11 votes

What most people don't understand about income tax

If Congress creates a "Church Attendance Tax" is it unconstitutional?

ONLY if "church" means church in the ordinary sense, and "attendance" means attendance in the ordinary sense. If congress creates "Special Definitions", as they OFTEN do, and as they did in Title 26, the Income Tax Code, THEN the special definitions are of major importance.

For example, if "Church" was defined as:

    "For the purpose of this section, 'church' includes any Federally established Church or Religious service."

then you would see how the code made sense, and was in FACT NOT unconstitutional, as it only applied to Federal Churches.

Well, as you can imagine, the same thing happened with "Income"
The Supreme court defined "Income" as "Profit or gain from corporate activity".
Well, people were making a lot of money on dividends and other (indirect) means from shares of corporate stock. When congress tried to tax it, many people fought that this dividend did not "derived from corporate activity", and it was simply a profit from investing, and therefore not "INCOME" as defined.

This is what led to the 16th Amendment. (Remember what "INCOME" means as you read the text of the 16th)

    The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

This is why your tax forms asks you to list your "wages, tips, and other remuneration" instead of simply asking for your "Income"


the second part of Income Tax:
If the Income Tax were a tax on your labor, it would be a "Direct Tax", since it is a tax on the activity of Privileged Corporations, thus avoidable, it is an indirect tax.

However, when they do tax your labor (as they always do) it is a "Direct Tax". What does the Constitution say about Direct Taxes?
It says that Direct taxes, AND REPRESENTATION shall be apportioned among the states (of the Union).
YOu should note that the District of Columbia does NOT HAVE REPRESENTATION!!!! This is because they are NOT A state...


Because, if they DONT HAVE REPRESENTATION, that means that the section of the Constitution that CLEARLY STATES:

    "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states"


SO, if they DONT HAVE REPRESENTATION, then they ARE ALLOWED to direct tax!

Which is why, Title 26 defines "State" as the District of Columbia,
and "United States" as the District of Columbia and other Federal zones (where that section of the Constitution also does not apply)

and why you are :

    Treated as residing in the District of Columbia

if you live in one of the 50 states.

(remember "United States" and "States" is defined as the District of COlumbia at (9)and (10) of this same section)


the third way to pay income tax, is by voluntarily gifting a tax to the U.S.

Of course the W-2, W-4, 1099, 1040, etc are all "Gift Tax" or "Estate Tax" forms.

See: http://www.famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Evidence/Employers/AllWithholdingIsAGift!.pdf


The point is, if you continue to think "Income tax" is unconstitutional, you will get nowhere.
If you continue to think that "Income" means anything you trade your labor for, you will get nowhere.
If you continue to think that Congress has the authority to lay a Direct tax on you, you will get nowhere.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

"The Law" is Made Up As They Go

As it stands, "the law" is based on who commands the guns. That power is known as "the legal system"

Courts claim that the Constitution gives them the power to "interpret" the law. To the legal monopoly, that means, "make it say anything we wish". Originally, it was supposed to mean "apply the law as it was originally intended". If you look at some of the older dictionaries, you will see how laws change simply by changing definitions.

The problem is that the voting majority does not care. Until the voting majority refuses to accept the tyranny of the legal monopoly, it will remain a good 'ole boy system - merging the three branches into one oligarchy. And natural rights will continue to be attacked.

So, we are full circle - back to the importance of the Ron Paul Revolution.

Gene Louis
Supporting a Needed Tool for Government Feedback:
A Citizen-Operated Legal System.

My to do list

1) Stop having "income"
2) Change my residence
3) Rescind my Social Security Account
4) Expatriate my citizenship

These are some pointers I heard George Gordon explain one time.

I have heard that Social Security cannot be rescinded, that it simply becomes inactive after 5 years or so of non use. Can anyone here verify this?


Hear, O Israel: YHUH our God YHUH one. And thou shalt love YHUH thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

Please show us how you're doing this

We all need to stop the farce and the best way to accomplish this is to STOP playing their game.

