FBI targets "Sovereign Citizens"

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by 4by4dave

 

Talk about a useful idiot. When jurisdiction is properly challenged, the charges are dropped and no trial moves forward. Without a trial there is no case law to cite. How many time must I explain this?

If folks out there who are reading this can't see whats going on with this ridiculous and dangerous sovereignty stuff by now, then America is in more trouble that I was afraid of.

I just asked this poster to please prove their claims of having won a sovereignty case by providing links to the case itself on publicly available websites and the only reponse that was provided was more "take it on faith" nonsense.

It's simple question. You can't answer it because you were lying in the first place.

Originally posted by 4by4dave

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by 4by4dave

 

Talk about a useful idiot. When jurisdiction is properly challenged, the charges are dropped and no trial moves forward. Without a trial there is no case law to cite. How many time must I explain this?

If folks out there who are reading this can't see whats going on with this ridiculous and dangerous sovereignty stuff by now, then America is in more trouble that I was afraid of.

I just asked this poster to please prove their claims of having won a sovereignty case by providing links to the case itself on publicly available websites and the only reponse that was provided was more "take it on faith" nonsense.

It's simple question. You can't answer it because you were lying in the first place.

And this poster who has accused me of lying is now clearly lying. I made perfectly clear that I did not make any arguments of sovereignty and all I did was challenge jurisdiction. That is all. Yet, clearly this poster has a desperate agenda, so desperate lying even though anyone reading the posts knows he is lying.

If legislation does not conform to the constitution, that legislation has no legal weight. To stupidly walk into court and enter a plea when charged for violating this bogus legislation, is to beg for the mercy of the court. Clearly this poster wants you to make a plea, but if the law is unconstitutional then making a plea is not necessary and all need be done is challenge the jurisdiction. The judge might attempt to dismiss these challenges, but I have posted several citations of case law in previous posts in this thread, that are case law that can be used to convince the judge that if the legislation has legal authority, then it becomes the judge who must prove on record this is so.

Take note how easily offended this poster was by the use of the phrase anti-sovereignty movement, and take note at how desperate this poster is to stop people from coming to know the law. Sleep well.

Originally posted by ProjectJimmy
It is interesting that this idea of Sovereign Citizens still is believed by so many after being so completely debunked. I think it's because it is seen as a kind of holy grail for people whom do not like the idea of a government. It's got a lot of the promises that some Libertarians and Anarchists have been wanting for a long time.

Just looking at how rabidly some of the members of this site defend it, and from the discussions I had earlier this month in the United States, it's like a promised land really, somewhere over the horizon, but there are people that believe it absolutely, positively exists despite all of the judicial evidence.

Actually, I know a lot of anarchists and it was an anarchist that introduced me to this sovereignty thing and then took great efforts to walk me through the laws proving that the whole thing is false. He said other anarchists are concerned about this movement because it gives people false hope and arms them with lies to support that false hope. Id be careful about blanketing that "anarchists" in general have been hoping for this. He said it also encourages feelings of supremacy by making it easy for so-called sovereigns to claim themselves better for being "truly free" while everyone else is a "slave" to the "corporate government". Said that that mindset is inherently dangerous and leads to violence, as all supremacist arguments do.

Another thing he mentioned is that the whole movement is devolving ideas of personal responsibility, which anarchists are very big into in my area, which to them means that one is responsible wholly for 100% of their actions and personal responsibility means accepting whatever consequeces come out of your actions, but the sovereigns are claiming that they are not responsible to anyone and that no one can hold them accountable other than God or themselves.

His biggest concern was that it was serving as a very thorough distraction, being that it requires huge amounts of reading of a whole bunch of meaningless crap which keeps people from learning about different ways that they can make a real difference and a real positive change in their communities.

The whole sovereign citizen mindset seemed very dangerous to me when I was talking with him, and as I researched more deeply into it I realized he was right. It is dangerous.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by 4by4dave

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by 4by4dave

 

Talk about a useful idiot. When jurisdiction is properly challenged, the charges are dropped and no trial moves forward. Without a trial there is no case law to cite. How many time must I explain this?

If folks out there who are reading this can't see whats going on with this ridiculous and dangerous sovereignty stuff by now, then America is in more trouble that I was afraid of.

I just asked this poster to please prove their claims of having won a sovereignty case by providing links to the case itself on publicly available websites and the only reponse that was provided was more "take it on faith" nonsense.

It's simple question. You can't answer it because you were lying in the first place.

And this poster who has accused me of lying is now clearly lying. I made perfectly clear that I did not make any arguments of sovereignty and all I did was challenge jurisdiction. That is all. Yet, clearly this poster has a desperate agenda, so desperate lying even though anyone reading the posts knows he is lying.

If legislation does not conform to the constitution, that legislation has no legal weight. To stupidly walk into court and enter a plea when charged for violating this bogus legislation, is to beg for the mercy of the court. Clearly this poster wants you to make a plea, but if the law is unconstitutional then making a plea is not necessary and all need be done is challenge the jurisdiction. The judge might attempt to dismiss these challenges, but I have posted several citations of case law in previous posts in this thread, that are case law that can be used to convince the judge that if the legislation has legal authority, then it becomes the judge who must prove on record this is so.

Take note how easily offended this poster was by the use of the phrase anti-sovereignty movement, and take note at how desperate this poster is to stop people from coming to know the law. Sleep well.

Challenging jurisdiction is the first argument made in any "sovereignty" case. All the sovereign law-hawkers advise people to always start off any court case by challenging jurisdiction and you are guaranteed to have your case dismissed because the corporate courts, operating under contract law instead of common law have no jurisdiction over a common law person. Its often what gets people thrown in jail.

Yeah, Ill concede that you have explained and explained and explained. I won't accuse you of not trying to get folks to take you on faith by saying the same thing over and over again. My issue is that in spite of all the "explaining" you have done, you have not provided one shred of proof or even circumstantial evidence. All you have done was talk talk talk with nothing to back up what youre saying except more of what youre saying.
For the third time, could you please provide a link -or at LEAST a case reference number so I can look it up myself- to which case you successfully "challenged jurisdiction."

[edit on 25-4-2010 by 4by4dave]

[edit on 25-4-2010 by 4by4dave]

reply to post by 4by4dave


This is all you are doing blah, blah, blah, and stupidly demanding I prove a negative. You have no understanding of law. No person is required to prove jurisdiction does not exist, if jurisdiction exists then it can be shown by statute, code, or ordinance that it does, and the court party asserting it must show on record that it does exist. Any statute, code or ordinance that contradicts state constitution or federal, can and should be challenged.

Folks. This is your "sovereign citizen" or "sovereign" -depending on who you ask- right here. Someone who is so clueless and scared of being called out for being clueless that they immediately resort to strawman and ad hominem arguments to try and prove that they've answered a simple question without actually answering it.

If anyone who clicks on this thread and reads these last few posts and still thinks that this is for real...well..good for them. I used to believe in the tooth fairy too. This is dangerous separatist thinking that is doing nothing but dividing the people of this country even more and whats worse, its arming people with the type of idiocy that usually resorts to either psychological or physical violence to defend the supremacy their idiocy.

This is why the feds are trying to keep this thing going. So more and more people will get sucked into it, and when they finally come down on these astroturfed domestic terror cells of "sovereign citizens" the "cells" will be big enough to effectively scare the crap out of already skittish Americans and can easily justify the final crackdown on American freedom.

This will be my last post in this thread becasue there is nothing more I can say without this going around in even more circles. Im sure some other astute person will come along soon enough and continue to talk sense, and the less people that hooked in to this trap the less successful the next false flag attack will be if it isnt prevented outright.

reply to post by 4by4dave


Folks this is your "decent upstanding citizen" who only wants to protect you from your own freedom and inherent political power. He is counting on you being clueless of law and counting on you to believe that you are powerless to take your rightful place as a sovereign being and demand your government, of which all power flows directly from you, obey the rule of law.

These people will do all they can to convince you that you have no legal authority and are subject to legislation. Legislation is not law, but merely serves as evidence of law. All law is universal and all people subject to it. If legislation is disobeying that law, it must not be allowed to function as law.

They will blah, blah, blah, and do all they can to scare the crap out of you, with veiled threats of showdowns with federal governments and non sense that has nothing at all to do with the rule of law. If you are indeed reading this, then you should not take anybody's word for it, and find the information for yourself. Not by buying into the crap they have been selling you, and clearly they are attempting to steer you towards David Gales and Guardian Founders whatever, and Orly Taitz', but stay away from that crap and learn the law, because in the end, the judges these dubious posters would have you believe won't listen to you most certainly will...most of the time, and when they are resistant, it really doesn't take much to break down that resistance, because unlike these posters trying to scare you, judges tend to know the law.

The first time I ever successfully challenged the jurisdiction, I did not challenge the jurisdiction to the legislation, but that of the police officer who arrested me. I was living in Chicago at the time, and was out drinking with some friends and while walking home I had to pee. I stopped in a few places who wouldn't let me use their bathroom, so I finally went into an alleyway and hid behind a dumpster to pee, while my friends acted as a look out.

Clearly, when the squad car that passed by saw my two friends acting as lookout for me, while I hid behind a dumpster, they had good reason to check out what was going on. However, when they discovered all that was going on was me peeing, they arrested me and charged me with indecent exposure. There was no way in hell I was going to plead not guilty to a sexual offense and have that on my record. So, at court, when the judge read the charges against me and asked me if I understood the charges, I answered no. The judge asked me what was so hard to understand about indecent exposure.

I explained to the judge that I was peeing behind a dumpster, while my friends, both present in court, acted as look out and they did so to make sure no one saw my penis while I peed. The court room bust out laughing, the judge smacked his gavel and called for order, and looked at the cop and asked if this was true. The cop said yes. He then asked the cop why he charged me with a sexual offense. The cop explained that he couldn't find any statute, code or ordinance that prohibited my activity and that was it. The judge was furious with cop and told that officer he had no jurisdiction to just pick whatever code he thought best fit the situation and told him he better make damn sure he doesn't make that mistake again.

The judge then looked at me and kindly apologized and informed me that there would be a court cost. I started to object, but he held up his hand before I could speak and looked at the police officer and told him that he would have to pay the court costs. The judge then turned back to me, apologized again, and dropped the charges.

That was my first experience with properly challenging jurisdiction. I did not claim I was immune to any law, I did not assert any sovereignty, and clearly the judge recognized my sovereignty and treated me with the appropriate respect. He apologized for taking my time. He made the culprit of this treachery pay the court cost. He acted as any just and honorable person would. There was no need to get all huffy and make wild ass assertions, no need for emotion, it was simple and it was lawful and just.

But by all means don't take my word for it. In fact, take these other guys words and be afraid, be very afraid, it makes no difference to me. The information is out there for you to learn for yourself. There is a right way to do things and a wrong way to do things. While jurisdiction can actually be challenged at any time, it is best to challenge before ever making a plea. But, it is probably best you be really, really, scared, and don't take matters into your hand and leave that for the experts, God knows you are all powerless, so be afraid, be very afraid.

reply to post by rnaa


Damn right, rnaa, Social Security is a Trust Fund.

Trust Fund
Property (e.g, money or securities) held in a trust; that is, property held legally by one party (the legal owner) for the benefit of another party (the equitable owner). The legal owner, or trustee, has the right of possession and the right of use of the property, but must exercise those rights to the benefit of the equitable owner, or beneficiary. In Anglo-American law, trust funds are set up principally for family settlements and for charitable giving. In the commercial sector, trust funds are often set up to provide for employee pensions and profit-sharing programs.

source

I am the legal owner of my trust, and no body can touch it, legally, without my express permission. This is UCC Law. You can go into a courtroom certify that you are on record, State for the record that you are Beneficiary of the Trust, name the Judge Trustee over the Trust, and order him/her to pay you a stipend from the court fund for taking up your valuable time.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Quite right I learnt in basic law that legislation was not law, and was actually subject to real laws, though most of the time it isn't challenged enough by citizens. I also learnt intrinsic law is, that if you understand and believe something to be a crime against humanity, a crime in any way, then obeying it is a criminal act! This is intrinsic law, basic, beyond the mountain of psuedo legistlations and legal mumbo jumbo they heap on top.

By the way, this is also why people often wonder, in those few cases where legislation is taken to court, courts have ruled against legislation and people wonder how they have won. Its based on the premise of law, verus legislation.

However, I am a sovereign and yet cooperative and don't want to behave in a way that would harm self and others, but if pushed I would perform a citizens arrest on any of them and not back down, even if they behave brutally. I do not give consent to this system, do not endorse it. Their legislations do not erradicate my constitutional rights, but even further, their constitutional rights do not erradicate my sovereign ones.



[edit on 25-4-2010 by Unity_99]

It even goes beyond what you consider to be a crime, therefore it would be criminal to obey. Think guys, of all the recent legislation for the past 10 years, most of these are crimes! Even laws prohibiting people from access and use of natural substances or rights and access to intrinsic land and resources of this planet is all treason and crimes against humanity.

But many of their documents, for example, NAAFTA and Freetrade, NAU, anything like this are TREASON. For example NAAFTA included one section that alone was treason, by anyones standard. That was erecting an international corporate panetl to overview and punish any country that was blocking the income and potential profit of a foreign body to conduct business there, even if their business violated the soveriegn legal rights of the nation to erect their own legistaltions. Ie. a classic case in Canada involved a US company wishing to put a factory here to produce a banned toxin. And the Tribunal made Canada pay out for this loss of "potential income".

In law, any paragraph in a contract that is illegal NULLS AND VOIDS the entire contract. Treason is a crime. Any legistaltion that puts a foreign tribunal over the rights of a sovereign nation to conduct its own business and deterimine its own legislation to protect its citizens from abuse of foreign corporations, IS TREASON.
NAAFTA is voided, with no expectation of fines to withdraw from it. The entire document is evidence of treason and the signatures on it should be arrested.

There are many examples like that. I recall a certain legistlation Bush signed just after 9/11 that basially destroyed your constitution. That whole document is null and void too, just so you know. It has clauses and paragraphs pertaining to things that are unconstitutional. That document is a crime, and proof of the crime is in its wording, and admission of guilt is in the signatures signed.

[edit on 25-4-2010 by Unity_99]

reply to post by Unity_99
'

Thank you for posting. The law is always self evident and requires no explanation. No one needs explained to them why murder, rape, and theft is against the law. Conversely there are literally hundreds of thousands of statutes, codes and ordinances currently on the books, most require some sort of explanation, and what is that explanation? Lo and behold it is the same explanation that these anti-sovereignty people offer...its for your own good.

The irony of such an explanation is that if the legislation is for our own good it would be self evident and require no explanation at all. The priest class lawyers who have usurped our Constitutional republic will do all they can to convince the people that the people are not capable of understanding the law. This is the purpose for legalese, in the same way ancient mystics spoke a language unknown to their laity. Even so, the law remains self evident.

Today, if you go to any lawyer and ask that person how it is you became liable for the income tax they will tell you to talk to a tax lawyer, but if you talk to a tax lawyer, that person can't answer the simple questions of law and the more you keep pushing the sooner that tax attorney will tell you that if you don't comply you will need a criminal attorney, but the criminal attorney will readily admit they know nothing about tax law, and round and round we go, stand, sit, kneel, stand, sit, kneel, Amen.

reply to post by mothershipzeta


So haven't they got other mor eimportant terrorists likes fundamental moslems and neo nazi's. Not to ignore the left -after the bars close!!

reply to post by autowrench

I am the legal owner of my trust, and no body can touch it, legally, without my express permission. This is UCC Law. You can go into a courtroom certify that you are on record, State for the record that you are Beneficiary of the Trust, name the Judge Trustee over the Trust, and order him/her to pay you a stipend from the court fund for taking up your valuable time.

Quite right. IF the Trustee is violating the terms of the trust deed.

If, for example, the trust deed says you can only realize the benefits when you reach the age of 21, and you are only 18, then your court challenge would fail.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Both Sections 7 and 8 of Article I support my contention that Congress has the complete and plenary power of taxation.

Glad we agree. As long as we are agreeing that it is the power only to levy taxes, which requires a Act of Congress which is executed by the Executive branch headed by the President.

Your citation of Article II Section 1 is only relevant in that the IRS by default fall under the Treasury Department, being a part of the Executive branches cabinet.

Not by default at all. Because of Article 2 Sections 1, 2, and 3. The Constitution doesn't give Congress the authority to execute its laws, it gives that job to the President. This is a direct answer to Westminister system that the UK operates under where the executive is vested in Parliament, and which 'the founders' found led to many of the abuses of power that was the root cause of the revolution, especially with respect to taxation.

By definition, the Congress does not execute laws. The Executive branch does.

What do you mean 'by default' in this context?

Article I Section 2 establishes an authority for Congress to create an administrative agency such as the IRS, (and it is Congress that created this agency), and to a lesser extent allowing the Courts to interpret legislation regarding taxation.

No it doesn't. Article 1 Section 2 defines the eligibility and apportionment for House of Representatives.

So I assume you made a typo and meant Article 2 Section 2. And you are wrong, (unless I am missing which direction the typo is going - please correct me if so).

That provision doesn't doesn't establish an authority for Congress to do anything or create anything. Article 2 is about the Executive. Section 2 is describing the role of the President and in no way authorizes Congress to do anything other than grant the President the authority to make minor appointments without needing to consult it over every personnel decision. It also includes the 'checks and balances' provisions that the President must consult with Senate on appointments (and therefor the structure of the Cabinet) and treaties.

Article II, Section 3 is again another irrelevant citation as the President has nothing at all to do with the enforcement of taxes, except for the fact that the Treasurer falls within his purview, all the President can do is choose who that Treasurer is.

See the comments above. The President is the Executive, Congress is the Legislative. Congress passes laws, The President executes the laws.

Can see the pattern yet? I know this is the crux of your argument: Congress levied the taxes and created the IRS to manage it, therefore it is the Congress that is responsible for executing the provisions and supervising the IRS. But you are being selectively blind.

If the Congress passes a law, the President is charged with execution of that law. If Congress creates the IRS, it is the President that is in charge of the IRS, because the Constitution says so. Not because the IRS is 'by default' under the purview of the Treasurer, who is in turn under the authority of the President. Because the Constitution says that the President is responsible for the execution of the laws.

It is not irrelevant at all. It is the exact point.

Finally Article III, Section I merely establishes a limited jurisdiction for the SCOTUS.

Yes, it limits the jurisdiction, by positively giving it the exact jurisdiction required to interpret the Constitution and the laws passed by Legislature and the actions of the Executive.

The exact jurisdiction required to interpret those rules and judge the merits of the tax law cases brought before it. The jurisdiction to rule on claims of 'Sovereignty' or 'the IRS is illegal' or any of the other myriad attempts along these lines and to find them ridiculous on their face.


(edit: grammar)

[edit on 26/4/2010 by rnaa]

reply to post by rnaa

The exact jurisdiction required to interpret those rules and judge the merits of the tax law cases brought before it. The jurisdiction to rule on claims of 'Sovereignty' or 'the IRS is illegal' or any of the other myriad attempts along these lines and to find them ridiculous on their face.

This is not at all what I am arguing. You keep ascribing other peoples arguments to me. Look, we can quibble all you want about who created the IRS and who has authority over that agency, that just doesn't matter, and that is what I mean by irrelevant. Whomever is enforcing this law, is bound by the rule of law.

If a person has been made liable for a tax, this means they are necessarily subject to that revenue law, and it matters not if this person is sovereign or a citizen, if a tax is owed, it must be paid. That is the nature of debt, and let me remind you, at this point I am simply restating my first reply to you.

I have not once argued that a sovereign is not subject to the same laws as others, never have I made this argument. What I am saying is that when it comes to the enforcement of taxation, all taxes come with a subject, and there is certainly no statute, nor even Amendment that offers us a subjectless tax. If the subject of this income tax is income directly, then Congress is bound by Constitution to apportion that tax among the several states, if the subject is an indirect tax on some specific activity, then Congress must make the tax uniform across the states. If it is an indirect tax then a specific activity is the subject of that tax and those who engage in that activity are liable for the tax.

If this tax is actually an indirect tax, but those enforcing it are treating it as if it were a direct tax, then they are operating outside of the bounds of their jurisdiction. This is my argument. The IRC is a five volume set so tautological and circumlocutory in its definitions that I have not yet met a single soul who understands this legislation, myself included. How can any one possibly enforce a law they don't understand?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

...What is important in this assessment of their own origins is not that they gloss over the actual evolution of it, but that they contradict themselves from one paragraph to the next...

Well, I certainly agree that their brief history leaves much to be desired.

There is no question that Congress has always had the authority to levy an income tax, and Springer certainly upheld that authority.

The controversy is only about what can be classed as income for such an indirect, unapportioned tax. Pollock only struck down the 1894 attempt to tax rental property and dividends and the like as income. Pollock found that these taxes were effectively a taxation on property, and therefore were direct taxes.

Pollack did not strike down a general income tax, it only struck down an unapportioned tax on income from rents and dividends and the like. Likewise, the 16th amendment did not authorize a general income tax, it only authorized an unapportioned tax on income from rents and dividends and the like.

Your attack about leaving out the direct tax provisions, etc, in my listing of pertinent areas of the Constitution is unjustified. I am pretty sure that I have already explained the issues around Pollock in earlier posts in this thread to another poster. Not my problem if you haven't read those posts, and the point of that section was not to show that Congress had the authority to levy an Income Tax, per se, but to show that Congress enacts law and the President executes the law.

Sovereignty (in your meaning of the word) is a will-o-the-wisp. It doesn't exist, and no hallucination will make it so. There have been dozens of cases of people claiming to be sovereign in one way or another, how many have succeeded? Exactly Zero!

Yes! Precisely! There is exactly Zero case because the sovereign was successful and thus no trial took place. Hello! But you continue with your remarkably dim understanding of law, and by continue I mean backwards, with this;

You have totally misread that paragraph, dude. And you have your 'criteria' for success is totally and completely bass-ackwards.

The claimants to 'sovereignty' have failed in every case. If they were claiming they didn't have to pay tax because of 'sovereignty' they lost and had to pay the tax. This is not a win for 'sovereignty'.

If the claimant was suing the IRS, then yes the case would not have proceeded if that was the only grounds. Claiming this as a success for 'sovereignty' is extremely perverse. If the 'sovereign' had succeeded then the case would clearly have had to proceed to determine if the IRS could enforce the tax against the 'sovereign'.

These people are being fined for bringing frivolous claim after frivolous claim. Some are being jailed for fraud. How exactly is this a win for 'sovereignty'?

Your assertion that government officials are not allowed to interpret the Constitution and the law, and must rely on legal counsel is just a lie, there is no better word to describe it.

No it isn't. Have you ever worked for a Government agency at any level?

Of course the legal counsel are 'government officials' so the broad generalization is inaccurate. But an IRS assessor, for example, is not authorized to interpret the Constitution or any other law. He is only authorized to execute his job according to the bureaucratic procedures laid out for him. If questions come up outside 'the book' he must pass it to higher authority, who will in turn pass it to higher authority if it is not within their 'book'. That is how they (attempt) to ensure that decisions are consistent. If everyone was interpreting everything in their own way decision making would be chaos, instead of just FUBAR.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Thank you for posting. The law is always self evident and requires no explanation. No one needs explained to them why murder, rape, and theft is against the law. Conversely there are literally hundreds of thousands of statutes, codes and ordinances currently on the books, most require some sort of explanation, and what is that explanation?

Just a humorous aside... Didn't you just criticize the IRS for contradicting itself in subsequent paragraphs in an earlier post?

Can you see the irony here?

Q: What makes one "authority" - authority, and another an anti-government extremist?

A: Power.


One organization seeks to tax you. Does it have the power to do so? If the answer is yes, then 1/3 of your working wages come out of your paycheck before you even see it.

If you disagree with this power and authority, you seek to create an organization that will defy this effort for the other organization to confiscate your hard-earned wealth. We call these people "rebels" (Think of the term "rebels" as they referred to them in the old Star Wars movies) These are the patriots, the "anti-government" people, the tax protesters, the states' rights advocates.


There is no authority. Only power which claims it.


As far as "law" goes, only the laws of nature are real. Man's laws are edicts.

If it's not self-evident that you should give your wealth to a government, then you probably shouldn't.

Whatever doesn't sit right in your gut is probably wrong.


It can be argued until everyone is blue in the face over whether or not the income tax is legal... but my question is if the income tax was 100% - then would you still think it's legal?

If the government has the right to take what they want from you, then why impose limits? Or why would limits be presumed? If they can tax your labor, it's the foot in the door - you're already owned.



[edit on 26-4-2010 by 30_seconds]

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

If this tax is actually an indirect tax, but those enforcing it are treating it as if it were a direct tax, then they are operating outside of the bounds of their jurisdiction.

What classification of income are they treating as if it was a direct tax?

This is my argument. The IRC is a five volume set so tautological and circumlocutory in its definitions that I have not yet met a single soul who understands this legislation, myself included. How can any one possibly enforce a law they don't understand?

Then you in fact have no argument at all.

You have already conceded that Congress has the authority to levy a general income tax and that Springer upheld that authority. Pollack struck down that part of the 1894 act which attempted to tax rental and dividend income indirectly but did not overturn anything else about it. The 16th amendment overrode Pollack, enabling rents and dividends and the like to be taxed as income.

A general income tax on wages has always been legal. Always. Rents and dividends and the like have only been indirectly taxable income since the 16th amendment. What, then, is there to argue about?

reply to post by rnaa

Pollack did not strike down a general income tax, it only struck down an unapportioned tax on income from rents and dividends and the like. Likewise, the 16th amendment did not authorize a general income tax, it only authorized an unapportioned tax on income from rents and dividends and the like.

The Supreme Court emphatically disagrees with you. There are indeed, two rulings made by the same Court that disagree. One is Brushber v Union Pacific R.R.. Consider these passages:

The various propositions are so intermingled as to cause it to be difficult to classify them. We are of opinion, however, [240 U.S. 1, 11] that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16th 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 applicable to all other direct taxes. And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it, as follows: (a) The Amendment authorizes only a particular character of direct tax without apportionment, and therefore if a tax is levied under its assumed authority which does not partake of the characteristics exacted by the Amendment, it is outside of the Amendment, and is void as a direct tax in the general constitutional sense because not apportioned.

Chief Justice White is speaking to Brushaber's "erroneous assumption" was the same as yours. Now, consider this:

But it clearly results that the proposition and the contentions [240 U.S. 1, 12] under it, if acceded to, would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another; that is, they 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 be apportioned. Moreover, the tax authorized by the Amendment, being direct, would not come under the rule of uniformity applicable under the Constitution to other than direct taxes, and thus it would come to pass that the result of the Amendment would be to authorize a particular direct tax not subject either to apportionment or to the rule of geographical uniformity, thus giving power to impose a different tax in one state or states than was levied in another state or states. This result, instead of simplifying the situation and making clear the limitations 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.

The emphasis has been added by me. In this paragraph, Chief Justice White is first making clear that Congress can not write any Amendment that would come into irreconcilable conflict with the Constitution they are amending. He is explaining that if this was the case, the 16th Amendment would have had to be struck down as unconstitutional, but it wasn't. Why? In Brushaber Chief Justice White goes to great lengths to explain why:

In fact, the two great subdivisions embracing the complete and perfect delegation of the power to tax and the two correlated limitations as to such power were thus aptly stated by Mr. Chief Justice Fuller in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & T. Co. 157 U. S. supra, at page 557: 'In the matter of taxation, the Constitution recognizes the two great classes of direct and indirect taxes, and lays down two rules by which their imposition must be governed, namely: The rule of apportionment as to direct taxes, and the rule of uniformity as to duties, imposts, and excises.' It is to be observed, however, as long ago pointed out in Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 8 Wall. 533, 541, 19 L. ed. 482, 485, that the requirements of apportionment as to one of the great classes and of uniformity as to the other class were not so much a limitation upon the complete and all-embracing authority to tax, but in their essence were simply regulations concerning the mode in which the plenary power was to be exerted. In the whole history of the government down to the time of the adoption of the 16th Amendment, leaving aside some conjectures expressed of the possibility of a tax lying intermediate between the two great classes and embraced [240 U.S. 1, 14] by neither, no question has been anywhere made as to the correctness of these propositions.

Here, Chief Justice White is laying out the rules which govern both direct and indirect taxes, applicable both before and after the 16th Amendment. Continuing:

Moreover, in addition, the conclusion reached in the Pollock Case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class [240 U.S. 1, 17] of direct taxes on property, but, on the contrary, recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such unless and until it was concluded that to enforce it would amount to accomplishing the result which the requirement as to apportionment of direct taxation was adopted to prevent, in which case the duty would arise to disregard form and consider substance alone, and hence subject the tax to the regulation as to apportionment which otherwise as an excise would not apply to it.

Here, Chief Justice White is establishing that income taxes are not necessarily direct taxes, and certainly not inherently so. Continuing:

Second, that the contention that the Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax although it is relieved from apportionment and is necessarily therefore not subject to the rule of uniformity as such rule only applies to taxes which are not direct, thus destroying the two great classifications which have been recognized and enforced from the beginning, is also wholly without foundation since the command of the Amendment that all income taxes shall not be subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the taxed income may be derived [240 U.S. 1, 19] forbids the application to such taxes of the rule applied in the Pollock Case by which alone such taxes were removed from the great class of excises, duties, and imposts subject to the rule of uniformity, and were placed under the other or direct class.

Continuing with this:

Indeed, in the light of the history which we have given and of the decision in the Pollock Case, and the ground upon which the ruling in that case was based, there is no escape from the conclusion that the Amendment was drawn for the purpose of doing away for the future with the principle upon which the Pollock Case was decided; that is, of determining whether a tax on income was direct not by a consideration of the burden placed on the taxed income upon which it directly operated, but by taking into view the burden which resulted on the property from which the income was derived, since in express terms the Amendment provides that income taxes, from whatever source the income may be derived, shall not be subject to the regulation of apportionment.

Reiterating why the 16th Amendment is indeed Constitutional then continuing with this explanation:

Indeed, from another 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 operation.

Further explaining:

We say this because it is to be observed that although from the date of the Hylton Case, because of statements made in the opinions in that case, it had come to be accepted that direct taxes in the constitutional sense were confined to taxes levied directly on real estate because of its ownership, the Amendment contains nothing repudiation or challenging the ruling in the Pollock Case that the word 'direct' had a broader significance, since it embraced also taxes levied directly on personal property because of its ownership, and therefore the Amendment at least impliedly makes such wider significance a part of the Constitution,-a condition which clearly demonstrates that the purpose was not to change the existing interpretation except to the extent necessary to accomplish the result intended; that is, the prevention of the resort to the sources from which a taxed income was derived in order to cause a direct tax on the income to be a direct tax on the source itself, and thereby to take an income tax out of the class of excises, duties, and imposts, and place it in the class of direct taxes.

The Court had made clear that the 16th Amendment did not "overturn" the Pollack ruling. It should be noted that the above quoted is one sentence. A 191 word sentence, that may actually be the source of so much confusion today. That confusion, I believe comes from government officials, in interpreting this ruling, ignoring the word prevention in that sentence. The purpose of the 16th Amendment was not to change the rule of apportionment, but to prevent any future court from viewing a non apportioned income tax as a direct tax, and must necessarily view it as an indirect tax. Stated another way, the purpose of the 16th Amendment was to instruct the courts to consider the activity and not the property source of the income...hence "from whatever source derived".

Continuing: