[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Soros-Funded Dark Money Group Secretly Paying Democrat Influencers To Shape Gen Z Politics Minnesota Shooter's Family Has CIA and DOD ties 42 GANGSTERS DRAGGED From Homes In Midnight FBI & ICE Raids | MS-13 & Trinitarios BUSTED Bill Gates EXPOSED: Secret Operatives Inside the CDC, HHS, and NIH REMOVED by RFK, Jr. Gabriel Ruiz, a man who dresses up as a woman was just arrested for battery (dating violence) "I'm Tired Of Being Trans" - Minneapolis Shooter Confesses "I Wish I Never Brain-Washed Myself" The Chart Baltimore Democrats Hope You Never See Woman with walker, 69, fatally shot in face on New York City street: Paul Joseph Watson: Bournemouth 1980 Vs 2025 FDA Revokes Emergency Authorization For COVID-19 Vaccines NATO’s Worst Nightmare Is Happening Right Now in Ukraine - Odessa is Next To Fall? Why do men lose it when their chicky-poo dies? Christopher Caldwell: How Immigration Is Erasing Whites, Christians, and the Middle Class SSRI Connection? Another Trans Shooter, Another Massacre – And They Erased His Video Something 1/2 THE SIZE of the SUN has Entered our Solar System, and We Have NO CLUE What it is... Massive Property Tax Fraud Exposed - $5.1 Trillion Bond Scam Will Crash System Israel Sold American Weapons to Azerbaijan to Kill Armenian Christians Daily MEMES YouTube Hates | YouTube is Fighting ME all the Way | Making ME Remove Memes | Part 188 New fear unlocked while stuck in highway traffic - Indian truck driver on his phone smashes into RFK Jr. says the largest tech companies will permit Americans to access their personal health data I just researched this, and it’s true—MUST SEE!! Savage invader is disturbed that English people exist in an area he thought had been conquered Jackson Hole's Parting Advice: Accept Even More Migrants To Offset Demographic Collapse, Or Else Ecuador Angered! China-built Massive Dam is Tofu-Dreg, Ecuador Demands $400 Million Compensation UK economy on brink of collapse (Needs IMF Bailout) How Red Light Unlocks Your Body’s Hidden Fat-Burning Switch The Mar-a-Lago Accord Confirmed: Miran Brings Trump's Reset To The Fed ($8,000 Gold) This taboo sex act could save your relationship, expert insists: ‘Catalyst for conversations’ LA Police Bust Burglary Crew Suspected In 92 Residential Heists Top 10 Jobs AI is Going to Wipe Out

Dead Constitution
See other Dead Constitution Articles

Title: Who is liable for the Income Tax, and, why?
Source: [None]
URL Source: http://famguardian.org/Publications ... aradigm/TheGalileoParadigm.pdf
Published: Sep 18, 2007
Author: Adele Weiss
Post Date: 2007-09-18 12:45:35 by richard9151
Keywords: None
Views: 1415
Comments: 118

Societal Presumptions made by lenient minded Aemrican Nationals

Interesting statement, is it not? This; http://famguardian.org/Publications/GalileoParadigm/TheGalileoParadigm.pdf

is a PDF file that I would recommend that you download, print, and study until you 'get it.' And, you should turn first to Chapter 2, Application for SSN and what it means.

If, IF, you will simply read this info, you will never be confused again about what is going on the so-called Tax Protest movement. I guarentee it. And, you will never be swindled into paying for de-taxing material either! Why? Because, probably for the first time in your life, you will understand the basis of the Income Tax, the Social Security program, and, not least of all, socialism. But, that is your choice, to understand or not, so, please, make a wise one.

Click for Full Text! Subscribe to *CAFR*

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 105.

#7. To: richard9151 (#0)

you will understand the basis of the Income Tax, the Social Security program

They are as intertwined as a man and his wife in the "throes of passion".

The SS program is voluntary. The IT is mandatory for those that "volunteer" for the SS program. Simple as that. Those that DON'T have a SS# are defined in the IR Code (though not quite so bluntly) as NON TAXPAYERS. NOT "tax protesters", "tax evaders", or any of a plethora of other things - but as a LEGAL Non-Taxpayer. No hassles, just a totally different "class" or "status".

Gee, freedom is wonderful. We're perfectly free to allow our ignorance to bind us in a contract which will forever more cause us misery and a reason to complain...

innieway  posted on  2007-09-24   10:41:12 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

The problem is this fellas.

