Direct is only specious if you consider the Framers and Constitution specious.
And yes, the way the Framers envisioned the collection of States was that each on is its own sovereign nation, with the freedom to move between said nations.
Direct is only specious if you consider the Framers and Constitution specious.
And yes, the way the Framers envisioned the collection of States was that each on is its own sovereign nation, with the freedom to move between said nations.
Again, a direct tax is something that hits everyone. It must be apportioned.
Calling an excise on a particular, voluntary, and very limited behavior a direct tax ***is specious.***
That is simple logic, and the Framers knew the difference between an apportioned direct tax on everyone living within a physically-defined state, and an excise on the performance of a public office (which is voluntary, and only applies to perhaps 3-5% of the population).
If there was such a thing as a "tax on private earnings" in this country that was enforced as a direct tax, you would simply get a bill in the mail at the beginning of the year. This would be -massively- illegal, and would be immediately struck down.
We don't have that.
No such thing exists, although the moronic "flat tax" idiots are trying their best to get it pushed through. Ahhh what irony that would be, bringing about that which they were complaining about in the first place.
The current "tax on federal income" is perfectly lawful, and was originally put into place to ensure those that had cushy government jobs paid a portion of their wages back to their employer to help pay for their administration.
The "16th bylaw" of the corporate charter known as "the Constitution of the United States of America, Inc." is also perfectly legal and lawful. It keeps the weasels in office from hiding wealth from taxation. It was a clarification of the 1863 Revenue Act, and created no new powers of taxation. It certainly did not extend the authority of the IRS to include taxing of those that were not eligible to be taxpayers.
The issue is, as I have tried to make clear, is that the vast majority of Americans allowed their erstwhile employees to "redefine" them into a second or third class status known as "U.S. Citizen" or "citizen of the United States." These are "foreign" statuses with respect to our birthright. It is the same thing as if you were born a Frenchman, and a pencil-pusher got your mother to sign a document declaring you a Turk.
That's the part that is not only illegal and unlawful, but involves capital-level crimes. Human traficking, personation, kidnapping.
Again, this matter requires focusing on the -actual- problem, which is out of control employees that have been unchecked in the rapacious fraud for 160 years. Not being distracted.
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
The crucial problem under Clause 4 is to distinguish direct from other taxes. In its opinion in Pollock v. FarmersтАЩ Loan & Trust Co., the Court declared: It is apparent . . . that the distinction between direct and indirect taxation was well understood by the framers of the Constitution and those who adopted it. Against this confident dictum may be set the following brief excerpt from MadisonтАЩs Notes on the Convention: Mr. King asked what was the precise meaning of direct taxation? No one answered. The first case to come before the Court on this issue was Hylton v. United States, which was decided early in 1796. Congress has levied, according to the rule of uniformity, a specific tax upon all carriages, for the conveyance of persons, which were to be kept by, or for any person, for his own use, or to be let out for hire, or for the conveying of passengers. In a fictitious statement of facts, it was stipulated that the carriages involved in the case were kept exclusively for the personal use of the owner and not for hire. The principal argument for the constitutionality of the measure was made by Hamilton, who treated it as an excise tax, whereas Madison, both on the floor of Congress and in correspondence, attacked it as direct and therefore void, because it was levied without apportionment. The Court, taking the position that the direct tax clause constituted in practical operation an exception to the general taxing powers of Congress, held that no tax ought to be classified as direct that could not be conveniently apportioned, and on this basis sustained the tax on carriages as one on their use and therefore an excise. Moreover, each of the judges advanced the opinion that the direct tax clause should be restricted to capitation taxes and taxes on land, or that, at most, it might cover a general tax on the aggregate or mass of things that generally pervade all the states, especially if an assessment should intervene, while Justice Paterson, who had been a member of the Federal Convention, testified to his recollection that the principal purpose of the provision had been to allay the fear of the Southern states that their slaves and land should be subjected to a specific tax.
Of course, Founders wanted We the People to have ALLODIAL TITLE to our property.
Yes, I am familiar with all three Constitutions. Intimately.
What I think you may not be grasping is that the IRS does not levy direct or un-apportioned taxes. They can't. They have to operate according to their own rules. And they do, assidiously.
They administer the -Internal- Revenue of the DC City State. It is extra-territorial to The United States and The United States of America.
Their authority does not extend outside DC, as per 26 USC 7701. Unless they are collecting excise from their employees functioning as "residents" in our Country (The United States of America and the 50 states, which they have nothing to say about).
The Tax on Federal Income is an excise. It is voluntary. Several IRS Commissioners have, on record, attested to that fact. It is voluntary because people are voluntarily accepting foreign statuses "gifted" to them.
It's why you fill out the 1040 form yourself. It is your choice, and you are assumed to know if you need to do it.
"We" (Americans) are supposed to have Fee-Simple grants to our soil, not alloidal "Title" (which is a grant from the Queen). It probably should be re-iterated that U.S. Citizens and citizens of the United States -cannot- own property in this country, they can only rent it (and pay ground rent in the form of "use tax/property tax" in so doing).
Americans are Americans, United Statesians are United Statesians. Until and unless you correct the presumption that you are the latter, you cannot claim to be the former.
I am not arguing that they are not using sleight of hand.
That is the root of all of this. They are stealing people from the Land of their birth, telling them that they are "Employees" ("Citizens") before they can even speak yay or nay, and then taxing what they make as if it is "Federally Connected."
Fee simple has worked just fine in the several cases I have assisted with. The key, as I have been saying, is ensuring you have correct status and standing. And I never "argue" anything in court. That is for fools, and inevitably leads to a bad outcome.
Courts of limited jurisdiction usually involve a Status Hearing, and immediate dismissal. This ain't my first rodeo, and the last line made me smile.
U.S. Citizens absolutely owe property taxes, since -they are here as temporary residents only.- Alloidal -Title- is a grant of nobility (all "Titles" are). Americans cannot accept foreign Titles, as it compromises their status. We hold our land rent-free because it belongs to us.
I realize you don't know me, but I am not bringing this up in a "theoretical" mode, but from direct experience. As always, given freely, yours to do with as you choose. If what you are advocating/doing works, then more's the better.
Given what you have written, I am scared to ask what your win/lose court ratio is.
Fee simple allows for prop taxes which should never be paid irrespective of State's Rights and the residents "owning" their home in the sovereign nation state.....
If you were to actually do some research you would know that certain states like Nevada actually do grant Allodial Title for property, rare as it is.
My "win/lose" ratio? I am an American, thus not an attorney.
I have succeeded every time in extricating Americans that have been kidnapped into foreign jurisdiction, with dismissal in every instance. Improper venue and lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
It would be the same if a Canadian court swooped in and kidnapped them. Foreign jurisdictions are foreign. They are just used to easy, intimidated prey that don't know who they are.
I suppose my question should be "have you corrected your status, or are you still functioning as a U.S. Employee (citizen)?"
That makes all the difference.
"States of States" are business entities, federal franchises, and have no "sovereignty." An entity that is chartered by another cannot, by definition, be "sovereign." "States" are Land jurisdiction Nations. "states" are soil jurisdiction estates upon which people live.
Anyone that is knowingly functioning as a foreign government services employee/resident here (U.S. Citizens/citizens of the United States), cannot own property. If you think that is untrue, stop paying your property taxes, or your "vehicle registrations."
There are no "rights" for British Tories or Roman slaves upon the 50 states. And you can argue until you are blue in the face, but the fact remains, unless the record has been corrected, you are presumed to be crazy. It's horrific, and I am not advocating it. But it is the configuration space as of now.
Try bringing up "The" Constitution in court (never mind there are three of them). The hired jurist will likely threaten you with contempt if you bring it up again. Employees cannot use their service contracts to extricate themselves from their employee obligations.
After all, you are already guilty if you are a citizen of the United States (definition of a 14th Amendment citizen is "criminal.").
We are saying the same thing, but the fact that the last 160 years have been a deliberate mind-fu** and literal war against Americans makes it difficult to see.
Most of the current "proposed solutions" are dummy-loads, designed to get people to expend time and resources on a dead end. These criminals have had almost two centuries to fine-tune their grift. They have culled the strong and the brave, and have subjected the survivors to non-stop psychological warfare.
I thank you for your well-wishes, and sincerely send you the same.
Direct is only specious if you consider the Framers and Constitution specious.
And yes, the way the Framers envisioned the collection of States was that each on is its own sovereign nation, with the freedom to move between said nations.
Again, a direct tax is something that hits everyone. It must be apportioned.
Calling an excise on a particular, voluntary, and very limited behavior a direct tax ***is specious.***
That is simple logic, and the Framers knew the difference between an apportioned direct tax on everyone living within a physically-defined state, and an excise on the performance of a public office (which is voluntary, and only applies to perhaps 3-5% of the population).
If there was such a thing as a "tax on private earnings" in this country that was enforced as a direct tax, you would simply get a bill in the mail at the beginning of the year. This would be -massively- illegal, and would be immediately struck down.
We don't have that.
No such thing exists, although the moronic "flat tax" idiots are trying their best to get it pushed through. Ahhh what irony that would be, bringing about that which they were complaining about in the first place.
The current "tax on federal income" is perfectly lawful, and was originally put into place to ensure those that had cushy government jobs paid a portion of their wages back to their employer to help pay for their administration.
The "16th bylaw" of the corporate charter known as "the Constitution of the United States of America, Inc." is also perfectly legal and lawful. It keeps the weasels in office from hiding wealth from taxation. It was a clarification of the 1863 Revenue Act, and created no new powers of taxation. It certainly did not extend the authority of the IRS to include taxing of those that were not eligible to be taxpayers.
The issue is, as I have tried to make clear, is that the vast majority of Americans allowed their erstwhile employees to "redefine" them into a second or third class status known as "U.S. Citizen" or "citizen of the United States." These are "foreign" statuses with respect to our birthright. It is the same thing as if you were born a Frenchman, and a pencil-pusher got your mother to sign a document declaring you a Turk.
That's the part that is not only illegal and unlawful, but involves capital-level crimes. Human traficking, personation, kidnapping.
Again, this matter requires focusing on the -actual- problem, which is out of control employees that have been unchecked in the rapacious fraud for 160 years. Not being distracted.
Article I, Section 9, Clause 4:
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
The crucial problem under Clause 4 is to distinguish direct from other taxes. In its opinion in Pollock v. FarmersтАЩ Loan & Trust Co., the Court declared: It is apparent . . . that the distinction between direct and indirect taxation was well understood by the framers of the Constitution and those who adopted it. Against this confident dictum may be set the following brief excerpt from MadisonтАЩs Notes on the Convention: Mr. King asked what was the precise meaning of direct taxation? No one answered. The first case to come before the Court on this issue was Hylton v. United States, which was decided early in 1796. Congress has levied, according to the rule of uniformity, a specific tax upon all carriages, for the conveyance of persons, which were to be kept by, or for any person, for his own use, or to be let out for hire, or for the conveying of passengers. In a fictitious statement of facts, it was stipulated that the carriages involved in the case were kept exclusively for the personal use of the owner and not for hire. The principal argument for the constitutionality of the measure was made by Hamilton, who treated it as an excise tax, whereas Madison, both on the floor of Congress and in correspondence, attacked it as direct and therefore void, because it was levied without apportionment. The Court, taking the position that the direct tax clause constituted in practical operation an exception to the general taxing powers of Congress, held that no tax ought to be classified as direct that could not be conveniently apportioned, and on this basis sustained the tax on carriages as one on their use and therefore an excise. Moreover, each of the judges advanced the opinion that the direct tax clause should be restricted to capitation taxes and taxes on land, or that, at most, it might cover a general tax on the aggregate or mass of things that generally pervade all the states, especially if an assessment should intervene, while Justice Paterson, who had been a member of the Federal Convention, testified to his recollection that the principal purpose of the provision had been to allay the fear of the Southern states that their slaves and land should be subjected to a specific tax.
Of course, Founders wanted We the People to have ALLODIAL TITLE to our property.
Oh well.
There is a reason why direct and un-apportioned are grouped together.
Yes, I am familiar with all three Constitutions. Intimately.
What I think you may not be grasping is that the IRS does not levy direct or un-apportioned taxes. They can't. They have to operate according to their own rules. And they do, assidiously.
They administer the -Internal- Revenue of the DC City State. It is extra-territorial to The United States and The United States of America.
Their authority does not extend outside DC, as per 26 USC 7701. Unless they are collecting excise from their employees functioning as "residents" in our Country (The United States of America and the 50 states, which they have nothing to say about).
The Tax on Federal Income is an excise. It is voluntary. Several IRS Commissioners have, on record, attested to that fact. It is voluntary because people are voluntarily accepting foreign statuses "gifted" to them.
It's why you fill out the 1040 form yourself. It is your choice, and you are assumed to know if you need to do it.
"We" (Americans) are supposed to have Fee-Simple grants to our soil, not alloidal "Title" (which is a grant from the Queen). It probably should be re-iterated that U.S. Citizens and citizens of the United States -cannot- own property in this country, they can only rent it (and pay ground rent in the form of "use tax/property tax" in so doing).
Americans are Americans, United Statesians are United Statesians. Until and unless you correct the presumption that you are the latter, you cannot claim to be the former.
Re what IRS levies not being direct and un-apportioned is implicit as per my article re: color of law voluntary gifting sleight of hand.
You are wrong on allodial as Framers defined it since clearly they were anti-queen etc.
fee simple absolute does not protect us against property taxes which are illegal.
anyhow, good luck arguing any of this in court.
I am not arguing that they are not using sleight of hand.
That is the root of all of this. They are stealing people from the Land of their birth, telling them that they are "Employees" ("Citizens") before they can even speak yay or nay, and then taxing what they make as if it is "Federally Connected."
Fee simple has worked just fine in the several cases I have assisted with. The key, as I have been saying, is ensuring you have correct status and standing. And I never "argue" anything in court. That is for fools, and inevitably leads to a bad outcome.
Courts of limited jurisdiction usually involve a Status Hearing, and immediate dismissal. This ain't my first rodeo, and the last line made me smile.
U.S. Citizens absolutely owe property taxes, since -they are here as temporary residents only.- Alloidal -Title- is a grant of nobility (all "Titles" are). Americans cannot accept foreign Titles, as it compromises their status. We hold our land rent-free because it belongs to us.
I realize you don't know me, but I am not bringing this up in a "theoretical" mode, but from direct experience. As always, given freely, yours to do with as you choose. If what you are advocating/doing works, then more's the better.
Given what you have written, I am scared to ask what your win/lose court ratio is.
Fee simple allows for prop taxes which should never be paid irrespective of State's Rights and the residents "owning" their home in the sovereign nation state.....
If you were to actually do some research you would know that certain states like Nevada actually do grant Allodial Title for property, rare as it is.
Anyhow, good luck to you.
My "win/lose" ratio? I am an American, thus not an attorney.
I have succeeded every time in extricating Americans that have been kidnapped into foreign jurisdiction, with dismissal in every instance. Improper venue and lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
It would be the same if a Canadian court swooped in and kidnapped them. Foreign jurisdictions are foreign. They are just used to easy, intimidated prey that don't know who they are.
I suppose my question should be "have you corrected your status, or are you still functioning as a U.S. Employee (citizen)?"
That makes all the difference.
"States of States" are business entities, federal franchises, and have no "sovereignty." An entity that is chartered by another cannot, by definition, be "sovereign." "States" are Land jurisdiction Nations. "states" are soil jurisdiction estates upon which people live.
Anyone that is knowingly functioning as a foreign government services employee/resident here (U.S. Citizens/citizens of the United States), cannot own property. If you think that is untrue, stop paying your property taxes, or your "vehicle registrations."
There are no "rights" for British Tories or Roman slaves upon the 50 states. And you can argue until you are blue in the face, but the fact remains, unless the record has been corrected, you are presumed to be crazy. It's horrific, and I am not advocating it. But it is the configuration space as of now.
Try bringing up "The" Constitution in court (never mind there are three of them). The hired jurist will likely threaten you with contempt if you bring it up again. Employees cannot use their service contracts to extricate themselves from their employee obligations.
After all, you are already guilty if you are a citizen of the United States (definition of a 14th Amendment citizen is "criminal.").
We are saying the same thing, but the fact that the last 160 years have been a deliberate mind-fu** and literal war against Americans makes it difficult to see.
Most of the current "proposed solutions" are dummy-loads, designed to get people to expend time and resources on a dead end. These criminals have had almost two centuries to fine-tune their grift. They have culled the strong and the brave, and have subjected the survivors to non-stop psychological warfare.
I thank you for your well-wishes, and sincerely send you the same.