This Substack has been exposing the pernicious social engineering scam that is the Federal “income” tax which no American residing outside of the foreign nation of Washington, D.C. is in any way liable to pay… … …and because so many subscribers were asking exactly how they can legally extricate themselves from this color of law “income” taxation theft, this Substack has partnered with Freedom Law School to provide a way for you to never be stolen from again.
Am wondering if there's anything similar re Europe. Here, Sweden has one of the highest Income tax rates. We are very low income and it took us three months to pay off half a year's income tax. Next time we'll have a year and a half to pay. We won't be able to meet that. It's one of the main reasons our home is now for sale and we want to leave Sweden. We love it here but aren't wealthy enough to remain. And at my age and health condition, moving again isn't easy.
Yea! They would target me and have a swat team break in to my house to arrest me at 3 AM in the morning! If I reached for my AK 47, they would shoot me and call it a justified homicide! DC swamp is out of control and time to put a 50 foot wall around it and not let the swamp creatures out!
Now THIS was a worthwhile and important Substack. And I love Ben Garrison's work, he is a true patriot, and tells the truth in his cartoons.
The 16th Amendment was passed surreptitiously, and unconstitutionally. The "income tax" has been imposed on Americans without their informed consent, indeed, through lies and deception.
The IRS has been used as a weapon against the people, and must be abolished. Totally, completely, forever. There are other legal ways to raise money, IF that is even necessary.
If a simple majority of all Americans would stop participating in the IRS's scam, then they would be finished.
In the first video linked to the speaker attempts to prove that taxes only apply to citizens of DC, by quoting language of "including DC." This makes no sense, as it's very clear that the code also refers to states, but also "including DC."
Also: "As long as YOU are a member of the Restore Freedom Plan, Freedom Law School will prevent the IRS from levying YOUR money or Freedom Law School will reimburse YOU!" So, then, this is an implicit admission that the IRS can indeed take your money, but if it does, the Freedom Law School will reimburse you.
The IRS can't take your money lawfully, and they know it. You are tricked into a legally binding (color of law) contract with them by filing. Freedom Law School can provide you a service, or you can use their free information and DIY.
That's false in legal sense. They deliberately use that language to confuse you
" 'State' shall be construed to include the District of Columbia", in other words the definition of "State" for this title shall include the D.C and nothing else.
That is further confirmed by supreme court decision that states "When a statute includes an explicit definition, we must follow that definition, even if it varies from that term's ordinary meaning.”, in other words when terms are used in legal context they are precisely defined and no other meaning can be implied outside of that strict and contextual definition.
I'm yet to be convinced. It does not say that the states are excluded in the definition of "state." It merely says that in the definition of a state-- which definition would be implicitly assumed to be the 50 states-- DC shall be included. That's all. "Include" is the key word, which in no way means "everything not included shall be excluded."
If I include two apples in my collection of fruit, that doesn't mean I therefore exclude all other fruit.
I'd be very careful of making myself a target of the IRS in these very dangerous times. We're shifting to a regime of "rule of men" instead of rule of law, and in such a regime they can make stuff up as convenient, or apply whatever laws they need to "show me the man and I'll show you the crime." They took January 6 peaceful protestors, for example, and threw them in the slammer arbitrarily. One might find any examples of current lawlessness, not least in the world of finance where some $21 trillion or so remains unaccounted for (even as that accounting is required by law. They just don't care: rule of men instead of law.)
Ok but in another example of fuel tax they precisely define the term "United States" as
"The term "United States" means the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, any possession of the United States, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.".
So they know they need to define what it includes when they want it and not define what it excludes.
Seems to me I've heard of people going to jail for tax evasion. If you don't want to pay taxes and if on the other hand they really want to get you for, say, spreading disinformation, then is it wise to give them something to pin on you?
Look, if they can criminalize ivermectin and the doctors who've prescribed it, then they can criminalize people who defy the tax code, whether you deem it lawful or not.
We have a very long way to go to end all of this massive corruption. I don't want to feed the beast, either, but face it, if they want money they can just run the printing presses and the people closest to the government trough will get that money before it gets diluted, while the rest of us downhill from that trough will get the inflated money that buys less than it did before. Then of course everyone will be scratching their heads why there's the inflation that the government itself created.
I think Dingo Roberts' comment, below, says it all.
I'm not making an argument from defacto or pragmatic position, I'm arguing from legal, de jure point of view.
Of course might makes right, that is always the case. But if enough people knew the law is this way and acted in accordance to actual law things could change rapidly.
As a former Florida Patriot who spent time at Eglin AFB Prison Camp I must admit that EVERYTHING disclosed herein is CONSTITUTIONALLY AND LEGALLY correct.
Unfortunately , as President Trump has found out , the Judges and Prosecutors are corrupt to their core and are immune from lawsuits. They ignore the Constitution and the Law with impunity.
The gargantuan welfare/warfare police state has a voracious apetite . They have no qualms about confiscating our income by any means necessary.
I’ve been familiar with this line of reasoning since Schiff promoted it. My colleagues and I always said “There’s no room for murderers and rapists, but there’s always a cell for a tax protester.”
To summarize, Richard Grant came to Peymon with his IRS problems and was using terrible legal theories. Then Richard went with his own representation instead of the ones being recommended by Peymon, and to make it worse the representation he went with would not work with Peymon. Richard literally paid for a service and then didn't use it."
##. LAW. 1. “That which is laid down, ordained, or established. A rule or method according to which phenomena or actions coexist or follow each other”; BLACK’s Law Dictionary 2nd Edition.
“The earliest notion of law was not an enumeration of a principle, but a judgment in a particular case. When pronounced in the early ages, by a king, it was assumed to be the result of direct divine inspiration. Afterwards came the notion of a custom which a judgment affirms, or punishes its breach. In the outset, however, the only authoritative statement of right and wrong is a judicial sentence rendered after the fact has occurred. It does not presuppose a law to have been violated, but is enacted for the first time by a higher form into the judge's mind at the moment of adjudication.” Maine, Anc Law, (Dwight's Ed.) pp. xv, 5.
Law always construeth things to the best. Wing. Max. p. 720, max. 193.
Law construeth every act to be lawful, when it standeth indifferent whether it should be lawful or not. Wing. Max.p. 722, max. 194 ; Finch, Law, b. 1, c. 3, n. 76.
Law construeth things according to common possibility or intendment. Wing. Max. p. 705, max. 189.
Law [the law] construeth things with equity and moderation. Wing. Max. p. 685, max. 183; Finch, Law, b. 1, c. 3, n. 74.
Law disfavoreth impossibilities. Wing. Max. p. 606, max. 155.
Law disfavoreth improbabilities. Wing. Max. p. 620, max. 161.
Law [the law] favoreth charity. Wing. Max. p. 497, max. 135.
Law favoreth common right. Wing. Max. p. 547, max. 144.
Law favoreth diligence, and therefore hateth folly and negligence. Wing. Max. p. 665, max. 172 ; Finch, Law, b. 1, c. 3, no. 70.
Law favoreth honor and order. Wing. Max. p. 739, max. 199.
Law favoreth justice and right. Wing. Max. p. 502, max. 141.
Law favoreth life, liberty, and dower. 4 Bacon's Works, 345.
Law favoreth mutual recompense. Wing. Max. p. 411, max. 108; Finch, Law, b. 1, c. 3, no. 42.
Law [the law] favoreth possession, where the right is equal. Wing. Max. p. 375, max. 98; Finch, Law, b. 1, c. 3, no. 36.
Law favoreth public commerce. Wing. Max. p. 738, max. 198.
Law favoreth public quiet. Wing. Max. p. 742, max. 200; Finch, Law, b. 1, c. 3, no. 54.
Law favoreth speeding of men's causes. Wing. Max. p. 673, max. 175.
Law [the law] favoreth things for the commonwealth, [common weal.] Wing. Max. p. 729, max. 197; Finch, Law, b. 1, c. 3, no. 53.
Law favoreth truth, faith, and certainty. Wing. Max. p. 604, max. 154.
Law hateth delays. Wing. Max. p. 674, max. 176 ; Finch, Law, b. 1, c. 3, no. 7L
Law hateth new inventions and innovations. Wing. Max. p. 756, max. 204.
Law hateth wrong. Wing. Max. p. 563, max. 146 ; Finch, Law, b. 1, c. 3, no. 62.
Law of itself prejudiceth no man. Wing. Max. p. 575, max. 148; Finch, Law, b. 1, c. 3, no. 63.
Law respecteth matter of substance more than matter of circumstance. Wing. Max. p. 382, max. 101; Finch, Law, b. 1, c. 3, no. 39.
Law respecteth possibility of things. Wing. Max. p. 403, max. 104 ; Finch, Law, b. 1, C 3, no. 40.
Law [the law] respecteth the bonds of nature. Wing. Max. p. 268, max. 78; Finch, Law, b. 1, c. 3, no. 29.
##. “Law of the Land” per West Virginia Constitution formed after 1863 and finalized in 1868. The federal Constitution of the United States of America was referred to as the Law of the Land and not the Constitution for the united Sates of America. The Constitution of the United States of America no longer was in affect when the southern States seceded from the northern states. No quorum of the Confederacy existed and the compact was no longer in operation.
"The common law is the real law, the Supreme Law of the Land; the code, rules, regulations, policy and statutes are “not the law”, Self v. Rhay, 61 Wn (2d) 261. January 17th, 1963. This is based on land jurisdiction and not soil jurisdiction which is reserved for man and his property as the sovereign who creates government to protect all rights mankind does express through law.
Sovereignty exists because of common law, but more particularly natural law, and ultimately ‘law’.
Was brought into England by the Barons with the Magna Carta.
Existed prior to this formal document (Magna Carta) in the form of shires, shire moots, and tithings. These were small communities in the English Isles that were mostly Anglo-Saxon and had their roots in natural law. (The Book of Hundreds – various authors) and (The Commentaries of the Laws of England by Sir Edward Coke) – “The Comon Law appeareth in the statute of Magna Carta and other ancient statutes (which for the most part are affirmations of the common law)…” Sir Edward Coke
Doesn't the common law have its roots in the laws of Troy and Ancient Greece, taken to Britain during the Great Migration of Trojans led by Brutus of Troy in 485 BC? Don't our inalienable rights originate in the ancient Usages of Britain and the Code of British Laws of Molmutius ? Much older than Anglo-Saxon.
"History of Britain From The Flood to AD 700," by R W Morgan
Common Law has its roots in Roman and Greek democracy. Yes. Common Law is an adjective/pronoun combination. It is not Law. Law is expressed. Common Law depends on judges and precedence. We also make the mistake to lean on Common Law. It is based on customs and previous rulings. It is not a reflection of the rights of mankind.
##. Property, real property, personal property are all very different terms with specific definitions that verify the classification of either applying to entities or actual mankind.
PROPERTY. Rightful dominion over external objects ; ownership ; the unrestricted and exclusive right to a thing; the right to dispose of the substance of a thing in every legal way, to possess it, to use It, and to exclude every one else from interfering with it. Mackeld. Rom. Law, § 265.
Property is the highest right a man can have to anything; being used for that right which one has to lands or tenements, goods or chattels, which noway depends on another man's courtesy. Jackson ex dem. Pearson v. Housel, 17 Johns. 281, 283. BLACK’S Law Dictionary 2nd Edition.
Property is defined in West Virginia Code §2-2-10; however, the thing in which the term is applied in the code is a person. As described within the same code, it is clearly referencing fictitious entities by ejusdem generis and expressio unius est exclusion alterius, and not a man or woman or those of mankind. Property as known to man is of that which in noway depends on another man’s courtesy. supra, paragraph ##.
West Virginia Code, Law of the Land, and Definitions. [Check your "State" code and you will find the same definitions - take particular notice to EVERY place the words "person" and "individual" is used in the definitions and then look up the code definitions of "person" and "individual" - ask yourself, are you a man or woman - or are you a person or individual by the definitions?]
##. Legal rules, codes, acts, statutes, and procedures are for artificial ‘persons’.
West Virginia Tax Code 2 . . .
. . . “Owner” means the person, [artificial and/or fictitious entities] as defined in §2-2-10 of this code, who is possessed of the freehold, whether in fee or for life. A person seized or entitled in fee subject to a mortgage or deed of trust securing a debt or liability is considered the owner until the mortgagee or trustee takes possession, after which the mortgagee or trustee shall be considered the owner. A person who has an equitable estate of freehold, or is a purchaser of a freehold estate who is in possession before transfer of legal title is also considered the owner. Owner includes the corporation or other organization possessed of the freehold of a qualified continuing care retirement community. Owner includes homeowners who have vacated their owner-occupied, single-family, residential property, which was their most recent primary residence, and have listed that property for sale with a licensed real estate broker, and have not leased said property to anyone since vacating said property. Owner means the person who is using and occupying all or a portion of a parcel of real estate the freehold of which is possessed by a family trust: Provided, That the parcel is used and occupied by the owner thereof exclusively for residential purposes.
“All codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, not Human/Creators in accordance with God’s laws. All codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process…” Rodriques v. Ray Donovan (U.S. Department of Labor) 769 F. 2d 1344, 1348, (1985).
##. Taxation and to what it applies.
CHAPTER 11. TAXATION.
. . . §11-6B-2. Definitions.
(2) "Claimant" means a person who is age sixty-five or older or who is certified as being permanently and totally disabled, and who owns a homestead that is used and occupied by the owner thereof exclusively for residential purposes: Provided, That: (1) If the property was most recently used and occupied by the owner or the owner's spouse thereof exclusively for residential purposes; (2)the owner, as a result of illness, accident or infirmity, is residing with a family member or is a resident of a nursing home, personal care home, rehabilitation center or similar facility; and (3) the property is retained by the owner for noncommercial purposes, then the owner of that property may continue to claim a homestead property tax exemption on the property.
(5) "Owner" means the person who is possessed of the homestead, whether in fee or for life. A person seized or entitled in fee subject to a mortgage or deed of trust shall be considered the owner. A person who has an equitable estate of freehold, or is a purchaser of a freehold estate who is in possession before transfer of legal title shall also be considered the owner. Personal property mortgaged or pledged shall, for the purpose of taxation, be considered the property of the party in possession.
(10) "Resident of this state" means an individual who is domiciled in this state for more than six months of the calendar year.
. . . §11-4-3. Definitions.
“Owner” means the person, as defined in §2-2-10 of this code, who is possessed of the freehold, whether in fee or for life. A person seized or entitled in fee subject to a mortgage or deed of trust securing a debt or liability is considered the owner until the mortgagee or trustee takes possession, after which the mortgagee or trustee shall be considered the owner. A person who has an equitable estate of freehold, or is a purchaser of a freehold estate who is in possession before transfer of legal title is also considered the owner. Owner includes the corporation or other organization possessed of the freehold of a qualified continuing care retirement community. Owner includes homeowners who have vacated their owner-occupied, single-family, residential property, which was their most recent primary residence, and have listed that property for sale with a licensed real estate broker, and have not leased said property to anyone since vacating said property. Owner means the person who is using and occupying all or a portion of a parcel of real estate the freehold of which is possessed by a family trust: Provided, That the parcel is used and occupied by the owner thereof exclusively for residential purposes.
. . . §2-2-10. Rules for Construction of Statutes.
(9) "Person" or "whoever" includes corporations, societies, associations and partnerships, and other similar legal business organizations;
(10) "Personal estate" or "personal property" includes goods, chattels, real and personal, money, credits, investments, and the evidences thereof;
(11) "Property" or "estate" embraces both real and personal estate;
(13) "State", when applied to a part of the United States and not restricted by the context, includes the District of Columbia and the several territories, and the words "United States" also include the said district and territories; supra, paragraph 53 and 54.
Part II. Definitions.
. . . §8-1-2. Definitions of terms.
(13) “resident” shall mean any individual who maintains a usual and bona fide place of abode within the corporate limits of a municipality or within the boundaries of a territory referred to in this chapter, as the case may be;
(18) “Person” shall mean any individual, firm, partnership, corporation, company, association, joint-stock association, or any other entity or organization of whatever character or description.
The same definitions exist in the vehicle code and other State of West Virginia Codes.
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.
1 USC § 1: “the words ‘person’ and ‘whoever’ include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;”
Based on ejusdem generis and expressio unius est exclusion alterius, Person, claimant, owner, resident, and individual are all fictitious entities, as in the rest of the list in 26 USC 7701, 1 USC § 1, §8-1-2 - 13 & 18, §11-6B-2 - 2,5 &10, §2-2-10, §11-4-3, other West Virginia Codes and is restrictive to the lists and definitions. The grouped term PROPERTY OWNER is not listed in any definitions in the West Virgnia Code.
The following is true for every body politic territorial "State". Check each "State's" code. You will find the exact same definitions as they are all supplied by the district attorneys and BAR system to control the masses:
It is important to note the word or term “man” or “woman” is not used in the West Virginia Code [review and insert your state code accordingly] and the US Code to describe taxes or any other enforcement legal codes, acts, statutes, procedures, or rules. Man, Woman and Mankind are notably absent from the code. This is true for all States operating under Sea maritime and admiralty jurisdiction courts who are operating dry-docked on the land through corporate articles. This is a direct result of Lincoln’s General Orders 100 that became known as the Lieber Code in 1898. This code declared residents of all the people in the States unless they declared otherwise as a wartime response to the martial law imposed on the southern States.
“Color” means “An appearance, semblance, or simulacrum, as distinguished from that whish 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.
“prima facia” – “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. Hebert v Whims. 68 Ohio App. 39, 38 N, E. 2d 596, 599, 22 O.O. 110, BLACK’S Law Dictionary 5th Edition page 1071.
“’Include’ or the participial form thereof, is defined ‘to comprise within’; ‘to hold’; ‘to contain’; ‘enclosed’; ‘comprised’; ‘comprehend’; ‘embrace’; ‘involve’.” Montello Salt v Utah 221 US 455
Example Color-of-Law: “But the subpoena is in form an official command, and, even though improvidently issued, it has some coercive tendency, either because of ignorance of their rights on the part of those whom it purports to command or their natural respect for what appears to be an official command or because of their reluctance to test the subpoena’s validity by litigation.” US v Minker, 350 US 179 (1956). – Another way to state the same point is – Because of their respect for what appears to be a law and many people are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights due to ignorance.
“Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interfere only with other artificial persons. The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them.” Penhallow v Doane’s Administrators, 3 U.S. 54 (1795) at p 93.
- Whereas, there are specific definitions of terms related to “real property” versus property, and other adjective/pronoun combinations that color the fact of the law and create ambiguity and cloud the fact. This coloring of the law is known as non-positive law. In order to understand non-positive law, it is first necessary to define positive-law. Any adjective colors the subsequent word and creates opinion. Opinion is not admissible at a court of law of mankind.
Positive Law:
Law passed with legitimate authority
Signed by the President or the Governor
Read three (3) times by ALL members of both Houses
Approved by BOTH Houses
Passed to protect the rights of the people. BLACK’s Law Dictionary 5th Edition
“Positive Law. Law actually and specifically adopted by proper authority for the government or an organized jural society.” BLACK’S Law Dictionary 5th Edition
Non-Positive Law:
Colorable Legislation – Dictionary of Canadian Law
Applies to certain groups of persons
Does not apply to the people who are sovereign
Operates as a contract – if accepted by sovereigns with volition
Non-Positive Law Titles – does not apply to mankind
Adding a few complimentary additions to the Memorandum of Law. This is to also help those understand the effort at land grab through tenancy/residency and fictitious entity person definitions within all State (57 territorial body politic States) and Federal codes. Property taxes are also unlawful for people of the states who own property. It is perfectly legal for residents and persons.
There will be several comments for clarifications within the memorandum as additional supporting detail.
"45. Whereas: Only citizens or residents of the Title 26 U.S.C. geographical United States are liable to tax under Title 26 U.S.C. (26 C.F.R. 1.1-1(b)); and
Whereas: Persons born or naturalized in the Title 26 U.S.C. geographical United States nevertheless are not citizens thereof unless they are also subject to Title 26 U.S.C. geographical United States jurisdiction, i.e., unless they are also a resident thereof (26 C.F.R. 1.1-1(c)); to wit:
RESIDENT. One who has his residence in a place. BLACK’S, p. 1032.
"Resident" and "inhabitant" are distinguishable in meaning. The word "inhabitant" implies a more fixed and permanent abode than does "resident;" and a resident may not be entitled to all the privileges or subject to all the duties of an inhabitant. Frost v. Brisbin, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 11, 32 Am. Dec. 423.
Also a tenant who was obliged to reside on his lord's land, and not to depart from the same; called, also, "homme levant et couchant," and In Normandy, "resseant du fief." (BLACK’S 2nd Edition p. 1324).
RESIDENCE. Living or dwelling in a certain place permanently or for a considerable length of time. The place where a man makes his home, or where he dwells permanently or for an extended period of time.
. . . “Residence” means a fixed and permanent abode or dwelling-place for the time being, as contradistinguished from a mere temporary locality of existence. . . . Id. (BLACK’S)
RESIDENCE. The place of one's domicil. (q. v.) There is a difference between a man's residence and
his domicil. He may have his domicil in Philadelphia, and still he may have a residence in New York;
for although a man can have but one domicil, he may have several residences. A residence is generally
transient in its nature, it becomes a domicil when it is taken up animo manendi. Roberts; Ecc. R. 75. (BOUVIER’S, p. 2081)
—Territorial jurisdiction. Jurisdiction considered as limited to cases arising or persons residing within a defined territory, as a county, a judicial district, etc. The authority of any court is limited by the boundaries thus fixed. . . . [Underline emphasis added.] Henry Campbell Black, A Law Dictionary, Second Edition (West Publishing Co.: St. Paul, Minn., 1910), p. 673.
Whereas: For purposes of income tax under Title 26 U.S.C., it is immaterial if one was born or naturalized in the Title 26 U.S.C. geographical United States if he does not reside in the Title 26 U.S.C. State of District of Columbia (see paragraph 39, supra), i.e., is not a resident thereof;"
Founding Fathers wanted We the People to have ALLODIAL PROPERTY TITLE which is the highest form of private property residing above Fee Simple Absolute, such that no government, person, entity may levy any tax or debt onto your home.
In rare instances since the mid-90s, the state of Nevada has been issuing these titles.
All states should be doing the same to any person that owns their main residence.
Property taxation is true communism as per the 10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto.
Correct - with one exception. The word residence is a diminishment below Allodial title. The definitions assumes tenancy and not ownership. You are simply a man who owns your property. A second place of potentially temporary abode is a residence and hence the word residency. That was the whole purpose of the Lieber Code. The presumption of residency unless the people declared they were not a combatant. It was quite the trick.
Thanks for the clarification. Understood. The nuance is challenging as the terms create traps. Most of mankind [as i am challenged daily with the common English uses] cannot discern the difference, and a judge will jump on the presumption if the legal term is used, even in common English. The word AND term "you" is a similar trap as it is mostly pluralistic and encompasses any "person" a man may claim. Answering to "you" in any legal setting allows for the presumption of actually "being" any variety of the "persons" you claim rather than the simple claim of the "persons". The term "residence" and "resident" falls into the same presumption trap. The Residency Act was created for the district of 10 square miles to house the neutral seat of the Federal Government. The expansion in legal terminology and common use facilitates the mind trap and expansion of jurisdiction.
It all comes down to the definitions and words you volunteer to take on.
Are you a tenant on your own land?
Do you have a mortgage that makes the bank a lien claimant and third party joint title holder?
Have you looked at your property tax coupons? Tenancy is listed. Did you notice?
Anything is Constitutional if the decision is made to subject yourself to being subject to the Constitution. A man expresses law. Property as a term with a separate definition is not "real property" or "personal property". Adjectives color the fact. Think back to basic grammar. An adjective is as simple as your "blue shirt". Adjective/pronoun combination. The words "real" and "personal" allow for an opinion of something other than the term "property" by itself.
The fraud goes deep. The educational system is set up to teach mankind to use the wrong words or groupings of words to substitute for words that are for mankind. So, when we read the word "person" we think we are a person. Yet, we have no concept of the "Law of Persons".
The Constitutions were compacts between the "united" States of America formed through the Articles of Confederation and the newly formed Federal Government in 1787, 1789, and 1790. The people, (all lower case) that were mankind of the time, were guaranteed their existing republic forms of local government, and they were not party to the Constitutions. The Bill of Rights, up through amendment 12, were ratified by the States and were strict walls of clarification that limited the government to attempt to avoid presumption. It was an attempt to clarify limits related to the enumerated duties outlined in the Constitutions.
We make the mistake to look to the Constitution as a protection of mankind acting as people. However, we need to look to law at its core and express that law outwardly in a peaceful manner. You have rights. They extend to where the next man's rights begin. His end where your rights begin. As long as no harm is caused to another of mankind, you have all the rights you can imagine. Law is expressed. The Constitution is simply a piece of paper creating fictitious entities to do international commercial business for mankind.
If he didn't die in prison for tax evasion and helping other evade taxes, you could talk to Irwin Schiff. You can also talk to this guy:
"Tax Defier and Member of Freedom Law School Sentenced to Prison for Tax Evasion"
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/tax-defier-and-member-freedom-law-school-sentenced-prison-tax-evasion
I met Peymon Mottahedeh a time or two in the 1990s. More than a bit eccentric.
Am wondering if there's anything similar re Europe. Here, Sweden has one of the highest Income tax rates. We are very low income and it took us three months to pay off half a year's income tax. Next time we'll have a year and a half to pay. We won't be able to meet that. It's one of the main reasons our home is now for sale and we want to leave Sweden. We love it here but aren't wealthy enough to remain. And at my age and health condition, moving again isn't easy.
Yea! They would target me and have a swat team break in to my house to arrest me at 3 AM in the morning! If I reached for my AK 47, they would shoot me and call it a justified homicide! DC swamp is out of control and time to put a 50 foot wall around it and not let the swamp creatures out!
Now THIS was a worthwhile and important Substack. And I love Ben Garrison's work, he is a true patriot, and tells the truth in his cartoons.
The 16th Amendment was passed surreptitiously, and unconstitutionally. The "income tax" has been imposed on Americans without their informed consent, indeed, through lies and deception.
The IRS has been used as a weapon against the people, and must be abolished. Totally, completely, forever. There are other legal ways to raise money, IF that is even necessary.
If a simple majority of all Americans would stop participating in the IRS's scam, then they would be finished.
In the first video linked to the speaker attempts to prove that taxes only apply to citizens of DC, by quoting language of "including DC." This makes no sense, as it's very clear that the code also refers to states, but also "including DC."
Also: "As long as YOU are a member of the Restore Freedom Plan, Freedom Law School will prevent the IRS from levying YOUR money or Freedom Law School will reimburse YOU!" So, then, this is an implicit admission that the IRS can indeed take your money, but if it does, the Freedom Law School will reimburse you.
The IRS can't take your money lawfully, and they know it. You are tricked into a legally binding (color of law) contract with them by filing. Freedom Law School can provide you a service, or you can use their free information and DIY.
That's false in legal sense. They deliberately use that language to confuse you
" 'State' shall be construed to include the District of Columbia", in other words the definition of "State" for this title shall include the D.C and nothing else.
That is further confirmed by supreme court decision that states "When a statute includes an explicit definition, we must follow that definition, even if it varies from that term's ordinary meaning.”, in other words when terms are used in legal context they are precisely defined and no other meaning can be implied outside of that strict and contextual definition.
I'm yet to be convinced. It does not say that the states are excluded in the definition of "state." It merely says that in the definition of a state-- which definition would be implicitly assumed to be the 50 states-- DC shall be included. That's all. "Include" is the key word, which in no way means "everything not included shall be excluded."
If I include two apples in my collection of fruit, that doesn't mean I therefore exclude all other fruit.
I'd be very careful of making myself a target of the IRS in these very dangerous times. We're shifting to a regime of "rule of men" instead of rule of law, and in such a regime they can make stuff up as convenient, or apply whatever laws they need to "show me the man and I'll show you the crime." They took January 6 peaceful protestors, for example, and threw them in the slammer arbitrarily. One might find any examples of current lawlessness, not least in the world of finance where some $21 trillion or so remains unaccounted for (even as that accounting is required by law. They just don't care: rule of men instead of law.)
The push back was called the Boston Tea Party!!
Ok but in another example of fuel tax they precisely define the term "United States" as
"The term "United States" means the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, any possession of the United States, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.".
So they know they need to define what it includes when they want it and not define what it excludes.
Seems to me I've heard of people going to jail for tax evasion. If you don't want to pay taxes and if on the other hand they really want to get you for, say, spreading disinformation, then is it wise to give them something to pin on you?
Look, if they can criminalize ivermectin and the doctors who've prescribed it, then they can criminalize people who defy the tax code, whether you deem it lawful or not.
We have a very long way to go to end all of this massive corruption. I don't want to feed the beast, either, but face it, if they want money they can just run the printing presses and the people closest to the government trough will get that money before it gets diluted, while the rest of us downhill from that trough will get the inflated money that buys less than it did before. Then of course everyone will be scratching their heads why there's the inflation that the government itself created.
I think Dingo Roberts' comment, below, says it all.
I'm not making an argument from defacto or pragmatic position, I'm arguing from legal, de jure point of view.
Of course might makes right, that is always the case. But if enough people knew the law is this way and acted in accordance to actual law things could change rapidly.
Well,
As a former Florida Patriot who spent time at Eglin AFB Prison Camp I must admit that EVERYTHING disclosed herein is CONSTITUTIONALLY AND LEGALLY correct.
Unfortunately , as President Trump has found out , the Judges and Prosecutors are corrupt to their core and are immune from lawsuits. They ignore the Constitution and the Law with impunity.
The gargantuan welfare/warfare police state has a voracious apetite . They have no qualms about confiscating our income by any means necessary.
Sad.
I’ve been familiar with this line of reasoning since Schiff promoted it. My colleagues and I always said “There’s no room for murderers and rapists, but there’s always a cell for a tax protester.”
Love the concept - but - is anyone out there actually DOING this???
First person experiences please.
Use the link to go to the FLS website and they have examples, not limited to the founder having paid zero since 1993.
How do you answer the case of Richard Thomas Grant? https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/tax-defier-and-member-freedom-law-school-sentenced-prison-tax-evasion
Here is the FLS reply:
"Here is a video that's been done on the subject: https://odysee.com/@freedomlawschool:8/what-really-happened-with-richard-2:2?src=embed&t=613.375374
To summarize, Richard Grant came to Peymon with his IRS problems and was using terrible legal theories. Then Richard went with his own representation instead of the ones being recommended by Peymon, and to make it worse the representation he went with would not work with Peymon. Richard literally paid for a service and then didn't use it."
Jim, I just reached out to the FLS team and shared your link with them. I'll get back to you on this.
Thanks for the comment.
Hat tip to Dingo Roberts, above.
This is the key, file a fully informed return and get everything back: Income Tax, Medicare
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYHpchSaS_A&t=58s
https://www.losthorizons.com/BulletinBoard.htm#Videos
$13 MILLION refunded.
Do it.
On Law:
##. LAW. 1. “That which is laid down, ordained, or established. A rule or method according to which phenomena or actions coexist or follow each other”; BLACK’s Law Dictionary 2nd Edition.
“The earliest notion of law was not an enumeration of a principle, but a judgment in a particular case. When pronounced in the early ages, by a king, it was assumed to be the result of direct divine inspiration. Afterwards came the notion of a custom which a judgment affirms, or punishes its breach. In the outset, however, the only authoritative statement of right and wrong is a judicial sentence rendered after the fact has occurred. It does not presuppose a law to have been violated, but is enacted for the first time by a higher form into the judge's mind at the moment of adjudication.” Maine, Anc Law, (Dwight's Ed.) pp. xv, 5.
Law always construeth things to the best. Wing. Max. p. 720, max. 193.
Law construeth every act to be lawful, when it standeth indifferent whether it should be lawful or not. Wing. Max.p. 722, max. 194 ; Finch, Law, b. 1, c. 3, n. 76.
Law construeth things according to common possibility or intendment. Wing. Max. p. 705, max. 189.
Law [the law] construeth things with equity and moderation. Wing. Max. p. 685, max. 183; Finch, Law, b. 1, c. 3, n. 74.
Law disfavoreth impossibilities. Wing. Max. p. 606, max. 155.
Law disfavoreth improbabilities. Wing. Max. p. 620, max. 161.
Law [the law] favoreth charity. Wing. Max. p. 497, max. 135.
Law favoreth common right. Wing. Max. p. 547, max. 144.
Law favoreth diligence, and therefore hateth folly and negligence. Wing. Max. p. 665, max. 172 ; Finch, Law, b. 1, c. 3, no. 70.
Law favoreth honor and order. Wing. Max. p. 739, max. 199.
Law favoreth justice and right. Wing. Max. p. 502, max. 141.
Law favoreth life, liberty, and dower. 4 Bacon's Works, 345.
Law favoreth mutual recompense. Wing. Max. p. 411, max. 108; Finch, Law, b. 1, c. 3, no. 42.
Law [the law] favoreth possession, where the right is equal. Wing. Max. p. 375, max. 98; Finch, Law, b. 1, c. 3, no. 36.
Law favoreth public commerce. Wing. Max. p. 738, max. 198.
Law favoreth public quiet. Wing. Max. p. 742, max. 200; Finch, Law, b. 1, c. 3, no. 54.
Law favoreth speeding of men's causes. Wing. Max. p. 673, max. 175.
Law [the law] favoreth things for the commonwealth, [common weal.] Wing. Max. p. 729, max. 197; Finch, Law, b. 1, c. 3, no. 53.
Law favoreth truth, faith, and certainty. Wing. Max. p. 604, max. 154.
Law hateth delays. Wing. Max. p. 674, max. 176 ; Finch, Law, b. 1, c. 3, no. 7L
Law hateth new inventions and innovations. Wing. Max. p. 756, max. 204.
Law hateth wrong. Wing. Max. p. 563, max. 146 ; Finch, Law, b. 1, c. 3, no. 62.
Law of itself prejudiceth no man. Wing. Max. p. 575, max. 148; Finch, Law, b. 1, c. 3, no. 63.
Law respecteth matter of substance more than matter of circumstance. Wing. Max. p. 382, max. 101; Finch, Law, b. 1, c. 3, no. 39.
Law respecteth possibility of things. Wing. Max. p. 403, max. 104 ; Finch, Law, b. 1, C 3, no. 40.
Law [the law] respecteth the bonds of nature. Wing. Max. p. 268, max. 78; Finch, Law, b. 1, c. 3, no. 29.
Law of the Land:
##. “Law of the Land” per West Virginia Constitution formed after 1863 and finalized in 1868. The federal Constitution of the United States of America was referred to as the Law of the Land and not the Constitution for the united Sates of America. The Constitution of the United States of America no longer was in affect when the southern States seceded from the northern states. No quorum of the Confederacy existed and the compact was no longer in operation.
"The common law is the real law, the Supreme Law of the Land; the code, rules, regulations, policy and statutes are “not the law”, Self v. Rhay, 61 Wn (2d) 261. January 17th, 1963. This is based on land jurisdiction and not soil jurisdiction which is reserved for man and his property as the sovereign who creates government to protect all rights mankind does express through law.
Sovereignty exists because of common law, but more particularly natural law, and ultimately ‘law’.
Was brought into England by the Barons with the Magna Carta.
Existed prior to this formal document (Magna Carta) in the form of shires, shire moots, and tithings. These were small communities in the English Isles that were mostly Anglo-Saxon and had their roots in natural law. (The Book of Hundreds – various authors) and (The Commentaries of the Laws of England by Sir Edward Coke) – “The Comon Law appeareth in the statute of Magna Carta and other ancient statutes (which for the most part are affirmations of the common law)…” Sir Edward Coke
Doesn't the common law have its roots in the laws of Troy and Ancient Greece, taken to Britain during the Great Migration of Trojans led by Brutus of Troy in 485 BC? Don't our inalienable rights originate in the ancient Usages of Britain and the Code of British Laws of Molmutius ? Much older than Anglo-Saxon.
"History of Britain From The Flood to AD 700," by R W Morgan
https://www.thenationalcv.org.uk/More%2016%20History%20of%20Britain%20%20by%20R%20W%20MORGAN%20(1848)%20(2).pdf
Common Law has its roots in Roman and Greek democracy. Yes. Common Law is an adjective/pronoun combination. It is not Law. Law is expressed. Common Law depends on judges and precedence. We also make the mistake to lean on Common Law. It is based on customs and previous rulings. It is not a reflection of the rights of mankind.
On property:
##. Property, real property, personal property are all very different terms with specific definitions that verify the classification of either applying to entities or actual mankind.
PROPERTY. Rightful dominion over external objects ; ownership ; the unrestricted and exclusive right to a thing; the right to dispose of the substance of a thing in every legal way, to possess it, to use It, and to exclude every one else from interfering with it. Mackeld. Rom. Law, § 265.
Property is the highest right a man can have to anything; being used for that right which one has to lands or tenements, goods or chattels, which noway depends on another man's courtesy. Jackson ex dem. Pearson v. Housel, 17 Johns. 281, 283. BLACK’S Law Dictionary 2nd Edition.
Property is defined in West Virginia Code §2-2-10; however, the thing in which the term is applied in the code is a person. As described within the same code, it is clearly referencing fictitious entities by ejusdem generis and expressio unius est exclusion alterius, and not a man or woman or those of mankind. Property as known to man is of that which in noway depends on another man’s courtesy. supra, paragraph ##.
West Virginia Code, Law of the Land, and Definitions. [Check your "State" code and you will find the same definitions - take particular notice to EVERY place the words "person" and "individual" is used in the definitions and then look up the code definitions of "person" and "individual" - ask yourself, are you a man or woman - or are you a person or individual by the definitions?]
##. Legal rules, codes, acts, statutes, and procedures are for artificial ‘persons’.
West Virginia Tax Code 2 . . .
. . . “Owner” means the person, [artificial and/or fictitious entities] as defined in §2-2-10 of this code, who is possessed of the freehold, whether in fee or for life. A person seized or entitled in fee subject to a mortgage or deed of trust securing a debt or liability is considered the owner until the mortgagee or trustee takes possession, after which the mortgagee or trustee shall be considered the owner. A person who has an equitable estate of freehold, or is a purchaser of a freehold estate who is in possession before transfer of legal title is also considered the owner. Owner includes the corporation or other organization possessed of the freehold of a qualified continuing care retirement community. Owner includes homeowners who have vacated their owner-occupied, single-family, residential property, which was their most recent primary residence, and have listed that property for sale with a licensed real estate broker, and have not leased said property to anyone since vacating said property. Owner means the person who is using and occupying all or a portion of a parcel of real estate the freehold of which is possessed by a family trust: Provided, That the parcel is used and occupied by the owner thereof exclusively for residential purposes.
“All codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, not Human/Creators in accordance with God’s laws. All codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process…” Rodriques v. Ray Donovan (U.S. Department of Labor) 769 F. 2d 1344, 1348, (1985).
##. Taxation and to what it applies.
CHAPTER 11. TAXATION.
. . . §11-6B-2. Definitions.
(2) "Claimant" means a person who is age sixty-five or older or who is certified as being permanently and totally disabled, and who owns a homestead that is used and occupied by the owner thereof exclusively for residential purposes: Provided, That: (1) If the property was most recently used and occupied by the owner or the owner's spouse thereof exclusively for residential purposes; (2)the owner, as a result of illness, accident or infirmity, is residing with a family member or is a resident of a nursing home, personal care home, rehabilitation center or similar facility; and (3) the property is retained by the owner for noncommercial purposes, then the owner of that property may continue to claim a homestead property tax exemption on the property.
(5) "Owner" means the person who is possessed of the homestead, whether in fee or for life. A person seized or entitled in fee subject to a mortgage or deed of trust shall be considered the owner. A person who has an equitable estate of freehold, or is a purchaser of a freehold estate who is in possession before transfer of legal title shall also be considered the owner. Personal property mortgaged or pledged shall, for the purpose of taxation, be considered the property of the party in possession.
(10) "Resident of this state" means an individual who is domiciled in this state for more than six months of the calendar year.
. . . §11-4-3. Definitions.
“Owner” means the person, as defined in §2-2-10 of this code, who is possessed of the freehold, whether in fee or for life. A person seized or entitled in fee subject to a mortgage or deed of trust securing a debt or liability is considered the owner until the mortgagee or trustee takes possession, after which the mortgagee or trustee shall be considered the owner. A person who has an equitable estate of freehold, or is a purchaser of a freehold estate who is in possession before transfer of legal title is also considered the owner. Owner includes the corporation or other organization possessed of the freehold of a qualified continuing care retirement community. Owner includes homeowners who have vacated their owner-occupied, single-family, residential property, which was their most recent primary residence, and have listed that property for sale with a licensed real estate broker, and have not leased said property to anyone since vacating said property. Owner means the person who is using and occupying all or a portion of a parcel of real estate the freehold of which is possessed by a family trust: Provided, That the parcel is used and occupied by the owner thereof exclusively for residential purposes.
. . . §2-2-10. Rules for Construction of Statutes.
(9) "Person" or "whoever" includes corporations, societies, associations and partnerships, and other similar legal business organizations;
(10) "Personal estate" or "personal property" includes goods, chattels, real and personal, money, credits, investments, and the evidences thereof;
(11) "Property" or "estate" embraces both real and personal estate;
(13) "State", when applied to a part of the United States and not restricted by the context, includes the District of Columbia and the several territories, and the words "United States" also include the said district and territories; supra, paragraph 53 and 54.
Part II. Definitions.
. . . §8-1-2. Definitions of terms.
(13) “resident” shall mean any individual who maintains a usual and bona fide place of abode within the corporate limits of a municipality or within the boundaries of a territory referred to in this chapter, as the case may be;
(18) “Person” shall mean any individual, firm, partnership, corporation, company, association, joint-stock association, or any other entity or organization of whatever character or description.
The same definitions exist in the vehicle code and other State of West Virginia Codes.
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.
1 USC § 1: “the words ‘person’ and ‘whoever’ include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;”
Based on ejusdem generis and expressio unius est exclusion alterius, Person, claimant, owner, resident, and individual are all fictitious entities, as in the rest of the list in 26 USC 7701, 1 USC § 1, §8-1-2 - 13 & 18, §11-6B-2 - 2,5 &10, §2-2-10, §11-4-3, other West Virginia Codes and is restrictive to the lists and definitions. The grouped term PROPERTY OWNER is not listed in any definitions in the West Virgnia Code.
Man, Woman, Mankind and Artificial Persons
The following is true for every body politic territorial "State". Check each "State's" code. You will find the exact same definitions as they are all supplied by the district attorneys and BAR system to control the masses:
It is important to note the word or term “man” or “woman” is not used in the West Virginia Code [review and insert your state code accordingly] and the US Code to describe taxes or any other enforcement legal codes, acts, statutes, procedures, or rules. Man, Woman and Mankind are notably absent from the code. This is true for all States operating under Sea maritime and admiralty jurisdiction courts who are operating dry-docked on the land through corporate articles. This is a direct result of Lincoln’s General Orders 100 that became known as the Lieber Code in 1898. This code declared residents of all the people in the States unless they declared otherwise as a wartime response to the martial law imposed on the southern States.
“Color” means “An appearance, semblance, or simulacrum, as distinguished from that whish 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.
“prima facia” – “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. Hebert v Whims. 68 Ohio App. 39, 38 N, E. 2d 596, 599, 22 O.O. 110, BLACK’S Law Dictionary 5th Edition page 1071.
“’Include’ or the participial form thereof, is defined ‘to comprise within’; ‘to hold’; ‘to contain’; ‘enclosed’; ‘comprised’; ‘comprehend’; ‘embrace’; ‘involve’.” Montello Salt v Utah 221 US 455
Example Color-of-Law: “But the subpoena is in form an official command, and, even though improvidently issued, it has some coercive tendency, either because of ignorance of their rights on the part of those whom it purports to command or their natural respect for what appears to be an official command or because of their reluctance to test the subpoena’s validity by litigation.” US v Minker, 350 US 179 (1956). – Another way to state the same point is – Because of their respect for what appears to be a law and many people are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights due to ignorance.
“Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interfere only with other artificial persons. The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them.” Penhallow v Doane’s Administrators, 3 U.S. 54 (1795) at p 93.
Color of Law.
- Whereas, there are specific definitions of terms related to “real property” versus property, and other adjective/pronoun combinations that color the fact of the law and create ambiguity and cloud the fact. This coloring of the law is known as non-positive law. In order to understand non-positive law, it is first necessary to define positive-law. Any adjective colors the subsequent word and creates opinion. Opinion is not admissible at a court of law of mankind.
Positive Law:
Law passed with legitimate authority
Signed by the President or the Governor
Read three (3) times by ALL members of both Houses
Approved by BOTH Houses
Passed to protect the rights of the people. BLACK’s Law Dictionary 5th Edition
“Positive Law. Law actually and specifically adopted by proper authority for the government or an organized jural society.” BLACK’S Law Dictionary 5th Edition
Non-Positive Law:
Colorable Legislation – Dictionary of Canadian Law
Applies to certain groups of persons
Does not apply to the people who are sovereign
Operates as a contract – if accepted by sovereigns with volition
Non-Positive Law Titles – does not apply to mankind
Adding a few complimentary additions to the Memorandum of Law. This is to also help those understand the effort at land grab through tenancy/residency and fictitious entity person definitions within all State (57 territorial body politic States) and Federal codes. Property taxes are also unlawful for people of the states who own property. It is perfectly legal for residents and persons.
There will be several comments for clarifications within the memorandum as additional supporting detail.
"45. Whereas: Only citizens or residents of the Title 26 U.S.C. geographical United States are liable to tax under Title 26 U.S.C. (26 C.F.R. 1.1-1(b)); and
Whereas: Persons born or naturalized in the Title 26 U.S.C. geographical United States nevertheless are not citizens thereof unless they are also subject to Title 26 U.S.C. geographical United States jurisdiction, i.e., unless they are also a resident thereof (26 C.F.R. 1.1-1(c)); to wit:
RESIDENT. One who has his residence in a place. BLACK’S, p. 1032.
"Resident" and "inhabitant" are distinguishable in meaning. The word "inhabitant" implies a more fixed and permanent abode than does "resident;" and a resident may not be entitled to all the privileges or subject to all the duties of an inhabitant. Frost v. Brisbin, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 11, 32 Am. Dec. 423.
Also a tenant who was obliged to reside on his lord's land, and not to depart from the same; called, also, "homme levant et couchant," and In Normandy, "resseant du fief." (BLACK’S 2nd Edition p. 1324).
RESIDENCE. Living or dwelling in a certain place permanently or for a considerable length of time. The place where a man makes his home, or where he dwells permanently or for an extended period of time.
. . . “Residence” means a fixed and permanent abode or dwelling-place for the time being, as contradistinguished from a mere temporary locality of existence. . . . Id. (BLACK’S)
RESIDENCE. The place of one's domicil. (q. v.) There is a difference between a man's residence and
his domicil. He may have his domicil in Philadelphia, and still he may have a residence in New York;
for although a man can have but one domicil, he may have several residences. A residence is generally
transient in its nature, it becomes a domicil when it is taken up animo manendi. Roberts; Ecc. R. 75. (BOUVIER’S, p. 2081)
—Territorial jurisdiction. Jurisdiction considered as limited to cases arising or persons residing within a defined territory, as a county, a judicial district, etc. The authority of any court is limited by the boundaries thus fixed. . . . [Underline emphasis added.] Henry Campbell Black, A Law Dictionary, Second Edition (West Publishing Co.: St. Paul, Minn., 1910), p. 673.
Whereas: For purposes of income tax under Title 26 U.S.C., it is immaterial if one was born or naturalized in the Title 26 U.S.C. geographical United States if he does not reside in the Title 26 U.S.C. State of District of Columbia (see paragraph 39, supra), i.e., is not a resident thereof;"
So, property tax is unconstitutional? It seems to me to be the worst form of tyranny, the threat of property seizure.
Yes, it is.
Founding Fathers wanted We the People to have ALLODIAL PROPERTY TITLE which is the highest form of private property residing above Fee Simple Absolute, such that no government, person, entity may levy any tax or debt onto your home.
In rare instances since the mid-90s, the state of Nevada has been issuing these titles.
All states should be doing the same to any person that owns their main residence.
Property taxation is true communism as per the 10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto.
Correct - with one exception. The word residence is a diminishment below Allodial title. The definitions assumes tenancy and not ownership. You are simply a man who owns your property. A second place of potentially temporary abode is a residence and hence the word residency. That was the whole purpose of the Lieber Code. The presumption of residency unless the people declared they were not a combatant. It was quite the trick.
I invoked their term, and said term is legally binding in Nevada ALLODIAL issuances.
Thanks for the clarification. Understood. The nuance is challenging as the terms create traps. Most of mankind [as i am challenged daily with the common English uses] cannot discern the difference, and a judge will jump on the presumption if the legal term is used, even in common English. The word AND term "you" is a similar trap as it is mostly pluralistic and encompasses any "person" a man may claim. Answering to "you" in any legal setting allows for the presumption of actually "being" any variety of the "persons" you claim rather than the simple claim of the "persons". The term "residence" and "resident" falls into the same presumption trap. The Residency Act was created for the district of 10 square miles to house the neutral seat of the Federal Government. The expansion in legal terminology and common use facilitates the mind trap and expansion of jurisdiction.
You think that's bad, try living in an HOA.
It all comes down to the definitions and words you volunteer to take on.
Are you a tenant on your own land?
Do you have a mortgage that makes the bank a lien claimant and third party joint title holder?
Have you looked at your property tax coupons? Tenancy is listed. Did you notice?
Anything is Constitutional if the decision is made to subject yourself to being subject to the Constitution. A man expresses law. Property as a term with a separate definition is not "real property" or "personal property". Adjectives color the fact. Think back to basic grammar. An adjective is as simple as your "blue shirt". Adjective/pronoun combination. The words "real" and "personal" allow for an opinion of something other than the term "property" by itself.
The fraud goes deep. The educational system is set up to teach mankind to use the wrong words or groupings of words to substitute for words that are for mankind. So, when we read the word "person" we think we are a person. Yet, we have no concept of the "Law of Persons".
A good dissertation on Allodial Title can be found here:
https://docslib.org/doc/7902829/land-patents-allodial-title
A good document to download, read, digest, and make an effort to understand and maybe put into practice.
The Constitutions were compacts between the "united" States of America formed through the Articles of Confederation and the newly formed Federal Government in 1787, 1789, and 1790. The people, (all lower case) that were mankind of the time, were guaranteed their existing republic forms of local government, and they were not party to the Constitutions. The Bill of Rights, up through amendment 12, were ratified by the States and were strict walls of clarification that limited the government to attempt to avoid presumption. It was an attempt to clarify limits related to the enumerated duties outlined in the Constitutions.
We make the mistake to look to the Constitution as a protection of mankind acting as people. However, we need to look to law at its core and express that law outwardly in a peaceful manner. You have rights. They extend to where the next man's rights begin. His end where your rights begin. As long as no harm is caused to another of mankind, you have all the rights you can imagine. Law is expressed. The Constitution is simply a piece of paper creating fictitious entities to do international commercial business for mankind.