Grand Illusion – 2

  “It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress.”

Mark Twain

The Authority of the Income Collections, which is Said to rest upon the 16th Amendment, is in itself a dark, legal mystery. Since this demand is imposed by false assertions, in order to maintain control of all economic activity, outside of the precepts of Common Law, its adjudication must be ruled by Codes, as administered by those swearing Fealty to a Crown, whose Honor is purchased thus divine by such loyalty. The Noble titles of Esquire have no meaning otherwise.  And to Whom is the Crown vested?  This is the Mystery of the Crown Temple, whose members are sworn to secrecy, bound by oath to the BAR, to which loyal subdication of Titles is granted. They are Knights, these dark priests of law, shielding the Temple of which they serve. They do not call themselves members of such secret societies for nothing.

Well, no current US  BAR member would ever agree to any of these (ahem) conspiracy assertions, but the tiny details lost in the fog of history do deserve closer scrutiny.

{INTERNATIONAL BAR ASSOCIATION–In Colonial America, attorneys trained attorneys but most held no “title of nobility” or “honor”. There was no requirement that one be a lawyer to hold the position of district attorney, attorney general, or judge; a citizen’s “counsel of choice” was not restricted to a lawyer; there were no state or national bar associations.

The only organization that certified lawyers was the International Bar Association (IBA), chartered by the King of England, headquartered in London, and closely associated with the international banking system. Lawyers admitted to the IBA received the rank “Esquire” — a “title of nobility”. “Esquire” was the principle title of nobility which the 13th Amendment sought to prohibit from the United States. Why? Because the loyalty of “Esquire” lawyers was suspect.

Bankers and lawyers with an “Esquire” behind their names were agents of the monarchy, members of an organization whose principle purposes were political, not economic, and regarded with the same wariness that some people today reserve for members of the KGB or the CIA.

Article 1, Sect. 9 of the Constitution sought to prohibit the International Bar Association (or any other agency that granted titles of nobility) from operating in America. But the Constitution neglected to specify a penalty, so the prohibition was ignored, and agents of the monarchy continued to infiltrate and influence the government (as in the Jay Treaty and the US Bank charter incidents).

Therefore, a “title of nobility” amendment that specified a penalty (loss of citizenship) was proposed in 1789, and again in 1810. The meaning of the amendment is seen in its intent to prohibit persons having titles of nobility and loyalties foreign governments and bankers from voting, holding public office, or using their skills to subvert the government.

  According to David Dodge, Tom Dunn, and Webster’s Dictionary, the archaic definition of “honor” (as used when the 13th Amendment was ratified) meant anyone “obtaining or having an advantage or privilege over another”.  A contemporary example of an “honor” granted to only a few Americans is the privilege of being a judge: Lawyers can be judges and exercise the attendant privileges and powers; non-lawyers cannot. 

By prohibiting “honors”, the missing Amendment prohibits any advantage or privilege that would grant some citizens an unequal opportunity to achieve or exercise political power. Therefore, the second meaning (intent) of the 13th Amendment was to ensure political equality among all American citizens, by prohibiting anyone, even government officials, from claiming or exercising a special privilege or power (an “honor”) over other citizens. If this interpretation is correct, “honor” would be the key concept in the 13th Amendment. Why? Because, while titles of nobility” may no longer apply in today’s political system, the concept of “honor” remains relevant. HTTP://www.w3f. com/patriots/13/13th-08.HTML}

[The Original Thirteenth Article of Amendment To The Constitution For The United States: “If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.”] [Journal of the Senate]

       [Article I, Sections 9 and 10 of the Constitution contain provisions that clearly prohibit the states and the federal government from granting titles:

       No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign State.

       No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

       “Let’s not forget that all U. S. BAR Attorneys have entitled themselves, as a direct result of their official BAR license and oaths, with the British title of “esquire.” This word is a derivative of the British word “squire.”

            SQUIRE, n. [a popular contraction of esquire] 1. In Great Britain, the title of a gentleman next in rank to a knight. 2. In Great Britain, an attendant on a noble warrior. 3. An attendant at court. 4. In the United States, the title of magistrates and lawyers. In New-England, it is particularly given to justices of the peace and judges. – Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.

           ESQUIRE n. Earlier as squire n.1 lme. [Origin French. esquier (mod. écuyer) f. Latin scutarius shield – bearer, f. scutum shield: see – ary 1.] 1. Orig. (now Hist.), a young nobleman who, in training for knighthood, acted as shield-bearer and attendant to a knight. Later, a man belonging to the higher order of English gentry, ranking next below a knight. lme. b Hist. Any of various officers in the service of a king or nobleman. c A landed proprietor, a country squire. arch. – Oxford English Dictionary 1999.]

During the English feudal laws of land ownership and tenancy, a squire – esquire – was established as the land proprietor charged with the duty of carrying out, among various other duties, the act of attornment for the land owner and nobleman he served. Could this be any simpler for the average American to understand? 

     If our current U. S. BAR Attorneys were just lawyers, solicitors, barristers, advocates or counselors, then they would call themselves the same. They have named themselves just exactly what they are, yet we blindly cannot see the writing on the wall. The BAR Attorneys have not hidden this from anyone. That’s why they deliberately call themselves “Esquires” and “Attorneys at law.” It is the American people who have hidden their own heads in the sand.”]

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, after the decline of the feudal system, the title of “Esquire” was perpetuated by certain lawyers, among them William Blackstone and Edward Coke. These lawyers drew up lists of those they thought entitled to carry the title. The lists included various classes of men who were sons of peers, minor nobles, honorary knights and those who were designated with the title “esquire” upon appointment to office. These appointments were to both legal and non-legal offices and included among others, “Royal Academicians.”

However, it appears that the title has always been an arbitrary conferment and never reserved exclusively to lawyers. See, e. g., Black’s Law Dictionary (6th ed. 1990) (defining “esquire” as a title of dignity next above gentleman, and below knight; also a title of office given to sheriffs, sergeants, and barristers at law, justices of the peace and others; in the United States, title commonly appended after name of attorney); Random House Dictionary of the English Language (2nd ed. 1987)

(defining esquire as: “an unofficial title of respect having no precise significance, sometimes placed, esp. in abbreviated form, after a man’s surname in formal written address; in the U. S., usually applied to lawyers, women as well as men; in Britain, applied to a commoner considered to have gained the social position of gentleman”).

It is not clear how the title “Esquire” came to be used so commonly (and seemingly so exclusively) by lawyers in the United States. There is no authority that reserves the title “Esquire” for the exclusive use of lawyers. Because neither the law nor any established ethical rule governs the use of the title, it would be presumptuous for any non- legislative body to purport to regulate its use. Nonetheless, based on common usage it is fair to state that if the title appears after a person’s name, that person may be presumed to be a lawyer.

For example, New York’s Judiciary Law contains no reference to the use of the term esquire in its provisions governing “Attorneys and Counselors.” Indeed, it has been noted that: an ‘esquire’ has no relation to law. It is often added to the names of poets or artists; and the term may be applied to a landed proprietor or a country squire; that being one of courtesy. . . . Nowhere do find that the term ‘esquire’ denotes an attorney at law.” Antonelli v. Silvestri, 137 N. E.2d 146, 147-48 (Ohio App. 1955). HTTP://www2.nycbar.org/Publications/reports/show_HTML_new. php?rid=177

No wonder the little people pay taxes in the same manner of peons for the Privileges of living on their Masters lands. People simply need to be up-lifted from the commoner status to one of gentleman. Well, if one is to recognized as having equality with British subjects of the same order of Class. Despite, the dismissive polemics lawyers resort to on the matter it is odd to use a title that has no meaning, to the purpose, as defined.

To whom is the recognition intended?

The deeper issue is the actions involving land ownership and its attendant income producing activities. Without a clear and well defined legal framework in these matters of land possession, the subject of taxation of land and such incomes derived, fall into a fuzzy corner of contrived duties. Clearly, there is a profound disagreement as to why such a payment of capitation income-tax(tribute) is legal by Code, even as it is Unlawful, by Constitutional restrictions, somewhat dependent on land ownership. An excise tax by comparison is not bound by such land restrictions.

A Direct tax is based on the principle of apportionment, as a function of equal liability among the States, themselves sovereign Nations. Today this deeper principle, of separate but equal, is completely ignored and the enumerated power derived from this necessary quality has morphed into something quite different, than originally intended or enumerated.

Regulations and rules are no longer true to the purposes of original intent and are in fact, in strident contradiction. The resulting Cognitive Dissonance, of contrary meanings stipulated by such Coded legalisms, with quite different human qualities of property, purposely bewilders, confounds, mystifies and confuses all those who seek to unravel such imponderable vexations of logic and reason. How can the Law of the Land be subservient to inferior fictions at all?

The conflicting results strain the comprehension and demand ridicule of the fools pretending otherwise. Lawyers are hated for a reason and the title of their honor does not improve their social perceptions as thugs for a rotten system they help to perpetuate.

The truth is indeed quite foul to behold and thus even for lawyers easier to just ignore. The clues to the swamp of foulness begins with a keen, exploration of the historical underpinnings of why such unstated, ‘Implied Powers’ arising like foul smoke from the Constitution, even exist at all. Indeed, the Bill of Rights, was a perceptive reaction to an even deeper problem, centered on sovereign land ownership, thus its rights and privileges. In those distant times, these distinctions bound by land ownership, were not trivial in the least.

The pecking order of society itself was directly centered on the claims of Sovereign land Authority. More importantly, who really stood at the top of the Order itself? Who really owned that shiny Crown resting atop the Kings head? By whose authority does that gold preach such wisdom? Only a fool rents his Crown from a greater fool yet. When the Law becomes nothing more than a Religious Cult of Personality, whose more noble members are bound by its private authority, an obtuse tactic must be employed to induce peonage to the Master of the Crown. This [god] of private Money, whom so many worship, is indeed a capricious creature of foul habits, unworthy of any trust.

 “America was not conquered by William the Norman, nor its lands surrendered to him, or any of his successors…. It is time, therefore, for us to lay this matter before his majesty, and to declare that he has no right to grant lands of himself. “—THOMAS JEFFERSON,  A SUMMARY VIEW OF THE RIGHTS OF BRITISH AMERICA (1774)

 “As to usurpation, no man will be so hardy to defend it; and that William the Conqueror was a usurper is a fact not to be contradicted. The plain truth is, that the antiquity of English monarchy will not bear looking into.” —THOMAS PAINE, COMMON SENSE (1776) 

A quick re-coup of historical activities all of which were bound to the acquisition of new Lands:

{ “The original thirteen colonies of America were each separately established by charters from the English Crown. Outside of the common bond of each being a dependency and colony of the mother country, England, the colonies were not otherwise united. Each had its own governor, legislative assembly and courts, and each was governed separately and independently by the English Parliament.

The political connections of the separate colonies to the English Crown and Parliament descended to an unhappy state of affairs as the direct result of Parliamentary acts adopted in the late 1760’s and early 1770’s. Due to the real and perceived dangers caused by these various acts, the First Continental Congress was convened by representatives of the several colonies in October, 1774, the purpose of which was to submit a petition of grievances to the British Parliament and Crown.”

       [ To paraphrase some of the ‘Parliamentary acts’ aka grievances in question:

       “When Parliament legalized the catholic church in British Canada such was the reaction: Tolerate the Catholics? What had the empire fought for over the past two hundred years? Britain drove the French out of North America only to transfer the whole Mississippi basin to Catholic Spain?

       Spain promptly banned American flatboats and threatened to close the port of New Orleans. George III endeavored to shelter his new subjects, the Indians, by forbidding white settlement west of the Appalachians, the so- called Proclamation line of 1763. London was trying to adjust to the new realities brought on by victory in North America… but to Americans it seemed the British had become heretics to their own church. 