The banksters and the DOJ/federal judiciary refuses to acknowledge the right to contract our services to any corporation without walking through the looking glass of IRS enclave jurisdiction.

As far as they're concerned there is no legal way to sell my services to a corporation unless I'm an "employee" or a contractor with an ID # that is used to 1099 me at the end of the year.

So, if the govt has in effect outlawed the common law right to work without their jurisdiction, and all of the monies disbursed by a corporation are govt revenues and subject to the tax, then, the coercive nature of this fraud renders any innocent claim that the tax is "a voluntary contract" disingenuous.

According to the IRS a "corporation" can't stop and buy a glass of lemonade or a newspaper with corporate money if the lemonade or news vendor is a bootlegger and has no license to sell to a corporation.

I tried to paint a tax lawyer into a corner by asking her if my kids' lemonade stand was subject to the income tax. She said it was.

In other words any transaction between any two parties of any age or alleged status within the continental US is a taxable event and the IRS has the power to come in, toss the place, line people up and handcuff them while they use a subpoena to determine the amount of the deficiency.

And, nowhere in any IRS, DOJ or federal district, appeals or supreme court literature or decisions will you find your assertion that SS is voluntary and one may go about their life with no involvement in it.

The fact that one may extrapolate that position after hundreds of hours of study does not constitute black letter law that then relieves the govt of any responsibility for the fraud they've perpetrated against the people.

And, the fact that most judges would not allow either of you to assert that position to your own juries in criminal trials is proof enough that your self assuredness on the subject is reckless, and is ample proof that neither of you have ever tried to beat the rap which you seem to think is just a walk in the park.

The whole IRS Code was written to obfuscate the voluntary nature of the income tax (which includes social security in subtitle C) and no judge will allow a defendant to lead a jury through the necessary steps to illuminate that fact.

And when lawyers like Larry Becraft and that feller in Louisiana do win, they do so because they or their clients asked good faith questions which the IRS never answered, not because they were allowed to detail the fraudulent scheme in open court.

Time and time again when jurors ask to see the law they receive replies from judges that read "I have given you the law".

When have you ever heard of a jury deliberating a social security or income tax case while referring to Title 26 in the jury room?

They are not allowed to see the code and they would not be allowed to deliberate about your "theory of operation" regarding the "voluntary" nature of social security. Nor would either of you be permitted to hand the jurors an outline that details the progression of steps used to reach that conclusion.

So, what good is a theory of law if you are never going to be allowed to offer it in evidence?

Usually when I ask these questions I'm told how stoopid I am. This is because armchair experts don't like to be told that their justice only exists in a parallel universe that no jury will ever see....

Now, you may preach it all you like, but the courtroom is where the rubber meets the road and it will not do you a bit of good there.

HOUNDDAWG  posted on  2007-09-24   17:40:35 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

As far as they're concerned there is no legal way to sell my services to a corporation unless I'm an "employee" or a contractor with an ID # that is used to 1099 me at the end of the year.

That's right - there's not. A corporation is a creation of the state, an individual is NOT. Big difference.

And, nowhere in any IRS, DOJ or federal district, appeals or supreme court literature or decisions will you find your assertion that SS is voluntary and one may go about their life with no involvement in it.

Of course not. That's because it IS voluntary. Isn't that somewhat tantamount to saying "nowhere will you find any assertion that going to the doctor once a year for a check up is voluntary"? If no law exists making it mandatory, then there is no need for a court decision declaring it voluntary.

Consider a U.S. Supreme Court ruling still in effect:

"There is a clear distinction in this particular case between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for an examination at the suit of the State. The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.

Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the State. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the State and the limitations of its charter. Its powers are limited by law. It can make no contract not authorized by its charter. Its rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its charter." Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at 47 (1905).

People who conduct their economic affairs in accordance with Hale v. Henkel operate in the free sector - the real free-enterprise sector. The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution created a creature called a "U.S. citizen" - euphemism for victim or slave. U.S. citizens are subject to federal and other statutory jurisdiction. The key to understanding Hale v. Henkel lies in the statement "the INDIVIDUAL receives nothing from the state". There's where SS comes into play.

If you look up entries like "14th Amendment," "U.S. citizen," and "person" in Black's Law Dictionary, and do some further research, you'll find that "person" - which includes a "corporation" - is a synonym for slave. You'll also find that one can have the status of "sovereign American," "state citizen," or "sovereign individual" - all more or less synonymous with the "individual" referred to in Hale v. Henkel.

