Major 'Income tax' and 'Jurisdiction' loophole may actullly work

This is likely to be very important to legal people and 'Sovereigns' in the US.

n a nutshell, a man in Texas, named John Parks Trowbridge, Jr., had an IRS tax case. His ranch had a lien placed on it. He went through the court system all the way to the supreme court and has apparently won. What he found out is that the federal and US district courts, both criminal and civil, have no jurisdiction outside of DC and the Territories (Guam, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, etc.).

Link

Seems it has relevance to the Bundy Ranch and now the Hammond case. Only today I have been reading about this type of thing that goes on in the US. This could be a major breakthrough in the legal 'curtain' in the US, lets hope so.

For those interested the linked website below has this document on it "Final Judgment and Civil Orders 2014" which I read today which is all about the subject matter of this thread.

www.annavonreitz.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">Link


cheers.

a reply to: Azureblue

The most telling thing I ever saw about the IRS was the expose that Aaron Russou did. I think I spelled his name right.

He actually goes around talking to legal professionals and lawyers, as well as the head of the IRS himself, who offers to clear things up. Instead the very head of the IRS threatens him in Yiddish (he tells him no one will help him), claims that the IRS makes the supreme court irrelevant and also tells him that the IRS makes it own laws.

It's truly a disastrous state of affairs you have in America at the moment. I feel sorry for you people who live there, healthcare costs, IRS, taxes on purchases separate from the prices shown....

Here's the docu


You'll not straight away how many 'likes' it has. It's a very VERY telling piece of journalism that, in the end, leaves you feeling a tad too uncomfortable. It's like a John Pilger documentary.

originally posted by: Joneselius
a reply to: Azureblue

The most telling thing I ever saw about the IRS was the expose that Aaron Russou did. I think I spelled his name right.

He actually goes around talking to legal professionals and lawyers, as well as the head of the IRS himself, who offers to clear things up. Instead the very head of the IRS threatens him in Yiddish (he tells him no one will help him), claims that the IRS makes the supreme court irrelevant and also tells him that the IRS makes it own laws.

It's truly a disastrous state of affairs you have in America at the moment. I feel sorry for you people who live there, healthcare costs, IRS, taxes on purchases separate from the prices shown....

Here's the docu

You'll not straight away how many 'likes' it has. It's a very VERY telling piece of journalism that, in the end, leaves you feeling a tad too uncomfortable. It's like a John Pilger documentary.

Spot on, the IRS is a rogue agency. It is time to repeal the 16th amendment and eliminate it entirely.

I have looked into many legal arguments which all have merit but, in order to get a job under the current requirements you must voluntarily participate so they become moot points for the average citizen who doesn't realize the legal implications of the contracts that they sign.

The only solution is to wipe their statutory authority from the books and begin anew, there is no salvageable component to the IRS.

originally posted by: Azureblue
This is likely to be very important to legal people and 'Sovereigns' in the US.

n a nutshell, a man in Texas, named John Parks Trowbridge, Jr., had an IRS tax case. His ranch had a lien placed on it. He went through the court system all the way to the supreme court and has apparently won. What he found out is that the federal and US district courts, both criminal and civil, have no jurisdiction outside of DC and the Territories (Guam, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, etc.).

What makes you think he won? He lost....

quatloos.com...

a reply to: Azureblue

I was aware of this.

Also, the entire court system has a huge wrinkle in it.

People need to open their eyes to the possibility that YOU have more power than you think. As a group, we can overcome being sheeple. Peacefully.

a reply to: Azureblue


Let us supposed that if the normal fed agencies have no hold or control on that gent's property or life, then he has no rights outside of that property. It would seem that he would need a passport or visa from his chunk of property to even set foot off of that property. If in effect, not in good standing with the typical agencies and facilities that allow him to live and prosper, he would be subject to an absolute isolation from every thing this country has to offer including the right to sue. But, honestly, such an ideology has carefully built in loop holes safeguarding what the claimant's many needs from the society being disowned.

In truth, most of this "sovereignty" business is silly. It is merely an extreme version of "entitlement" thinking. The mindset is that "You owe me Uncle Sam, and I owe you nothing in return."

a reply to: greencmp

debt is formed from contracts.

Follow the bread crumbs of how we unknowingly yet willingly give up our individual sovereignity and you'll then better know how to regain it.

originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to: greencmp

debt is formed from contracts.

Follow the bread crumbs of how we unknowingly yet willingly give up our individual sovereignity and you'll then better know how to regain it.

And to be indebted to the IRS is a bad contract, don't sign that W2 and you have a chance. Of course, nearly everyone has already signed that contract so, it is a moot point.

The only way to halt the direction we are going in is to repeal the 16th amendment and disband the IRS completely.

Let the states absorb the responsibility of direct taxation of their own citizens as the constitution intended.

Even without any reduction in actual taxation, purse string control would be more appropriately allocated to the states and citizens could vote with their feet again in response to overtaxation.

a reply to: greencmp

It is not a moot point because you can end a contract.

Better yet, educate yourself on how NOT to enter in such contracts.

originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to: greencmp

It is not a moot point because you can end a contract.

Better yet, educate yourself on how NOT to enter in such contracts.

Why do you want to keep the IRS?

It seems like we should be in agreement and I am suggesting a much better solution than fighting the IRS in court.

a reply to: greencmp

I did not say I wanted to keep the IRS, did I?

originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to: greencmp

I did not say I wanted to keep the IRS, did I?

Good, I just couldn't understand why you reemphasized the litigative avenue which not everybody is capable of.

a reply to: Azureblue

in a nutshell - your own source is unsure if he won or lost .

a reply to: greencmp

But everyone is capable. The court system being available to only those wealthy enough is false. Wealthy people hire others to do their bidding. While not widely popular, everyone can represent themselves in the US court system with few exceptions.

There needs to be mass interest in WHY the very core and foundational function, that of law, is less about justice and more about making money in every possible way. We let this become what it is.

We let the IRS do what they do.

Implied consent with complacency... Stop this!

a reply to: greencmp

You do not sign a W2. You sign a W4 - 'VOLUNTARY' witholding agreement. It is voluntary, all you agree to do by signing it, is make your employer a federal witholding agent, and allow them to presume that YOU perform 'the functions of a public office'.

The 16th amendment didn't grant any new powers of taxation. A tax on 'federal' income from whatever source derived is constitutional. Recall the origin of the IRC is the 'public salary tax act'. Congress has direct legislative control over the seat of government (DC) and its employees.

The government uses franchises (SSA, VA, Loans, etc) to dupe people into contracting with them and become federal employees, with a domicile in DC. You can have many residences, but only one legal domicile, and saying yours is in DC (by hook or by crook) is bad business.

I cannot wait to see someone say having a SSN is mandatory.

Can cite my points better when off the mobile...and actually pull and read the legit transcript.

a reply to: NewzNose

There is so much chaos in the courts over taxation... One must really be on their A-game.

I'll lead with this- Senator Elihu Root on the complexity of the law in the first Income Tax Act under the 16th Amendment.

"I guess you will have to go to jail. If that is the result of not understanding the Income Tax Law I shall meet you there. We shall have a merry, merry time, for all of our friends will be there. It will be an intellectual center, for no one understands the Income Tax Law except persons who have not sufficient intelligence to understand the questions that arise under it."

[Federa] District Court, SCOTUS, Claims and Tax Courts cannot diffinitively answer the following questions: What sectionof the IRC requires the filing of an income tax return? Is the Income tax a direct tax or exise tax?

Here is an abridged list of many judicial disputes that just circle nowhere in answering the above:

In Commissioner v. Lane Wells Co., 321 U.S. 219, 222, 64S.ct. 511, 513 (1944)
Cited sub section 6001 of the IRC

True v. United States, 354 F.2d. 323, 324 (Ct.Cl. 1965)
White v. Commissioner, 72 U.S.T.C. 1126, 1129 (1979)
Beard v. Commissioner, 793 F.2d 426, 427, (11th Cir. 1986)
And among others cited sub section 6011 of the IRC

United States v. Hicks, 947 F.2d. 1356. 1360 (9th Cir. 1991)
Also United States v. Moore (7th Cir. 1980) and United States v. Dawes (10th Cir 1991) added it was sub section 6011 and 6012 of the IRC.

Steinbrecher v. Commissioner, 712 F.2d. 195, 198 (5th Cir. 1983) among United States v.Neff (11th Cir. 1992) and United States v. Bowers (4th Cir. 1990) only held it was section 6012.

Then ther is the odd bal United States v. Pilcher, 672 F.2d. 875, 877 (11th Cir. 1982) that held it was sub section 7203.

So, where is the requirement to file (let alone define a true tax liability) articulated? The Courts don't even know.

Heck, even the SCOTUS has refused to define due process as it pertains to the assessment and collection of taxes. [Turpin v. Lemon, 187 U.S. 51, 23 S.Ct. 20 (1902)] Which makes no sense since due process REQUIRES that the law for any 'duty' imposed be so clear and unambiguous that those subject to it can comprehend its applicability to their person.

I would hate, hate, hate taking a tax issue to court.

originally posted by: J.B. Aloha
a reply to: greencmp

You do not sign a W2. You sign a W4 - 'VOLUNTARY' witholding agreement. It is voluntary, all you agree to do by signing it, is make your employer a federal witholding agent, and allow them to presume that YOU perform 'the functions of a public office'.

The 16th amendment didn't grant any new powers of taxation. A tax on 'federal' income from whatever source derived is constitutional. Recall the origin of the IRC is the 'public salary tax act'. Congress has direct legislative control over the seat of government (DC) and its employees.

The government uses franchises (SSA, VA, Loans, etc) to dupe people into contracting with them and become federal employees, with a domicile in DC. You can have many residences, but only one legal domicile, and saying yours is in DC (by hook or by crook) is bad business.

I cannot wait to see someone say having a SSN is mandatory.

Can cite my points better when off the mobile...and actually pull and read the legit transcript.

I guess it has been a long time since I was an employee!



It doesn't sound like you disagree with me though.

The 16th amendment granted direct taxation powers of state citizens to the federal government. Before it only states could levy income taxes on their citizens.

I propose we fix that by repealing the 16th and return that power exclusively to the states.

originally posted by: greencmp

It doesn't sound like you disagree with me though.

The 16th amendment granted direct taxation powers of state citizens to the federal government. Before it only states could levy income taxes on their citizens.

I propose we fix that by repealing the 16th and return that power exclusively to the states.

I do not disagree with you at all, my point is that when we get into the brass tacks, the 16th Amendment is moot in and of itself as Congress cannot directly tax those with domiciles in any state of the Union, they must co-opt them into the federal 'trade or business' franchise as an 'employee', usually through [contractual/voluntary] participation in a federal 'trust' or other type of 'public right'.

But, aside from the obvious error of the proposition, intrinsically considered, it manifestly disregards the fact that by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed [240 U.S. 103, 113] in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived,-that is, by testing the tax not by what it was, a tax on income, but by a mistaken theory deduced from the origin or source of the income taxed. Mark, of course, in saying this we are not here considering a tax not within the provisions of the 16th Amendment, that is, one in which the regulation of apportionment or the rule of uniformity is wholly negligible because the tax is one entirely beyond the scope of the taxing power of Congress, and where consequently sequently no authority to impose a burden, either direct or indirect, exists. In other words, we are here dealing solely with the restriction imposed by the 16th Amendment on the right to resort to the source whence an income is derived in a case where there is power to tax for the purpose of taking the income tax out of the class of indirect, to which it generically belongs, and putting it in the class of direct, to which it would not otherwise belong, in order to subject it to the regulation of apportionment.

Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co (1916)

Likewise -

The Sixteenth Amendment, although referred to in argument, has no real bearing and may be put out of view. As pointed out in recent decisions, it does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects, but merely removes all occasion, which otherwise might exist, for an apportionment among the states of taxes [247 U.S. 165, 173] laid on income, whether it be derived from one source or another. Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 , 17-19, 36 Sup. Ct. 236, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 713, L. R. A. 1917D, 414; Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 , 112-113, 36 Sup. Ct. 278.

William E. Peck & Co. v. Lowe (1918)

And, If we go back to the original legislative intent of the 44 Cong.Rec. and Taft, we can see this in the record... Please note I only have hand made copies at the moment I am citing. I have yet to find a reliable online facsimile of this record.

44 Cong.Rec. 3344 (June 16, 1909) - "This is an excise tax upon the privilege of doing business as an artificial entity and the freedom from a general partnership liability enjoyed by those who own the stock."

44 Cong.Rec. 4028 (1909)- "It is a tax upon the business and privileges of a corporation, and the measure of the tax is the net profits of the corporation."

These are just some highlights... it is much, much deeper.

Let us not forget the definition of 'income' is convoluted at best, but we know this:

...it becomes essential to distinguish between what is and what is not "income," as the term is there used; and to apply the distinction, as cases arise, 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 alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised.

Eisner v. Macomber (1920)

My whole point, is Congress can and does levy and tax the life out of what it has exclusive legislative control over, i.e. DC, Federal territory, and Federal employees. The only way they can 'tax' the income of someone domiciled in a state of the union is if they voluntarily choose to derive a federal benefit or participate in a federal 'protection' franchise - and voluntarily choosing to be a federal employee and domiciled in DC in the process.

In this context, the 16th Amendment did not grant any new powers of taxation, and it is constitutional when applied across the territories in which congress has exclusive legislative jurisdiction: which are not the states of the Union.

But still, I am not arguing against you, per se.

a reply to: hellobruce

SCOTUS denied to hear the case as well. Can't say that anything he presented conferred a 'reasonable belief' about tax liability [in general].

a reply to: J.B. Aloha

I would hate, hate, hate taking a tax issue to court

Why?.

I possess a letter of dismissal from the IRS, with 5 wet signatures on it, closing a case brought on me in 2011. I owed nothing! Knew I owed nothing. Proved I owed nothing.

I paid no one, sought no one's assistance, and did it myself.

It is possible to do.