Citizens, citizens, Citizens, citizens

“Recognize what is in your sight, and that which is hidden from you will become plain to you.  For there is nothing hidden which will not become manifest.”

            Jesus, The Gospel of Thomas

Hello again world; welcome to my Sixth blog; the sixth in my educational series to you!

"The truth will set you free, but first it will make you miserable".

James Garfield 1831-1881, 20th U.S. President

For this blog, I am writing about the differences in citizenship as NOTED in the law; United States Supreme Court decisions, as well as a host of other court cases, and what has been legislated in various US Title Codes.  Since, in my last blog I commented that there are at least three different United States, it only follows that there are different citizenships, which shall be proven below.

Let’s begin with the natural person born in the 50 states, better known as the American Citizen [NOT US citizen], governed by the Constitution of these united States of America.  I have chosen to call it the sovereignty of the American born people, and the states, which are Republics!

Sovereignty of the People & States

Starting with a US Supreme Court decision in 1884 below, the court stated that inherent sovereignty lies with the PEOPLE, and NOT the government!

Julliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421 (1884), Supreme Court Justice Field:  There is no such thing as a power of inherent sovereignty in the government of the United States…In this country sovereignty resides in the people,  and Congress can exercise no power which they have not, by their Constitution entrusted to it.  All else is withheld.

In 1974, the following federal court case specifically noted the differences in government between Europe and America, further commenting that sovereignty remains with the people, and not the government.

Glass v. The Sloop Betsy; 3Dall 6 (1974):  In Europe, the executive is almost synonymous with the sovereign power of a State; and generally includes legislative and judicial authority…Such is the condition of power in that quarter of the world, where it is too commonly acquired by force or fraud, or both, and seldom by compact (ratified Constitution).  In America, however, the case is widely different.  Our government is funded upon compact.  Sovereignty was, and is, in the people.

In the US Supreme court decision in 1837, noted that the states of the union are separate and independent sovereign nations from the federal government.

New York v. Miln, 36 U.S. 102 (1837):  The state governments, in their separate powers and independent sovereignties, in their reserved powers, are just as much beyond the jurisdiction and control of the National Government as the National Government in its sovereignty is beyond the control and jurisdiction of state governments.

            …a State has the same undeniable and unlimited jurisdiction over all persons and things within its territorial limits, as any foreign nation…

In the US Supreme court decision below, the court confirmed the sovereignty of the American people, and noted the distinction between the subjects of England, and our American sovereign Citizens.

United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, at 208:  “Under our system the people, who are there [in England] called subjects, are here the sovereign…Their rights, whether collective or individual, are not bound to give way to a sentiment of loyalty to the person of a monarch.  The citizen [in America] knows no person, however near to those in power, or however powerful himself to whom he need yield which the law secures to him…”

Please read the decisions of the following court cases below, again testifying to the sovereignty of the American born Citizen.

Chisholm. Ex’r. v. Georgia 1 L.ed (2Dall) 415, 472:  “Here [in America] sovereignty rests with the People.

Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419, 458:  “The law subscribes to the king [in America, the People] the attribute of sovereignty; he is sovereign and independent within his own dominion; and owes no kind of subjection to any other potentate upon earth.  Hence, it is, that no suit or action can be brought against the king, even in civil matters; because no court can have jurisdiction over him; for all jurisdiction implies supremacy of power.”

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 19 How. 577:  “The words ‘People of the United States’ and ‘Citizens’ are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing.  They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty…They are what we familiarly call the ‘sovereign people,’ and every Citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of the sovereignty…”

Please not in the above case that our form of government is a REPUBLIC!

Lansing v. Smith (1829) 4 Wend. 9, 20:  “People of a State are entitled to all rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative.”

(The word ‘Prerogative’ means, “Exclusive right; a distinctively superior advantage.”)

Hancock v. Terry Elkhorn Mining Co., Inc., Ky., 503 S.W. 2d 710. Ky Const. §4 Commonwealth Ex Rel.  Hancock v. Paxton. Ky..516 S.W. 2d pg 867 [2] CI 3,:  “It is true that at [English] common law the duty of the Attorney General was to represent the King, he being the embodiment of the state.  But under the democratic form of government now prevailing the People are King so the Attorney General’s duties are to that Sovereign rather than to the machinery of government.”

Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967):  “In the United States the people are sovereign and the government cannot sever its relationship to the people by taking away their Citizenship.”

The People vs. Herkimer 15 Am Dec 379, 4 Cowen (N.Y. 345, 348 (1825)):  “The People, or the Sovereign are not bound by general words in statutes, restrictive of prerogative right, title or interest, unless expressly named.  Acts of limitation do not bind the King nor the People.  The People have been ceded all the Rights of the King, the former Sovereign…It is maxim of the common law that when an act of parliament is made for the public good, the advancement of religion and justice, and to prevent injury and wrong, the king shall be bound by such an act, though not named; but when a statute is general, and any prerogative right, title or interest would be divested or taken from the King (or the People) in such case he shall not be bound.”

Hale vs. Henkle 201 U.S. 43 at 74:  “the individual may stand upon his Constitutional rights as a Citizen.  He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way.  His power to contract is unlimited.  He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his business or to open his doors to investigation…He owes no duty to the State, since he receives nothing there from, beyond the protection of his life and property.  His rights are such as existed by the Law of the Land, long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of the law and in accordance with the Constitution.  He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.”