     To Americans it seemed that Britain itself had supplanted the Catholics powers as the royal, aristocratic, monopolistic, corrupt, oppressive dragon, so as early as 1765 the Sons of Liberty and the Stamp Act Congress retrained their rhetorical cannon, so recently aimed at the French, against Britain.” Walter A. McDougall]

By the Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress, dated October 14, 1774, the colonial representatives labeled these Parliamentary acts of which they complained as “impolitic, unjust, and cruel, as well as unconstitutional, and most dangerous and destructive of American rights,” and the purpose of which were designs, schemes and plans “which demonstrate a system formed to enslave America.” Revolution was assuredly in the formative stages absent conciliation between the mother country and colonies.

     The representatives which assembled in Philadelphia in May, 1787, to attend the Constitutional Convention met for the primary purpose of improving the commercial relations among the States, although the product of the Convention produced more than this. But, no intention was demonstrated for the States to surrender in any degree the jurisdiction so possessed by the States at that time, and indeed the Constitution as finally drafted continued the same territorial jurisdiction of the States as existed under the Articles of Confederation. 

     The essence of this retention of state jurisdiction was embodied in Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 17 of the U. S. Constitution, which read as follows:

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.”

     The reason for the inclusion of this clause in the Constitution was and is obvious. Under the Articles of Confederation, the States retained full and complete jurisdiction over lands and persons within their borders. The Congress under the Articles was merely a body which represented and acted as agents of the separate States for external affairs, and had no jurisdiction within the States.

     This defect in the Articles made the Confederation Congress totally dependent upon any given State for protection, and this dependency did in fact cause embarrassment for that Congress. During the Revolutionary War, while the Congress met in Philadelphia, a body of mutineers from the Continental Army surrounded the Congress and chastised and insulted the members thereof. 

     The governments of both Philadelphia and Pennsylvania proved themselves powerless to remedy the situation, and the Congress was forced to flee first to Princeton, New Jersey, and finally to Annapolis, Maryland. Thus, this clause was inserted into the Constitution to give jurisdiction to Congress over its capital, and such other places as Congress might purchase for forts, magazines, arsenals, and other needful buildings wherein the State ceded jurisdiction of such lands to the federal government. Other than in these areas, this clause of the Constitution did not operate to cede further jurisdiction to the federal government, and jurisdiction over unceded areas remained within the States.”} Lowell H. Becraft, Jr. Http://www.constitution.org/Juris/fedjur1. htm

The authority vested in a State, to be legitimate, must possess the very thing it defines: the Law of the Land. To secure these vested principles laws are inscribed into documents… including the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, with well defined Restrictions on government, aka Enumerated powers, as Stated and thus clarified in the Bill of Rights.

 Thomas Jefferson, “The Norman Conquest was the institution of an unjust power against the rights of the people. It is thus not a coincidence that the hereditary “English” political tradition was founded in utter violation of the principles of the Declaration of Independence.”

 In The Rights of Man, Paine explained, “by the Conquest all the rights of the people or the nation were absorbed into the hands of the Conqueror, who added the title of King to that of Conqueror.” Paine posited a remarkable ambiguity between the “rights of the people” and “the nation”. King was equated with Conqueror. In 1066 there existed a right of conquest, but no “rights of the people”. The modern invention of the latter justified, at long last, the reclamation of Anglo-Saxon “rights” from the “hands of the Conqueror”. The Declaration of Independence further asserts, “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government”. America provided an opportunity to do just that.

 Taking full advantage of this opportunity meant that America would truly be different from the old world. As The Rights of Man explained, “In England, the person who exercises this prerogative [as king] is often a foreigner; always half a foreigner, and always married to a foreigner. He is never in full natural or political connection with the country”. A lack of “natural” connection between the political elite and the people was significant for Paine. The contrast with America was clear: “The presidency of America… is the only office from which a foreigner is excluded; and in England, it is the only one to which he is admitted.”  The new world would be different.

Where there is no jurisdiction for a Federal Law to operate upon a subject, outside of the enumeration of documented powers of Authority, there can only be its ghost of Implied Powers. Today, the sophistry of these legal fictions is to be found in the reliance of such political forces over natural reason. The mental switch from semantics ‘of law’ to physical laws is quite automatic so it is wise to remind ourselves that physical laws are merely descriptions that predict outcomes. Human law is not based on physics, but can be exceptionally empirical by logical operations of Principles. A Law without such Principles is the basis of tyranny. Tyranny is not an enumerated power of Congress. When Congress delegates a power already dubious by implication, it is Congress which is dodging responsibility in regards to upholding the Law.

This is especially true in tax regulations, also known as the Code. These mathematical codes which operate upon the Person, as if the man was merely a number in a land of fictions, also determine the mans economic fate… as if no other consideration of life itself was necessary, or even justified.

The Code operation relies on a sophisticated manner of obscuring natural Tension Function relationships between a man and his survival, otherwise manifest in clarity.

If a taxpayer is X, a Source is Y and Z is Income; there must be an answer called A which equals taxable income.

When Equations assume the authority of law one must wonder what magic power such numbers must possess. When men find themselves controlled by such numbers, contrary to their sense of reason, the natural result is to reject the claim of authority implied by the power itself.

Essentially, the Code is a software program for the Mind and it is quite clever in its use of words dependent on complex mathematical equations to predict variable out-comes called a tax. When coupled with political slogans employing the ‘false-Positive Statement’ (which defines a false-Negative Assertion by default) the result is Cognitive Dissonance.

The IRS employs this method quite effectively to entrap the target of the false allegation by asserting a false-positive statement.

The following popular trick question utilizes the same method of the false-Positive Statement. Asked of a man, “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?” The negative assertion is the man has not stopped the action, thus is guilty and he is still doing so. He is by negative inference guilty of two actions.

To snip both negative assertions only requires the man to answer, “I have no wife at all.” But if he is married he assumes to assert a defense of one is only at the sacrifice of the other. Since he is only allowed the one answer of ‘no’ then he is guilty of the negative assertion by default. This is the art of entrapment, by the false Positive Statement.

The third answer is this: He effectively says, “I don’t understand the charges because I don’t see how they could possibly apply to me.”  This is also the correct answer to a false-Positive Statement of negative assertion, such as this:

“Any person required under this title to pay any estimated tax or tax, or required by this title or by regulations made under authority thereof to make a return, keep any records, or supply any information…”

Who really is the “Any Person” remains to be defined. That it is you (the person reading the sentence) is a negative assertion. Since a corporation is also such a Person, why assume ‘any’ other non-fictional ‘person’ is being referenced at all?  Why does a man  need to associate himself, with an assertion, without a single defining element of what ‘Any Person’ actually means in a strict lawful sense?

Who is this Any person external to the fiction so implied? Does any name actually mean any person? Am I  an ‘any person’ as named?   What is in a name that is only a fiction? Is identity of just a name sufficient to impose a direct meaning of the term as used? Any person, as used, is a generality which does not define the very thing it demands: identity of a fictional subject pursuant to a lawful context.

If I find the word ‘Zebra’ by artful legal meaning is defined as ‘Any Person’ then I know the answer to the first question is specific to zebra and nothing else. However, a zebra is sub-set of an entire global class of animals called Zebras. So one can ask which fiction is the any zebra?

Literally, if told  ‘any zebra’ of this class of ‘Zebras’ is the zebra so defined a relationship can be examined. Well, at least one now knows a global class of Zebras, are subject to the specific demand, upon any zebra, as defined. Reading the sentence with ‘any zebra’ defined as the ‘any person’ also tells the reader that anyone who is not a zebra, cannot be required to pay the demand of the tax as imposed. To remove this clarity is to invite duplicity.

The class of Persons, which is referenced has to be global and any person IN that specific class is the ‘any person’ as defined. Thus, a global variable (Persons) includes any-persons, which also has a sub-set group that includes individuals. If I have a global-grain-bucket named Federal Person, holding inside any-person wheat, each grain must be the individual.

So all “people” in the Union of states are also defined as any persons, right? Maybe… and no. Since ‘people’ is not defined at all it is a false assertion to include people as defining a global person. Any person is simply asserting ‘a defining class’ of (federal) persons, all by itself. So, any person in that (federal) class is simply defined as the Actual person, within the fictional grouping, who can and must take the action as directed. Each step seems congruent to the actions of purpose, unless the assertion is false, upon the actions of operation, as required. To wit, any other person, citizen, resident etc. may not be such an “any corporate person” and in fact, by default, living people are not such a fictional, federal [corporate Person] at all.

The next false assertion is that Federal Jurisdiction upon “any person” is specific and beyond debate. The federal government has done a fine job of asserting this global jurisdiction, by legal semantics, obscuring such ambiguous meanings with contractual definitions that are assumed to be true in all cases. A graphical representation of color coded relationships would help reveal each class of persons subject to the requirements demands. The IRS never uses any graphical, color-coded representations to demonstrate, or illustrate, important concepts of lawful relationships. To do so would reveal who is lawfully in a taxing class not just that undefined “persons” are required to file.

Instead, it is aggressively implied “any person” simply means everybody. So why is “everybody” not defined or ever mentioned? This method of Negative assertion is quite clever as the result defines a perfect legal cage based on an illusion of implied meanings. Since there is no way to define yourself within the code as negative to the assertion “any persons” then you must by default fit the criteria of “any person” as demanded, which is contractual and thus binding in operations of the code, so specified.

To further confuse the undefined “any person” under the title reads instead, ‘TAX ON INDIVIDUALS’ not “Any Person” or an individual of the human race, or specifically, all individual citizens of the Union states. The instructions now deceptively switch from an indirect-excise tariff tax, to an unconstitutional, direct capitation tax.

There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual (other than a surviving spouse as defined in section 2 (a) or the head of a household as defined in section 2 (b)) who is not a married individual (as defined in section 7703) a tax determined in accordance with the following table— If taxable income is: Not over $22,100 then compute 15% of taxable income.

(According to the semantics of written operations a tax has been “automatically” determined and Now the reader of the instruction is liable, for the tax as imposed.)

This is where the duplicity really begins. Is ‘hereby imposed’ the sum of the Law? Well, it must be because IF the phrase is left out the rest of the sentence is non-operational. If there is no ‘imposed’ there can be no hereby tax. Also note the change of [ Any person required under this title to pay ] to hereby imposed. Interesting change of implied authority. The actual authority behind “imposed hereby” is never qualified, thus it is asserted, the authority from which it must be derived must be true.

This is of course false.

There is no such Law granting, giving or allowing “Absolute” federal jurisdiction in the Union States. This is the very reason no regulation can be found for liability itself. What “every individual” is liable for under such a defined imposition is a natural question never answered, by the rules of the operation itself. So who is the “individual” upon which a direct capitation TAX imposition has been placed?

The word ‘individual’ itself is used in many contexts both in law and in the Codes. Context is everything especially when the term individual is never defined at all by any regulation. If one is an “individual” outside the defined federal zone then it is a false assumption to identify yourself with the individual in question. The Code is not required to make, or even admit, there is such a lawful distinction. This is duplicity. Since there is in fact more then one answer, of which the most important one is omitted, the result is a false Positive-Statement.

No doubt raising this fact in Court will be deemed frivolous. Unless, one has made the color coded chart and can actually use it in their own defense. Tax courts are notoriously selective in their rules of admissible evidence. They have no choice. They are always arguing from weakness. The weaker the truth the greater the tyranny of suppression. The more foul the lie the bolder the liar must become to silence truth. The IRS speaks a lie Congress has no interest in refuting.

The next qualifying term is “taxable — income” which is quite sly in its seemingly compounded, yet contradictory singular meanings. The word taxable has a special meaning when placed before the word income. In fact, a whole set of meanings. Income, which also has a special meaning dependent on hidden variables, is bound by meaning to the 16th amendment: Incomes. The word “income” is apparently not defined due to this fact and the word taxable is referencing a specific class of Items from Sources not defined, which if not taxable, thereby, negate the word Income as used. If due to the hidden operations of  ‘source-item-income’  that is not taxable, there is no such thing as taxable income, thus the assertion, any person, or individual, is required to pay the implied tax becomes false.

