Property in his own Person

Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature hath placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other men: for this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others.

John Locke, "A Treatise Concerning Civil Government

The Tariff Act of October 3, 1913 imposed an Individual Mandate upon the American State Citizen that shared the accretions of the Corporate Person’s disbursements of profit. The mandate was statutorily titled the Normal Tax. The profit was derived from the Individual American State Citizen who invests their private property in a Corporation or Partnership.

The Normal Tax Individual mandate

In addition to the income tax provided under this section (herein as the normal income tax) there shall be levied, assessed, and collected upon the net income of every individual an additional income tax (herein referred to as the additional tax) of 1 per centum per annum upon the amount by which the total net income exceeds $20,000 and does not exceed $50,000, and 2 per centum per annum upon the amount by which the total net income exceeds $50,000 and does not exceed $75,000, 3 per centum per annum upon the amount by which the total net income exceeds $75,000 and does not exceed $100,000, 4 per centum per annum upon the amount by which the total net income exceeds $100,000 and does not exceed $250,000, 5 per centum per annum upon the amount by which the total net income exceeds $250,000 and does not exceed $500,000, and 6 per centum per annum upon the amount by which the- total net income exceeds $500,000 . 63rd Congress Session I Chapter 16, § II page 166, October 3rd 1913

The statutory revision of the Corporate Excise Tax on October 3rd 1913 referred to as the Tariff Act secondly directly imposed a taxable liability upon the Individual American State Citizen, labeled the Additional Income Tax whose “income” was the residual derived from a Partnership after all expense had been secured.

An Individual’s profit is the return on his invested private property. Frank Brushaber was a stockholder in the Union Pacific Railroad. The Union Pacific Railroad withheld a percentage of Frank’s disbursement as the “Withholding tax” imposed as the individual mandate under the authorities imposing the Normal Tax.

A Corporate officer or associated member secures distributions through compensation, or other forms, which is statutorily taxed in compliance to the Additional Income Tax, which was the second element of the Tariff Act enacted in October 3rd 1913 to impose “income taxes” upon corporate profits, and those who directly secured a share of this accretion of wealth.

The provision of the Normal Tax imposed upon the Corporate Structure, and the Additional Tax imposed upon the Person, and Individual was enacted within the body of The Tariff Act, October 3, 1913, 67th Congress, Session I, Chapter 16, within Section II (A) Subdivision 2.

Within this Section II of the Tariff Act is found the individual l mandate that arose under the Normal Tax that was to be imposed upon the Individual who received compensation in any form from the Person. Secondly their arose the Additional Tax Mandate that was imposed which is one’s singular income that was derived from any sources as delineated in the Tariff Act Section II under the Normal Tax.

Individual Mandate taxing “non use”

Every person subject to this additional tax shall for the purpose of its assessment and collection, make a personal return of his total net income from all sources, corporate or otherwise, for the preceding calendar year, under rules and regulations to be prescribed.. by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and approved by the Secretary of the Treasury. For the purpose of this additional tax the taxable income of any individual shall embrace the share to which he Could be entitled of the gains and profits, if divided or distributed, whether divided or distributed or not, of all corporations, joint-stock companies, or associations however created or organized, formed or fraudulently availed of for the purpose of preventing the imposition of such tax through the medium of permitting such gains and profits to accumulate instead of being divided or distributed; 63rd Congress Session I Chapter 16, § II page 166, October 3rd 1913

John Robert’s Decision declaring the constitutionality of Taxing a Non Use was first silently imposed within case dicta by omission in the Brushaber v Union Pacific decision issued in January 1916 Decision. Frank Brushaber was challenging the withholding provisions imposed as the individual mandate under the Normal Tax.

This individual mandate statutorily compelled the Person disbursing accretions of wealth to first withhold the impending tax liability that attached to the profit in accordance to Section II Subdivision I (A). Frank challenge this subordination of his private property, and lost when Edward Douglas White’s fellow Justices stated this was all about taxing a “Use” of property, not the property itself.

Frank and his litigators were not concerned with the liability imposed upon the non disbursement of funds, which statutorily matriculates as a mandate to be imposed upon the individual’s non use of property by the Federal Congress.

 Individual Mandate taxing “non use”

Every person subject to this additional tax shall for the purpose of its assessment and collection, make a personal return of his total net income from all sources, corporate or otherwise, for the preceding calendar year, under rules and regulations to be prescribed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and approved by the Secretary of the Treasury. For the purpose of this additional tax the taxable income of any individual shall embrace the share to which he Could be entitled of the gains and profits, if divided or distributed, whether divided or distributed or not, of all corporations, joint-stock companies, or associations however created or organized, formed or fraudulently availed of for the purpose of preventing the imposition of such tax through the medium of permitting such gains and profits to accumulate instead of being divided or distributed; 63rd Congress Session I Chapter 16, § II page 166, October 3rd 1913

The twist and turns moved by John Roberts to declare that Patient Protection and Health Care Affordability Act may impose an Individual Tax Mandate for "non use" substantiates how corrupted the Supreme Court has become regarding its Constitutional responsibility to stand squarely within the Rule of Law.

The Corruption to the Rule of Law started with Hylton v Tyson from December 1796. This spurious legislation from the Bench was resuscitated by the Progressive Chief Justice Edward Douglas White in Stratton’s Independence, Ltd. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399 (1913), and the Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, 240 U.S. 1 (1916), case decisions for declaring a “Use Tax” is constitutionally viable when imposed upon Private Property.

This unconscionable and unconstitutionally statutorily imposed Individual Mandate for taxing "Use" and "Non Use" of Proprietorial Rights has finally been exposed for all Americans to comprehend following the actions of Chief Justice John Roberts.

Justice John Robert’s declaration is more confounding given that this Tax Bill originated in the Federal Senate. This fact substantiates what has been quietly known for over 100 years, Constitutional law is no longer taught in the Halls of Academia that matriculates Juris Doctorates.

Come this 3rd day of January 2013, it is time for the 113th Congress to emulate Thomas Jefferson’s response to the Hylton Decision, and statutorily close down these corrupted Federal Courts populated by Judges who legislate from the Bench.