Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
for those who need to "get a life"
#1
W A N T E D - Dead Not Alive
Preaching False Religion
High Treason
Conspiracy
Pedophilia (346 Counts)
Inciting Murder & Enslavement


Religion is Bullshit. However, billions of self proposed 'rational human beings' still choose to adhere to primitive faiths that are so foul, corrupt and often perverse that it makes me sick. Imagine a game of Chinese whispers that involves tens of thousands of people and spans hundreds of years before documentation. Would the information be reliable? Absolutely not. Well, that scenario accurately reflects the birth and infancy of the bible. The "facts" contained in the Bible therefore represent nothing but two thousand year old bullshit, compiled in writing centuries after the lawful execution of Christ. What did you think? That Jesus had a scribe with him on his corrupt and vile journey to spread false religion and hate across the land? Well, he didn't and for the sake of the countless pathetic brainwashed church-going drones that are stupid enough to believe but not question the perverse faiths they follow, the Bible was written by a bunch of drunk, depraved fools that desired to convert, control and inevitably abuse unruly populations. Their solution was the Bible, a compilation of bullshit and brimstone gathered wholly from bed time stories and ancient hearsay which was so ridiculous, childish and narrow minded that it should never have reached the printing press!
Whilst the Bible did make it to print some centuries after the lawful execution of Christ, it was and is still being changed constantly. How is that, that the words God spoke could suddenly change to further reflect the prejudicial perversions of propaganda preaching prophets? The answer is simple....because it was bullshit to start with! None the less people across the globe still believe in ancient faiths that have periodically been altered by King's, Pope's, messiah's, tyrants and/or try-hards who have eagerly twisted so called "sacred words" to suit themselves. But if it wasn't for these people, we would all be Jews or Muslim extremists, whose faiths are as primitive and stupid as the ancient bigamists that wrote them. Well these bushy bearded dickheads can kiss my ass because I know for a fact that the world is over 5,000 years old.....After all religious wankers have been raping their followers for at least 6000!

'God' the non-existent figment of a particularly retarded individuals imagination is nothing more than a merchant of indecent homosexual molestation. This 'God' that pathetic people praise, invites you to his church, only to defile you through his priests. Don't believe me? Well tell that to the kid that just got reamed by the Reverent; or to the homeless person now suffering an anal haemorrhage after accepting a pedophile Priests' "charity". The uncanny correlation to being an Altar boy and being forced to perform fellatio on the local Minister should be seen as a symbol of the very impure and indecent nature of those that preach. God's so called son, Jesus, the repulsive messiah of molestation had his reasons for defiling the weak, enfeebled and disabled: he was a pervert that was true to his motto 'do unto others as you would have them do to you!' - so he raped them! For the sick and grossly indecent practices Jesus callously performed, the Romans hung him out to dry. Hail Caesar!

However, Jesus may have been an innocent victim of circumstance, having been exposed to truly bizarre sociological factors from an early age. I mean a guy doesn't have much of a chance in life if his legal father, Joseph, never managed to get his penis inside his married mother Mary. Come on, what do the dickheads that wrote, or the fuckwits that preach the Bible take us for? If Mary was a virgin, either she and her husband had some particularly pathetic sexual practices or someone raped her in her sleep. If "God" was this mysterious midnight molester (who first coined the phrase like father, like son!), not only would this suggest our "Lord" is nothing more than a repulsive rapist, but it would dictate that billions of deluded religious fools are to this day worshipping nothing more than a sick cellestial deviant. But, in the defence of his "immaculately conceived" son, Jesus, if a bunch of sickly, drunken old prophets worshipped the shit you lay from the day you sprung out of your 'virgin' mothers gash, you would probably think you could walk on water too! Hell, you might go so far as to think you could molest several thousand followers and get away with it! Jesus did!

Anyone who looks closely or is not blinded can see the common ground between the Church (in all its variants) and the evil of Nazi fascism; the difference being that Hitler wanted people to subscribe to his will, whilst the Church maintains that you should to subscribe to God's will; which of course means the Pope's will, after all the Pope is God's senile, decrepit representative on Earth. Undoubtedly both faiths deserve credit for their accomplishments of pure evil but the Church wins the genocide head count hands down, having maintained a policy of hatred, discrimination and intolerance since the dawn of its foolishly immaculate conception. If you thought Mein Kampf was full of hatred and discrimination, you would be correct but in the same token, why don't you seriously think about the words contained in the hymns, psalms and prayers that you may well sing behind the closed doors of your vile, corrupt Church? Or better yet, read your Bible with scrutiny, analyse the biblical stories of rape, murder and theft and then perhaps you'll realise that every prayer you squeal like an ignorant pig to God and Jesus may as well be a fascist salute to the Fuhrer!

As for Mohammed and his countless maniac Muslim followers, this Islamic messiah a nothing more than crazed Koran preaching cock sucker whose cruel curse tainted with bloodshed, brainwashing and bigamy still corrupts the particularly polygamous, pathetic and primitive across the planet. As Mohammed's mercenaries proudly massacre another metropolis, his deranged and deluded disciples sit poised to ravage this world in the sadistic splendour of a thermonuclear fireball. Not only does the Islamic faith fit the criteria of a devastating plague in its purest form, it represents an affront to the dignity of man and a disgrace to the intelligence of its brain dead believers who exert a medieval mentality worthy of a shallow grave. Take the Taliban of Afghanistan for example, besides what they do to their women, they whip you for trimming your beard, using electricity or reading a newspaper. Almost every ludicrous practice you could imagine is condoned by the Koran and amongst a Muslim man's many wives and concubines, there lies a seriously disturbed individual. Trust logic, not lunacy as any God that makes you prey countless times a day and then like a cruel corrupt butcher cuts out several of your many wives' clitorises has a serious problem!

As for God's other children (which includes such wonderful people as): David Koresh, Joseph Smith and Jim Jones; they too had what it took to be a true Jesus-Christ-incarnate, after all their religious practices included: polygamy, pedophilia, bigamy, bullshit, ritual group fuckings, treason, delusions of grandeur and to top it all off a bunch of weak, narrow minded followers that eagerly set out to spread the vile words of corruption they were stupid enough to believe. Take Joe Smith for example, he walked into the desert a deeply depraved dickhead and returned not only with a brilliant memory based solely on fiction, but he was soon able to legally marry a dozen women and molest a dozen more, whilst copulating with and converting a tribe of perverts that bred with such proficiency they soon founded a State! Nonetheless his Mormon religion, which maintains that blacks are inferior, has spread far beyond your doorstep and now plagues Africa almost as severely as the AIDS epidemic!

Always amusing are the ignorant religious idiots that like to draw an imaginary distinction between being "religious" and merely believing in "God". Obviously, the former suggets a depraved church-going devotion that is truly retarded, whilst the latter reflects a feeling of comfort in the foolish and deluded promise of an afterlife. Whilst the somewhat uncommitted believers are not quite as stupid as their hard core religious counterparts, they should nonetheless ask themselves some serious questions because they are plainly blind to what they believe in. They harbor ridiculous delusions of grandeur toward a "God" without the devotion, conviction, morbid curiosity or good sense to actually go to church and listen to the bullshit they are brainwashed by. The fact is that they don't attend church (God's house) because it's a faith completely out of touch with reality. Its theory of evolution is a joke - it's boring, insane, prejudicial, preposterous, insultive, un-amusing and often besotted with frightening fallacies of fire and brimstone that sing sacrilege like a canary with its eyes plucked out.

The said thing is, You could well be just another bullshit propaganda preaching follower like them; another lamb, led astray by promises of greener pastures amongst a stolen flock of sheep lining up for the slaughter. Well, if "God" is your Shepherd, that makes You a sheep and it's time for the sheep to take a good look around this cruel slaughterhouse of a world and start thinking for themselves. This is not the Dark Ages and you no longer have to become an irrational religious slave to a non-existent being simply because someone told you it's real, question what you are told because if Jesus died to end our sin, he really fucked up big time! But what more would you expect from a spoilt schizophrenic boy brainwashed by a dozen drunk, bearded pedophiles into believing he was the son of God?! The sad fact is that if you consider yourself to be close to God, then you have an imaginary friend and are simply too weak, frightened or stupid to rationally comprehend the cruel world you live in. But, don't feel too bad if you're religious, you've been brainwashed, that's all!

There is still some hope for those of you out there that have so far wasted your lives adhering to the drunk, bigoted words of perverse ancient story tellers compiled in the Bible - Turn your back on your bullshit faith. Feel free to burn your Bible without fear of reprisal, commit heresy for the homeland, tell your religious colleagues that their prophet is a pedophile, blaspheme until the cows come home.

Live a Life, Not a Lie. Turn Your Back on Religion.
more or less hudsons bay again
Reply
#2
You say that stuff like you believe Jesus was a real person. Do you have any evidence that he even existed?

[Image: 400px-GiantFSM.jpg]

Peace
Government is nothing more than the rationalization and exercise of violence. Everything done by government contains at least the implicit threat of lethal coercion. <br /><br />- William N. Grigg
Reply
#3
http://www.evilbible.com/

Peace
Government is nothing more than the rationalization and exercise of violence. Everything done by government contains at least the implicit threat of lethal coercion. <br /><br />- William N. Grigg
Reply
#4
First, let me state unequivocally that I am an evangelical Christian and have been for quite a while. And, I have seen and experienced things beyond any natural explanation. However, I do not believe that the earth is only 6000-8000 years old (the Christians who believe that way are called 'young earth creationists'); I believe it is older. How much older? Don't really know, and am not sure that it matters much to me -- I am just not a young earth creationist.

As far as Jesus being a real person, I believe that Josephus, a Jewish historian, mentioned Jesus (as a minor prophet). I used to have a 4-volume set of Josephus' writings, but somehow the set did not make it to NC when I moved from OH -- don't remember if I gave them away or simply lost them somehow. <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/dunno.gif" alt="Dunno" title="dunno" />

I looked at the evilbible website (home and top 10 pages. I noticed that Noah's (Genesis 6) experience was not mentioned in either of those and would be curious as to how they would account for that. After all, the other events they seem to be treating as true.

And I personally have known some very fine principled individuals who were not Christian, as well as some Christians (per their claim) who were not as principled ...

This is just a short response, though.
e4e5Qh5Ke7Qe5#
Reply
#5
I just threw in the evilbible link as it was directly related to what almon posted. Personally, I have never read the bible (although I've seriously tried at least 8 or 10 times) as it does not resonate with me in any way, shape or form.

I'll note that I am not an atheist. I believe in a creator but that creator is long gone. He/she/it created and buggered off/died/moved/went for coffee/whatever.

I did a quick search on this Josephus fellow. Seems that Xtians want to use him as a source because Jews don't believe in Christ and hence since a Jew said, it verifies that 'He' existed. Josephus apparently uses language that doesn't label Jesus as a messiah but just a wise man (which helps their argument). Xtians also appear to use him as a strawman against the deniers of Josephus who use the Xtian interloper argument. From where I sit, Jews do have a vested interest (to a small degree) in backdooring Jesus' existence as it gives further credence to the old testament. The old, chosen people vs. chosen religion argument. So how about providing some evidence from a completely unbiased historian of that era?

Just throwing this one into the mix (and I note that I've never had this question posed to me) as it provides some interesting questions for this discussion (and yes it is also biased).

http://instigant.blogspot.com/2007/12/w ... faith.html

Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Who needs faith?

Here I'll explain the problems I have with people challenging atheists with lines such as: 'you can't disprove god, so you're relying on a certain amount of faith yourself not to believe in his existence.'

First of all the term god is loosely used. Which god are we referring to here? A personal god; the not-so personal god; or the god of Einstein, Spinoza and Hawking? It can't be all three at the same time. Or even two at the same time. It has to be one. And I think those that make such statements are in fact referring to the concept of a personal god.

For those that don't know what a personal god is. It's the one that takes an interest in our lives, the one that cares about which decisions we make on a daily basis; the one that has a special place set-out for us after we die in this reality if we believe or not; the one with the master plan.

In my opinion it's illogical to believe in a personal god.

How can I say that? Well if you look over the ages you'll see that there were hundreds if not thousands of different personal gods. So to choose one out of those numerous gods and claim it's the right one, which they do, is absurd. Why? Because you'll find most of the followers of these gods saying the exact same thing. 'My god is real, yours is false' And they say it with so much conviction, that it's hard not to think they're onto something. Some of them will even die for that concept.

The question is, do they need to prove the existence of their god, or the non-existence of the other gods? No. Well all that the religious folk do is, is they refer to their own 'holy' text, where they paraphrase some line which makes a whole lot of sense to them, but not to those of other belief systems.

So in short: 100's of religions; each with it's own group of followers; each referring to some 'holy' text to prove the existence of their god; each believing that they're heart is true and other groups are false. It's just too convenient that they all say the same thing, while they believe in something different and have a different world-view.

Remember all these people have been born into a specific belief system. So an ancient Egyptian which followed the god Horus, is ONLY doing so BECAUSE they were coincidentally brought up into a group with those same beliefs. The same applies to a child that grew up in Tibet following the way of the Buddha, or a person being born into a Jewish family, a Catholic family, a Muslim family etc. You get the point?

What I'm saying by this is that, the ones making claims, in the faces of atheists, such as: 'you can't disprove god, so you're relying on a certain amount of faith yourself not to believe in his existence.' are in fact missing the point. Why is it always that atheists are the ones who don't believe in the existence of god? How many people don't belief in the existence of Zeus? Do they have to disprove his existence for them to have any valid grounds to stand on? Of course not. How many gods does the person, which make such claims, ignore and not believe in? As I said, hundreds if not thousands.

That's why the term 'god' needs to be made more specific by said person. For example: 'you can't disprove the Christian god, so you're relying on a certain amount of faith yourself not to believe in his existence.' That's much more descriptive and to the point. Whereas god can be anything from Yahweh, Allah, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, the god of Einstein and co. etc.

I've said this before, Christians don't believe in Allah, Jah, Horus, Vishnu etc. Do they have to disprove their existence? No. They just don't believe in them. Do they need a certain amount of faith not to believe in their existence? Surely not.

So could the people being so silly please stop and ask yourself, 'why don't I believe in Zeus?'

Peace
Government is nothing more than the rationalization and exercise of violence. Everything done by government contains at least the implicit threat of lethal coercion. <br /><br />- William N. Grigg
Reply
#6
atheists are assholes just like the rest of us...please don't flatter yourself
Reply
#7
i was hoping that article would stimulate a discussion of the various possibilities or different views of how religion is perverted for controlling the masses, but i guess i have failed, its just the old name calling us versus them thing all over agin <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wall.gif" alt="Wall" title="wall" />
more or less hudsons bay again
Reply
#8
It stimulated a foul smell in the air, that's for sure
Reply
#9
[quote author="almon"]i was hoping that article would stimulate a discussion of the various possibilities or different views of how religion is perverted for controlling the masses, but i guess i have failed, its just the old name calling us versus them thing all over agin Cheers
Reply
#10
Keeping in mind that I'm still sipping on my first cup of :Uni2:


<img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/peace.gif" alt="Peace" title="peace" />
Government is nothing more than the rationalization and exercise of violence. Everything done by government contains at least the implicit threat of lethal coercion. <br /><br />- William N. Grigg
Reply
#11
http://www.chick.com

I am not a defender of this site, but it could be interesting. I have seen it before

Did I say that I hate preachers who preach submission to corrupt government?
Such 'preachers' should be tarred and feathered--and ridden out of town on a
rail!
Reply
#12
Quote:http://www.chick.com

I am not a defender of this site, but it could be interesting. I have seen it before

Did I say that I hate preachers who preach submission to corrupt government?
Such 'preachers' should be tarred and feathered--and ridden out of town on a
rail!

For once, something I can agree with in this thread.

...for anyone open minded enough to read....

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/articl...E_ID=22417
Reply
#13
Rethinking Romans 13
Posted: April 14, 2001
1:00 am Eastern

By Greg A. Dixon
© 2009 WorldNetDaily.com



In recent years, Christians have interpreted Romans 13 as a command for unlimited submission to government by God. Many proponents of this belief have sat passively by, in the soft pews of their place of worship, while evil has triumphed in most areas of family and church life. In our pacifistic smugness, many have allowed government to become god without even knowing.

Yet, when confronted with the true meaning of Romans 13, absurd accusations are shouted in religious rhetoric toward those who would dare to break an unjust law or even to question the almighty government. The opponents of unlimited submission to government are deemed as rebellious, anarchist and disobedient. However, there is no practical, historical or biblical consistency in the shallow agreements of these simpletons.

First, unlimited submission to government is not practical. For a philosophy to be a valid philosophy, it must be consistent. As a result, it does not make practical sense to blindly obey a tyrant like Adolph Hitler or deem a law such as abortion-on-demand a legitimate law just because one's government says it is public policy. However, if Romans 13 teaches unlimited submission to government, then we must obey and acknowledge all laws, good and bad, as the will of God. If all governments are of God, then all laws are of God. This in not practical from any point of view.

Second, it is not historical. Our founding fathers recognized and understood tyranny and despotism. They perceived the ultimate end of the king's actions. Thus, they besought George III to relent in his persecutions and implored him to uphold his covenant agreement.

In July of 1774, our forefathers met in Fairfax County, Va., and considered ways of forcing Great Britain to redress American grievances. George Washington and George Mason were the instrumental agents in drafting what has come to be known as the "Fairfax Resolves."

Ponder for a moment Resolves five and six:

"Resolved that the claim lately assumed and exercised by the British Parliament, of making all such Laws as they think fit, to govern the people of these colonies, contrary to the first Principles of the Constitution, and the original Compacts by which we are dependent upon the British Crown and Government; but is totally incompatible with the privileges of a free people, and the natural Rights of Mankind; will render our own Legislatures merely nominal and nugatory, and is calculated to reduce us from a state of freedom and happiness to slavery and misery."

"Resolved that Taxation and Representation are in their nature inseparable; that the right of withholding, or of giving and granting their own money is the only effectual security to a free people, against the encroachments of Despotism and Tyranny; and that whenever they yield to one they fall prey to the other."

All of the Resolves are loaded with bullets that explode against a tyrannical and despotic government. The "shot that was heard around the world on Lexington green was loaded in the "Fairfax Resolves." How can one make that statement? After pleading with George III to uphold his covenant agreement and after seeking for a redress of grievances, the "coup de grace" is plainly stated in the 23rd Resolve:

"Resolved that it be recommended to the Deputies of the general Congress to draw up and transmit an humble and dutiful petition and remonstrance to his Majesty, asserting with decent firmness our just and constitutional Rights and Privileges, lamenting the fatal necessity of being compelled to enter into measures disgusting to his Majesty and his Parliament, or injurious to our fellow subjects in Great Britain; declaring the strongest terms of duty and affection to his Majesty's person, family and government, and our desire to continue our dependence upon Great Britain; and must humbly beseeching his Majesty, not to reduce his faithful subjects of America to a state of desperation, and to reflect, that from our Sovereign there can be but one appeal."

In simple terms, the Resolves offered George III two obvious choices. One was to fulfill his covenant obligations and be the king and ruler to the American Colonies that he had agreed to be or, second, to prepare for war. George III was asked to reflect upon the fact, that if he did not keep his end of the covenant, there could "be but one appeal."

Last --and most important -- it is not biblical. Daniel disobeyed Darius and went to the lions den. The three Hebrew children broke the law for not bowing. The parents hid baby Moses from Pharaoh. Rahab lied to protect the Hebrew spies. The Apostles went to prison for preaching Christ in the authority of Heaven. Paul and his followers in Acts 17 did contrary to all the decrees of Caesar in order to make Jesus the King. Even Jesus lived in direct opposition of the political religious leaders of his day and went to the cross for us.

Romans 13 is a treatise by Paul and the Apostles on the institution of model government. As we rightly divide the word of truth and take this passage in its total context, we will discover seven truths:

1. Good government is ordained by God.

2. Government officials are to be good ministers who represent God.

3. We the people must obey good and godly laws.

4. As we relate Romans 13 to America, our Constitution is the higher power -- not the IRS tax code.

5. Good government is not to be feared.

6. In America, we are to pay honor and custom and constitutional taxes to whom it is due.

7. Government is to protect the righteous and punish the wicked.

As a result, we have a practical, historical and biblical mandate to fervently disobey any unConstitutional laws and all government officials who cease to be good ministers of Jesus Christ God. God almighty is the only power that deserves unlimited obedience.

Greg A. Dixon is the senior pastor of the Indianapolis Baptist Temple and has written several columns about the plight of his congregation.
Reply
#14
Find out what good little "Christian" boy George Walker Bush (aka King George) did to the Indianapolis Baptist Temple, one of his first actions as POTUS...
Reply
#15
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The 16th amendment did just that, not only to places of worship, but to anybody who wishes to make a living (income tax)

It's downright illegal and unconstitutional.

Thou Shall Not STEAL
Reply
#16
I don't mean to be hijacking this thread, but this is something I sent QO in a PM. I don't know if all the facts are correct since I'm not a tax lawyer, but I definitely agree with the sentiments...this goes along with the false notion of Romans 13 purists who don't use the brain God gave them TO USE...

Quote:We describe the 16th Amendment as "dastardly" not because of the politics attendant to its drafting or its alleged ratification, but because of the great misunderstandings that have followed its alleged ratification and the massive governmental theft of property from the American people that has occurred due to that misunderstanding. It is a completely factual statement to say that the 16th Amendment has resulted in the largest fraud ever perpetrated by a government against its Citizens.

We say "fraud" because one of the elements of the crime of fraud is to remain silent when there is a clear duty to speak, and certainly our government has a clear duty to come out and tell the public that most Americans do not owe a penny of Subtitle 'A' or 'C' taxes, either under the original provisions of the Constitution, or under the alleged authority of the 16th Amendment (as you will see later).

http://www.originalintent.org/edu/consttax.php


The 16th amendment, according to the research this person has done, was to be applied ONLY to capital gains from investments, NOT income tax

Note: he makes the distinction between direct and indirect taxes, which "income tax" falls into both categories, which caused the confusion of the federal income tax laws (16th amendment) in this country.
A direct tax is something a person cannot avoid in order to live, basically (hypothetically, you cannot live without a compensation for your labor...the tax placed on that compensation is a direct tax)
Reply
#17
Clarification:
ONLY to capital gains from investments (indirect tax), NOT income tax (direct tax)
Reply
#18
Get A Life!

Here is another quote (about the middle of the page) from the link above that I quoted earlier:

clarification: an excise tax is an "indirect tax"

Quote:The last part of that quote is crucial to a proper understanding of the impact 16th Amendment, and indeed the entire tax structure of the federal government. It is essential that you understand that only "16th Amendment income" can be taxed without apportionment.


"The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the state; but the individuals' Right to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an excise cannot be imposed." Corn v. Fort, 95 S.W.2d 620 (1936)
From these two decisions alone, we can pinpoint some very crucial information.


All property (which includes income) other than "16th Amendment income" can only be taxed if the tax is constitutionally apportioned.

"16th Amendment income" can be taxed without apportionment.

Obviously the courts are making it clear that there is a real and significant distinction between "income" in the ordinary sense, and "16th Amendment income".

A Citizen's property (which includes ordinary income) cannot be taxed as an excise.
Do you feel like we're narrowing in on the meat of the issue? Good, because we are!

"Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and give to God what is God's"-Jesus Christ
Reply
#19
Aw heck, I'll just go ahead and post the whole darn article...


Quote:Constitutional Issues of Taxation
Most Americans understand that all government functions must be authorized by their state constitution or the Constitution of the United States. While this understanding may not be as firm as it was in our grandparents' day, it is still fairly well acknowledged. However, some feel that when it comes to matters of taxation, the government throws the Constitution out the window and all must follow the dictates of the government or pay the piper. While this is not legally true, there is ample reason for people to feel this way. The purpose of this article is to clarify what the Constitutional boundaries of taxation are and what we can do to stay clear of the boundary markers.

First and foremost we want to assure you that even government's taxing authority must be exercised in compliance with your state constitution, or if a federal tax, with the US Constitution.

Some of you who have investigated the Constitutional limits of taxation know that the subject can be difficult and frustrating. The Constitutional issues of taxation must be understood not only through a proper view of law, but also through a proper view of history. Taxation is as much a part of our nation's history as is King George III or George Washington.

We will attempt to break down the Constitutional realities of federal taxation for you without inundating you with court cases and other citations. We will try to present a plain-English explanation that weaves together all the essential legal realities that are elsewhere [in other web sites and books] explored in such excruciating minutia (sometime correctly, sometimes not). We hope to give you a strong and logical framework into which you can place all that you have read or seen, as well as all that you may find in the future.


Prior to the creation of the federal Constitution, the United States had been operating under the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation had a few glaring deficiencies, but the most problematic was the inability of the US to compel payments from the states to cover the operating costs of the federal government. In other words, Congress (which is nothing more than the states of the Union voting on what the national government will do) was authorizing the Executive Branch to take various actions, but then some of the states were not paying the bills responsibly for the actions Congress had authorized.

When the US Constitution was created, the Founding Fathers sought to correct this problem by giving the federal government clearly defined taxing powers. Direct taxes were to operate solely upon the state governments, while indirect taxes were to operate upon whomsoever would avail himself of a privileged activity (i.e. indirect taxation). However, because the states (as colonies) had been subject to taxes that were used for political punishment, as well as at times enduring taxes rates that were considered intolerably high, the Founding Fathers clearly specified the forms of the taxation that could be laid, along with the rules that the government must follow in order to Constitutionally lay such taxes.

What Does The US Constitution Permit?
The Federal Constitution only permits the government to lay two forms of taxation. One is a "direct tax" and the other an "indirect tax". Together these two forms of taxation comprise the whole; much like the northern and southern hemisphere - there's no third choice.

The term "indirect tax" never appears in the Constitution. The Constitution permits the US Government to "lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises..." [See Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1.]

Although there has been some debate about the meaning of the word "taxes", as it appears in the above quote, it is generally held that its use refers to the direct taxes authorized in Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, while "duties, imposts and excises" are the three species of taxes which comprise the class of indirect taxes.

So how can we tell the difference between these two forms of taxation that the US Supreme Court has called "the two great tax classes"?

Here's a solid definition of "direct tax" straight from the US Supreme Court:


"Direct taxes bear upon persons, upon possessions, and enjoyment of rights". Knowlton v. Moore, 178 US 41
[See Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, which grants the U.S. the power to lay a direct tax.]

In other words, direct taxes cannot be avoided because they are upon things that are fixed - such as your physical being, your real property, and certain fundamental rights.

By contrast, an indirect tax is a tax that you can avoid by choosing not become involved in the activity upon which the tax is laid. An example of this might be importing products from another country into the United States. In such a circumstance one is required to pay an import duty. However, one can avoid paying an import duty simply by not importing foreign products into this country. Another example might be distilling rum in the Virgin Islands and importing it into the states of the Union. If one wishes to avoid the taxes involved in such a process, one need only to refrain form the activity.

In short, an indirect tax is a tax that you can choose to avoid without giving up the normal affairs of life. However, if one cannot avoid a taxable activity without sacrificing the ordinary affairs of life, the tax is not indirect, but direct.

Since within the class of indirect taxes, the excise tax is the one most familiar to the American public; what exactly is an excise tax?


"The term 'excise tax' and 'privilege tax' are synonymous. The two are often used interchangeably."
American Airways v. Wallace, 57 F.2d 877, 880
Here is a more detailed definition:


"The obligation to pay an excise is based upon the voluntary action of the person taxed in performing the act, enjoying the privilege or engaging in the privilege which is the subject of the excise, and the element of absolute unavoidable demand is lacking" People ex rel, Atty Gen v. Naglee, 1 Cal 232; Bank of Commerce & T. Co. v. Senter, 149 Tenn. 441SW 144
You will note that two elements are mandatory upon the government if a tax is to be classified as an excise, and thus avoid the requirement of apportionment. The first is that your actions must be "voluntary". In other words, as stated earlier, you must be free to steer clear of the "taxable activity" without sacrificing the ordinary affairs of life. Secondly, if you steer clear of the "taxable activity" the government cannot make a demand upon you for the tax that you cannot avoid by stating (or showing) that you were not involved in any excise taxable activity. We will revisit this issue later in the article.


How Does "Income Tax" Fit Into The Constitutional Scheme?
Although the tax that concerns most people is "income tax", the Constitutional question really rests on whether a tax (any tax) is a "direct tax" or an "indirect tax". As an example, Congress may pass a tax law that clearly structures a tax as a direct tax, and call that tax an "income tax". The following month they may pass another tax measure that is clearly structured as an indirect tax, and also call that an "income tax". If properly constructed, one bill would lay a direct tax, while the other bill would lay an indirect tax, and both would be referred to (by ignorant politicians) as "income tax" bills. You can see that the term "income tax" does not really answer a Constitutional question concerning taxation. For almost a century now people have been making the mistake of trying to define "income tax" as being exclusively within one tax class or the other, not understanding that it can be can be either depending on how Congress structures any particular tax.

As a nation, we have been fixated by the phrase "income tax", but it is important to know that term is one that can shift like the wind. We must focus on the issue of direct v. indirect. While the phrase "income tax" has a historic meaning in law, that formerly fixed meaning has been eroded to the point of near uselessness by misapplication of the phrase by Congress, the courts, and the public over the last 90 years.

[Editor's Note: Historically speaking, until the adoption of the 16th Amendment blurred the lines, the US Supreme Court had always viewed an "income tax" as a tax solely in the form of a direct tax. The Court did not view "excise taxes" as "income taxes". In many of the Court's decisions between 1913 and 1921, the Court clearly stated that the various tax acts passed by Congress, which laid excise taxes under the guise of "income taxes", were not really "income tax acts".]


Constitutional Regulations
In addition to allowing the national government to lay direct and indirect taxes, the US Constitution also mandates two "rules" concerning how the government can lay such taxes.


Direct taxes must be "apportioned among the several states which may be included within this Union". [See Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 and Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4.]

"All duties, imposts and excises [indirect taxes], shall be uniform throughout the United States". [See Article I, Section 8, Clause 1.]
Although there has been some debate on what apportionment actually means in a political sense, it is safe to say that it requires the population data from the most recent census be used to distribute the tax burden evenly throughout the states of the Union.

Uniform means that each person taxed in a given circumstance will be taxed at the same rate as any other person would be taxed in the very same circumstance. As an example, if a person produces 80 proof dark rum in the Virgin Islands and brings it into the United States at the port of New Orleans, he will be taxed exactly the same as any other man who would do exactly the same thing. However, if a man produces 100 proof dark rum in the Virgin Islands and brings it into port at New Orleans, it is Constitutional for him to be taxed at a different rate because his circumstance (bringing in 100 proof rum) is different from that of the first man (who was bringing in 80 proof rum).



Quote:The Dastardly 16th Amendment!
Because this site is about facts, and not about rhetoric or hyperbole, we will not delve into the ugly waters of what the 16th Amendment might have been intended (secretly or otherwise) to accomplish, or how the politics of the 16th Amendment were devious, or whether or not the 16th was properly ratified. We will stick to "what is" in this day and age.

We describe the 16th Amendment as "dastardly" not because of the politics attendant to its drafting or its alleged ratification, but because of the great misunderstandings that have followed its alleged ratification and the massive governmental theft of property from the American people that has occurred due to that misunderstanding. It is a completely factual statement to say that the 16th Amendment has resulted in the largest fraud ever perpetrated by a government against its Citizens.

We say "fraud" because one of the elements of the crime of fraud is to remain silent when there is a clear duty to speak, and certainly our government has a clear duty to come out and tell the public that most Americans do not owe a penny of Subtitle 'A' or 'C' taxes, either under the original provisions of the Constitution, or under the alleged authority of the 16th Amendment (as you will see later).
Although the government has always had a duty to speak out, recently representatives of the United States Department of Justice and the Internal Revenue Service had agreed to attend a hearing arranged by We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education and Congressman Bartlett. [The hearing was originally scheduled for Sept. of 2001, but was rescheduled for Feb. of 2002.] The purpose of the hearing was for the American people to get straight answers to some disturbing questions about US tax law and the administration of tax policy. Two weeks after receiving the first 199 questions, the DOJ and the IRS broke their word and pulled out of the hearing.

The questions that were submitted to DOJ and IRS can be viewed at, http://www.givemeliberty.org/bartlettres...22-02.html

Furthermore, the federal government (with the state governments acting in complicity) continually seizes property not lawfully subject to seizure, routinely forces nontaxpayers into regulatory administrative tribunals, and repeatedly puts people in jail for not paying a tax they never legally owed. [See The Willful Failure to File Scam.] And all of this government deceit and manipulation became possible only because the 16th Amendment exists.

What Did The 16th Amendment Do?
The 16th Amendment was an attempt to overturn, by Constitutional Amendment, the supposed tax limitations placed on the national government by the decision of the US Supreme Court in the case of Pollock v. Farmer's Loan and Trust Co., 157 US 429 (1895). [While we see the 16th Amendment as being wholly unnecessary as a response to the Pollock decision, that discussion would require an entire separate article.]

Here is what the 16th Amendment says:


The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
That's it! That's the entire text of the Amendment that has caused so much confusion and trouble.

Historically, Americans of yesteryear were aware that a direct tax was upon their person, or their real property (including slaves), or their exercise of other fundamental rights. They were also aware that a tax on the fruits of one's property (such as receiving payment from renting a piece of real property) was also a direct tax unless those earnings where in the course of a privileged activity, and then they were subject to an excise tax.

In Pollock, the US Supreme Court stated that a tax upon earnings derived from one's existing property (real or personal) must be considered a direct tax subject to the rule of apportionment. This gave rise to concern in banking and government circles because they felt (and we agree) that corporations are something that is legislated into existence by the government and therefore the fruits therefrom is properly subject to an excise tax.

In other words, the Pollock decision made no distinction between a man earning rent from his private property, and a man earning a return on his investment in a corporation. The former must properly be considered a direct tax, while the latter should rightly be considered an excise. The rent from a man's private property is his "private affairs", and thus outside government's authority to lay any tax except a direct tax subject to apportionment.

However, profit or gain (to a shareholder) from a corporate enterprise should properly be income subject to taxation as an excise taxable activity - after all, there would be no opportunity for said profit if the state hadn't granted the corporation into existence.

We may never know whether the framers of the 16th Amendment had a legitimate concern about Pollock being used to challenge the 1909 Corporate Tax Act, or whether it simply provided a convenient excuse to try and alter the Constitution's tax regulation (i.e. apportionment for direct taxes). Fortunately, it matters not what their intentions may have been; it only matters what was actually accomplished.

The US Supreme Court has ruled on the meaning of the 16th Amendment many times. However, because each case has had different particulars, it is sometimes difficult to understand the decisions in a cohesive fashion or to give all the cases one settled meaning. Fortunately, we don't need to spend a lot of time reconciling all the various particulars of each case because the Court has been very clear as to the definition of "income" as used in the 16th Amendment. Since the Amendment only grants Congress the power to "to lay and collect taxes on incomes", that definition is rather critical.

Quote:Let's look at what the various courts have said about "income" and the 16th Amendment:


"The Treasury Department cannot, by interpretive regulations, make income out of that which is not income within the meaning of the revenue acts of Congress, nor can Congress, without apportionment, tax as income that which is not income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment."
Helvering v. Edison Bros. Stores, 133 F.2D 575

The last part of that quote is crucial to a proper understanding of the impact 16th Amendment, and indeed the entire tax structure of the federal government. It is essential that you understand that only "16th Amendment income" can be taxed without apportionment.


"The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the state; but the individuals' Right to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an excise cannot be imposed." Corn v. Fort, 95 S.W.2d 620 (1936)
From these two decisions alone, we can pinpoint some very crucial information.


All property (which includes income) other than "16th Amendment income" can only be taxed if the tax is constitutionally apportioned.

"16th Amendment income" can be taxed without apportionment.

Obviously the courts are making it clear that there is a real and significant distinction between "income" in the ordinary sense, and "16th Amendment income".

A Citizen's property (which includes ordinary income) cannot be taxed as an excise.
Do you feel like we're narrowing in on the meat of the issue? Good, because we are!

Now that we know the points indicated above, what we really need to know is what is "16th Amendment income". Once we know that, we should be getting a pretty good handle on what is Constitutionally taxable and under what rules! Interestingly, in order to find the meaning of the word "income", as used within 16th Amendment, we must first explore the meaning of the word "income" as it is used within the 1909 Corporate Tax Act.


"As has been repeatedly remarked, the corporation tax act of 1909 was not intended to be and is not, in any proper sense, an income tax law. This court had decided in the Pollock case that the income tax law of 1894 amounted in effect to a direct tax upon property, and was invalid because not apportioned according to populations, as prescribed by the Constitution. The act of 1909 avoided this difficulty by imposing not an income tax [direct], but an excise tax [indirect] upon the conduct of business in a corporate capacity, measuring however, the amount of tax by the income of the corporation".
Stratton's Independence, LTD. v. Howbert, 231 US 399, 414 (1913)
As an indirect (excise) tax, the Corporate Tax Act of 1909 was not a tax upon property, but was a tax upon the privilege [enjoyed by the shareholders] of doing business in the corporate form, and the tax to be paid for exercising that privilege was determined by how much profit each shareholder took from the corporation.

So why is the 1909 Corporate Tax Act so important?


"[Income]must be given the same meaning, in all the Income Tax Acts of Congress that it was given in the Corporate Excise Tax Act, and what that meaning is has become definitely settled by the decisions of this court".
Merchants Loan & Trust v. Smietanka, 255 US 509 (1921)

By this decision, the Court stated that it would accept only one definition of "income" [under the 16th Amendment] and that any tax law that Congress wanted to pass under the authority of the 16th Amendment would have to use just that one definition of "income" - and that definition was the one Congress used in the 1909 Corporate Tax Act! In short, the Court was telling Congress that since the 16th Amendment was a part of the Constitution [the non-ratification issue had not yet been raised] its meaning must be fixed and permanent, and since Congress could not be trusted to stick to one single definition, the Court was giving Congress one single definition with which to work if it wished its income tax acts to pass Constitutional scrutiny by the Court.

So now that we know the "form" of the tax being laid in the 1909 Corporate Tax Act, and we know that its definition must be used in every income tax act Congress might create, what has the Court said about the definition of "income" in the 1909 Corporate Tax Act?


"[Income is] derived--from--capital--the--gain--derived--from--capitol, etc. Here we have the essential matter--not gain accruing to capitol, not growth or increment of value in the investment; but a gain, a profit, something of exchangeable value...severed from capitol however invested or employed and coming in, being "derived", that is received or drawn by the recipient for his separate use, benefit and disposal--that is the income derived from property. Nothing else answers the description...". [emphasis in original]
Eisner v. Macomber, 252 US 189 (1920)
O.K...so now we know the "form" of the 16th Amendment income tax, the fact that all 16th Amendment income taxes must use the same definition of "income", and we have the formula for determining what "16th Amendment income" is. The only thing we're really missing at this point is specifically what activity is taxable under the 16th Amendment!

"Whatever difficulty there may be about a precise and scientific definition of 'income', it imports, as used here, something entirely distinct from principle or capital either as a subject of taxation or as a measure of the tax; conveying rather the idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activities."
Doyle v. Mitchell Brother, Co., 247 US 179 (1918)
In June of 1909 President Taft made a speech before Congress. After commenting on the Pollock decision, he stated:


"...I therefore recommend an amendmentimposing on all corporationsan excise tax measured by 2% in the net income of such corporations. This is an excise on the privilege of doing business as an artificial entity"
Congressional Record, June 16, 1909, Pg. 3344

Two months later Congress drafted the Corporate Tax Act of 1909.

So, if Congress could pass a tax bill laying a tax on the profits of corporations prior to the 16th Amendment, why was the 16th Amendment needed? We may never know what the true intention of the framers of the 16th Amendment were, but there are three prevailing opinions:


Quote:They honestly felt that the Pollock decision could be a threat to taxing corporate investment profits and so they moved to overturn the Pollock decision's holding that a tax upon the gains from existing property was a direct tax.
They did not think Pollock was a threat, but it made a convenient excuse to attempt to undermine the constitutional rule of apportionment on direct taxes, which many greedy politicians found terribly restrictive to their goal of robbing the American people through taxation.
They felt that shareholder's profits from state-charted corporations could not be reached by the federal government for tax purposes without the Amendment.
Because item #3 is the least well recognized, we'll take moment to explain that theory (items #1 & 2 needing no explanation).

The vast majority of corporations that existed (then as now) were corporations chartered by the legislatures of the states of the Union. While the federal government had the power to lay excise taxes, such power was limited to certain subjects that were traditionally and historically within the purview of the federal government for excise purposes. There was no historical, traditional, or constitutional basis for the United States to assume it had the power to lay an excise tax on Citizens of the states of the Union who were enjoying a privilege which was sought solely from their state governments. The 1909 Corporate Tax Act had authority over corporations created by Congress, corporations created in a federal possession or territory, and corporations operating in interstate commerce, but not plain old state-charted corporations generally. Under this theory, the 16th Amendment was necessary only to bring the profits of state-charted corporations within the Constitutional reach of the federal government.


How Does The Corporate Tax Act and the 16th Tie Together?

"[Income]must be given the same meaning, in all the Income Tax Acts of Congress that it was given in the Corporate Excise Tax Act, and what that meaning is has become definitely settled by the decisions of this court. In determining the definition of the word 'income' thus arrived at, this court has consistently refused to enter into the refinements of lexicographers or economists, and has approved in the definitions quoted, what it believes to be the commonly understood meaning of the term which must have been in the minds of the people when they adopted the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution." Merchants Loan & Trust v. Smietanka, 255 US 509 (1921)
Immediately at the end of that passage from Merchant, the very first citation provided by the Court is, Doyle. And how did the Doyle court define "income"?


[b]"...gain or increase arising from corporate activities."
We wonder how much more clear the Court has to be before people will understand that "16th Amendment income" is only related to the privilege of profiting from investing in corporations.
[/b]

Let's take this a bit further and explore this statement from a US Supreme Court decision:


"The word 'income' as used in the Amendment does not include a stock dividend since such a dividend is capital and not income and can be taxed only if the tax is apportioned among the several states..."
Eisner v. Macomber, 252 US 189 (1920)
While a "cash dividend" represents profit to the shareholder, and is thus "income" under the 16th Amendment, a "stock dividend" is not profit that been "severed from capital" as is required to meet the definition of income under the 16th Amendment (ibid, Eisner). The Eisner quote featured above clearly illustrates that the apportionment clause of the Constitution is alive and well and has not been repealed or substantially altered by the 16th Amendment.

Let's take a moment to evaluate where we are:


The Constitutional question we really need to be asking is whether a particular tax is a direct tax or an indirect tax. What label that tax wears, such as "income tax", has basically become irrelevant due to misapplication of the phrase for the last 90 years.
In historical terms, an income tax (pre-16th Amendment) was always considered to be a tax that was direct.
In historical terms, and in the words of the US Supreme Court, the 1909 Corporate Tax Act was not an "income tax" [direct tax].
The 1909 Corporate Tax Act was an excise tax upon the privilege of doing business in the corporate form. This is confirmed by both Congress and the US Supreme Court.

Profit from corporate business ("16th Amendment income") is not that which the tax is laid upon, but merely a "yardstick" by which is computed the amount of tax that is due in exchange for exercising the privilege. In other words, profit from corporate business ("16th Amendment income") determines the value of the privilege, and thus the amount of tax to be paid.
The US Supreme Court has said that the definition of "income", as used in the 1909 Corporate Tax Act, must be used by Congress for all its (16th Amendment) income tax acts.
The US Supreme Court has stated that the definition of income used in the 1909 Corporate Tax Act is what the American people had in mind when they adopted the 16th Amendment.
The definition of "income" as used in the 1909 Corporate Tax Act is the exact same definition that the US Supreme Court has said must be used when applying the 16th Amendment.

Is The 16th Indirect, or Direct without Apportionment?
There has been much debate about whether the 16th Amendment authorized shareholder profits to be taxed by the federal government as a direct tax without apportionment, or merely confirmed that shareholder profits are taxable as an indirect (excise) tax, and therefore apportionment is of no constitutional concern.

At this point in history there is a judicial split. Six federal circuits see it one way, while the remaining five federal circuits see it the other way. While we feel confident that "16th Amendment income" is taxable only as an excise (for reasons too numerous to delve into here), in a broader sense we say, "Who cares?" If we know that "16th Amendment income" only applies to dividends, patronage dividends, and interest paid as profit or gain from a corporate investment, do we really care which type of tax it is? The US Supreme Court has stated that the 16th Amendment must have been intended to "harmonize" the taxing clauses of the Constitution, so whichever way one views it, a tax on "16th Amendment income" has still been deemed proper and Constitutional by the US Supreme Court. The bottom line is this: If you invest your money in corporate activities and you receive dividends, patronage dividends, or interest from your investment, you owe the tax under the authority of the 16th Amendment!

Before we leave this topic, we will tell you that in the case of Brushaber v. Union Pacific RR, Co., 240 US 1 (1916), the US Supreme Court made it clear that the purpose of the Amendment was to reverse the Pollock decision (at least in part) by taking [corporate] investment income out of the class of a direct tax, and placing it back in the class of an indirect [excise] tax, where it "inherently belongs". [If you'd like to tie your brain in knots, we encourage you to read the Brushaber decision.] Interestingly, federal circuit courts on both sides of the direct/indirect issue cite Brushaber as their primary authority.

"Business" v. Private Affairs
The law can be a tricky thing because words used in the law often times do not have the same meaning as when we use them in common speech. A prime example of that would be the word "business". When we use the word the word "business", we usually mean only that a person, or persons, is engaged in some effort to make money. We don't mean to imply any special meaning beyond that. However, when the government uses the word "business" in its laws, about 95% of the time, they mean only the activities of corporations (and other state-created fictional entities).

When an American Citizen engages in a non-regulated activity from which he earns his living, such activity is not "business", as such term is used in most statutes. When an American Citizen engages in a non-regulated activity from which he earns his living, he is actually engaged in the pursuit of his "private affairs". However, he must keep his affairs private, lest he stumble into "business"! What are some of the actions that can change your private affairs into "business"? Getting a business license; getting a resale permit; filing state or federal tax returns that reflect the earnings from your livelihood; getting involved with your state's department of Consumer Affairs, performing employee withholding under subtitle C of the Internal Revenue Code, acquiring a Taxpayer Identification Number, giving out a Taxpayer Identification Number, etc.

A "business" usually owes taxes and is generally subject to government regulation, but for most Americans the pursuit of their own "private affairs", which includes the earning of one's own livelihood, is not a taxable activity - unless you make it so.

Original Intent consultants can help you steer clear of engaging in "business". Click here for information on our consulting services, including our phone number. You can also reach us by clicking on the "contact us" icon in the left border of every page of this site.

Also, to better understand this issue we encourage you to read the Original Intent piece on Federal Income Tax.


But What If I Don't Have "16th Amendment Income"?
If one does not have "16th Amendment income", then one cannot have any tax liability under the authority of the 16th Amendment. However, it is important to note that there are others activities that can give rise to liability for other forms of taxes.

A partial list of such activities might include; being an employee of the federal government or any of the governments indicated at 26 USC 3401©; dealing in distilled spirits under any applicable parts of Title 27 of the United States Code and Chapter 51 of the Internal Revenue Code; doing business in tobacco products covered under Chapter 52 of the Internal Revenue Code; engaging in any of the various activities covered under Subtitle D of the Internal Revenue Code, etc.

All of the above referenced activities are excise taxes. In other words, if one wishes to avoid the tax, stay away from the excise taxable activity.

If you don't have any 16th Amendment income, and you aren't involved in any excise taxable activity, the only way for the government to Constitutionally tax the money you earn in the course of pursuing your private affairs (which you now know includes earning your livelihood) is to do so by enacting a direct tax upon private earnings. No such tax exists today in America.

And remember, Subtitle 'C' "employment taxes" are not upon private Citizens involved in exchanging their labor for compensation in the private sector. For more on this subject, go to our page on Federal Employment Taxes.


Ratification of the 16th Amendment
There are serious and valid concerns about whether the 16th Amendment was lawfully ratified in accordance with the requirements of the US Constitution and the constitutions of the states of the Union. We will not delve into that discussion here because we are attempting to deal with the legal realities that currently exist concerning federal taxation. We hope that those who are pursuing the non-ratification cause will eventually be successful in having the faulty ratification process acknowledged by the federal government, and thus have the 16th Amendment invalidated.

If you wish to learn more about the issue of the non-ratification of the 16th Amendment, you may go to http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/index.asp


Is the Income Tax Voluntary?
The answer to that question is a resounding "yes"...and "no".

Over the years some people have used the sentence, "Income tax is voluntary" as a mantra; chanting it over and over again as if it has magical qualities, or as if by repeating it enough times, their own tax liability (if any) might evaporate. Unfortunately, wishing income tax liability away will not alter reality.

First we must understand that in tax matters there are two forms of "voluntary". One is the voluntary act that creates liability; the other is "voluntary compliance". The two are not the same issue.

Voluntary compliance means that when a person properly and lawfully owes any tax, that person acts independently and responsibly to file his return and pay his tax timely. Without a reasonable amount of voluntary compliance the tax system would collapse. Of course taxation in general terms is a necessary feature of government and a collapse of the nation's legitimate tax system is not in anyone's interest. What Original Intent objects to, as we believe you do, is the unlawful and coercive collection of income taxes from American Citizens concerning whom no Constitutional income tax liability exists.

Because no direct tax on private earnings exists in this country, our tax system is voluntary. But the part that is voluntary is whether or not you want to engage in excise taxable activities, and thus create liability that would not otherwise exist. However, if you choose to engage in an excise taxable activity, the tax is not voluntary for you any longer - you volunteered and you must pay the tax.

There is another way Americans continually volunteer to pay federal and state income tax when they would not otherwise owe anything - you give people who pay you money your Social Security Number when they request a "tax number". By doing this, you declare that the money you are being paid is subject to state and federal taxation, even if it was not so subject until you gave out the number! For more on this, see our Federal Income Tax article.


How Can An Excise Tax Be Converted To A Direct Tax?
As you may recall, one of the foundations of an excise tax is "the element of absolute unavoidable demand is lacking". Once this element is gone, the tax becomes a de facto direct tax, solely due to the mode of enforcement. Here is what the US Supreme Court has said on the subject:


"[The Pollock court] recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such unless and until it was concluded that to enforce it would amount to accomplishing the result which the requirement as to apportionment of direct tax was adapted to prevent, in which case the duty would arise to disregard the form and consider the substance alone and hence subject the tax to the regulation of apportionment which otherwise as an excise would not apply." Brushaber v. Union Pacific RR Co., 240 US 1 (1916)
What the Brushaber court is saying is that any income tax, which has been structured as an excise tax, but is enforced in such a way as to effectively covert the tax to a direct tax, would cause the court to declare it unconstitutional due to lack of apportionment. What type of enforcement might effectively convert an excise tax to a direct tax? Once the demand for the tax money is unavoidable, and you can no longer avoid the demand and/or the collection of the tax, even when you have not engaged in any excise taxable activity, that is when the Executive Branch's enforcement of the tax has converted the tax, in substance, from an excise into a direct tax.

I suspect that there are probably a couple of hundred million Americans who would agree that the way the IRS enforces today's income tax has effectively converted the excise [income] tax to a direct tax, and thus the tax should be constitutionally apportioned among the state of the Union.


Summary
This article could certainly have been at least twice as long as there is no shortage of material to examine concerning the Constitutional powers and limits of federal taxing authority. We hope that what we've given you has been effective in communicating the fundamental elements of the subject. We hope you have a better understanding of federal taxing authority than you did when you began reading the article.

Let's review what we've covered:


The US Constitution grants the federal government the authority to lay only two classes of taxation - direct and indirect.
Direct and indirect taxes are subject to Constitutional regulations concerning their mode of operation.
Direct taxes are subject to apportionment - even after the 16th Amendment.
Indirect taxes are subject to the rule of uniformity.
No direct tax on private earnings exists in this country - the disagreement of the federal courts notwithstanding.
The federal judicial circuits are split as to whether the 16th Amendment merely confirmed the government's excise taxing power concerning shareholder profits from corporate investment, or whether the Amendment created a new "special" form of direct tax that does not require apportionment.
In the Brushaber case, the US Supreme Court stated that any tax act under the authority of the 16th Amendment must properly be considered an excise, and is thus not subject to apportionment.
The definition of income used in the Corporate Tax Act of 1909 must be used in the income tax acts of Congress (passed under the authority of the 16th Amendment).
The definition of income used in the Corporate Tax Act of 1909 is the same definition that must be used when interpreting the 16th Amendment.
The 16th Amendment only pertains to "income" in the form of dividends, patronage dividends, and interest from corporate investment.
The 16th Amendment tax is upon the privilege (to shareholders) of operating a business as an artificial entity.
The 16th Amendment tax is not upon "income"; the income is only the yardstick used to determine the value of the privilege, and hence the amount of tax to be paid.
If you have no 16th Amendment income, you have no liability for a tax imposed under the authority of the 16th Amendment.
Other legitimate types of federal and state taxation do exist beyond the tax imposed under the authority of the 16th Amendment. They are all excise taxes.
Capital investment funds, even when invested in a corporation, are not subject to taxation except by a direct tax subject to apportionment.
A tax on your private earnings still needs to be apportioned to be constitutional.
If you wish to conduct only your private affairs, do not trespass into areas that give rise to the presumption of federal or state authority for taxation and/or regulatory authority.
In most statutes, "business" means the activities of a legislatively created entity such as a corporation, partnership, statutory trust, etc., and does not embrace the your private affairs, which includes your livelihood.
Giving out a SSN or TIN (when lawfully required) creates a powerful presumption of federal and state taxing authority over your earnings.
Signing any federal or state tax forms (including a Form W-4, creates a powerful presumption of federal and state taxing authority over your earnings.
The Gross Income argument is legally accurate, but is not intended to take the place, and does not take the place, of a constitutional argument.
If you choose to engage in an excise taxable activity, you must pay the tax.
If you choose to engage in an excise taxable activity, you are expected (by the government as well as your fellow citizens) to practice voluntary compliance.
An indirect tax can be effectively converted into a direct tax by improper enforcement by the Executive Branch. In that event, the US Supreme Court has said that it is its duty to declare the former excise tax to be a direct tax absent apportionment, and thus unconstitutional.
We hope you've found this article to be of value, and if so, we encourage you to forward the URL to others who may appreciate the information. We stand ready to assist you in any way possible concerning your private affairs. Contact Us.

I got tired of highlighting...but I'm sure anyone can figure out the rest from there...

In essence, the Federal Government has been taxing ALL of us, as individuals, as if we are Corporate Entities created by Government...

Bow down to your creator the flying spaghetti monster!
Reply
#20
Let me repeat

We wonder how much more clear the Court has to be before people will understand that "16th Amendment income" is only related to the privilege of profiting from investing in corporations.
Reply
#21
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they will be filled.
-Matthew 5:6

Read the book
Constitutional Income: Do You Have Any?


CDA man places tax question before the Supreme Court
"Does the 16th Amendment provide Congress with an exception to the Constitution's apportionment clause regarding its authority to levy a direct tax?"
COEUR D'ALENE, Idaho: Truth-in-Taxation proponent Phil Hart of Coeur d'Alene, Idaho filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court June 21, 2002. (The Petition had been previously filed in April and was resubmitted in June with corrections and additional documents.) Hart, an engineer in his professional life, has dedicated the last six years to pursuing the truth about the income tax while exhausting his administrative remedies in pro per defense of an IRS tax collection case.

Since 1996 Hart has made two trips to the Library of Congress and the Supreme Court's library Washington, D.C., and has visited about a half dozen other libraries. He has researched every Congressional Record entry and relevant Congressional documents from the period of time when the income tax amendment to the Constitution was being debated and ratified. He has also accumulated in his files an impressive body of newspaper articles, law and economic journal articles, books, essays and letters that capture the intent of the income tax from the first congressional debate in 1909 through the time it was implemented in 1913.

The purpose of this area of research was to discover what the intent of the American People was when they lobbied Congress and their state legislatures for an income tax amendment to the Constitution. Hart believes an objective review of the record proves that wages are not income and that the 16th Amendment does not empower Congress to levy a new kind of tax not authorized by the Constitution. According to Hart, "The purpose of the 16th Amendment was to bring tax relief to wage earners."

Much of the income tax debate has centered around the improper ratification of the 16th Amendment, whether or not wages are income and who is or is not liable for the tax. Hart believes the key question is, "Does the 16th Amendment provide Congress with an exception to the Constitution's apportionment clause regarding its authority to levy a direct tax?" Though this is arguably the most fundamental of income tax constitutionality questions, surprisingly, no one has framed the argument quite like this before.

Confusion in the courts
Since World War II, when patriotism swept the nation and Americans gladly paid the new "victory (income tax on wages) tax", thousands of income tax cases have been heard at the lower levels of the federal court system. But back in 1916, when the first few income tax cases came up to the Supreme Court, in at least five of these cases the parties were arguing that this "income tax exception" did exist such that a direct tax could be levied without apportionment. Correctly and in harmony with the other clauses of the Constitution, the Supreme Court said no. Unfortunately, this position of the Court was somewhat obscured by the complex writing of the Court in its opinion. When Hart read Supreme Court's entire file on these first few income tax cases, it became crystal clear as to the position of the Court on this question. Sadly, Hart is the first researcher in the Truth-in-Taxation movement to dig this deep into this area of research.

But as time has gone by, the lower courts have been inconsistent with their decisions to the point today where total confusion exists regarding the income tax. Some courts say the income tax is a direct tax, whereas other courts say it is an indirect tax. It gets even worse, there are court rulings saying that the income tax is both direct and indirect, that it is neither or that the issue is irrelevant.

Direct tax or indirect tax?
At the time the Constitution was written in 1787, there were only two authorities upon which the framers relied for the terms "direct tax" and "indirect tax." These were Adam Smith, who wrote Wealth of Nations in 1776, and Frenchman Jaques Turgot author of Plan d'un memoire sur les impositions in 1764. Smith's Wealth of Nations states, "Capitation taxes, so far as they are levied upon the lower ranks of people, are direct taxes upon the wages of labour, and are attended with all the inconvenience of such taxes."

The IRS has steadfastly maintained that an income tax on wages is a direct tax exempted from the Constitution's apportionment rule. But when Congress approved the 16th Amendment and sent it out to the states for ratification, four times the Senate rejected the opportunity to create this "apportionment rule exemption for income taxes." According to Hart, "The executive branch of government cannot do something that was not authorized by the legislative branch."

Will the writ be heard?
A Writ of Certiorari is, according to Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, a "writ of review or inquiry." The Supreme Court rules are very specific as to the form of the filing. It must be presented as a booklet and must not exceed 30 pages. There are rules that govern the booklet's organization and dimensions, type style and size, margins, binding and content. Hart took special care that his writ would not be disqualified due to form.

For the Supreme Court to choose this writ from the thousands it receives, the issue must be "ripe." Due to the activities of We the People Foundation and many other Truth-in-Taxation activists such as Irwin Schiff, Bill Benson, Joe Bannister and Larry Becraft, there is little doubt that the issue is "ripe." "I believe there is a very good chance that the Supreme Court will hear this writ because of the disarray of the lower courts and the increasing political activisism on the issue," said Don Harkins, editor of The Idaho Observer. According to Hart, "The questions presented are simple, logical, the historical evidence is solid and there is no wiggle room for the government."

As to the reason the Supreme Court should hear the writ, the petition concludes, "The habit of government exceeding its authority in the collection of taxes is as old as history itself. All the milestones in the progress of liberty and self government for the Anglo-American people were proceeded by abusive taxation, civil unrest, sometimes civil war or revolution, culminating with memoralized documents whereby the Citizens compel the government to obey the law. In the process of framing our Constitution, that instrument would likely never have been ratified without the direct taxation compromise between the large states and the small states. The requirement of apportioning direct taxes among the several States is the only provision of the Constitution that appears twice in the document. It is this very provision that is today being abused by the Commissioner. This Court should grant Certiorari so that this question can finally be settled."

Buy the Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court by Phil Hart

http://www.constitutionalincome.com/sup_ct_pet.php
Reply
#22
Noone can blame "religion" for this, since the Federal Government has taken over the role of "charity" while it's slithery spaghetti tentacles slipped into your back pocket...

http://www.federalbudget.com/
Reply
#23
I must admit mmddll, I'm confused as to the connection between 'Taxation without Representation' and whether I believe in God or not?

Are you proposing that we are in fact part of the machine that feeds an entity called Moloch or Mamon (The Corporations), or am I getting too symbolic again?

Edit* I just read your last post before posting mine - I see where you are going now. Never mind...

[Image: imagesemily-litella-1-small.jpg]
Reply
#24
Quote:I must admit mmddll, I'm confused as to the connection between 'Taxation without Representation' and whether I believe in God or not?

Are you proposing that we are in fact part of the machine that feeds an entity called Moloch or Mamon (The Corporations), or am I getting too symbolic again?

Edit* I just read your last post before posting mine - I see where you are going now. Never mind...

[Image: imagesemily-litella-1-small.jpg]


No..no...you're right. People say that because they don't see God, then you might as well believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster...so I've taken it upon myself to show the Full Monty...The Emperor has no clothes...Behold! The Flying Spaghetti Monster! (Moloch/Mammon/Caesar/Big GUBMENT)

John 19:15 But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.

clarification:
I'm not equating God with moloch/etc...on the contrary, just because you don't see something doesn't mean it's not there robbing you blind, whatever "god" you bow down to (in this case, government via partisan stupidity)

BEHOLD!
[Image: review_sentinel_1.jpg]
[Image: Flying_Spaghetti_Monster_2-thumb-514x514.jpg]
If you understand my theory that The Matrix trilogy is about the Federal Reserve, then "spaghetti monster" up there makes alot of sense...

Flying Spaghetti Monster says "Chow Down...and be...FED!"

mwaa ha ha ha ha ha!
Reply
#25
Does anyone else remember in the 70s when local, county and state crooked entities were USING the IRS as tools to steal people's property from them and there were all kinds of income tax educators out and about on the teevee and everything-Irwin Schiff-was one of my favorites. He went over and over again that there was NO TAX DUE ON EARNED INCOME, NO NEED TO SELF INCRIMINATE FILING THOSE 'VOLUNTARY' FILINGS.

He's still in jail in Nevada-them finally nailing him after 30+ YEARS and many books and having educated millions of people about the total bogus Internal Revenue Service, which is a collection agency based out of Puerto Rico and not a gov entity.

Anyways, I heard this local story here in 100% or say 98% Mormon country where EVERYBODY was in an uproar about the crooked beyond bully boy teams of the local government and the IRS. To the degree where there were so many choosing not to voluntarily give away their 5th amendments rights that they (IRS) HAD A PLANE FULL OF ARMED IRS COME INTO THE NEIGHBORING COUNTY determined to do a HOUSE TO HOUSE SEARCH FOR RECORDS OF INCOME.

A new congressman who was elected by a landslide with this specific diabolic reality having become a local custom in a few large counties-his total agenda to fight and put the light to-was contacted by his constituents who were armed and ready to shoot it out with the IRS-

<img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/damned.gif" alt="Damned" title="damned" />

has anyone ever heard of this story?

this incredibly righteous man-who wrote a best selling book about the bogus use of the IRS to terrorize, strip of assets and steal titled property greeted the armed AGENTS and told them to leave-they had no jurisdiction in HIS congressional territory and he would not tolerate their presence, and they did leave.

BUT they then started lawsuits against the known offenders, the ringleaders so to speak and who should be the entity that put the noose around the neck of one of their own but the MORMON CHURCH who helpfully provided the IRS with the tithing records of this man.

Gerry Spence, cowboy lawyer from Jackson represented this man charged with tax evasion. In court they asked this prominent good man if he was Mormon... he answered that he was. They asked him if he tithed the 10%-he said he tithed at least that much.

GUILTY!!! AND BY THE 10% TITHING AMOUNTS RECORDED THEY MANUFACTURED HIS INCOME AMOUNTS AND CONVICTED HIM WITH MANY YEARS IN PRISON. He ended up getting his time cut down to 3/4 years.

Gerry Spence LOST that case. He will not have anything to do in this same area again for any case.

The brave congressman? they trumped him up with bogus charges of some sort and PUT HIM IN PRISON TOO-he rode around on a train chained and bound for YEARS-he lost all his teeth, suffered horrible injuries to his arms and legs due to being CHAINED and hunched over for years on that train to no where.

ANYBODY REMEMBER THIS CASE? And he did finally get rescued and is still alive I think, seriously stirred but not all the way broken and I think residing in Idaho Falls, Idaho.

CHURCH+STATE=PRISON for those who dare deny the state its due!
&quot;Confusion... first sign of a bad relationship-whether personal, societal or governmental&quot;
Reply
#26
ANY church that files a 501-C-3 tax exempt status is a tool of the IRS and Satan...and they WILL turn you in to the "Romans 13 government can do no wrong" FED...unless of course you are living here illegally, then they will give you "sanctuary", especially if your name be "Hey Zeus" or "Maria" and bow down and kiss the Pope's ring or his "red shoes"
Reply
#27
I've just come across this, just skimmed it but will get into it later. I had a flash while posting. Since the religions are always determined to not only put God in a box, even a book... and lots and lots of pictures, statuary and idols-won't it just blow them away, those who've been enamoured with the stories, the pictures, the art if confronted with just pure LIGHT-ENERGIES-EVER MORPHING PHANTASMAPLASM?

The Dark Matrix, The Human Brain, Time and Space

Posted By: unplugged
Date: Friday, 29-May-2009 11:34:19

The following is excerpted from Gerald O'Donnell's eBook titled "Remote Influencing Secrets Revealed."

This is Gerald's perspective on the nature of reality garnered from many years of research. And though I myself find it fascinating, you are absolutely free to ignore, disagree, and/or dismiss this perspective in its entirety.

-unplugged

=============================
[snip]

There is a continuous connection between each human brain and this dark Matrix: this dark cube that imposes preprogrammed realities, thoughts and holographic situations to all of humanity. . . . It gives you the perception of evolving time, a preprogrammed history, a spiritual and cultural background, as well as an impression of space. When, in reality, all of space - which is only your sphere of visual perception - exists only within your holographic brain made of vibratory light; there is nothing, absolutely nothing, existing outside of you. Your limbs, body, visual planet, and sky, in short your entire universe is a three-dimensional illusion given to you and projected from the inside out, like a 3D surround sensory movie allowing you to experience the world of that Matrix and choosing stories within it.

Each individual has his or her individual projection of reality coordinated by the Matrix. You are the only living entity in your universe and the entities with whom you interact are the only living entities in theirs.

The Matrix coordinates all individual universe/realities, so that all interactive entities perceive the same environment and interact on a sensory basis.

Some beings are sentient (having a higher awareness and hence greater real free-will of choices of thoughts and actions), others are barely so and are mainly software programs, direct sensory projective arms of the matrix, void of individual realities (Higher Selves) who are thence used to populate your realities and create stories. You may eventually perceive the difference between sentient entities and non-sentient ones. But this requires a high level of vibrations and awareness. Sentient beings have an individual Higher Self (individual universes), whereas non-sentient ones are direct holographic projections of the Matrix and only appear within the realm of projected light as a sentient being shines his or her awareness upon them.

Some universes interact and connect; others do not. For instance, if you were to choose a loving, happy theme, amongst the many stories available in the Matrix, you will connect to and be surrounded by that theme.

If, on the other hand, you want to choose a melodramatic theme, a modern myth such as UFOs, any conspiracy belief, religious theme, or a fear-based belief system, this is exactly what will become your world and experience, with full holographic realism. That is why people who enter different reality themes do not have similar experiences and why, so often, many keep on adamantly denying or shedding skepticism at experiences that other human entities have had in their own chosen universal theme which does not intersect their own preferred universe, and may even tag them using modern psycho-pathological epithets that are in vogue within the rigid allopathic medical fields.

The reality is that you light up the prepared scenarios of the Matrix through the energy and light of your awareness and thence a three-dimensional world “out there” is created for you to travel and experience. It is as if you were to enter your television set and become a character within it gifted with full sensory awareness and three-dimensional reality, within the scene being played.

The black Matrix operates based on pure thought. It decodes the three-dimensional code of your firing synapses and then the entities of Vibratory Light of your Higher Self project back to your physical brain your three-dimensional holographic reality, as ever-changing three-dimensional sensory holograms (scenes) defining your reality.

As modern science has recently realized but not yet quite understood, there is a delay of roughly 500 milliseconds between the beginning of the pattern of firing of neurons in the brain consecutive to an event and an individual’s awareness of the situation that caused this firing. This delay is caused by the reality feedback loop we have just described. There is a short exposition of this little understood but irrevocably proven neurophysiological paradox discovered by Benjamin Libet and posted since 1997 on our web site http://probablefuture.com. This means everything we perceive in our reality has in fact been projected to our brain as a future holographic reality roughly one half second before it is perceived a material reality/action by the individual (lower Self).

Take for instance the example of a baseball that is thrown at a batter by a major league pitcher. We know from measurements that the baseball crosses the plate in less than a half second. According to 20 years of neuro-electrical research the batter could not possibly be aware that the ball ever left the pitcher when he bats it back. Nevertheless he does it successfully 30 percent of the time. The question is: “Who really became aware and took that decision, and how?” Our contention is that for non-sentient beings, the Matrix always becomes aware and makes decisions for them and thinks for them. For a sentient one, The Higher Self becomes aware since it is connected to the Matrix and then the decision as to what reality to project is taken by his or her Higher Self in conjunction with the desires of the Matrix and the individual’s strong beliefs and energized thoughts. After the decision is taken, the reality is then projected to the individual, post facto, with a certain delay, which is why the cortical area of the brain will take 500 milliseconds to project the decision/action taken to the holographic awareness of the individual.

THE REAL GAME OF CREATION

Creation always operates with a certain delay from the act of awareness and the act of volitional decision based on its awareness. This is because the real game is being played at the Vibratory Light level of the Higher Selves in conjunction with the supercomputer of realities that the Matrix represents. We just witness holographically with a certain delay the results.

Creation is a constant interplay between your decisions and the decisions taken by the Matrix. It is a constant interplay between Light and darkness. For instance in order for you to do a perfect shot while playing golf, you need to have visualized previously with great energy the ball falling directly into the hole and then when the time comes your Higher Self will then project to you the impression of you doing the perfect move that will then produce the perfect swing that will send the ball into its intended hole. All the move is, is a holographic projection of an event/decision that has been taken previously by your Higher Self. Your creativity is only possible by sending in advance your energized thought to your Higher Self, in the form of joyful images and desires.

The more sentient a being is, the more the individual’s established beliefs and prior energized thoughts and desires will affect his projected holographic reality. This will happen because his or her thoughts will vibrate at a higher rate of vibratory Light energy. By corollary, the less sentient a being is, the more his or her thoughts are directly the thoughts of the Matrix which is easily achieved since the Matrix operates based on pure thought and is connected to each brain. Therefore, your decisions are either taken directly by the Matrix and you then have very limited range of free will, or your free will can increase drastically when you learn to operate at a high Vibratory rate, as you are then given a much wider range of possible realities to choose from, projected by the subconscious realm of your Higher Self that is always connected to the Matrix and decodes it immediately.

There is neither real time, nor real space outside of the realm of Creation and inside that realm too. Time needs only to be coordinated so that interacting entities observe the same-clocked time. It is only a flow of situations. Your total self can only make decisions within certain preset and constantly changing crescents of possible responses within the original and evolving program of the Matrix. Your individual’s Higher Self can make decisions for yourself by decoding the reality of a situation without the need for a three-dimensional sensory reality projection. It operates close to the level of the Matrix and gets the informational code of what occurred from the Matrix, then decodes it, and knows the immediate probable future in advance. Therefore, it has the ability to send you that information and make you intuitive or, on rare occasions, give you the impression of a déjà vu situation.

After you understand the way the projection of reality operates, there is no magical talent to intuitive or psi knowledge. It is part of the mind of your Higher Self that connects to the Matrix. Your Higher Self knows how to decode the reality projection sent by the Matrix and acts according to your best interest. We refer our students to the movie “The Matrix” whose writers had the courage to openly reveal the basic inner process of this Creational Supercomputer.

-Gerald O'Donnell
http://probablefuture.com/

[end snip]

If interested, you may download a free copy of the ebook here:

http://www.probablefuture.com/Secrets_o ... EBook.html
&quot;Confusion... first sign of a bad relationship-whether personal, societal or governmental&quot;
Reply
#28
I read about a man last year who fought the Supreme Court over income taxes and won...he's from Louisiana, I think...He beat their asses fair and square...of course, the MSM complicit with the Crime Syndicate known as The White House did not report it much if at all.

I'll see if I can find an article from a reputable source...
Reply
#29
THE POWER TO DESTROY
Lawyer who beat IRS sues agents
Seeks damages for alleged 'smear and fear' campaign


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: January 04, 2008
1:00 am Eastern

© 2009 WorldNetDaily.com




A lawyer who was acquitted by a federal court trial jury of Internal Revenue Service accusations he failed to filed income tax returns for two years now is suing several IRS agents over their alleged improper disclosure of his personal information in the case.

A spokeswoman in the office of lawyer Tom Cryer told WND the case was assembled and filed by Cryer between Christmas Day and the end of 2007 and is expected to be placed on the docket in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana.

Last summer in federal court a jury voted 12-0 to find Cryer, of Shreveport, not guilty of the IRS allegations. He had been indicted on 2006 on government claims he failed to pay $73,000 to the IRS in 2000 and 2001.

His successful defense was based on a challenge to the IRS to prove a constitutional foundation for the nation's income tax.

(Story continues below)


Now his claim against the government's agents, according to a report in the Shreveport Times, explains four IRS criminal investigation division workers tried to destroy his reputation during the course of their investigation in the case.

The lawsuit alleges IRS agents Jimmy H. Sandefur, Darrin A. Heusel and Judge Armand, and a trainee, Patrick Potter "entered into a smear and fear campaign to destroy Plaintiff's good reputation and law practice."

Cryer alleges the federal workers repeatedly violated federal laws that restrict the disclosure of tax information, release of information about an investigation and publicizing information about a grand jury investigation.

The report said Cryer's lawsuit alleges the agents continually raised those issues in telephone calls, during personal visits and in letters exchanged with Cryer's clients during their investigation.

The action seeks $1,000 in damages for each incident in which a federal agent compromised Cryer's confidential information.

Cryer also has submitted a request to the U.S. attorney's office, seeking an investigation of the agents, but neither the federal prosecutor nor the IRS could be reached for comment on the cases, the report said.

"I think now people are beginning to realize that this has got to be the largest fraud, backed up by intimidation and extortion and by the sheer force of taking peoples' property and hard-earned money without any lawful authorization whatsoever," Cryer said after his acquittal.

He said he is dedicated to the truth, and has launched a new Truth Attack website that is intended to build on his victory, and create a coalition of resources to defeat – ultimately – the income tax in the United States.


The logo for the new Truth Attack campaign against income taxes

Cryer told WND the issue is not that complicated. Essentially, he argued that income is not necessarily any money that comes to a person, but rather categories such as profit and interest.

He said the free exchange of labor for compensation has been upheld as a right by the Supreme Court, but that doesn't necessarily make the compensation income.

"The Founding Fathers intentionally restricted the taxing powers of the new federal government as a measure of restraint on its size. By exceeding that limited taxing authority the federal government has been able to obtain resources beyond its intended reach, and that money has enabled the federal government to exceed its authority," he said.

For example, he said, the Constitution does not empower the federal government to regulate education, or employment, and agriculture, yet it does so.

"There are three points that are important," he said at the time. "There's no law making the average working man liable [for income taxes], there's no law or regulation that allows the IRS to contend that earnings are 100 percent profit received in exchange for nothing, and the right to earn a living through any lawful occupation is a constitutionally protected fundamental right, and it is exempt from taxation."

Spokesman Robert Marvin in Washington's IRS office then told WND the Internal Revenue Code provides for taxation on salaries or wages, but when pressed for a specific citation, or constitutional provision, he said, "I can't comment."

Cryer's encounter with tax law began more than a decade ago when a friend told him the income tax was sham. Cryer started researching, hoping to keep his friend out of trouble. But his conclusions, after years of research, were exactly what his friend told him.

His acquittal, he said, was a precedent because it means "people can see and recognize the truth."

He said multiple Supreme Court opinions have affirmed an individual's ownership of his or her own labor, and "exercising your fundamental rights" is not taxable. "It is definitely a trade. What most people receive in the form of wages, salaries or in my case fees that they personally earned for their labor is not received in exchange for nothing."

He said there might be a profit that should be taxable, but there might not.

"The IRS lets Wal-Mart sell a trillion dollars worth of goods, but they can back out their cost of goods [before being taxed,]" he said. "The IRS considers, in the case of a Wal-Mart wage earner, 100 percent of what he takes in is profit."

"But he's using his life, energy and work lifespan, and depleting it as he goes," Cryer told WND. "[Working] is a God-given fundamental right that is protected under the Constitution and can't be taxed any more than exercising freedom of speech."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/articl...E_ID=59515
Reply
#30
Quote:I read about a man last year who fought the Supreme Court over income taxes and won...he's from Louisiana, I think...He beat their asses fair and square...of course, the MSM complicit with the Crime Syndicate known as The White House did not report it much if at all.

I'll see if I can find an article from a reputable source...


yeah I heard about him. Wasn't he the chiropractor? It is all valid and true. It is all an outrageously destructive lie that has worked. I noticed a while ago that whenever any thing the gov presents as 'voluntary'... ask what happens if you don't volunteer! Tricky little bullshit games backed up with prison, punitive fines, loss of property. Now loss of licensing, no where to run to-no where to hide.

EXCEPT THE TRUTH DOESN'T RUN AND HIDE. And with each sacrificial lamb like that man put to prison by his OWN CHURCH-I didn't even know they had tithing records on everyone to give out like that. <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/dunno.gif" alt="Dunno" title="dunno" /> It is a step towards truth being revealed. This was such an outrageous real life story-people literally up in arms against a bogus entity daring to use force of arms against them. And they won that round. though many paid with imprisonment for that 'win'.
&quot;Confusion... first sign of a bad relationship-whether personal, societal or governmental&quot;
Reply
#31
Where do our "fundamental" rights come from according to the signers of the Declaration of Independence?

Quote:We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Reply
#32
Quote:[quote author="mmddll"]I read about a man last year who fought the Supreme Court over income taxes and won...he's from Louisiana, I think...He beat their asses fair and square...of course, the MSM complicit with the Crime Syndicate known as The White House did not report it much if at all.

I'll see if I can find an article from a reputable source...


yeah I heard about him. Wasn't he the chiropractor? It is all valid and true. It is all an outrageously destructive lie that has worked. I noticed a while ago that whenever any thing the gov presents as 'voluntary'... ask what happens if you don't volunteer! Tricky little bullshit games backed up with prison, punitive fines, loss of property. Now loss of licensing, no where to run to-no where to hide.

EXCEPT THE TRUTH DOESN'T RUN AND HIDE. And with each sacrificial lamb like that man put to prison by his OWN CHURCH-I didn't even know they had tithing records on everyone to give out like that. <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/dunno.gif" alt="Dunno" title="dunno" /> It is a step towards truth being revealed. This was such an outrageous real life story-people literally up in arms against a bogus entity daring to use force of arms against them. And they won that round. though many paid with imprisonment for that 'win'.[/quote]

I think there was a Chirpractor too, but this guy TOM CRYER (see article above) is a Lawyer from Louisiana

His name reminds me of "town crier"

"Tax-Free O'clock and all is well! Tally Ho!"

LOL
Reply
#33
Instead of arguing about whether God exists or not, I think it is more important to be taking real life information such as this man beating the IRS and telling everyone you know, and spread the message...the IRS will not be able to handle the numbers en mass, and the Supreme Court's hand will be forced to act on a national scale, and the banksters and extortionists will crumble under our weight.

There ARE things that exist outside of yourself...don't let that matrix nonsense fool you..it's just more propaganda to keep us all docile and impotent like usual.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)