However, in the Code there is no relief statement such as: if no income is derived from all necessary, self-assessment operations no tax is owed. The literal context of the statement does not produce taxable liability until all possible operations have been completed. [A tax determined in accordance with the following table]. To assert one before the other is a false demand. To unravel this knot of assertions reveals an odd logic at work tied to the demand itself. The generic reading of the math problem, as given is true, only if all of the underlying propositions are also true. If not true, then the math operation still delivers a real number, but the wrong lawful answer.

Filling in numbers does not validate the operation itself.

Since this section, does not allow for a wrong answer by the assertion, it is falsely assumed there is no flaw in the operation, as provided. The term “in accordance” is a stipulation of ‘agreement; conformity’ with the tax tables of numbers to be literally taken at face value (are these numbers really true as well?); Only then IF a derived “taxable net-income” (from a separate gross-income operation not specified) one is to find the matching range value, then perform the specified computation to produce the finalized “net taxable income” and this result is owed as a tax by the imposition Hereby: to Congress, via the IRS– via the Federal Reserve Board. Or so it is asserted.

The knot revolves around a non-defined plural ‘Incomes’ not the singular “income” and the hidden assertion is income is always a Profit for an individual, as measured in contractual-debt-dollars, as received by wages, compensations etc. A non-apportioned, Capitation tax, aka the direct tax [as used] is not specified by the lawful operation.

The Title is missing the word Capitation for a reason not mentioned. If Congress, can lay a non-apportioned, continuous direct tax, which is specifically,  not uniform by excise standards, why not just say so:  This is a Capitation tax upon all individual citizens, plus all classes of non-citizens etc, in every Union State, of the United States as Directed.

This specific quality of term definition is also a perfect legal cage and has no wrong answer. The simplicity of the imposed tax operation upon reception of contractual-debt-currency, for any reason, leaves no doubt such individuals, as specified, always must file and pay the taxable income quotient as required.

Since this is not the case something must be blocking simplicity, clarity and meaning, by the standards required by the Law itself. The fact is ‘taxable’ modifies a null state called ‘income’ as a sub-set class of Incomes.

[In the case of Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U. S. 189 in 1920, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that Congress cannot by legislation define or redefine the term “income” because only the Constitution can define it.]{And yet the word in question is —Incomes— two classes: intangible and tangible.}

“In order, therefore, that the [apportionment] clauses cited from article I [§2, cl. 3 and §9, cl. 4] of the Constitution may have proper force and effect …[I]t becomes essential to distinguish between what is and what is not ‘income,’…according to truth and substance, without regard to form. 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 those limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised… [pg. 207]…After examining dictionaries in common use 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] and Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U. S. 179, 185, 38 S. Sup. Ct. 467, 469, 62 L. Ed. 1054…”

The Code does not define ‘Income’ properly, as the ‘meanings’ of two very different classes of specific “incomes” have been co-mingled, as used in the 16th amendment. People read the amendment as if only one class of ‘income’ is connected to source. However, incomes is plural and there is an ambiguity in determining which “income” actually references, the intangible sources of income, versus tangible sources, which are merely ‘categorized’ as income— anything that comes in— which is a meaningless generality devoid of Lawful purpose.

In the late nineteenth century there was a significant increase in wealth held in intangible forms, such as stocks and bonds. This wealth escaped both the federal tariff (because it was not consumed) and the state property tax because it was intangible rather than “real” property. [The work of M. W. Albert, cited the historical basis of the significance of this intangible wealth concentration.]

The term “income” in Title 26, the Internal Revenue Code, is found in 26 U. S. C. §643 as follows. TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Sub-chapter J > PART I > Sub-part A > § 643  (Nothing in the code about the 16th meaning)

§ 643. Definitions applicable to sub-parts A, B, C, and D

(b) Income

For purposes of this sub-part and sub-parts B, C, and D, the term “income”, when not preceded by the words “taxable”, “distributable net”, “undistributed net”, or “gross”, means the amount of income of the estate or trust for the taxable year determined under the terms of the governing instrument and applicable local law. Items of gross income constituting extraordinary dividends or taxable stock dividends which the fiduciary, acting in good faith, determines to be allocable to corpus under the terms of the governing instrument and applicable local law shall not be considered income.

Now it is established a second nested operation must be performed to define the ‘taxable’ income from Incomes: Adjusted Gross Income—Definition of ‘Adjusted Gross Income – AGI’ A measure of income used to determine how much of your income is taxable. Adjusted gross income (AGI) is calculated as your gross income from taxable sources [which are not yet defined] minus allowable deductions, such as: unreimbursed business expenses, medical expenses, alimony and deductible retirement plan contributions. [Note living expenses are not so qualified.]

Now it is specified that to calculate the (AGI) one must determine Adjusted gross income from taxable sources minus deductions. Note there is no gross incomes, or a specific qualification of gross receipts, in regards to source.

“ gross income” minus allowable deductions. TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Sub-chapter N > PART I > § 863 Special rules for determining source (a) Allocation under regulations Items of gross income, expenses, losses, and deductions, other than those specified in sections 861 (a) and 862 (a), shall be allocated or apportioned to sources ‘within or without‘ the United States, under regulations prescribed [to lay down rules; direct; dictate] by the Secretary [The Constitutional authority of this current official is also in question]. Where items of gross income are separately allocated to sources within the United States, there shall be deducted (for the purpose of computing the taxable income therefrom) the expenses, losses, and other deductions properly apportioned or allocated thereto and a ratable* part of other expenses, losses, or other deductions which cannot definitely be allocated to some item or class of gross income. The remainder, if any, shall be included in full as taxable income from sources within the United States.

*Chiefly British— Liable to assessment; taxable

26 CFR Part 1, generally defines “ gross income” to mean “all income [note singular use of INCOMES] from whatever source derived, *unless excluded by law.” as follows:

26 CFR § 1.61-1(a):

(a) General definition.

Gross income means all income from whatever source derived, *unless excluded by law. Gross income includes income realized in any form, whether in money, property, or services. Income may be realized, therefore, in the form of services, meals, accommodations, stock, or other property, as well as in cash.

Section 61 lists the more common items of gross income for purposes of illustration. For purposes of further illustration, Sec. 1.61-14 mentions several miscellaneous items of gross income not listed specifically in section 61. Gross income, however, is not limited to the items so enumerated.

[*26 CFR § 39.22(b)-1 (1956): Certain items of income specified in section 22(b) are exempt from tax and may be excluded from gross income. These items, however, are exempt only to the extent and in the amount specified. No other items may be excluded from gross income except (a) those items of income which are, under the Constitution, not taxable by the Federal Government; (b) those items of income which are exempt from tax on income under the provisions of any act of Congress still in effect; and (c ) the income excluded under the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code (see particularly section 116).] *older version of the code.

26 CFR § 1.863-1(c) “Determination of taxable income. The taxpayer’s taxable income from sources within or without the United States will be determined under the rules of Secs. 1.861-8 through 1.861-14T for determining taxable income from sources within the United States.”

For purposes of this section, the term “statutory grouping of gross income” or “statutory grouping” means the gross income from a specific source or activity which must first be determined in order to arrive at “taxable income” from which specific source or activity under an operative section. (See paragraph (f)(1) of this section.)

The preceding paragraphs are just a small sample of the tortured path simple logic must travel to arrive at the assumed simple answer. Take note the *1956 Code: (a) those items of income which are, under the Constitution, not taxable by the Federal Government— this code statement not only begs the question of what (items of income) but why, this exceptional statement IS now missing from current instructions. How many other omissions contribute to such confusion of allowable domestic income exemptions? The following examples demonstrate why the regulations are not to be taken at face value.

[Section 1, it will be observed, imposes the tax on your “taxable income.” How do you know what that is? Section 63 of the Code, 26 U. S. C. § 63, defines “taxable income” to mean “gross income minus the deductions allowed” by chapter 1 of the Code, so now we need to know what “gross income” is. So we turn to section 61 of the Code, 26 U. S. C. § 61, which provides the critical definition:]

Section 61 of the Internal Revenue Code provides that gross income includes all income from whatever source derived, including compensation for services. [The instructions always repeat the phrase of the 16th amendment incorrectly on purpose.]

“Source: Sec. 22(a), 1939 Code, substantially unchanged”

“The regulations under 22(a) of the 1939 Code show that the meaning of “gross income” does not include income which is exempt by statute, or other income which is “under the Constitution, not taxable by the Federal Government.” But, as stated before, the regulations must specifically inform the public of what is required, rather than leaving people to guess at what is Constitutionally taxable. The following is the first paragraph of the 1945 regulations under the section of statutes defining “gross income”:

“39.22(a)-1 What included in gross income (a) Gross income includes in general [items of income listed] derived from any source whatever, unless exempt from tax by law. See sections 22(b) and 116. [the regulations under the cited section states that some income not exempted by statute is “under the Constitution, not taxable by the Federal Government”] In general, income [not “gross income”] is 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. Profits of citizens, residents, or domestic corporations derived from sales in foreign commerce must be included in their gross income; but special provisions are made for nonresident aliens and foreign corporations by sections 211 to 238, inclusive, and, in certain cases, by section 251, for citizens and domestic corporations deriving income from sources within possessions of the United States. Income may be in the form of cash or of property.” [items of income listed] derived from any source whatever, unless exempt from tax by law.

There are many matters discussed previously in this report which would suggest an attempt to deceive. Did the authors not know that the phrase “from whatever source derived” would be read by most as meaning “no matter where it comes from”? Is it coincidence that the taxable “items” are listed near the very beginning of the law, but the taxable “sources” are not described until several thousand pages later? How did it happen that the list of taxable sources ended up under the unobtrusive heading “miscellaneous matters” in 26 CFR § 1.861-8(f)(1)? If the goal of the lawmakers was to convey the truth, the current statutes and regulations would not have been the result.”

To understand why the current section § 61 is miss-leading, the original preceding code has to be re-examined:

SECTION 22 [1939]: Gross Income – (a) General Definition.

“Gross income” includes gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation.”

The language of Section 22 was altered when the Revenue Act of 1954 was passed (68A Stat. 3) to read: SECTION 61 [1954]: Gross income defined:

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived….

(1) Compensation for services. . . . . Etc.

“In the language of Sec. 22 it is clear that “salaries, wages, or compensations” were “sources” of income. Remember, that the committee in revising the 1939 code by the 1954 edition did not alter the ‘substance’ of the meaning of IRC Section 22a. The House Report on the proposed legislation for Section 61 it is interesting in that the House states that:

“[t]his section (§61) corresponds to section 22(a) and the 1939 Code. While the language in existing section 22 (a) has been simplified, the all-inclusive nature of statutory gross income has not been affected thereby. Section 61 (a) is as broad in scope as section 22(a).”

The Senate Report goes on to say: “Section 61(a) provides that gross income includes ‘all income from whatever source derived.’ This definition is based upon the sixteenth amendment and the word ‘income’ is used as in section 22(a) in its constitutional sense. It is not intended to change the concept of income that obtains under section 22 (a).”

There is one more minor problem with the Section 61:

In order to understand how Section 61 is actually applied under the law today, it is absolutely essential to know and understand how Section 22 was implemented and applied in 1939, because that implementation has been carried forward “substantially unchanged” according to the now missing footnote. Research reveals the following table, shown here from the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 500-599, Index of Parallel Tables – 1991, enabling sections from the 1939 I. R. Code, it clearly shows that Section 22, under the 1939 code (but still annotated in the law in the enabling sections) was implemented under Title 26, Part 519 (Exhibit G2).

Part 519 is the Canadian Tax Treaty. Section 61 actually defines, through the inherited limited implementation of Section 22 from the 1939 code, which was carried forward substantially unchanged, the sources of taxable income under the 75 year tax treaty with Canada that was signed in 1918 and lasted until 1993.

Section 61 does not define the domestic sources of taxable income at all according to this table. As far as citizens are concerned, Section 61 only defines the Canadian sources of taxable, gross income under the Canadian Tax Treaty.” Thomas Freed HTTP://www.docstoc. com/docs/93535297/The-SIMPLE-TRUTH-THE- LIES-WE-TELL# [Be sure to check out the photo-exhibits which prove the assertions.]

Some interesting questions concerning these Code meanings routinely ignored by the IRS:

[ Admit that the United States Supreme Court has defined the term income(s) for purposes of all income tax legislation as: The gain derived from capital, from labor or from both combined, provided it include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets. 128. Admit that in the absence of gain, there is no “income.” 129. Admit that there is a difference between gross receipts and gross income. 130. Admit that the United States Supreme Court recognizes that one’s labor constitutes property. 131. Admit that the United States Supreme Court stated in Butchers’ Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U. S. 746, 757 (concurring opinion of Justice Fields) (1883), that: 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. 132. Admit that the United States Supreme Court recognizes that contracts of employment constitute property. 133. Admit that the United States Supreme Court stated in Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U. S. 1, 14 (1914) that: The principle is fundamental and vital. Included in the right of personal liberty and the right of private property-partaking of the 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. 134. Admit that the United States Supreme Court recognizes that a contract for labor is a contract for the sale of property. 135. Admit that the United States Supreme Court has stated in Adair v. United States, 208 U. S. 161, 172 (1908) that:

In our opinion that section, in the particular mentioned, is an invasion of the personal liberty, as well as of the right of property, guaranteed by that Amendment (5th Amendment). Such liberty and right embraces the right to make contracts for the purchase of the labor of others and equally the right to make contracts for the sale of one’s own labor.

136. Admit that Congress recognizes at Section 64 of the Internal Revenue Code that “ordinary income” is a gain from the sale or exchange of property. 137. Admit that Internal Revenue Code Sections 1001, 1011 and 1012 provide the method Congress has set forth for determining the gain derived from the sale of property. 138.

Admit that Section 1001(a) states that: “The gain from the sale or other disposition of property shall be the excess of the amount realized therefrom over the adjusted basis provided in section 1011 for determining gain . . . .” 139.

Admit that Section 1001(b) states that: “The amount realized from the sale or other disposition of property shall be the sum of any money received plus the fair market value of the property (other than money) received.” 140.

Admit that Section 1011 states that: “The adjusted basis for determining the gain or loss from the sale or other disposition of property, whenever acquired, shall be the basis (determined under section 1012…), adjusted as provided in section 1016.” 141.

Admit that Section 1012 states that: “The basis of property shall be the cost of such property . . . .” 142.

Admit that the cost of property purchased under contract is its fair market value as evidenced by the contract itself, provided neither the buyer nor sell were acting under compulsion in entering into the contract, and both were fully aware of all the facts regarding the contract. 143.

Admit that in the case of the sale of labor, none of the provisions of Section 1016 of the Internal Revenue Code are applicable. 144.

Admit that when an employer pays the employee the amount agreed upon by their contract, there is no excess amount realized over the adjusted basis, and thus no gain under Section 1001 of the Internal Revenue Code. 145.

Admit that if one has no gain, one would have no income. 146. Admit that if one has no income, one would have no “gross income.” 147. Admit that in the absence of “gross income,” one would not be required to make a return under Section 6012 of the Internal Revenue Code. (See 26 U. S. C. § 6012.) Truth-in-Taxation Hearing Questions. We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education, Inc. HTTP://www.givemeliberty.org/

What is a taxable income liability when the operations of determination cannot provide the correct answer in every instance?

In contrast, the uniform quality of the excise tax method is found, by example, in simple operations of buying groceries. The groceries sales slip has multiple items and only those items of which the “sales tax” is applicable, by such law, are so operated upon; the rest are simply added to a sub-total.

A non-taxed item is exempt by the operation and those items taxed are in the taxable class. This simplicity is uniform and reproducible with exacting results every time, for every shopper, at any store. The beauty of this simplicity demonstrates the law without confusion or ambiguity, both for the shopper and the business. IF the claim is to be said of the “taxable Incomes” procedures of determination then uniformity is impossible. In fact, it is so impossible to determine uniform results, as to refute the very principle of uniformity, by the ambiguous results of the operations themselves.

What is also clear is how far removed from Taft’s original assertions of the intentions of the 16th amendment, the code has deviated. Nowhere is there any reference to explicitly taxing the success of privileged corporate activities. The lack of a specific definition of income based on domestic State sources versus foreign, also contributes to the purposeful confusion of liability.

In, Stratton’s Independence v. Howbert, the Supreme Court justices defined income as “a gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, provided it be understood to include profit gained through sale or conversion of capital assets.”

Income is not a wage or compensation for any type of labor.” [Stapler v. US, 21 F. Supp 737, 739 (1937)]

The general term ‘income’ is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code.” [U. S. v. Ballard 400 F2d 404 (1976)]

In the case of Lucas v Earl, 281 US 111 (1930), the U. S. Supreme Court stated unambiguously that: “The claim that salaries, wages, and compensation for personal services are to be taxed as an entirety and therefore, must be returned by the individual, who has performed the services, which produced the gain is without support, either in the language of the Act, or in the decisions of the courts construing it. Not only this, but it is directly opposed to provisions of the Act and to regulations of the U. S. Treasury Dept. which either prescribe or permit that compensation for personal services be not taxed as an entirety and be not returned by the individual performing the services. It is to be noted that by the language of the Act it is not salaries, wages, or compensation for personal services that are to be included in gross income. That which is to be included is gains, profits, and income DERIVED from salaries, wages or compensation for personal services.

The Court ruled similarly in Goodrich v Edwards, 255 U. S. 527 (1921) and in 1969, the Court ruled in Connor v U. S. 303 F supp 1187, that, “Whatever may constitute income, therefore must have the essential feature of gain to the recipient. This was true when the 16th Amendment became effective, it was true at the time of Eisner v Macomber supra, it was true under sect 22 (a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1938, and it is likewise true under sect 61 (a) of the I. R. S. Code of 1954. If there is not gain there is not income … Congress has taxed INCOME(s) and not compensation.

It is the legal right of a taxpayer to decrease the amount of what otherwise would be his taxes, or altogether avoid them, by any means which the law permits.” US TAX COURT

Whatever happened to “unearned income”?

That used to be the normal term for income from investments dividends, interest and capital gains. It does seem odd that those who work for their money generally pay higher tax rates than those who simply collect investment income. It also seems odd that those who work in that one industry — private equity — get to pay lower rates than those who work in other businesses.” By FLOYD NORRIS Published: January 19, 2012 page B1 of the New York edition with the headline: Unearned, And Taxed Unequally.

Why indeed? One class of Income is operated on as an in-direct excise of the corporate privilege in practice, the other, as acted upon, is a Direct, unapportioned Capitation tax on the individual receiving the “active earnings” in total; as all “personal” expenses are simply declared non-deductible. The justification is that labor has a zero cost basis. A man pays nothing for his own (Capital) labor therefore, all he gains by his wage-labor is pure profit. This is a seriously, defective position both of logic and law. The absurdity of such a tyrannical declaration actually has deep roots:

In 1869 The New York Times described the system of wage labor as “a system of slavery” as absolute if not as degrading as that which lately prevailed at the South”.

Historically, the range of occupations and status positions held by chattel slaves has been nearly as broad as that held by free persons, indicating some similarities between chattel slavery and wage slavery as well.”

The term, “wage slavery” was gradually replaced by the more pragmatic term “wage work” towards the end of the 19th century.”

The direct Capitation tax on wage [debt] slaves does not paint a rosy picture of free men enjoying the Liberties of those vested rights of freedom. A wage slave today is still suffering monetary injustice due to the inherent and rather severe differences of Income classes. Unearned income is what people receive without being required to perform work or service. This is the great divide between the tangible and in-tangible classes of Incomes. When the 16th amendment was deemed to be ratified, money earned by wage labors, was at least measured and paid, by real tangible money. This is no longer true. Corporational bank Credit is technically intangible, thus the Debt of its creation is intangible as well. Money by this definition is neither credit or debt as real money is whole unto itself.

When the Nation was switched over to contractual debt Notes the significance of the these differences of source was lost in the murky back-ground where it has remained ever since. The meaning of money was changed to favor the Creditor class, whose intangible assets gave such private wealth holders a considerable advantage over those dependent on their operations of the money system. Only this sly twist on such contrary meanings of income places everyone else, not excluded from such distinctions, in the same shoes as a civil debtor in regards to the National debt. Quite the difference, when compared as such, to subtle qualities of source. Who has control of labor is also controlling national debt, specifically the money power. This is the very meaning found in the Circular quoted by M. W. Albert :

“… for slavery is but the owning of labor and carries with it the care of the laborer, while the European plan, led on by England, is capital control of labor by controlling wages.

This forthright assertion of how to control labor by controlling wages is not about the Market determining the values, thus, no natural law at work here, and no natural constants to define economic science. This is about control and the system best served by such control. A system, which is in direct opposition, to one which is based on freedom of choice.

The substantial differences in economic operations of “income” for different classes, especially in real wealth measures(assets), has always been the reason behind monetary injustice. When intangible wealth controls, both intangible assets and tangible assets, an income tax [by the demand itself] must encompass both properties, or it is defective to its actual purpose. This glaringly obvious, odious discrepancy also explains the massive difference in the wealth of the top tenth of a percent and the bottom eight-six percent. The difference is the measure of the failure. The true basis Cost of this failure is incalculable.

The Systems main purpose is wound around the enforcement of these non-scientific rules, using lawful sounding, politically driven economic policies. Only when the underlying logic is carefully scrutinized does the real purpose of such rules become glaringly apparent. The ‘pragmatic term’ was gradually introduced to hide the truth of wage-slavery as actually practiced. Who benefits from this system is also quite clear. Treating labor time values with equal qualities of intangible passive-money constants is the disingenuous part of the game being played.

Thus, every man who has to “work” for a living is expending his “Material Time” plus the physical energies (His Capital) in those money labors. How convenient that his time and physical “Capital value”, thus employed, by that task, has been reduced to zero by legislative fiat, in order to justify taking a never-ending portion of the wages earned, as material gains.

Thanks to the absurd claim that federal with-holding was and still is perfectly lawful, in glaring opposition to Constitutional restrictions, specifically on Congress, such a taking (of presumed profit) is done before the Check is even cashed out. People have to file the Return, if there is any hope of getting something of that taking back, which proves it was not pure profit, hence the absurdity of claiming otherwise. This is a forced coercion of the unapportioned Capitation tax. There is no interest earned on the held amount during the time interval. So this is also technically a free loan which no Bank has ever offered to any wage worker. Try using any amount of money for free from a bank. The very demand itself, might well land such a bold individual, in one of those funny, white-padded rooms.

In contrast, to a living individual, a corporation has all applicable expenses deducted before a gain [which includes labor costs], or net income, can be declared a profit. A wage earner has no such option. How strange there is no uniformity here either. In anti-America, a wage earning man is required to pay his debt-tax, ahead of time, so he can lose the full value of his wage-money on purpose. His labor profit as federally “claimed” is automatically reduced before he even fills out a single item of deduction. How was this profit of labors actually computed before a single, lawful operation was completed?

In fact, a wage cannot be a profit for a very simple reason: a profit is a measure of gain, which can only be derived from two values—one lower then the other. A base labor value of zero is irrefutably unfair, as it is illogical. The cost of a widget includes whole-sale plus mark-up, where the mark-up is the profit margin built into the sale price. What is the equivalent of this profit margin in an hourly wage? Does an employee purchase his hour of time and then profit when the employer pays him more than expected? If a saddle is the burden of the tax, and the horse is the source of income, why is the man carrying the saddle as if he had no horse at all?

An employee owes his work performance [Time] and the employer owes his worker an agreed Rate[by hour] for the labor, as employed. The rate of compensation is not a profit, unless, it is greater than the material cost value of the work hour. In a typical wage based job this is not very likely. A fixed hourly rate contains no profit margin. Pointing a finger at a number on a payroll check does not make it a profit. Do stock brokers say, “I sold my stocks for a wage?” How about gross-wage revenues minus gross-living expenses equals a net-wage gain?

At least in the former example the principles are consistent to the purpose. The trouble is an employer cannot make life expense calculations for an employee based only on hours as worked. The employer has no authority in such decisions, or any lawful responsibility, to judge such personal matters of expenses. The wage employee is the only one who can make such decisions and the payroll check has no such functions. Profit cannot be generalized from a payroll check amount. Why is the IRS even allowed to make such tyrannical claims in regards to personal expenses, much less, making unfounded allegations of realized profits, without any empirical proof?

