Tax Cases – Labor is Not Taxable

What is an EXCISE?

“Excises are taxes laid…upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, and upon corporation privileges…The tax under consideration may be described as an excise upon the particular privilege of doing business in a corporate capacity. The requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of privileges.”

Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107.

“.. with the addition that it should include “profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets,” there would seem to be no room to doubt that the word MUST be given the same meaning in all of the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act and that what that meaning is HAS NOW BECOME DEFINITELY SETTLED BY DECISIONS OF THIS COURT.”

Merchant’s Loan & Trust Company vs Smietanka, 255 US 509 US Supreme court,

never overruled

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 individuals’ rights to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an excise cannot be imposed.”

Redfield v. Fisher, 292 P. 813.

“.. and before the 1921 Act this Court had indicated … what it later held, that “income,” as used in the revenue acts taxing income, adopted since the 16th Amendment, has the same meaning that it had in the Act of 1909.”

Burnet vs Harmel, 287 US 103

“… it imports, as used here, something entirely distinct from principal or capital either as a subject of taxation or as a measure of the tax; conveying rather the idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activities”

Doyle vs Mitchell Brothers Company, 247 U.S. 179.

“And 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 profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets. … It is thus very plain that the statute imposes the income tax on the proceeds of the sale of personal property to the extent only that gains are derived therefrom by the vendor…”

Goodrich vs Edwards, 255 US 527

“Income, as used in the statute should be given the meaning so as to not include everything that comes in. The true function of the words ‘gains’ and ‘profits’ is to limit the meaning of the word ‘income’.”

So. Pacific v. Lowe, 238 F. 847

INCOME is in reality what we have come to know as CAPITAL GAINS, NOT COMPENSATION!!

 

Various Court statements about TAXABLE INCOME

“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.”

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

“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.”

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

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.”

Helvering v Edison Bros. Stores, 133 F2d 575.

“… 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 VOLUNTARY ASSESSMENT AND PAYMENT, NOT UPON DISTRAINT”

[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.

Flora v U.S., 362 US 145, 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)

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

“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 themIRS cannot enlarge the scope of the statute.”

Edwards v. Keith, 231 F 110,113

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

McCutchin v Commissioner of IRS, 159 F2d,

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

Blatt Co. v U.S., 59 S.Ct. 186.

Tips are gifts and therefore are not taxable.”

Olk v. United States, February 18, 1975, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Property acquired by gift is excluded from gross income.”

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

“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

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

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

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

“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” …”

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

“..whatever may constitute income, therefore, must have the essential feature of gain to the recipient. This was true at the time of Eisner V Macomber, 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”!!!

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

“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 ….”

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

“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…”

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

“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.”

Simms v. Ahrens, 271 SW 720

“…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.”

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

“Reasonable compensation for labor or services rendered is not profit”

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

“Income is realized gain.”

Schuster v. Helvering, 121 F 2nd 643

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

“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 (to) 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…”

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

 

 

 

 

Author’s 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!

This is part of the message that the PATRIOTS of this nation have been trying to tell you for the last 30 years (or more)!! The predicted income tax rate of 80-90% early next century is SLAVERY!!

And IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!!

U.S. Supreme Court

M. E. BLATT CO. v. UNITED STATES, 305 U.S. 267 (1938) 305 U.S. 267 M. E.

BLATT CO. v. UNITED STATES. No. 98. Argued Nov. 15, 16, 1938. Decided Dec. 5, 1938. [305 U.S. 267, 268] Mr. Lawrence Cake, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner. [305 U.S. 267, 271]

Mr. J. Louis Monarch, of Washington, D.C., for the United States. [305 U.S. 267, 274]

Mr. Justice BUTLER delivered the opinion of the Court…”So far as concerns taxable income, the value of [the] improvements is not distinguishable from excess, if any there may be, of value over cost of improvements made by lessor. Each was an addition to capital; not income within the meaning of the statute. Treasury Regulations can add nothing to income as defined by Congress. [305 U.S. 267, 280]”….

U.S. Supreme Court

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V. CULBERTSON, 337 U.S. 733 (1949) 337 U.S. 733 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. CULBERTSON et al. No. 313. Argued Feb. 7, 1949. Decided June 27, 1949. [Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Culbertson 337 U.S. 733 (1949)] [337 U.S. 733, 734] Mr. Arnold Raum, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. [337 U.S. 733, 735] Mr. Benjamin L. Bird, Fort Worth, Tex., for respondents. Mr. Chief Justice VINSON delivered the opinion of the Court…”Furthermore, our decision in Commissioner v. Tower, supra, clearly indicates the importance of participation in the business by the partners during the tax year. We there said that a partnership is created ‘when persons join together their money, goods, labor, or skill for the purpose of carrying on a trade, profession, or business and when there is community of interest in the profits and losses.’ This is, after all, but the application of an often iterated definition of income-the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined-to a particular form of business organization.”….

U.S. Supreme Court

GOODRICH v. EDWARDS, 255 U.S. 527 (1921) 255 U.S. 527 GOODRICH v. EDWARDS, Collector of Internal Revenue. No. 663. Argued March 10 and 11, 1921.Decided March 28, 1921. Mr. Justice CLARKE delivered the opinion of the Court.

…..”And 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.’ Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 207, 40 S. Sup. Ct. 189, 193 (64 L. Ed. 521, 9 A. L. R. 1570).“…

U.S. Supreme Court

MILES v. SAFE DEPOSIT & TRUST CO. OF BALTIMORE, 259 U.S. 247 (1922) 259 U.S. 247 MILES, Collector of Internal Revenue, v. SAFE DEPOSIT & TRUST CO. OF BALTIMORE. No. 416. Argued Dec. 16, 1921. Decided May 29, 1922. Mr. Justice PITNEY delivered the opinion of the Court. ….”In that as in other recent cases this court Has interpreted ‘income’ as including gains and profits derived through sale or conversion of capital assets, whether done by a dealer or trader, or casually by a non-trader, as by a trustee in the course of changing investments. Merchants’ Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509, 517-520, 41 Sup. Ct. 386, 15 A. L. R. 1305

U.S. Supreme Court

EDWARDS v. CUBA R. CO., 268 U.S. 628 (1925) 268 U.S. 628 EDWARDS, Formerly

U. S. Collector, v. CUBA R. CO. No. 324. Argued April 15, 1925. Decided June 8, 1925. Mr. Justice BUTLER delivered the opinion of the Court.

“In respect of these subsidy payments, the meaning of ‘income,’ as used in the Corporation Excise Tax Law of 1909 is not to be distinguished from the meaning of the same word as used in the Income Tax Law of 1913 and the Revenue Act of 1916. Merchants’ Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509, 518-519, 41 S. Ct. 386, 15 A. L. R. 1305

U.S. Supreme Court

BOWERS v. KERBAUGH-EMPIRE CO., 271 U.S. 170 (1926) 271 U.S. 170 BOWERS,

Collector of Internal Revenue v. KERBAUGH-EMPIRE CO. No. 173. Argued Jan. 25, 1926. Decided May 3, 1926. Mr. Justice BUTLER delivered the opinion of the Court. …”The Sixteenth Amendment declares that Congress shall have power to levy and collect taxes on income, ‘from [271 U.S. 170, 174] whatever source derived’ without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. It was not the purpose or effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power. Congress already had power to tax all incomes. But taxes on incomes from some sources had been held to be ‘direct taxes’ within the meaning of the constitutional requirement as to apportionment.

Art. 1, 2, cl. 3, 9, cl. 4; Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601, 15 S. Ct. 912. The Amendment relieved from that requirement and obliterated the distinction in that respect between taxes on income that are direct taxes and those that are not, and so put on the same basis all incomes ‘from whatever source derived.’

Brushaber v. Union Pac. R. R., 240 U.S. 1, 17, 36 S. Ct. 236, 241 (60 L. Ed. 493, L. R. A.

1917D, 414, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 713). ‘Income’ has been taken to mean the same thing as used in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909 (36 Stat. 112), in the Sixteenth Amendment, and in the various revenue acts subsequently passed.

Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330, 335, 38 S. Ct. 540; Merchants’ L. & T. Co.

v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509, 219, 41 S. Ct. 386, 15 A. L. R. 1305. After full consideration, this court declared that income may be defined as gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, including profit gained through sale or conversion of capital.

Stratton’s Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415, 34 S. Ct.136; Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Co., 247 U.S. 179, 185, 38 S. Ct. 467; Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 207, 40 S. Ct. 189, 9 A. L. R. 1570. And that definition has been adhered to and applied repeatedly. See, e. g., Merchants’ L. & T. Co. v. Smietanka, supra, 518 (41 S. Ct. 386); Goodrich v. Edwards, 255 U.S. 527, 535, 41 S. Ct. 390; United States v. Phellis, 257 U.S. 156, 169, 42 S. Ct. 63; Miles v. Safe Deposit Co., 259 U.S. 247, 252, 253 S., 42 S. Ct. 483; United States v. Supplee-Biddle Co., 265 U.S. 189, 194, 44 S. Ct. 546; Irwin v. Gavit, 268 U.S. 161, 167, 45 S. Ct. 475; Edwards v. Cuba Railroad, 268 U.S. 628, 633, 45 S. Ct. 614. In determining what constitutes income substance rather than form is to be given controlling weight. Eisner v. Macomber, supra, 206 (40 S. Ct. 189).”…

Congress has taxed INCOME, not compensation.”- [Conner v. U.S., 303 F Supp. 1187 (1969)]

Income within the meaning of the 16th 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.” – Staples v. U.S., 21 F Supp 737 U.S. Dist. Ct. ED PA, 1937

“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.”

Oliver v. Halstead, 86 S.E. Rep 2nd 85e9 (1955)

“The claim that salaries, wages, and compensation for personal services are to be taxed as an entirety and therefore must be returned by the individual who has performed the services which produce the gain is without support, either in the language of the Act or in the decisions of the courts construing it. Not only this, but it is directly opposed to provisions of the Act and to regulations of the U.S. Treasury Department, which either prescribed or permits that compensations for personal services not be taxed as a entirety and not be returned by the individual performing the services. It is to be noted that, by the language of the Act, it is not salaries, wages, or compensation for personal services that are to be included in gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal services.”

Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930)

“… whatever may constitute income, therefore, must have the essential feature of gain to the recipient. This was true when the 16th Amendment became effective, it was true at the time of Eisner v. Macomber Supra, 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 I.R.S. Code of 1954. If there is not gain, there is not income … Congress has taxed income not compensation.”

Conner v. U.S., 303 F Supp. 1187 (1969)

Edwards (vs) Keith, 231 F110, 113 (1916)

Stated: “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.”

State court rulings coincide with the Federal courts. “… reasonable compensation for labor or services rendered is not profit.”

Lauderdale Cemetery Assoc. v. Mathews, 345 PA 239; 47 A. 2d 277, 280 (1946)

“There is a clear distinction between profit and wages, or compensation for labor. Compensation for labor cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law.” –

Oliver v. Halstead, 196 VA 992; 86 S.E. 2d 858 (1955)

Cox (vs) Louisiana, 379 US 559, 85 S Ct. 476 (1965)

States that an American Citizen such as the Defendant has a right to rely upon representations and statements made by the government and appearing in official publications.

Economy Plumbing & Heating (vs) U.S., 456 F.2d. 713

Stated that the revenue laws apply to taxpayers, and NOT to nontaxpayers. No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers. Congress does not assume to deal with nontaxpayers, neither are they the subject of nor object of revenue laws.

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 behavior by the IRS. Our revenue system is based on the good faith of the taxpayer and the taxpayers should be able to expect the same from the government in its enforcement and collection activities.”

U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299.

