Click on the Image above
Click on the imahe above
Income Taxes Are Voluntary
Paying Income Taxes is Voluntary
Did you know that paying the income tax is voluntary and that there is no law that requires most Americans to pay income taxes. When you fill out a 1040, you voluntarily enter into a contract that obligates you to pay the IRS.
Most Americans comply with a law that doesn't exist because they are afraid of what will happen to them if they don't. This is the very definition of extortion.
Most people don't realize that the IRS is a privately owned corporation that serves as a collection agency for the Federal Reserve. The Grace Commission Report revealed that all of the money collected by the IRS is used to pay the interest on the money Congress has borrowed from the Federal Reserve.
The wages we receive in exchange for our labor is not income. Income is defined as the profit from corporate activity. If you are a government employee or you live in Washington D.C., you are required by law to pay income taxes.
What you receive in the form of compensation is your personal property and the ownership of your property is one of your God given rights.
The tax dollars extorted from us are then used to purchase weapons of mass destruction to be used in wars of aggression and also to terminate the lives of millions of unborn babies.
The income tax is clearly unconstitutional.
Supreme Court has ruled that most Americans are
not required to pay income taxes.
How to stop paying the Federal Income Tax
Please Support the Constitution Club
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Key Holder at U.S.A. on
-
criAs for your first paragraph: Thank you for the compliment, though I am not sure it is fully earned. We each know what we know. We can share our knowledge if we choose. That which is offered as truth should be tested by things thought to be poofs against it, not just contrary opinions. Those concepts which withstand the offered proofs seeking to negate them are likely the truths worth knowing.
Your second paragraph: It seems to me that you are offering a description of brotherhood and respect for education and sharing useful knowledge.
Your second paragraph: You err on these points; A. You have no choice in your birthright citizenship as an American citizen, though you do have the right to disavow it by pledging allegiance to a different citizenship though it must be one foreign to the 50 states of the Union which is known to the world as 'United States of America" B. Your application of the legal definition for delivery ( as in presentment of a written instrument or goods under duty to deliver) is denied since wholly inapplicable to my vernacular use of the word meaning to be delivered by live birth. I get to define the words I select, you do not.
Your fourth paragraph seems to be the fruit of the erroneous supposition of definition you chose to apply to my words by which you came to an erroneous and unintended conclusion in relation to them, a conclusion not reached properly but only for your having applied a meaning not intended rather than asking me what I meant by the word "delivery". News flash, babies delivered are not subject to the terms for delivery applicable to paper or goods of commerce.
I agree with your fifth paragraph, but then whether we agree matters not since two fools can steer a boat wrong directed as well as one.
I'm not yet 80 but hope to be as long as reasonably good health prevails. I feel that anyone not on an educating path might as well be a turnip. I hope you continue to endeavor to figure things out and assist others seeking to do the same.
X
-
-
About the citizenship issue: When we were under the constitutions, it mattered. Under communist controlled fed military occupation it still does on the world scene.
If you have no citizenship, then you are a person without the right to be in any country and have no right to own anything because you are outside the protection of all laws.
-
-
The Form 1040 forms do not indicate that presently. So, there is a non-issue.
As for the non-resident alien, every single taxpayer was one of those, though maybe not knowing it, and ceased being one upon filing a executed Form 1040. Nobody has ever lived whom was a resident or domiciled in the context of Title 26 except that they chose to command the IRS to treat them as such. Both the resident status and domiciliary status are conceptual functionalities (operations of law) having nothing to do with where one's body exists.
Acting or appearing as Amendment XIV status, likewise is limited to conceptual functionality (operation of law) having nothing to do with where one's body exists.
I agree with your third paragraph except for the last sentence since you have no knowledge of what I need to do.
As for your fourth paragraph, I agree if by "state-only citizens", you mean only American citizens who have not prejudiced their rights by grant of privilege to federal authority by which they may be treated as resident for a federal Legislation expressed operative scope. I call those of that class each a "citizen of the United States of America without prejudice to rights".
X
-
-
I'm not sure which paragraphs you were referring to but if it was No. 2, all I can say is I don't know where you are standing. All I can talk about is what I have done which is to draw up a contract between me and the straw man where I claim it as a debtor since everything that I have worked for has been converted to it by unknowingly registering my properties. This is referred to as my right of subrogation.
As to your last paragraph, I can only say that I have taken the term 'citizen' completely out of my vocabulary when referring to my own status. I choose not to label myself as any type of citizen whatsoever. Sovereign and citizen/Citizen are counter intuitive positions. I am merely a non-resident alien to the forum of the municipal venue of the District of Columbia which encompasses both the Federal and State authorities.
-
-
Your first paragraph: There exist no "straw man", neither does there exist a "strawman" except by your imagination. The very premise, concept, expressing the notion is one borne of a mental construct absent existence in the physical world. Unicorns, faeries, Werewolves and winged monkeys are just as real. A fiction of law does not stand on its own and have not standing to act or appear as surety for anyone or any thing. A nullity has not the capacity to contract and neither does a legal fiction. Only Man with a living hand and mark making implement may sign a contract or make one by gentleman's agreement by a meeting of the minds on terms expressed within the agreement. Fiction of law has no brain, no mind and, therefore; no capacity of common, of agreement or to form a contract in representation thereof. I believe that none shall be served well to endeavor to rely on a so-called "strawman", or a fiction of law to be named their agent or representative otherwise.
As for your second paragraph; you can alter your vocabulary as you see fit and claim to be any type of being you desire, but when the time comes to exercise your rights by offering the best label recognized by law as categorizing your rights, I am afraid you are rather well "self-screwed" if you offer the idea expressed in your last sentence as a basis of standing. American law recognizes 'citizen of the United States of America' as the penultimate power of the universe and that has served me wonderfully well.
X
-
-
When we were under the constitutions, citizens via the 14th were citizens of the fed gov. People who were only citizens of their state and not living in the United States [ a fed area] are non-resident aliens of the United States and that makes them constitutionally exempt from almost all fed law and all existing trial courts today.
The United States is a sovereign that is outside the several states and while we were under the constitutions, it was under a completely different system of law.
-
-
'We' never were under the Constitution; our servant government was expressed by it and is inescapably bound to it still and always shall be.
The residency which is linked to federal domiciliary legal obligation IS NOT a physical presence in any particular place. It is a status based on Legislation expressing a constructive residency, not an actual residency. The whole of U.S. Code and State Statute is based in a jurisdiction which elected and acted within by men and women 'appearing as' person defined in Code and statute. That legal cognizance is reached by those who apply to be treated as if operating n that conceptual system, one which arose as ideas, is expressed and operated by written words on paper; one where no living being has ever existed though the majority have done acts by writing and spoken testimony IN REPRESENTATION of those ideas. Disabuse yourselves of this physical jurisdiction idea. That simply is NOT where it is at and it never has been, nor can it be.
You see, the government is only an idea in representation of which folks do act. Government is your servant and cannot look to your rights or reach you except that most of the people of the U.S.A. have gone ans subjugated themselves to their servant. Why would you hire a man to wash and wax your car and then wheel out the Lazy-Boy and entreat him to sit in it and drink your scotch while you wash and wax the car which he is being paid to do ? And on top of that, how stupid would you be to obligate him to kick your ass and take your property if you don't wash and wax the way he tells you to ? That example is how those who are treated as taxpayer came to be treated as such. It is their own damned fault and nobody else's
X
-
-
The self described sovereign people via the constitutions created the states and United States and set the forms of law that applied to the gov and the people. Thus, sovereigns were under the [ protection of ] the constitutions.
-
-
Now you are twisting a prior statement in order to reach a conclusion not reached earlier. That's okay. Despite shifting on the merry-go-round horse, you still have not grabbed the golden ring. Please explain to me how a sovereign can express a writing which is some derivative of his rights and then say that the writing protects those rights or provides it anything more than it had before that writing being scritch-scratched our by he and his compatriots. Are you saying that those pre-existing rights had no protection before the ink tattooed the sheep? Do you understand that the rights which are recognized as endowed to American citizens by their government and their fellow citizens are considered second only to the power of God ? And, further, if man is the original issuer of all value, other that raw natural resources of the Earth, what incapacity can possibly be assigned to him which is overcome by his scribbling on parchment ? Explain that to me and then we can discuss what those writings gave him that which he did not already possess. No man is 'under' or 'protected by' the Constitution except those who position themselves as were positioned as the former property of slaveholders which were let free on the land and wandered onto the New Plantation legally constructed for their shelter within the prosthetic citizenship thought of, expressed, owned and regulated by the United States by and through Amendment XIV. If you have adopted that second class citizenship, then, yes you are protected by the Constitution, however; I am not. The only citizenship protected by the Constitution is that prosthetic citizenship of Amendment XIV. Each citizen of the United States of America is protected by his own expression of his unalienable rights, at least those of them who have not prejudiced those rights by adopting impediments but, instead have them without prejudice AND know how to conduct themselves, such as defending against erroneous presumptions as expressed by Bill May's post to which I am responding.
X
-
-
-
Stating one is a non-resident alien does not imply that he is a state citizen. It merely states that he is without the U.S. Resident aliens are always the ones subject to their so-called laws and those resident aliens are the legal fiction straw men. Because the States are Federal sub-corps they decided to up the anti and institute income taxes on so-called State citizens as well. Those State citizens, just like 14th Am. citizens, are not people at all but the legal fictions that we commonly use to interface with their commercial system.
By the way, no one gets any benefits from Govco. Govco only gives benefits to their straw men when they think the living man has agreed to a fiduciary relationship with that fiction---there to pay the fine and do the time. Anyone who has claimed the SM as a debtor can deny that he receives any benefits from Govco because they are contractual inter-pleaded funds received, not from Govco, but from the straw man debtor.
-
-
If one is not a citizen of the United States but was born in one of the several states and are claiming they are a non-resident alien of the United State, then by default the individual is claiming to be state-only citizen.
"The 14th Amendment did not alter the status of free white persons, as previously existing." Virginia v. Rivers, 100 U.S. 313, 25 L. ed. 667, 3 Am. Crim. Rep. 524; United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 640, 42, L. ed. 890, 1S Sup. Ct. Rep. 456
"Both before and after the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution, it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the United States in order to be a citizen of his state." Crosse v. Bd. of Supvr,s of Elections, 221 A.2d. 431 (1966)
"[W]e find nothing…which requires that a citizen of a state must also be a citizen of the United States, if no question of federal rights or jurisdiction is involved."
[Crosse v. Bd. of Supvrs of Elections, 221 A.2d. 431 (1966) ]"There are, then, under our republican form of government, two classes of citizens, one of the United States and one of the state".
Gardina v. Board of Registrars of Jefferson County, 160 Ala. 155; 48 So. 788 (1909)
-
-
As for being subject to IRS or State personal income tax, it is a state, a station, a status which one voluntarily adopts to their rights with no consideration whatsoever relative to their citizenship. Do you hold an opinion otherwise?
Tell me, if "no one gets any benefits from Govco. Govco only gives benefits to their straw men when they think the living man has agreed to a fiduciary relationship with that fiction" how do you propose all the people on assistance and on Social Security benefits dependence "get' those benefits . . .'get' the transactions money which they spend every day round the clock in exchange for goods and services ? Explain that ! The fact is this: The thing you call "Straw Man" is the account which is identified by the number and NAME which are the property of the people of the United States collectively, property for which and accounts which are held and managed by the independent Social Security Administration for the benefit of the people as well as those of them who opt to participate in the voluntary participation benefits program administered by the SSA. Other benefits are administered by other agencies under different terms of use, none of which obligate the participant to act as taxpayer to either the IRS or a State income tax authority, or to pay the fine or do the time, as cute as that is.
The number and the all capitalized alphabetic construction which appears on the Social Security card is provided for use ONLY in conjunction with the account so-numbered and so NAMED within the Social Security Administration. All uses uses of that information is at the liability of he who uses it and not the government or the SSA. If that number and/or that NAME is use for any purpose other than as a password and account access key, it is a use for another purpose other than "ESTABLISHED FOR" and not a use of a Social Security number. The IRS has never asked for or required anybody to apply a Social Security number on an IRS Form or other communication relative to IRS activities.
X
© 2025 Created by Keith Broaders.
Powered by