This is political driven hearsay, of the worst kind of social injustice.

Working people do not have the same rights of deducting the costs of personal expenses—as a fiction of political law, which is in practice a lousy double-standard, of civil inequality. A Direct Capitation tax and an In-Direct excise tax are operating on completely different economic principles and cannot be considered equal, or Uniform as applied.

If a class of working men receiving payments for labor compensation, as IF the only purpose was the pursuit of Profit, why do they have no rights to apply all expenses as used, debt liabilities as deductions as contracted, depreciation’s of all personal capital as used, in the exact same manner as a corporation, or a business?

Any assertion of uniformity, where none exists, much less fairness, due to the inherent differences, is lawfully absurd. One artificial class of persons is clearly getting a substantial advantage over living individuals dependent on wages. How is this in-equality of economic rules uniform? It isn’t and never has been. The Capitation tax as levied on wage earners is monetary injustice as it applies a burden, on the man, which defeats the very purpose of his labors to survive the liabilities of Life itself. Labors of Sisyphus… indeed. 

There is a more repulsive factor at work here as well, in regards to this zero cost basis and that is simply: why is a working mans cost basis declared to be worth nothing at all?

For example:

When a taxpayer fails to file a tax return, the IRS will calculate the amount of tax due. In calculating the tax due under such circumstances, it is common for the IRS to compute capital gains on stocks (and securities) based on Form 1099-B gross proceeds information while assuming that the taxpayer’s basis in such stock is zero.

In order to overcome the IRS determination of zero basis in such cases, the taxpayer has the burden of proof and has to prove that he or she has a basis in such stock that is greater than zero. “ Copyright 2008, Wolters Kluwer Financial Services

“The truth of Cost basis is the amount paid for an asset in cash and or property.”

Congressional Research Service Report Frequently Asked Questions Concerning the Federal Income Tax, John R. Luckey:

Wages to be taxable must pass the same type of examination. For example, if John Doe works 5 hours for $5.00 per hour, is the $25.00 he receives taxable income to him? As we have seen in the above analysis, we must determine if there has been a gain which is realized and recognized.

To see if there was a gain– we do not look– only to the fair market value of labor, but rather we determine the difference between what was received and the basis (cost) in the labor. Generally one has a zero basis in one’s own labor. Therefore, Doe’s gain is $25.00 minus 0, or $25.00. This gain is realized when Doe is paid or has right to receive payment.

The gain is recognized specifically in IRC § 61(a)(1) (compensation for services) and there is no non-recognition section which is generally applicable to wages. Therefore, John Doe has $25.00 of taxable income.

The absurd rational used by the IRS [zero cost basis] is quite disingenuous, as it is well settled, that Capital expenses includes Labor, as employed. A very simple example: A business owner sets up a new factory producing his new line of widgets. His Capital expenses include, all assets necessary to produce the widgets and more importantly, all of the labor costs required to produce, package, sell and ship those widgets to the Market to be sold.

The cost of the labor employed is not uniform as managerial, supervisors, salesmen and line workers do not receive the same rate of pay, or enjoy the same level of benefits, shares, or other financial quotients, derived from the business revenue itself.

Determining who gets what in regards to the “revenue” is a question of business value allocation. The wage workers are a cost to the owner, just as electricity, or some other fixed asset cost. Generally, payroll expenses and employee benefits are the largest expenses of small business employers. Payroll and employee benefits include gross salary, hourly wages, employee health insurance and administration fees for company retirement plans. Payroll and employee benefits are a business tax deduction. To tax the wage worker on the same money already defined, thus subtracted as a employed cost, by the owner of the labor so employed, is without question, one of the dirtiest tricks of negative logic in the entire swamp of dirty tax principles.

If an employer did not have to pay employees any money for the work performed, those employees would indeed be absolute labor slaves. The employer would then have a zero cost basis for labor in regards to the gains of the business. The assessment of labor cost on the worker is inherently dishonest. An asset is a property of the owner. Employees are not the private property of the employer.

An employee owns the property of their own labor, if not, how can such a property be sold as a cost to an employer? To infer or state otherwise, is to cross the fine line between “involuntary and voluntary slavery” as the difference between selling oneself and the selling of the property of the labor, separate from the man himself.

The IRS, or whomever wrote this evil policy on its behalf, has cleverly avoided the actual cost basis, by asking the wrong question to arrive at the needed answer. A wage worker buys the cost of money with labor employed and is constrained by the cost basis of both as one.

The example, as given by this Mr. Luckey, actually proves the opposite of the contention he illogically concludes. The application of the z-cost basis upon a living person, as asserted, is nonsensical, as no material asset owns itself.

If an asset did own itself, it is no longer an asset of anyone else, and therefore, cannot be used as a measure of gain, as the material quality of its possession specifically rests in its ownership.

Who owns the cost of a labor asset? A man is an asset of himself, if not, he is a slave to that which owns him as an asset. Is the IRS claiming employers own the man, the moment he becomes an employee?

What did he sell: himself or the property of his material labors?

A man sells the Right to use the property of his labors, to the endeavors of the employer, thus the term employed. The cost basis of an employee in himself, if this is to be measured by the wage, so received, has to be the payment received for the property of his labor. The false Positive Statement, [Generally one has a zero basis in one’s own labor] carries the negative assertion [the man is a slave] is refuted by eliminating the negative assertion and recognizing a man absolutely owns his labor property. There is no “difference” between two equal values to be measured, therefore, there is no gain as a result.  The employer has a cost of $25.00 and the employee sold his labor for $25.00 and the difference is zero. This is a reciprocal relationship based on agreement not a slave to master contract. 

The obtuse fallacy of a man not having a cost basis in his own labor is also a negative absurdity— exactly who does a working man pay for his own labors–? How can any man pay another for his own labors without an exchange of equal value? And why would any man do so? The absurdity asserts it is NORMAL to pay another for ones own labors. The man pulls a cart while the horse rides him. What is ignored is that man has a POSITIVE labor value which has to be satisfied with an equivalent return of exchange value. There is no negative cost of a man to himself so this rational has no basis in fact. The wage is a result of two positives in exchange.  Or wages become a swindle on labor or vise-versa.

Another simple observation of the Z-cost basis fallacy, is how much an employee, would have to pay for another employee, to perform the same work, to replace himself. This is especially obvious in any contract-work service. To determine the cost value of the job, is simply a question of how much another [replacement worker] has to be paid to do the same labor/work, over the same period of time.

If John, has to pay pay Bob, five dollars an hour to do his job, this also defines his cost basis. However, employers do have additional costs, which are also a factor of the job cost metric. The entire question of zero basis is hung on asking, the “Wrong questions” to obtain, the wrong answer. How much would John have to pay someone else to make his breakfast, buy his work clothes, work boots, provide transportation, provide lunch and many other costs, which naturally arise as costs unto oneself, as a working individual? Johns daily costs, are but a few, of his monthly, or yearly costs, all of which are factored into or out of his total wage receipts. The fair market value of labor cannot be zero, no more then the money used to pay the worker has a zero basis in cost. The money, as paid, is the agreed Sum of the property labor Cost to the employer—not its absence.

A wage worker also typically spends most of the wages received on living expenses, many of which are already heavily taxed. When the same money is essentially taxed, more then once, and this practice can be termed Tax-Stacking. Most workers spend a quotient of gross income on ‘other’ taxes, not usually mentioned—consumption taxes, which everyone pays, external to the work place.

This fact, of consumption taxes, was also well established during the years after the excise-income tax was implemented nation-wide. This recognition of general personal expenses, plus the recognition of the burdens of the consumption taxes, was the primary principle behind the statutory exemptions, all individuals were allowed, including business owners. Without these exemptions the tax on labor wages even then was absolutely recognized as a capitation tax. The present confusion came into being because the language used to describe corporations, business owners and workers were co-mingled in the deliberate, dualistic meanings between [taxpayer] [citizen] [persons] with other similar duplicities of phrases, as used in the Code, resulting in confounding, ambiguous meanings.

{“The following quote from Congressman Hull, in his synopsis of the 1913 Revenue Act, again identifies the object of the tax as being annual aggregate “profits”, not annual receipts.

“The Treasury regulations soon to be prepared will make clear to every taxpayer the requirements of the law and its application to income derived from the various kinds of business. To any person who keeps familiar with his business affairs during the year to the extent that at the end he knows with reasonable accuracy the amount of his aggregate annual profits, the matter of executing his tax return would be both simple and convenient.”

The “income tax” is levied upon the aggregate, or total, net-income derived from all “sources”, that is, from all “uses” of capital, labor or both combined. The tax is not levied upon where the “receipts” came from, as though the tax was levied upon the purchaser, consumer, or employer as “sources” of receipts. In other words, the term “source”, under the Sixteenth Amendment, is confined to the “capital” or “labor” employed by the *citizen, and has nothing to do with who paid for it. The court understood this principle when they defined “income” as being the “gain derived from capital, labor or both combined”, and not the receipts derived from consumers, purchasers, or employers (wages). [*private natural person or artificial person corporation?]

In order to prohibit the tax from operating upon the [living/private]citizen as though it was intended to be a “capitation, or other direct, tax“, an allowance was made for “personal living and family expenses”. Again from Judge Hull’s synopsis:

 “The statutory exemption of $3,000 is allowed for personal living and family expenses; however, this and other gross income for which special deductions are allowed by the law must be embraced in the return of gross income,”  [Congressional Record of October 16, 1913, p. 5679/synopsis of the Revenue Act by Judge Hull]

The only other place I have found that deals with the intended statutory purpose of the “personal exemption” is the briefs of Attorney General Olney, and the dissenting opinion of Justices Harlan and Brown, in the 1895 Pollock v, U. P. RR Case supra.

In the Case of Pollock 157US427 the reference is found on page 778, in the briefs of U. S. Attorney General Olney; it reads:

“In the present case there is no lack of uniformity as between corporations and individuals. The exemption of $4,000 a year in the case of individuals or families, as will be shown, is intended as a compensation for the necessarily excessive burden of consumption taxes upon small and moderate incomes.

There is no such situation in the case of a business corporation. Every cent which it expends is allowed it. It is taxed only on its net profits, deducting the wages account; which corresponds to the living expenses of the individual.”

In other words, the personal exemption equals the living expenses incurred by the citizen, thereby making the tax a tax upon “net-income” applicable to both the natural person as well as the artificial one. Notice that Attorney General Olney relates the “wages account” to the living expenses of the individual. The following case illustrates the point:

For income tax purposes Congress has seen fit to regard an individual as having two personalities: ‘one is [as] a seeker after profit who can deduct the expenses incurred in that search; the other is [as] a creature satisfying his needs as a human and those of his family but who cannot deduct such consumption and related expenditures.’” [Justice Harlan, United States v. Gilmore, 372 U. S. 39 (1963)]

An additional reference is found in the dissenting opinion of Justice Brown, 158 US 601, 694:

“Irrespective, however, of the Constitution, a tax which is wanting in uniformity among members of the same class is, or may be invalid. But this does not deprive the legislature of the power to make exemptions provided such exemption rests upon some principle, and are not purely arbitrary, or created solely for the purpose of favoring some person or body of persons. Thus in every civilized country there is an exemption of small incomes, which would be manifest cruelty to tax, and the power to make such exemptions once granted, the amount is within the discretion of the legislature, and so long as that power is not wantonly abused, the courts are bound to respect it. In this law there is an exemption of $4,000, which indicates a purpose on the part of Congress that the burden of this tax should fall on the wealthy, or at least the well to do. If men who have an income or property beyond their pressing needs are not the ones to pay taxes, it is difficult to say who are; in other words, enlighten taxation is imposed upon property and not upon persons. Poll taxes, formerly a considerable source of revenue, are now practically obsolete. The exemption of $4,000 is designed, undoubtedly, to cover the actual living expenses of a large majority of families, and the fact that it is not applied to corporations is explained by the fact that corporations have no corresponding expenses. The expenses of earning their profits are, of course, deducted in the same manner as the corresponding expenses of a private individual are deductible from the earnings of his business.”