See also U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021, 1032;

Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A. 932

“Keeping in mind the well settled rule that the citizen is exempt from taxation, unless the same is imposed by clear and unequivocal language, and that where the construction of a tax is doubtful, the doubt is to be resolved in favor of those upon whom the tax is sought to be laid.”

Spreckles Sugar Refining Co. vs. McLain: 192 US 397

(Discussing the 16th Amendment)

“It is clear on the face of this text that it does not purport to confer power to levy income taxes in a generic sense an authority already possessed and never questioned or to limit and distinguish between one kind of income taxes and another, but that the whole purpose of the Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from apportionment from a consideration of the source whence the income was derived”

Brushaber vs. Union Pacific RR 240 US 1

“for ‘income’ may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, and here we have combined operations of capital and labor.”

Stratton’s Independence vs. Howbert 231 US 406

Emanuel J. Doyle vs. Mitchell Brothers Company 247 US 179

“Yet it is plain, we think, that by the true intent and meaning of the Act the entire proceeds of a mere conversion of capital assets were not to be treated as income. Whatever difficulty there may be about a precise and scientific definition of ‘income’ it imports, as used here, something entirely distinct from principal or capital either as a subject of taxation or as a measure of the tax; conveying rather the idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activities. As was said in Stratton’s Independence vs. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415: ‘Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined.'”

Southern Pacific Company vs. John Z. Lowe, Jr: 247 US 330

“We must reject in this case, as we have rejected in cases arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909 (Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Co., ante, 179 and Hays v. Gauley Mountain Coal Co., ante, 189) the broad contention submitted in behalf of the Government that all receipts everything that comes in are income within the proper definition of the term ‘gross income,’ and that the entire proceeds of a conversion of capital assets, in whatever form and under whatever circumstances accomplished should be treated as gross income. Certainly the term ‘income’ has no broader meaning in the 1913 Act than in that of 1909 (see Stratton’s Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 416, 417), and for the present purpose we assume there is no difference in its meaning as used in the two acts.”

Mark Eisner vs. Myrtle H. Macomber 252 US 189

“After examining dictionaries in common use (Bouv. L.D.; Standard Dict.; Webster’s Internat. Dict.; Century Dict.), we find little to add to the succinct definition adopted in two cases arising under the Corporation Tax Act of 1909 (Stratton’s Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415; Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co, 247 U.S. 179, 185) “Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined,” provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets, to which it was applied in the Doyle Case (pp. 183, 185)

Merchant’s Loan & Trust Company vs. Smietanka 255 US 509

“It is obvious that these decisions in principle rule the case at bar if the word ‘income’ has the same meaning as the Income Tax Act of 1913 that it had in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, and that it has the same scope of meaning was in effect decided in Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330, 335, where it was assumed for the purposes of decision that there was no difference in its meaning as used in the Act of 1909 and in the Income Tax Act of 1913. There can be no doubt that the word must be given the same meaning and content in the Income Tax Acts of 1916 and 1917 that it had in the Act of 1913. When to this we add that in Eisner v. Macomber, Supra, arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, with the addition that it should include ‘profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets,’ there would seem to be no room to doubt that the word must be given the same meaning in all of the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act and that what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by decisions of this court.

Burnet vs. Harmel 287 US 103

“before the 1921 Act this Court had indicated (see Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 207, 64L.ed 521, 9 A.L.R. 1570, 40 S. Ct. 189), what it later held, that ‘income,’ as used in the revenue acts taxing income, adopted since the 16th Amendment, has the same meaning that it had in the Act of 1909.

Merchants; Loan & T. Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509, 519, 65 L.ed. 751, 755, 15 A.L.R. 1305, 41 S. Ct. 386;

see Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe. 247 U.S. 330, 335, 62 L.ed. 114, 1147, 38 S. Ct. 540.”

From the Supreme Court, the Federal Circuit Court, quotes and Treasury Orders wherein labor is not taxable income. Courtesy of Paycheck Piracy

To subscribe: Paycheck-Piracy-on@mail-list.com

1818: U.S. v. Bevans, 16 U.S.336.

Establishes two separate jurisdictions within the United States Of America: 1. The “federal zone” and 2. “the 50 States”. The I.R.C. only has jurisdiction within the “federal zone“. “The exclusive jurisdiction which the United States have in forts and dock-yards ceded to them, is derived from the express assent of the states by whom the cessions are made. It could be derived in no other manner; because without it, the authority of the state would be supreme and exclusive therein,”

3 Wheat., at 350, 351.

1883: Butchers’ Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746.

Defines labor as property, and the most sacred kind of property. “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…”

1894: Caha v. United States, 152 U.S. 211.

Restricts jurisdiction of the federal government inside the states. “The law of Congress in respect to those matters do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government.”

1895: Pollack v. Farmer’s Loan and Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429, 158 U.S. 601.

Prohibits direct taxes on the income of individuals.

1900: Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U.S. 41.

Defines the meaning of “direct taxes”. “Direct taxes bear immediately upon persons, upon the possession and enjoyment of rights; indirect taxes are levied upon the happening of an event as an exchange.”

1901: Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244.

Establishes that constitutional limits on the Congress do not apply within the “federal zone” and described where they do apply. “CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTIONS AND LIMITATIONS [Bill of Rights] WERE NOT APPLICABLE to the areas of lands, enclaves, territories, and possessions over which Congress had EXCLUSIVE LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION”

1906: Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43.

Defined the distinction between natural persons and corporations as it pertains to 5th Amendment protections within the U.S. Constitution. “…we are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for an examination at the suit of the state. The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.

Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the state. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the state and the limitations of its charter. Its powers are limited by law. It can make no contract not authorized by its charter. Its rights to [201 U.S. 43, 75] act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation.

There is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its contracts and find out whether it has exceeded its powers. It would be a strange anomaly to hold that a state, having chartered a corporation to make use of certain franchises, could not, in the exercise of its sovereignty, inquire how these franchises had been employed, and whether they had been abused, and demand the production of the corporate books and papers for that purpose. The defense amounts to this: That an officer of a corporation, which is charged with a criminal violation of the statute, may plead the criminality of such corporation as a refusal to produce its books. To state this proposition is to answer it. While an individual may lawfully refuse to answer incriminating questions unless protected by an immunity statute, it does not follow that a corporation, vested with special privileges and franchises, may refuse to show its hand when charged with an abuse of such privileges. “

1911: Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107.

Defined excise taxes as taxes laid on corporations and corporate privileges, not in natural persons. “Excises are taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations and upon corporate privileges…the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of [220 U.S. 107, 152] privileges, and the element of absolute and unavoidable demand is lacking…Conceding the power of Congress to tax the business activities of private corporations.. the tax must be measured by some standard…It is therefore well settled by the decisions of this court that when the sovereign authority has exercised the right to tax a legitimate subject of taxation as an exercise of a franchise or privilege, it is no objection that the measure of taxation is found in the income produced in part from property which of itself considered is nontaxable.”

1914: Weeks v. U.S., 232 U.S. 383.

Established that illegally obtained evidence may not be used by the court or admitted into evidence. This case is very useful in refuting the use by the IRS of income tax returns that were submitted involuntarily (note that these returns must say “submitted under compulsion in violation of 5th Amendment rights” or some such thing at the bottom.)

“The effect of the 4th Amendment is to put the courts [232 U.S. 383, 392] of the United States and Federal officials, in the exercise of their power and authority, under limitations and restraints as to the exercise of such power and authority, and to forever secure the people, their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against all unreasonable searches and seizures under the guise of law. This protection reaches all alike, whether accused of crime or not, and the duty of giving to it force and effect is obligatory upon all intrusted under our Federal system with the enforcement of the laws. The tendency of those who execute the criminal laws of the country to obtain conviction by means of unlawful seizures and enforced confessions, the latter often obtained after subjecting accused persons to unwarranted practices destructive of rights secured by the Federal Constitution, should find no sanction in the judgments of the courts, which are charged at all times with the support of the Constitution, and to which people of all conditions have a right to appeal for the maintenance of such fundamental rights.

The case in the aspect in which we are dealing with it involves the right of the court in a criminal prosecution to retain for the purposes of evidence the letters and correspondence of the accused, seized in his house in his absence and without his authority, by a United States marshal holding no warrant for his arrest and none for the search of his premises. The accused, without awaiting his trial, made timely application to the court for an order for the return of these letters, as well or other property. This application was denied, the letters retained and put in evidence, after a further application at the beginning of the trial, both applications asserting the rights of the accused under the 4th and 5th Amendments to the Constitution. If letters and private documents can thus be seized and held and used in evidence against a citizen accused of an offense, the protection of the 4th Amendment, declaring his right to be secure against such searches and seizures, is of no value, and, so far as those thus placed are concerned, might as well be stricken from the Constitution. The efforts of the courts and their officials to bring the guilty to punishment, praiseworthy as they are, are not to be aided by the sacrifice of those great principles established be years of endeavor and suffering which have resulted in their embodiment in the fundamental law of the land. The United States marshal could only have invaded the house of the accused when armed with a warrant issued as required by the Constitution, upon sworn information, and describing with reasonable particularity the thing for which the search was to be made. Instead, he acted without sanction of law, doubtless prompted by the desire to bring further proof to the aid of the government, and under color of his office undertook to make a seizure of private papers in direct violation of the constitutional prohibition against such action. Under such circumstances, without sworn information and particular description, not even an order of court would [232 U.S. 383, 394] have justified such procedure; much less was it within the authority of the United States marshal to thus invade the house and privacy of the accused.

In Adams v. New York, 192 U.S. 585, 48 L. ed. 575, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 372, this court said that the 4th Amendment was intended to secure the citizen in person and property against unlawful invasion of the sanctity of his home by officers of the law, acting under legislative or judicial sanction. This protection is equally extended to the action of the government and officers of the law acting under it.

Boyd Case, 116 U.S. 616, 29 L. ed. 746, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 524.

To sanction such proceedings would be to affirm by judicial decision a manifest neglect, if not an open defiance, of the prohibitions of the Constitution, intended for the protection of the people against such unauthorized action.

1916: Brushaber vs. Union Pacific Railroad, 240 U.S. 1.

Established that the 16th Amendment had no affect on the constitution, and that income taxes could only be sustained as excise taxes and not as direct taxes.

“…the proposition and the contentions under [the 16th Amendment]…would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another; That is, they would result in bringing the provisions of the Amendment exempting a direct tax from apportionment into irreconcilable conflict with the general requirement that all direct taxes be apportioned;

This result, instead of simplifying the situation and making clear the limitations of the taxing power, which obviously the Amendment must have intended to accomplish, would create radical and destructive changes in our constitutional system and multiply confusion.

Moreover in addition 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 unless and until it was concluded that to enforce it would amount to accomplishing the result which the requirement as to apportionment of direct taxation was adopted to prevent, in which case the duty would arise to disregard form and consider substance alone and hence subject the tax to the regulation as to apportionment which otherwise as an excise would not apply to it.

…the Amendment demonstrates that no such purpose was intended and on the contrary shows that it was drawn with the object of maintaining the limitations of the Constitution and harmonizing their operation.”

…the [16th] Amendment contains nothing repudiating or challenging the ruling in the Pollock Case that the word direct had a broader significance since it embraced also taxes levied directly on personal property because of its ownership, and therefore the Amendment at least impliedly makes such wider significance a part of the Constitution — a condition which clearly demonstrates that the purpose was not to change the existing interpretation except to the extent necessary to accomplish the result intended, that is, the prevention of the resort to the sources from which a taxed income was derived in order to cause a direct tax on the income to be a direct tax on the source itself and thereby to take an income tax out of the class of excises, duties and imposts and place it in the class of direct taxes…

Indeed in the light of the history which we have given and of the decision in the Pollock Case and the ground upon which the ruling in that case was based, there is no escape from the Conclusion that the Amendment was drawn for the purpose of doing away for the future with the principle upon which the Pollock Case was decided, that is, of determining whether a tax on income was direct not by a consideration of the burden placed on the taxed income upon which it directly operated, but by taking into view the burden which resulted on the property from which the income was derived, since in express terms the Amendment provides that income taxes, from whatever source the income may be derived, shall not be subject to the regulation of apportionment.

1916: Stanton v. Baltic Mining, 240 U.S. 103.

Declared that the 16th Amendment conferred no new powers of taxation to the U.S. government, but simply prevented income taxes from being taken out of the category of indirect (excise) taxes to which they inherently belonged. “..by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived, that is by testing the tax not by what it was – a tax on income, but by a mistaken theory deduced from the origin or source of the income taxed. “

1918: Peck v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165.

Stated that the 16th Amendment does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects, but removed the need to apportion direct taxes on income.

The plaintiff is a domestic corporation chiefly engaged in buying goods in the several states, shipping them to foreign countries and there selling them. In 1914 its net income from this business was $30,173.66, and from other sources $12,436.24. An income tax for that year, computed on the aggregate of these sums, was assessed against it and paid under compulsion. It is conceded that so much of the tax as was based on the income from other sources was valid, and the controversy is over so much of it as was attributable to the income from shipping goods to foreign countries and there selling them.

The tax was levied under the Act of October 3, 1913, c. 16, 11, 38 Stat. 166, 172, which provided for annually subjecting every domestic corporation to the payment of a tax of a specified per centum of its ‘entire net income arising or accruing from all sources during the preceding calendar year.’ Certain fraternal and other corporations, as also income from certain enumerated sources, were specifically excepted, but none of the exceptions included the plaintiff or any part of its income. So, tested merely by the terms of the act, the tax collected from the plaintiff was rightly computed on its total net income. But as the act obviously could not impose a tax forbidden by the Constitution, we proceed to consider whether the tax, or rather the part in question, was forbidden by the constitutional provision on which the plaintiff relies.

The Sixteenth Amendment, although referred to in argument, has no real bearing and may be put out of view. As pointed out in recent decisions, it does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects, but merely removes all occasion, which otherwise might exist, for an apportionment among the states of taxes [247 U.S. 165, 173] laid on income, whether it be derived from one source or another.

Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, 17-19, 36 Sup. Ct. 236, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 713, L. R. A. 1917D, 414;

Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, 112-113, 36 Sup. Ct. 278.

1920: Evens v. Gore, 253 U.S. 245.

Overturned by O’Malley v. Woodrough (307 U.S. 277). Court ruled that income taxes on federal judges were unconstitutional. “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 direct tax on salary income of a federal judge]

1920: Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189.

Defined income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment as “profit”. Prohibited direct, unapportioned taxation of income of a stockholder. The Sixteenth Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the amendment was adopted.

In Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601, 15 Sup. Ct. 912, under the Act of August 27, 1894 (28 Stat. 509, 553, c. 349, 27), it was held that taxes upon rents and profits of real estate and upon returns from investments of personal property were in effect direct taxes upon the property from which such income arose, imposed by reason of ownership; and that Congress could not impose such taxes without apportioning them among the states according to population, as required by article 1, 2, cl. 3, and section 9, cl. 4, of the original Constitution.

Afterwards, and evidently in recognition of the limitation upon the taxing power of Congress thus determined, the Sixteenth Amendment was adopted, in words lucidly expressing the object to be accomplished: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among [252 U.S. 189, 206] the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.’

As repeatedly held, this did not extend the taxing power to new subjects, but merely removed the necessity which otherwise might exist for an apportionment among the states of taxes laid on income.

Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 , 17-19, 36 Sup. Ct. 236, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 713, L. R. A. 1917D, 414;

Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 , 112 et seq., 36 Sup. Ct. 278;

Peck & Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165, 172 , 173 S., 38 Sup. Ct. 432.

A proper regard for its genesis, as well as its very clear language, requires also that this amendment shall not be extended by loose construction, so as to repeal or modify, except as applied to income, those provisions of the Constitution that require an apportionment according to population for direct taxes upon property, real and personal. This limitation still has an appropriate and important function, and is not to be overridden by Congress or disregarded by the courts. [.]

After examining dictionaries in common use (Bouv. L. D.; Standard Dict.; Webster’s Internat. Dict.; Century Dict.), we find little to add to the succinct definition adopted in two cases arising under the Corporation Tax Act of 1909

Stratton’s Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415 , 34 S. Sup. Ct. 136, 140 [58 L. Ed. 285]; Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179, 185, 38 S. Sup. Ct. 467, 469 [62 L. Ed. 1054]

‘Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined,’ provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets, to which it was applied in the

Doyle Case, 247 U.S. 183, 185, 38 S. Sup. Ct. 467, 469 (62 L. Ed. 1054)

Brief as it is, it indicates the characteristic and distinguishing attribute of income essential for a correct solution of the present controversy. The government, although basing its argument upon the definition as quoted, placed chief emphasis upon the word ‘gain,’ which was extended to include a variety of meanings; while the significance of the next three words was either overlooked or misconceived. ‘Derived from- capital’; ‘the gain-derived-from-capital,’ etc. Here we have the essential matter: not a gain accruing to capital; not a growth or increment of value in the investment; but a gain, a profit, something of exchangeable value, proceeding from the property, severed from the capital, however invested or employed, and coming in, being ‘derived’-that is, received or drawn by the recipient (the taxpayer) for his separate use, benefit and disposal- that is income derived from property. Nothing else answers the description. [.]

Thus, from every point of view we are brought irresistibly to the conclusion that neither under the Sixteenth Amendment nor otherwise has Congress power to tax without apportionment a true stock dividend made lawfully and in good faith, or the accumulated profits behind it, as income of the stockholder. The Revenue Act of 1916, in so far as it imposes a tax upon the stockholder because of such dividend, contravenes the provisions of article 1, 2, cl. 3, and article 1, 9, cl. 4, of the Constitution, and to this extent is invalid, notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment.

1922: Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259 U.S. 20.

Prohibited Congress from legislating or controlling benefits that employers provide to their employees. (A major blow against socialism in America!) “Out of a proper respect for the acts of a co-ordinate branch of the government, this court has gone far to sustain taxing acts as such, even though there has been ground for suspecting, from the weight of the tax, it was intended to destroy its subject. But in the act before [259 U.S. 20, 38] us the presumption of validity cannot prevail, because the proof of the contrary is found on the very face of its provisions. Grant the validity of this law, and all that Congress would need to do, hereafter, in seeking to take over to its control any one of the great number of subjects of public interest, jurisdiction of which the states have never parted with, and which are reserved to them by the Tenth Amendment, would be to enact a detailed measure of complete regulation of the subject and enforce it by a so-called tax upon departures from it. To give such magic to the word ‘tax’ would be to break down all constitutional limitation of the powers of Congress and completely wipe out the sovereignty of the states. “

1924: Cook v. Tait, 265 U.S. 47.

The Supreme Court ruled that Congress has the power to tax the income received by a native citizen of the United States domiciled abroad from property situated abroad and that the constitutional prohibition of unapportioned direct taxes within the states of the union does not apply in foreign countries.

1930: Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111.

The Supreme Court ruled that wages and compensation for personal services were not to be taxed in their entirety, but instead, the gain or profit derived indirectly from them.

1935: Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton Railroad Company, 295 U.S. 330.

The Supreme Court ruled that Congress [that it] has no constitutional authority whatsoever to legislate for the social welfare of the worker. The result was that when Social Security was instituted, it had to be treated as strictly voluntary. “The catalog of means and actions which might be imposed upon an employer in any business, tending to the comfort and satisfaction of his employees, seems endless.

Provisions for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry.

Can it fairly be said that the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce extends to the prescription of any or all of these things?

Is it not apparent that they are really and essentially related solely to social welfare of the worker, and therefore remote from any regulation of commerce as such? We think the answer is plain. These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of Congressional power.”

1938: Hassett v. Welch, 303 U.S. 303.

Ruled that disputes over uncertainties in the tax code should be resolved in favor of the taxpayer. “In view of other settled rules of statutory construction, which teach that… if doubt exists as to the construction of a taxing statute, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the taxpayer…”

1939: O’Malley v. Woodrough, 307 U.S. 277.

Overturned portions of Evens v. Gore, 253 U.S. 245, but not the part about the 16th Amendment. “However, the meaning which Evans v. Gore, supra, imputed to the history which explains Article III, 1 was contrary to the way in which it was read by other English-speaking courts.[1] The decision met wide and steadily growing disfavor from legal scholarship and professional opinion. Evans v. Gore, supra, itself was rejected by most of the courts before whom the matter came after that decision [2]”

1945: Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 US 652.

Ruled that there are three distinct and separate definitions for the term “United States”.

The income tax only applies to one of the three definitions! “The term ‘United States’ may be used in any one of several senses. It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States ex- [324 U.S. 652, 672] tends, or it may be the collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution.”

1959: Flora v. United, 362 US 145.

Ruled that our tax system is based on voluntary assessment and payment, not on force or coercion. “Our system of taxation is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint.”

1961: James v. United States, 366 US 213, p. 213, 6L Ed 2d 246.

Income that is taxed under the 16th Amendment must derive from a “source”. Also established that embezzled money is taxable as income. “…the Sixteenth Amendment, which grants Congress the power “to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived.”

Helvering v. Clifford, 309 US 331, 334; Douglas v. Willcuts, 296 US 1, 9. It has long been settled that Congress’ broad statutory definitions of taxable income were intended “to use the full measure of taxing power.” The Sixteenth Amendment is to be taken as written and is not to be extended beyond the meaning clearly indicated by the language used.” Edwards v. Cuba R. Co. 268 US 628, 631 [From separate opinion by Whittaker, Black, and Douglas, JJ.] (Emphasis added)

1970: Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742 at 748.

Supreme Court ruled that: “Waivers of Constitutional Rights not only must be voluntary, they must be knowingly intelligent acts, done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and consequences.”

1975: Garner v. United States, 424 U.S. 648.

Supreme Court ruled that income taxes constitute the compelled testimony of a witness: “The information revealed in the preparation and filing of an income tax return is, for the purposes of Fifth Amendment analysis, the testimony of a witness.” “Government compels the filing of a return much as it compels, for example, the appearance of a `witness’ before a grand jury.”

1978: Central Illinois Public Service Co. v. United States, 435 U.S. 21.

Established that wages and income are NOT equivalent as far as taxes on income are concerned.

Decided cases have made the distinction between wages and income and have refused to equate the two in withholding or similar controversies.

Peoples Life Ins. Co. v. United States, 179 Ct. Cl. 318, 332, 373 F.2d 924, 932 (1967);

Humble Pipe Line Co. v. United States, 194 Ct. Cl. 944, 950, 442 F.2d 1353, 1356 (1971);

Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. United States, 194 Ct. Cl. 920, 442 F.2d 1362 (1971);

Stubbs, Overbeck & Associates v. United States, 445 F.2d 1142 (CA5 1971);

Royster Co. v. United States, 479 F.2d, at 390; Acacia

Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. United States, 272 F. Supp. 188 (Md. 1967).”

1985: U.S. v. Doe, 465 U.S. 605.

The production of evidence or subpoenaed tax documents cannot be compelled. “We conclude that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the contents of the subpoenaed documents were privileged under the Fifth Amendment. The act of producing the documents at issue in this case is privileged and cannot be compelled without a statutory grant of use immunity pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 6002 and 6003.”

1991: Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192.

Held that if the defendant has a subjective good faith belief no matter how unreasonable, that he or she was not required to file a tax return, the government cannot establish that the defendant acted willfully in not filing an income tax return. In other words, that the defendant shirked a legal duty that he knew existed.

1992: United States v. Burke, 504 U.S. 229, 119 L Ed 2d 34, 112 S Ct. 1867.

Court held that income that is taxed under the 16th Amendment must come from a “source”. Congress’s intent through 61 of the Internal Revenue Code [26 USCS 61(a)]– which provides that gross income means all income from whatever source derived, subject to only the exclusions specifically enumerated elsewhere in the Code… and 61(a)’s statutory precursors…”

1995: U.S. v. Lopez, 000 U.S. U10287.

Establishes strict limits on the constitutional power and jurisdiction of the federal government inside the 50 States. “We start with first principles. The Constitution creates a Federal Government of enumerated powers. See U.S. Const., Art. I, 8. As James Madison wrote, “[t]he powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.” The Federalist No. 45, pp. 292-293 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961). This constitutionally mandated division of authority “was adopted by the Framers to ensure protection of our fundamental liberties.”

Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 458 (1991) (internal quotation marks omitted).

“Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the Federal Government serves to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front.” Ibid.

The Constitution delegates to Congress the power “[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” U.S. Const., Art. I, 8, cl. 3. The Court, through Chief Justice Marshall, first defined the nature of Congress’ commerce power in Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 189-190 (1824): “Commerce, undoubtedly, is traffic, but it is something more: it is intercourse. It describes the commercial intercourse between nations, and parts of nations, in all its branches, and is regulated by prescribing rules for carrying on that intercourse.”

The commerce power “is the power to regulate; that is, to prescribe the rule by which commerce is to be governed. This power, like all others vested in Congress, is complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations, other than are prescribed in the constitution.” Id., at 196. The Gibbons Court, however, acknowledged that limitations on the commerce power are inherent in the very language of the Commerce Clause.

“It is not intended to say that these words comprehend that commerce, which is completely internal, which is carried on between man and man in a State, or between different parts of the same State, and which does not extend to or affect other States. Such a power would be inconvenient, and is certainly unnecessary.

“Comprehensive as the word `among’ is, it may very properly be restricted to that commerce which concerns more States than one. . .

. . . The enumeration presupposes something not enumerated; and that something, if we regard the language or the subject of the sentence, must be the exclusively internal commerce of a State.” Id., at 194-195.

For nearly a century thereafter, the Court’s Commerce Clause decisions dealt but rarely with the extent of Congress’ power, and almost entirely with the Commerce Clause as a limit on state legislation that discriminated against interstate commerce. See, e.g., Veazie v. Moor, 14 How. 568, 573-575 (1853) (upholding a state-created steamboat monopoly because it involved regulation of wholly internal commerce); Kidd v. Pearson, 128 U.S. 1, 17, 20-22 (1888) (upholding a state prohibition on the manufacture of intoxicating liquor because the commerce power “does not comprehend the purely domestic commerce of a State which is carried on between man and man within a State or between different parts of the same State”); see also L. Tribe, American Constitutional Law 306 (2d ed. 1988). Under this line of precedent, the Court held that certain categories of activity such as “production,” “manufacturing,” and “mining” were within the province of state governments, and thus were beyond the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause. See Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, 121 (1942) (describing development of Commerce Clause jurisprudence). [.]

Consistent with this structure, we have identified three broad categories of activity that Congress may regulate under its commerce power. Perez v. United States, supra, at 150; see also Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., supra, at 276-277. First, Congress may regulate the use of the channels of interstate commerce. See, e.g., Darby, 312 U.S., at 114; Heart of Atlanta Motel, supra, at 256. “`[T]he authority of Congress to keep the channels of interstate commerce free from immoral and injurious uses has been frequently sustained, and is no longer open to question.'” [Quoting Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470, 491 (1917)].

Second, Congress is empowered to regulate and protect the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce, even though the threat may come only from intrastate activities. See, e.g., Shreveport Rate Cases, 234 U.S. 342 (1914); Southern R. Co. v. United States, 222 U.S. 20 (1911) (upholding amendments to Safety Appliance Act as applied to vehicles used in intrastate commerce); Perez, supra, at 150 (“[F]or example, the destruction of an aircraft (18 U.S.C. 32), or . . . thefts from interstate shipments (18 U.S.C. 659)”). Finally, Congress’ commerce authority includes the power to regulate those activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce, Jones & Laughlin Steel, 301 U.S., at 37, i.e., those activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. Wirtz, supra, at 196, n. 27.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT CASES:

U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299-300 (1977)

“Silence can only be equated with fraud when there is a legal or moral duty to speak, or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading… We cannot condone this shocking conduct…If that is the case we hope our message is clear. This sort of deception will not be tolerated and if this is routine it should be corrected immediately”

Lavin v. Marsh, 644 F.2nd 1378, 9th Cir. (1981)

“Persons dealing with government are charged with knowing government statutes and regulations, and they assume the risk that government agents may exceed their authority and provide misinformation”

Bollow v. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, 650 F.2d 1093, 9th Cir. (1981)

“All persons in the United States are chargeable with knowledge of the Statutes-at- Large… It is well established that anyone who deals with the government assumes the risk that the agent acting in the government’s behalf has exceeded the bounds of his authority”

Economy Plumbing and Heating v. U.S., 470 F.2d 585 (Ct. Cl. 1972)

“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 for refunds.”

Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236, at 238

The revenue laws are a code or a system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to non-taxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedures are prescribed for non-taxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law. With them Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither the subject nor the object of the revenue laws.”

Redfield v. Fisher, 292 P. 813, 135 Or. 180, 294 P.461, 73 A.L.R. 721 (1931)

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 individuals’ rights to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an excise cannot be imposed.”

U.S. v. Ballard, 535 F2d 400, cert denied, 429 U.S. 918, 50 L.Ed.2d 283, 97 S.Ct. 310 (1976)

“income” is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code

Congress has taxed INCOME, not compensation.” Conner v US 303 F Supp. 1187 (1969) “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.”

Treasury Order 150-1, Paragraph 5 States: “US Territories and Insular Possessions.” The commissioner shall, to the extent of authority otherwise vested in him, provide for the administration of the United States internal revenue law [small i] in the U.S. territories and insular possessions and OTHER AUTHORIZED AREAS OF THE WORLD.”

TO’s 150-1 thru 150- 29 are the Delegation of authority orders for the IRS from the Dept. Of Treasury. No section or paragraph is found in any of these which authorize the Commissioner to administer the internal revenue laws anywhere other than the above paragraph.

Bente v. Bugbee 137 A. 552, 553, 103 N. J. Law 608. In that case, the court held:

A tax is a legal imposition exclusively of statutory origin (37 Cyc.724, 725), and, naturally, liability to taxation must be read in the statute, or it does not exist. (Emphasis added).

In State v. Chicago & N.W.R. Co., 112 N.W. 515, 520; 132 Wis. 345, quoting and adopting the definition in State v. Certain Lands in Redwood County, 42 N.W. 473, 40 Minn. 512, the court held: That a tax is a liability created by statute we think admits of no doubt, either upon principle or authority. (Emphasis added)

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“.

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

US Supreme Court. So. Pacific v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330 (1918)

“income; as used in the statute should be given a meaning so as not to include everything that comes in.”

House Congressional Record March 27th 1943, page 2580, by F. Morse Hubbard, Treasury Dept. legislative draftsman: “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.”

C.R.S. Report Congress 92-303A (1992) by John R. Lackey, Legislative attorney with the library of Congress: “When a court refers to an income tax as being in the nature of an excise, it is merely stating that the tax is not on the property itself, but rather it is a fee for the privilege of receiving gain from the property. The tax is based upon the amount of the gain, not the value of the property.”

Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 480-487 (1943) “It could hardly be denied that a tax laid specifically on the exercise of those freedoms would be unconstitutional.”

American Airways v. Wallace 57 F.2d 877, 880; “The terms “excise tax” and “privilege tax” are synonymous. The two are often used interchangeably.”

Nicol v. Ames 173 U.S. 509 (1899): “A tax upon the privilege of selling property at the exchange, differs radically from a tax upon every sale made in any place.” “A sale at an exchange differs from a sale made at a man’s private office or on his farm, or by a partnership, because, although the subject-matter of the sale may be the same in each case, there are at an exchange certain advantages, in the way of finding a market, obtaining a price, the saving of time, and in the security of payment, and other matters, which are more easily obtained there than at an office or a farm.”

26 CFR §39.22(b)-1 (1956): “No other items may be excluded from gross income except

(a) those items of income which are, under the Constitution, not taxable by the Federal

Government.”

Coppage v. Kansas 236 U.S. 1 (1915): “Included in the right of personal liberty and the right of private property – partaking of the nature of each- is the right to make contracts for the acquisition of property. Chief among such contracts is that of personal employment, by which labor and other services are exchanged for money or other forms of property.”

Jack Cole Company v. Alfred T. MacFarland, Commissioner, 206 Tenn, 694, 337 S.W.2d 453 Supreme Court of Tennessee (1960): “Since the right to receive income or earnings is a right belonging to every person, this right cannot be taxed as privilege.”

Simms v. Ahrens, 271 SW 720 (1925): “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.”

Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust, 157 U.S. 429 and 158 U.S. 601 (1895): “The power to tax real and personal property and the income from both, there being an apportionment, is conceded: that such a tax is a direct tax in the meaning of the Constitution has not been, and, in our judgment, cannot be successfully denied Ordinarily, all taxes paid primarily by persons who can shift the burden upon some one else, or who are under no legal compulsion to pay them, are considered indirect [excise] taxes taxation on income is in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such.”

“Congress has taxed INCOME, not compensation.”

– [Conner v. U.S., 303 F Supp. 1187 (1969)] –

This is just one of MANY rulings where the Federal courts have consistently, repeatedly, ruled that payment for labor (wages, salaries and compensation for personal services) is NOT taxable!

“Income within the meaning of the 16th 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.”

– [Staples v. U.S., 21 F Supp 737 U.S. Dist. Ct. ED PA, 1937] –

“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.”

– [Oliver v. Halstead, 86 S.E. Rep 2nd 85e9 (1955)] –

“The claim that salaries, wages, and compensation for personal services are to be taxed as an entirety and therefore must be returned by the individual who has performed the services which

produce the gain is without support, either in the language of the Act or in the decisions of the courts construing it. Not only this, but it is directly opposed to provisions of the Act and to

regulations of the U.S. Treasury Department, which either prescribed or permits that compensations for personal services not be taxed as a entirety and not be returned by the individual performing the services. It is to be noted that, by the language of the Act, it is

not salaries, wages, or compensation for personal services that are to be included in gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal services.”

– [Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930)] –

“… whatever may constitute income, therefore, must have the essential feature of gain to the recipient. This was true when the 16th Amendment became effective, it was true at the time of Eisner v. Macomber Supra, 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 I.R.S. Code of 1954. If there is not gain, there is not income … Congress has taxed income not compensation.”

– [Conner v. U.S., 303 F Supp. 1187 (1969)] –

A much earlier ruling stated very simply: “… one does not derive income by rendering services and charging for them.”

– [Edwards v. Keith, 231 F 111 (1916)] –

State court rulings coincide with the Federal courts.

“… reasonable compensation for labor or services rendered is not profit.”

– [Lauderdale Cemetery Assoc. v. Mathews, 345 PA 239; 47 A. 2d 277, 280 (1946)] –

“There is a clear distinction between profit and wages, or compensation for labor. Compensation for labor cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law.”

– [Oliver v. Halstead, 196 VA 992; 86 S.E. 2d 858 (1955)] –

Like Ed Brown, many Americans have claimed the law does not require them to pay federal taxes.

But they’re wrong, the IRS says.

The requirements are “clearly set forth” in the Internal Revenue section of U.S. Code, according to a November 2006 publication entitled, The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments. The article specifically cites sections 6011(a), 6012 and 6072.

Section 6012 (a), in particular, says “every individual” who does not meet certain exemptions shall make “returns with respect to taxable income.”

Further down, section 6151 says the person making the return “shall pay such tax at the time and place fixed for filing the return.”

The article also cites a number of court cases, such as U.S. v. Tedder, in which the court ruled, “Congress gave the Secretary of the Treasury the power to enforce the income tax laws through involuntary collection … The IRS’ efforts to obtain compliance with the tax laws are entirely proper.” [Source]

Gee, I guess the IRS was right and Ed Brown is wrong!

Well . . . except for a couple of huge, non-frivolous details. Please look up the meaning of the term “taxable income” as defined in the relevant law. And while you’re poring over all that tax law, you might dip into the several Supreme Court decisions that clarify the effect the 16th Amendment had on the constitutional prohibition of an unapportioned direct tax. And look into the meaning of “employer,” “employee,” “person” and all the other common words that are precisely defined in the relevant law.

I don’t think Title 26, the related regulations, the Supreme Court cases, and the United States Constitution are too frivolous to read, do you? Just because they don’t teach this in government school doesn’t mean you can’t read it for yourself, does it.

____________

. . . and the Prosecutor said, “these are all frivolous arguments your honor . . . the courts have already ruled . . .”

Yes, Mr. Prosecutor, the courts have ruled!

Congress has taxed INCOME, not compensation.”

Conner v. U.S., 303 F Supp. 1187 (1969)

“Income within the meaning of the 16th 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.”

Staples v. U.S., 21 F Supp 737 U.S. Dist. Ct. ED PA, 1937

“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.”

Oliver v. Halstead, 86 S.E. Rep 2nd 85e9 (1955)

“The claim that salaries, wages, and compensation for personal services are to be taxed as an entirety and therefore must be returned by the individual who has performed the services which produce the gain is without support, either in the language of the Act or in the decisions of the courts construing it. Not only this, but it is directly opposed to provisions of the Act and to regulations of the U.S. Treasury Department, which either prescribed or permits that compensations for personal services not be taxed as a entirety and not be returned by the individual performing the services. It is to be noted that, by the language of the Act, it is not salaries, wages, or compensation for personal services that are to be included in gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal services.”

Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930)

“. . . whatever may constitute income, therefore, must have the essential feature of gain to the recipient. This was true when the 16th Amendment became effective, it was true at the time of Eisner v. Macomber Supra, 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 I.R.S. Code of 1954. If there is not gain, there is not income . . . Congress has taxed income not compensation.”

Conner v. U.S., 303 F Supp. 1187 (1969)

Stated: “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.”

Edwards (vs) Keith, 231 F110, 113 (1916)

Establishes two separate jurisdictions within the United States Of America: 1. The “federal zone” and 2. “the 50 States”. The I.R.C. only has jurisdiction within the “federal zone”. “The exclusive jurisdiction which the United States have in forts and dock-yards ceded to them, is derived from the express assent of the states by whom the cessions are made. It could be derived in no other manner; because without it, the authority of the state would be supreme and exclusive therein,” 3 Wheat., at 350, 351. 1818:

U.S. v. Bevans, 16 U.S. 336

Defines labor as property, and the most sacred kind of property. “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 . . .”

1883: Butchers’ Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746

Restricts jurisdiction of the federal government inside the states. “The law of Congress in respect to those matters do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government.”

1894: Caha v. United States, 152 U.S. 211

Prohibits direct taxes on the income of individuals.

1895: Pollack v. Farmer’s Loan and Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429, 158 U.S. 601

Defines the meaning of “direct taxes.” “Direct taxes bear immediately upon persons, upon the possession and enjoyment of rights; indirect taxes are levied upon the happening of an event as an exchange.”

1900: Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U.S. 41

Establishes that constitutional limits on the Congress do not apply within the “federal zone” and described where they do apply. “CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTIONS AND LIMITATIONS [Bill of Rights] WERE NOT APPLICABLE to the areas of lands, enclaves, territories, and possessions over which Congress had EXCLUSIVE LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION”

1901: Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244

Defined the distinction between natural persons and corporations as it pertains to 5th Amendment protections within the U.S. Constitution. “. . . we are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for an examination at the suit of the state. The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.

1906: Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43

Defined income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment as “profit.” Prohibited direct, unapportioned taxation of income of a stockholder. The Sixteenth Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the amendment was adopted.

1920: Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189

Oliver v. Halstead, 86 S.E. Rep 2nd 85e9 (1955):

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.”

Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930):

The claim that salaries, wages, and compensation for personal services are to be taxed as an entirety and therefore must be returned by the individual who has performed the services which produce the gain is without support… it is not salaries, wages, or compensation for personal services that are to be included in gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal services.”

Conner v. U.S., 303 F Supp. 1187 (1969):

“… whatever may constitute income, therefore, must have the essental feature of gain to the recipient. This was true when the 16th Amendment became effective, it was true at the time of Eisner v. Macomber Supra, 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 I.R.S. Code of 1954. If there is not gain, there is not income … Congress has taxed income not compensation.”

Edwards (vs) Keith, 231 F110, 113 (1916):

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.”

Lauderdale Cemetary Assoc. v. Mathews, 345 PA 239; 47 A. 2d 277, 280 (1946):

“… reasonable compensation for labor or services rendered is not profit.”

The United States District Court for the Virgin Islands decided an important case in 1996. Cited as Burnett v. Commissioner, KTC 1996-292 (D.V.I. 1996), the court stated that Subtitle A taxes apply only to Washington, D. C. and the Territories. Referring to Code Section 7701 (a) (definitions) (9), the court pointed out that the term “United States” includes only the above. Section 7701 (a) reads:

“(a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof –“

and Section 7701(a) (9) reads:

“(a)(9) UNITED STATES – The term “United States” when used in a geographical sense includes only the States and the District of Columbia.”

No other definition of “United States” is offered in Subtitle A.

Be careful!  I have been advised that the case of “Burnett v. Commissioner” was dismissed on a “Motion to Dismiss.” GWE

CITE AS: Burnett v. Commissioner, KTC 1996-292 (D.V.I. 1996)

Title 26, USC, “Subtitle A Income Tax”, and such tax is not applicable to the several states, but only to the District of Columbia, and territories under the jurisdiction of the same. This fact is supported by 26 USC 7701(a)(9) and (10) wherein the term “United States” does not include the “50 states” as it does in the definition of “United States” in other sections of the Code [e.g.; Sections 4612(a)(4)(A) and 6103(b)(5).

The only delegation orders in existence to grant authority to the IRS Commissioner to carry out his duties are TDO 150-42 and 150-01, [see Exhibits D and E]. Delegation Order 150-01 identifies “districts” in paragraphs 1-4, and then identifies that area over which the Commissioner has authority to ENFORCE the tax code in paragraph 5 — which specifically identifies authority in U.S. territories and possessions — not the 50 states. Such delegation authority is imperative to the Commissioner, [26 USC 7701(a)(12)], and in its absence, the Commissioner does not have authority to enforce the Code. The evidence shows that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue only has authority to enforce the Code in territories of Washington, D.C.

Petitioners are not “residents” of the Virgin Islands, they bring this action to the District Court of the Virgin Islands, pursuant to rule 71A.1, and because of the fact that there is no other remedy at law or equity in which to petition.  The proposed tax assessment pertains only to the “territories” of the “United States” [defined as “Washington, D.C.” for purposes of Subtitle A], then only a court of the “territories of the United States” can hear this matter.

IRS Creation? – Act of July 1, 1862 (12 Stat. 432)

Also

Act of December 24, 1872 (17 Stat. 401)

Also

1862 congress approved 26 USC 7802 – Statute creates Commissioner of IRS

They are Coming for YOUR CHILDREN

They are introducing the LGBQ-AEIOU Education Indoctrination in Schools starting this Fall to all students – it sounds like it will start in Kindergarten if they have there way.

Listen to the 2 hour interview from 6/12/19 on Republic Broadcasting Network with John Stadtmiller at the links below;

The National Intel Report with John Stadtmiller, June 12, 2019 Hour 1

The National Intel Report with John Stadtmiller, June 12, 2019 Hour 2

Also related:

Hundreds of Parents Pull Kids From School to Protest LGBTQ Curriculum

236 references to 6,000,000 Jews prior to the Nuremberg Trial (113 Years of Lies)

236 references to 6,000,000 Jews prior to the Nuremberg Trial (113 Years of Lies)

http://winstonsmithministryoftruth.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/145-references-to-6000000-jews-prior-to.html?zx=7acc94501eb034b8

The warning you get is there because the powers that be do not want you to see this info.

CODOH frequenter Toshiro has done an amazing job and compiled a list of the newspaper
articles and books, dating from 1900 to 1945, in which Jews have claimed that specifically
six million (6,000,000) Jews, were in peril, would be killed, or had been killed.

So far, we have collected 236! The later ones from 1944 and 1945 are about Jews or
their allies, claiming that 6,000,000 Jews had been killed by the Nazis, before the corrupt
German who went on to work for the CIA; “confessed” that was the figure the Nazis had killed.

Also listed are eight “holocausts” of the Jews.
Many of the article can be found on my blog, but all can be tracked down with a little googling.
Much respect to Toshiro for this excellent piece of work.

1900 – Stephen S. Wise, New York Times, June 11, 1900
“There are 6,000,000 living, bleeding, suffering arguments in favor of Zionism.”

1902 – Encyclopaedia Britannica, 10th Edition, Vol. 25, 1902, page 482
“While there are in Russia and Rumania six millions of Jews who are being systematically degraded …”

1902 – Samuel W. Goldstein, New York Times, November 27, 1902
“PLEA FOR ZIONISM … In answer I would say: Does Dr. Silverman represent the 6,000,000 Jews in Russia, 300,000 in Roumania and the 1,000,000 in Galicia?”

1903 – The Jewish Criterion (Pittsburgh), September 18th, 1903, page 6
” … six million downtrodden brethren.”

1904 – The Jewish Criterion (Pittsburgh), February 19th, 1904, page 2
” … where five or six million people existed under persecution.”

1904 – The Jewish Criterion (Pittsburgh), October 7th, 1904, page 1
” … the final and definite deliverance of the six millions of Russian, Roumanian and Galician Jews … transporting five or six million people over the sea.”

1904 – Israel Zangwill, New York Times, October 20, 1904
“The problem does not relate to the American Jews, but to the 6,000,000 in Russia. The Russian Government has consented to allow the Jews to leave,”

1905 – New York Times, January 29th, 1905
“He declared that a free and a happy Russia, with its 6,000,000 Jews, would possibly mean the end of Zionism, since the abolition of the autocracy would practically eliminate the causes that brought Zionism into existence.”

1905 – New York Times, November 1st, 1905
“From 1800 to 1902 he caused 6,000,000 Jewish families to be expelled from Russia …”

1906 – New York Times, March 25th, 1906
” … the condition and future of Russia’s 6,000,000 Jews were made on March 12 in Berlin to the annual meeting of the Central Jewish Relief League of Germany by Dr. Paul Nathan … He left St. Petersburg with the firm conviction that the Russian Government’s studied policy for the “solution” of the Jewish question is systematic and murderous extermination.”

1907 – The Jewish Criterion (Pittsburgh), October 18th, 1907, page 13
” … for six million people cannot emigrate.

1908 – Deseret Evening News, March 17th, 1908
” … poverty, starvation and disease are the afflictions which now beset the six million Jews in that country and Roumania.”

1908 – The Jewish Criterion (Pittsburgh), August 7th, 1908
” … when six million Russian Jews are crying … ”

1910 – The Jewish Criterion (Pittsburgh), February 4th, 1910
“SIX MILLION BABIES SAVED BY STRAUS.”

1911 – Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, Vol. 2, 1911, page 145
“While there remain in Russia and Rumania over six millions of Jews who are being systematically degraded …”

1911 – Max Nordeau speaking at The 1911 Zionist Congress. Hecht, Ben. Perfidy. NY; Julian Messner. 1961. page 254
“But the same righteous Governments, who are so nobly, industriously active to establish the eternal peace, are preparing, by their own confession, complete annihilation for six million people,”

1911 – Fort Wayne Journal Gazette (IN), June 4th, 1911, page 15
“PRINCE, PRIEST AND PEASANT WAGE WAR AGAINST SIX MILLION JEWS”

1911 – The Jewish Criterion (Pittsburgh), August 18th, 1911, page 14
“Very soon a fervid Russian patriotism will reign in every Ghetto, and the melting-up of the race begin. But this absorption of the five or six million Jews … ”

1911 – Max Nordeau, The Jewish Chronicle (London), August 18th, 1911, page 14
” … the downfall of six million creatures … for no war has ever yet destroyed six million human lives.”

1911 – The Jewish Criterion (Pittsburgh), August 25th, 1911
” … six million Jews are still groaning under the most terrible yoke.”

1911 – Max Nordeau, The Jewish Criterion (Pittsburgh), September 1st, 1911, page 3
” … the downfall of six million creatures … for no war has ever yet destroyed six million human lives.”

1911 – Max Nordeau, The Reform Advocate (Chicago), September 9th, 1911
” … the downfall of six million creatures … for no war has ever yet destroyed six million human lives.”

1911 – New York Times, October 31st, 1911
“The 6,000,000 Jews of Russia are singled out for systematic oppression and for persecution due to process of law.”

1912 – American Jewish Year Book 5672 (23 Sep 1911 – 11 Sep 1912), page 308
“Russia has since 1890 adopted a deliberate plan to expel or exterminate six millions of its people for no other reason than that they refuse to become members of the Greek Church, but prefer to remain Jews.

1912 – The Jewish Criterion (Pittsburgh), January 5th, 1912
” … more than six million Jews reside in small towns and villages there is no Sabbath question.”

1912 – Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, New York Tribune, September 11th, 1912, page 9
“Russia is now asphyxiating the Jews. It does not dare to offend the nations by blood spilling, so it is slowly, but surely grinding out the lives of 6,000,000 Jews.”

1913 – Fort Wayne Journal Gazette (IN), October 18th, 1913, page 4
“There are six million Jews in Russia and the government is anxious to annihilate them by methods that provoke protests from the civilized world.”

1914 – The Jewish Criterion (Pittsburgh), July 10th, 1914, page 9
” … where six million Jews are suffering … ”

1914 – New York Times, December 2nd, 1914, page 12
“APPEAL FOR AID FOR JEWS. … the plight of more than 6,000,000 Jews … upon the Jewish people, more than nine millions of whom live in the countries at war and over six million of these in the actual war zone in Poland, Galicia and the whole of Russian frontier.”

1915 – New York Times, January 14th, 1915, page 3
“In the world today there are about 13,000,000 Jews, of whom more than 6,000,000 are in the heart of the war zone; Jews whose lives are at stake and who today are subjected to every manner of suffering and sorrow … ”

1915 – The Jewish Criterion (Pittsburgh), March 19th, 1915
“How the casting of six million people into the deepest abyss of servitude and outlawry is to relieve tension we cannot understand.”

1915 – The Sun (NY), June 6, 1915, section 5, page 1
“Six million Jews, one-half of the Jewish people throughout the world, are being persecuted, hounded, humiliated, tortured, starved. … six million Jews in Russia … are being tortured so mercilessly.”

1915 – The Jewish Criterion (Pittsburgh), June 25th, 1915
“The annihilation of the six million Jews now congregated in the Russian domains goes on in a well defined and systematic manner.

1915 – Jacob de Hass, The Boston Sunday Globe, September 26th, 1915, page 46
Indeed the only point that all warring elements are agreed upon is that at the end of the holocaust the Jews and Palestine will be more closely related than at present.

1915 – New York Tribune, October 14th, 1915
“What the Turks are doing to Armenians is child’s play compared to what Russia is doing to six million Jews, her own subjects.”

1915 – The Mercury, December 4th, 1915
” … six millions of Russian and Polish Jews are to-day the most pitiable victims of that race hatred and that race fanaticism which have been the creed of Germany … ”

1916 – The Jews in the Eastern War Zone, The American Jewish Committee, 1916
” … where six million human beings guilty only of adherence to the Jewish faith are compelled to live out their lives in squalor and misery, in constant terror of massacre … estimated at six million or more … of these six million people … a kind of prison with six million inmates … The persons most affected, the six million Jews of Russia … The Jews are loyal and brave, and it is most inadvisable to pursue a policy which might convert six million subjects into enemies. … the six million Jews of Russia still continued … nearly three of the six million …”

1916 – Oakland Tribune (CA), January 25th, 1916, page 1
“The President of the United States–6,000,000 Starving, Homeless, People–and January 27th Why should the President, by proclamation to the people of the nation, fix upon january 27th as the day for contributing towards the relief of over six million Jews located in the Far Eastern War Zone?”

1916 – Oakland Tribune (CA), January 26th, 1916, page 1 (FRONT PAGE ADVERT 2 DAYS RUNNING)
“The President of the United States–6,000,000 Starving, Homeless, People–and January 27th Why should the President, by proclamation to the people of the nation, fix upon january 27th as the day for contributing towards the relief of over six million Jews located in the Far Eastern War Zone?”

1916 – North Devon Journal, March 9th, 1916, page 7
“In Poland, in Southern and Western Russia, six million Jews resided when the War broke out. They lived there in the pale of settlement, in poverty, and were terribly overcrowded.”

1916 – Fort Wayne Journal Gazette (IN), March 12th, 1916, page 34
” … six million Jews reported starving in the warring countries.”

1916 – The Tacoma Times, February 28th, 1916
” … there were 6,000,000 Jews in Europe absolutely without food or resources.”

1916 – New York Times, February 28th, 1916
“Nearly six million Jews are ruined in the greatest moral and material misery; millions of them are refugees, dependent upon the good will of their brethren.”

1916 – The Jewish Criterion (Pittsburgh), March 3rd, 1916
“Nearly six million Jews are ruined.”

1916 – The Jewish Criterion (Pittsburgh), March 31st, 1916, page 6
“Position of the Jews in Russia. The Jews in Russia, numbering about six million, are denied full political and civil rights and are economically oppressed.”

1916 – El Paso Herald, April 22nd, 1916, page 5
“Six Million Jews Are Deprived Of Papers By Russian Censorship. … Six million Jews have been robbed of their newspapers.”

1916 – The Jewish Criterion (Pittsburgh), August 4th, 1916
” … six million Jews …”

1917 – Corsicana Daily Sun, February 16th, 1917, page 2
“Six million Jews are living in lands where they are oppressed, exploited, crushed and robbed of every inalienable human right.”

1918 – Fort Wayne News and Sentinel (IN), June 22nd, 1918, page 1
“In the war zone of Europe there are six million Jews who have been the war’s worst sufferers,”

1918 – The Columbus Jewish Chronicle, June 28th, 1918, page 1
“Claims Palestine Has Room For Six Million … “It is quite possible for Palestine to find room for five to six millions … 800,000 hectares will suffice to produce the food of six millions of people,”

1918 – The Bakersfield Californian, July 30th, 1918, page 4
“… the six million starving Jews in Poland, Galicia and other stricken Eastern provinces …”

1918 – The Jewish Criterion (Pittsburgh), September 5th, 1918
” … Russia, where the bulk of the Jewish people to the number of well over six million still dwell, is a land of blood and midnight darkness.”

1918 – The Columbus Jewish Chronicle, September 13th, 1918, page 1
“The report describes the havoc the war has caused among the six million Jews of Russia. Driven by the invading armies, the Jews have been compelled to flee from their homes;”

1918 – New York Times, October 18th, 1918
“Six million Souls Will Need Help to Resume Normal Life When War Is Ended. … Committee of American Jews Lays Plans for the Greatest Humanitarian Task in History. … 6,000,000 Jews Need Help.”

1919 – The Bourbon News, April 1st, 1919, p.4
“… six million Jews in Poland, Lithuania, Galicia, Palestine, Turkey and Siberia who are dying of starvation,”

1919 – The Corsicana Daily Sun, April 3rd, 1919, p.5
“SIX MILLION ARE STARVING … It is estimated that there are six million Jewish women, children and aged men actually starving to death.

1919 – The Galveston Daily News, April 4th, 1919, page 3
“Six million Jews in Poland, Lithuania, Galicia, Palestine, Turkey and Siberia are dying of starvation. … These six million despairing souls are totally dependent on American generosity for the bare necessities of life.”

1919 – The Watchman and Southron, April 5th, 1919
“Six million Jews in Poland, Lithuania, Galicia, Palestine, Turkey and Siberia are dying of starvation. … These six million despairing souls are totally dependent on American generosity for the bare necessities of life.”

1919 – The Galveston Daily News, April 5th, 1919, page 5
“Six million Jews are dying of starvation.”

1919 – The Galveston Daily News, April 6th, 1919, page 8
“The American Jewish Relief Committee is endeavoring to save from starvation six million Jews who are the helpless victims of the German terror.”

1919 – El Paso Herald., April 7th, 1919
” … to save from starvation six million Jews who are the helpless victims of the German Terror.”

1919 – San Antonio Express, April 8th, 1919, page 15
“The American Jewish Relief Committee is endeavoring to save from starvation six million Jews who are the helpless victims of the German terror.”

1919 – The Corsicana Daily Sun, April 9th, 1919, page 8
“THE AMERICAN JEWISH RELIEF COMMITTEE IS ENDEAVOURING TO SAVE FROM STARVATION SIX MILLION JEWS WHO ARE THE HELPLESS VICTIMS OF THE GERMAN TERROR”

1919 – San Antonio Express, April 9th, 1919, page 12
“At no other time in the history of the Jewish people has the need been so great as now. Six million of our brothers and sisters are dying of starvation. The entire race is threatened with extinction.”

1919 – The Wellington Leader (TX), April 11th, 1919, page 1
“We wish to call the attention of our people to the great drive that is on to raise funds for the relief of the six million Jews who are starving in the war ridden districts of the east.”

1919 – The Corsicana, Semi-Weekly Light, April 11th, 1919, page 5
“THE AMERICAN JEWISH RELIEF COMMITTEE IS ENDEAVOURING TO SAVE FROM STARVATION SIX MILLION JEWS WHO ARE THE HELPLESS VICTIMS OF THE GERMAN TERROR”

1919 – The Daily Courier (PA), August 4th, 1919, section 2, page 1
“APPEALS TO AMERICA TO ACT QUICKLY IF LIVES OF SOME SIX MILLION JEWS ARE TO BE SAVED … The lives of some six million people are at stake.”

1919 – The Fulton Patriot, September 3rd, 1919, page 4
WORLD JEWRY AT GREATEST CRISIS Leaders in America Striving to Save Race in Europe From Destruction. … All told, many million Christians and more than 6,000,000 Jews in countries other than the United States are being directly aided by American Jewish relief funds.”

1919 – New York Times, September 8th, 1919, page 6
“127,000 Jews Have Been Killed and 6,000,000 Are in Peril. … 6,000,000 souls in Ukrainia and in Poland have received notice through action and by word that they are going to be completely exterminated – this fact stands before the whole world as the paramount issue of the present day.”

1919 – The Fort Wayne News and Sentinel, September 17th, 1919, section 2, page 1
” … six million Jews are dying of starvation and where vast numbers of them–innocent victims of the ravages of war–wander homeless, and in rags.”

1919 – Rushville Daily Republican, September 29th, 1919, page 4
“The thought that as I walk the streets of this properous and happy town there are 6,000,000 people in other lands without food, shelter or raiment is disturbing. … When I read, as I have read all my life, of the persecution and slaughter of the Jews I am not proud of my own race or my religion. … Six million people perishing!”

1919 – Tipton Tribune, September 29th, 1919, page 2
“The thought that as I walk the streets of this properous and happy town there are 6,000,000 people in other lands without food, shelter or raiment is disturbing. … When I read, as I have read all my life, of the persecution and slaughter of the Jews I am not proud of my own race or my religion. … Six million people perishing!”

1919 – The Washington Democrat, October 2nd, 1919, page 1
“The thought that as I walk the streets of this properous and happy town there are 6,000,000 people in other lands without food, shelter or raiment is disturbing. … When I read, as I have read all my life, of the persecution and slaughter of the Jews I am not proud of my own race or my religion. … Six million people perishing!”

1919 – Fort Wayne Journal Gazette, October 1st, 1919, page 4
“The thought that as I walk the streets of this properous and happy town there are 6,000,000 people in other lands without food, shelter or raiment is disturbing. … When I read, as I have read all my life, of the persecution and slaughter of the Jews I am not proud of my own race or my religion. … Six million people perishing!”

1919 – Janesville Daily Gazette (WI), October 4th, 1919, page 4
” … the Feast Day of Rosh Hashonah. It was not a feast day for some six million starving Jews of Europe because every day for the past four years has been a fast day for them. … the five year fast that has been the lot of the 6,000,000 Jews in Europe.”

1919 – Sheboygan Press (WI), October 4th, 1919, page 2
” … the Feast Day of Rosh Hashonah. It was not a feast day for some six million starving Jews of Europe because every day for the past four years has been a fast day for them. … the five year fast that has been the lot of the 6,000,000 Jews in Europe.”

1919 – The Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette (IN), October 6th, 1919, page 3
“With six million of their population in absolute want, they are unable alone to render sufficient aid … There are to-day to be found in the ten provinces of Russia, Poland and the fifteen provinces called the ‘Pale of Settlement’ six millions of these peaceful and law abiding people … We do not see with our eyes the evidences of want and degradation into which six million Jews have been thrown suddenly through no fault of their own.”

1919 – Indiana Weekly Messenger, October 9th, 1919, page 1 & 4
“Life for six millions in the shadow of death! … Six millions mean what? … Six million souls, old men, old women, and little children in Poland, Lithuania, Russia, Palestine, Glaicia, Turkey, Syria, Roumania, Greece, and Bulgaria are in imminent danger of starving to death this winter. … The responsibility of maintaining life in these six million sufferers rests upon every man and woman in the United States … Helping the Jews in their extremity is not helping the Bolsheviks,” the speaker emphatically declared.”

1919 – Schenectady Gazette, October 16th, 1919, page 15
“Today 6,000,000 Jews Are Facing the Darkest Days Ever Known in the Long History of the Race.”

1919 – Titusville Herald, October 18th, 1919, page 4
“… Jewish Relief Fund … Contribute Today, the Last Day and Help Save From Death Six Millions of Starving People.”

1919 – San Francisco Chronicle, October 19th, 1919, page 18
“6,000,000 JEWS IN BREAD LINE, STRAUS WRITES. More Than Third of Entire Race in World Reduced to Despair in Europe. … Six million Jews, out of the 16,000,000 in the world … ”

1919 – Cape Vincent Eagle, October 23rd, 1919
” … there are six million people in other lands without food, shelter or raiment is disturbing. … When read, as I have read all my life, of the persecution and slaughter of the Jews I am not proud of my own race or of my religion.”

1919 – The American Hebrew, October 31st, 1919, page 582
“The Crucifixion of Jews Must Stop! From across the sea six million men and women call to us for help … Within them reside the illimitable possibilities for the advancement of the human race as naturally would reside in six million human beings. … In this catastrophe, when six million human beings are being whirled toward the grave by a cruel and relentless fate, only the most idealistic promptings of human nature should sway the heart and move the hand. Six million men and women are dying from lack of the necessaries of life […] bigoted lust for Jewish blood. In this threatened holocaust of human life in the name of the humanity of Moses to six million famished men and women. Six million men and women are dying … six million Jewish men and women are starring across the seas … ”

1919 – The Evening Tribune Providence, October 31st, 1919, page 11
“In the midst of our campaign for the relief of the six million Jews of Eastern Europe … ”

1919 – The Record (Johnson City, NY), November 1st, 1919, page 8
“There are 6,000,000 Jews in eastern Europe whom the war has left dependant upon America for aid.”

1919 – Beatrice Daily Sun (NE), November 8th, 1919, page 2
“The territory which Mr. Hoover visited is but a part of that in which 6,000,000 Jews, suffers of war and war’s equally horrible after-math, stand helpless today, … The Need: SIX MILLION STARVING SOULS. Six million Jews in Poland, Lithuania, Galicia, Palestine, Turkey and Siberia are dying of starvation. … These six million despairing souls are totally dependent on American generosity for the bare necessities of life. The Object: $35,000,000 for 6,000,000 LIVES”

1919 – Lebanon Daily News (PA), November 11th, 1919, page 2
“DISEASE AND STARVATION IN POLAND Lieut. Wright Tells of Half Starved People Clad in Rags BREAD OUT OF LEAVES Says 6,000,000 Face Death This Winter Unless Given Immediate Relief … 6,000,000 Face Death … Six million Jews in eastern Europe face death during the coming winter,”

1919 – Felix M. Warburg, New York Times, November 12th, 1919
“The Jews were the worst sufferers in the war. The successive blows of contending armies have all but broken the back of European Jewry and have reduced to tragically unbelievable poverty, starvation and disease about 6,000,000 souls, or half the Jewish population of the earth.”

1919 – Gouvernur Free Press, November 12th, 1919
“Six Million Men and Women Are Dying… Won’t You Help Them? … From across the sea six million men and women call to us for help … in six million human beings … In this catastrophe, when six million human beings are being whirled toward the grave by a cruel and relentless fate … Six million men and women are dying … Six million men and women are dying … Because of this war for Democracy six million Jewish men and women are starving across the seas … Six million men and women of the race that helped do the greatest of the world’s work are falling into the grave! … six million famished men and women now turn mute eyes of appeal … ”

1919 – Chester Times (PA), November 28th, 1919, page 15
“There are 6,000,000 Jews in Eastern Europe whom the war has left dependent upon us for aid.”

1919 – Ironwood News Record (MI), December 6th, 1919, page 9
“For First Time in History of Race, Jews Are Asking Others For Help. … They are doing it because six million Jews in eastern and central Europe are actually in need of food at this moment. … The problem of 6,000,000 starving men, women and little children ought to be the problem of all humanity.”

1919 – Lima News (OH), December 24th, 1919, page 3
“Today Six Million Jews Are Facing the Darkest Days Ever Known In the History of the Race.”

1919 – The Toledo News-Bee, December 27th, 1919
“Six Million Human Beings Are Suffering the Tortures of Disease, Hunger and Death … American Jewish Relief Committee”

1920 – Van Wert Daily Bulletin (OH), January 5, 1920, page 3
“… Jewish relief work in Europe and Asia. There are six million Jews in the two continents who because of the war have been made destitute.”

1920 – Manti Messenger (Utah), March 19, 1920
“Just now some six million of Jews, eight hundred thousand of them just children, are in imminent danger of starvation in eastern Europe.”

1920 – Tulsa Daily World, April 11th, 1920, section B, page 14
“Today 6,000,000 Jews Are Facing the Darkest Days Ever Known in the Long History of the Race”

1920 – Utica Herald-Dispatch, April 20th, 1920, page 9
“Today 6,000,000 Jews Are Facing the Darkest Days Ever Known in the Long History of the Race.”

1920 – New York Times, May 1st, 1920, page 8
“Just Another Drive, but the Lives of 6,000,000 Human Beings Wait Upon the Answer.”

1920 – New York Times, May 2nd, 1920, page 1
” … six million human beings, without food, shelter, clothing or medical treatment.”

1920 – New York Times, May 3rd, 1920, page 11
“Your help is needed to save the lives of six million people in Eastern and Central Europe.

1920 – New York Times, May 5th, 1920, page 9
” … to save six million men and women in Eastern Europe from extermination by hunger and disease.”

1920 – New York Times, May 5th, 1920, page 19
“Six million starving, fever-stricken sufferers in war-torn Europe appeal to us.”

1920 – New York Times, May 7th, 1920
” … Jewish war sufferers in Central and Eastern Europe where six millions face horrifying conditions of famine, disease and death.

1920 – Ogden Standard Examiner, August 8, 1920, page 9
“PUSH DRIVE FOR JEWISH RELIEF … Mr. Bond declared today that there are six million jews (sic) in eastern and central Europe whom the war has left dependent upon America.”

1920 – The Ogden Standard-Examiner, August 20th, 1920
” … there are six million Jews in eastern and central Europe whom the war has left dependent upon America.”

1920 – New York Tribune, August 29th, 1920
“Six million Jews were made homeless by five years of foreign and domestic wars.”

1921 – New York Times, July 20, 1921, page 2
“BEGS AMERICA SAVE 6,000,000 IN RUSSIA. Russia’s 6,000,000 Jews are facing extermination by massacre.”

1922 – Lowell Sun (MA), March 22nd, 1922, page 14
“The Jews in the immediate district for which the aid of the war sufferers’ campaign is to be given numbered over six million. … Over 300,000 orphans, over 150,000 descrated women, over six million wandering Jews walking, crawling in their misery, feeding on the bark of trees and on herbs that drow by the wayside.”

1926 – Encyclopaedia Britannica, 13th Edition, Vol. 1, 1926, page 145
“While there remain in Russia and Rumania over six millions of Jews who are being systematically degraded …”

1926 – Canadian Jewish Review, April 9th, 1926, page 4
” … the extreme need of 6,000,000 Jews in Russia and Poland,”

1926 – New York Times, April 21st, 1926
“In Heaven’s Name, Arouse the Jews of America! New York’s Quota: $6,000,000 United Jewish Campaign of New York”

NRA is Gun Control

But they sure like your money…

via NRA Supported the National Firearms Act of 1934

Communism is Jewish

Communism is Jewish.

Read – Do some research – and quite being ignorant of the truth the “Elite” don’t want you to know or understand.

2 Classes Of Citizens (Which one are you?)

Image

There have always been 2 classes of citizens in America.

The Constitution for the United States of America talks about 2 classes of citizens.
Article IV, Section 2 Clause 1 says; “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.”

The courts have talked about the two classes of citizens as shown below.

“there is in our Political System, a government of each of the several states and a government of the United States Each is distinct from the other and has citizens of its own.” . US vs. Cruikshank, 92 US 542,

The Fourteenth Amendment, “….creates or at least recognizes for the first time a citizenship of the United States, as distinct from that of the States.”
Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition at pg 591;

“One may be a citizen of a State and yet not a citizen of the United States. Thomasson v State, 15 Ind. 449; Cory v Carter, 48 Ind. 327 (17 Am. R. 738); McCarthy v. Froelke, 63 Ind. 507; In Re Wehlitz, 16 Wis. 443.”
Mc Donel v State, 90 Ind. Rep. 320 at pg 323;

“Both before and after the 14th Amendment to the Federal Constitution it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the U.S. in order to be a citizen of his State” Crosse v. Board of Supervisors, Baltimore, Md., 1966, 221 A. 2d 431 citing US Supreme Court Slaughter House Cases and U.S. v. Cruikshank 92 US 542, 549, 23 L. Ed 588 1875

“There are two classes of citizens, citizens of the United States and of the State. And one may be a citizen of the former without being a citizen of the latter” Gardina v. Board of Registers 48 So. 788, 169 Ala. 155 (1909)

“Citizenship of the United States does not entitle citizens to privileges and immunities
of Citizens of the State, since privileges of one are not the same as the other” Tashiro v. Jordan, 255 P. 545 California Supreme Court

The United States Supreme Court quite thoroughly expanded on the two classes
of citizenship in the case Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, where it said:

“…that there was a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of the states,
which were distinct from each other, depending upon different characteristics and circumstances in the individual; that it was only privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States that were placed by the amendment under the protection of the Federal Constitution, and that the privileges and immunities of a citizen of a state, whatever they might be, were not intended to have any additional protection by the
paragraph in question, but they must rest for their security and protection where they have heretofore rested.”
Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 451;

These two classes of citizenship continue to this day,
“Privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship. 14,§ 1.”
Jones v Temmer, 829 F.Supp. 1226 (D.Colo. 1993);

Because there are 2 classes of citizens, and also because of circumstances that will become known below, it is necessary to assert your sovereignty. In order to understand how and why you assert your sovereignty, we need to have some background knowledge.

A state citizen is one of “We the People” found in the preamble to the constitution. You can be in a state without being in the United States. In fact, if you read their codes, the United States in the United States Code is the District of Columbia and the Territories. The Puerto Rico website even talks about it.

The US citizen
A US citizen does not have any rights.
“…the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal constitution against the powers of the Federal government.” Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 455;

“The only absolute and unqualified right of a United States citizen is to residence within the territorial boundaries of the United States,” US vs. Valentine 288 F. Supp. 957

“Therefore, the U.S. citizens [citizens of the District of Columbia] residing in one of the states of the union, are classified as property and franchises of the federal government as an “individual entity.”
Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773.

“A “US Citizen” upon leaving the District of Columbia becomes involved in “interstate commerce”, as a “resident” does not have the common-law right to travel, of a Citizen of one of the several states.” Hendrick v. Maryland S.C. Reporter’s Rd. 610-625. (1914)

A US citizen is a corporation.
“…it might be correctly said that there is no such thing as a citizen of the United States. ….. 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.” Ex Parte Frank Knowles, 5 Cal. Rep. 300

This can also be confirmed in the definitions section of Title 5 USC, Title 26 USC, and Title 1 USC.

Therefore a US citizen is a piece of property. If you read any of those old court cases prior to the civil war where slavery was the issue, the debate was ALWAYS over property rights, therefore a US citizen, is a SLAVE.

The Fourteenth Amendment defines what a US citizen is;

“Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,…..”

The so-called Fourteenth Amendment criminally converts US citizenship completely upside down from what the founding fathers intended, which brings us to the next topic.

The Fourteenth Amendment
The Fourteenth Amendment turns citizenship upside down from what the founding fathers intended.

“And while the Fourteenth Amendment does not create a national citizenship, it has the effect of making that citizenship “paramount and dominant”, instead of “derivative and dependant” upon state citizenship.” Colgate v Harvey, 296 U.S. 404, on page 427

Therefore, prior to the Fourteenth Amendment, US citizenship was derivative and dependent upon state citizenship and the Fourteenth Amendment made US citizenship paramount and dominant.

In other words, prior to the Fourteenth Amendment you had to be a state citizen to be a US citizen and the state citizenship was dominant over the federal citizenship, but after the Fourteenth Amendment you could be a US citizen without being a state citizen, and the courts can presume that you are a US citizen and not a state citizen. If the courts can presume something, then every bureaucrat can presume the same thing.

Tashiro v. Jordan May 20, 1927, 255 P. 545 Cal. Supreme Court: “Citizenship of the United States does not entitle citizens to privileges and immunities of Citizens of the State, since privileges of one are not the same as the other”

“…that there was a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of the states, which were distinct from each other, depending upon different characteristics and circumstances in the individual; that it was only privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States that were placed by the amendment under the protection of the Federal Constitution, and that the privileges and immunities of a citizen of a state, whatever they might be, were not intended to have any additional protection by the paragraph in question, but they must rest for their security and protection where they have heretofore rested.” Max well v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 451

“Privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship. 14,§ 1.” Jones v Temmer, 829 F.Supp. 1226 (D.Colo. 1993)

Thw Fourteenth Amendment citizen is a US citizen

The (so-called) Fourteenth Amendment is a revision.
For further information on the (so-called) Fourteenth Amendment see the Non-Ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment by Judge AH Ellett

This document is 155 pages long and explains how the ratification of the (so-called) Fourteenth Amendment is defective at best, as well as how it is in fact a revision because it changes all sorts of things in the Constitution.

Some members of Congress at the time affirmed the right of Americans to renounce the US citizen the day before the (so-called) Fourteenth Amendment was declared approved and adopted by passing An Act Concerning the Right of American Citizens to Expatriate.

Another Important part of this is the color of law statutes.

Color of Law
“Color” means “An appearance, semblance, or simulacrum, as distinguished from that which is real. A prima facia or apparent right. Hence, a deceptive appearance, a plausible, assumed exterior, concealing a lack of reality; a disguise or pretext. See also colorable.” Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, on page 240.

“Colorable” means “That which is in appearance only, and not in reality, what it purports to be, hence counterfeit feigned, having the appearance of truth.” Windle v. Flinn, 196 Or. 654, 251 P.2d 136, 146.

“Color of Law” means “The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right. Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state is action taken under ‘color of law.'” Atkins v. Lanning. D.C.Okl., 415 F. Supp. 186, 188.

If something is “color of law” then it is NOT law, it only looks like law. If you go to the website for the Office of Law Revision Counsel, you will see that most of the titles of the United States Code are “prima facia evidence of the laws of the United States”. http://sovereigntyinternational.info/Office%20of%20Law%20Revision%20Counsel.pdf

“prima facia” means “At first sight; on the first appearance; on the face of it; so far as can be judged from the first disclosure; presumably; a fact presumed to be true unless disproved by some evidence to the contrary.” State ex rel. Herbert v. Whims, 68 Ohio App. 39, 38 N.E.2d 596, 599, 22 O.O. 110. Black’s Law Dictionary 5th Edition page 1071.

Prima facia and color of law both go hand in hand, because if a law is prima facia evidence of the laws of the United States, that means it is color of law, by definition. In other words the bureaucrat presumes that the law applies to you until you defeat their presumption.

If you read these prima facia, color of law statutes, you will find them using words like “person”. I will use the color of law Title 26 USC as a typical way that they do it.

26 USC 7701 (a) (1) Person. The term “person” shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.

In the Internal Revenue code they say that a “person” has to pay taxes and obey their filing requirement etc., and most people think that they are such a “person”, so they do it, but there is a maxim of law that says something else.

Ejusdem Generis (eh-youse-dem generous) v adj. Latin for “of the same kind,” used to interpret loosely written statutes. Where a law lists specific classes of persons or things and then refers to them in general, the general statements only apply to the same kind of persons or things specifically listed. Example: if a law refers to automobiles, trucks, tractors, motorcycles and other motor-powered vehicles, “vehicles” would not include airplanes, since the list was of land-based transportation.

Pursuant to the Maxim of Law ejusdem generis the word “individual” is another type of fictitious entity because the rest of the entities are fictitious entities and in the rules of statutory construction, a definition must contain the same type of entities, or it is void for vagueness. Therefore, an “individual” and a “person” are different names for a corporation.

Title 15 USC Section 44 even provides for an “unincorporated corporation”.

When you do what a color of law statute says, you are deemed to have agreed to the terms of the contract, and ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

This is consistent with what the Courts are saying, a “Person” is:
a) “a variety of entities other than human beings.” Church of Scientology v U.S. Department of Justice, 612 F2d 417 (1979) at pg 418
b) ”…foreigners, not citizens….” United States v Otherson, 480 F. Supp. 1369 (1979) at pg 1373.
c) the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies…Title 1 U.S.C. Chapter 1 – Rules of Construction, Section 1

A sovereign is not a “person” in a legal sense and as far as a statute is concerned;
a) ” ‘in common usage, the term ‘person’ does not include the sovereign, [and] statutes employing the [word] are normally construed to exclude it.’ Wilson v Omaha Tribe, 442 US653 667, 61 L Ed 2d 153, 99 S Ct 2529 (1979) (quoting United States v Cooper Corp. 312 US 600, 604, 85 L Ed 1071, 61 S Ct 742 (1941). See also United States v Mine Workers, 330 US 258, 275, 91 L Ed 884, 67 S Ct 677 (1947)” Will v Michigan State Police, 491 US 58, 105 L. Ed. 2d 45, 109 S.Ct. 2304
b) “a sovereign is not a person in a legal sense” In re Fox, 52 N. Y. 535, 11 Am. Rep. 751; U.S. v. Fox, 94 U.S. 315, 24 L. Ed. 192

All of this is consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment because the Fourteenth Amendment talks about a “person” being a US citizen, and both of them are corporations.

Other terminologies which mean the same thing are “pretend legislation” and then it would also follow that offenses under “pretend legislation” would also be “pretend offenses”. These terminologies are found in the Declaration of Independence(1776).

For any statute to be legimate, there are certain requirements. For example, it has to have a preamble, it has to be approved by both the House of Representatives and the Senate, and signed by the President, and there are other requirements as well. The lack of any of these would make it color of law. Remember, “color of law” means it does NOT have authority, therefore, you have to agree with it, – it is a contract. That is why it is “prima facia”, which means it is “at first look”. In other words, at first look the courts presume that the statute affects you but if you can show that you didn’t agree to it in some way, then you are free to go.

Because the US Congress perjurers did their Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act, and also because state citizens are foreign to the United States, most people think that they have to go through a lot to prove that they did not agree to one of these so-called contracts, but the opposite is true.

Color of Law, and Prima Facia, and presumption are all associated with Admiralty Maritime Law courts.

Still don’t believe that the courts view these colorable codes, rules and regulations as a contract?

“The rights of the individuals are restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies of government.”
City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944

Zionist Israel

All we seem to hear from the Mass Lame-Stream Media & the Government  minions is how IRAN want’s & plans to Destroy poor little Israel.  “If they get “The Bomb” they will surely launch it against Tel Aviv” or some shit like that.

If that is so – then how is it that IRAN has the 2nd or 3rd LARGEST JEWISH POPULATION living within its borders, and no harm seems to come to them? And that same Jewish population refuses to move to Israel.

It time all you NeoCons and other Sheeple wake up to who and what ISRAEL is and who runs it – Cause it sure as shit aint the Jews.

Here are some links to read up on.  Yeah i know, it will be hard to see some real facts that FOX and CNN won’t tell you – but i suspect you area all grown up enough to make some of your own decisions…

http://www.truetorahjews.org/

http://www.nkusa.org/

http://rense.com/Datapages/zionismdata.htm

Go ahead and call me all the names you want – like Anti-Semite.  That’s always a good one. Its the one most used buy the Zionist against those they hate for bringing out the truth.

Funny thing is – most of you don’t even know what a Semite is, let alone an Anti-Semite – But FOX and CNN would never ever lie to you would they.  Nah.

Image