Slowly :-)

It feels that way, at least.

1) Use gold and silver coin. One silver eagle is one dollar, and the minimum federal filing requirement is around 10,000 dollars depending on age, marital status, etc.

2) Simple enough

3) Well, that's what I was asking.

4) I believe TxRedneck has covered this. I have no experience with it, so he may be the one to ask. http://www.dailypaul.com/157771/government-is-a-religion-lar...


Hear, O Israel: YHUH our God YHUH one. And thou shalt love YHUH thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

applying for social security

applying for social security is what created your obligation. Want freebies from the government, then you have to pay in. It's that simple.

The code is clear once you know the definitions therein. State = D.C., "citizen of the United States" = a federal person, "trade or business" = work done as federal personnel and in connection with your federal social security number.

It is VERY CLEAR that if the "income tax" as we know it today...

...is Un-Constitutional.


Therefore, the 16th Amendment is NOT IN THE SPIRIT of what our founders created in our constitution.

I believe they would be incensed today if they knew about the income tax.

The money we earn is OUR PROPERTY.

NO ONE has a right to OUR PROPERTY other than the person who LEGALLY EARNED IT.


"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul


It is constitutional, as the supreme court refuses to hear "the law that never was" by Benson, until such time, you shall behave like it is constitutional.

16th amendment is defined as to have not granted any new taxing powers! by several cases in the first 10 years after passage.

SO, it is constitutional, because it has already been defined as being a waste of ink, and the fact you VOLUNTEER for it.

Ok, got it? Because involuntary servitude is illegal per constitutional amendment.

If you can grasp this fact, as the courts have already, then your FRIVOLOUS tax arguments will not be so easily dismissed.

If you volunteer into a "STATUS" of being a "EMPLOYEE" of the US Gov't, then you have volunteered to be taxed.

I suggest that you do not respond to tax arguments on websites like DP and just refer to good sites like FAM GAURD and other great info websites and do not make yourself publicly known. I care not, as I am on their radar, and they like me;) IF you chose to go down this difficult road, I suggest amassing several damaging court cases that would make it so embarrassing and costly to defend that they do not want you anywhere near a court room. THIS could get costly, as I have spent thousands on amassing a war chest of goodies.

Freedom may be worth searching for.

I have given up on my fellow Americans, (not DPers) as I will not shed one more calorie trying to awaken anyone else who is not a critical thinker and does not have the inherent feeling that something is wrong.

So your argument

is that if 1 man in a black robe decides that he thinks it is a power of Congress, despite the constitution specifically saying otherwise, that his 'opinion' matters? I could care less what the 'public servants' on the bench claim TODAY. The Constitution does not allow direct un-apportioned tax on the people. PERIOD. Income is outside the Constitution. All you need to know to figure this out is, "People exist without government, government does NOT exist without people", and 'There is 2 forms of Law on Earth and 2 only. God's Law as the Sovereign and Master of the Universe, and Man's 'statute'. Does 'Man' have the right to force his will on another 'Man'? NO Therefore it is by his 'consent' that such law applies to him. And what is 'Consent'? Contract law, you entered some 'contract' with another 'entity'. It creates a duty,obligation, on you as the 'agent' of that legal person. You are compelled to perform. Question is, 'What is the nature of the contract'. Generally most People in America have 1 contract signed by the government, your LIVE BIRTH RECORD. NOT to be used for ID, which you turn around and use as ID to get SSI,Drivers license,voter registration, signed BY YOU. (See trust law, signer is trustee (slave of beneficiary). The All cap name is part of you indirectly. It is a because you 'register' your name with the government, which is obliged to protect your RIGHTS and PROPERTY, that THEY become the 'legal' titleholder (trustee), whilst YOU hold 'equitable' title to the name. Because the Government is the 'legal' title holder, they create a 'usufruct' to which THEY are the 'usufructory', and the beneficiary. Use the 'government' construct JOHN DOE, and you are a 'government employee', Subject to 'corporation' rules. Art 1:8:14, To make RULES for government................Very simple and in plain site. But who pays attention to reality with you can 'watch' it on TV. :)

In order to make the argument

In order to make the argument that you made above, you MUST know what the term "People" as used in the Constitution means!! Blacks were not the "People" protected by the Constitution, neither were natives, women, Chinese, etc.

    ... citizens of the District of Columbia were not granted the

    privilege of litigating in the federal courts on the ground of

    diversity of citizenship. Possibly no better reason for this

    fact exists than such citizens were not thought of when the

    judiciary article [III] of the federal Constitution was drafted.

    ... citizens of the United States ... were also not thought of;

    but in any event a citizen of the United States, who is not a

    citizen of any state, is not within the language of the [federal]


    [Pannill v. Roanoke, 252 F. 910, 914]


"It is clear that Congress, as a legislative body, exercise two species of legislative power: the one, limited as to its objects, but extending all over the Union: the other, an absolute, exclusive legislative power over the District of Columbia"
[U.S. Supreme Court, COHENS v. COM. OF VIRGINIA, 19 U.S. 264 (1821) 19 U.S. 264 (Wheat.)]

so today "persons" (not "People") that have declared themselves to be "citizens OF the UNITED STATES" are not the State Citizens, aka "People" protected by the Constitution of the United States of America, and instead are 14th Amendment persons subject to "civil rights", and limited Constitutional protection where the courts or congress have granted such rights.


The Constitution does NOT

The Constitution does NOT prohibit the States from instituting a direct un-apportioned tax on the people. It only prohibits the federal government from taxing the State's citizens directly, un-apportioned. But in 1868 the federal government became a State, with its OWN citizens, the Constitution was changed, something is not the same as it originally was. And the court's opinion is that the 16h Amendment created nothing new, a State has always had the right to institute a direct tax upon its OWN citizens, nothing in the Constitution prohibits that, and in fact the 10th Amendment supports such. The federal government is not taxing citizens of other States, that would be prohibited by the Constitution. It is only taxing ITS OWN citizens, US Citizens. And it is by consent that the people are citizens of the United States. US Citizenship is voluntary and can be removed if you do not desire it.

"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence


well if you don't pay taxes to the USSA, they send milithugs to confiscate everything you have and put you in the gulags and until people are willing to join up with each other and gun them down, than you will have to pay taxes to federal goverment or you life will be ruined. same applies to states, local and county goverments as well.


I have watched and studied the IRS scam for a long time and watched others split legal hairs in endless attempts to discern the thread and color of the emperor's clothes. I got really tired of it. If you want to read the real inside dope read this:


From my perspective there are two points: 1) the IRS is unwanted by the American people - so do away with it already. 2) The whole IRS scam is a scam and if there were any moral and courageous courts in this country the IRS would have already been done away with. So to spend time, effort and money and splitting hairs (symptoms) of a bogus operation is a tedious and mostly useless waste. Go for the cause and be done with it.

What people really don't understand about taxes...

Taxation is Theft.

Your wages are your property, just like your house, your car, or the clothes on your back.

When someone takes your property from you without your voluntary consent, they are stealing.

Stealing is always wrong.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com

"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

So your property was very

So your property was very likely stolen by the US government from the Native Americans, or even then it was possibly won in a war of force against Spain, Mexico, France, etc.

So do you have a right to your property if it was stolen from someone else?

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

they weren't us citizens and

they weren't us citizens and did not have the same rights we have today.

So what you are saying is

So what you are saying is that your right to property only exists because the government grants it to you? That only citizens get that governmental protection?

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

no, that's the way our govt

no, that's the way our govt views it, though.

if you dont pay u go to jail

right or wrong, law or no law. the federal courts are corrupt and you wont have a chance.

so all this argument is foolish.


for freedom!!!

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win!"

"The belief is worthless if the fear of social and physical punishment overrides the belief."

All taxation

is unethically premised upon anti-voluntary coercion and should be abolished

When the people took off all

When the people took off all of their gold and melded it together to create a common purse for their society, thereby binding each individual to that society through the common purse, they did it voluntarily. In praise of this common purse (the golden calf), in praise of this system which bound them one to another, they rejected they system of freedom, and they did it voluntarily. There was no coercion to start the system. But in the future, around 264 BC, when the decedents of these people once again created a common purse, there was coercion for those who wanted to participate in the system, but only wanted the benefit but did not accept the burden that went with the benefit.

If you participate in a system that offers benefits then there WILL be a burden associated with that benefit. Even the benefit of Freedom carries with it a burden.

"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

Partial disagreement

1) thereby binding each individual to that society

Because endowments to public agency are fundamentally gifts, deference should be to a just ethic rather than popular social conceits

2) they rejected the(y-?) system of freedom

Donating to public agency should not imply that one's principles (including property, sovereignty, etc) can be violated

3) If you participate in a system that offers benefits then there WILL be a burden associated with that benefit

I see a distinction in language: if an individual endows to a public road for example, others are allowed to ride for free; if others do not endow however, they lose the prerogative to vote on specifics of the road's construction, aesthetics, etc

"Donating to public agency

"Donating to public agency should not imply that one's principles (including property, sovereignty, etc) can be violated"

Whether it should or should not is of no matter. The matter is that IT DOES. We have been told long ago not to give our sacrifice to men at the top of a hierarchy, and that if we do then we lose our authority with which our freedom is tied to.

"An altar of earth ("Adamah", the same earth that Adam was made of, an Altar of Men) thou shalt make unto me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt offerings, and thy peace offerings, thy sheep, and thine oxen(food, peace, clothing and work): in all places where I record my name I will come unto thee, and I will bless thee.
And if thou wilt make me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stone: for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it, Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar(this altar shall have no hierarchy of the "stone" that it is made of), that thy nakedness(lack of authority) be not discovered thereon."

So whether it is that it should or should not be matters not. Regardless of right or wrong, this IS what happens when we, those who give their sacrifice, give it to a system of hierarchy. Those at the top bear down upon those at the bottom. It is the ONES WHO GIVE that determine and create this system, not those in need.

"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence


1) whether it is that [it]/(or) should or should not be matters not

Partial disagreement: I would argue that principle remains universal as a guide to ethical conduct

2) a system of hierarchy

I am not opposed to leadership oriented organization (ex. principal/teachers/students in a public school system), so long as there is free choice

We're talking about

We're talking about government and you use the terms "ethical conduct"?

Patrick Henry argued BOTH of these things during the debates over the Constitution. He argued against the idea of a "common purse" (golden calf), that no people have ever survived government in control of the purse of the people. He also argued that the Constitution was written as though "good men" (ethical men) would always be in positions of control, when he knew well that there would be "bad men" (unethical) who would acquire those positions.

Hierarchy is defined as one being above another, having authority over another. There is no hierarchy if the principle/teacher/student each have free choice. There is EITHER hierarchy OR free choice. And what a wonderful place for tyrants to establish hierarchy, at schools. There the student, with his minds being a blank slate, learns that he must abide by the rules of the teacher AND the principal. He learns that the teacher must abide by the principal, and that the principal also has someone that he must abide by. The student is taught the system of hierarchy that he will later live by in his society. In essence the student is conditioned that in the real world, just as in school, he will have a boss, and his boss will have a boss, and that there is a continual string of bosses over the boss all the way up to...government, which is on the top of the pyramid. And no one in this hierarchy has free choice except when the one above the ones below ALLOWS such.

In Utopia, your arguments make sense.