This is evidently the point relied upon by the Congressmen and Senators who proposed and debated the adoption of the Sixteenth Amendment. The following is a portion of their comments recorded in the Congressional Record of 1913:

“The exemption of $4,000 was fixed for a number of reasons. In the first place, as already stated, the people with incomes below $4,000 pay the principle part not only of our tariff taxes, but of the State and local taxes, and there is no injustice in requiring those with higher incomes to bear the amount of taxes this bill would impose.” {Congressman Hull, April 26, 1913, pg. 508]

For those common law (not “in business”) employees who are interested in tax justice, we would suggest you find something else to be interested in; because you will not find that which does not exist for the American laborer. What we have learned from our 10 years of experience with the Federal bureaucracy is this. Do not question Congresses assumed authority to tax your paycheck (wages); and then be thankful that government allows you to keep just enough of that paycheck to pay your yearly living expenses. For Congress, according to the Supreme Court, has the Constitutional authority to take your entire paycheck (wages). Their reasoning is not because the Sixteenth Amendment allows it, because it does not. It is because the Treasury Department said that as a laborer you have “no cost basis” in your own labor (property), therefore your wages are surplus (gains and profits). Read: HTTP://www.taxhistory. com/crs/09.HTML and: Pittsburgh v. Alco Parking Corp., 417 U. S. 369 1974) HTTP://caselaw.lp.findlaw. com/scripts/

 If you don’t like it, quit your paying job and apply for welfare; because apparently the Supreme Court considers that to be the American laborer’s inalienable right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Yes, the 16th Amendment is Constitutional and if you don’t believe that, convince your State Legislatures that it was not properly ratified by them; and let them deal with it. In reality, it really doesn’t matter whether anyone ratified it or not. The income tax is an excise, impost or duty tax imposed under Article 1, Section 8, not Article 1, Section 9, clause 4 of the United States Constitution. The problem is not with the power to tax, but, to enforce the “income” tax as an excise tax, not as a “capitation” tax as it is now applied to the common laborer. (Brushaber, 240 U. S. 1, 16-19). HTTP://caselaw.lp.findlaw. com/scripts/getcase.pl?

Our contention is this. If you are not “in business,” what, in fact, is the excise, impost, or duty imposed upon? It certainly is not the property (source), whether that property is capital, labor, or money; as that would be a “capitation, or other direct, tax” requiring apportionment.” United States v. Wells Fargo Bank, 485 U. S. 351 (1988) HTTP://caselaw.lp.findlaw. com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=485&page=355#355 }

The use of conflicting language to assert contrary applications of taxing authority deprives people of understanding of the resulting liabilities, which would otherwise, never arise at all. As the researchers, found at “tax history” clearly point out, the Rules themselves are co-mingled with economic policies to purposely evade the very principles such lawful taxing authority must be derived from, or it is financial tyranny, not Law.

This tyranny on individuals hangs from the hook called, zero cost basis, not the 16th amendment. The preposterous notion that because a wage employee does not buy their own labor, as if it was a negative asset, not a positive asset of themselves, is an absurdity no corporation has to endure. There is no application of Uniformity possible by zero cost basis, especially when the employee is not entitled to deduct his costs of living expenses, before determining If any taxable income even exists! This injustice, is a mean thread holding up the personal income tax on wages. If there is no Gain, to be measured, there is no ‘income’ to be taxed. An employer is not a source of income for a wage earner by the 16th amendments true meaning. So they simply invented one and damn anyone legally who might say otherwise.

The historical root of today’s injustice is traced once again back to when these business rules were cemented into the operations of the Nations economies–[while the European plan, led on by England, is capital control of labor by controlling wages. This can be done by controlling the money.], therefore, on one side of the equation of the cost basis it is established [money] costs by the Capital used by the Employer, determines wages. The position of the IRS directly contradicts the inherent principle that Capital includes the wage cost itself.

If employers had no expense of labor-wages, then the employee might be said to be receiving pure gain. This position is of course absurd, as it begs the question of why is there an employee at all. Are clients paying the labor-earner directly as in free-lancer? No… this is also defective rationalizing, as it declares an employee is operating independently of the business itself and therefore, is still not an actual employee who is contributing revenue to the business. Do random workers just walk in off the street and demand money from customers? That sounds more like a stick-up than a job. The relationship, between the employee and employer, is an at will contractual obligation both parties must fulfill for the law operating between them to enforce as true. Each party has fixed and variable costs, as required by the ‘obligations’ which operate independently, because they have different goals but in a coincident purpose.

The political rational behind the zero cost basis contains a deeper fallacy, only possible by “limiting” the intangible costs of the employee side of the equation, to the single, tangible measure of the wage-labor, as paid. Time worked is such an intangible cost. Such time spent on one thing cannot be spent on another, therefore, it is a cost to the employee, as is all physical energies, as expended to that work purpose. An employee may have invested years of education expenses in order to qualify for the job itself. This is a self-invested capital expense which a corporational ‘person’ has no equal function. Experience is also a self-investment which adds value to the fair-market basis of the labor. The employee may not be getting the higher value in a depressed labor market, thus, may in fact be taking a loss just to keep a job at all.

Essentially, it appears the IRS is unlawfully taxing the cost of business labor, against the wage earner, by a treasury directive divorced from actual law. If the same principle is applied to the employer the result would be to tax the costs of labor, before any business Income, was determined to be taxable. Since wages are deducted, as a cost of doing business, that labor money cost cannot be justifiably re-defined to serve, the very opposite purpose. The zero cost basis labor fallacy only benefits government revenue policy, while forcing wage-earners to pay a tax on themselves, as if they were assets [slaves] belonging to the federal government. Only a slave has no cost basis in their own property of Labor. A man expends his labors and that is a loss to himself, unless he is paid. The wage receipt was never intended to be a source of income as defined by the 16th amendment.

This is also another example of non-democracy in action. If a man has no say in the most primal factors of which his Happiness or Liberty is derived then he is not free at all. Only a wage-slave is treated with such contempt in the eyes of the bankers using the law to ensure taxes equal profit. The fundamental flaw in the logic used by the IRS is obvious to anyone who has pondered the costs to keep a job, provide for a family or any number of expenses required to maintain ones personal living. People have a wholly different purpose, by the active demands of Life, which no artificial [person]corporation, has ever known. The financial demands of “LIFE” on working people, regardless of income amounts, are their continuous costs of living basis, which if not met, substantially impair said quality of life.

The unjustifiable denial of equal uniformity, in regards to expenses, for the expressed purpose of forcing people to pay a direct capitation tax, they would otherwise never owe, is just damn evil.

The purposeful infliction of Harm on People is so defined as evil. The apologists, for the Evil of the income tax on wages, or on any small income, so measured, never mention that the proportion of the standard deduction, is grossly deficient, to the reality of current living expenses. If, the standard deduction in 1913, was corrected for the equivalent necessary purchasing power today, in *May of 2012, that 4,000 [1913 gold standard dollar] would be closer to 70,582 in comparative debt-dollars and today that same 4000 is now $93,804.44 in regards to purchasing power. This is a measure of the excessive diminishment of that paper dollar  http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm

[The CPI inflation calculator uses the average Consumer Price Index for a given calendar year. This data represents changes in prices of all goods and services purchased for consumption by urban households. This index value has been calculated every year since 1913. For the current year, the latest monthly index value is used.]

.. and it is also important to note—real tangible money not the intangible fictions of debt as money dollars we are forced to deal in today. Who gave Congress, such a power of tyranny, to decide how much living expenses people are allowed to have, thus deduct, to raise their families, or maintain a standard of living?

Where in the Enumeration of Powers, or in the Commerce clause does Congress claim such a tyrannical power exists?

Well, it is always tied in some manner to the assertion of implied powers. As if this ‘implied power’ gave superior deductive rise to real economic constants, or even a genuine scientific truth, thereby, determining what is a ‘lawful’ standard deduction for all working classes of people, or even the classes of rich people.

How does one quantify such a normative question of how much people deserve or need?

Congress, has allowed a massive defect to crush people under a debt obligation they were never obligated for in the first place. What better way to enforce wage-slavery then to imply such a money power is a benefit upon those such controlled. The over-reaching assertion is that “implied powers” plus the power to tax allows Congress to decide such economic operations upon private wages is constitutionally absurd. What does Congress control of private Capital in the same equal manner? To argue in favor of such draconian power is to say communism and capitalism are the same zebra.

If Congress, claims the authority to control personal deductions, as a limit upon what people can keep as income, the why has to be answered with something more than just an empty assertion of power. Especially, when the power itself is unjust, and stupendously anti-constitutional, as it is applied. The assertion, such deductions are under the control of Congress, is to say wages are under Congressional control as well is anti-law. This over-bearing quality of economic control is not a boon to personal freedom, much less, a proof it is the Labor Market which is determining wage costs. If every penny earned as a wage is Constitutionally protected; not a penny of that wage needs a deduction to keep, as every penny belongs to the wage-laborer, without distraint.

The fact is Congress, has no first rights on labor wages period because IF IT DID that is absolute slavery, even without the chains. [—The Masters responsibility— as owner of the labor [slave] and thus carries with it the care of the laborer—] With-holding was a bad idea from the very start as it places a profit cart before the work-horse. There can be no taking of any money as taxed, until a lawful liability of a tax is established. Then apply, the proper operations, to determine if what is left is also an item of taxable income. To do the exact opposite is legally-enhanced, financial extortion. This country has been fighting the wrong war for so long maybe people just do not care for the details of their own wage-slavery.

“In both the United States and Europe, a great disconnect has taken place. Just because big corporations in the U. S. and in Europe are doing well, that does not mean that they are going to provide good jobs for workers in the U. S. and in Europe. These days, it is way too easy for big corporations to ship jobs over to places like China where it is perfectly legal to pay workers slave labor wages.” HTTP://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/47-signs-that-china-is-absolutely-destroying-america-on-the- global-economic-stage

In the past the 16th amendment income tax was held up as a means of doing public good:

Roberts worried that lawmakers would shrink from the task at hand, delaying necessary tax hikes on wealthy Americans. On every hand we see a plethora of idle money and a plethora of unsalable goods today. This heart of trade, this money-pump, should be set to work at once. It is not enough to have money available at low rates. Someone must spend the money, if business is to revive. Armed with the power of the income tax, the Government can set the pace in this necessary resumption of spending.”

 The truth is once a power is established, the good of that power soon becomes lost in adverse policies.

Not everyone thought taxation could function effectively as a counter-cyclical device, at least not in the real world. Some insisted that politics would get in the way, especially if lawmakers tried to raise taxes too quickly on the rich as part of a redistributive program. Others questioned whether tax changes of any sort—cuts as well as increases—could be implemented quickly enough to make a difference, especially given the size of the overall economy. Among those voicing such doubts were tax experts in Franklin Roosevelt’s Treasury Department. In the summer of 1934, Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau had commissioned a series of studies on tax reform. He brought Jacob Viner to Washington to assist with the project and arranged for Roswell Magill, a prominent New York City tax lawyer, to supervise it in his new role as Undersecretary of the Treasury.

The resulting reports, known collectively as the Viner Studies, outlined a comprehensive program for progressive tax reform. It was not a radical program. Indeed, in many respects it was conservative, driven by a commitment to revenue adequacy. The first and most important task of the tax system was to raise revenue. All other concerns—fairness, efficiency, or administrative convenience—were secondary.

The Viner Studies argued for a broad expansion of the individual income tax. As then structured, the income tax was still a rich man’s burden, paid by a relative handful of Americans. That narrow focus satisfied certain definitions of social justice (especially among Democrats), but it made for a volatile revenue stream. By broadening the tax to include some of the middle class, the authors hoped (among other things) to make its revenues less susceptible to swings of the business cycle. 80

This recommendation, and the rationale behind it, imply a distinctly old-school view of fiscal policy. Treasury officials still considered revenue stability a cardinal virtue, since they were chiefly concerned with securing adequate revenue, even in the face of the depression. Champions of compensatory taxation might argue that lower revenues (and higher deficits) were a useful stimulant to economic activity, but Treasury tax experts weren’t buying it. Indeed, they remained suspicious of any effort to use the tax system as counter-cyclical device.

The tax system, so the argument runs, may be employed to eliminate business cycles or at least to lessen their severity, by penalizing “over-saving” and encouraging consumption, by checking speculation, by favoring certain geographical or social classes at the [expense] of others, by encouraging business initiative, by discouraging “unwise” business expansion, and so on. Finally, there is always the plea for “redistribution of wealth” through the tax system. 81 While the use of federal tax policy for such purposes, the Treasury staffers concluded, was “not necessarily an evil,” it was still dangerous.

Given the limited state of economic knowledge, policymakers were ill-equipped to pursue such ambitious designs. “We believe that at present not enough is known about the economic mechanism to warrant a conclusion as to whether, if saving is checked, certain advantages with respect to the business cycle will or will not follow,” they wrote. “Then there is always the troublesome problem of degree, and here even the primary effect of certain tax changes cannot be predicted.”

But the Treasury economists of 1937—many of whom had also worked on the 1934 reports—broke with the Viner recommendations when it came to broad issues of compensatory taxation. Once leery of plans to make taxes a tool for macroeconomic regulation, they now urged lawmakers to do just that. Taxes, they argued, could help bring stability to an inherently unstable economy.

In general, Treasury staff argued, policymakers should not try to maintain a steady flow of revenue into the Treasury during economic downturns. “The tendency exhibited during the depression years to introduce a great variety of new excise taxes, and to raise the rates on old ones, to make up for the diminished receipts from direct taxes is not a wholesome one,” they wrote.

Instead, policymakers should devise a flexible revenue system whose receipts were expressly designed to vary over the length of the business cycle. Annual variation in federal revenues was desirable, according to research director George Haas, as long as it derived from “a basically adequate and stable tax structure which relies heavily upon progressive direct taxes.”

This statement represented a dramatic reversal from Treasury’s earlier position, which had emphasized the need for “sound” finance in the face of depression deficits.

True revenue Keynesian-ism emerged only after the fiscal watershed of World War II. The vaunted transformation of the income tax from a “class tax” to a “mass tax” gave policymakers a crucial weapon in their counter-cyclical arsenal. Indeed, without a broad-based flexible revenue instrument like the income tax, compensatory taxation would have remained an intellectual curiosity, not a serious tool for economic policy- making. 129 But the conversion of the tax experts was a crucial first step. Treasury experts played a vital role in shaping the wartime tax regime. Congressional leaders were intent on reclaiming their primacy in the tax- policy process, a role that Roosevelt had co-opted in the mid-1930s but relinquished in the latter years of the decade. But Treasury officials, with strong support from Roosevelt, still managed to make their plans for mass income taxation the bedrock of wartime taxation—and the durable regime it spawned. COMPENSATORY TAXATION, 1929–1938 JOSEPH J. THORNDIKE This article is also available at HTTP://law.duke.edu/journals/lcp.

 Even if people do not understand why they are being treated as wage-slaves by the federal government for the purpose of direct “mass-capitation taxation” which promotes the durable regime known to us as the military-Industrial-war-complex, this does not mean Americans have to live this way forever. Behind all of this fiscal smoke and mirrors is still the sly changing of what money means, the purpose of its existence and the necessity of its use. To accomplish all of what the Masters, behind the fiscal curtain really wanted, the progressive mass taxation scheme had to change the meanings of the words, to describe the various activities, which belonged to the corporation side of an excise tax, and co-mingle these terms, in absurd contrary meanings, to ensnare a wider net of “taxpayers” as if people were wild animals with money oozing from their bodies.

This need for revenue, to pay the Debt demands of the Lending class, in conjunction with war as a profit racket, was masked by the “public good” facade, but to get the job done changes were inserted into the tax codes to further confuse anyone looking too specifically at what was actually lawfully specified. This is the true purpose behind drastically distorting what a direct tax actually means, as specified by Constitutional restrictions, as opposed to actual current operations of a graduated, Marxist inspired, mass[capitation] tax.

The operations of a Capitation tax can be found in historical records.

In colonial Virginia, a poll tax or capitation tax was assessed on free white males, African American slaves, and Native American servants (both male and female), all age sixteen or older. Owners and masters paid the taxes levied on their slaves and servants.HTTP://www.lva.virginia.gov/public/guides/rn17_tithables.htm

The incidence of personal taxes, especially in the form of capitations on day labourers, has been regarded by many writers as wholly on the employers, or through them ultimately on the consumers of the products they turn out, but this conclusion is not by any means certain. It is far more probable that a small tax on the poorer classes will lower, or prevent a rise in, their mode of living. Its action on population is far too indefinite to be used for laying down an absolute rule. Much will depend on the exact form of the tax, whether uniform or graduated, confined to the head of the family or extended to its other adult members. No proposition in finance has been more dangerous in its application than that which declares that the labourer cannot permanently suffer from taxation.Bastable, Charles F. HTTP://www.econlib.org/library/Bastable/bastbPF23.HTML

Frederic Bastiat’s timeless book The Law (1850) defines “legal plunder” as plunder authorized by law. “The law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. The law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.”

In an 1823 letter to Supreme Court Justice William Johnson, Thomas Jefferson made an observation for us to consider as we strive toward tax truth today: “On every question of the construction of the Constitution, let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in its debates and, instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”

To further enclose wage-slaves in this perfected legal cage of plunder is the use of forms. A W-2 or a 1099 Misc. is not proof of anything, but a record of numbers on a page. Every American citizen, so it is claimed, must report every receipt of money, by such forms, or possibly go to prison. This demand upon all people mocks the very purpose of freedom. Only in anti-America are people termed taxpayers and sent to prison for failure to report receiving the debt instruments which are semi-legal substitutions of actual money. These Tender Notes are worthless pieces of paper Save for about four cents per dollar.

So how much do wage-slaves really earn in real terms? Not much at all. More importantly, how does one spend the missing purchasing power? If the FRN had to shrink in size, to correspond to its purchasing power, it would be about the size of a postage stamp. At least then one would know by direct evidence the PP is no longer there and thus cannot be spent, or taxed as income gain. Without a significant change to the tax tables to reflect the truth, of what those pieces of paper are actually worth, in relation to real money, and not just an artful illusion, the tables need to be revised to remove inflation so only real gain is measured, and not inflated or better yet diluted paper debt-dollars.

Since this use of forms, is a real problem for people to disprove, it can also be asked: is the ‘Form’ the hook from one quality of debt-money to another? Does the Law state in specific words these Forms themselves are the Source of the taxable income?

According to the IRS that has to be yes.

This begs the rightful question from which operation of the Code did the “Forms” become money as evidence of Profit? Non-employee numbers on a 1099-misc. are specifically not adjusted gross income, or net profit. Where is the proof of the lawfully specified meaning of Gain on such forms? There is none of course, but in a court these Forms become the basis for criminal prosecution [zero cost basis]. Do the numbers factually represent the debt-dollars as received? NO… until that check was deposited there was no [money] exchanged. Otherwise a check is not a check.

A check is not money only its easy method of transfer from one party to another. Why cash a check if it is already money? The check has to be signed by the first party and endorsed by the other. So up to this exchange point it is a piece of paper. There is no evidence the [number] was ever transformed into something called money. Changing one piece of paper into another is termed cashing a check, but this is a sly miss-fact as it is Debt which has been received not money. Debt is money goes the propaganda so it must be true. A check is cashed into debt. One type of debt is transferred into another debt instrument. The liability was transferred as well. The tax is on the debt as measured by the income. Why not just state the tax is on the debt as received?

There is no clarity because a defect is operating on the entire code. The debt money itself, as used today, is defective when used as payment for wages. Taxes enforce an illusion of worth no longer there at all.

In anti-America the defective money may as well be termed a debt instrument asset. It is an instrument of government failure not success. The Tension Function of contractual debt-money cannot be relieved by such debt gained, in direct opposition to a meaning of constitutional money, which was never received. Incomes, which is defined by the 16th amendment, is a null-state because it has nothing to measure as real money. Debt is a liability of a Money Function, not the actual money itself. Or why create credit, or money, as claimed at all?

Why don’t we just write out a check of debt(negative numbers) and use this sign(-$) as cash-negative instead? This would make negative-debt money freely exchangeable by the absurd rules now in force. Write a debt check and deposit the debt into an negative-account. I don’t think the banks would go for this absolute sign meaning, but that is the absurdity—they already are operating on debt. So why pretend otherwise?

The deeper absurdity is the Money, which is no longer of the same virtue, as defined in the Constitution, cannot become realized in a synthetic money system. A small detail nobody is supposed to even care about, much less examine as a curious fact of synthetic debt-dollars. Paper currency all by itself is not the source of the problem. Usury, upon the hidden contract of debt use, is the actual source, of the real problem. Charging interest on the issuance of paper currency, or metal coins, produces the same defects of operation. However, using private silver and gold coins, free of interest, does not make contractual money for bankers, thereby excluded, from the FREE exchange of said Coin money.

Paper currency issued without interest, or loans without interest, strikes most people as crazy talk, but usury distorts contract values for no good reason. Why do people hate the idea they can create the same thing [credit] without the bank? Why is the Creditor entitled to three-houses worth of interest, for the lending of contract money (out-of-thin-air) for the cost of just one? Why is this ridiculous practice of superficial lending not considered criminal Usury?

What extra material value is the Lender creating in such interest, loaded deals? Funny thing is that the charging of Interest does not equal extra productive value. What extra value is that big, fat interest charge adding to the real value of objects? Interest debt adds a negative Cost upon all positive values of assets upon which it operates. Interest is the artificial cost of buying instantly created, contract-debt. Technically, Money does not exist so how do we buy something that isn’t real enough to be measured, or even defined, by any intrinsic quality virtuous to itself?

We do not have such exasperating conundrums over real things like apples or horses. We can see them and define them with ease and logic upholding well sustained principles of real quantifiable measures. Interest on Money is the greatest fiction mankind has ever declared to be true; without a single objective proof. This quasi-reality of money as lent lends itself to all manner of fraud and all manner of evils. Such contrary meanings of what is real abound on the subject of money. The banker syndicate while taking advantage of this fact, produces nothing of value, but demands a lions share of the productive worth across the entire economy. The rules, as enforced, sure do favor the elite lending class in every area worth controlling. This is the reason why Tax operations involve every aspect of how the economy functions, along with usury, as both are directed and connected to the same source— the [Central] federal reserve bank.

A totalitarian money system makes money from contractual debt, by a forced legislative claim upon all future time-values from the entire work-force and all at the same time. Quite the trick of never-ending Profit from perpetual debt lending. In addition, while simultaneously controlling the printing press money function by political fiat as well. Money on this level is a game of numbers and what those numbers can control. What do people with these levels of wealth need beyond their own personal fortunes?

When money is simply merchandise a whole different scheme is afforded to those who can play on such risks and gambles. The concentration of wealth encourages a fraternity mind-set no doubt based on a us versus them quality. This also promotes significant advantages to a specific class not available to any other excluded of insider relationships. The revolving door between the top corporate players and the Offices of government negates democratic equality easily defeating any false assumptions of political uniformity. When the law is biased in favor of the rich and affluent the difference is measured in the Harm so inflicted, by such financial disparities. People on the bottom pay more for money, then those at the top, who Gain interest from the debt which the lower classes have to borrow into existence just to stay alive.

If corporations at the top of the economic heap get their contractual money for less cost then the working stiff, plus major tax benefits, the question becomes why do they get so much more in regards to the working people? How can such differences be ignored when judging real measures of uniformity? Just because numbers have a certain similarity does not mean the conditions which produce them can be considered as equal. The work-place plays a dominate role in the lives of working Americans and the government certainly exerts a major influence of control well beyond taxation itself.

