lawmakers-shocked-by-house-intel-report-alleging-surveillance-abuse/
http://wetheonepeople.com/release-the-memo/
~ the people
Also See…
Motors Running
By Anna Von Reitz
Well, well, well! I have finally struck a nerve!
Ref: 1422. Why No Political Organization? http://annavonreitz.com/nopoliticalorganization.pdf
Who knew that the lobbyists had taken charge in DC? Who knew that the police are all acting as Pinkerton Agents? —aka, hired mercenaries operating under color of law?
I did. I thought everyone knew. But that has proven to be a mistake on my part in the past, so I just thought I’d mention it in passing, and now this is creating a hullaballoo, too.
Apparently, my comment that we should call the Republicans the Capitalist Lobby and the Democrats the Communist Lobby for clarity was the real knee-thumper yell-producer.
Rather than go all “Politically Correct” and apologetic, I will add that changing the names and the understanding of people about which party is which, might also clarify things better for the politicians themselves.
In recent years the Satanist Vermin among us have been pulling their old tricks of infiltrating the ranks of the opposition and pretending to be their opposition.
Thus we have “RINOs” and “DINOs” — people who are “Republicans in Name Only” and “Democrats in Name Only” and while some of these individuals appear to be genuinely confused or to honestly straddle traditional party lines, most of it is just Satanic horse-play to cause trouble and confusion and see how far they can get.
Renaming the political parties for what they truly are would bring attention to the fact that no, we shouldn’t have political lobbies running our government and if you are going to join one, they really should make the effort to trim their gig lines and sell an honest product.
Truth in advertising and all that.
—————————-
1424. The Implications for Police http://annavonreitz.com/implicationsforpolice.pdf
See this article and over 1400 others on Anna’s website here: http://www.annavonreitz.com
To support this work look for the PayPal button on this website.
Time Capsule from 1989: “U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked, “Entire Nations” will be gone by 2000” — Hommunism News
From AP Archive (1989): UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ″eco- refugees,′ ′ threatening […]
BAR Association A Franchise of The Crown
BAR – BRITISH ACCREDITATION REGENCY
A Franchise of the Jesuit Knight Templar’s Crown Corporation of England
The Tax Exempt BAR ATTORNEY ESQUIRE
Is a foreign agent and the Enabler of all the evil in America
and around the world – They have no licenses to practice their Admiralty Law
They are “fictitious legal individual entities,” and are a
United Nations Satanic Private Monopoly
New Human New Earth Communities 