"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence


1) government

I am making the case for volitional governance, whose function is to distill conscience (ex. civil courts) while its public commission (roads etc) is endowed by choice

2) "ethical conduct"

I am further arguing that such governance is meant to recognize the rights of the individual when founded upon a just ethic comprised of 6 principles including property, agency (ex. currency), corporality (one's body), sovereignty (free travel), philosophy (free speech), and spirituality (free religion); whether someone lives up to their associated virtues is another matter

3) the Constitution

I similarly maintain that the Constitution and its associated Bill of Rights is incomplete without explicitly enacting the ethic above

4) the idea of a "common purse"

I see no ethical issue with the public domain (ex. libraries or civil police, thus disagreeing with Henry) so long as there are elective prerogatives; otherwise I believe individuals have the right to withdraw from fraud and abuse. Are you likewise advocating exclusively private ownership in worldly affairs?

5) ...the Constitution... was written as though "good men" (ethical men) would always be in positions of control, when he knew well that there would be "bad men" (unethical) who would acquire those positions

IMO humanity has light/dark within each individual; to therefore judge mankind singularly based on one disposition or another is a form of presumptive bias

6) There is EITHER hierarchy OR free choice

Partially false correlative: hierarchy is simply a type of organizational model (ex. a football team has an owner/coach/players) while choice is a derivative of philosophical consciousness; otherwise when voluntarily entering a particular system, there usually are certain limitations involved (ex. as a running-back it's understood that you wouldn't usually play-call)

7) school-boss > government

I do not equate educational and commercial institutions as having the same purpose as legislative bodies

8) pyramid

Like organizational structures, I maintain that a particular geometric figure is not inherently bad

9) No one in this hierarchy has free choice except when the one above the ones below ALLOWS such

Disagreement: individuals are free to behave ethically or unethically. Disciplinary rules are subsequently derived to guide professional or proper conduct and administer rightful reparation (ex. if you steal, there is a just consequence)

10) In Utopia, your arguments make sense

IMO politics is characterized by public ideals and without conscientious volition, there is an absence of dignity

The "United States" IS INDEED

The "United States" IS INDEED a State. All the Districts send representatives to DC WHICH IS THE STATE. DC is not A STATE , it is THE STATE. Just as Texas does not have representation in the State of Texas, neither does the State of United States(DC) have representation in the State of United States(DC). This is exactly how the tax on your labor is done. The individual States have never been restricted from instituting an income tax, only the Federal Government (as originally created without citizens) was restricted from direct tax.

The orginal Federal government had no citizens therefore it had no authority over the citizens of the States. The States' constitutions were the authority over the States' citizens, and nothing in the united States constitution forbids the Independent States from instituting a direct tax on THEIR OWN citizens. But with the creation of the Federal citizens came the creation of the Federal State. The State of Texas cannot institute an income tax on the citizens of the State of Oklahoma, Texas can only institute an income tax on Texas Citizens. The State of United States likewise cannot institute an income tax on the citizens of the State of Texas, it can only institute an income tax on the citizens of the State of United States.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the 16th Amendment created no new taxing authority, and we can see this is true. The State has ALWAYS had the authoirty to institute direct tax on ITS OWN citizens, but not OTHER STATES' CITIZENS.

"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

Lost Horizons

dot com

" In Thee O Lord do I put my trust " ~ Psalm 31:1~

IRS Custom Definitions in Tax Code, Title 26

Here's the IMPORTANT definitions, paraphrased for brevity.

Employee- A person who works for the fed govt.
Employer- Fed Govt.
Wages- $$$ paid to fed employee from fed govt.

Find out how to file form 4852 with your return, and correct erroneous info sent in by clerks who mis-read the definitions in Title 26. THEN- get back ALL witheld $$$
Send email to WSHIELDS@COMCAST.NET fo more info

“...taxes are not raised to carry on wars, but that wars are raised to carry on taxes”
Thomas Paine, Rights of Man

What most people don't understand is "contract law"

NOTE: This is my opinion, not legal advice.

The IRS has everyone chasing their tail trying to define "person"; "income", "Shall/and/but/nor/did/could/would", or "United States", and everyone is failing to see what's really happening:

The foreign corp.US sends you a Certificate of Live Birth, which is a split "title" with your new "legal fiction" name on it they can now contract with; you take that and get a Social Security Card; Drivers License, etc. (basically gov't/corp.US "ID" badges). They had to send you these ID's because they are "FOREIGN" to us; and we have to be licensed to work for them. The King's children pay no taxes; the foreigners pay taxes to the natives for setting up their corporation here and using up our natural resources, etc.

As employees of their foreign gov't/corp.US we no longer have the luxury of exercising our Inherent Rights as Americans; we no longer have the luxury of Constitutional Rights. We now have "statutory rights" and "privileges" that are granted to us by our new foreign employer, if we do decide to enter into an employment contract with them. The Birth Certificate and Social Security Card was just the initial meeting between the two of us; they handed me some ID badges, but is that enough to complete an employment contract?

Wouldn't we need to agree on some terms of employment; pay; vacation; work hours; health insurance, etc. if I did decide to take a job with them?

Now here's my understanding of the three basic principals of a contract:

1. Consent: (Did I apply for the ID cards or did they force them on me?)

2. Full Disclosure: (Did they tell me prior to giving me the cards/ID's that from this point on they'd presume I'm acting in the capacity of, or thru the "title" of a foreign gov't/corp.US employee "the legal fiction name", that's liable for the tax; or am in some way obligated to follow their statutes?)

3. Valuable Consideration: (Am I getting paid for my services as a "presumptive" employee, or am I going to agree to "gift" them a membership fee every April 15th by sending in a 1040?)

So the IRS "presumes" you're domiciled within the jurisdictional boundaries of their corporation; then they "presume" you owe a tax on your income, right?

Well, if they are under the "presumption" you owe them a tax on your income, they must be under the "presumption" you are one of their employees because you have one of their ID badges, right? The only problem is: They can't provide proof of employment/payroll records/time sheets etc. if you don't really work for them, can they?

So if they cannot provide payroll records to fulfill the valuable consideration portion of the contract, what's the one thing they depend on? You not bringing that point up as soon as they contact you about an income tax owed in the first place?

Now lets just pretend you haven't read this comment yet, and they come after you for "Failure To File"; do they have a contract?

The "contract" that shows:

2.Full Disclosure
3.Valuable Consideration (what are you being paid for your services?)

I can "presume" someone owes me Union Fees till the cows come home; I can send them a bill; send them a membership card, etc. and tell them there's a statute in my corporations rule book that says because they live in a brick house in Dallas Texas, and they have a water spicket on their front porch, they are members of my Union and owe me a fee. If they don't rebut my presumption, do we have a contract? ...... Yep, because that's called "agreement" of two parties. Now is the contract "enforceable"?

Not unless I can produce the contract showing the 3 points as listed above with their signature on it. Can I provide payroll records? Do I need to? Can I hope and pray they don't bring this point up?

Can I hope they'll "volunteer" and send me a "gift"? Isn't that what the 1040 is? Aren't we admitting we made that money they say we owe while operating in the capacity of a gov't/corp.US employee?

Well, that's one half of the point, but if so, where's my pay? what about the "valuable consideration"? What am I getting in return? Am I working for free? Am I just "gifting" the money to them? Did they disclose that in the contract?

Or am I just having my ass "presumptively" handed to me because I didn't rebut; and am I also "volunteering" into the tax scheme by first: not rebutting their "presumption" of employment; and second: Voluntarily sending the a "gift" tax form 1040 agreeing that even though I'm not employed by them, I like them so much, I'm going to send them a donation that's approx: 25% of my income every year?

Just because someone has Social Security card, does that mean that someone was "performing a function of gov't/corp.US" when they made the money the IRS says they owe?

Does jurisdiction follow money?

Does the IRS/corp.US have payroll records proving that someone was "performing a function" of gov't/corp.US when the money was made?

I've got a Block Buster Video card too, but that doesn't mean I'm getting a check from them on the 1st and 15th; it just means I have the "privilege" or renting movies if I so "choose". And if I do "choose" to rent a movie for the night, two things happen: I get a movie and they get $4.50 (valuable consideration). Now, if BBV takes it upon themselves to "manipulate the contract" by "presuming" I'm an employee of theirs because I have a rental card in my pocket, and they decide to add $64.00 to my bill as a tax, do they have a payroll record/shift record; or employment contract to back up their "presumption"? Do they need even need it, because they'll "presume" I'm to ignorant to bring up that point in the first place?

What if I just "gift" them that money? Is that against the law?

If I don't rebut their "presumption", isn't that an agreement of two parties?

If that's the case, then I guess it's okay for Block Buster to charge any gov't/corp.US employee that has one of their movie rental cards in his/her pocket a tax/fee on their gov't income, even if the gov't/corp.US employee isn't employed by Block Buster, right?

Is that BBV rental card an employment/labor contract? I guess it could be if the gov't/corp.US employee doesn't rebut Block Buster's "presumption" of employment; and if the gov't/corp.US employee fills out a "gifting form" agreeing to send them some money.

1. So here's my take (opinion): They have consent, because I went and applied for the ID's or accepted them.

2. They did not provide full disclosure that stated, from this point forward they would "presume" I'm one of their employees, but I could always rebut that fact at anytime. But if I failed to rebut this hidden "presumption" I was agreeing with them. I don't guess that's against the law; I can tell you that I mowed your front yard, and if you don't rebut it, I can presume my "presumption" is correct. If I send you an affidavit saying you owe me $50 for mowing your grass, and you don't rebut my presumption, my affidavit becomes law. That's also known as "agreement" of two parties. You didn't rebut, so you must agree :)

I've got to ask myself one question here: The law marches forward on "intent", and what was their "intent" in the whole scheme of things?

Was it "Involuntary Servitude"? ... I don't know, but anything's possible in this day and age :)

3. They can't provide an employment contract unless you actually are employed by them; but they can depend on your ignorance of never bringing up the fact they are presuming you're an employee, but you've never been paid for your services, which if you were, you'd be liable to follow their statutes and taxation of your income; why? Because you're getting "PAID" to do so. They can't force you to work for them, and they sure as hell can't force you to work for free either.

4. And last but not least: If they can't force you to work for them, which would of course mean they'd have to pay you for your time and labor, they can always contact you and say "You haven't filed your 1040 for the last two years", we need you to get that done; and if you run down and do it, is that their fault?

Aren't you just agreeing with your wet ink signature that even though you're not employed by them because you're not getting a weekly gov't check, you like them so much, you've decided to "gift" them a percentage of your income; or you're agreeing that all the money you made that year was while "performing an act of gov't"?

Is the income tax Un-Constitutional? Not if you're a foreign gov't/agent/employee, because now you must abide by their corporate rules and statutes; and now you don't have Inherent Rights or Constitutional Protections because you're considered a foreigner. Now you have "granted rights" or "statutory rights" and "privileges" granted to you by your foreign employer; and if you break those statutory rules or abuse those granted rights or privileges, you will be punished with their statutory punishments/rules/regulations/orders/fines/prison time, etc.

So I could run over to the nearest policeman and say "Hey that guy stole my wallet and you need to arrest him", and if the police officer just agreed with me and doesn't ask for any evidence, and runs over and arrests the guy and takes him to jail; and the guy wasn't smart enough to rebut my claim before he went to jail, who's fault is it that guys now in jail?

Aren't "presumptions" a B**tch? And isn't the lack of "rebuttal" an even bigger B**tch?

Maybe some of you should watch this seminar:

Part 1 ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2pMJyIikCk&feature=relmfu
Part 2 ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvKu2UNHQpA&feature=fvwrel
Part 3 ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xLzKRdsNLU&feature=related

Of course this is not legal advice, just an opinion; anyone feel free to rebut it, we all just want the truth; nothing more; nothing less.

In Liberty!