The Siren vs. U.S. 74 U.S. 152:  “It is the doctrine of the common law, that the Sovereign cannot be sued in his own court without his consent.”

Julliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421:  “There is no such thing as a power of inherent Sovereignty in the government of the United States.  In this country sovereignty resides in the People, and Congress can exercise no power which they have not, by their Constitution entrusted to it:  All else is withheld.

Harcourt v. Gaillard, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat, 523, 526, 527):  “Each [state] declared itself sovereign and independent, according to the limits of its territory…The soil and sovereignty within their acknowledged limits were as much theirs at the Declaration of Independence as at this very hour.

Blair v. Ridgely, 97 D. 218, 249, S.P., People v. Coleman, 60 D. 581:  “Prior to the adoption of the federal Constitution, states possessed unlimited and unrestricted sovereignty and retained the same ever afterward.  Upon entering the Union they retained all their original power and sovereignty, except such as was surrendered to the federal government or they were expressly prohibited from exercising by the United States Constitution.”

Yick Wo vs. Hopkins and Woo Lee vs. Hopins, 118 U.S. 356:  Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law for it is the author and source of law:”  “…While sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the People, by whom and for whom, all government exists and act.”

Billings v. Hall, 7 CA. 1:  “Under our form of government, the legislature is NOT supreme.  It is only one of the organs of that ABSOLUTE SOVEREIGNTY which resides in the whole body of the PEOPLE; like other bodies of the government, it can only exercise such powers as have been delegated to it, and when it steps beyond that boundary, it acts…are utterly VOID.”

Glass v. The Sloop Betsy, 3 Dall 6:  “In Europe, the executive is synonymous with the sovereign power of a state…where it is too commonly acquired by force or fraud, or both…In America, however the case is widely different.  Our government is founded upon a compact.  Sovereignty was, and is, in the people.”

Please make a note below: the term “person” as reflected in Title 1, and Title 26 Federal Income, does NOT include the sovereign [you, a natural person].  So what is a person?  A business, as defined in Title 26 and as such, fall under the jurisdiction of Title 26, to be taxed.  Recall in prior blogs that I mentioned that the IRS was allowed by the Congress to create it’s own language and unique definitions, called the “Peshar” method, in order to mislead the people.

1 USC §1, n 12, United States vs. Fox, 94 U.S. 315:  “Since in common usage, the term ‘person’ does not include the sovereign, statutes not employing the phrase are ordinarily construed to exclude it.”

California, Title I, Article I, §100:  “The sovereignty of the State resides in the people thereof.”

Redfield v. Fisher, 292 Oregon 814, 817:  “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 power to the state, but the individual’s right to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an excise cannot be imposed.”

Colonial Pipeline Co. v. Triagle, 421 U.S. 100 (1975):  “…Income tax statutes apply only to state created creatures know as Corporations no matter whether, state, local or federal.”

United States v. Morris, 125 F. Rept. 325, 331:  “Citizens under our Constitution and laws mean free inhabitants [not subjects]…Every citizen and freeman is endowed with certain rights and privileges, to enjoy which no written law or statute is required.  These are fundamental or natural rights, recognized among all free people…That the right to…accept employment as a laborer for hire as a fundamental right is inherent in every free citizen, and is undisputable…”

Lynch v. Household Finance Corp., 405 U.S. 538. (1970):  “…The right to enjoy property without unlawful deprivation, is…a ‘personal’ right, whether the ‘property’ in question is a welfare check, a home, or a savings account.  In fact a fundamental interdependence exists between the person’s right to liberty and the personal right in property.  Neither could have meaning without the other.

So now we come to the 14^th Amendment citizen as legislated by the Congress, separate and distinct from the American born Citizen.  Notice that American born natural people are capitalized with a large “C” while the naturalized citizen is not.

The 14^th Amendment citizen

Prior to the 14^th Amendment of 1868, residents of the Possessions and Territories “belonging to” the [District] United States, defined in the 2^nd previously Hooven definition, had no citizenship.  In law, they were referred to as “inhabitants.”  Also, the newly freed slaves were born without citizenship and were not citizens.  In the same manner that a child who is born in the 50 states to “naturalized” citizens, becomes a “natural born” Citizen, black Americans born after the 14^th Amendment was ratified were “natural born” Citizens of the state in which they were born.  The 14^th Amendment’s use of the word “person” has also been extended by the courts to include [limited to] corporations, which are “juristic” persons.  The 14^th Amendment (which was illegally ratified by many states at gunpoint) gave these in habitants and persons a new class of citizenship that did not exist prior to the 14^th Amendment, referred to as “citizens of the United states subject to the jurisdiction thereof” or “citizens of the United states subject to its jurisdiction.”  In other words, 14^th amendment citizens are slaves, subject to income tax since they are not natural persons, but “juristic” persons.”  American born citizens are NOT “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” and are therefore not persons, but natural persons.

Amendment 14:  “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.  No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of the law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction to equal protection of the laws.”

The phrase, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means completely subject to.  That is, those persons born in Territories over which the United States is exclusively sovereign (as limited by Const. Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 17).

In reference to the 14^th Amendment the 1884 Supreme Court stated: Again, please make not that the United States mentioned here is not the sovereign 50 states, but the federal legislated United States of: Guam, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, American Samoa.

In the 1884 Supreme Court case below, the court affirmed that naturalized citizens are “subject” to the jurisdiction, and are there slaves!

Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 101, 102 (1884):  “The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”  The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject…”

Blacks Law dictionary, 6^th Edition defines “subject to,” as follows:

Subject to:  “Liable, subordinate, subservient, inferior…”

Compare with this:

Sovereign:  Having supreme, rank, authority, independent power…indisputable…being above all others…having dominion, power, authority…rightful status of independence and prerogative…greatest in degree.”

The natural born citizens of the 50 states already had sovereign Citizenship, as is evidenced in, Article II, §1, Cl. 5 of our original Constitution:  “No Person except a natural born Citizen or a Citizen of the United States…”

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 687, 688:  “…The 14^th Amendment is throughout affirmative and declaratory, intended to ally doubts and to settle controversies which had arisen, and not to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship.”

Slaughter House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 72, 73, 74 (1873):  [Prior to the 14^th Amendment]…”it had been said by eminent judges that no man was a citizen of the United States except as he was a citizen of one of the States composing the Union.  Those, therefore, who were born and always resided in the District of Columbia or in the Territories, though within the United States, were not citizens…[After the 14^th Amendment]…”the distinction between citizenship of the United states and citizenship of a state is clearly recognized.  Not only may a man be a citizen of the United States without being a citizen of a state [i.e., born in the District of Columbia], but an important element is necessary to make the former [a citizen of the United States] the latter [a citizen of the state].  He must reside in the state to make him a citizen of it, but it is only necessary that he should be born or naturalized in the United States to become a citizen of the [United States] Union...”

Van Valkenburg v. Brown, 43 Cal 43, 47 (1872):  “No white person born within the limits of the United States and subject to their jurisdiction…or born without those limits, and subsequently naturalized under their laws, owes his status of citizenship to the recent amendments to the Federal Constitution.  The purpose of the 14^th Amendment…was to confer the status of citizenship upon a numerous class of persons domiciled within the limits of the United States who could not be brought within the operation of the naturalization laws because native born, and whose birth, though native, at the same time left them without citizenship.  Such persons were not white persons, but in the main were of African blood, who had been held in slavery in this country…”

Because the Sovereigns were born as Citizens, the 14^th Amendment could not and did not pertain to them.  They did not need citizenship granted as they were “natural born” preamble Citizens rather than citizens created by legislation.  Their rights were endowed by God and unalienable.

Perkins v. Elg, 99 F. 2d 408, 410 (1938):  “When the Constitution was adopted, the people of the United States were the citizens of the several states for whom and for whose posterity the government was established.”

Because the 14^th Amendment federal government citizenship was the result of a grant from the legislature, United States citizens, subject to its jurisdiction were “granted” legislative civil rights as opposed to “endowed” unalienable Rights.

82 CA 369, 375, 255 P 760:  “A ‘civil right’ is considered a right given and protected by laws, and a person’s enjoyment thereof is regulated entirely by the law that creates it.” This means that by legislation, the Congress can strip away your rights as they are not endowed under the Constitution!

This recent 1993 Federal Court ruling in Denver, Colorado below clearly differentiates state citizen’s unalienable rights from the privileges and immunities of the 14^th Amendment citizen of the federal government:

Jones v. Temmer, 829 F. Supp. 1226:  “The privileges and immunities clause of the 14^th Amendment protects very few rights because it neither incorporates the Bill of Rights nor protects all rights of individual citizens. (See Slaughter House cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L. Ed. 394. (1873). Instead this provision protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government:  It does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship.”

The Internal Revenue Service has mislead us into believing that Citizens of the 50 states are the subjects of Title 26, Subtitle A, §1 of the Internal Revenue Code, which imposes a non-apportioned graduated individual Income Tax on “citizens.”  Which “citizen” is defined in the 1^st Code of Federal Regulations, which interprets and implements the Internal Revenue Code?

Please note that CFR stand for “Code of Federal Regulations.”

26 CFR §1.1-1(c):  “who is a citizen:  Every person born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen.”

3A AM Jur 1420, Aliens and Citizens:  “A Person is born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, for purposes of acquiring citizenship at birth, if this birth occurs in a territory over which the United States is sovereign…”

The citizen of the [District] United States, subject to its jurisdiction, is taxed on his or her income, both within and without the [District] United States.  However, 26 IRC §911(a)(1)(2), as of March 31, 2007, creates an exclusion from gross income of up to $80,000 per year [§911(b)(2)(A) of such foreign earned income (income earned in the 50 states, unless if working for any government agency).  There is also an exclusion for total housing costs, not to exceed 16% of the salary (without regard to the $80,000 limit for bona fide residents of foreign countries or sister states).  Such citizens must make separate elections to receive the foreign earned income exclusions and the housing exclusion.  Foreign earned income does not include earned income from U.S. Government sources or income earned by federal Government employees.  A naturalized citizen can sever their “subject” U.S. citizen status by becoming a naturalized Citizen of the state where they live.  The proper form for non-government income earned outside [without the U.S] of the [District] United States is the 2555 (Foreign Earned Income Form.

Disclaimer Disclaimer Disclaimer!

First, this blog you have just read is not an excuse for YOU to NOT file your Federal and State Income Tax every year!  Unless you know Federal and State Income Tax laws thoroughly [and you don’t] and have a great defense attorney, File your returns, pay your taxes every year, and just know that you will have to be satisfied knowing the truth, and that your government is lacking in communicating to the public the truth.  Truthfully, very few lawyers know of this, and those that do, are those who win their legal cases before the U.S. Supreme Court!  This blog is for your education!

Know that the U.S. Congress serves two masters: the 50 Republics [Sovereign Countries] known as the united States of America [U.S. Supreme Court case Hooven v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 674] covered under the Constitution, and the Federal Government seated in Washington D.C., a foreign country!  Two very different animals, however, presented to the public as one, and therein adds to more deliberate confusion.  Like I said, I can’t cover it all down in one simple blog, but I will cover this over many future blog.

I will change the pace in my next blog and cover something entirely different.  I trust however, that you can see that all is not what it appears to be to the casual observer.  It matters not who you elect to the White House or in Congress; all serve the same master and are here to deceive and control you.  There are great deceptions wherever you may look, in every industry; nothing is what it appears to be!  Until then, keep reading…

The Lawful Meaning of the word "Income"

“Recognize what is in your sight, and that which is hidden from you will become plain to you.  For there is nothing hidden which will not become manifest.”

            Jesus, The Gospel of Thomas

Hello again world; welcome to my fourth blog; the fourth in my educational series to you!

"The truth will set you free, but first it will make you miserable".

James Garfield 1831-1881, 20th U.S. President

"I believe that if the people of this nation fully understood what Congress has done to them over the last 49 years, they would move on Washington; they would not wait for an election... It adds up to a preconceived plan to destroy the economic and social independence of the United States!" 

George W. Malone (1890-1961) U.S. Senator (Nevada) 1957 - Source: speaking before Congress

The Lawful Meaning of The Word “Income”

Ok, so in my last blog I wrote about what Compensation really is, according to the law.  I am now going to write about the lawful meaning of the word “Income.”   That’s right, it’s not my opinion, what I think, what my neighbor thinks, what my boss thinks, what you think.  It’s about what the law states what income is; something that somehow, just never got conveyed to you, “John Q. Public,” by our legal system.

You should now be starting to draw a picture of just how much you, the public, have been left out in the cold regarding important issues pertaining to you.  Kind of tells you what the legal profession, Judiciary, Congress, White House are all about, along with the media not doing their job of reporting these critical issues to you, wouldn’t you say?

Let’s get started.  In the U.S. Supreme Court case below, this case distinguished what was and was not income.

Eisner vs. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189:  “…it becomes essential to distinguish between what is and what is not “income,” according to truth and substance, without regard to form.  Congress cannot, by any definition it may adopt, conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation, alter the Constitution, from which it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations, along, that power can be lawfully exercised…”’…[Income is] Derived—from—capital—the—gain—derived—from—capital, etc.

Summary:

This was the most significant Supreme Court case to define the word “income.”  Here we have the essential matter—not gain accruing to capital, not a growth or increment of value in the investments, but a gain, a profit, something of exchangeable value…severed from the capital 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…”

It is relevant to note that, nowhere in the entire Internal Revenue Code or the implementing Code of Federal Regulations [CFR-5 massive volumes], is the word “income” defined.  The tax liability is based upon “taxable income.”  Taxable income is “Gross income” minus allowable deductions. You must have “gross income” to have “taxable income.”  Compensation for labor [see prior blog] earned in private occupations of common right, may be excluded from “gross income.”  Only compensation for services as a public [government] servant is calculated in “gross income.” [Again, only government workers]

The word “income” by itself is restricted to its true meaning.  In well settled decisions, the Supreme Court has ruled that the ACTUAL meaning of the word “income” is only “gains and profits severed from capital.”  The capital, if taxable, is still subject to the constitution rules of apportionment.  Any profit earned through the investment or sale of capital assets or property would result in a gain that could be defined as “income” after it was severed or separated from the capital.

Moving along to the next U.S. Supreme Court case where the government tries to sneak in ALL RECEIPTS as income, which was rejected by the Supreme Court.

Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers, 247 U.S. 330:  “…Whatever difficulty there may be about a precise and scientific definition of income, it imports something entirely distinct from principal 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…We must reject in this case…the broad contention submitted in behalf of the Government that all receipts, everything that comes in – are income within the proper definition of the term ‘gross income’…”

And now we come to the next U.S. Supreme Court case where income is a profit, gained through a sale or conversion of a capital asset. Note in the last sentence where the Justices gave the benefit of the doubt to the writers of the 16^th Amendment, that it MUST have been in their minds about gains and profits being income!  They didn’t want to state that it was the intent of the writers of the amendment to bypass the Constitution in taxing the American Citizenry.

Merchants Loan & Trust Co. vs. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509, 518, 519 (1923):  “…it [income] should include ‘profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets.’ 
There would seem to be no room to doubt that the word must be given the same meaning, in all of the Income Tax Acts of Congress, that it was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act, and what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by decisions of this court…In determining the definition of the word “income” thus arrived at, this court has consistently refused to enter into the refinements of lexicographers or economists and has approved, in the definitions quoted, what is believed to be the commonly understood meaning of the terms [“gains and profits”] which must have been in the minds of the people when they adopted the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution…”

            So, Income, as defined by the Supreme Court means, “gains and profits as a result of corporate activity and profit, gained through the sale or conversion of capital assets.”  It’s a business profit; and not wages or compensation!

To add insult to injury to the Internal Revenue Service, here is another U.S. Supreme Court decision, which addresses the word “gain.”  Income is in every day sense a GAIN!

Conner v. United States, 303 F. Supp. 1187 (1969) pg 1191:  “[1]…The meaning of income in its everyday sense is a gain…the amount of such gain recovered by an individual is a given period of time.”  Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 425 “Income is nothing more or less than realized gain.”  Shuster V. Helvering, 121 F.2d 643 (2^nd Cir. 1941).  “It[income] is not synonymous with receipts.”  “47 C.J.S. Internal Revenue §98, p. 226.”

“[2] Whatever may constitute income, therefore, must have the essential feature of gain to the recipient.  This was true when the 16^th Amendment became effective, it was true at the time of the decision in Eisner v. McComber (supra), it was true under section 22(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, and it is true under section 61(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.  If there is no gain, there is no income.”

            Oh my gosh!  If there is no gain then there is no income?  How come I didn’t read about this in the newspapers?  And what; here is another case that goes to the Supreme Court that further elucidates on the words income and gain.

Taft v. Bowers, N.Y. 1929, 49 S. Ct. 199, 278

Taft v. Bowers, 278 U.S. 470, 73 L. Ed. 460: “The meaning of “income” in this amendment is the gain derived from or through the sale or conversion of capital assets: from labor or from both combined; not a gain accruing to capital, or growth or increment of value in the investment, but a gain, a profit, something of exchangeable value, proceeding from the property, severed from the capital, however employed and coming in or being “derived,” that is, received or drawn by the recipient for his separate use, benefit, and disposal.  U.S.C.A. Amend 16, Note 64.

Southern Pacific v. Lowe. Federal Register Vol. 238, pg. 850

“…The true function of the words ‘gains’ and ‘profits’ is to limit the meaning of the word ‘income’ and to show its use only in the sense of receipts which constituted an accretion to capital.  So the function of the word ‘income’ should be to limit the meaning of the words ‘gains’ and ‘profits.’

Eisner v. Macomber, N.Y. 1929, 40 S.Ct. 189

Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 64 L.Ed. 521

Walsh v. Brewster, Conn. 1921 41 S.Ct. 392

Walsh v. Brewster 255 U.S. 536, 65 L.Ed. 762

“The word ‘income’ as used in this [16^th] amendment does not include a stock dividend, since such a dividend is capital and not income and cannot be taxed only if the tax is apportioned among the several states in accordance with Article 1 Section 2, Clause 3, and Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 of the Constitution.”

And now we have the Congressional Record.  Just what is the Congressional Record?  Well, if you Google and search the term, you will get a number of hits, which you can click any one to get a description of what it is, but basically, it is the official record of the proceedings and debates of the United States Congress.  Please note that even when this was debated in Congress, they already knew what income was, and wasn’t, but again this somehow was just never conveyed to you, the public.

1913 Congressional Record, pg. 3843, 3844: Senator Albert B. Cummins:

“I assume that every lawyer will agree with me that we [Congress] can not legislatively interpret the meaning of the word ‘income.’  That is a purely judicial matter…the word ‘income’ has a well-defined meaning before the amendment of the Constitution was adopted.  It has been defined in all of the courts of this country [as gains and profits]…If we could call anything that we pleased, income, we could obliterate all the distinction between income and principal.  The Congress can not affect the meaning of the word ‘income’ by any legislation whatsoever…Obviously the people of this country did not intend to give to Congress the power to levy a direct tax upon all the property of this country without apportionment.”

            Apportionment?  Just what does that mean?  I will cover this in another blog, but quickly, it means that the people of this land can only be taxed after a census has been taken of the population, and that the tax levied EQUALLY to every person in the land.  Notice that the U.S. Constitution never said anything about a graduated tax scale!  You will find this in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3, and Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution.

            Here are just a few more tidbits for your reading, and of course the last item here refers to the United State Code, Title 26 going back to 1954 wherein the code states that if there is no gain, then there is no income!  They don’t hide it from you, folks because it’ in plain sight; they just don’t tell you about it!  So guess what, it’s up to you to read and find out about it.

Congressional Globe, 37^th Congress 2^nd Session, pg. 1531:  “The words ‘gains’ and ‘income’ mean the same thing.  They are equivalent terms…”

26 U.S.C.A. ’54 §61(a):  “Under Internal Revenue Code of 1954, [and all other codes] if there is no gain, there is no “income.”

            In my next blog I will write about the United States and just how many of them there are.  Yes, there is more than one!  Down the road, I will write about the Titles of the land, what Positive and Non-Positive law is about, the Sovereignty of the state, Sovereignty of the American Citizen [not to be confused with U.S. citizen], Uniform Commercial Code, Admiralty Law, California Income Tax Law, The Republic versus Democracy, legal definition of money [not currency] and more.  Just more confusion for you to consider, and why you just can’t figure why things are the way they are, but it’s all in the law!

One last thing: I get tired of listening to people talking about America being a Democracy.  It is NOT.  Did you forget what you learned in school?  These several states were founded as a Republic.  Recall the pledge of allegiance [or has that now been outlawed] “I pledge allegiance to the Flag…and to the REPUBLIC, for which it stands...”  Democracy is rule by a mob, and is the first step towards Socialism.  Check it out for yourself!

Disclaimer            Disclaimer            Disclaimer            Disclaimer            Disclaimer            Disclaimer

            Again folks, the information provided to you above is for educational purposes, and is not an endorsement for you NOT to pay your federal and state income taxes!  You WILL file your income tax returns gladly, and know how much you have learned about your Constitution, the law, and the Congress.  From here on end, it’s up to you, but do you get the feeling that you are being screwed from every angle, from professions and institutions you came to trust?  It’s all about the money, honey; taking more and more money out of your pocket, making your poorer and poorer and ultimately subservient to the government in totality.  In other words: a slave, and after all, the best-kept slave is the one who doesn’t know he/she is a slave.  Those whom we elected to run the government have now become the Kings, Lords, Prince and Princess’s, Dukes and so forth.  It’s all in their strategically planned goal for us common folk.

Keep reading, do your independent research and continue to learn more about what has been kept from you!  The truth cannot hurt you; only your closed mind can.

Until my next blog…

When wages and compensation is NOT Income

“Recognize what is in your sight, and that which is hidden from you will become plain to you.  For there is nothing hidden which will not become manifest.”

            Jesus, The Gospel of Thomas

Hello again world; welcome to my third blog; the third in my educational series to you!

"The truth will set you free, but first it will make you miserable".

James Garfield 1831-1881, 20th U.S. President

To be income or not to be income, that is the question!

Ten years ago, while attending graduate school earning my Master’s, I started a study on the American government at the graduate level, studying specifically the U.S. Federal Reserve and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), both established in 1913, with the IRS being given birth under the 16^th Amendment to the united States of America Constitution.  I wanted to do my doctorate on the relationship between the two organizations, but after a discussion with two of my professors at Graduate school, I was persuaded NOT to follow this line in taking on the U.S. Federal Government.  In the end, I lost my courage and took their advice, as I looked at the consequences what I could be facing in bringing this topic to light. To my own personal disappointment, I regret making that decision today.  So now I am taking this opportunity in bringing this information to you through my blog.  I will not present all my findings as that would take a 500-page book, but I will give you enough material to make you question things!  Nothing is what it appears to be, folks!  We are being led astray everywhere.

As I researched both government [italics is a clue here, folks] entities, I started to realize that there was far more to these two organizations than what met the eye of the general American public.  I split my time between the two topics and after some years of research, came to some startling conclusions, that much information had been quietly kept from the public, obviously, but is well known at the Congressional, Executive, Appellate and U.S. Supreme Court level.  I know this because each time Congress amends the tax codes, the writers of the code are very deliberate in maintaining the original meanings of words.  I will defer my blog on the Federal Reserve for a later date and will focus here on the IRS.  Startling as it may seem, income as defined by a number of U.S. Supreme court decisions, is NOT income as how we as individuals would define it.  And therein is the rub.  I don’t wish to call it willful deception, but you make the call on what it is after you read this blog.

I have cut and pasted research information from my prior study on the matter and have assembled bits and pieces for you to review.  There should be enough information for you to discern that we the public have been misinformed in many ways on this issue, and many others as well.

Title 26, The US Tax code is written in a special language authorized by the US Congress, similar to that which is called the Pesher Method. Please refer to the U.S. Supreme Court decision that describes this action in the following case. [[Malat v. Riddell, 383 U.S. 569 (1966), U.S. Supreme Court Case Summary Malat v. Riddell:  “Congress may provide its own definitions for the terms used.  The student should be aware of a number of general definitions contained in the 26 IRS [Internal Revenue Code]…”]]

The Pesher Method is a cryptic biblical writing process, dating back to the writings of the Old and New Testament thousands of years ago, which is nothing more than using metaphors, puns, and allegory in communicating to disguise the original meaning or intent of words or phrases so that the casual reader would think they are reading something while in actuality, the real meaning is kept secret for those whom the message was intended for.  For more information on a description of the Pesher method please refer to the following website or Google the term for more much information:http://www.usc.edu/dept/LAS/wsrp/educational_site/dead_sea_scrolls/4QpesherIsaiah.shtml   [In a future blog covering Theology, I will write more about the Pesher Method and what it means.  Don’t worry: GOD really IS, but quite a bit different than what we think, and even more wonderful! Just thought I would mention this now, and it’s ok to disagree with me, but just do your research!]

Case in Point.  What follows below in my blog is just a sampling of court cases that define what income is and isn’t, and somehow, this was just never communicated down to us common folks by the legal system!  But you can bet that every tax and corporate attorney read the merits of tax related U.S. Supreme Court cases to understand the decision!  Immediately below is a court case summarizing that compensation for labor is NOT income.

In the case of Oliver v. Halstead, 86 S.E. Rep. 2d 859:  “There is a clear distinction between ‘profit’ and wages’ and compensation for labor.  Compensation for labor CANNOT be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law.  The word ‘profit’, as ordinarily used, means the gain made upon any business or investment—a different thing altogether from mere compensation for labor.”

In the following case noted above, please note the distinction between profit, wages, and compensation for labor.  Observe that compensation for labor or services rendered is NOT income, as defined under the U.S. Supreme Court.

In the case of Laureldale Cemetery Assoc. v. Mathews, 47 Atlantic 2d 277 (1946):  “…Reasonable compensation for labor or services rendered is not profit…”

In compensation for labor, there is an even exchange of time for an equal amount of money.  It’s an even barter.  It would be no different than trading a bushed of wheat for a bushel of rye, which were both the same price.  There would be no gain or profit.  I you provide $100 of labor for an equivalent $100 of pay, there is no gain; therefore there is no income!

Understanding now that ‘income’ is NOT everything that ‘comes in,’ but only ‘gains and profits, severed from capital,’ it is a simple matter to deduce that compensation is not ‘income’ in the true and lawful meaning of the word.

Black’s Law Dictionary, 6^th edition defines the word “compensation” as follows:  “…Giving an equivalent or substitute of equal value…giving back an equivalent in either money, which is but the measure of value…”

Because by its true definition, compensation is an “equivalent and equal exchange,” there is no profit, there is no gain and, therefore, there is no income!

Immediately below is a U.S. Supreme Court case noting that income is corporate or business income, and not compensation!

Connor v. U.S., 303 F. Supp., 1187 ’69:  “…Congress has taxed income [profits and gains] not compensation.”

In a federal court case below, note that real income [gains and profits] is not derived for services rendered, such as my working for 40 hours a week and receiving pay in kind for services rendered.

In the federal case of Edwards v. Keith, 231 Fed. Rep. 1:  “The phraseology of form 1040 is somewhat obscure…But it matters little [what the forms says]:  the statute and the statute alone determines what is income to be taxed.  It taxes income ‘derived’ from many different sources; one does not ‘derive income’ [gains and profits] by rendering services and charging them.”

Do not confuse “compensation for labor” with “Wages” or “compensation for (personal) services,” which are ONLY earned by Government officers and employees and are includible in gross income under Title 26.  However, compensation for labor earned by American Citizens in any of the 50 states, working in the private sector, is a different thing altogether and is not taxable ‘wages’ and is excludible from Gross Income and is exempt from the graduated income tax!

            Huh? What? You mean that only government workers are required to pay Income taxes?  And why are American Citizens specifically noted, and not U.S. citizens [big clue here folks]? 

Then along comes the following act of 1939 that makes all government [federal, state, county, city] employees and their compensation TAXABLE INCOME!

The Public Salary Tax Act of 1939

Public Salary Act of 1939, Title 1—Section 1.:  “§22(a) of the Internal Revenue Code relating to the definition of ‘gross income,’ is amended after the words ‘compensation for personal service’ the following: ‘including [limited to] personal service as an officer or employee of a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the forgoing.” [Another clue here folks; the word ‘including’ actually means “only this.”  The word is no all encompassing as you would think]

“Wages” and “Compensation for personal services” are ONLY earned by Government employees.  This is why the Government argues “Wages are Gross Income.”  According to their ‘term’, they are correct.  However, by such definition, compensation for labor in the private sector is not “wages” and is not “compensation for personal services.”

Elected and appointed government employees are considered to be public servants, exercising “official privileges,” while employed.  The income tax is applicable to those who chose to make themselves liable by entering into contracts with the U.S. Government.  Also, such paychecks come from the District of Columbia, giving them compensation ‘effectively connected to’ a federal area, under exclusive United States jurisdiction.

To understand the tax codes, you must start with the original 1939 Internal Revenue Code.  This Code combined all previous revenue laws into one Code and repealed all previous laws not included in the 1939 Code.  However, statutes and Codes which were enacted after the 1939 Code are still in force, if not specifically repealed or amended by subsequent statutes, Codes or Regulations.  That means that all portions of the 1939 and 1954 Codes and Regulations, the Public Salary Act, etc., not repealed, are still a part of the overall Tax Code and Regulations, even though they have never been transferred into the subsequent Codes.

On April 12, 1939, [76^th Congress, 1^st Session, Chap. 59. pgs. 574, 575] after the enactment of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, and before the 1954 Code, Congress passed the Public Salary Act.  Because this Act is buried between the 1939 Code and the 1954 Code, many Citizens are not even aware it exists.  The following section of that Act has never been repealed.  This Act is extremely significant because it amends and redefines the words, “Gross Income,” [not “income”] which is the basis for calculating ‘taxable income,’ to include ONLY “compensation for services (as public servants) earned by officers and employees of a State.  As it has been documented in statutory construction, the word “including” means “only” and cannot be expanded to add other elements not within the exact “meaning of the definition.”  The meaning here is ‘government employee’ and can’t be expanded to also include “private sector employees.”

The strategy of the Government is to call anything that ‘comes in’ gross income.  Then to keep the Code in harmony with the Constitution and the law, the writers of tax legislation create exemptions and exclusions from ‘gross income’ for the exercise of nontaxable ‘Rights’ protected by the Constitution.  These are buried in previous Acts and Regulations that were never repealed but were not brought forward to the most recent “Code.”

So what does the 16^th Amendment Really Say?

The Supreme Court has ruled that the 16^th Amendment was applicable ONLY to INDIRECT, EXCISE taxes on privileges and revenue taxable activities.  The first U.S. Supreme Court case to challenge the erroneous idea that the 16^th Amendment changed the Constitution and allowed direct taxes to be issued without apportionment was the Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, (1916).  [Sorry for the legalese but you WILL muddle your way through it.]

In the U.S. Supreme Court case Brushaber v. Union Pacific RR Co., 240 U.S. 1, at 10, 11, 12, 18, 19:  “The confusion (by Brushaber)…arises from his conclusion that the Sixteenth Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation, that is, a power to levy an income tax, which although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment…The far-reaching effect of Brushaber’s erroneous assumption…if acceded to, would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another; that is, it would result in bringing the provisions of the Amendment exempting a direct tax from apportionment into irreconcilable conflict with the general requirement that all direct taxes must be apportioned…This result, instead of simplifying the situation and making clear the limitation on the taxing power, which obviously the Amendment must have been intended to accomplish, would create radical and destructive changes in our constitutional system and multiply confusion…Indeed, from any other point of view, the Amendment demonstrates that no such purpose was intended and, on the contrary, shows that it was drawn with the object of maintaining the limitations of the Constitution and harmonizing their operations…The 16^th Amendment contains nothing repudiating or challenging the ruling of the Pollock Case…The contention that the [16^th] Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax is…wholly without foundation…”  The 16^th Amendment, as correctly interpreted, was limited to indirect taxes and for that reason is constitutional.”

Furthermore, the Congressional Record goes on to state as far back as 1862 what income really is, and that the 16^th Amendment did not change the framework of the Constitution, that a tax to the people could only be levied by direct apportionment, that is equally to each natural person after a taking of the census!

The Congressional House Record, Vol. 89, Part 2, March 27, 1943 pgs 2579, 2580:  “The income tax is an excise tax, and income is merely the basis for determining its amount…In 1862, in order to meet the need for continued war revenues, Congress passed the second income tax law.  This act took effect on July 1, 1862 (12 Stat.432).  The act of 1862 which used the word “duty” instead of “tax” provided that this “duty” should be levied, collected and paid in the year 1863 and each year thereafter until and including 1866 ‘and no longer’ (Sec. 92)…that investment income may be as a part of the basis for measuring an excise tax was recognized by Congress in the act of August 5, 1909 (36 Stat. 11, 12), ‘That every Corporation shall be subject to pay annually a special excise tax with respect to the [privilege of] carrying on or doing business by such Corporation.’  The sixteenth amendment authorizes the taxation of income ‘from whatever source derived’-thus taking in investment income—without apportionment among the several states…The Supreme Court has held that the sixteenth amendment did not extend the taxing power of the United States to new or excepted subjects…The [16^th] Amendment made it possible to bring investment income within the scope of a general income-tax law, but did not change the character of the tax [as an excise tax].

In summary, compensation for labor is property.  Taxation on property constitutes a Direct Tax, subject to apportionment.  The Brushaber Supreme Court ruled that income taxes are limited ONLY to indirect excise taxes.  Excise taxes can only be imposed upon the exercise of a privilege.  Therefore, the American Citizen’s compensation for labor earned in the 50 states, in an occupation of common right and not in the exercise of a privilege is not the subject of the 16^th Amendment or the income tax!

It would seem from the above that we have been deceived by the Congress, the U.S. Supreme Court, the White House, and a host of corporate and tax attorneys that know of the information above, but have ‘failed’ to communicate this to us common folks.  Why is this information not making headlines of every front page of the newspaper?  I would conclude that it is because “they” don’t wish for us to know.  You can figure out who the “they” are.

Now, I just don’t want you to take my word for what is written above.  I want you to research it yourself to find out the truth.  If you wish, take this information and turn it over to your trusted attorney to verify this.  I mention “trusted attorney” as all attorneys are an officer of the COURT, and as such, their loyalty is first to the Court, and then you as a client so be careful.

Disclaimer Disclaimer Disclaimer!

First, this blog you have just read is not an excuse for YOU to NOT file your Federal and State Income Tax every year!  Unless you know Federal and State Income Tax laws thoroughly [and you don’t] and have a great defense attorney [there is one really good defense attorney in Alabama who has never lost a case to the IRS for natural persons cases], don’t mess with this!  File your returns, pay your taxes every year, and just know that you will have to be satisfied knowing the truth, and that your government is lacking in communicating to the public the truth.  Truthfully, very few lawyers know of this, and those that do, are those who win their legal cases before the U.S. Supreme Court!  This blog is for your education!

Second, it is just not as simple as I have outlined in this blog.  There are many other issues to consider that were not considered by many people who eventually wound up in trouble and in federal prison for thinking they knew how to avoid paying taxes.  There is the matter of federal or state jurisdiction; which legal and judicial references the U.S. Supreme Court judges defer to, based upon the evidence you bring; where you as the natural person and NOT the Individual [big clue here] were born in the 50 states or federal territory; whether you were born before or after the territory became a state; whether your wages was a source within or without the United States [this little section in Title 26 is what has confused so many people and as such, landed them in prison]; which United States you are speaking from [there are many different definitions for it], what class of citizenship you have [yes, there are different classes as not all citizens are equal]; what class of citizenship you claim to be [sadly, nearly everyone gives up their rights by claiming the wrong citizenship]; what words [yes, many words used in the IRS have different meaning than what you would think and is another reason you lose] your attorney uses in presenting his/her written and oral arguments in court; whether the law referenced it is positive law or not, and a few more issues. 

Know that the U.S. Congress serves two masters: the 50 Republics [Sovereign Countries] known as the united States of America [U.S. Supreme Court case Hooven v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 674] covered under the Constitution, and the Federal Government seated in Washington D.C., a foreign country!  Two very different animals, however, presented to the public as one, and therein adds to more deliberate confusion.  Like I said, I can’t cover it all down in one simple blog, but I will cover this over many blogs.

I, the writer of this blog, am a 14^th Amendment citizen, and a second class citizen, a naturalized U.S. citizen, and NOT a Sovereign American born Citizen as I was born in a foreign country, and because of my citizen class, MUST always pay a tax on ANY compensation I earn, regardless of which definition I use!  I chose my words carefully here for you to discern, folks.

            I’ll toss in this one last item below: In Title 31 of the United States Code, Section 301 through 310, guess who are NOT an agency of the United States!

31 USC §301 through §310 The Internal Revenue Service [IRS], Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms [BATF] and Secret Service are not listed as Agencies of the United States.

            Another way to know is to go to your telephone directory and look up the agencies.  You will not find them listed under the Federal Government.  So then what type are these agencies?  They are private companies, of course, just like the U.S. Federal Reserve.  So who owns them?  Another time…

Until my next blog…keep reading and searching for knowledge and truth!

I report…you research and decide for yourself.