12 votes

Why Wesley Snipes is going to jail

can anyone prove this wrong...with fact, not opinions??

Wesley Snipes has a great deal of correct information in his filings, however he made one HUGE mistake:
see page "7 of 29"
http://www.thesnipestrial.com/snipes29pp.pdf

    "My question at this point is: Does the IRS help "nontaxpayers" such as myself in not complying with the laws they are clearly not subject to and thereby provide them equal protection of the laws mandated by Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1981?"

Here Wesley Snipes made the CRUCIAL mistake of requesting protection as a lower case "c" 14th Amendment "citizen of the United States".

A 14th Amendment citizen is a "Federal citizen" with civil rights (given by government) and specifically NOT a "Constitutional Citizen" with "human rights" (rights from birth)

All 14th Amendment citizens owe "direct and immediate allegiance to the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, via CONGRESS, because Congress created them. 14th Amendment citizens are given privileges, such as the privilege to vote under the 15th and 19th Amendment. The Constitution applies to Citizens of the states of the Union, NOT to federal subjects. For them, Congress makes ALL NEEDFUL RULES.
Remember the Constitution is for "We the people of the United States" (meaning the states of the Union) and NOT for the Territories, D.C., Aliens, or Federal Persons. All 14th Amendment citizens are treated as "residing in the District of Columbia" where the Constitution SPECIFICALLY does NOT apply...

USC title 26
http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/26C79.txt

    (39) Persons residing outside United States
    If any citizen or resident of the United States does not reside
    in (and is not found in) any United States judicial district,
    such citizen or resident shall be treated as residing in the
    District of Columbia
    for purposes of any provision of this title
    relating to -
    (A) jurisdiction of courts, or
    (B) enforcement of summons.

It should be noted that "United States", with regard to "persons residing outside United States" in Title 26 above, means the District of Columbia and other Federal Territories and NOT the actual states of the Union.

for more info on why you are a Citizen and not a citizen see these:
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/136332
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/142862

see also:

    U.S. v. Anthony 24 Fed. 829 (1873) "The term resident and citizen of the United States is distinguished from a Citizen of one of the several states, in that the former is a special class of citizen created by Congress."

    "A 'civil right' is considered a right given and protected by law, and a person's enjoyment thereof is regulated entirely by the law that creates it."
    82 CA 369, 373, 255, P 760.

    "...rights of national citizenship as distinct from the fundamental or natural rights inherent in state citizenship".
    [Madden v. Kentucky, 309 U.S. 83: 84 L.Ed. 590 (1940) ]

    "There is a difference between privileges and immunities belonging to the citizens of the United States as such, and those belonging to the citizens of each state as such".
    [Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41 (1900) ]

    "We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of it's own..."
    [United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)]

    Privileges and immunities clause of Fourteenth Amendment protects only those rights peculiar to being citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship." Jones v. Temmer (1994), 829 F. Supp. 1226, U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14 section 1

    "Both before and after the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution, it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the United States in order to be a citizen of his state." Crosse v. Board of Supervisors of Elections (1966) 221 A.2d 431 p.433, citing U.S. v. Cruikshank (1875), 92 U.S. 542, 549, 23 L.Ed. 588 (1875), Slaughter-House Cases (1872), 83 U.S. 36; 1872 U.S. LEXIS 1139; 21 L. Ed. 394; 16 Wall. 36

AND MOSTLY!!

    "Rights under 42 USCS sect.1983 are for citizens of United States and not of state." Wadleigh v. Newhall (1905 CC Cal) 136 F 941



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Ya wanna avoid paying

Ya wanna avoid paying taxes?

Just like the system makes nearly impossible to represent yourself in a big court case, the system makes it nearly impossible to not pay taxes.

Get the right lawyer/CPA and pay threw the nose to not pay taxes just like the rich.

The other alternative is destroying the income tax...not loopholes.

use a social security number

use a social security number with your work, and you will owe Social Security...it is NOT required. This is the number that locks you into the IRS the W-4 is a one man election form where you declare that you are engaging in a "trade or business" in the "united States"

NEVER HIRE an attorney:
http://www.notfooledbygovernment.com/lawyers.htm

Start HERE

http://sedm.org/Forms/Procs/PathToFreedom.pdf

I think there could be remedy

I think there could be remedy with a tort claim, very large tort claim.

Snipes didn't loose

because he didn't read and understand the countless statutes correctly. He lost because the statutes, courts, lawyers and government are illegal, corrupt, out of control and predatory (for private profit and control). The patriots were a while back winning every case against the IRS. Then the IRS changed tactics and began denying due process - the patriots have lost every case since. No honest person can prevail against a nefarious conspiracy of such magnitude that is focused on his destruction. It's all about the money and slavery (compliance).

I'm no expert but, I found this site some time ago.

www.nontaxpayer.org

Great advise on Freedom to Fascism especially from Edwin Vierra the Harvard Constitutional law professor.

Thanks for the info...

greatly appreciate it.

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

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

Snipes interview Tuesday

Wesley Snipes will be on Larry King Live Tuesday night.

"The action star joins Larry for his only interview just days before he’s due to report to prison for three years! …"

http://larrykinglive.blogs.cnn.com/

NJ

bump for

interest

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

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

BIG 'C'

All that work out the window because of a small case 'c'?

And do not say si, ;)

poor guy, what an effort though. I guess if anyone can afford it, he can.

what is his final punishment? and can he get paroled?

donvino

Compliments to you first off

Compliments to you first off on doing the research.
You may be right. But you know they don't play by their own rules unless it suits them to do so.
Arguing the rules with criminals is a losing proposition.

"The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that." — Alan Greenspan

This was not the mistake Snipes made. His mistake was

filing paperwork that is ONLY for "taxpayers" to file.

You can't file paperwork which gives prima facie evidence that you are a "taxpayer" under penalty of perjury and then successfully claim that you are a "non-taxpayer."

It has nothing to do with capitalization on the word "citizen" and everything to do with the returns he filed which are only for "taxpayers" and not "non-taxpayers."

Well, I do not know what to

Well, I do not know what to do, now. The gas people gave me a 1099 along with a badly-needed $2200.00. So now I guess I have to file that, cause the IRS gets a copy...

All federal citizens are

All federal citizens are required to file returns, because the money they make is "income" and a "trade or business". The upper case C Citizen is the Citizen that the Constitution protects against direct taxes and self incrimination. Yes, when you file returns as a "taxpayer" if youre not, then you are making a mistake, but if you claim to be a federal citizen "of the United States", then you give up your right to labor for the privilege of federal status, and are required to file forms.

    "...the most natural meaning of 'of the United States' is 'belonging to the United States.'"
    [U.S. Supreme Court, ELLIS v. U S, 206 U.S. 246 (1907) 206 U.S. 246]

There are only four classes of persons on whom the tax has

been imposed:

A) Non-Resident aliens earning domestic source income
B) Foreign Corporations earning domestic source income
C) U.S. Citizens residing abroad earning foreign source income
D) Withholding agents for A-C

I don't see U.S. "citizen" or "Citizen" earning domestic source income in that list.

So no, it has nothing to do with "federal" vs. "State" citizenship.

It has to do with "has the Congress imposed the tax upon me?"

If not, then I would be a "non-taxpayer" as a "taxpayer" is someone upon whom an internal revenue tax has been imposed.

By their own definitions, it has NOTHING to do with "C" or "c" and everything to do with did they impose the tax on you.

If they didn't impose the tax, but you file anyway, then that is the mistake.

Show me a case where someone filed NO paperwork. Not even a W-4. And show me where they were prosecuted for such. THEN I'll entertain the notion of citizenship being the issue.

The fact is though, there are no such cases, because in that instance, there is nothing to prosecute, proving it has nothing to do with state/federal citizenship and everything to do with tax imposition in the law, and/or your own self-assessment.

you're missing something...if

you're missing something...if you are a "federal citizen" called a "citizen of the United States" under sec 1 of the 14 Amendment, then you will "be treated as residing in the District of Columbia" where a direct tax can be levied and congress can make all needful rules.

When someone claims to be a Congress created lower case c citizen, they thereby admit that all of their rights come from government and the become a statutory citizen of the United STates under USC Title 8, 1101

see:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1101.html
(21) The term “national” means a person owing permanent allegiance to a state.

(22) The term “national of the United States” means
(A) a citizen of the United States, or
(B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.

A "national" is someone born in a state of the Union who never claims to be a citizen OF the United States, this is the 'person' your list above applies to. If you are a "national OF the United States" or a "citizen OF the United States" then you are considered Federal Personnel, and as such you are subject to Congressional laws and executive orders. You have no 'right' to work, everything you do is a privilege of Congress because you are "within the United States" as defined... which is why the tax laws are "special laws":

http://sedm.org/Exhibits/EX07.006.pdf

The problem here is that Wesley and you have not made the connection that the 14th Amendment created a "new class" of citizen... one with civil rights, it is a type of servitude set up by the 13th Amendment, called "voluntary servitude" where you, or your parents" enrolled you into the Federal Government by filling out a birth certificate and a social security number and subsequently a selective service card, then a drivers license. This made you, and all "citizens of the United States", aka U.S. citizens, federal persons subject to their control.

citizen of the United States

Julius, it is my opinion that the Capitalization is irrelevant. It is the changed usage of the words. "citizen of the united States" was used by the courts at least as early as 1855, to wit:

"A citizen of any one of the States of the union, is held to be, and called a citizen of the United States, although technically and abstractly there is no such thing. To conceive a citizen of the United States who is not a citizen of some one of the States, is totally foreign to the idea, and inconsistent with the proper construction and common understanding of the expression as used in the Constitution, which must be deduced from its various other provisions. The object then to be attained, by the exercise of the power of naturalization, was to make citizens of the respective States.
[Ex Parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 300"
(1855)

Note that it supports the idea of who a "citizen" in the 14th is as well. Naturalization is only to be carried out by the states and not the federal government.They have only been granted the authority to make "a uniform rule for naturalization". It is also consistent with Title 8 section 1101

"(21) The term “national” means a person owing permanent allegiance to a state. (American,state citizen)
(22) The term “national of the United States” means
(A) a citizen of the United States, or
(B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.
(Federal Citizen)

(23) The term “naturalization” means the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever.

Note that under the "law" each state is a "nation/foreign country"."
The term “foreign nations,” as used in a statement of rule of law that the laws of foreign nations should be proved should be proved in a certain manner, should be construed to mean all nations and states other than which the action is brought; and hence one state of the Union is foreign to another, in that sense of the rule.

A “foreign state” within statute providing for expatriation of American citizen who is naturalized under laws of a foreign state is a country which is not the United States, or its possession or colony, an alien country, other than our own. Kletter v Dulles,D.C. D.C., 11F. Supp. 593,598
(Black’s Law Dictionary 5th Edition Pg 583)

This predates the 14th amendment and may the source of the idea to use it to obfuscate. What I believe to be more relevant is the current codification of 15 stat 249, known as the expatriation act. It was passed exactly 3 weeks to the day after the 14th amendment was passed those dates being July 9 and July 27, 1868.

To my knowledge the last amending of it resulted in R.S. 2000 which clearly displays the difference between a "US citizen" and an "American citizen", where the former is the "federal" subject. Read it here

Capitalization cant be

Capitalization cant be irrelevant, otherwise I wouldnt exist.

for example, see how the Federal Government uses Capitalization to differentiate between a Territory and a territory:

http://www.doi.gov/oia/Islandpages/palmyrapage.htm

    It is, in fact, of the fourteen U.S. insular areas, the only incorporated U.S. territory, that is, a Territory. (Under Federal law U.S. insular areas are divided into two categories: incorporated insular areas which use "Territory" with a capital "T" and unincorporated insular areas which use "territory" with a lower-case "t.")

When you read through the Constitution you will see that Citizen ALWAYS had a Capital C up to, and including the 11th Amendment. Then in the 14th Amendment, the term citizen used a lower case "c".

The reason for this is significant. If the Amendment had used a Capital C, then all the newly freed slaves would be Constitutional Natural born Citizens and able to hold office, vote, etc.

John Bingham was well aware of this, so he spent a lot of time figuring this out.

Before the 13th Amendment, slaves were protected by property rights. You could not murder a slave walking the streets without being subject to suit for damage of property. When the 13th Amendment came along and freed all the slaves, they no longer had any protection. This is because they were not "Citizens", "persons" or "people" protected by state law or the Constitution.

Now comes the civil rights act of 1866. This act made all stateless persons "federal citizens" called statutory "citizens of the United States":

    That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.

here, as you pointed out, the phrase 'not subject to any foreign power' means the States of the Union. This Act allowed the Federal Government to adopt all freed slaves as citizens OF the UNITED STATES.

Many people did not consider the freed slaves citizens because they were only statutory citizens, therefore Congress went to work to make them Constitutional citizens, that is Constitutional Federal citizens, that were under Congressional control, and could not vote or run for office.

the case you point out [Ex Parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 300"(1855) (before the 14th Amendment) agrees exactly with this...it says that there is no such thing as a citizen OF the united States except that a Citizen of a State may consider himself a Citizen of the united States because he has all the liberty and freedom in all of the states.

The Federal Government is charged with the Duty of naturalizing citizens (as you said) AND if someone from a state of the Union wishes to become a Federal citizen, there is a process and a form for that. It is the birth certificate and Social Security form....this is WHY every American is a Federal citizen today, because of exactly what you have pointed out...BUT there is NO REQUIREMENT to do so.

    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. [Slaughter House Cases, 83 U.S. 36]

This was a VERY clever trick. The 14th Amendment stated that any person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States...

If we dissect this language something becomes very clear,
1st, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is a singular phrase. Note that it could have said "subject to a jurisdiction" or "subject to the jurisdictions" with an 's' at the end, or it could have used the same wording as in the 13th Amendment that the same guys wrote..."subject to THEIR jurisdiction" meaning the several states, instead they used "the" "jurisdiction" and "thereof"

The = single
jurisdiction vs. jurisdictions = single
thereof = single

there·of
   /ˌðɛərˈʌv, -ˈɒv/ Show Spelled[thair-uhv, -ov] Show IPA
–adverb
1.
of that or it.

Which government has a singular jurisdiction over the entire United States?? the Federal Government

With regard to 'national' v 'national OF the united States'

see:

    As the works are things upon which the labor is expended, the most natural meaning of 'of the United States' is 'belonging to the United States.' ELLIS v. U S, 206 U.S. 246 (1907)

Lastly, to show you that the Federal Government isnt opposed to pluralizing 'jurisdiction', I leave you with this:

http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&safe=off&q=%22the+j...

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/jetruman/twoclass.htm

Is there a proper response possible?

Thx

Free includes debt-free!

Have missed your writings

I figured it was Julius by the nature of the topic. An interesting one I have pondered. Good to hear from you again Julius enjoying your incite as usual.

PaStoneman

thnx

Im hoping someone will prove me wrong, but unfortunately, I don't think so. Everything fits, everything works, and everything is 'legal' when we view it with this 'theory' in mind.

I concur

I came to the same conclusion in the Wesley Snipes case and the Brown case as well. After studying the law and how it relates to us as nontaxpayers on such sites as sedm.org the whole picture comes into view. We can not claim constitutional rights while we are accepting the benefits and privileges of the federal corporation and its civil rights. We must then learn how to properly represent ourselves as that nontaxpayer, nonresident alien, state national etc. and stay out of the bindings of the federal governments jurisdiction.