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"

THAT IS PART 1,

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...

WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?????

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"

DOES NOT APPLY!

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.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode26/usc_sec_26_000077...
(remember "United States" and "States" is defined as the District of COlumbia at (9)and (10) of this same section)

PART 3.

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

http://sedm1.org/Forms/MemLaw/DefraudLabor.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.

youre missing a few details.

youre missing a few details. as a "citizen of the UNITED STATES", as evidenced by your parents declaration on the birth certificate, you have certain duties and limited rights. ONLY State Citizens (those without birth certificates) are truly protected by the constitution, so your argument about contract law is a little bit spurious.

And I think you're missing a few "details":

So you're saying anyone with a birth certificate is automatically under the jurisdiction as a "citizen of the UNITED STATES", even if they aren't acting in that capacity; thru that "title", as the "legal fiction" corp/name?

That's like me saying "If you're a subscriber of my magazine, you're bound by my corporate statutes just because you filled out a subscription form and mailed it back to me".

Who owns the land that the corporation is operating on? Does the term "he who creates owns" mean anything? Did the foreign corp.US create the land; or are they just occupying the land? Do they have dominion over the land, or are they "renting" the land from you and I? Is the corp.US's "corporate statutes" the LAW of the LAND? Or do you have to be operating in the capacity as an employee of that corp (who's receiving pay) to be under their jurisdiction and bound by their statutes?

Just because they showed up and set up shop on "our land" with their foreign corp.US and passed out birth certificates, are their corporate statutes all of sudden the "Law of the Land" just because I possess a Certificate of Live Birth or SS Card?

Are you telling me a person with a birth certificate can't walk into court, waive that certificate in the air and say "I'm here as the administrator/director" of the "legal name" (now that I'm of legal age), what seems to be the problem, and why are you having a shareholders meeting without my written consent?

I've got a birth certificate and ss card in my hand when I walk into court and appoint the judge the trustee. If that birth certificate was such a powerful tool for them, then why the hell do "I CONTROL IT"? ... they own it; they made it; but I control the "legal fiction" name/corp on the certificate; I'm the beneficiary; they are the trustee, If I know who I am :)

It's the same "name", but two different jurisdictions. They are the beneficiary/administrator in their jurisdiction(gov't/corp/statutory side), and we are the beneficiary/administrator of the same name in a different jurisdiction (Inherent Right/Constitutionally protected side).

Just because you have one of their birth certificates doesn't mean you're automatically under their jurisdiction does it?

Is an off duty Wal-Mart Manager bound by the employment contracts rules/statutes/regulations of Wal-Mart, when he/she is not on the Wal-Mart clock, just because they have a Wal-Mart ID in their pocket?

If the Wal-Mart manager is grocery shopping at Target, does he get the Wal-Mart discount; covered by Wal-Mart workers comp. insurance; getting paid by Wal-Mart; under any obligation to follow the statutory rules of Wal-Mart, while he/she is shopping at Target on the weekend with their family?

What if he goes through the checkout line at Target and whips out his Wal-Mart ID and tells the Target cashier he wants his 20% Wal-Mart discount?

His name is Bob whether he's clocked in at Wal-Mart as an acting manager operating thru that "title", or while he's shopping at Target, but is no longer under Wal-Mart's jurisdiction.

If I walk into Wal-Mart and show them my birth certificate, are they obligated to give me a discount?

Same "name", two different jurisdictions. Our parents sent off a Record of Live Birth and the state "split the title" and sent us back a Certificate of Live Birth (corp.US work badge/ID card). Just because we hold that ID badge, does that mean we're working for corp.US as an agent that's receiving a paycheck?

Just because Bob has a Wal-Mart's Manager ID badge at home on the dresser, does that mean he's acting as an agent of Wal-Mart if he's not on the clock (receiving pay) while he's at Target, acting in the capacity of himself "Bob", just a normal-living person out shopping with his family on the weekend?

A person can have more that one "title". The corp/legal fiction name on the birth certificate is "one title", the living man/woman is another "title"; same name, two totally different jurisdictions.

The birth certificate is our proof or equitable title in the corporate name on the birth cert-legal fiction. The "name" is a corporation. If we are operating in that capacity, or thru that "title", the gov't/corp.US are the beneficiaries and we are the trustees; and in this capacity, they are in control.

If we are not operating thru that "title" and performing an act of gov't and making our money on the private side, then we (you and I) are the administrator/beneficiary on the private side.

We still maintain all our Inherent Rights; still have the protection of those rights by the Constitution, as long as we aren't acting as an agent of the foreign corp.US at the time a complaint was made, or at the time we made the money they say we may owe in taxes.

Just because I live in Lubbock Texas (which is a corporation), am I bound by the statutory rules, regulations, etc. of an employee of the City of Lubbock TX; who's on the payroll? No, I am not. The Corp. Lubbock Texas is on the "land" they did not create it; they do not make the laws; they make statutes their employees have to follow.

If Wal-Mart adds a new statute to their corporate rules, that says anyone living within 20 sq/miles of this store is under our jurisdiction, is that "LAW"? ... No, it is not Law, it's a statute. Now if they can get everyone in that 20 sq/mile radius to agree, then Yahoooooooooo for Wal-Mart; they just conned 6 million people into believing they were under the jurisdiction of Wal-Mart.

What is the "SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND"? Isn't it the Constitution?

Anything below or repugnant to that LAW, is not law; it's statutory law; statutes, that hold no force or effect if you're not operating in the capacity of, or thru that "title" of the corporation that made those 'statutes'.

The Supreme Law of the Land (Constitution) says your free speech is protected while operating in the capacity of free man/woman, living under God's Law, but if you go to work for the foreign corp.US and are receiving the "granted" rights and "privileges" under their statutes, and are getting paid to do so, then you're Constitutional Rights are not a luxury you can cling to.

Just because someone has a birth certificate or a social security card in their possession, does that mean they are automagically operating in the capacity of, or thru the "title" of the legal fiction name on the birth cert/ss card 24/7?

If the gov't made the "claim" you were acting as an agent of gov't because you had possession of those cards, does that really hold any weight if they can't prove it by producing a payroll record/time sheets, etc. that show you actually "were" acting as an agent of their gov't/corp.US at the time of the complaint; or at the time you made the money they say you owe taxes on?

And last but not least: If we are all "automagically" under the jurisdiction of the UNITED STATES and acting as an agent of that corp. just because we have a birth certificate/ss card, then why do we still have to apply for a government job (police, highway patrol, school teacher,etc.), agree to terms of employment, etc. before we can jump in a squad car and start writing people tickets and tazering them?

If we're automagically under that jurisdiction; bound by those statutes; considered employees of the corp. just because we possess a birth cert/ss card, then why am I not getting my gov't check on the 1st and 15th, and where is my FBI badge?

Why can't a manager at McDonald's walk into a police dept. and pick up a gun and badge; jump in his/her patrol car and hit the streets just because they have a birth certificate or ss card?

Because they have not been trained and have not signed onto an employment contract to operate in that capacity under that "title".

again, you're putting too

again, you're putting too much thought into the wrong thing. We should first stop and remember were on the same team here, we know there is a fraud, this is just a debate about what is the safest way to rebut.

to answer many of your questions, the BIRTH CERTIFICATE is the first piece of evidence that you are a 14th Amendment, UNITED STATES CORP. citizen. THEY are not mandatory. Amish don't have them for example. There are birth registries and there are BIRTH CERTIFICATES with a red cusip number on the back to be entered into the general fund.

THIS CERTIFICATE is the same as a corporate certificate of incorporation EXCEPT that you are the sole signer and actor, and every move you make is locked to that certificate and later the SS number that attaches to it.

REBUT these things, do not try to keep them for a clever scheme.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf

CORPORATIONS are not the "People" they are legal fictions, and their CEO's (and officers) are liable for Income Tax, because THEY are the "employee"s of the tax code. YOU being the ONLY signer for the CORPORATION named "YOUR NAME" makes you "Your Name" the Officer:

(c) Employee
For purposes of this chapter, the term “employee” includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term “employee” also includes an officer of a corporation.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/3401

You cant agree that YOUR NAME is a corporation, and admit that you are the ONLY signer/agent, then DISMISS that you are an OFFICER of that Corporation can you?

Better safe than sorry. YOU dont need any of the benefits, you dont need any of those federal paper reserve notes that you didnt actually earn.

Lets look at this way for a minute:

First thing I'll address: It could very easily be argued in court that the IRS is meddling in our estates by bonding the social security # to your "legal person" without your written consent to administer that estate.

The parents and gov't/corp.US came together and created a new legal entity (name of birth certificate), which is the Executor. Since we are children and can't manage our own affairs yet, our parents (the grantor's) gifted our portion of the commonwealth to the trust of the corporation known as the UNITED STATES. The parents are the grantor/beneficiary at the same time. Whoever puts the value in, is who the benefits are owed to.

Now that you are of legal age, the parents step aside and the living you is now able to legally contract, so now we switch from Trust Law to Corporate Law, and now you (the living man) become the beneficiary/shareholder of the "legal fiction" corporate "name". The shareholder can appoint a director to set policy for the employees (gov't/trustees) to follow to produce the best return possible for the shareholders/beneficiaries.

Now we have a different relationship with gov't/corp.US and they work for us, not the other way around.

Remember: You are an integral part of the corporate relationship; without you the living man, there can be no corporation/legal person. The gov't/corp.US couldn't/can't do business with the living man, so they had to create you an "agent in commerce" aka "legal person" to deal with.

We are now in a business relationship with gov't/corp.US, in which we are the Shareholders (CEO/Beneficiary) of the "legal person" corporation, and the gov't/corp.US are the Trustees (employees). As shareholders we can appoint directors to set policy for the employees to follow to make us the most amount of money possible.

When you go to court, everyone there is an "agent" of that "legal person"; the judge and prosecutor are the employees/trustees; you and I the living are the shareholders/beneficiaries and directors if you choose yourself to be the director.

The birth certificate is the only document we have that proves the gov't/corp.US has an obligation to you and I, the living person. Their obligation is to collect taxes from their employees and pay those taxes to you and I as money owed to us for their use of our natural resources/land, etc. Remember, they are the foreigners, we are the inhabitants/natives, beneficiaries of the land our creator granted to us.

But they haven't been doing that; instead they are extorting money out of us to pay us money they owe US. If the gov't owes the people, how can they make the people pay them instead? Gov't can't function without you and I, we are the backbone; we are the investors; they are the employees.

They are attempting to administer that estate by presuming you into the trustee/employee position of the business relationship, which would make them the beneficiary/administrator.

So we have a SS Card and Birth Certificate in our possession, but that doesn't automatically mean that everything that "agent in commerce" does is a function of gov't/corp.US; this is a presumption on their behalf, and it is just not true.

Now the gov't/corp.US can't just go meddling in the affairs of this "legal person/corporation" without our written consent. They cannot contract with me without my consent. They can't force me into a contract either.

They can presume the "legal person/corporation" is performing a function of gov't/corp.US all they want because we have a Birth Certificate or SS Card, but there's a little thing called "rebuttal" that we don't exercise enough and they capitalize on it.

They are there to make us money; we are the shareholders/beneficiaries of the legal person/corporation, and gov't/corp.US are the employees. Employees don't tell shareholders and directors what to do (at least their not supposed to), but if you don't understand the business relationship, they are more than happy to switch roles with you.

Yes, the CEO/Beneficiaries of the corporation are liable for income taxes, but only if he/she is/was performing a function of gov't/corp.US at the time the money was made they claim you owe taxes on.

So the gov't/corp.US is operating under the "presumption" that "agent in commerce/legal person" is operating in the capacity of, or performing a function of their gov't/corp.US anytime you the living man makes any money, even if you made that money flipping hot dogs at the park concession stand M-F.

Now, they can't force me the living man into an employment contract with them, but we can sit down and come to an agreement that includes my salary; benefits; hours; and rules and regulations (statutes) I have to follow if I do take the job.

Just because I have the birth certificate in my possession (which I'm now the CEO/Director/Shareholder of that corporate legal person), and I have an SS Card in my possession, does not mean I was making my money as an employee of their gov't/corp.US at the time they say I owe taxes on?

What if I opened a bank account using the SS Card with the possible intention of working for them someday, but just haven't made the decision to do so yet? Is there an agreement we signed at the bank while opening the account that states the only money you can withdraw/deposit into this account is money you made while performing a function of gov't/corp.US?

Did you sign something when opening that account that stated you could not run any money you might make while working for Taco Bell, Home Depot, KFC, or Burger King through that account because those checks don't have a gov't/corp.US signature/stamp on them?

And did you sign something saying that even though you work for Home Depot, KFC, Taco Bell, because you're using that account, it gives gov't/corp.US an automatic entitlement to 25% of your paycheck every Friday? Or is this why the gov't/corp.US wants you to file the "gifting tax" form 1040 every year; because this act of filing is the only legal leg they have to stand on if you're not or wasn't performing a function of gov't/corp.US when you made the money they say you owe taxes on?

Without that signature on the 1040, would that be extortion/theft, or meddling in the affairs of the estate you the living man are the Beneficiary of?

Is it law that you can't open a bank account using the SS Card # and funnel money through that account while working somewhere other than for the gov't/corp.US? Is that fraud? Just because you "unknowingly" and by "trickery and deceit" opened an account using the SS Card # does that imply you are from that point forward acting as an agent/employee of gov't/corp.US; who's getting a paycheck from them?

Don't you have to be paid for your services/employment; shouldn't there be an employment contract you signed with gov't/corp.US that is an agreement between the two parties of your pay, benefits, days off, etc?

Or are you just "presumptively" gifting them 25% of your KFC/Home Depot check because you used the SS Card # when applying for the job, and agreed to let them take out state/fed taxes (gifts) through that with holding agent, and their proof that you are allowing this is your willful filing of the "gift tax" form 1040 in case you someday wake up and realize the fraud and try to sue them, they can say "Hold on now buddy, you gifted us this money, here's your signature on this 1040 that proves it?"

Could the whole tax scheme be, you use the SS Card as a number, like an EFT number that allows the Humane Society or IRS/Gov't/Corp.US to withdraw lets say $20.00 per/month out of your checking account as a gift/donation to them, but anytime you decide you're not in the "gifting mood" anymore, can you demand they stop withdrawing funds?

I personally thinks it's just a big presumption/agreement/donation scam, and the gov't/corp.US needs the 1040 filed every year to give legitimacy to the theft/donation of your money. They can't provide payroll records to prove their claim of employment, so they depend on your ignorance and donations to keep them afloat.

Is the fact you used the SS Card as ID when you opened the checking account a penalty/fee/guaranteed donation of 25% every Friday as a fine/fee for using the account for reasons other than an employee of the gov't/corp.US that's receiving one of their paychecks on the 1st and 15th? If so, is that a deceptive contract without full disclosure?

Remember: We The People are the creditors, they the gov't/corp.US are the debtors; the borrowers; the trustees/employees, but they have managed to reverse the roles on us by holding a mirror up in front of us.

Questions to be answered :)

I think we'll have to agree

I think we'll have to agree to disagree, but ill answer your post point by point:

    First thing I'll address: It could very easily be argued in court that the IRS is meddling in our estates by bonding the social security # to your "legal person" without your written consent to administer that estate.

Not easily argued at all!! Why are you in court arguing this? as a defendant? good luck! As a plaintiff? what is the cause of action?

    The parents and gov't/corp.US came together and created a new legal entity (name of birth certificate), which is the Executor. Since we are children and can't manage our own affairs yet, our parents (the grantor's) gifted our portion of the commonwealth to the trust of the corporation known as the UNITED STATES. The parents are the grantor/beneficiary at the same time. Whoever puts the value in, is who the benefits are owed to.

Sounds like you may have a claim against your parents for fraud at best.

    Now that you are of legal age, the parents step aside and the living you is now able to legally contract, so now we switch from Trust Law to Corporate Law, and now you (the living man) become the beneficiary/shareholder of the "legal fiction" corporate "name". The shareholder can appoint a director to set policy for the employees (gov't/trustees) to follow to produce the best return possible for the shareholders/beneficiaries.

as the sole shareholder/beneficiary you are also the CEO (or equivalent) of the CORPORATE you! Guess what? As such, you are an employee...remember Title 26, 3401

(c) Employee
For purposes of this chapter, the term “employee” includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term “employee” also includes an officer of a corporation.

AND dont forget:

USC Title 26, 7701 for the meaning of including:

(c) Includes and including
The terms “includes” and “including” when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.

    Now we have a different relationship with gov't/corp.US and they work for us, not the other way around.

Only in the Republic as Citizens of the State, NOT as "citizens of the United States". "citizens of the United States" are SUBJECTS of the UNITED STATES, like enlisted men! YOURE not separating the two available positions. a sovereign State Citizen CANNOT be a shareholder/beneficiary of a UNITED STATES TRUST established under their name and credit worthiness, the two are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE!

    Remember: You are an integral part of the corporate relationship; without you the living man, there can be no corporation/legal person. The gov't/corp.US couldn't/can't do business with the living man, so they had to create you an "agent in commerce" aka "legal person" to deal with.

EXACTLY!!! THIS is 100% correct, you MUST be an accomplice and ABANDON your sovereignty in order to become the signer/agent for your PERSON!

    When you go to court, everyone there is an "agent" of that "legal person"; the judge and prosecutor are the employees/trustees; you and I the living are the shareholders/beneficiaries and directors if you choose yourself to be the director.

Again, the "court" youre referring to is not an ARTICLE III constitutional court, instead it is an administrative court for UNITED STATES PERSONS and the Constitution does NOT apply

    The birth certificate is the only document we have that proves the gov't/corp.US has an obligation to you and I, the living person. Their obligation is to collect taxes from their employees and pay those taxes to you and I as money owed to us for their use of our natural resources/land, etc. Remember, they are the foreigners, we are the inhabitants/natives, beneficiaries of the land our creator granted to us.

you are mixing truth and fiction.
YOU are the foreigner as a "resident" in one of the States of the Union, Citizens of States are not "residents". Resident means temporary..think hospital residency, its short term. citizens of the United States are RESIDENTS in the States because they are FEDERAL PERSONS that are FOREIGN to the States.

    But they haven't been doing that; instead they are extorting money out of us to pay us money they owe US. If the gov't owes the people, how can they make the people pay them instead? Gov't can't function without you and I, we are the backbone; we are the investors; they are the employees.

They arent extorting ANY "money" out of us. They are extorting Federal Reserve notes that belong to them. They are asking for their cut for you participating in the false world of commerce, where you can buy a house and car while making 7.25 per hour because youre paying in to the DEMOCRACY pool to expand their military, wellfare, etc.

    So we have a SS Card and Birth Certificate in our possession, but that doesn't automatically mean that everything that "agent in commerce" does is a function of gov't/corp.US; this is a presumption on their behalf, and it is just not true.

YES IT DOES!!! that is exactly what it does...they have given a few statutory exemptions for their officers and agents, but for the most part anytime a Human works as a "PERSON" by using their SS number to rack up a better debt to income ratio; and to collect their future social security benefits, they are acting as an AGENT for the U.S. Inc.

    Yes, the CEO/Beneficiaries of the corporation are liable for income taxes, but only if he/she is/was performing a function of gov't/corp.US at the time the money was made they claim you owe taxes on.

TRUE!!! BUT when you tie your federal number into your work, it becomes a function of your public office. Build a shed for your neighbor for cash, and U.S. Inc may ask for a gift on your 1040, but they cant demand it.

    Now, they can't force me the living man into an employment contract with them, but we can sit down and come to an agreement that includes my salary; benefits; hours; and rules and regulations (statutes) I have to follow if I do take the job.

TRUE!!! and they havent, you agreed to their terms by accepting their offer and using their number. An application is asking for something, you fill out applications as the PERSON.

Sorry, got sidetracked with my gov't job and forgot to reply :)

A claim against the parents for fraud? Didn't the corp.US provide birth certificates to the hospitals/doctors to have the mother sign as the "informant" with her "maiden" name which ultimately claims the child has no father/executor to oversee the estate? When the state receives the Record of Live Birth, they "split the title" and send the mother/child back a Certificate of Live Birth with a Registrars Seal/signature on it which means only one thing: The Registrar is the court of probate, and probate only deals with estates of the dead. Why didn't they send back a true copy of the "Record of Live Birth", instead of their "dead-legal person entity" certificate that would by trickery and deceit fool you into believing that was anything other than "your" personal (the living man) copy of the Record of Live Birth?

I don't think the parents performed the fraud; the law marches forward on intent; what was their "intent"? We know the answer to that, don't we? ... Slavery!

I've got to ask before we continue: Have you taken the time to watch Dean Clifford's seminars? Have you watched this one too, called "Both Sides of the Story"?

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

And if so, can you explain what's wrong with his teachings?

ha...govt. job:) The U.S.

ha...govt. job:)

The U.S. Corp did NOT force your parents to fill out a birth certificate nor an application for social security. YES, they did hand them the papers, and yes they probably implied it was mandatory, but it wasnt.

I am not that familiar with Dean Clifford.
The birth certificate is bad! In the United States a birth certificate declares a birth "within the UNITED STATES" and establishes "residency" in the "UNITED STATES" which means federal zone.

http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Resources/A4en.pdf

    The most common documents that establish U.S. citizenship are:

    Birth Certificate, issued by a U.S. State (if the person was born in the United States), or by the U.S. Department of State (if the person was born abroad to U.S. citizen parents who registered the child’s birth and U.S. citizenship with the U.S. Embassy or consulate);

U.S. citizenship is BAD, it means you are a citizen of the FEDERAL government, therefore not one of the "People" in one of the "States of the Union", but rather of the UNITED STATES and only "residing" in one of the states. "citizens of the United States" are "treated as residing in the District of Columbia

As a beneficiary of ANYTHING there are always obligations. In the U.S., being a Federal citizen entitles you to easy credit and federal protections (welfare, unemployment, affirmative action, equal opportunities) and therefore, you must pay into that protective system.

All Americans' rights vanish by contract, either implied, presumed, or actually applied for. THIS is why I say we need to remove these presumptions, we need to distance ourselves from these adhesion contracts and void them where possible...not accept and endorse them.

From everything Ive ever read, Supreme Law is the most accurate, in my opinion.

http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/htm/chaptr11.htm

Not familiar with Dean Clifford? .... Shame on You :) ... LOL

I used to dig through code/rules/regulations/statutes like everyone else, trying to figure this mess out and find a loophole here or there that would be the ticket to our freedom. Been all over Teamlaw and Supreme Laws sites a thousand times.

My brain was scrambled with codes and statutes until I started watching Dean Clifford's seminars. Do yourself a favor and take the time to watch the first link above of that three part series.

Just watch Part 1 and see where it takes you :)

After watching that seminar, you will see things from a totally different perspective. I used to have people send me videos, seminars, etc. and I was so entangled in the "code book" and "statutes", I just thought to myself "I don't have time to watch this or that, I know what I need to know already", and boy, did I find out I was on the wrong path; chasing my tail, until I started watching Dean's seminars.

After you watch that seminar, you won't think the birth certificate is so bad :)

Although Canada is based on

Although Canada is based on Common law, there is one HUGE DIFFERENCE, they dont have a 14th Amendment that makes any person declaring to be born "in the United States" a "Federal Person". THIS is why the Birth Certificate IS bad. It CERTIFIES birth in a FEDERAL place.

FROM there, the govt runs wild with their presumptions. read the 14th Amendment:

    U.S. Constitution

    main page
    annotations

    14th Amendment
    Amendment XIV
    Section 1.

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
    Section 2.

    Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Why another Due Process clause in the 14th? Because these NEW citizens werent protected by the 5th Amendment.

Why are ONLY Representatives apportioned among the states, and NOT direct taxes, like the Original Constitution states? BECAUSE these NEW citizens dont have the RIGHT to apportioned DIRECT taxes.

THIS is why you cant transpose Canadian sovereign mentality here. I have watched his videos you posted, and he is correct for the most part. BUT in the U.S.A. YOU MUST end your presumptive contracts based on birth, or be a slave forever.

Here's my answer to the Certificate of Live Birth fiasco:

Again, this is my opinion based upon the teachings of Dean Clifford:

http://www.dailypaul.com/240980/are-you-tired-of-being-a-14t...

It's not the Social Security card that's the contract that binds, it's the use of the Certificate of Live Birth as a form of identification that's the culprit; sever that and cut off the head of the snake.

Here's another article I thought you might find interesting: From the looks of it, social security is NOT a contract in nature.

Excerpt: " In 1953, a subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee conducted hearings for the express purpose of settling the question of whether social security was contractual in nature; see Hearings of November 27, 1953 entitled "The Legal Status of OASI Benefits," (Part 6). The witness at the hearing was Dr. Arthur J. Altmeyer, who held several offices in the Roosevelt administration. He was a member of the first Social Security Board, and by 1946 became the Social Security Commissioner, retiring in 1953. During this hearing, various parties stated that social security was not a contract:"

That above statement was taken from this article:

http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/InvisibleContracts.html

What do you guys think about this?

Just ran across this link on sedm's website:

"Why the 14th Amendment is not a Threat to your Freedom"

http://sedm.org/Forms/PolicyDocs/FourteenthAmendNotProb.pdf

yes,I've been debating this

yes,
I've been debating this one mistake of theirs for years!! (famguardian.org too)

They are absolutely wrong with this one aspect, except that it helps non white men also be 'free men'. They are interpreting many aspects surrounding this issue incorrectly in my opinion. For example:

1) The 14th Amendments' use of a lower case "c" for citizen for the first time in the Constitution and the Amendments is NOT an accident, it is purposeful.

2) The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" is not Political (necessarily) and is quite possibly referring to the newly freed slaves under the 13th Amendment, that became "federal persons" under the Civil rights act.

3) The case they use:

    “The 1st section of the 14th article [Fourteenth Amendment], to which our attention is more specifically invited, opens with a definition of citizenship—not only citizenship of the United States[***], but citizenship of the states. No such definition was previously found in the Constitution, nor had any attempt been made to define it by act of Congress. It had been the occasion of much discussion in the courts, by the executive departments and in the public journals. It had been said by eminent judges that no man was a citizen of the United States[***] except as he was a citizen of one of the states composing the Union. Those therefore, who had been born and resided always in the District of Columbia or in the territories, though within the United States[*], were not citizens.”
    [Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L.Ed. 394 (1873)]

In my opinion, this case is clearly pointing out that Federal Persons NEEDED the 14th Amendment to be "citizens of the United States". The case uses past tense... "no such definition was...", "nor had any attempt...", "it had been the occasion..." "it had been said by...", "no man was a citizen...", "except as he was...", "those therefore, who had been...", "were not citizens..."

I believe this case shows that the (new) Amendment made new "citizens" that were different than the "Citizens" of the original Constitution.

    It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States, and a citizenship of a state, which are distinct from each other, and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual.
    We think this distinction and its explicit recognition in this Amendment of great weight in this argument, because the next paragraph of this same section, which is the one mainly relied on by the plaintiffs in error, speaks only of privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, and does not speak of those of citizens of the several states. The argument, however, in favor of the plaintiffs, rests wholly on the assumption that the citizenship is the same and the privileges and immunities guaranteed by the clause are the same.”
    —Slaughterhouse Cases: 83 U.S. 36, 73-74 (1873)

4) The 14th Amendment has persons "residing" in States. Residence is temporary. SEDM states "you cannot be domiciled on Federal Territory and be a 14th Amendment citizen."
THIS IS FALSE (IMO). Those born in the United States* AND subject to its jurisdiction are lower case "c" (14th Amendment) citizens wherever they are, and the U.S. Govt. and the courts see it the same way.

    The Slaughterhouse Cases 83 U.S. 36 (1873) The Fourteenth Amendment excludes the children of aliens. “The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”

How the U.S. Govt sees it for example: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf

    d. “Subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States”: All children born in and subject, at the time of birth, to the jurisdiction of the United States acquire U.S. citizenship at birth even if their parents were in the
    United States illegally at the time of birth.
    (1) The U.S. Supreme Court examined at length the theories and legal
    precedents on which the U.S. citizenship laws are based in U.S. v.
    Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). In particular, the Court
    discussed the types of persons who are subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
    The Court affirmed that a child born in the United States to Chinese
    parents acquired U.S. citizenship even though the parents were, at
    the time, racially ineligible for naturalization.

    (2) The Court also concluded that: “The 14th Amendment affirms the
    ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the
    territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country,

    including children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions
    or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign
    sovereigns
    or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of
    enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our
    territory, and with the single additional exception of children of
    members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their
    several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest
    intent
    , includes the children born within the territory of the United
    States,
    of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled
    within the United States.” Pursuant to this ruling:
    (a) Acquisition of U.S. citizenship generally is not affected by the
    fact that the parents may be in the United States temporarily
    or illegally; and that
    (b) A child born in an immigration detention center physically
    located in the United States
    is considered to have been born
    in the United States and be subject to its jurisdiction. This is
    so even if the child’s parents have not been legally admitted
    to the United States and, for immigration purposes, may be
    viewed as not being in the United States.

rebuttal to several points

d. “Subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States”: All children born in and subject, at the time of birth, to the jurisdiction of the United States acquire U.S. citizenship at birth even if their parents were in the
United States illegally at the time of birth.

This is a logical fallacy or outright deception by government.

Illegal parents owe 'allelgiance' to their own nation.

1. By the journals of Congress, the Founders, and the sources they relied upon, 'Subject to the Jurisdiction' means 'political allegiance'. I have an entire paper on the matter here. www.lojack12.com/Constitution/Native.html

2. The above paper also establishes the irrefutable fact that it is the 'allegiance' of the 'parents' that makes one 'subject' at birth.

Representative John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the 14th Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:
“I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of PARENTS NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE TO ANY FOREIGN SOVEREIGNTY is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN”
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=07... (location: top center column)

Each state IS a 'foreign sovereignty/jurisdiction', thus it specifically excludes those who owe 'allegiance to thier state of the Union'. 8 U.S.C. 1101 (21) and see 8 U.S.C. 1502, 'American national', and 'GPO Style manual, sec 5.23, Nationalities of the NATIVES of the States (of the Union)http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-STYLEMANUAL-2008/html/GPO-STYLEMANUAL-2008-7.htm

AND WKA
(1) The U.S. Supreme Court examined at length the theories and legal
precedents on which the U.S. citizenship laws are based in U.S. v.
Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). In particular, the Court
discussed the types of persons who are subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
The Court affirmed that a child born in the United States to Chinese
parents acquired U.S. citizenship even though the parents were, at
the time, racially ineligible for naturalization.

Here you highlighted the wrong portion of the opinion. The courts were fully aware of this fact although, to my knowledge it was never mentioned. Wong's parent's could NOT be naturalized, because of treaty with CHINA. From my above paper on the subject;

"In 1898, the Supreme Court, in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, ruled that Mr. Wong had acquired 14th Amendment citizenship at birth, even though his parents, at the time of his birth, were Chinese immigrants not citizens of the United States. Wong was born in the United States in 1873. The Birlingame-Seward Treaty of 1868, between China and the United States, was in effect at the time. Although it did not permit each country to naturalize the other country's citizens, the treaty contained the provision;
ARTICLE V The United States of America and the Emperor of China cordially recognize the inherent and inalienable right of man to change his home and allegiance  By treaty, Wong's parents, though not U.S. "citizens", nevertheless qualified as U.S. "nationals", owing allegiance to the U.S. exclusively and not owing allegiance to any foreign power.

U.S. citizen owes allegiance to the federal government
American citizen owes allegiance to his Republic state of the Union

U.S. citizens are 'citizens OF the UNITED STATES, U.S. citizens, U.S. Nationals, (8 U.S.C. 1101 (22)

American 'citizens' are 'American Nationals' (8 U.S.C. 1502, 8 U.S.C. 1101 (21), GPO style manual 5.23)

It is UNIVERSALLY recognized that YOU have the 'RIGHT to Elect' (choose) your nationality. They just forgot to teach you that part. Peace.

unclear rebuttal

what are you rebutting? you seem to be agreeing with my post, curious.

Thank You Sir !

That's a good post you just made, and I've heard that description of the term "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in as it's meaning is "political allegiance" from someone on a talkshoe call. Can't remember if it was a Rod Class show or one that Dean Clifford was on, but I did hear it.

Declare your political allegiance to the Republic state in which you reside, and leave out the part about the flag. Make it public notice by running an add in the county seat newspaper for 3 weeks. When you get the affidavit of listing back from the county seat after your add has run it's course, then record it in the county recorders office, then take a copy of that and run it back in the county seat newspaper for 3 more consecutive weeks.

You just served public notice; you just fulfilled due process of law.

Check Mate.

Check This Out!

This is Rod Class' talkshoe page "AIB Radio", he's on top of this 14th and Bankruptcy like white on rice. Talks about the McFadden Speech; Bootleg Whiskey in respect of the Fed Notes and how the Corp had to create another class of citizenship (for themselves) to separate them from us to collateralize our signatures for the debt and why the IRS won't take cash as a form of payment.

Go listen to Episode 600 on 5/28/12, it's about 57 minutes, then work your way down that list a few more shows (Episode 599, 598, 597).

http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=4...

When you get to that link, scroll down the page a little to see the show archives; click the orange listen button and a small window will pop up with the player in it.

The 14th Amendment didn't make us slaves, the Bankruptcy did and he proves the bankruptcy, and his forensic auditors have proved the securitization of our signatures as collateral.

Good stuff!

Found this to be interesting:

Excerpt: "Those patriots, who finally understand where the IRS, Inc. is coming from; that is, the Uniform Commercial Code contract law, go too far when they insist that the possession of a "Socialist Security number" or having an interstate Federal Reserve Bank account, credit card, a state driver's license, or even a postal zip code, binds the Common Law citizen, by way of contract, so that payment of tribute to the IRS, Inc. is suddenly a contractual obligation. Have you heard that idea taught by other patriots? Think about it for a minute! The government cannot remove all the gold and silver from circulation, and then insist that the use of paper money and checks are suddenly contractual obligations wherein a tribute must be paid for their use."

Source: http://www.freedom-school.com/nord-davis/pardon-me-5.pdf

Then going back to what Dean Clifford is teaching about the "office" they've created in your behalf (the name), I ran across this article which explains the "person" is an office:

http://www.freedom-school.com/office-of-the-person.pdf

I listened to a few more of Dean's talkshoes with Angela Stark, and he reiterates: There has been an office created (the name) by way of the Birth Certificate/SS Card/DL, etc. and the address of that gov't office is your place of residence. But if they want you to do anything other than sit there and watch TV, they are going to be presented with my fee schedule to perform a function of any kind (ie: file tax returns, show up for an audit, etc.), and that for instance fee schedule of $50,000.00 per/min needs to be paid up front, since the gov't can't seem to pay their bills on time; as soon as the fee is paid, he'll be more than happy to perform any function of that office they wish.

He even states you don't really have to have a fee schedule in place; neither of you have ever worked out the terms of employment, so when they contact you, just send them a fee schedule; or bring it to court and demand payment up front.

Just throwing more food for thought out there.

The 14th Amendment DOES NOT

The 14th Amendment DOES NOT make you a federal person merely by bing born here.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States..."

You become SUBJECT TO by first your parents actions of REGISTRATION (enrollment) within the jurisdiction, and then further by not removing yourself from the jurisdiction once you emancipate from your parents.

There are CLEARLY 2 requirements to be a federal person:
1) born or naturalized in the United States
2) Subject to the jurisdiction thereof

There is NOTHING you can do about #1, there is however something that can be done about #2. The presumptive contract is not based upon birth, it is based upon silence in the matter of #2. #1 BY ITSELF, does not make the federal person. It requires #1 AND #2.

Your birth record, by itself, does not make you a federal citizen. It is just that, a record of the land you where born on. If you surrender your citizenship, you must surrender all the property you keep that belongs to the United States, this includes the surrendering THEIR Social Securuty number. It does not include surrendering your record of birth, that belongs to the human. Your record of birth is actually what will keep them from deporting you out of this land if you were to surrender your citizenship.

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

What does "United States"

What does "United States" mean in the 14th Amendment?

If you dont know 100% then dont presume!!

What does "united States" mean in the 18th Amendment? http://openjurist.org/262/us/100/cunard-co-v-mellon#fn2

as soon as your parent fills out the birth certificate declaring your birth in the UNITED STATES, (as opposed to the united States of America) you are presumed to be a federal person subject to FEDERAL jurisdiction. There is no MANDATORY REQUIREMENT for a birth certificate, so it is presumed to be a knowing and willful act of filling out the form.

The U.S. Birth Certificate is THE MAIN EVIDENCE of birth "within the UNITED STATES"

http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-...

    (b) Evidence . (1) An applicant under this section shall establish eligibility under 8 CFR 320.2. An applicant must submit the following required documents unless such documents are already contained in USCIS administrative file(s): (Introductory text revised effective 11/28/11, 76 FR 53764)

    (i) The child's birth certificate or record;

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&rgn=div...

    § 51.42 Persons born in the United States applying for a passport for the first time.

    (a) Primary evidence of birth in the United States. A person born in the United States generally must submit a birth certificate. The birth certificate must show the full name of the applicant, the applicant's place and date of birth, the full name of the parent(s), and must be signed by the official custodian of birth records, bear the seal of the issuing office, and show a filing date within one year of the date of birth.

http://www.azracing.gov/Citizenship/ADR239ChangeinAlienStatu...

Real Citizens dont need certificates of birth. Nor do Real Citizens need to Register their private property.

The 14th Amendment had ONE purpose, to create a new limited type of citizenship for the newly freed slaves. Free men need not rely on the 14th for status of citizenship, BUT if you do, you will be considered one. This is why ONLY "involuntary" servitude was banned in the 13th. Voluntary servitude is completely constitutional.

    "It is claimed that the plaintiff is a citizen of the United States and of this State. Undoubtedly she is. It is argued that she became such by force of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, already recited. This, however, is a mistake. It could as well be claimed that she became free by the effect of the Thirteenth Amendment, by which slavery was abolished; for she was no less a citizen than she was free before the adoption of either of these amendments. No white person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, or born without those limits, and subsequently naturalized under their laws, owes the status of citizenship to the recent amendments to the Federal Constitution. “The history and aim of the Fourteenth Amendment is well known, and the purpose had in view in its adoption well understood. That purpose was to confer the status of citizenship upon a numerous class of persons domiciled within the limits of the United States, who could not be brought within the operation of the naturalization laws because native born, and whose birth, though native, had at the same time left them without the status of citizenship. These persons were not white persons, but were, in the main, persons of African descent, who had been held in slavery in this country, or, if having themselves never been held in slavery, were the native-born descendents of slaves. Prior to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment it was settled that neither slaves, nor those who had been such, nor the descendants of these, though native and free born, were capable of becoming citizens of the United States. (Dread Scott v. Sanford, 19 How. 393). The Thirteenth Amendment, though conferring the boon of freedom upon native-born persons of African blood, had yet left them under an insuperable bar as to citizenship; and it was mainly to remedy this condition that the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted.”
    VAN VALKENBURG V. BROWN, 43 CAL. 43 (1872)

"United States" in the 14th

"United States" in the 14th Amendment refers to a reconstruction of the original united States. The original united States was dissolved in 1861, then reconstructed in a different form, but with a similar name, in 1868. In 1861 14 of the then 38 States passed resolutions each specifically stating that the Union is hereby dissolved, thereby dissolving the REQUIRED quorum in Congress. THIS WAS THE END OF THE united States of America. What we have now is a RECONSTRUCTION of what was. A reconstruction is not the original. The 14th Amendment is ITSELF a constitution of the NEW State. Clause 5 of the Amendment creates the "living" constitution, and ALL of the US Codes written since then are extension of the 14th "Amendment" PER the 5th clause.

"united States" does not appear within the 18th Amendment.

"as soon as your parent fills out the birth certificate declaring your birth in the UNITED STATES, (as opposed to the united States of America) you are presumed to be a federal person subject to FEDERAL jurisdiction."

This is not true. If the childs parents are US Citizens then this is true. If the parents are not citizens and the child is born here, then the child is not even a citizen, though the child HAS met the first requirement to be a citizen. The second requirement, "subject to the jurisdiction of", can easily be met by the parents checking the "yes" box FOR THE CHILD on a legal form that ask the question "are you a US Citizen?" or MANY other ways of putting the child under the jurisdiction.

"There is no MANDATORY REQUIREMENT for a birth certificate, so it is presumed to be a knowing and willful act of filling out the form."

This is not true. While there is no mandatory requirement for the parents to file a birth certificate, but a doctor, midwife, nurse act. ARE REQUIRED by all STATES STATUTES to file a birth certificate. They are required to file that certificate EVEN IF THE PARENTS DO NOT SIGN IT OR GIVE NAME OF THE CHILD.

"The U.S. Birth Certificate is THE MAIN EVIDENCE of birth "within the UNITED STATES"

This is not true. There is no US Birth Certificate. All birth Certificates are done by the States, there is no US Birth Certificate. It is a bit strange that you follow this statement with a PORTION of 8 CFR 320.2, which is procedure for obtaining US Citizenship for a child born outside the United States. The Code reads: "An applicant must submit the following required documents... (i) The childs birth certificate or record", and following this, that you did not post, is a long list of OTHER documents also required. The Birth Certificate that is required in this CFR is NOT a US birth Certificate, but a FOREIGN birth Certificate as this CFR specifically pertains to FOREIGN born.

As for a passport, the Birth Certificate is one of the documents that will be required to get a passport of a US CITIZEN. In showing the passport you are establishing the FIRST requirement of a US Citizen (born or naturalized), you will also have to present evidence IN ADDITION to the Birth Certificate establishing "subject to the jurisdiction of". That additional evidence is the Application in which you will be REQUIRED to answer affirmative "Are you a citizen of the United States". This is no different than asking, "are you subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?" or "do you consent to the jurisdiction of the United States?"

The court case you cite is from 1872, a VERY contentious time in regard to the 14th Amendment. The writings of those who drafted the 14th Amendment, as well as the fact that we see since 1868 US Citizenship for ANY race does indeed derive from the 14th Amendment, does indeed prove that this judges OPINION was wrong. The drafters of the 14th Amendment were clear long before it was ratified, the 14th Amendment is for the white man as well as for the black man, and the very fact that NO race is mentioned within the 14th Amendment makes it for everyone, REGARDLESS of what the "opinion" might be of its intent. The way it is worded makes it for everyone. The 14th Amendment establishes WHO has the privilege to vote, a US CITIZENS male of 21 years or older. No mention of race. So are you trying to suggest that according to the 14th Amendment, only blacks were eligible to vote???

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

I believe you are wrong on almost every issue.

The original Constitution was written by white men for white men, the land-owning "People" of the states united. It was not written to protect Blacks, or foreigners, or even women, hence, it doesnt protect Indians not taxed, so how could it protect slaves? It only protected free white men from oppression by government. It also, contrary to current belief, applied to the Federal Government AND the States. Some say it is only a limitation on Federal government and the Incorporation era applied it to the states, NOT TRUE.

The Bill of rights was specifically added by a convention of states that wanted to clarify the Constitution:

    THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

The states had adopted the Constitution as the law of the land, not the law of the federal government. From there, the states could add to the Constitution, but only if the additions did not violate protected rights. States for example couldn't infringe on the right of the "People" to bear arms. The states could however infringe on the bearing of arms by persons that were not the "People", or that were not free, or that were not Citizens (with an upper case "C"). The Federal government could infringe on the bearing of arms of persons ONLY that were in Federal territory under their power to have absolute legislative jurisdiction, and to make all needful rules respecting territory and property of the UNITED STATES.

The only one of the Amendments that specifically only applied to Congress was the first Amendment, hence, "Congress shall make no law" as opposed to the 2nd Amendment "shall not be infringed."

The D.C. Organic Act allowed the United States government to be a corporation, and to call itself "the United States"...this allowed The United States to make seemingly unconstitutional rules that only apply to members of the Corporation.

The 13th Amendment legalized "voluntary" servitude, opening the door for membership into the corporation called United States.

The civil rights act of 1866 established and created the first Federal citizens (with a lower case "c" for the first time), statutory "citizens OF The United States". Now there were two types of citizens, Constitutional "Citizens" and statutory "citizens". the latter were only legally recognized in Federal territories because of the lack of authority of Congress to make a law regarding citizenship in the several states.

The 14th Amendment converted the statutory "citizen" to a Constitutional "citizen" (still with a lower case "c") Look at the word "Citizen" throughout the Constitution, and including the 11th Amendment, compared to the word "citizen as used in the 14th Amendment and all subsequent amendments.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_trans...
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amend...

Enrollment into the corporate United States had begun. Although originally ONLY to allow the newly freed slaves a type of citizenship and mild representation (but not allowing them to vote or run for office, nor to be protected against direct taxes...see 14th Amendment "representatives shall be apportioned" no mention of taxes:

    AMENDMENT XIV

    Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

    Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

    Section 1.
    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 1 of the 14th is a limitation on the States with regard to Federal citizens residing "within" the States territorial jurisdiction. Only the States are forbidden from depriving lower case "c" citizens due process, only the States are forbidden from abridging the privileges and immunities of Federal citizens. The Federal government on the other hand is allowed to make ANY RULE it wants for its citizens, because all federal citizens are considered federal personnel.

    Section 2.
    Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Federal citizens couldn't even vote until the 15th and 19th Amendment, how could they be true Citizens without the ability to vote?

THIS is what happened! The republic still exists for the handful of People that never became a 14th Amendment citizen, such as the Amish, some other tribes without Federal control, and a handful of sovereigns that went through and corrected the erroneous forms and contracts and abandoned the Federal Social Security number and other civil privileges.

There are about 110 "States" the 50 states of the Union, and the 50 FEDERAL STATES, ie. the STATE OF CALIFORNIA which is the political subdivision of the UNITED STATES, its the Corporate state... then there are a handful of other Federal States, the State of Guam, the State of the District of Columbia, The State of America Samoa, The State of Puerto Rico, etc. As long as you are born in one of the 50 states of the Union, you are NOT "born in the United States" nor "subject to the Jurisdiction" of the United States.

the term United States in the 18th Amendment means U.S. Territories and Federal Zones, such as ports, forts, magazines, military bases, etc.

    AMENDMENT XVIII

    Passed by Congress December 18, 1917. Ratified January 16, 1919. Repealed by amendment 21.

    Section 1.
    After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

    Section 2.
    The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

    Section 3.
    This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

The use of the phrase "the several states" AND "United States" clearly shows the difference. Furthermore "the jurisdiction thereof" is singular. If referring to the several jurisdictions of the several states it would have been pluralized. Such as, "the jurisdictions therein" or "a jurisdiction thereof".

However, I suggest people learn for themselves and do what's best for you. Dont take my word for it.

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/twoclass.htm

Is it possible we could rebut this presumption of theirs, that

we are "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof", by sending in an affidavit with Title 28 USC: 1746 ss 1 form attached?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1746

Looks like 1 and 2 are 'very' different in their wording.

Signing anything, UNDER

Signing anything, UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, IS GIVING JURISDICTION. By stating "under penalty of perjury" you are submitting to THEIR penalty of THEIR law...THEIR JURISDICTION. The freeman, "this is what I say, if you do not believe me that is your decision". Swearing oaths to them gets you in trouble, though if you (we) are already under their jurisdiction then they will and can require it of us...

To REMOVE this jurisdiction you would do as USC Title 8 USC § 1481 (a)(6). This removes their jurisdiction. If you are subject to their jurisdiction then you must follow their rules. Once you have removed yourself from their jurisdiction you must AVOID their rules lest you risk putting yourself BACK under the jurisdiction.

There is also the possibilty of removing their jurisdiction by way ofUSC Title 8 USC § 1481 (a)(2) or (4) if one is a Minister of a TRUE Church (not a "incorporated" church). A church is recognized as a form of government, and it is foreign to the United States UNLESS it has incorporated ("join with") the State. These incorporated Churches are the 501c3 "churches", which are not actually churches but instead Tax exempt organizations. Non incorporated TRUE Churches are excluded from taxation (not exempt from tax, but EXCLUDED) as they are not under the jurisdiction of the State. Tax exempt organizations still have to file IRS papers, those who are excluded have no need to file ANYTHING. As a Church Minister you are a government official of a government foreign to the United States, and hopefully you've vowed allegiance to your King, and have NOT broken the First Commandment of that government forbidding you from putting any other King BEFORE YOUR KING...

If you are a Minister of His Church, then you automatically throw off their jurisdiction, but you would be expected and need a congregation as your witness to this fact. And you may be tested to see if you indeed are following the laws of YOUR government, and not merely seeking to avoid taxes of THEIR government. Many have been found to be using this simply for their own benefit which in turn is prima facia evidence that one is NOT of His Church.

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

all good!

Thank you for providing this insight. I have recently come across this concept via Chris "Chappy" Chapman and his experiences with a Grand Jury - it can be found at http://werus.us. I am struggling with www.sedm.org ('Path to Freedom' doc) membership requirements so finding Chappy was enlightening, and now you and Dean C teachings - all Good! SEDM ultimately requires the dropping of SSN and hence your driver license. How can one work or do anything fighting policeman all the time because of not having a license to drive?

Chappy is teaching the importance of domicile declaration and common law as per Bill Thornton. He is also promoting a Joinder where participants take a more aggressive role with the IRS and their not so friendly agents. Interestingly, I recently came into a problem with my county records office not taking my declaration so I went a few counties over where it was gladly excepted ($65). I think Chappy is on to something and wonder if you can shed some light about his services?

In the meanwhile, I will research Dean Clifford and would love to see more information you have regarding this topic.

my best regards,
Carl

Repeal the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and the 16th amendment - sound money for our communities and out of Washington, DC.
--------------

So....Taxation is THEFT ?

If by the definition, this thereby declares Taxation is legally "THEFT"

......then there must be some extremely good arguments to provide actual evidence for the reasoning behind this country having a Federal Reserve.

Why do we have one?

google "right of

google "right of Election":
There are two Governments at the same time.
One, the Republic, which few are a part of anymore, and two the 'Democracy' that nearly everyone 'volunteered' to be part of when they volunteered their birth certificate as a "citizen OF the United States" and voluntarily entered the Social Security benefits program OF the United States.

    That the general principle of such a right of electing, to remain under the old or to contract a new allegiance, was recognized, is apparent from the case of Com. v. Chapman, 1 Dal., 53, and other cases cited. Those who adhered to the new government and transferred their allegiance thereto, became citizens of the same. All who were free, had this right of election, else they were not free. No particular color nor descent was required to confer this right of election. It resulted from freedom, and the necessity resting upon all to make an election. When it was made, and the individual determined to adhere to the new state, he was necessarily a member and a citizen of the same. He sustained the same relation to the new government by choice, which he had sustained to the old by birth.
    [INGLIS V. TRUSTEES OF SAILOR'S SNUG HARBOR, 28 U. S. 99 (1830)

Any Taxation Is Stealing With A Fancy Name ! ! !

Voluntary contributions ran the churches for years and some of them flourished under this type of cash flow.

I have financially supported Ron Paul "Voluntarily" and feel good about it.

If the USA still had a fair and just government and would simply follow the strict laws in the Constitution, our current out of control government expansion would slow and then stop, once the Gold/Silver money clause in the Constitution was in affect forcing government into contraction over time, back to a respectable level.

Bring back honest money and we bring back an honest government !

Ron Paul is my president !

beesting

The distinction is with direct vs. indirect.

It's really that simple. The sixteenth amendment does not deal with the two types of tax clearly defined by the constitution.

"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."

The two Constitutional requirements for taxes are:

Indirect (excise, duty, imposts), must be geographically uniform.

Direct (capitation, property) must be apportioned among the States.

Clearly, the "income tax" is unapportioned and therefore must be an indirect tax. Indirect means a tax on activities, events, incidents or occasions. All of which can be avoided and have nothing to do with income.

Again, the 16th amendment does not define a class of tax, therefore the original Constitution MUST be used for clarification as the Supreme Court has ruled.

Good Subject

Might I suggest:
losthorizons.com

There you will see the millions in refund checks and other documentation about the truth of the income tax.
Also read about Petes ordeal with the courts and why he's in jail now. Leave him a donation while there, or just buy the book. Good reading material! Your welcome!

Your forgetting that we live in a debt / credit

economy. 180 degrees from post-1933. If you analyze exactly what it is the IRS does in relation to the utilization of fiat (worthless) currency then it starts to make sense. If you understand banking and the interplay between the treasury, taxes and the roll the IRS plays in managing debt then you'll get it. It seems left handed logic but it is THE ONLY THING that makes sense.

Just one last kick in the nuts, then a final deathblow