Constitutional authority to stop the pillaging of people

IRS taken to U.S. Supreme Court
for unconstitutional and illegal actions.
http://www.foundationfortruthinlaw.org/Griffin-article.html

What you have been told all your life about income taxes and the IRS is a lie. Hard to believe? Probably not, but then, HOW DO YOU PROVE IT? Well, let?s begin by asking one simple question out of dozens we could ask in challenging the IRS scam; Do you have lawful "income" subject to taxation by government?

We have all been led to believe that, "of course, my wages are "income," however, as you will soon discover, that is a lie. We have been presuming wages are income but have you ever you actually proven that belief? We have all been deceived on this fact, among many others, and there is only ONE way to prove that, and that is by looking at the actual evidence long suppressed.

The question of "what is income," along with many other questions, have been presented to the lower courts, and all have rejected the questions, and ignored the plain evidence, calling the challenges "frivolous." Now, in this Supreme Court case, (http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12-6169.htm), they can't ignore it any longer without violating their oaths of office, and their duty to Americans across this country to uphold their own past rulings and constitutional law.

So, let's say I tell you that you owe me $10,000 for work I did for you, and send you a bill. Would you pay it? Why not? Of course, you'd fight that because you know you don't owe it, and yet, we have all accepted without question the presumption that all we bring in as wages is "income" and that we owe tax on this. Is this the truth?

Well, let's address this in a few simple Supreme Court cases to set the stage, and YOU decide for yourself if you want to know more, and discover that you have lawful, constitutional authority to stop the pillaging of your monies. Is that a fair request?

We have all been led to believe that "income" is our wages, salary or compensation for services. Our parents and grandparents have accepted this social propaganda, and believed it without question. Why should we question it when everyone accepts it as fact?

Consider this:

A business or corporation can deduct all costs to be able to be in business and to make a "profit." The "profit" is what is above and beyond all expenses to pay employees for working, pay their costs for goods sold, electricity, everything that they had to pay for to make it possible to be in business and to actually make a profit.

Question: Does it cost you anything to be able to arrive at work, do the work, and go home? Anything? No, you say? What about gas to get to work? What about food to feed yourself to be able to work? What about a home to live in to be able to sleep, and have the ability to work, or insurance, or whatever costs it takes to keep you functioning as a human being able to work?

Make the connections... there is NO difference between a business expense sheet, and YOURS. Is all that a business brings in, a "profit?" No... they have lots of costs. So why should the IRS, or you, presume that all you bring in is "profit" when the courts don?t support that contention?

"In principle, there can be no difference between the case of selling labor and the case of selling goods." United States Supreme Court, Adkins v. Children's Hospital, 261 U.S. at 558.

The Supreme Court clearly understood that a person?s labor "cost" the person to be able to provide it, just as it costs corporations or businesses money to sell goods. However, the IRS claims your labor is worth nothing, and is all "profit."

"...income; as used in the statute should be given a meaning so as not to include everything that comes in. The true function of the words "gains" and "profits" is to limit the meaning of the word "income." United States Supreme Court, S. Pacific v. Lowe, U.S. 247 F. 330. (1918). (Emphasis added).

Notice "gains" and "profits" are linked to the word "income," limiting what can be defined as "income." So, ask yourself this again; Did it cost you anything to be able to get to work? Yes! So all you receive as "wages" cannot possibly be all "profit," right?

"If there is no gain, there is no income." [1] ...It [income] is not synonymous with receipts. Simply put, pay from a job is a 'wage,' and wages are not taxable. Congress has taxed income, not compensation." United States Supreme Court Conner v. United States. 303 F. Supp. 1187 (1969) pg. 1191: 47 C.J.S. Internal Revenue 98, Pg. 226. (Emphasis added).

The IRS claims that all you make is "gain," or "profit," but the S.Ct case above states otherwise. Whom do we believe? What is it that you are actually taking home for your labor? All "Gain," all "Income," or something else?

"We must reject in this case...the broad contention submitted in behalf of the Government that all receipts - everything that comes in - are income within the proper definition of the term 'gross income'..." United States Supreme Court Doyle v. Mitchell Brother, Co., 247 US 179 (1918).

Notice the IRS? own code in Section 22 GROSS INCOME:

(a): Gross income includes gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service...

Gains, profits and income are redundant terms, and confuse the lawful definition of what a "profit" is because it is the same thing as income. They all mean the same thing. Defining it in Section 22 gives the false and misleading impression there is a difference between these terms when none exists.

If "gains, profit and income" are the same as "salaries, wages, or compensation," why state "derived from?" One does not "derive" income "FROM" a wage if they lawfully mean the same thing. If wages ARE income already, why use the term "derived from?" The code speaks truth in many cases, but we have to decode their confusion.

"The statute and the statute alone determines what is income to be taxed. It taxes only income "derived" from many different sources; one does not "derive income" by rendering services and charging for them." Edwards v. Keith, 231 F. 110 (2nd Cir. 1916). (Emphasis added).

You render services and are paid a wage in exchange for your service... but that wage is NOT "income" according to original intent. "Derived" income is something completely different. You "derive" income from a source for that income, much like you derive an apple from your apple tree. You don?t consider the branches of the tree to be "income," or you diminish the source for income, and attack the tree itself, causing a loss of potential income.

"The poor man or the man in moderate circumstances does not regard his wages or salary as an income that would have to pay its proportionate tax under this new system." Gov. A.E. Wilson on the Income Tax (16 ) Amendment, N.Y. Times, Part 5, Page 13, February 26, 1911.

It was common knowledge that wages were not considered "income" under original intent.

"The claim that salaries, wages, and compensation for personal services are to be taxed as an entirety and therefore must be returned by the individual... is without support, either in the language of the Act or in the decisions of the courts construing it... it is not salaries, wages or compensation for personal services that are to be included in gross income. That which is to be included is gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal services." United States Supreme Court, Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930). (Emphasis added).

Sound confusing given what you have been told all your life? Everything the IRS does is confusing and convoluted to deceive. Understanding the fraud can take some time but it is as easy as A, B, C. So, what IS lawful, constitutional "income?"

Simple example. You make a wage. You pay all your expenses. You have some left over "principal," and you invest this in some means, and "derive" some interest from the extra money. THAT is what is lawful income. You are deriving NOTHING from your wages. It is the value of your labor, which costs money.

That being said, this U.S. Supreme Court case is being asked these and many more questions which have never been adjudicated in any court of the land. This isn't an easy 15 minute read, any more than learning to speak another language would take you an hour to master.

If you are tired of the fraud, want to know what your constitutional and lawful rights are, then you NEED to begin educating yourself on this topic, as many others are doing, so that you can stand on the laws there for you, and quit being a government slave to unconstitutional and illegal taxation.

Now, don't get me wrong here. Income taxation is lawful and constitutional, as long as it is on true income. The key is "lawful income."

Now, the facts of this U.S. Supreme Court case to date are these:

1. The IRS attacked me for allegedly not paying what I owe for 4 years of not filing, but deprived me of due process of law to defend my position.

2. I went through 9 federal courts, and am now in the Supreme Court, having filed my writ with application to not have to pay court docket fee of $300, and being allowed to file a much simpler document under less stringent criteria.

3. The court accepted this document, provided a case number for it and docketed it.

4. The IRS had opportunity to respond, but waived its right to respond to my writ. One wonders why it would waive its right to respond to allegations it claims are true, however it seems that it believes the Court will NOT take the case, so they don't have to respond. This lack of response, in any other court would be an automatic default under Rule 55.

5. Documents sent that address this default have NOT been filed in the U.S. Supreme Court as the law requires in all other courts.

6. The U.S. Supreme Court is avoiding this issue in violation of its own laws, and it does NOT "have" to take the case, however, all case precedent in its own court clearly states that they would take constitutional issues which address a huge population.

7. I filed for Motion for reconsideration of the fee issue, but the Court denied this once again, despite its own past rulings stating that all courts were to take "substance" over "form." They have my original document accepted and filed, so they have the substance, but are forcing "form," in order for me to even have a chance at due process.

8. The denial of my application means I now have to pay the court cost of $300, as well as having to redo the writ according to attorney standards (actually printed books) at a cost of about $1500... 40 copies and the original to the Court, three copies to the IRS, and copies for my records.

Of course, it appears they are doing everything in their power to deter me from getting this before them, as they are hugely aware of the ramifications. If they take it, the truth will be exposed. If they do NOT take it, due process has been denied by the highest court in the land, and government can now run roughshod over any one of us as it pleases.

The Courts have a sworn duty to apply law and rules to every one of us, so where they do not, it is treason, and warring against the constitution...

"When a judge acts where he or she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason." Cohens V Virginia, 19 US (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5LEd 257 (1821). .

"No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it." Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958).

"The court is to protect against any encroachment of Constitutionally secured liberties." Boyd v. U.S., 116 U.S. 616

"The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law." Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137

As much as is possible, this is going out to the true supreme court, that of PUBLIC OPINION, and need to be understood by all Americans. Simply read the questions being addressed to the Court in the documents filed to date at Supreme Court case Documents. Read the evidence, and then YOU decide.

You can also research the document "What is Income" by going here... http://thematrixhasyou.org/PDF/Exhibit-A-What-is-Income.pdf for a far larger body of evidence on this one question alone. If you want to delve into this tax scam issue much more, go here... http://thematrixhasyou.org/no-tax.html, and http://www.foundationfortruthinlaw.org/income-tax.html

Lastly, if you feel engaged in this in the least, please help support the costs for getting this into the Court, not to mention the costs which will be incurred with having to travel to DC for oral argument should it come to that. This is TOO big of an issue to let this opportunity go because of lack of funds. You can go to foundationfortruthinlaw.org

We, the People, MUST stand on the laws and facts. Prove to yourself the validity of the facts.

This case could change every man, woman and child?s life in our republic if the court does its job of protecting us from such encroachment by government. Be a part of it by simply knowing your rights and some basic law, and pass on to everyone you know.

This will be resisted, of course, but media exposure and public pressure will force them to address these issues, sooner or later. In so doing, and we can bring some of the change we all want.

Jeff Maehr
Pagosa Springs, Colorado