Is U.S. income tax invalid?

No, I don't comprende. Your argument is rather silly. The US Code isn't listed in the Federal Register? So what? It doesn't make the US Code not exist because it isn't specifically listed there as it is laid out as US Code.

As I understand it all laws passed are published in the Federal Register. Because the majority of Title 26 isn't listed online in the register that is only available from 1996 on does NOT mean that the laws were never listed there nor that the amendments made to them over the years were not listed.

What is this "positive law" argument? What kind of nonsense requires that law be "positive"? There is no such requirement in the constitution that laws be "positive". There is no requirement in the constitution that laws be published in the Federal Register. You complain about vagueness in the laws but your arguments go so far beyond vague. They are ethereal and phantasmagorical. They have absolutely no substance or basis in reality.

I didn't study constitutional law for six years to elucidate it's legal concept in a few meagre sentences. However in an effort to progress matters:

Although the concept of natural law has ancient origins in Western culture, the modern expression of natural law became politically and culturally poignant as a result of the European Enlightenment. In practical terms, natural law was an important animating ideology for both the US and French revolutions.


When the leaders of these revolutions grounded their agitation in the moral mantle of natural law, they energized an idea that has, in the words of Kathleen Jamieson, "haunted man since the inception of civilization." This point is particularly true in North America, where the ideology of the US revolution clashed fundamentally with the constitutionally codified practice of slavery.


As Jamieson notes in her essay "Natural Law as Warrant," the appeal of natural law is part of a human psychological need "to believe in a just and ordered universe." As with religious appeals, people who suffer often respond to the experience of suffering or injustice by making an appeal to some idealistic force above the contingent world to mediate on their behalf. Such an appeal is an effort by humans to re-describe their powerlessness. Because human beings are at the mercy of the natural world, they have invented a God figure to make sense and remedy their pain and suffering. Against human jurisprudence, which has historically been corruptible and self-serving of elitism, the appeal to natural law petitions for relief in an "ever-just, unchangeable law above the law." Since natural law is argued to be unchangeable, the person who evokes such law, according to Robert Frank, "appeals to self-evident principles that can be known by all humans."


For instance, Thomas Jefferson justified breaking colonial ties to England in The Declaration of Independence by appealing to the "Laws of Nature" and to "Nature's God." These entities, argued Jefferson, "entitled" the colonies to independence. Such independence was further warranted because God granted people "unalienable Rights" to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. As Jefferson asserted, such propositions are "self-evident." The role of the state is to protect and to advance these rights.


Implicit in Jefferson's argument is the assumption that there exists a necessary connection between law and morality. Law, which derives from divine order or natural rights, is moral by virtue of its a priori status as part of the inherent order of things. Law, in this sense, is similar to the law of gravity ?- it is a force whose truth is its influence. Other types of laws, such as human laws, are lesser laws. These laws can also be moral, but their moral grounding depends upon the higher order of divine or natural law. In Jefferson's narrative, state laws are only moral to the extent that they "secure these Rights" of life, liberty, and happiness. To the extent that government fails to protect the ability of individuals to seek these goods, the government betrays the "social contract" (in Rousseau's words), and becomes a non-legal entity. Under such circumstances, people assume the right "to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government."

The colonists presented the King of England with this reasoning, along with a list of grievances documenting England's transgressions of natural law, to justify their moral right to break from the authority of Britain. Such rhetoric, although an inspiring rallying cry for the Revolution, presented practical problems for the Southern judiciary following the Revolution who wanted to deny black people the right to evoke natural law in an argument for emancipation.

The Southern judiciary countered the argument of natural law by evoking the argument that, within a democracy, positive law trumped natural law.


Now we see the result…



In the Jersey Star-Ledger
BY DUNSTAN McNICHOL
Star-Ledger Staff

Somerset County officials have banked about $2 million to cover next year's contributions to their employees' retirement plans. But county Finance Director Brian Newman learned yesterday that's going to fall woefully short.

The state Treasury Department released projections showing county and local governments statewide will face huge increases in what they owe the public employee pension systems. For Somerset County, the bills will total $8 million -- about four times what officials salted away.

"They are a little higher than what we expected them to be," Newman acknowledged after taking a quick look at the numbers yesterday afternoon. "We have to see how we will deal with the rest."
Across the state, local officials blanched as they learned the pension bill facing local property taxpayers statewide has soared past $1 billion.

That's $406 million more than local officials needed to include in this year's budgets, and nearly 20 times what they paid four years ago.

In Newark, the increase amounts to almost $17 million -- from $33.4 million this year to $50.2 million next spring -- to cover benefits for employees of the city, housing authority and non-teaching workers at the board of education.

"Bottom line, these kinds of increases are problematic," said William Dressel, executive director of the New Jersey State League of Municipalities. "This is one of the essential reasons why it's difficult to control property taxes, when you have these kinds of mandated increases."

In all, the Treasury Department numbers show, the tab for supporting retirement benefits for hundreds of thousands of government workers, fire fighters and police officers will be $1.056 billion, due next April. That includes $416 million to cover the cost of public employee pensions and $640 million for the retirement benefits of police officers and firefighters.

Last year the total due was $650 million, and in 2004, when the state began phasing in pension contributions after a payment "holiday" of several years, the bill was a diminutive $53 million.

"We recognize that these contribution amounts are large and represent substantial increases from last year," said State Treasurer Brad Abelow, in a statement that accompanied a town-by-town breakdown of the new bills. "They are symptomatic of the need for New Jersey to put its fiscal house in order, which Governor Corzine is committed to doing and is making significant progress toward."



The steep rise in pension costs has two causes. One is the overall jump in benefit costs, which rose by 27 percent between last year's accounting and this year's.

The second is the continued phase-in of the portion of the bills towns are being required to pay. Under a five-year plan designed to ease the transition from the pension funding holiday, towns have been paying only a fraction of the actual bills they owe since 2004.


The new bills reflect the end of that phase-in for police and fire pensions, which now must be paid at 100 percent, and the last step toward full funding of other local government employee pensions, which must be funded at 80 percent in the coming year.


Where is the money to come from….TAXES?



The article in the Star Ledger speaks about the increase in pension bills for county and local governments of New Jersey. The State Treasury Department released a report showing that county and local governments statewide are facing huge increases in "owed" money to public employee pension systems. Local officials were taken back when they learned that the pension bill facing local property taxpayers across the state had risen past $1 billion; that's "406 million more than local officials needed to include in this year's budgets, and nearly 20 times more than they paid four years ago."

These kinds of increases are obviously troublesome, and according to the executive Director of New Jersey State League of Municipalities these kinds of mandated increases are "one of the essential reasons why it's difficult to control property taxes."

The Treasury Department report shows that the bills for supporting retirement benefits for thousands of government workers, firefighters, and police officers will be an estimated $1.056 billion, and is due next April. According to the article, this includes "$416 million to cover the cost of public employee pensions, and $640 million for the retirement benefits of police officers and firefighters."

This extreme rise in pension costs is attributed to two things: the jump in benefit costs and the continued phase-in of the portion of bills towns are required to pay; the new bills are likely to reflect an end to that phase-in for police and fire pensions. The issues of rising costs like such, leads to the recognition that it is imperative for New Jersey to reorganize its "fiscal house".

Local governments are not the only ones facing these problematic increases. Governor Corzine is also facing a mulit-billion dollar deficit in pension accounts for state workers.

"It seems like the state is throwing everything in our laps," said Charles Tomaro, Council President in Edison, which faces a bill of $9.8 million next year, compared to $6.3 million in the current budget. "Hopefully we can straighten it out and get out of this mess."


Generous increases in benefits, years of skipped pension payments and the collapse of the stock market six years ago all contributed to leaving the various pension accounts for state and local government workers about $25 billion short of the amount needed to cover benefits promised to retirees.

A full town-by town listing of the new pension bills can be found at the state Division of Pensions and benefits Web site (http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/pensions/2008-employer-billing.htm)


Personal taxes cannot pay for all this, there has to be a new system.

Who did you steal that piece from Tryagain?

I don't buy that YOU have studied constitutional law.

Unless your real name is Omar Swartz, it seems the person you stole from stole much of there argument from here.
http://bad.eserver.org/issues/2004/69/swartz.html

Lets see what Swartz had to say about legal positivism...


Are you arguing for or against "positive laws" Try? Or are you just posting stuff that other people have spouted without understanding its true meaning?