The popular reasons for such control goes something like this: without Congress, to enforce a structure of working benefits, employers would be only paying workers fifty cents an hour(cough cough), with 12 hour days, seven days a week and no benefits. Work place benefits and other protections are assumed to be only possible by federal control of all work places, in all Union states, without regard to jurisdiction issues. This implied absolute jurisdiction makes a complete mockery of anything even called a Sovereign Union state.

The all encompassing implied power to regulate absolutely every private contract, every private transaction, every private trade of any type, or kind, is so sweeping in total implied descriptions, the absurd result has to be that Federal tyranny is good for every working man, or woman, in America.

A tyranny of contractual-debt-money defeats every Right vested in the Constitution, yet the absurdity is these same authoritarians claim the implied powers come from the Constitution itself. Well, many do claim the living document has long since left behind the silly notions of a Republic, absolute property rights, or the freedom to live without fascist demands upon the citizen. To comply with the implied powers of financial control and regulation also means to allow inspections of all records, or other documentation demands, even when such demands negate constitutional restrictions. The law in this regard has become much more obnoxious, counter-productive and in many cases, so demeaning to human dignity, one has to wonder what kind of power might actually bring a Conscience back to Congress. The one power they never use is most revealing.

The assertion no improvements of any work-place were probable without such draconian controls, mean nothing when such controls defeat the political argument before it begins. There were always “solutions” to every one of these social problems, just not the ones the money lenders wanted. The arrogance is in the assumption their solutions were the only ones worthwhile or even possible. There is a robust fallacy to such claims, they know better, thus are superior, therefore, can exercise such powers, as such, see fit to choose, thus decide for every man what his needs are and if he even has a right to have them at all.

By such implied powers of social [communism] over the political ‘civil citizens’ such decisions are made and imposed without any actual ‘democracy’ at all. That is the absurdity right there in plain sight. Public inclusion on such ‘policies’ is severely negated and consequently ignored. How else to describe the political plights of untold millions, who have been telling Congress, loud and clear for decades this ‘direct’ capitation income tax is not only UN-Constitutional, it is also damn evil by the methods of its enforcements. How funny is it that the very same people who clap their hands with glee that the “democracy’ is perfect will not tolerate the suggestion they are absolutely, dead-ass wrong?

More importantly, the Constitutional Direct tax was primarily on land. Income is also a measure of the gain generated from the use of land resources. Congress, has defiantly transformed the operation of a direct tax, well beyond the actual historical rules, as practiced today. The absurdity is that the current application of the tax actually Defies the very Rule itself. The direct tax was also restricted somewhat by the Census, not just by apportionment alone. A fact, never addressed, or even commented upon, in regards to why the 16th amendment was UN-Constitutional, as it was defective to the very purpose, as written.

The extreme wealth concentrations, both of corporations and wealthy individuals, has never changed at all. Therefore, the 16th amendment was and is a colossal failure, in regard to its expressed original purpose. This fact, refutes the very purpose of the amendment, which was to somehow rectify the profound in-equality of wealth concentrations between those who work for a living and those who do not perform labors period.

What is also missed in many analytical papers is the “incomes” referred to the distinctions between tangible and intangible, sources of income. The original intent of the popular anger was the gross inequalities of how intangible wealth was accumulated and its effective powers used to increase the disparities between the upper classes and the lower. The rich were evading taxes on the “Intangible” side of the wealth equation, which the amendment never clarified, or addressed, to the fuller degree necessary to make any significant changes. The amendment fooled people into believing one thing while it laid the foundation to do something else entirely different.

Only in anti-America can the Constitution be defeated by removing the restrictions on Congress, to justify, otherwise, UN-Constitutional actions on people. By removing the necessity of apportionment, as well as, the restrictions of the Census, the ever sly Congress, gave the government a false hand of authority to aid the Lending class. A continuous mass-debt needs a continuous mass-tax. Even with the falsification of authority, there are problems which are quite weak when held up in the light of reason. No amount of logic, or lawful principle, seems to matter to the Courts, which points to a Political source for the liability of the tax not a specific Statute. The question of liability for the tax itself eludes the best of minds, but the IRS just points to a maze of Codes and declares every man is guilty with only assumptions and Hearsay. All this confusion ends when it is made clear it is the Lenders imposing the income tax. This is why the Constitution has to be twisted so artfully to accomplish the tasks of a foreign despot, in order to keep People in a rotten financial relationship contrary to their well being.

To silence the opposition by political fiat is a proof of weakness not strength. A false dichotomy of the same argument is the dog and pony show for the masses. That would be the two-party hat-stomp, but the significant questions are never answered. Why is Congress controlling people with a malformed tax law in the first place? Are we not a free country? Do we not have any say in the actual rules which demand control of our lives? A political based contractual-debt-money system without redress of wrongs is a perfect legal cage. The tensions people feel from the lack of balance, in regards, to the demands placed upon them by the system, soon become expressed in anti-social interactions. Some of which are clearly more hostile than others. People simply have no relief in a system designed to defeat their sense of self-determination and accomplishment. To call this monetary, debt-mass tax cage a voluntary system is just laughable. Only it is really quite unfunny.

If an Individual non-taxpayer has no liability, of which no filing of a 1040 tax return is ever required, then no question can arise, as an accusation of guilt, for such a non-action of filing. The Coded rules themselves do not define such an Individual, of which it has no dealings, and lies beyond the scope of its operations. Looking for a definition of an Individual non-taxpayer in the Code, is much like looking for the proper definitions of Incomes, or a dollar. A fruitless search leading to a false assertion: if no definition has been made, or can easily be found, then a class of people called “Individual Non-taxpayers” must not exist at all. Since the Code does not define anything outside of its “implied jurisdiction” a great effort has been made to convince people such a class cannot exist at all. People are just forced to be the “any person” by default and good luck proving the IRS is wrong.

People are always guilty of being taxpayers without any proof and often find it quite impossible to defend themselves otherwise. If a man earns contractual-debt-money, he is paid in debt-money, he has only Debt-Income and therefore, he is a Debt-paying taxpayer. Since ‘Incomes’ has been made part of the Constitution the IRS cites it as the source of such Debt-taxing authority. The truth is not as clear as the IRS or Congress, wants people who are in perpetual, contractual Debt to believe.

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.’” Flint v. Stone Tracy, 220 U. S. 107 (1911)

“The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers and not to nontaxpayers.

The latter are without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law. With them Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither the subject nor object of revenue laws.” Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236 (1922)

The term “taxpayer” in this opinion is used in the strict or narrow sense contemplated by the Internal Revenue Code and means a person who pays, overpays, or is subject to pay his own personal income tax.” (See Section 7701(a)(14) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.)

A “nontaxpayer” is a person who does not possess the foregoing requisites of a taxpayer.”” Economy Plumbing and Heating Co. v. U. S., 470 F. 2d 585 (1972)

The revenue laws …. relate to taxpayers and not to non-taxpayers. With them congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of the revenue laws.” First National Bank Emlenton Pa. v. U. S., 161 F. Supp. 847 (DC W D Pa 3 Cir 1958).

The reason why a specific definition of a dollar[in the code] does not exist today, as opposed to back then, is more complex, but it is quite surprising in regards to the reason why it must be vague. In a nutshell, today the ‘dollar’ is a hypothetical entity of a contractual ‘debt instrument’ and thus is intangible. When the 16th amendment was written the dollar was a specific measure of lawful gold coin and quite tangible. This little difference is ignored much to the detriment of the people, who can only earn its ghost.

As for a non taxpayer it is simply any individual who can still claim unalienable rights, with the force of conviction of knowing the Law. The real battle today, lies in fighting Authoritarians, in a tax court, who will not allow defenses to be raised to disprove the dogma, of unprovable assertions, upon which such convictions rest. How can a “Willful” failure even arise without jurisdiction of the subject, of which the Law itself, has no such claims of jurisdiction?

The funny thing is when coined money was outlawed the absurd result was to make the Law of the Land stupendously defective. The law itself was destroyed by a lie so bold the Devil blushed with envy. There was no amendment changing the Lawful dollar measure of silver or gold coin. No president can make Law, or discard his constitutional authority to demand such a change. Oh, there was an emergency, which Congress, oddly enough had yet to declare, but the president just issued an Executive  Order that fixed the emergency and that made his criminal actions A-o-k. His action had the absurd result of voiding his own Authority! Only in anti-America can a president void his authority of office, to steal private property, void the Constitution as a direct result of his actions and be applauded by history for a job well done.

Well, if stealing the Peoples real money was not a crime in itself, or worse yet, making it a crime to own lawful money at all, as defined in the Constitution, then we are in anti-America land as a logical result. Only in anti-America land can an elected official destroy the very foundation of the Law and call it a good idea. He must have had a whole keg of “implied powers” up his nose to snow the American people with threats and fines to own the very substance of their money.

If gold was no longer good as money, then sure as Hell, the printed contractual debt-dollar, as its ghost was worse yet. A federal reserve note is made out of cotton linen, with fancy green ink. As a measure of a valued substance it has none. The debt-dollar defeats the very purpose of the Weights and Measures means test of lawful money. Therefore, despite the fact you can hold it in your hands and spend it at the store, this thing called a dollar by political fiat, still remains, an “intangible” debt instrument that is worthless without the contractual-monopoly which props it up. A federal reserve dollar bill is a trick question made real. People perform their own hat-trick when they claim the dollar is money and thus accept its tender offer of a contract of debt. Many might claim well, so what? What’s the big deal? So we use a piece of paper for money. I really don’t care about such trifle details of real versus imaginary. Tangible versus intangible? A token is a token so big deal.

In anti-America land people never question the claim of Authority acting on the money powers. When an official Speaks about the Law of monies men are to Obey every word as if it was like gold. Federal authority shines like a light in a dark room. What’s next… a claim, of infallibility?

 So who is the Judge speaking for when he shouts down from his lofty bench of authority, a charge of frivolous hearsay, you damn, dirty taxpayer?

Long, long ago back in the days America was almost a real country men spoke of something called, an unalienable Right. Oddly enough this assertion was also a refutation of the Claims made by a Crowned fool playing master of the world by religious decree. How strange were such men to Pronounce a Higher Power never vested His Will in a pope. But try telling a federal judge the very root of his authority is your own. Since his is no greater, except by decree, of which you gave no consent, nor can you, by any trial of reason, give him something you do not have to give, then it is he who is speaking Hearsay, by a different name.

The Constitution does not command individuals to obey Noble Titles or any man who receives them. The original 13th amendment is still ripe for full application even today. If such men of Noble Title are making law who are we to obey them? Congress, has no power to force individuals to obey implied powers by belief alone, or are we in a new federal religion? Not likely. So why do people believe any such hypothetical power can be implied at all?

 Only in anti-America can Congress claim powers which defeat the Peoples individual Vested Rights. Every implied power Congress has claimed by default, has in turn destroyed the Enumerated powers which restricted the claim itself. This must be the reason why “Individual sovereign powers” are ridiculed as if such things never existed at all. Silly people claiming Sole authority over their OWN minds, bodies and will. In anti-America land those people are called outlaws.

There exists perhaps no conception the meaning of which is more controversial than that of sovereignty. It is an indisputable fact that this conception, from the moment when it was introduced into political science until the present day, has never had a meaning which was universally agreed upon. ” — Lassa Oppenheim, an authority on international law.

In Constitutional Law vested rights are those that are so completely and definitely settled in a person that they are not subject to defeat or cancellation by the act of any other private person. Once a person can prove to a court the validity of the vested rights, the court will recognize and protect these rights so as to prevent injustice.

The Government of the United States is one of enumerated powers; it has no inherent powers of sovereignty.” [Kansas v. Colorado, 206 US 46 (1906) (Emphasis added.)]

Up next

When did Congress achieve a status of near divine authority over all American Persons?

Page – 3 http://wp.me/P3eWa2-49

Page – 4 http://wp.me/P3eWa2-4m

Page – 5  http://wp.me/P3eWa2-4B

Page – 6 http://wp.me/P3eWa2-4F

Back to page -1 http://wp.me/P3eWa2-3u

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: