Time: Sun Sep 21 11:53:28 1997
by usr05.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA27989;
Sun, 21 Sep 1997 10:10:38 -0700 (MST)
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 10:10:20 -0700
To: Beverly Kennedy <beverly@flash.net>
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: Direct and Indirect Taxes: the great misunderstood
Beverly,
Please look before you leap, next time.
I think you have got the wrong guy here.
I have published everything I can in the
Supreme Law Library. Please help yourself to
all of the documents available there, paticularly
the pleadings filed in the various court cases,
e.g. USA v. Knudson, which filed Chapter 13 from
"The Federal Zone."
I don't appreciate the attitude you express here.
If you can't change your attitude, then please
refrain from sending me any more messages.
Thank you.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://supremelaw.com
p.s. The courts have not been able to agree
on the precise effects of a ratified 16th amendment,
and your opinion(s) on the matter are just as unique.
At 08:01 PM 9/17/97 -0500, you wrote:
> I didn't send you the information to receive a remark that
>doesn't have anything to do with what I said. The US Const.
>is the Supreme Law of the Land - and no state can make any law
>that is in conflict with it. Do you agree with this statement?
>
> There has been posts lately about the demise of the IRS, and
>the repeal of the 16th Amendment.
>
> If you will go look at the Pollock case (1895) you will see
>that repeal of the 16th Amendment will do absolutely nothing
>except eliminate from 'income tax' income that is derived from
>rents, etc. on real estate.
>
> If you don't want to know the truth, you of course, can continue
>to spout untruths - you have that right under the 1st Amendment.
>However, if you are to have the credibility you want you should
>spout nothing but the truth IMO.
>
> Beverly
>
>At 03:35 PM 9/17/97 -0700, you wrote:
>>... and Pollock was a state Citizen!
>>
>>/s/ Paul Mitchell
>>http://supremelaw.com
>>
>>
>>
>>At 05:26 PM 9/17/97 -0500, you wrote:
>>> The US Supreme Court case, Pollock v. Farmers Savings & Loan
>>>(origial case, not the rehearing of it) superbly explains the
>>>difference between 'direct' and 'indirect' taxes, and their
>>>ruling in the #157 case is the reason the Congress had to propose
>>>the 16th amendment in the first place.
>>>
>>> The Supreme Court reversed themselves and placed income from
>>>real estate into the category of a 'direct tax' - it had before
>>>been in the category of indirect taxes.
>>>
>>> Direct taxes are taxes on the thing itself (but does not apply
>>>to corporations): real estate and persons.
>>>
>>> Beverly
>>>
>>>At 08:20 PM 9/16/97 -0700, you wrote:
>>>>Dear Mike and others,
>>>>
>>>>Chapter 13 from "The Federal Zone" is now an
>>>>Exhibit in a pleading filed in the case of
>>>>USA v. Knudson, available in the Supreme Law Libary --
>>>>at the URL just below my name here. This
>>>>chapter goes into some detail, to analyze
>>>>many of the questions you raise here. Many cases
>>>>have ruled that "income" has the same statutory
>>>>meaning that it had in the original corporation
>>>>excise tax. See Eisner v. Macomber, for example.
>>>>
>>>>The "income," which was the measure of the tax
>>>>to which Brushaber objected, was the dividend
>>>>he was expecting to receive from a "domestic"
>>>>corporation. Here, Congress can tax profit
>>>>generation by a domestic corporation, because
>>>>Congress created that corporation in the first
>>>>place.
>>>>
>>>>However, Congress can only create a corporation
>>>>in its capacity as a legislature for the federal
>>>>zone; it cannot create a "national" corporation,
>>>>because such an exercise would violate the
>>>>Tenth Amendment -- the several states reserved
>>>>their Right to create their own "domestic"
>>>>corporations. So, the key to understanding
>>>>a major part of this deception is to appreciate
>>>>the true legal meaning of "domestic"; it does
>>>>NOT mean "American"; it DOES mean "within the
>>>>federal zone, where Congress and ONLY Congress,
>>>>is the State Legislature (because there is no
>>>>Union state to compete with Congress there)."
>>>>
>>>>The Union Pacific Railroad Company is such a
>>>>corporation. Brushaber was wrong to allege,
>>>>in his original pleadings, that UPRR was
>>>>"domestic" to Utah state; Utah was a federal
>>>>territory at the time the UPRR was first
>>>>created -- BY ACT OF CONGRESS!! Thus, the
>>>>30% tax (on Brushaber's dividend) was actually
>>>>a tax on the corporate privilege of generating
>>>>profit with limited liability; the quantity of
>>>>income being taxed was merely the "measure" of
>>>>the tax, not the subject of the tax. The "subject"
>>>>of that tax was the corporate privilege. Congress
>>>>merely got to it before Brushaber did, because the
>>>>corporation, a creation of Congress, was the
>>>>withholding agent made liable by the tax in question.
>>>>
>>>>All of this is explained in much greater detail
>>>>in Chapter 13 of "The Federal Zone," which chapter
>>>>is now available in the Supreme Law Library.
>>>>
>>>>/s/ Paul Mitchell
>>>>http://supremelaw.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>At 06:51 AM 9/16/97 -0700, you wrote:
>>>>>The Constitution speaks of two classes of taxes.
>>>>>
>>>>>Direct taxes: These are simply taxes placed on a person. Your property
>>>>>tax is placed on you, the property is just the measure of the tax. A so
>>>>>called income tax is placed on you, the income is just the measure of the
>>>>>tax. Any tax that you pay directly to the government is a direct tax.
The
>>>>>money witheld from your pay is sent in by your employer, however he is
>>>>>acting in the capacity of a tax collector for the goverment so it is
still
>>>>>a direct tax.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Indirect tax: These are simply taxes placed on a product or it could
be a
>>>>>service too. When you buy a radio for example, it might include a tariff
>>>>>charge, an excise, and a sales tax, although you payed all these taxes
when
>>>>>you purchased the radio, it is an indirect tax because you are not
>>>>>responsible for sending the money to the government someone else is.
>>>>>Indirect taxes can be avoided just don't buy the product. This tax is
>>>>>charged against some one or an entity other than the real payor of the
tax.
>>>>> For example the sales tax, if I sell $1,000.00 of goods, and the tax is
>>>>>7%, then I owe the government $70.00, but the customers pay it not me.
>>>>>Thus indirect.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Before the passage of the 16th amendment, (which allowed taxation on
income
>>>>>without apportionment) we had these two classes of taxes, direct and
>>>>>indirect. Direct taxes had to be apportioned, did this amendment change
>>>>>this? If so why did it not say so? Why would the constitution be in
>>>>>conflict with itself?
>>>>>
>>>>>Income has more than one definition. Here are two of them.
>>>>>
>>>>>1. Income = profit or gain
>>>>>2. Income = that which comes in
>>>>>
>>>>>Which definition was the sixteenth amendment referring to?
>>>>>
>>>>>Placing an income tax on a corporations profit is an indirect tax, as the
>>>>>consumers pay the tax when they purchase the goods.
>>>>>
>>>>>Placing an income tax on your wages is a direct tax as you pay it
directly
>>>>>to the goverment.
>>>>>
>>>>>If you think that the sixteenth amendment gave congress the power to tax
>>>>>your labor the same as the power to tax corporate profits, then why do
you
>>>>>not get to deduct all of those things that go into making up your
product,
>>>>>like the corporations do?
>>>>>
>>>>>If your product is your labor, the cost of food, clothing, shelter,
>>>>>transportation, insurance on the car, DMV fees, taxes on your home,
>>>>>education, etc etc, are all part of the cost neccessary to create your
>>>>>product, then why don't you get to deduct these cost?
>>>>>
>>>>>The corporations do not pay taxes on those expenses neccessary to keep it
>>>>>in existence, they deduct all those cost, why shouldn't you be able to do
>>>>>the same?
>>>>>
>>>>>Here is the reason, we have been duped, the sixteenth amendment
allowed for
>>>>>the taxation of corporation income without apportionment (not your
wages),
>>>>>which is totally consistant with the original taxing clauses of the
>>>>>Constitution.
>>>>>
>>>>>If I am right one of two possibilities exist, one the government is in
>>>>>violation of the Supreme Law of the land, two no law exist that
requires us
>>>>>to pay taxes on our labor, we volunteer the payment.
>>>>>
>>>>>I can hear all the replies to this in my head now, some will go, hmmmm,
>>>>>some will say oh yea try it and you will go to jail, you tax protestor
you.
>>>>> If I go to jail for refusing to be a slave, it is a small price to pay,
>>>>>especially considering the price our founders paid to give us our
>>>>>Constitution, and it's guarantees. By the way involuntary servitude is
>>>>>also outlawed in this country by the Constitution.
>>>>>
>>>>>The Constitution is like a muscle in your body if you do not exercise it,
>>>>>it will atrophy and that is exactly what has happened to our freedoms.
Our
>>>>>founders have given us a shield against tyranny in government, if we
do not
>>>>>use it, care for it, it will rust away, until our children, will not even
>>>>>possess it.
>>>>>
>>>>>To all of my former associates in slavery, when will you say I will be a
>>>>>slave no more, how much will the government have to take of your
production
>>>>>for you to awaken and say, hey this is slavery?
>>>>>
>>>>>Mike
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>========================================================================
>>>>Paul Andrew Mitchell : Counselor at Law, federal witness
>>>>B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine
>>>>
>>>>tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night
>>>>email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU
>>>>website: http://www.supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now
>>>>ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best
>>>> Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone
>>>> Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this
>>>>
>>>>As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall
>>>>not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal.
>>>>========================================================================
>>>>[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ________________________
>>> "Though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very
commonly
>>>does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing
>>opinion
>>>on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the
>>collision
>>>of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of
being
>>>supplied."
>>> ---- John Stuart Mill from his treatise 'On Liberty'
>>> ________________________
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>========================================================================
>>Paul Andrew Mitchell : Counselor at Law, federal witness
>>B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine
>>
>>tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night
>>email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU
>>website: http://www.supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now
>>ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best
>> Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone
>> Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this
>>
>>As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall
>>not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal.
>>========================================================================
>>[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
>>
>>
> ________________________
> "Though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly
>does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing
opinion
>on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the
collision
>of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being
>supplied."
> ---- John Stuart Mill from his treatise 'On Liberty'
> ________________________
>
>
>
>
>
>
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail