There Is No Personal Income Tax,

neither Federal or State despite what you may have been told.

    This page deals with the always unpopular subject of personal income tax. Historically it was first introduced on a large scale by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in their 'Communist Manifesto' of 1848. The continuous erosion of wealth is what it is all about. Marx was adamant that no worker receives any more than the minimum required "to prolong and reproduce a bare existence". He goes on to say "We by no means intend to abolish this personal appropriation of the products of labor, an appropriation that is made for the maintenance and reproduction of human life, and that leaves no surplus wherewith to command the labor of others". If that is not clear enough for you Marx further asserts in his Manifesto "In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend".

    Personal income tax has always been designed to reduce one to "a bare existence". You can not take a hammer to ones head to operate surgically on it. Income tax was designed for the destruction of personal wealth and no other reason and it accomplishes that goal whenever it is applied.

    Despite the obvious facts of income tax and historically how Russians have lived in poverty in a country wealthier in resources then America there are a few types of people who think income tax is a good thing in America. The first and most obvious are the dysfunctional narcissistic sociopaths who actually work for the Individual's Representing Satan (IRS). These people get their kicks hiding anonymously out of state from their hapless victims and stealing money and more from them, all to further their useless lives and careers, while the monies and property they steal go to benefit someone else. Not capable of earning an honest living in commerce and contributing to the wealth of the nation they are parasites to the economic health and wealth of America.

    The second type of person in favor of income taxes are those who are called liberals or metrosexual's today. This group of mentally immature people believe in parens patriae ('nanny state' for those educated in the public fool system) because their narcissistic sense of entitlement has convinced them that, even at the point of a gun (government), others should provide them with what they want. This group of narcissists is so into themselves that they would not even consider risking their lives to save their 'loved ones' hence the insane drive to ban guns and give the 'police' more and more powers to 'protect' them. John Stuart Mill, considered the founder of liberalism, had this to say about such metro's:

    "War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

    These types of people obviously want parens patriae in their lives so they don't have to take any risks or experience the consequences of their immature, indecisive and immoral lifestyles. So the more perceived 'benefits' from government the better for the child-men/women. These metro's need to remember what President Kennedy said about their kind "Ask not what your country can do for you, but rather what you can do for your country".

    The third group of people who favor the income tax are the politicians who have mastered the art of buying votes with other peoples money. That this group of politicians are not Statesmen is evident by the moral, academic, economic, political and military decay of our country. However, despite the plunge into financial collapse they have promised another Trillion more in spending and some sort of mandatory 'voluntary' health insurance scam if elected in 2008. This new Trillion is on top of the 60 Trillion they already can not pay in unlawful welfare payments due the baby boomers right NOW. Of course, the 60 Trillion does not exist nor is it available even if the traitorous North American Union (what's that?) was formed and everyone therein taxed at a 300% rate on their incomes. The one candidate who who espouses a return to the form of government created by the Constitution ratified as amended in 1791 is ignored by his party even though he is popular amongst the people. (who's that?)

    The fourth group of people who might favor income tax or be ambivalent towards it are those who are not quite metro's but just too lazy to find out the truth and or too cowardly to do anything about it. This group can have 'highly successful' or not so successful people in it. They tend to rely on what 'everyone knows'. This includes the outright lies and lesser deceptions promulgated by the IRS and urban legends of bad treatment of Citizens by IRS. Also, the fact that 'government needs money' is a favorite excuse of this group. This tactic leaves out the fact that from 1791 to 1913 federal government functioned perfectly without a personal income tax. The same goes for the States from their date of admission to the Union to the date they enacted personal income tax laws.

    The fifth group of people, and the intended audience of this document, are the ones who know that personal income tax is wrong, that it does not benefit government or the people but were uncertain of all the laws and facts of the matter. Herein following will be the history, law and facts proving there is no income tax at the federal or state level. Although being derived from many Supreme Court and District Court cases and my personal experience in and out of court with the bad guys and the experience of others this is not a how to. Rather the reader must be of sufficient ability and reasoning to decide what if any value this knowledge represents to him and what if anything to do with it.

BACKGROUND

    The reader is assumed to have some understanding of the common law, the Constitution and the history of America. This country was first successfully founded by the Pilgrims followed by the Puritans. These groups not only brought God's word in the Geneva Bible, instead of the politically correct King James Bible, they also brought the system of jurisprudence known as the English common law. This system of jurisprudence or law form has its roots in the Bible and is constrained by the Laws of God meaning some political figure cannot create statutes that are repugnant to the word of God and expect them to be enforceable in a just judiciary.

"This law of nature, being co-eval with mankind and dictated by God Himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other.   It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times : no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original".

William Blackstone

"Commentaries on the Laws of England" 1765 (Bk I §2)

    The common law provides redress for grievances, in other words the Plaintiff has a peaceful means of seeking the replacement of his losses and the payment of suitable damages from the Defendant. Equity jurisprudence evolved almost side by side with the common law as best can be determined from history. Equity provides answers that the precedence law cannot provide but would provide if possible. Equity also allows for mistake, accident or fraud and gives us many functions in a proceeding that the law by itself cannot. Things such as discovery, injunctions and appeals are based in equity.

    Such things were the norm when the colonies ratified the Constitution as amended in 1791. When people living outside the original 13 states desired to be part of the Union Congress would pass an 'Act' specifying the conditions under which the region could become a Territory of the United States. For example in the case of Colorado:

172 THIRTY-SIXTH CONGRESS. SESS. II. CH. 59. 1861.
February 28, 1861.
CHAP. LIX.--An Act to provide a temporary Government for the Territory of Colorado.

“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all that part of the territory of the United States included within the following limits, viz: commencing on the thirty-seventh parallel of north latitude, where the twentyfifth meridian of longitude west from Washington crosses the same; thence north on said meridian to the forty-first parallel of north latitude; thence along and parallel west to the thirty-second meridian of longitude west from Washington; thence south on said meridian to the northern line of New Mexico; thence along the thirty-seventh parallel of north latitude to the place of beginning, be and the same is hereby erected into a temporary government by the name of the Territory of Colorado…
 

The Act had many parts but the ones we are interested in is this:

Sec. 9. And be it further enacted, That the judicial power of said Territory shall be vested in a supreme court, district courts, probate courts, and in justices of the peace… and the said supreme and district courts, respectively, shall possess chancery as well as common law jurisdiction; and authority for redress of all wrongs committed against the Constitution or laws of the United States, or of the Territory, affecting persons or property.  (emphasis added)

and...

Sec. 16. And be it further enacted, That the Constitution and all laws of the United States which are not locally inapplicable shall have the same force and effect within the said Territory of Colorado as elsewhere within the United States. (emphasis added)

    When the Territory felt it was ready for Statehood they could petition Congress who would upon suitable application would pass an 'Enabling Act' for the Territory. This particular Act was:

AN ACT TO ENABLE THE PEOPLE OF COLORADO TO FORM A CONSTITUTION AND STATE GOVERNMENT, AND FOR THE ADMISSION OF THE SAID STATE INTO THE UNION ON AN EQUAL FOOTING WITH THE ORIGINAL STATES. (3 March 1875 (18 Stat. 474))

    As you might imagine there were conditions for the Territory of Colorado to become a member State of the Union of the several states.

In the Enabling Act, § 4 stated the requirements of the constitution for the new state:

“4. Constitutional convention - requirements of constitution. That the members of the convention thus elected shall meet at the capital of said territory, on a day to be fixed by said governor, chief justice, and United States attorney, not more than sixty days subsequent to the day of election, which time of meeting shall be contained in the aforesaid proclamation mentioned in the third section of this act, and after organization, shall declare, on behalf of the people of said territory, that they adopt the constitution of the United States; whereupon the said convention shall be and is hereby authorized to form a constitution and state government for said territory; provided, that the constitution shall be republican in form, and make no distinction in civil or political rights on account of race or color, except Indians not taxed, and not be repugnant to the constitution of the United States and the principles of the declaration of independence;” (3 March 1875 (18 Stat. 474)) (emphasis added)
 

     It is clear that a member State of the Union must preserve the rights at law and equity of those within the exterior boundaries of the State. Therefore the common law and equity are the forms of jurisprudence in America and the several States of the Union today despite the fervent desires of corrupt politicians. The only way to displace the Constitution is by Force of Arms as demonstrated by the Confederate States of America in 1861. The pretenses and actions of evil doers change nothing of the law, and any defacto government is continuously eligible for replacement and the rules and policies of the defacto government are void from enactment.

    Governments that are formed by the people such as ours:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." (Preamble to Constitution ratified as amended in 1791.)

...are limited to their responsibilities and powers to carry out those responsibilities and duties as they are enumerated in the creating charter. Only a king or a conqueror has title to all things including the people within his realm and hence jurisdiction over all things. Current politicians, save one, running for election in 2008 perpetrate the myth that America is a democracy. The clueless reader won't note the distinction between a Republic governed under the Rule of Law and a Democracy controlled by those who can buy the most votes. Here's a clue for you who are clueless: Thomas Jefferson (who's he?) wrote: "Democracy is 51% of the people voting to take the property of the other 49%". It is elementary Government 101 that the property of 100% of the people is protected under the Rule of Law in a Republic. Indeed the dangers of a Democracy were warned about in the Federalist papers:

John Adams, Thoughts on Government
Apr. 1776 Federalist Papers 4:86--93

4. A Representative Assembly, altho' extremely well qualified, and absolutely necessary as a branch of the legislature, is unfit to exercise the executive power, for want of two essential properties, secrecy and dispatch.
5. A Representative Assembly is still less qualified for the judicial power; because it is too numerous, too slow, and too little skilled in the laws.
6. Because a single Assembly, possessed of all the powers of government, would make arbitrary laws for their own interest, execute all laws arbitrarily for their own interest, and adjudge all controversies in their own favour.
 

The democratic forms of government of the Colonies under the Articles of Confederation were given as two of the eight fatal flaws of the Articles by Justice Joseph Story in his 'Commentaries on the Constitution' (1833)

§ 265 -

5. The organization of the whole powers of the general government in a single assembly, without any separate or distinct distribution of the executive, judicial, and legislative functions.

8. The want of judiciary power coextensive with the powers of the general government.

    To then cement for all time the notion that the United States, and the member States of the Union are Republic's and not Democracies we have a landmark Supreme Court decision in 1803 that is still controlling and cited multitudes of times since then:

Chief Justice Marshall arrived at a decision in Marbury v. Madison that made it emphatically clear that the Supreme Court could annul an act of Congress.  No middle ground existed; the Constitution was either "a superior paramount law", which could not be tampered with by legislation, or "it is based on a level with ordinary legislative acts" and can be altered at the will of Congress.  If the Constitution is not the highest law of the land, then "written constitutions are absurd attempts on the part of the people to limit a power that is illimitable."   He further declared that "the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void."

The doctrine of repugnancy has evolved, quite naturally, and now has stood the test of time and many, many cases to the point where unconstitutionality dates from the time of enactment and not from the date of the decision so branding said law.  This means that in actuality such an act or law is inoperative as if it had never been passed.   It can impose no duties, confer no rights, create no offices, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.   No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.  In some cases people damaged under unconstitutional laws have been able to sue and recover damages for said usurpations.

    In other words those who vote for and or support and or give assent to personal income tax laws have been suckered out of their money and more because such statutes do not exist at law in the United States or the several States. The reason such statutes do not exist is that the power for government to tax personal incomes has never been GRANTED to government. Such acts are contrary to the word of God and hence the common law and hence all constitutions created under the common law.

DEBUNKING THE MYTHS

    A government created by a Constitution is limited in its jurisdiction to that which is specified in the Constitution. Such a government is not omnipotent and all controlling. This is why the Constitution was created, the People got fed up with kings and democracies. A constitutionally limited republic cannot tax that which is not subject to its jurisdiction. In other words, the taxing authority cannot exist outside the jurisdiction of government. Therefore, it follows that what is outside governments jurisdiction is exempt from taxation. It is fundamental law in these United States that a personal income tax is not possible at law.

    To further this argument, it has long been held by the the Supreme Court that tax laws must be 'clearly and plainly laid'. They can not be some vague uttering such as 'incomes are taxed'. The tax statutes must specifically say WHAT is taxed, i.e. personal incomes, and WHO is liable for said assessment, i.e. the wage earner. Such wording DOES NOT EXIST in USC 26! And there are many who have successfully defended themselves against the IRS with that very argument! Such wording does not exist because the minute it did appear someone would challenge it under Marbury v. Madison and win.

    Furthermore, the Supreme Court has long held that tax statutes must be literally construed and if ambiguity exists in the interpretation that the taxpayer is to be given the benefit of the doubt. Additionally and specifically the Supreme Court has held that the IRS cannot create new and or expanded meanings to statutes.

    The Supreme Court has also held that the 16th Amendment does not give the right to tax personal incomes. Such distortions are of course spread about by those who benefit from the stolen money. The Supreme Court has also held, subsequent to the using of the 16th Amendment, that personal income tax is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has also held, subsequent to the using of the 16th Amendment, that IRS uses of the 16th is invalid.

    There has been an area of great debate for decades concerning the nature of an income tax on wages. That is, is the income tax an excise, a direct tax or an indirect tax. There have been seemingly endless debates advocating all positions on the nature of the income tax. The clueless shake the sand out their eyes kicked up by the perpetrators of the debates and go back to their TV set or video game. Those with a clue know beyond the shadow of a doubt  that anytime there is such sustained non conclusive debate that someone is covering something up. And indeed that is true.

    After all, if there actually existed an income tax statute it would be clearly printed out on the legally meaningless pieces of paper that IRS duns you with, and if there actually was such a statute it could easily identified as a excise, a direct tax or an indirect tax. But as we know there is no such statute how could a non existent statute purport to create any type of tax?

    In the common law wages are not taxable because the fruit of ones labor has been held to be property of the laborer. This notion of property has been held by the Supreme Court as recently as 1969. The common law lien gives a laborer actual or constructive possession of the object of his labor until he is paid. Such possession by the laborer is superior to any title of ownership. A laborers wages are HIS property and even the object of his labor becomes HIS property until he is paid. This is why people were sometimes paid retainers in advance for creative and other types of work. Therefore the taking of a laborers wages in whole or in part is Theft. Wages cannot be taxed at law because government has no jurisdiction, hence no taxing authority over them. And no statutes exist that actually purport to tax them because even if they did exist such statutes by law being repugnant to the Constitution are void from enactment.

    Each one of these circumstances. theft of property, lack of jurisdiction, lack of taxing authority and lack of statutory authority is fatal in and of itself to the claim by government of its alleged right to tax personal incomes. Taken together government is toast. Victims of such scams could in the right circumstances become a Plaintiff who has a cause with merit that can sustain an action for which relief can be granted.

    State income tax fails for all of the above reasons also. States cannot have a constitution repugnant to the Constitution ratified as amended in 1791. As we have seen above to join the Union a Territory must give up certain rights inherent in a standalone sovereign. Nor is a state allowed to abridge or abrogate rights, privileges and immunities protected by the Constitution. Some States also claim that the jurisdiction and hence taxing authority of the State is somehow enlarged over what the people granted by USC 26. In other words, if you somehow had a liability to the IRS it automatically gives you one to the State. There is of course no basis in law for expanding a State jurisdiction thusly. More likely this is just a case of monkey see, monkey do.

    Continuing on, when government tries to enforce a non existent statute it is extortion. When the mafia or IRS or state revenue department try enforce their own rules it is extortion.  When the IRS or state revenue department conjures up a picture of your circumstances to fit you into their sandbox it is fraud. When the IRS or state revenue department sends you demands for monies in the mail based upon some non existent and or void statute it is also mail fraud. Such actions violate the RICO statutes.

    One last thing, but perhaps not the least. Damages. These are awards to the Plaintiff over and above the actual damages or losses by the acts of the Defendant. These are NOT income as you have been lied to about. Damages exist in the Bible apart from wages and hence in the common law are treated seperately. Damages are due the Plaintiff the minute the Defendant damages him. The jury decides HOW MUCH to award the Plaintiff, NOT IF the Plaintiff should be awarded damages, unless Plaintiff is not seeking damages but merely to recover what is lost.

    For those who have a clue you will realize there is a long list of clues or pointers into the truth of this matter supported by much fact and many controlling Supreme and District Court cases in the foregoing hereinabove. To those few good men who 'get it', God bless. For you others click here.

Mail comments, corrections and criticisms to Steve Tassio.