Click on my image
to become a paying member of the Constitution Club and
receive special access to information vital to the fight for Freedom!

Article I Section 2:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

In other words the National government is authorized to collect taxes from the states based on their populations, but is not authorized to tax the people directly.

On May 21, 1895, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a direct tax on personal income was unconstitutional as a result of the case of Pollock v. Farmers‘ Loan and Trust Company. The lawsuit had been precipitated by the 1894 Income Tax Act. The Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision stated that a “direct tax” on the “income of real and of personal property” was “unconstitutional and void.”

Views: 356

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Yes the 16th amendment allows non enumerated taxes. However the progressives did make one giant mistake. 

The 5th amendment Taking clause prohibits taking from one to give to another - it requires paying the property owner fair and just compensation.

The mistake was applying Progressive rates where one citizen pay a higher rate than others. The 16th does not permit that.

Of course there isn't a law requiring anyone other than a federal employee to pay income taxes. Its called a kick back scheme. Everyone who is not a federal employee and who is required to pay income taxes does so because they made an election to be treated as a resident alien, U.S. citizen, Individual, Taxpayer [Govco employee]. They made a voluntary election to be a Taxpayer by filing that 1st 1040 under penalty of perjury right there where it said "Sign here, Taxpayer". And we did this because we thought the law applied to us.

For years they told us it was a voluntary tax system. I guess too many people asked how to volunteer out so they quit publicizing the voluntary part. I've told a whole lot of folks how to get out of the tax system, but I don't know anyone who has gone and done it. Quit whining if you are too scared to take action. Just continue to hand over a big chunk of your energy to a bunch of thieving bastards because you don't want to start any trouble. If a renewal of the Republic comes about, which seems like a long shot with all the all candy asses out there scared of the Oz, I'm sure all the losers will jump on board---that is, when its safe.  

The jails are filled with folks that followed those pitchmen that sold there is no income tax on wages. Try it and they will take all you have.

The problem is, you don't have anything. They take nothing from you unless you are imprisoned. What they do take is what is owned by the straw man. That's how they control you. Threaten to take away what you worked for but don't have legal possession of because everything has been registered in the all caps name of the straw man.

The jails are full of people that bought some guru's package for $1500 or so, jumped in and said I'm not going to pay, but then didn't really understand the game he was involved in.

If you're worried that they'll take what you worked for, then transfer each major item to a separate trust and you can beat them at their own game. Now, even if its registered, its registered in YOUR straw man, not theirs. Your all caps name belongs to Govco.

By the way, my last 1040 was in 1991.

Excellent point on the 1040. Good for you for sticking to your principles.

Hi Keith,

It's not a direct tax.  It's a constitutional excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges, uniform, rather than apportioned, as required by the Constitution.  The problem is that there has been a successful effort to spread disinformation, designed specifically to fool people into thinking that it is a direct tax.  My own tax lawyer with RJS Law here in California believes it's a direct tax.  I just sent her an email asking her to identify the assumption which the Supreme Court, in the 1916 Brushaber case, called "this erroneous assumption."  She wants a conference with her lead lawyer and my wife.  I might remember to come back here and report on the outcome.

A direct tax is one where an individual is compelled to pay under the threat of violence. A direct tax can not be avoided without serious consequences  A indirect tax is voluntary. If you don't want to pay the tax you can avoid the activities that trigger the tax. If you avoid a tax on tobacco or alcohol by not purchasing the  products. Excise taxes are an indirect tax while an income tax is a direct tax.  I live in Hemet, call me a 951-260-7711

I don't care whether its a direct or indirect tax. If it doesn't apply to me then it can be called anything. Of course the IRS Code isn't constitutional. Its private law aimed at private corporate entities, the straw man. Once you sign on you are viewed as the surety for their straw man and they want you to pay for the liabilities of the SM which apparently holds the govt. office of 'person', a corporate privilege.

I read Pete Hendrickson's book "Cracking the Code" quite a few years ago and submit that Pete has done a lot of research and has an excellent vocabulary. Where Pete and I don't see eye to eye is that Pete does not believe in the straw man's existence or that the Code only pertains to the SM. I may be out in left field but the SM element in the entire system is the only thing that makes any sense at all, at least to me.

Anyone who undertakes to 'just stop filing and paying' had better know who they really are in relation to the SM and have a good arsenal of knowledge to dispel any presumption that you have agreed to a surety-ship relation [milk cow] with that entity. Its not enough to know who you are not. You must be able to prove who you are.

Most excellent synopsis, my good man. Well said.

The 16th Amendment Was Never Lawfully Ratified

Click Here

Thanks. Would like to hear about the outcome of that meeting.

On May 21, 1895, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a direct tax on personal income was unconstitutional as a result of the case of Pollock v. Farmers‘ Loan and Trust Company. The lawsuit had been precipitated by the 1894 Income Tax Act. The Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision stated that a “direct tax” on the “income of real and of personal property” was “unconstitutional and void.”

RSS

© 2017   Created by Keith Broaders.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service