Friday, November 9, 2007

“Nation of Well Informed Men”

The Administrative State is held accountable by a “Nation of Well Informed Men”

“This will be the best security for maintaining our liberties. A nation of well-informed men, who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them, cannot be enslaved.” Benjamin Franklin

Nature of the Political Bureaucracy’s reliance upon misdirection to impose fiscal policies beyond the scope of statutory limitation

The American Paytriot Community has been misled by those who shout “show me law” when confronted with the State and Federal Fiscal programs imposed as an “income tax.” The solution to unwinding the improper administrative claims of the Federal and State political bureaucracy is not “show me the law”, nor “what law makes me liable”. The solution is for the singular American to learn the law how the land shall not be suborned under the colorful aspirations of the administrative state that relies upon ignorance to the Public Ministry’s deliberated and malfeasant application of its systemic fraud to suborn the American Worker’s substantive rights to the due process of law.

This community of “show me the law” proclaims that those who fall victim to the inequitable reach of the Public Policy implemented by the Political Bureaucracy of This State and its Favorite Uncle, the federal fiduciary, fail due to the known corruption of the administrative agencies, and the judicial authority of corrupted judges.

The Paytriot community recognizes there is something terribly wrong in the halls of the public ministry. Yet the paytriot community is led down the road to perdition, in lieu of liberty by charlatans, thugs, and thieves who prey upon the collective acknowledgement of political corruption, and fault said corruption for the miseries suffered by “martyrs’ of the paytriot community.

The first “income tax” was imposed on August 6th, 1861 Chapter XLV §49, by the Radical Republicans who secured political control of 37th Congress, courtesy of the Southern Political Leadership, who did not comprehend the legalistic term of art “perpetual Union”.

The paytriot community has no comprehension of this statute from the opening session of the Civil War Congress, as they have hung their hats upon the misdirection of “show me the Law”. It never is a question of “show me the law”. The answer is to show why the political bureaucracy is wrong. In order to substantiate when the political bureaucracy is right, or wrong the singular American needs to learn how to substantiate the subject matter jurisdiction of the form driven administrative state as it applies to the particular issue at hand, wherein in this instant case, the specific issue is the fiscal reach of the Federal and State Political Bureaucracy.

The paytriot community is baffled, by a collective lack of ignorance promoted by the charlatans who stand upon their bully pulpit of misdirection shouting about the systemic fraud of the internal revenue laws, faulting the Federal Internal Revenue Service, when as a matter of law, the legal solution stands under the State’s capitol dome.

The Corporate Excise Tax of 1909 was amended in part and repealed in part by the Tariff Act of 1913. The Tariff Act of 1913 imposed the Normal income tax and an Additional Tax that laid upon Individuals inclusive of the excise (income) tax imposed on chartered entities carried forth from the Act of 1909. The Normal income tax imposed in the Tariff Act of 1913 was, and is to this day, limited in scope to the excises levied upon the net receipts secured from a trade or business within the subject matter jurisdiction imposed as the Normal income tax upon persons, and citizens, of the United States residing at home, or abroad.

The Income Tax is defined in the United States Code, Title 4 § 110c wherein one will discover the statutory term of Art, "measure by".  "Measure by" is the statutory term of art, which is a Legal Fiction used to circumnavigate by the color of law the direct tax limitations constitutionally defined by the Court in Pollock vFarmersLoan & Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429 (1895).
The Additional Tax was imposed upon the accretions of Wealth "distributed" by the Person who was first liable to the Normal Tax.  The Profit's distributed by the Person in the form of dividends was an allowed deduction to the Gross Receipts, wherein the liability attached to the recipient, who may be the individual who stands as a Stockholder in receipt of dividends.

The United States is a state of specialized jurisdiction wherein particular subject matter shall stand in compliance to constitutionally constituted law which shall impose fiscal burdens legally excised by an exaction that accrues as a statutory lien upon rights to property.
The Corporate Excise Tax and its subsequent modification as the Normal income tax is an indirect tax imposed upon the event of productivity. The concept of indirect taxes was enunciated in
Stratton's Independence, Ltd. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399,400 (1913), where the Court's colorful language skirted the Pollack Decision by the standing on the term of art "Measured by".
"The Corporation Tax Law of 1909, having been enacted before the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, was not in any proper sense an income tax law; but was an excise tax upon the conduct of business in a corporate capacity measured by the income, with certain qualifications prescribed by the act itself."


"As has been repeatedly remarked, the corporation tax act of 1909 was not intended to be and is not, in any proper sense, an income tax law. This court had decided in the Pollock Case that the income tax law of 1894 amounted in effect to a direct tax upon property, and was invalid because not apportioned according to populations, as prescribed by the Constitution. The act of 1909 avoided this difficulty by imposing not an income tax, but an excise tax upon the conduct of business in a corporate capacity, measuring, however, the amount of tax by the income of the corporation, with certain qualifications prescribed by the act itself. Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. 220 U.S. 107, 55 L. ed. 389, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 342, Ann. Cas. 1912 B, 1312; McCoach v. Minehill & S. H. R. Co. 228 U.S. 295, 57 L. ed. 842, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 419; United States v. Whitridge (decided at this term, 231 U.S. 144, 58 L. ed. --, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 24."

Stratton's Independence, Ltd. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 414 (1913)

The Normal income tax statutorily enacted on October 3 in 1913, did not materially change the 1909 Corporate Excise Tax, it amended it to include the citizen of the United States and every person residing within and without the United States, who may secure profit from an income producing activity statutorily defined as a trade and business that stands within the subject matter jurisdiction of the United States. Read 63rd Congress Session I Chapter 16, Section II Subdivision A, page 166 October 3, 1913.

Frank Brushaber secured a share of the profit, an "accretion of wealth", in the shape of dividends issued by the Person residing within the subject matter jurisdiction of the United States, which is why he lost his litigation for failing to enunciate a material fact in dispute regarding the Tariff Act of 1913 that imposed withholding at the source upon the Payor for Normal income tax liabilities that accrued upon the payee.

Stratton’s Limited litigated Howbert, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue predicated upon its claim that the excise imposed upon its mining company under the 1909 Corporate Excise Tax was a direct tax imposed upon the land. Stratton’s Limited’s counsel should have read Hylton v. U S, 3 U.S. 171,177 (1796)

"Land, independently of its produce, is of no value. When the produce is converted into a manufacture, it assumes a new shape; its nature is altered; its original state is changed; it becomes quite another subject, and will be differently considered."


This statutory definition for the imposition of an excise tax measured by the net income is codified in Title 4 USCA § 110(c), which statutorily defines an “income tax.” The Corporate Excise Tax was amended in part, and appealed in part, to be reenacted as the Normal income tax that is currently codified in Title 26 USCA Subtitle A § 1. This one federally enacted excise program, the Normal income tax, is the bane of the paytriot community due directly to the community’s lack of substantive knowledge as to this one severable, and separable fiscal operation of constitutionally constituted fiscal authority.

This lack of knowledge to federal fiscal policy, is the accrued result of the charlatans, thugs and thieves who stand upon the bully pulpit of misdirection within the paytriot community promoting a misunderstanding as to the nature of federal taxation which dramatically debilitates the singular American attempting to stand their substantive rights within the form driven legalistic lands of the administrative state when the singular American, himself, fails to pursue a due diligence in law.

“As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware of change in the air – however slight – lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness.”
– Justice of the Supreme Court, William O. Douglas

The Normal income tax which repealed in part, and amended in part, the Corporate Excise Tax of 1909 EXEMPTED labor, agricultural, or horticultural organizations, or to mutual saving banks not having a capital stock represented by share, or to fraternal beneficiary societies, orders, or associations operating under the lodge system or for the exclusive benefit of the members of a fraternity itself operating under the lodge system and providing for the payment of life, sick, accident, and other benefits to the members of such societies, orders, or associations and dependents of such members, nor to domestic building and loan associations, nor to cemetery companies, organized and operated exclusively for the mutual benefit of their members, nor to any corporation or association organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, or educational purposes, no part of the net income of which inures to the benefit of any private stockholder or individual, nor to business leagues, nor to chambers of commerce or boards, or trade, not organized for profit or no part of the net income of which inures to the benefit of the private stockholder or individual; nor to an civic league or organization not organized for profit, but operative exclusively for the promotion of social welfare; Read the 63 rd Congress Session I, Chapter 16, Section II (G) page 172

The Normal Income Tax was imposed upon the entire net income from all property owned and or every business, trade or profession carried on in the United States by persons residing at “home” or abroad, wherein in Subdivision 2 an “addition to tax” was imposed on every individual. The sources of gross receipts disbursed as gain, wages, and/or salaries to an individual upon which the Normal Income Tax accrued, required the Payor to withhold tax payment predicated upon the potential liability that may be owed, due and payable to the United States. The additional tax liability that was imposed upon the individual who was first liable for the Normal Income Tax is required to file a return to account for the aforementioned taxable liability. This additional tax was imposed upon the net income of the individual. In compliance with the regulations implemented on January 5 of 1914 by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, this individual return was to be the Form 1040. The codification of the Normal Income Tax is now found in Title 26 USCA Subtitle A § 1.

The statutory term of art “home”, is not where an American stands by his hearth, and raises a family. The legal term of art “Home” as enacted in the Tariff Act of October 3, 1913, is where the person and/or citizen of the United States Conducts their “statutory business”.

The essence of the case is whether respondent was “away from home" when he incurred the expenditure. And the answer to that question turns upon a determination of whether, under the circumstances related above, respondent's " home" in 1958 was his permanent duty station at Iwakuni, Japan, or, instead, the residence of his family in California.
From the Revenue Act of 1921[Footnote 4] down to 162 (a) (2) of the 1954 Internal Revenue Code Congress has provided a deduction from taxable income for travel expenses, including amounts expended for meals and lodging, while " away from home.” Although Congress has not defined the crucial phrase “away from home," administrative rulings and regulations have been directed toward that problem. In 1921, a general rule was established to the effect that “home" meant the taxpayer's principal place of business or employment whether or not it coincided with his place of residence.
COMMISSIONER v. STIDGER, 386 U.S. 287, 290 (1967)

The Normal Income Tax, and Additional Tax are form driven operations of law, that alien the net income from sources derived by the citizen of the United States and/or Person who is residing at “home”, and/or abroad. So how does the worker engaged to provide services to the Enumerated American Employer working and living within the Fifty States party of the more perfect Union fall prey to the Normal income Tax, and Addition Tax? Just what trade or business is the profession of the worker, engaged in to provide labor services to the enumerated employer? The answer is found in the Federal Employment Taxes, wherein the form driven statutorily defined trade or business of employee is employed as a legal term or art. The statutory term employee is defined by statute which specifically attaches to the officer of the corporation, not the worker engaged for service. The employee moves as a statutorily defined as trade of business. Read McKay v Commissioner 102 USTCR 465, 493 (1994)

“To reiterate, the petitioner was in the trade or business of being an employee.”

The statutory term of art Employee is defined in the Income Tax Act statutorily declared to be Social Security, as the Officer of the corporation. This statutory term of art was codified in the United States Statutes At Large, 76th Congress, volume 53, part, Internal Revenue Code in Chapter 9, Employment Taxes § 1426(c). This statutory term of art Employee was statutorily defined by the 77th Congress 2nd Session Chapter 619 § 465(d) that the term of employee “includes an officer of the corporation”.


So that you see the existence of an employer-employee relationship is a fundamental requisite for the application of Federal employment taxes. Unless there was an employer-employee relationship during the years in question, ’68,’69 and ’70, the plaintiff was under no obligation, had no duty to withhold the taxes from amounts paid to the unloaders, and the unloaders were not liable to be subjected to the withholding.
D. D. Bean & Sons co. v United States 36 AFTR 2nd 75-6304, 75-6305 (May 28th, 1975)

Is there a statutory differentiation as to a worker status, juxtaposed as to the trade and business standing as the employee? Who is authorized to issue determinations as to the worker status for federal employment taxes and income wage withholding? Who is this statutory employee, and who issues the determination that authenticates one’s worker status that may now stand as the statutorily determined Employee? Read the Form SS-8 Determination of Worker Status for Federal Employment Taxes and Income Tax Withholding.

So what happened to the worker, and how may said laborer stand as an officer of the corporation, when they do not even have a key to the executive washroom? Where is the copy of the Determination, and the Notice, issued to the Worker, whose status now stands as the statutorily determined Employee, who then may accrue a liability under the Qualified Individual State Income Tax, as if it were a liability due under Title 26 USCA Subtitle A? Did the Worker, whose status was determined, have the opportunity to secure review of that determination? Read Title 26 CFR part 601.201

Why has the Paytriot Community chosen to stand upon the bully pulpit of “show me the law”, when they have no idea of what law they wish to see? The paytriot community follows blindly the many that stand upon the bully pulpit promoting a disingenuous and dysfunctional understanding to federal and state fiscal policy.

This foolishness of “show me the law”, or “no law makes me liable” is the epitome of statutory dysfunctional literacy, that has successfully empowered the systemic fraud of a rogue agency that cares nothing for the law, when it know it may lie so well in equity, when it is obvious its opposition has no knowledge of how to substantiate the law of the land.

Welcome to the fiction of law, wherein the subordination of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness has relied upon a common lack of knowledge, as to how the State political bureaucracy, moving under the state plan, incorporated Federal Employment Taxes in the late 1930’s as if they may be assessed and collected as the normal income tax and the additional tax. The State plan statutorily imposed an excise upon the officer of the corporation that was statutorily defined Title XI § 1101(a) (6) by the 74th Congress Session I chapter 531 page 647, August 14th, 1935.

The statutory term of art Employee is defined in the Income Tax Act statutorily declared to be Social Security, as the Officer of the corporation. The State plan for the implementation of Federal Employment Tax is found in Title VIII of the August 14th, 1935 enactment passed by the United States of America in Congress Assembled.

The statutory term of art “employee” upon who the legal liability of federal employment taxes accrues was codified in the United States Statutes At Large, 76th Congress, volume 53, part 1, Internal Revenue Code in Chapter 9, Employment Taxes § 1426(c). This statutory term of art Employee was statutory defined by the 77th Congress 2nd Session Chapter 619 § 465(d) that the term of employee “includes an officer of the corporation”. Read Title 26 CFR part 31.6001-1

The trade or business of being an employee accrues a taxable liability for federal employment taxes. The determination of worker status for taxable liabilities is a form driven operation of Federal law, that imposes the decision making process upon the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, who upon issuance of said determination as to worker status shall NOTICE the worker, who has been determined to stand in the trade or business as the employee. This statutory determination of worker status would lawfully authenticate the legal requirement of withholding by the enumerated American Employer for the collection of federal employment taxes at the source. The Federal Employment Tax is neither the Normal Tax nor the additional tax. Turn to Title 26 CFR part 1.6001-1(d) wherein the reader will discover how the Federal Fiduciary moves under State law to collect a legal liability that may be treated as if it were the Normal Income Tax and additional tax as codified in Title 26 USCA Subtitle A.

So the rhetorical question in law is where the employer secures the lawful responsibility to impose legal withholding for federal employment taxes, and what is this income wage withholding? The employer by statute necessarily needs to secure the determination of worker status, accompanied by Notice to the effected worker. Read Title 26 CFR part 1.6001.1(d) and look for the statutory notice requirement found in the State law. In Michigan, this statutory notice requirement is codified in Michigan Complied Law Chapter 205 § 205.28(1) (a),
Public Act 122 of 1941.

The Notice at the federal and state level are issued as it relates to federal employment taxes and income wage withholding when the determination of Worker Status has been secured in compliance to law. The dysfunctional irony that accrues under the withholding is the statutory necessity found in the State statues that stipulate that when there is no federal liability, there will be no state liability for “income taxes”. This statutory fact is codified in Michigan Compiled Law Chapter 206 § 206.510(1)

MCL Chapter 206 § 206.510 (1)
“Income” means the sum of federal adjusted gross income as defined in the internal revenue code plus all income specifically excluded or exempt from the computations of the federal adjusted gross income except that beginning with the 1988 tax year, a deduction for a carryback or carryover of a net operating loss shall not exceed federal modified taxable income as defined in section 172(b) (2) of the internal revenue code. Also, a person who is enrolled in an accident or health insurance plan may deduct from income the amount that person paid in premiums in the tax year for that insurance plan for the person's family. Income does not include any of the following:

This statutory fact will be found within the law enacted by any state of the more perfect Union that has chosen to enact a state income taxing statute. The duplicity of the State political bureaucracy is the imposition of federal employment taxes, and income wage withholding which require the State’s legislature to enact the State plan, as only state LAW shall authenticate rights to property. Federal Law shall determine if there exists a right to property.

The Determination of Worker Status for Federal Employment Taxes and income wage withholding is a bifurcated determination as there are two separate and distinct form driven statutory operations of federal and state law. The second statutory authority, income wage withholding, accrues under Public Law 587 that was enacted by the 82nd Congress 2nd Session Chapter 940 July 17th, 1952. This act is codified in Title 26 USCA Subtitle C Chapter 24, which imposes a withholding by federal statute upon Federal Employees working within the exterior boundaries of a state that imposes state income tax. Unfortunately for Americans a rogue agency and lawfully dysfunctional employers, impose a legal withholding in defiance to the statutes at large.

Rights to property are substantiated by the affected party learning how to stand the due process of law, which is the force of law. The form driven legalistic lands of the Administrative State as ministered by the political bureaucracy has successfully usurped knowledge, and subsequently rights to property under its perniciousness use of its form driven authority for the documentation of the public business.

This systemic fraud imposed by the administrative state is complimented by the dysfunctional literacy of the paytriot community wherein the usual suspects shout about a system of laws that they simply do not comprehend nor understand which diminishes the ability of the singular American who fails to move a due diligence in law. The substantive law is wherein one shall learn how to overcome the will and whim of the political bureaucracy.

In Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113-134, the chief justice, delivering the opinion of the court, said: 'A person has no property, no vested interest, in any rule of the common law.
That is only one of the forms of municipal law, and is no more sacred than any other. Rights of property which have been created by the common law cannot be taken away without due process; but the law itself, as a rule of conduct, may be changed at the will or even at the whim of the legislature, unless prevented by constitutional limitations.
Indeed, the great office of statutes is to remedy defects in the common law as they are developed, and to adapt it to the changes of time and circumstances.’
Hurtado v California 110 U.S. 516, 533 (1884)

Those charlatan thugs and thieves in the paytriot community promoting this utopia found in the “common law” are substantiating their collective lack of knowledge which is a direct result of their failure to complete their due diligence.

When the singular American laboring for their compensation has no knowledge to the statutory authorities of the administrative state, they will be readily misled by the many charlatans, thugs and thieves found within the paytriot community. These dysfunctional charlatans, thugs and thieves are the usual suspects populating the various computer bulletin boards promoting the known corruption of the administrative state, wrapped around their paytriot mythology of denouncing the Constitutionally constituted statutory authorities, for the harsh fact is that these paytriot “leaders” standing upon the bully pulpit have no understanding as to how the force of law, which is the due process of law, will substantiate one’s God Given Unalienable Rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

On the other hand, it is maintained on behalf of the plaintiff in error that the phase “due process of law” is equivalent to the “law of the land,” as found in the 29th chapter of Magna Charta that by immemorial usage it has acquired a fixed, definite, and technical meaning; that it refers to and includes not only the general principles of public liberty and private right, which lie at the foundation of all free government, but the very institution which, venerable by time and custom, have been tried by the experience and found fit and necessary for the preservation of those principles, and which having been the birthright and inheritance of every English subject, crossed the Atlantic with the colonist and were transplanted and established in the fundamental laws of the State; that having been originally introduced into the Constitution of the United States as a limitation upon the powers of government, brought into being by that instrument, it has now been added as an additional security to the individual against oppression by the States themselves; Hurtado v California 110 U.S. 516, 521 (1884)

Americans have a singular choice, learn to challenge the fictional falsities of the administrative state by standing the force of law, or forever suffer the insufferable foolishness promoted by the dysfunctional literates within the paytriot community who rely, as does the public ministry, upon a collective ignorance to impose authority and concepts in contravention, and in contradistinction to the rule of law.

Quoting the language of Magna Charta, and referring to Lord COKE's comment upon it, he says: 'The better and larger definition of due process of law is that it means law in its regular course of administration through courts of justice.’ This accords with what is said in Westervelt v. Gregg, 12 N. Y. 202, by DENIO, J., p. 212: 'The provision was designed to protect the citizen against all mere acts of power, whether flowing from the legislative or executive branches of the government.’ The principle and true meaning of the phrase have never been more tersely or accurately stated than by Mr. Justice JOHNSON in Bank of Columbia v. Okely, 4 Wheat. 235-244: 'As to the words from Magna Charta, incorporated into the constitution of Maryland, after volumes spoken and written with a view to their exposition, the good sense of mankind has at last settled down to this: that they were intended to secure the individual from the arbitrary exercise of the powers of government, unrestrained by the established principles of private right and distributive justice.’ And the conclusion rightly deduced is as stated by Mr. Cooley, (Const. Lim. 356:) 'The principles, then, upon which the process is based, are to determine whether it is 'due process' or not, and not any considerations of mere form. Administrative and remedial process may be changed from time to time, but only with due regard to the landmarks established for the protection of the citizen.’
Hurtado v California 110 U.S. 516, 527-528 (1884)

America has become entwined under a color of law so transparent, that charlatans, thugs, and thieves within the paytriot community shout about known corruption of the political bureaucracy, yet are never able to substantiate why the question of material fact is a question which will be outcome determinative of an issue arising under administrative authority.
The force of law is the due process of law that is substantiated not by cancelling invalid documentation and determinations issued by the public ministry, but by substantiating why the issuance of invalid documents and determinations by the political bureaucracy is wrong.

This requires the singular American to learn how to move through the form driven legalistic of lands of this state and its favorite uncle the federal fiduciary by sitting down and read for comprehension the statutory texts enacted by the federal and state legislatures, where the reader will discover that the complexity of the law is substantiated within the simplicity of its form driven relief.

"It is not the function of our government to keep the Citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the Citizen to keep the government from falling into error."
American Communications Ass'n v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382, 442


When one learns how to properly move through the form driven legalistic lands of This State they will discover the lawful fact that they will be able to substantiate their God Given Unalienable Rights as elucidated in the fundamental law of the American Republic, the Declaration of the Thirteen United Colonies of America, henceforth to be known as the Thirteen United States of America.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

1 comment:

autarchic said...

Very good! I have understood about the definition of the word "employee" for some time. However, I learned a great deal still. Thank you for the fine job you did of explaining the whole mess.