The U.S. is Bankrupt. The U.S. is in receivership. The Federal Reserve holds the paper.

The Courts and the attorneys are enforcing the Bank's laws. The Courts and attorneys are Federal Reserve agents. If you are a U.S. citizen you are bound to repay the debt. The U.S. and State laws are owned by the Federal Reserve. When you go to the Court you are there as a debtor and have no rights.

The Federal Reserve holds title to everything by bankruptcy of the U.S. and the States. There is no u.S. states of America. There is only a Corporation owned by the Federal Reserve all the people are employees and human resourses of the Corporation aka UNITED STATES.

You own nothing Your auto and house and lands is owned by the Federal Reserve. You Drive a company car live in a company house and work as a company employee and you will do what the company tells you to do or the Federal Reserve agents aka attorney will drag you into the Federal Reserve court and collect the tribute. If you can't pay they will put you in prison and issue a bond and let the other employees pay your debt and they will hold you till the bond is paid in full. 

Misc RM 50    Misc reference material

Reference Material - For Information Only!


Over time we have collected a lot of reference material.

We figured it would be better to share with all rather than just delete it.

If you want it, keep it, otherwise just delete it. 

Due to the volume it will take more than one mailing.



Texas Government Code - Section 406.016. Authority

406.016. AUTHORITY.  (a) A notary public has the same authority as the county clerk to:

                   (1)  take acknowledgments or proofs of written instruments;                

                   (2)  protest instruments permitted by law to be protested;                 

                   (3)  administer oaths;                                                       

                   (4)  take depositions;  and                                                   

                   (5)  certify copies of documents not recordable in the public records.     

(b)  A notary public shall sign an instrument in Subsection (a) in the name under which the notary public is commissioned.

(c)  A notary public may not issue an identification card.                    

(d)  A notary public not licensed to practice law in this state may not give legal advice or       accept fees for legal advice.

Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 147, 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.



Authenticated or Certified copy to the Texas Constitution.

Question: So that there is no misunderstanding, the Texas Constitution Article 4 Section 21 states: "the Secretary of State shall authenticate the publications of the law."  So I repeat again, I want an "authenticated" or "certified" copy to the Texas Constitution.   I want the "authenticated" or "certified" copy under the seal of the Secretary of State of Texas.


Answer: Authenticating a publication is not the same thing as authenticating individual copies.  If you call me, I'll be happy to explain it in detail.   If you go to a library and look in the front of the books of Texas statutes, you will see what "authenticating a publication" actually is.  The Secretary of State cannot authenticate individual copies of the State Constitution.


The Secretary of State cannot certify a copy of the Constitution.  We are unable to fulfill your request.


David N. Roberts,    General Counsel,   Secretary of State's Office   Capitol Building 1E.8,   
P.O. Box 12697,    Austin, TX  78711-2697    phone (512) 463-5770,    fax (512) 475-2761




When a judge does not follow the law, the judge loses subject matter jurisdiction (supposedly)...

Held that the Circuit Court of Cooks County is a criminal enterprise. U.S. Vs. Murphy, 768 F.2d 1518, 1531 (7th. Cir. 1985), 31 Judges were removed from the bench after a Federal Court Ordered an investigation, it was confirmed aiding and abetting from the inferior Courts to the Federal Court, violations at every level with no one reporting the crimes! The United States Supreme Court Acknowledged the judicial corruption in Cooks County, when it stated that Judge Maloney was one of Many dishonest judges exposed and convicted through "Operation Greylord", a labyrinthine federal  Investigation of judicial corruption in Chicago, Bracey Vs. Gramley, case No. 96-6133 (June 9, 1997)!


 The Court in Yates Vs. Village of Hoffman Estates, Illinois, 209 F.Supp. 757 (N.D. Ill. 1962) held that, "Not every action by any judge is in exercise of his judicial function.  It is not a judicial function for a Judge to commit an intentional tort even though the tort occurs in the Courthouse, when a judge acts as a Trespasser of the Law, when a judge does not follow the law, the judge loses subject matter jurisdiction and The Judge's orders are void, of no legal force or effect"! The United States Supreme Court has stated that "No State legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his Undertaking to support it". Cooper Vs. Aaron. 358 U.S. 1 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958). If a judge does not fully Comply with the Constitution, than his orders are void, in re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (1888), he/she is Without jurisdiction, and he/she has engaged in an act or acts TREASON!



In Redfield vs. Fisher 292 P. 813, at 819 the Supreme Court held: "The individual, unlike the corporation cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its
existence and charter powers to the state; but the individual rights to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an excise tax cannot be imposed."


"The terms `excise' and `privilege' tax are synonymous."

(American Airways vs. Wallace, 57 F 2d 877, 800)


"Congress may not, under the taxing power, assert a power not delegated to it by the constitution."

(Regal Drug Co. vs. Wardell, 260 U.S. 386; 67 L ED 318; 43 S. Ct. 152)



Income tax on individuals

26CFR1.1-1. Income tax on individuals. 1.1-1(a) General rule. (1) Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States.


CORRECT and the SS # is evidence that you are a US citizen that resides in one of the several States. After all don't tax payers sign the 1040 form under title 28 USC 1746 (2) claiming it is true is not the SS # on the Form. Therefore without revoking the Number; you have at one time signed the 1040 under perjury claiming the SS # is yours and you are a US citizen. So what is all this Patriot non-since about the income Tax being unlawful and they are not required to file when they are claiming a number that makes them US citizens. They give evidence against themselves. When the judge or prosecutors ask them in court what's your SS # and they give it it's over go straight to Jail. Also did not ever registered vote sign under the penalty of perjury that they are US citizens and on many other forms sign the same confession after confession that they are US citizen. Get out! Get out! Terminate your number your voter Registration and your US citizen and be a State Citizen again.


JAMES v. KENTUCKY, 466 US 341, 80 LED 2d 346, 104 SCt. 1830 (1984)

The supreme court held that State statutes did not take precedent over constitutional law.


US v Tweel 550 F2d 297  299

Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading. ...  We cannot condone this shocking conduct by the IRS.   Our revenue system is based upon the good faith of the taxpayers and the taxpayers should be able to expect the same from government in its enforcement and collection activities....  This sort of deception will not be tolerated and if this is the "routine" it should be corrected immediately.

[U. S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299 (1977), emphasis added]
[quoting U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021, 1032 (1970)]



Unlawful Traffic Stop

BINGHAM v. CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH (05/19/03 - No. 01-56044/56086)
An unlawful traffic stop, even if not racially-motivated, may give rise to a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 claim, and a police officer was not entitled to qualified immunity where no reasonable suspicion existed to detain plaintiff. An arrest in order to verify a warrant was reasonable. To read the full text of this opinion, go to:[PDF File]



Texas Government Code - Section 81.011. General Powers

81.011. GENERAL POWERS.  (a) The state bar is a public corporation and an administrative agency of the judicial department of government.

          (b)  This chapter is in aid of the judicial department's powers under the constitution to regulate the practice of law, and not to the exclusion of those powers.

          (c)  The Supreme Court of Texas, on behalf of the judicial department, shall exercise administrative control over the state bar under this chapter.

Added by Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 148, 3.01, eff. Sept. 1,  1987.



Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519-421, pro-se litigants are held to a less stringent pleading standard than bar licensed attorneys. Regardless of the Deficiencies in their pleadings, pro se litigants are entitled to the opportunity to submit evidence in support of their claims


Platsky v. CIA 953 F.2d.25, Court errs if court dismisses the pro se litigant without instructions of how pleadings are deficient and how to repair pleadings.


Breck v. Ulmer, "the trial judge should inform a pro se litigant of the proper procedure for the action he or she is obviously attempting to accomplish." That's a 1987 case from Alaska.   


A void judgment is one entered either without jurisdiction of the person or of the subject matter Eisenberg v. Peyton 1978


A void judgment, insofar as it purports to be pronouncement of court, is an absolute nullity Thompson v. Thompsom


A Void judgment is one which has no legal force or effect whatever, it is an absolute nullity, its invalidity may be asserted by any person whose rights are affected at any time at any place and it need not be attacked directly but may be attacked collaterally whenever and wherever interposed City of Lufkin v. McVicker


Unsupported contentions of material fact are not sufficient for summary judgment, but rather, material facts must be supported by affidavits or other testimony  that would be admissible in evidence at trial., Cinco Enterprises, Ins v. Benso 890 P2d 866 (1994).


Statements of counsel in brief or in argument are not sufficient for a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, Trinsey v. Pagliaro, D.C. Pa 1964, 229 F. Supp 647




United States Supreme Court in Federal Crop Insurance v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380, the Supreme Court ruled:
Whatever the form in which the Government functions, anyone entering into an arrangement with the Government takes the risk of having accurately ascertained that he who purports to act for the Government stays within the bounds of his authority. The scope of this authority may be explicitly defined by Congress or be limited by delegated legislation, properly exercised through the rule-making power. And this is so even though the agent himself may have been unaware of the limitations upon his authority.
See, e.g., Utah Power & Light Co. v. United States, 243 U.S. 389, 409 , 391; United States v. Stewart, 311 U.S. 60, 70 , 108, and see, generally, In re Floyd Acceptances, 7 Wall.666.At 10:10 AM



From: evans


Subject: Judge I am asking you again to convene the Court of record




          Art. 4.02. [52] Existing courts continued.  No existing courts shall be abolished by this Code and shall continue with the jurisdiction, organization, terms and powers currently existing unless otherwise provided by law. (THE CONSTITUTION).


Acts 1965, 59th Leg., vol. 2, p. 317, ch. 722, eff. Jan. 1, 1966.



Brown v. Texas  443 US 47.

U.S. Supreme Court

BROWN v. TEXAS, 443 U.S. 47 (1979)

443 U.S. 47


No. 77-6673.   Argued February 21, 1979.    Decided June 25, 1979.

The application of Tex. Penal Code Ann., Tit. 8, 38.02 (1974), to detain appellant and require him to identify himself violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked any reasonable suspicion to believe appellant was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct. 3 Accordingly, appellant may not be punished for refusing to identify himself, and the conviction is Reversed.

[Footnote 3] We need not decide whether an individual may be punished for refusing to identify himself in the context of a lawful investigatory stop which satisfies Fourth Amendment requirements. See Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200, 210 n. 12 (1979); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 34 (1968) (WHITE, J., concurring). The County Court Judge who convicted appellant was troubled by this question, as shown by the colloquy set out in the Appendix to this opinion. [443 U.S. 47, 55]  


"Settled rules of statutory construction...teach that ...if doubt exists as to the construction of a taxing statute, the doubt shall be resolved in favor of the taxpayer"

Hassit vs Welch, 303 U.S. 303


"Thus, if the jury credited Cheek's assertion that he truly believed that the Code did not treat wages as income, the Government would not have carried its burden to prove willfulness, however unreasonable a court might deem such a belief."
Cheek v. United States No. 89-658 Jan 8, 1991



"In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes it is the established rule not to ... enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out. In case of doubt they are construed most strongly against the Government, and in favor of the citizen."  Gould vs Gould 245 U.S. 151


"The taxpayer must be liable for the tax. Tax liability is a condition precedent to the demand. Merely demanding payment, even repeatedly, does not cause liability."

Bothe v. Terry, 713 F. 2d 1405, at 1414(1983)



Catch 22!  Big time!

Footnote 43 from Flora v. U.S., 362 U.S. 145 (1960)

U.S. Supreme Court

FLORA v. UNITED STATES, 362 U.S. 145 (1960)

362 U.S. 145

No. 492, October Term, 1957.    Argued May 20, 1958.    Decided June 16, 1958.


[ Footnote 43 ] See Riordan, Must You Pay Full Tax Assessment Before Suing in the District Court? 8 J. Tax. 179, 181: "1. If the Government is forced to use these remedies [distraint] [362 U.S. 145, 177]   on a large scale, it will affect adversely taxpayers willingness to perform under our voluntary assessment system. "2. It will put the burden on the Government to seek out for seizure the property of every taxpayer who chooses to sue for the refund of a partial payment. Often, the Government will not be able to do this without extraordinary and costly effort and in some cases it may not be able to do it at all. "3. The use of the drastic-collection remedies would often cause inconvenience and perhaps hardship to the creditors, debtors, employers, employees, banks and other persons doing business with the taxpayer."


United States v.  Bishop, 412 U.S.  346, 361:

"This longstanding interpretation of the purpose of the recurring word "willfully" promotes coherence in the group of tax crimes.  In our complex tax system, uncertainty often arises even among taxpayers who earnestly wish to follow the law.  The Court has said, "It is not the purpose of the law to penalize frank difference of opinion or innocent errors made despite the [412 U.S.  346, 361] exercise of reasonable care." Spies, 317 U.S., at 496 .


Degrees of negligence give rise in the tax system to civil penalties.  The requirement of an offense committed "willfully" is not met, therefore, if a taxpayer has relied in good faith on a prior decision of this Court.    James v.  United States, 366 U.S., at 221 -222. Cf.  Lambert v.  California, 355 U.S.  255 (1957).


The term "taxpayer" in this opinion is used in the strict or narrow sense contemplated by the Internal Revenue Code and means a person who pays, overpays, or is subject to pay his own personal income tax.

(See Section 7701(a)(14) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.) A "nontaxpayer" is a person who does not possess the foregoing requisites of a taxpayer.

[Economy Plumbing and Heating Co. v.U.S.] [470 F.2d 585, note 3 at 590]


The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers and not to nontaxpayers.   [Economy Plumbing and Heating Co. v.U.S.] [470 F.2d 585, at 589]


Persons who are not taxpayers are not within the system and can obtain no benefit by following the procedures prescribed for taxpayers, such as the filing of claims or refunds.

[Economy Plumbing and Heating Co. v.U.S.] [470 F.2d 585, at 589]


The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such.  It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of the tax.

[House Congressional Record, March 27, 1943, at 2580]


A general power is given to Congress to lay and collect taxes, of every kind or nature, without any restraint, except on exports; but two rules are prescribed for their government, namely, uniformity and apportionment:  three kinds of taxes, to wit, duties, imposts, and excises, by the first rule, and capitation or other direct taxes, by the second rule. 

Hylton v. U.S., U.S.Va.1796, 3 U.S. 171, 3 Dall. 171, 1L.Ed. 556.


Taxation by Congress is limited to those forms of taxes described in the Constitution, and with respect to them the only limitations are that a direct tax shall be apportioned between the states and that duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform and levied only for the purposes specified. 

Davis v. Boston & M. R. Co., C.C.A.1 (Mass.) 1937, 89 F.2d 368.


Power of Congress to impose excise taxes is subject only to limitation that they be for the public welfare and be uniform throughout the United States. 

Chas. C. Steward Mach. Co. v. Davis, C.C.A.5 (Ala.) 1937, 89 F.2d 207, certiorari granted 57 S.Ct. 673, 300 U.S. 652, 81 L.Ed. 863, motion denied 57 S.Ct. 755, affirmed 57 S.Ct. 883, 301 U.S. 548, 81 L.Ed. 1279.


The power of Congress to tax, as given in the Constitution, has only one exception and two qualifications; Congress cannot tax exports, and it must impose direct taxes by the rule of apportionment, and indirect taxes by the rule of uniformity. 

Kelly v. Lewellyn, W.D.Pa.1921, 274 F.108.



Do you have the IRS trying to extract books or records, or worse, money from you?


You should have the following:


1. A copy of the written instrument bearing the signature of the Attorney General which authorized either a civil or criminal investigation against you pursuant to Title 26 U.S.C. Section 7401.


2. A copy of the instrument bearing your signature which identifies the privilege with respect to certain activities which involves them with specific Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. (See Title 26 U.S.C. Section 7401, which has its implementing authority under 27 CFR Section 70.191, Civil action by the United States, and 27 CFR Section 70.42(9), Criminal penalties for willful failure to make returns).


3. A copy of the foundation instrument, signed by the agent of the Internal Revenue Service, which was used as the sworn affidavit of probable cause to identify you as a citizen of the United States subject to the jurisdiction of the United States Corporate Government.


4. A copy of the Notice of Assessment Form 23C which is specific to you and no other and which indicates the alleged liability.




5. A copy of the instrument under Title 26 U.S.C. Section 6331 which shows that you are the officer, employee, or elected official whose wages and/or salary could be levied without a court order and a copy of the authority of the agent who allegedly received such authority without a court order and signed such Notice of Levy.


"When any court violates the clean and unambiguous language of  the constitution, a fraud is perpetrated and no one is bound to obey  it."
State v. Sutton 63 Minn 167, 65 NW 262, 30 LRA 630

 Where the words of a constitution are unambiguous and in their commonly received sense lead to a reasonable conclusion, it should be read according to the natural and most obvious import of the framers, without resorting to subtle and forced construction for the purpose of limiting or extending its operation. -
A State Ex Rel.  Torryson v. Grey, 21 Nev. 378, 32 P. 190.

 A long and uniform sanction by law revisers and lawmakers, of a legislative assertion and exercise of power, is entitled to a great weight in construing an ambiguous or doubtful provision, but is entitled to no weight if the statute in question is in conflict with the plain meaning of the constitutional provision. -
Kingsley v. Merril, 122 Wis. 185; 99 NW 1044.

Economic necessity cannot justify a disregard of cardinal constitutional guarantee. - Riley v. Carter, 165 Okal. 262; 25 P. 2d 666; 79 ALR 1018.

Disobedience or evasion of a constitutional mandate may not be tolerated, even though such disobedience may, at least temporarily, promote in some respects the best interests of the public. -
State v. Board of Examiners, 274 N.Y. 367; 9 NE 2d 12; 112 ALR 660.

"Constitutional rights may not be infringed simply because the majority of the people choose that they be." - Westbrook v. Mihaly 2 C3d 756

 "If the legislature clearly misinterprets a Constitutional provision, the frequent repetition of the wrong will not create a right." Amos v. Mosley, 77 SO 619. Also see Kingsley v. Metril, 99 NW 1044

"Where the meaning of the Constitution is clear and unambiguous, there can be no resort to construction to attribute to the founders a purpose or intent NOT MANIFEST IN ITS LETTER."
Norris v.  Baltimore 192 A 531

The Federal Rules reject the approach that pleading is a game of skill in which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome, and accept the principle that the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits.

Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 48 (1957)

The courts are not bound by mere forms, nor are they to be misled by mere pretences. They are at liberty - indeed, are under a solemn duty - to look at the substance of things, whenever they enter upon the inquiry whether the legislature has transcended the limits of its authority. If therefore, a statute purporting to have been enacted to protect the public health, the public morals, or the public safety, has no real or substantial relation to those objects, or is a palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law, it is the duty of the courts to so adjudge, and thereby give effect to the Constitution.
 - Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623, 661.

The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary, as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction, and no excuse for interpolation or addition.

Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat 304; Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat 419; Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat 419; Craig v. Missouri, 4 Pet 10; Tennessee v. Whitworth, 117 U.S. 139; Lake County v. Rollins, 130 U.S. 662; Hodges v. United States, 203 U.S. 1; Edwards v. Cuba R. Co., 268 U.S. 628; The Pocket Veto Case, 279 U.S. 655; (Justice) Story on the Constitution, 5th ed., Sec 451; Cooley's Constitutional Limitations, 2nd ed., p. 61, 70.



Wages Are Not INCOME

Courts today may rule that "wages are income" until they are blue in the face, but the judges can only do so because they have an armed bailiff in the court who will visit physical violence on anyone who continues to ask about the cases below after the judge has said, "Shut up!"  It still comes down to lies and the power to impose those lies.



 Various Court statements about TAXABLE INCOME  


   * Stapler v U.S., 21 F Supp 737 AT 739. 

"Income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment and the Revenue Act, means 'gain'... and in such connection 'Gain' means profit...proceeding from property, severed from capital, however invested or employed, and coming in, received, or drawn by the taxpayer, for his separate use, benefit and disposal... Income is not a wage or compensation for any type of labor." 


  * Oliver v. Halstead 86 S.E. Rep 2nd 85e9 

"There is a clear distinction between `profit' and `wages', or a compensation for labor. Compensation for labor (wages) cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law. The word `profit', as ordinarily used, means the gain made upon any business or investment -- a different thing altogether from the mere compensation for labor." 


  * Helvering v Edison Bros. Stores, 133 F2d 575. 

"The Treasury cannot by interpretive regulations, make income of that which is not income within the meaning of the revenue acts of Congress, nor can Congress, without apportionment, tax as income that which is not income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment." 


  * Flora v U.S., 362 US 145, never overruled 

"... the government can collect the tax from a district court suitor by exercising it's power of distraint... but we cannot believe that compelling resort to this extraordinary procedure is either wise or in accord with congressional intent. Our system of taxation is based upon  



[Footnote 43]

If the government is forced to use these remedies(distraint) on a large scale, it will affect adversely the taxpayers willingness to perform under our VOLUNTARY assessment system. 


  * Evens v Gore, 253 U.S. 245. US Supreme court, never overruled 

"After further consideration, we adhere to that view and accordingly hold that the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize or support the tax in question. " (A tax on salary) 


   * Edwards v. Keith, 231 F 110,113 

"The phraseology of form 1040 is somewhat obscure .... But it matters little what it does mean; the statute and the statute alone determines what is income to be taxed. It taxes only income "derived" from many different sources; one does not "derive income" by rendering services and charging for them... IRS cannot enlarge the scope of the statute." 


  * McCutchin v Commissioner of IRS, 159 F2d, 

"The 16th Amendment does not authorize laying of an income tax upon one person for the income derived solely from another."[wages] 


  * Blatt Co. v U.S., 59 S.Ct. 186. 

"Treasury regulations can add nothing to income as defined by Congress." 


  * Olk v. United States, february 18, 1975, Las Vegas, Nevada. 

"Tips are gifts and therefore are not taxable."


  * Commissioner of IRS v Duberstein, 80 5. Ct. 1190. 

"Property acquired by gift is excluded from gross income." 


  * Brushaber v Union Pacific R/R 240 U.S. I, 17; 36 S.Ct. 236, 241. 

"Income has been taken to mean the same thing as used in the Corporation Excise Tax of 1909 (36 Stat. 112). The worker does not receive a profit or gain from his/her labors-merely an equal exchange of funds for services" 


  * Central Illinois Publishing Service v. U.S., 435 U.S. 31 

"Decided cases have made the distinction between wages and income and have refused to equate the two." 


  * Anderson Oldsmobile, Inc. vs Hofferbert, 102 F Supp 902 

"Constitutionally the only thing that can be taxed by Congress is "income." And the tax actually imposed by Congress has been on net income as distinct from gross income. THE TAX IS NOT, NEVER HAS BEEN, AND COULD NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY BE UPON "GROSS RECEIPTS" ..." 


  * Conner v US 303 F supp 1187 Federal District court, Houston, never   overruled 

"..whatever may constitute income, therefore, must have the essential feature of gain to the recipient. This was true at the time of Eisner V Mcomber, it was true under section 22(a) of the Internal Revenue code of 1938, and it is likewise true under Section 61(a) of the IRS code of 1954. If there is not gain, there is not income,CONGRESS HAS TAXED INCOME, NOT COMPENSATION"!!! 


  * Bowers vs Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 US 174D 

"Income" has been taken to mean the same thing as used in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, in the Sixteenth Amendment and in the various revenue acts subsequently passed ...." 


  * Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 

"The conclusion reached in the Pollock Case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class of direct taxes on property, but on the contrary recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such..." 


   * Simms v. Ahrens, 271 SW 720 

"An income tax is neither a property tax nor a tax on occupations of common right, but is an EXCISE tax...The legislature may declare as 'privileged' and tax as such for state revenue, those pursuits not matters of common right, but it has no power to declare as a 'privilege' and tax for revenue purposes, occupations that are of common right." 


  * Eisner v. Macomber, 252 US 189 US Supreme court, never overruled 

"...the definition of 'income' approved by this court is: The gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, provided it be understood to include profits gained through sale or conversion of capital assets." 


  * Laureldale Cemetery Assoc. vs Matthews, 345 Pa. 239;  

"Reasonable compensation for labor or services rendered is not profit" 


  * Schuster v. Helvering, 121 F 2nd 643 

"Income is realized gain." 


 And in one of the most eloquent opinions ever delivered by the Court.. 


  * Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746. 1883 

"Among these unalienable rights, as proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant, the right any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give them their highest enjoyment...It has been well said that, THE PROPERTY WHICH EVERY MAN HAS IS HIS OWN LABOR, AS IT IS THE ORIGINAL FOUNDATION OF ALL OTHER PROPERTY SO IT IS THE MOST SACRED AND INVIOLABLE..." 


Authors notes: A privilege is taxable, a RIGHT is not, that's why they had to take off the POLL TAX. A tax on property is a DIRECT TAX, and constitutionally MUST BE APPORTIONED  


The Corporate Excise Tax of 1909 was a 2% tax on PROFITS OF CORPORATIONS.  The Supreme Court had, in POLLOCK v. FARMERS LOAN, in 1894, ruled as UNCONSTITUTIONAL the EXACT SAME KIND OF TAX MOST AMERICANS ARE NOW PAYING! [A direct tax without apportionment.] This decision has NEVER been overturned!  Both BEFORE and AFTER the sixteenth amendment passed?, THE COURTS SAID INCOME WAS CORPORATE PROFIT! 


The Separation of powers doctrine says only CONGRESS can collect a tax! 



Disclaimer: We are just people that get together and exchange information.
We are not a group or organization.
We are not a company or corporation or association. 
We sell nothing and we charge nothing.

To cancel your class e-mail click "reply" and type "stop messages".