Parados eloquently wrote, "Unless your real name is Omar Swartz…"

Hmmm! It does have a certain ring to it; my alleged cousin Omar barrack in the White House and me as financial secretary. I will give the matter some consideration.


"I don't buy that YOU have studied constitutional law."


May I enquire if English is your first language; because what is there about:

"I didn't study constitutional law…"

Should I have written; ?'did not'. How much clearer do I have to make it! I confess before allegations are made.

Despite your vitriolic attacks on my person I note with a degree of mirth that you fail to confront one single fiscal fact. I will therefore single-handedly continue to enlighten the public, and If I may be allowed to quote Thomas Jefferson who justified breaking colonial ties to England in The Declaration of Independence by appealing to the …

"Laws of Nature" and to "Nature's God."
These entities, argued Jefferson, "entitled" the colonies to independence.
Such independence was further warranted because God granted people "unalienable Rights" to pursue life, liberty, and happiness.
As Jefferson asserted, such propositions are "self-evident."


So is a change to the tax system!


The federal regulations create an income tax liability for what specific classes of people?


The regulations at 26 CFR 1.1-1 attempted to create a specific liability for all "citizens of the United States" and all "residents of the United States". However, those regulations correspond to IRC section 1, which does not create a specific liability for taxes imposed by subtitle A.



Therefore, these regulations are an overly broad extension of the underlying statutory authority; as such, they are unconstitutional, null and void ab initio

How many classes of citizens are there, and how did this number come to be?

There are two (2) classes of citizens: State Citizens and federal citizens. The first class originates in the Qualifications Clauses in the U.S. Constitution, where the term "Citizen of the United States" is used. (See 1:2:2, 1:3:3 and 2:1:5.) Notice the UPPER-CASE "C" in "Citizen".


The pertinent court cases have defined the term "United States" in these Clauses to mean "States United", and the full term means "Citizen of ONE OF the States United". See People v. De La Guerra, 40 Cal. 311, 337 (1870); Judge Pablo De La Guerra signed the California Constitution of 1849, when California first joined the Union. Similar terms are found in the Diversity Clause at Article III, Section 2, Clause 1, and in the Privileges and Immunities Clause at Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1. Prior to the Civil War, there was only one (1) class of Citizens under American Law. See the holding in Pannill v. Roanoke, 252 F. 910, 914‑915 (1918), for definitive authority on this key point.



The second class originates in the 1866 Civil Rights Act, where the term "citizen of the United States" is used. This Act was later codified at 42 U.S.C. 1983. Notice the lower-case "c" in "citizen". The pertinent court cases have held that Congress thereby created a municipal franchise primarily for members of the Negro race, who were freed by President Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation (a war measure), and later by the Thirteenth Amendment banning slavery and involuntary servitude. Compelling payment of a "tax" for which there is no liability statute is tantamount to involuntary servitude, and extortion.



Instead of using the unique term "federal citizen", as found in Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, it is now clear that the Radical Republicans who sponsored the 1866 Civil Rights Act were attempting to confuse these two classes of citizens. Then, they attempted to elevate this second class to constitutional status, by proposing a 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. As we now know, that proposal was never ratified.



Numerous court cases have struggled to clarify the important differences between the two classes. One of the most definitive, and dispositive cases, is Pannill v. Roanoke, 252 F. 910, 914‑915 (1918), which clearly held that federal citizens had no standing to sue under the Diversity Clause, because they were not even contemplated when Article III in the U.S. Constitution was first being drafted, circa 1787 A.D.



Another is Ex parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 300 (1855) in which the California Supreme Court ruled that there was no such thing as a "citizen of the United States" (as of the year 1855 A.D.). Only federal citizens have standing to invoke 42 U.S.C. 1983; whereas State Citizens do not. See Wadleigh v. Newhall, 136 F. 941 (C.C. Cal. 1905).



Many more cases can be cited to confirm the existence of two classes of citizens under American Law. These cases are thoroughly documented in the book entitled "The Federal Zone: Cracking the Code of Internal Revenue" by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., now in its eleventh edition. See also the pleadings in the case of USA v. Gilbertson, also in the Supreme Law Library.



C.I. was probably the biggest corporate ?'shark' posting and even he can find no reasonable grounds to rebut the thrust of the argument.
Is it not time you stepped up to the parapet and left the parados behind?

I think I understand the English language just fine.. lets look at your sentence

The statement clearly states you DID study law for six years but not for the purpose of explaining it in a few meagre sentences. There is no way a native English speaker of even moderate intelligence could read that sentence to mean you never studied constitutional law.


Are taxes a positive law? Or are taxes a natural law?

Without you saying which you think taxes are I see no reason to respond to NJ tax and spend policies. It has nothing to do with your "positive" law argument until you tie it in by telling us whether tax law is postive law or natural law.

Just to remind you of your earlier argument Try.. you stated..



So, if Title 26 is NOT positve law then based on your present argument that would mean it must be natural law.

This is what you have just said Jefferson said about "natural law"..


Are you telling us that income tax is "self-evident"? It seems you are.

Parados asks, "Are you telling us that income tax is "self-evident"? It seems you are."


Quite the opposite; it is made up law for administrative purposes - NOT Statute law.

How about this then…



THE POWER TO DESTROY
IRS loses challenge to prove tax liability
Lawyer is acquitted after arguing income levy lacks legal foundation.

July 26, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com


The Internal Revenue Service has lost a lawyer's challenge in front of a jury to prove a constitutional foundation for the nation's income tax, and the victorious attorney now is setting his sights higher.

"I think now people are beginning to realize that this has got to be the largest fraud, backed up by intimidation and extortion and by the sheer force of taking peoples property and hard-earned money without any lawful authorization whatsoever," lawyer Tom Cryer told WND just days after a jury in Louisiana acquitted him of two criminal tax counts.

And before you consign him to the legions of "tin foil hat brigades" who argue against paying taxes, and then want payment to explain how to do that, he addresses the issue up front.

"These snake oil peddlers have conned millions of dollars out of many well-intended patriots and left a trail of broken lives in their wake. … These charlatans should be avoided, not only because they will lead you to bankruptcy and prison, but because by association they discredit those who are telling the truth," he said.

Although the legal citations in the case tend to run the length of paragraphs, Cryer told WND the underlying issue is not that complicated. Essentially, he argued that income is not necessarily any money that comes to a person, but rather categories such as profit and interest.
He said the free exchange of labor for compensation has been upheld as a right by the Supreme Court, but that doesn't necessarily make the compensation income.

If ever such an argument were to be presented widely, Cryer said, the income to the federal government would plummet. But not to worry, he said, the expenses could be reduced equally by eliminating programs, departments and agencies that also have no foundation in the Constitution.

"The Founding Fathers intentionally restricted the taxing powers of the new federal government as a measure of restraint on its size. By exceeding that limited taxing authority the federal government has been able to obtain resources beyond its intended reach, and that money has enabled the federal government to exceed its authority," he said.
For example, he said, the Constitution does not empower the federal government to regulate education, or employment, and agriculture, yet it does so.

The jury in U.S. District Court in Louisiana voted 12-0 to find Cryer, of Shreveport, not guilty of failure to file income taxes for two years. He had been indicted in 2006 on charges of failing to pay $73,000 to the IRS in 2000 and 2001. The next step in his personal case will be up to the IRS and prosecutors, if they choose to continue the issue, he said.

"There are three points that are important," he told WND. "There's no law making the average working man liable [for income taxes], there's no law or regulation that allows the IRS to contend that earnings are 100 percent profit received in exchange for nothing, and the right to earn a living through any lawful occupation is a constitutionally protected fundamental right, and it is exempt from taxation."

Spokesman Robert Marvin in Washington's IRS office told WND the Internal Revenue Code provides for taxation on salaries or wages, but when pressed for a specific citation, or constitutional provision, he said, "I can't comment."

Cryer's encounter with tax law began more than a decade ago when a friend told him the income tax was sham. Cryer started researching, hoping to keep his friend out of trouble. But his conclusions, after years of research, were exactly what his friend told him.

He researched not only tax laws, but also the documents pertaining to the drafting of the U.S. Constitution as well as the first income tax.
He said throughout his battle, he's offered at every turn to pay taxes if the IRS could show him the authorization, and that never has happened.
"The Criminal Investigation Division and Department of Justice both responded only with 'your position is frivolous.' I had never stated a position, so how could they know whether it was frivolous?" he said. "Imagine my sending you a bill for $1,000 and when you call me and ask what the bill was for I simply said, 'that position is frivolous, just write the check and send it in.'"

His acquittal, he said, was a precedent because it means "people can see and recognize the truth."

He said multiple Supreme Court opinions have affirmed an individual's ownership of his or her own labor, and "exercising your fundamental rights" is not taxable. "It is definitely a trade. What most people receive in the form of wages, salaries or in my case fees that they personally earned for their labor is not received in exchange for nothing."
He said there might be a profit that should be taxable, but there might not.

"The IRS lets Wal-Mart sell a trillion dollars worth of goods, but they can back out their cost of goods [before being taxed,]" he said. "The IRS considers, in the case of a Wal-Mart wage earner, 100 percent of what he takes in is profit."

"But he's using his life, energy and work lifespan, and depleting it as he goes," Cryer told WND. "[Working] is a God-given fundamental right that is protected under the Constitution and can't be taxed any more than exercising freedom of speech."

While he waits to see what, if anything, the IRS and Justice Department will do next in his case, he's working to coordinate the groups that are battling taxation as unconstitutional.

"I have started a campaign to unify [the work] and we've got a number of organizations that are sponsoring and supporting this campaign," he said. The goal is to get everyone "who is aware of the truth" organized so they can spread the word.

He warned without a restoration of constitutional basics, the nation is lost.
"Read your Constitution and you will see that the federal role does not include ANY authority to regulate or tax any citizen directly and that WE expressly reserved the right to rule and govern ourselves as States, not as mere political subdivisions."

"The Constitution does not allow the government to run your lives, but the money it is stealing from millions of Americans is the fuel for its over-reaching and kibitzing. Take the money back and we and our states and communities can again be free," he said.


The fight is over "our FREEDOM from rule by a DISTANT RULER, just as we fought to free ourselves of a distant England over 200 years ago," he said.




Game set and match; exactly what I have been saying!

Keep up to date with A2K and save a bundle.

Yes, this is just another example of how the IRS will never show people that statute requiring average people like you and I to pay an income tax.

It is also the biggest reason I am suspicious of the validity of the income tax. They would rather lose a court case than show the law... The IRS guy in the article says he cannot comment.. What kind of garbage is that?

If I tell my neighbor he owes me $1,000 and when he asks me why I say 'no comment' it makes about as much sense.

Time after time,. they never, Never, NEVER, NEVER show the law.

WHY NOT?

Interesting how WND completely misrepresents what Cryer was found not guilty of.

That is so true it needs high lightening; perhaps Parados can quote chapter and verse, maybe his congressman could help out?



Can one be a State Citizen, without also being a federal citizen?

Yes. The 1866 Civil Rights Act was municipal law, confined to the District of Columbia and other limited areas where Congress is the "state" government with exclusive legislative jurisdiction there. These areas are now identified as "the federal zone." (Think of it as the blue field on the American flag; the stars on the flag are the 50 States.) As such, the 1866 Civil Rights Act had no effect whatsoever upon the lawful status of State Citizens, then or now.


Several courts have already recognized our Right to be State Citizens without also becoming federal citizens. For excellent examples, see State v. Fowler, 41 La. Ann. 380, 6 S. 602 (1889) and Gardina v. Board of Registrars, 160 Ala. 155, 48 S. 788, 791 (1909). The Maine Supreme Court also clarified the issue by explaining our "Right of Election" or "freedom of choice," namely, our freedom to choose between two different forms of government. See 44 Maine 518 (1859), Hathaway, J. dissenting.


Since the Guarantee Clause does not require the federal government to guarantee a Republican Form of Government to the federal zone, Congress is free to create a different form of government there, and so it has. In his dissenting opinion in Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 at 380 (1901), Supreme Court Justice Harlan called it an absolute legislative democracy.


But, State Citizens are under no legal obligation to join or pledge any allegiance to that legislative democracy; their allegiance is to one or more of the several States of the Union (i.e. the white stars on the American flag, not the blue field).

Chapter and verse has been quoted on here and rather than responding you two have ignored it and continued pretending that it has never been pointed out.

26 U.S.C. § 1
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual

26 U.S.C. § 61
[G]ross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;
(2) Gross income derived from business;
(3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
(4) Interest;
(5) Rents;
(6) Royalties;
(7) Dividends;

26 U.S.C. § 6151
[W]hen a return of tax is required under this title or regulations, the person required to make such return shall, without assessment or notice and demand from the Secretary, pay such tax to the internal revenue officer with whom the return is filed, and shall pay such tax at the time and place fixed for filing the return (determined without regard to any extension of time for filing the return).

26 U.S.C. § 6012(a)
Returns with respect to income taxes * * * shall be made by the following:
(1)(A) Every individual having for the taxable year gross income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount * * *.

http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/JustNoLaw.htm

Which part of the law do you think is ambiguous or doesn't apply to you? Are you not an individual? Do you not have gross income as defined by the law? Notice that the law specifically says "compensation for services". Are you saying when you work for someone they are not paying you for your service.

Of course, rather than discussing the actual law, Tryagain will post another diatribe he will steal from the internet without attribution. Richard will disappear for a week or so and then come back to claim no one has shown him the law. Neither of you will discuss the law as laid out here because to do so would put a rather large hole in your ignorant arguments.

Parados, Ive read that law and I understand your beliefs on it. MY question is why the IRS will not quote that same law if it is indeed applicable.. They absolutely, unequivocally NEVER cite the law requiring people to pay income tax. That raises a serious eyebrow for me. Why do they not cite the law? They would rather lose a court case than cite a law. It simply doesnt make sense.. and if it doesnt make sense then there is a lie somewhere.

None so blind as those who get their facts from websites written by tax protestors. They tend to misrepresent facts.

Find me an actual transcript from a trial and show me where this occurred. I bet you can't. I won't hold my breath while I wait.


Your next argument will be that the judge "refused to allow the question to be asked." The judge doesn't need the IRS to cite a specifc in the law to know what the law is. The law is there for every person including judges to read and it is easy for them to understand it.

Just for the record, you did NOT address the law in any fashion as I said. You only introduced a red herring that is not supported with any facts.

Parados in his never-ending quest to prove the earth is flat writes and not for the first time…

"Chapter and verse has been quoted on here and rather than responding you two have ignored it and continued pretending that it has never been pointed out.

26 U.S.C. § 1
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual"


I have on numerous occasions marvelled at the ineluctable acerbity of another diatribe at my forlorn attempt to subtly learn him.


If I may address your concerns by quoting the learned correspondent, broadcaster and raconteur; Tryagain …again!

"The United States Code (USC) is a compilation of the United States Statutes at Large. It is the US Statutes at Large that are ultimate evidence of the laws governing the United States. The USC is put together by the Office of the Law Revision Council of the US House of Representatives in order to simplify administration of the laws. The US Statutes at Large are kept in chronological order and contain all amendments, repeals, etc.

This makes the Statutes at large difficult to reference. The USC is kept in order of subject matter and changed to reflect the current status of amendments, repeals etc. Some portions of the USC are fairly static. These sections are then proposed to become "positive" laws, meaning that, once approved, the section in the USC will become the current Statute. For Statutes subject to frequent revision, the USC section never has time to move through the process to become "positive".


The law of America is the Constitution. All Federal statutes, including Title 26 of the USC, must adhere to the Constitution.


(Read that again: TITLE 26 IS NOT LISTED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER)

As it is NOT there, it is NOT law…..period.



If you are still blinded by prejudice, please by all means find a quote by the IRS confirming your hypotheses. ….

In the meantime while we grow old:


Who was Frank Brushaber, and why was his U.S. Supreme Court case so important?



Well, Frank Brushaber was the Plaintiff in the case of Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, 240 U.S. 1 (1916), the first U.S. Supreme Court case to consider the so‑called 16th amendment. Brushaber identified himself as a Citizen of New York State and a resident of the Borough of Brooklyn, in the city of New York, and nobody challenged that claim.


The Union Pacific Railroad Company was a federal corporation created by Act of Congress to build a railroad through Utah (from the Union to the Pacific), at a time when Utah was a federal Territory, i.e. inside the federal zone.


Brushaber's attorney committed an error by arguing that the company had been chartered by the State of Utah, but Utah was not a State of the Union when Congress first created that corporation.


Brushaber had purchased stock issued by the company. He then sued
the company to recover taxes that Congress had imposed upon the dividends paid to its stockholders. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Frank Brushaber, and upheld the tax as a lawful excise, or indirect tax.


The most interesting result of the Court's ruling was a Treasury Decision ("T.D.") that the U.S. Department of the Treasury later issued as a direct consequence of the high Court's opinion. In T.D. 2313, the U.S. Treasury Department expressly cited the Brushaber decision, and it identified Frank Brushaber as a "nonresident alien" and the Union Pacific Railroad Company as a "domestic corporation". This Treasury Decision has never been modified or repealed.


T.D. 2313 is crucial evidence proving that the income tax provisions of the IRC are municipal law, with no territorial jurisdiction inside the 50 States of the Union. The U.S. Secretary of the Treasury who approved T.D. 2313 had no authority to extend the holding in the Brushaber case to anyone or anything not a proper Party to that court action.


Thus, there is no escaping the conclusion that Frank Brushaber was the nonresident alien to which that Treasury Decision refers. Accordingly, all State Citizens are nonresident aliens with respect to the municipal jurisdiction of Congress, i.e. the federal zone.

Really? Where in the constitution does it require that laws be listed in the Federal Register before they can be laws? There is no such requirement. The only requirement to become a law is passage by both houses of congress and signing by the President or a veto override if not signed by the President. (I pointed this out before when you brought up this silly argument and you failed to answer then.)

Sorry Tryagain. You don't get to make up rules. Since there is nothing in the US constitution requiring that laws be published in the Federal Register then could you point me to the law that requires it. Keep in mind you will need to find that law published in the Federal Register before it can be a law if we follow you idiotic logic.

I quoted the law as signed by the President. You didn't address the law. You made up some silly argument that laws aren't laws even if they are passed as required by the constitution. Go read the constitution before you make such outlandish comments. A 4th grader would know you are wrong.

From the US constitution


A bill becomes law when signed by the President, when his veto is overturned by both houses, or 10 days after he receives it without signing it provided Congress is not adjourned. Your argument that it must be printed in the Federal Registry is NOWHERE to be found in the constitution. Title 26 is law as required by the Constitution.

Now that we have established you don't know how a bill becomes law perhaps you can deal with the law itself.

Lets look into your next lie..


Brushaber was the plaintiff... the ruling can be found here..

Brushaber v Union Pacific

Please point out where Brushaber claims to be a resident of any state as you have just claimed.

Your argument is at its heart a logical fallacy. Lets look at what you have said before about court rulings....


Wait? You are suddenly arguing that the government CAN'T use a winning argument?

Which is it Tryagain? Can winning arguments be extended beyond the people in a case or not? Actually, the ruling in Brushaber said something quite different from your claim. Brushaber v Union Pacific states that the income tax is constitutional. That means it it constitutional in all instances not just in the case of Brushaber.

The court also ruled in Brushaber that the Congress could delegate enforcement authority for taxation to the Secretary of the Treasury and since the IRS is under the Secretary of the Treasury it would mean the IRS is also legal.

Parados wrote, "There is no way a native English speaker of even moderate intelligence could read that sentence to mean you never studied constitutional law."


"Now that we have established you don't know how a bill becomes law perhaps you can deal with the law itself."


Confused! So am I; still it's good to note:

"A 4th grader would know you are wrong."

As any long suffering reader of this denunciation will have noticed is; we have gone up a grade from last time.




I am led to believe Parados is on vacation so I feel safe enough to post a rejoinder:


"Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true." ~ Homer Simpson





What is a "Withholding Exemption Certificate"?



A "Withholding Exemption Certificate" is an alternative to Form W‑4, authorized by IRC section 3402(n) and executed in lieu of Form W‑4. Although section 3402(n) does authorize this Certificate, the IRS has never added a corresponding form to its forms catalog (see the IRS "Printed Products Catalog").



In the absence of an official IRS form, workers can use the language of section 3402(n) to create their own Certificates. In simple language, the worker certifies that s/he had no federal income tax liability last year, and anticipates no federal income tax liability during the current calendar year. Because there are no liability statutes for workers in the private sector, this certification is easy to justify.



Many public and private institutions have created their own form for the Withholding Exemption Certificate, e.g. California Franchise Tax Board, and Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland. This fact can be confirmed by using any search engine, e.g. google.com, to locate occurrences of the term "withholding exemption certificate" on the Internet. This term occurs several times in IRC section 3402.



In the next instalment of this nail biter; we deal with ?'Tax Evasion'.
You owe it to your kids not to miss it, or ya'll owe it to the IRS if you do!

You seem to be oblivious of why Homer said this but you are certainly using it in the same fashion as he did.


OK Homer... Listen up...

Rather than deal with any of the issues you quote me about you just raise another red herring...

Do you understand that the sentence you probably stole from someone else means they spent 6 years studying constitutional law? Why are you refusing to deal with the simple English that you mangled?

Do you have anything even remotely supporting your claim that laws aren't laws until they are printed in the Federal Registry? You have refused to supply anything when you were asked at least twice already? Will the third time be the charm that you will actually try to answer? I am betting not. I listed the actual constitutional language for how laws come into being. You have listed nothing.

But we can all still note that you have failed to address any of the law as cited. And rather than deal with the law, you just change the topic to something else again. As you have done repeatedly on this thread.

Parados wrote, "But we can all still note that you have failed to address any of the law as cited. And rather than deal with the law, you just change the topic to something else again. As you have done repeatedly on this thread."


Yes, I can see how that could be mildly irritating. However, this is about democracy and who pays for it. I cite historical fact; you on the other hand just parrot the official party line.

Let's get down to cases:


99 percent of lawyers give the rest a bad name.

42.7 percent of all statistics are made up on the spot.




What is ?'Tax evasion' and who might be guilty of this crime?



?'Tax evasion' is the crime of evading a lawful tax. In the context of federal income taxes, this crime can only be committed by persons who have a legal liability to pay, i.e. the withholding agent. If one is not employed by the federal government, one is not subject to the Public Salary Tax Act unless one chooses to be treated "as if" one is a federal government "employee." This is typically done by executing a valid Form W‑4.


However, as discussed, form W‑4 is not mandatory for workers who are not "employed" by the federal government. Corporations chartered by the 50 States of the Union are technically "foreign" corporations with respect to the IRC; they are decidedly not the federal government, and should not be regarded "as if" they are the federal government, particularly when they were never created by any Act of Congress.


Moreover, the Indiana Supreme Court has ruled that Congress can only create a corporation in its capacity as the Legislature for the federal zone. Such corporations are the only "domestic" corporations under the pertinent federal laws. This writer's essay entitled "A Cogent Summary of Federal Jurisdictions" clarifies this important distinction between "foreign" and "domestic" corporations in simple, straightforward language.


If Congress were authorized to create national corporations, such a questionable authority would invade States' rights reserved to them by the Tenth Amendment, namely, the right to charter their own domestic corporations. The repeal of Prohibition left the Tenth Amendment unqualified. See the Constantine case supra.


NB. For purposes of the IRC, the term "employer" refers only to federal government agencies, and an "employee" is a person who works for such an "employer".




While we are on the subject of forms: Why does IRS Form 1040 not require a Notary Public to notarize a taxpayer's signature?



This question is one of the fastest ways to unravel the fraudulent nature of federal income taxes. At 28 U.S.C. section 1746, Congress authorized written verifications to be executed under penalty of perjury without the need for a Notary Public, i.e. to witness one's signature.



This statute identifies two different formats for such written verifications: (1) those executed outside the "United States" and (2) those executed inside the "United States".

These two formats correspond to sections 1746(1) and 1746(2), respectively.



What is extremely revealing in this statute is the format for verifications executed "outside the United States". In this latter format, the statute adds the qualifying phrase "under the laws of the United States of America".



Clearly, the terms "United States" and "United States of America" are both used in this same statute. They are not one and the same. The former refers to the federal government -- in the U.S. Constitution and throughout most federal statutes. The latter refers to the 50 States that are united by, and under, the U.S. Constitution. 28 U.S.C. 1746 is the only federal statute in all of Title 28 of the United States Code that utilizes the term "United States of America", as such.



It is painfully if not immediately obvious to all except Parados that verifications made under penalty of perjury are outside the 50 States of the Union (read "the State zone") if and when they are executed inside the "United States" (read "the federal zone").


Likewise, verifications made under penalty of perjury are inside the 50 States of the Union, if and when they are executed outside the "United States".



Next time we investigate the legal meaning of the term; ?'United States'.

Prepare to be totally shocked!!!