If you read the tax code, you'll find they use the word "person". Nowhere will you find them saying that an "individual" is liable for income taxes. You'll find statutes, regulations, and court rulings saying the "taxpayer" must do this and that, but these don't apply to the "individual." And if you research common law, you'll find that there's been a centuries-old tradition of two classes of people: "freemen" and "slaves." The American Revolution broke the tradition and created a society of free and sovereign people - free individuals. However, since then they have been spectacularly successful in gradually reestablishing the master-slave tradition.

The Social Security number is recognized by other nations and is prima facia evidence that:

1) The numbered citizen is a card-carrying and practicing member of socialism.

2) He has voluntarily waived his absolute right to:

a) Personal Security
b) Personal Liberty
c) Personal Property

3) He can now qualify and expect to receive protection, security, old age benefits, minimum wages, food stamps, and welfare benefits from the government financed by the society at large.

4) He is now under public policy for the good of the whole and is allowed to keep only according to his needs after all his claims and deductions.

5) He is a "taxpayer" within the scope of the I.R. Code.

6) Some of his constitutional protection (Bill of Rights) no longer apply.

7) He has denounced his sovereign status of a "free person" and is administered through a regional district.

8) He is a taxpayer and a collector of his own tax, and can be labeled a tax cheater, a tax protester, and a tax evader if he does not file.

9) He subjects himself to the United States Congress and can be charged criminally for willful failure to file.

10) He has rejected the natural laws or common law, and he has exchanged his blessings of liberty for a mess of pottage. The organic laws of contract are now in force to compel him to abide by his hidden agreements, imposed by his participation in the Social Security system.

The terms, "people," or "human being" are not to be found in the Internal Revenue Code and it fails to properly identify who is required to file. It cannot be found because it is not there. Partaking into the Social Security Act merely identifies one as a person "who is receiving benefits and therefore must meet the burden." Under the ancient concept of Lord Mansfield's maxim "that no man shall enrich himself unjustly at the expense of another," in the eyes of the court, that individual ought to pay the income tax. The common law of quasi contract (as if a contract) is now in full force and effect.

No one can force a citizen into a contractual agreement. The judicial, executive, and legislative branches of the government do not have that power. A tax judge will always remind a litigant that there are no constitutional protection (i.e., right of free speech, privacy) in a tax court (when under contractual obligations). But no judge can order a citizen to participate in the Social Security system. The system is 100% voluntary and whoever joins the system also volunteers into paying the income tax.

Cases which challenged the constitutionality of Social Security simply have not raised the issue concerning the point of whether one must submit an application to join Social Security. It appears that no cases have as yet dealt with it. The reason for this absence of a challenge to such alleged requirement can only be explained by analyzing the act itself to determine if there is such a requirement. Because Congress lacks the constitutional authority to compel membership in Social Security, the act simply imposes no such requirement.

The modern day act is codified at 42 U.S.C., sections 301-433. If there were a requirement that every American join the Social Security scheme, one would expect to find language in the act similar to the following: "Every American of the age of 18 years or older shall submit an application with the Social Security Administration and shall provide thereon the information required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary. Every member of Social Security shall pay the taxes imposed herein and records of such payments shall be kept by the Secretary for determining the amount of benefits to which such member is entitled hereunder." Amazingly, no such or similar language appears within the act, and particularly there is no section thereof which could remotely be considered as a mandate that anyone join Social Security. The closest section of the act which might relate to this point is the requirement that one seeking benefits under the act must apply for the same. But, this relates to an entirely different point than a requirement that one join.

Since the statutory scheme fails to impose such requirement, the next question to be asked is whether perhaps the Social Security regulations themselves might impose such duty. But here, the regulations are no broader than the act itself, and the duty to apply for and obtain a Social Security card or number boils down to the following found at 20 C.F.R., section 422.103:

"(b) Applying for a number. (1) Form SS-5. An individual needing a social security number may apply for one by filing a signed Form SS-5, 'Application for a Social Security Card,' at any social security office and submitting the required evidence...

"(2) Birth Registration Document. The Social Security Administration (SSA) may enter into an agreement with officials of a State... to establish, as part of the official birth registration process, a procedure to assist SSA in assigning social security numbers to newborn children. Where an agreement is in effect, a parent, as part of the official birth registration process, need not complete a Form SS-5 and may request that SSA assign a social security number to the newborn child.

"(c) How numbers are assigned. (1) Request on Form SS-5. If the applicant has completed a Form SS-5, the social security office... that receives the completed Form SS-5 will require the applicant to furnish documentary evidence... After review of the documentary evidence, the completed Form SS-5 is forwarded... to SSA's central office... If the electronic screening or other investigation does not disclose a previously assigned number, SSA's central office assigns a number and issues a social security number card...

"(2) Request on birth registration document. Where a parent has requested a social security number for a newborn child as part of an official birth registration process described in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the State vital statistics office will electronically transmit the request to SSA's central office... Using this information, SSA will assign a number to the child and send the social security number card to the child at the mother's address."

The purported duty to apply for and obtain a Social Security number therefore boils down to this: you get it if you need it or request it. There is no legal compulsion to do so.

As mentioned, IF you want to conduct business with a corporation then in all likelihood you WILL need a SS number. However if you can manage to conduct your business with individuals ONLY you can manage just fine without one. Granted, living in a big city makes this considerably more difficult, but we all have choices to make in life. Less than 100 years ago nearly half of the people of this country lived on a small family farm...

To me though the "proof is in the pudding". I know 4 people that don't have a SS#, and collectively these 4 people have managed to get by fine for a cumulative total of some 70+ years - without filing a tax return, or paying so much as a penny in income tax, AND without so much as even a letter from them. To me that speaks for itself. It's almost as if without a SS# you don't even exist to them. Think of your SS# is your own unique "barcode identifier" which distinguishes you from the rest of the "goods" on Walmart's shelves - without that "barcode", Walmart's cash registers don't even acknowledge you came off their shelf, and they can't sell you or do anything with you. You're useless to them.

There is a BIG difference in cases like Ed Brown, Irwin Schiff and countless others that had a VALID argument in "tax court" yet were convicted and the individual I'm talking about described in Hale v. Henkel - Brown, Schiff and the others ALL went to court having a SS#; and "individuals" don't get pulled into court at all (or at least haven't to date).

innieway  posted on  2007-09-25   8:54:47 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

I also know several *without a number*, including Neil McIver, who have been drawn into their system anyway. Like JT says, when you have an all powerful rogue government and you have assets (anything they want), they're not going to leave you alone. Sure, some slip under the radar, but that's because of incompetency by the government minions, imo. At this point, there is no solution other than a V for Vendetta scenario where the masses rebel, gather, and do what needs to done. It's way past time to study and read about SS and contracts.

christine  posted on  2007-09-25   10:02:51 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

At this point, there is no solution other than a V for Vendetta scenario where the masses rebel, gather, and do what needs to done.

The scope of what this mess has become makes me think that you are right. I'm afraid we have simply run out of time for anything else to work. Between now and when this occurs, I will keep trying other things as I outlined in a response to JT on this thread #55.

BUT, it's not the government and their minions which scare me. It's the Creator of the Universe which commands my biggest attention. HE is the One that decides upon a much bigger time frame on my "quality of life" (or lack thereof) than the 70 or so years of this round of life.

HE is the One that warned us it would be this way - that it would come to this. And in fact "we ain't seen nothin yet". HE tried to tell us NOT to play this game many times - for example: (Jesus speaking here)
Luke 22:25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. 26 But ye [shall] not [be] so

Under the SS system, you are the "beneficiary", and the government is the benefactor...

innieway  posted on  2007-09-25   11:30:33 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

The scope of what this mess has become makes me think that you are right. I'm afraid we have simply run out of time for anything else to work. Between now and when this occurs, I will keep trying other things as I outlined in a response to JT on this thread #55.

BUT, it's not the government and their minions which scare me. It's the Creator of the Universe which commands my biggest attention. HE is the One that decides upon a much bigger time frame on my "quality of life" (or lack thereof) than the 70 or so years of this round of life.

understood. i wrote my last post before reading this one.

we all have unique situations and obligations such as family, business partners, pets and others who are dependent on us. my point being, decisions of this nature cannot be made unilaterally. we must make decisions and realistic choices that won't put those to whom we have obligations in jeopardy. incidentally, i'm speaking from experience as we are in the throes of the battle as i type. we've used some sound approaches in dealing with the thieves and, guess what? they're ignoring everything and proceeding anyway. if i told you the details of what they've done in our particular case (JT knows), i think you would more fully understand my and his current attitude. scared? you bet i am.

christine  posted on  2007-09-25   12:40:24 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

we all have unique situations and obligations such as family, business partners, pets and others who are dependent on us. my point being, decisions of this nature cannot be made unilaterally. we must make decisions and realistic choices that won't put those to whom we have obligations in jeopardy.

Here is the difference, christine, between you and me.

I talk about what is right and wrong; you and Jethro talk about assets.

I talk about freedom; you and Jethro talk about holding on to what is yours, when NOTHING is yours; slaves can not own ANYTHING, and everything you list as assets, including your home, came to you as a benefit of 'their' system, through credit.

You TALK about obligations to your family, BUT, do you teach your family the nature of their slavery, and, why they are slaves? Or, do you encourage them to continue in the same manner that you are, cooperating with evil to maintain your lifestyle? Do you teach them about the establishment doctors and what they are doing to people? Do you teach them about nutrition and food, and how that relates to health and clear thinking? Cause if you are not doing these things, you should NEVER mention obligations to your family.

The easy solution (THAT is a lie!) is to think that picking up a gun will solve something; if you actually believe that, I suggest you spend a week or so in Baghdad. Cause that is what you are asking for.

I know it is difficult; I went through it. When I quit paying the SS tax, I was making monthly payments on equipment of $57,000 A MONTH, and, I was making the payments. Over the following ten years, as I cleansed myself, ALL of that went away as I learned, little by little, what was actually going on not only in America, but in the world.

And I had to hit rock bottom before I could begin to climb back up. That means, simply put, that I had to get rid of everything that I had that came to me as a benefit from 'their' system. I DID THAT! Everything.

And the biggest part of the problem within the United States is that the establishment toadies are just as ignorant of the law as you and Jethro are, and they DO NOT LIKE those who are not a part of the system that they worship.

And I left the United States, because as innieway said, man suposses, God disposses, and I know what is coming to America, and, it is well earned and deserved. Any people who turn their backs on God as America has done will suffer judgement, and that judgement will be the more harsh because of the blessings that God bestowed on America through His Law.

That being said, there will be a remenant in America, and my aim is to help that remenant to understand the myrid errors committed by Americans as they traded their birth right for a bowl of lentils (for reference, see the Bible). There are tens of thousands of people working to restore America; but they are doing it one individual at a time, christine, and are not engaged/wasting their time in opposition to a government that has largely lost its relavance on the world stage.

And, it is the loss of that relavance that makes that government so much more dangerous, because it means that they have almost nothing left to lose no matter what crimes they commit.

Will there be a confrontation with that government? Since that government has been preparing for such a confrontation for more than 30 years, I would say that probably there will be. Does that mean that I should now stop teaching and helping people to understand where we, as a people, went wrong? Not hardly. I do not want my people to repeat their stupid mistakes. But until they are led to the solutions, no one in America understands what needs to be done, and the first thing that needs to be done is for Americans to begin to understand the nature of contracts, cause they surely do not understand this subject today.

richard9151  posted on  2007-09-25   14:00:23 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Sometimes it's not so much what we say to others that infuriates them, it's how we say it. The name calling and insults serve no constructive purpose. Telling someone that they will have to hit the bottom before they can lift themself out of the mire is another hard thing to consider, while I do think it's true.

noone222  posted on  2007-09-25   14:43:20 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

The name calling and insults serve no constructive purpose.

Lod  posted on  2007-09-25   19:49:20 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

The name calling and insults serve no constructive purpose.

Oh, I dunno... blows off my steam.......

By the way, here is a quote from a speach that Bush gave some time ago about Social Security. See if it does not match with what I have been saying;

You know, one thing about Social Security -- sorry to blow on here, but now that you asked -- a lot of people in America think there is a trust. Your money goes in, the government holds it, and then the government gives your money back when you retire. That's just not the way it works. And it's important for the American citizens to understand it's a pay-as-you-go system. And right now, we're paying for a lot of programs other than Social Security with the payroll tax coming in, thereby leaving a pile of IOUs.

There ain't no trust; there ain't never been no trust; and Social Security is simply an income tax under a different name, and that is exactly what is said in the Social Security Enabling Act I have posted and posted and posted.

You can go here for the full transcript of the speech; http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/03/16/transcript.bush/index.html

richard9151  posted on  2007-09-25   21:37:24 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

#106. To: richard9151 (#105)

Glad to see you can laugh some richard. And people seem to hate our roust abouts more than we do.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2007-09-25 21:51:40 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]