Office of "person"
EG Warman
The official state office known as "Person"
This is the single most important lesson that you MUST learn. If you
spend an hour to learn this material you will be rewarded for the rest
of your life.
The word "person" in legal terminology is perceived as a general word
which normally includes in its scope a variety of entities other than
human beings. See e.g. 1 U.S.C. sec 1. Church of Scientology v.
U.S. Dept. of Justice (1979) 612 F.2d 417, 425.
One of the very first of your state statutes will have a section listed
entitled "Definitions." Carefully study this section of the statutes and
you will find a portion that reads similar to this excerpt:
In construing these statutes and each and every word, phrase, or part
hereof, where the context will permit:
(1) The singular includes the plural and vice versa.
(2) Gender-specific language includes the other gender and neuter.
(3) The word "person" includes individuals, children, firms,
associations, joint adventures, partnerships, estates, trusts, business
trusts, syndicates, fiduciaries, corporations, and all other groups or
combinations.
NOTE HOWEVER, THE DEFINITIONS STATUTE DOES NOT LIST MAN OR WOMAN --
THEREFORE THEY ARE EXCLUDED FROM ALL THE STATUTES !!!
Under the rule of construction "expressio unius est exclusio alterius,"
where a statute or Constitution enumerates the things on which it is to
operate or forbids certain things, it is ordinarily to be construed as
excluding from its operation all those not expressly mentioned.
Generally words in a statute should be given their plain and ordinary
meaning. When a statute does not specifically define words, such words
should be construed in their common or ordinary sense to the effect that
the rules used in construing statutes are also applicable in the
construction of the Constitution. It is a fundamental rule of statutory
construction that words of common usage when used in a statute should be
construed in their plain and ordinary sense.
If you carefully read the statute laws enacted by your state legislature
you will also notice that they are all written with phrases similar to
these five examples :
1. A person commits the offense of failure to carry a license if the
person . . .
2. A person commits the offense of failure to register a vehicle if the
person . . .
3. A person commits the offense of driving uninsured if the person . .
.
4. A person commits the offense of fishing if the person . . .
5. A person commits the offense of breathing if the person . . .
Notice that only "persons" can commit these state legislature created
crimes. A crime is by definition an offense committed against the
"state." If you commit an offense against a human, it is called a tort.
Examples of torts would be any personal injury, slander, or defamation
of character.
So how does someone become a "person" and subject to regulation by state
statutes and laws ?
There is only one way. You must ask the state for permission to
volunteer to become a state person. You must volunteer because the U.S.
Constitution forbids the state from compelling you into slavery. This
is found in the
13th and 14th Amendments.
13th Amendment Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude,
except as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly
convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to
their jurisdiction.
14th Amendment Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United
States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make
or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of
citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
You become a state created statutory "person" by taking up residency
with the state and stepping into the office of "person." You must hold
an "office" within the state government in order for that state
government to regulate and control you. First comes the legislatively
created office, then comes their control. If you do not have an office
in state government, the legislature's control over you would also be
prohibited by the Declaration of Rights section, usually found to be
either Section I or II, of the State Constitution.
The most common office held in a state is therefore the office known as
"person." Your state legislature created this office as a way to control
people. It is an office most people occupy without even knowing that
they are doing so.
The legislature cannot lawfully control you because you are a flesh and
blood human being. God alone created you and by Right of creation, He
alone can control you. It is the nature of law, that what one creates,
one controls. This natural law is the force that binds a creature to
its creator. God created us and we are, therefore, subject to His laws,
whether or not we acknowledge Him as our Creator.
The way the state gets around God's law and thereby controls the people
is by creating only an office, and not a real human. This office is
titled as "person" and then the legislature claims that you are filling
that office. Legislators erroneously now think that they can make laws
that also control men. They create entire bodies of laws - motor
vehicle code, building code, compulsory education laws, and so on ad
nauseum. They still cannot control men or women, but they can now
control the office they created. And look who is sitting in that
office -- YOU.
Then they create government departments to administer regulations to
these offices. Within these administrative departments of state
government are hundreds of other state created offices. There is
everything from the office of janitor to the office of governor. But
these administrative departments cannot function properly unless they
have subjects to regulate.
The legislature obtains these subjects by creating an office that nobody
even realizes to be an official state office.
They have created the office of "person."
The state creates many other offices such as police officer, prosecutor,
judge etc. and everyone understands this concept. However, what most
people fail to recognize and understand is the most common state office
of all, the office of "person." Anyone filling one of these state
offices is subject to regulation by their creator, the state
legislature. Through the state created office of "person," the state
gains its authority to regulate, control and judge you, the real human.
What they have done is apply the natural law principle, "what one
creates, one controls."
A look in Webster's dictionary reveals the origin of the word "person."
It literally means "the mask an actor wears."
The legislature creates the office of "person" which is a mask. They
cannot create real people, only God can do that. But they can create
the "office" of "person," which is merely a mask, and then they persuade
a flesh and blood human being to put on that mask by offering a
fictitious privilege, such as a driver license. Now the legislature has
gained complete control over both the mask and the actor behind the
mask.
A resident is another state office holder.
All state residents hold an office in the state government.
But not everyone who is a resident also holds the office of "person."
Some residents hold the office of judge and they are not persons.
Some residents hold the office of prosecutors and they are not persons.
Some residents hold the office of police office(rs) and they are not
persons.
Some residents hold the office of legislators and they are not persons.
Some residents are administrators and bureaucrats and they also are not
persons.
Some residents are attorneys and they also are not persons.
An attorney is a state officer of the court and is firmly part of the
judicial branch. The attorneys will all tell you that they are
"licensed" to practice law by the state Supreme Court. Therefore, it is
unlawful for any attorney to hold any position or office outside of the
judicial branch. There can be no attorney legislators - no attorney
mayors - no attorneys as police - no attorneys as governor. Yes, I know
it happens all the time, however, this practice of multiple office
holding by attorneys is prohibited by the constitution and is a felony
in most states.
If you read farther into your state constitution you will find a clause
stating this, the Separation of Powers, which will essentially read as
follows:
Branches of government -- The powers of the state government shall be
divided into legislative, executive and judicial branches. No person
belonging to one branch shall exercise any powers appertaining to either
of the other branches unless expressly provided herein.
Therefore, a police officer cannot arrest a prosecutor, a prosecutor
cannot prosecute a sitting judge, a judge cannot order the legislature
to perform and so on.
Because these "offices" are not persons, the state will not, and cannot
prosecute them, therefore they enjoy almost complete protection by the
state in the performance of their daily duties. This is why it is
impossible to sue or file charges against most government employees. If
their crimes should rise to the level where they "shock the community"
and cause alarm in the people, then they will be terminated from state
employment and lose their absolute protection. If you carefully pay
attention to the news, you will notice that these government employees
are always terminated from their office or state employment and then are
they arrested, now as a common person, and charged for their crimes.
Simply put, the state will not eat its own.
The reason all state residents hold an office is so the state can
control everything. It wants to create every single office so that all
areas of your life are under the complete control of the state. Each
office has prescribed duties and responsibilities and all these offices
are regulated and governed by the state. If you read the fine print
when you apply for a state license or privilege you will see that you
must sign a declaration that you are in fact a "resident" of that state.
"Person" is a subset of resident. Judge is a subset of resident.
Legislator and police officer are subsets of resident. If you hold any
office in the state, you are a resident and subject to all legislative
decrees in the form of statutes.
They will always say that we are free men. But they will never tell you
that the legislatively created offices that you are occupying are not
free.
They will say, "All men are free," because that is a true statement.
What they do not say is, that holding any state office binds free men
into slavery for the state. They are ever ready to trick you into
accepting the state office of "person," and once you are filling that
office, you cease to be free men. You become regulated creatures,
called persons, totally created by the legislature. You will hear "free
men" mentioned all the time, but you will never hear about "free
persons."
If you build your life in an office created by the legislature, it will
be built on shifting sands. The office can be changed and manipulated
at any time to conform to the whims of the legislature. When you hold
the office of "person" created by the legislature, your office isn't
fixed. Your duties and responsibilities are ever changing. Each
legislative session binds a "person" to ever more burdens and
requirements in the form of more rules, laws and statutes.
Most state constitutions have a section that declares the fundamental
power of the people:
Political power -- All political power is inherent in the people. The
enunciation herein of certain Rights shall not be construed to deny or
impair others retained by the people.
Notice that this says "people" it does not say persons. This statement
declares beyond any doubt that the people are Sovereign over their
created government. This is natural law and the natural flow of
delegated power.
A Sovereign is a private, non-resident, non-domestic, non-person,
non-individual, NOT SUBJECT to any real or imaginary statutory
regulations or quasi laws enacted by any state legislature which was
created by the people.
When you are pulled over by the police, roll down your window and say,
"You are speaking to a Sovereign political power holder. I do not
consent to you detaining me. Why are you detaining me against my will
?"
Now the state office of policeman knows that "IT" is talking to a flesh
and blood Sovereign. The police officer cannot cite a Sovereign because
the state legislature can only regulate what they create. And the state
does not create Sovereign political power holders. It is very important
to lay the proper foundation, Right from the beginning. Let the police
officer know that you are a Sovereign. Remain in your proper office of
Sovereign political power holder. Do not leave it. Do not be persuaded
by police pressure or tricks to put on the mask of a state "person."
Why aren't Sovereigns subject to the state's charges? Because of the
concept of office. The state is attempting to prosecute only a
particular office known as "person." If you are not in that state
created office of "person," the state statutes simply do not apply to
you. This is common sense, for example, if you are not in the state of
Texas, then Texas laws do not apply to you. For the state to control
someone, they have to first create the office. Then they must coerce a
warm-blooded creature to come fill that office. They want you to fill
that office.
Here is the often expressed understanding from the United States Supreme
Court, that "in common usage, the term "person" does not include the
Sovereign, statutes employing the person are ordinarily construed to
exclude the Sovereign." Wilson v. Omaha Tribe, 442 U.S. 653, 667
(1979) (quoting United States v. Cooper Corp., 312 U.S. 600, 604
(1941)). See also United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 275
(1947).
The idea that the word "person" ordinarily excludes the Sovereign can
also be traced to the "familiar principle that the King is not bound by
any act of Parliament unless he be named therein by special and
particular words." Dollar Savings Bank v. United States, 19 Wall. 227,
239 (1874). As this passage suggests, however, this interpretive
principle applies only to "the enacting Sovereign." United States v.
California, 297 U.S. 175, 186 (1936). See also Jefferson County
Pharmaceutical Assn., Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, 460 U.S. 150, 161,
n. 21 (1983). Furthermore, as explained in United States v. Herron,
20 Wall. 251, 255 (1874), even the principle as applied to the enacting
Sovereign is not without limitations: "Where an act of Parliament is
made for the public good, as for the advancement of religion and justice
or to prevent injury and wrong, the king is bound by such act, though
not particularly named therein; but where a statute is general, and
thereby any prerogative, Right, title, or interest is divested or taken
from the king, in such case the king is not bound, unless the statute is
made to extend to him by express words."
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Holmes explained:
"A Sovereign is exempt from suit, not because of any formal conception
or obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical ground that there
can be no legal Right as against the authority that makes the law on
which the Right depends." Kawananakoa v. Polyblank, 205 U.S. 349, 353,
27 S. Ct. 526,
527, 51 L. Ed. 834 (1907).
The majority of American states fully embrace the Sovereign immunity
theory as well as the federal government. See Restatement (Second) of
Torts 895B, comment at 400 (1979).
The following U.S. Supreme Court case makes clear all these principals.
I shall have occasion incidentally to evince, how true it is, that
states and governments were made for man; and at the same time how true
it is, that his creatures and servants have first deceived, next
vilified, and at last oppressed their master and maker.
... A state, useful and valuable as the contrivance is, is the inferior
contrivance of man; and from his native dignity derives all its acquired
importance. ...
Let a state be considered as subordinate to the people: But let
everything else be subordinate to the state. The latter part of this
position is equally necessary with the former. For in the practice, and
even at length, in the science of politics there has very frequently
been a strong current against the natural order of things, and an
inconsiderate or an interested disposition to sacrifice the end to the
means. As the state has claimed precedence of the people; so, in the
same inverted course of things, the government has often claimed
precedence of the state; and to this perversion in the second degree,
many of the volumes of confusion concerning Sovereignty owe their
existence. The ministers, dignified very properly by the appellation of
the magistrates, have wished, and have succeeded in their wish, to be
considered as the Sovereigns of the state. This second degree of
perversion is confined to the old world, and begins to diminish even
there: but the first degree is still too prevalent even in the several
states, of which our union is composed. By a state I mean, a complete
body of free persons united together for their common benefit, to enjoy
peaceably what is their own, and to do justice to others. It is an
artificial person. It has its affairs and its interests: It has its
rules: It has its Rights: and it has its obligations. It may acquire
property distinct from that of its members. It may incur debts to be
discharged out of the public stock, not out of the private fortunes of
individuals. It may be bound by contracts; and for damages arising from
the breach of those contracts. In all our contemplations, however,
concerning this feigned and artificial person, we should never forget,
that, in truth and nature, those who think and speak and act, are men.
Is the foregoing description of a state a true description? It will not
be questioned, but it is. ...
It will be sufficient to observe briefly, that the Sovereignties in
Europe, and particularly in England, exist on feudal principles. That
system considers the prince as the Sovereign, and the people as his
subjects; it regards his person as the object of allegiance, and
excludes the idea of his being on an equal footing with a subject,
either in a court of justice or elsewhere. That system contemplates him
as being the fountain of honor and authority; and from his grace and
grant derives all franchise, immunities and privileges; it is easy to
perceive that such a Sovereign could not be amenable to a court of
justice, or subjected to judicial control and actual constraint. It was
of necessity, therefore, that suability, became incompatible with such
Sovereignty. Besides, the prince having all the executive powers, the
judgment of the courts would, in fact, be only monitory, not mandatory
to him, and a capacity to be advised, is a distinct thing from a
capacity to be sued. The same feudal ideas run through all their
jurisprudence, and constantly remind us of the distinction between the
prince and the subject.
No such ideas obtain here(speaking of America): at the revolution, the
Sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the Sovereigns of
the country, but they are Sovereigns without subjects (unless the
African slaves among us may be so called) and have none to govern but
themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as
joint tenants in the Sovereignty. Chisholm v. Georgia (February Term,
1793) 2 U.S. 419, 2 Dall. 419, 1 L.Ed 440.
There are many ways you can give up your Sovereign power and accept the
role of "person." One is by receiving state benefits. Another is by
asking permission in the form of a license or permit from the state.
One of the subtlest ways of accepting the role of "person," is to answer
the questions of bureaucrats. When a state bureaucrat knocks on your
door and wants to know why your children aren't registered in school, or
a police officer pulls you over and starts asking questions, you
immediately fill the office of "person" if you start answering their
questions.
It is for this reason that you should ignore or refuse to "answer" their
questions and instead act like a true Sovereign, a King or Queen, and
ask only your own questions of them.
You are not a "person" subject to their laws.
If they persist and haul you into their court unlawfully, your response
to the judge is simple and direct, you the Sovereign, must tell him :
I have no need to answer you in this matter.
It is none of your business whether I understand my Rights or whether I
understand your fictitious charges.
It is none of your business whether I want counsel.
The reason it is none of your business is because I am not a person
regulated by the state. I do not hold any position or office where I am
subject to the legislature. The state legislature does not dictate what
I do.
I am a free Sovereign "Man"(or woman) and I am a political power holder
as lawfully decreed in the State Constitution at article I (or II) and
that constitution is controlling over you..
You must NEVER retain or hire an attorney, a state officer of the court,
to speak or file written documents for you. Use an attorney (if you
must) only for counsel and advice about their "legal" system. If you
retain an attorney to represent you and speak in your place, you become
"NON COMPOS MENTIS", not mentally competent, and you are then considered
a ward of the court. You LOSE all your Rights, and you will not be
permitted to do anything herein.
The judge knows that as long as he remains in his office, he is backed
by the awesome power of the state, its lawyers, police and prisons. The
judge will try to force you to abandon your Sovereign sanctuary by
threatening you with jail. No matter what happens, if you remain
faithful to your Sovereignty, The judge and the state may not lawfully
move against you.
The state did not create the office of Sovereign political power holder.
Therefore, they do not regulate and control those in the office of
Sovereign. They cannot ascribe penalties for breach of that particular
office. The reason they have no authority over the office of the
Sovereign is because they did not create it and the Sovereign people did
not delegate to them any such power.
When challenged, simply remind them that they do not regulate any office
of the Sovereign and that their statutes only apply to those state
employees in legislative created offices.
This Sovereign individual paradigm is explained by the following U.S.
Supreme Court case:
"The individual may stand upon his constitutional Rights as a citizen.
He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His
power to contract is unlimited. He owes no such duty [to submit his
books and papers for an examination] to the State, since he receives
nothing there from, beyond the protection of his life and property. His
Rights are such as existed by the law of the land [Common Law] long
antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from
him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution.
Among his Rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity
of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a
warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does
not trespass upon their Rights." Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at 47
(1905).
Let us analyze this case. It says, "The individual may stand upon his
constitutional Rights." It does not say, "Sit on his Rights." There is a
principle here: "If you don't use 'em you lose 'em." You have to assert
your Rights, demand them, "stand upon" them.
Next it says, "He is entitled to carry on his private business in his
own way." It says "private business" - you have a Right to operate a
private business. Then it says "in his own way." It doesn't say "in the
government's way."
Then it says, "His power to contract is unlimited." As a Sovereign
individual, your power to contract is unlimited. In common law there
are certain criteria that determine the validity of contracts. They are
not important here, except that any contract that would harm others or
violate their Rights would be invalid. For example, a "contract" to
kill someone is not a valid contract. Apart from this obvious
qualification, your power to contract is unlimited.
Next it says, "He owes no such duty [to submit his books and papers for
an examination] to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom,
beyond the protection of his life and property." The court case
contrasted the duty of the corporation (an entity created by government
permission - feudal paradigm) to the duty of the Sovereign individual.
The Sovereign individual doesn't need and didn't receive permission from
the government, hence has no duty to the government.
Then it says, "His Rights are such as existed by the law of the land
[Common Law] long antecedent to the organization of the State." This is
very important. The Supreme Court recognized that humans have inherent
Rights. The U.S. Constitution (including the Bill of Rights) does not
grant us Rights. We have fundamental Rights, irrespective of what the
Constitution says. The Constitution acknowledges some of our Rights.
And Amendment IX states, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of
certain Rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others
retained by the people." The important point is that our Rights antecede
(come before, are senior to) the organization of the state.
Next the Supreme Court says, "And [his Rights] can only be taken from
him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution."
Does it say the government can take away your Rights? No! Your Rights
can only be taken away "by due process of law, and in accordance with
the Constitution." "Due process of law" involves procedures and
safeguards such as trial by jury. "Trial by jury" means, inter alia,
the jury judges both law and fact.
Then the case says, "Among his Rights are a refusal to incriminate
himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or
seizure except under a warrant of the law." These are some of the Rights
of a Sovereign individual. Sovereign individuals need not report
anything about themselves or their businesses to anyone.
Finally, the Supreme Court says, "He owes nothing to the public so long
as he does not trespass upon their Rights." The Sovereign individual
does not have to pay taxes.
If you should discuss Hale v. Henkel with a run-of-the-mill attorney,
he or she will tell you that the case is "old" and that it has been
"overturned." If you ask that attorney for a citation of the case or
cases that overturned Hale v. Henkel, there will not be a meaningful
response. The OUTLAWS have researched Hale v. Henkel and here is what
we found :
"We know that Hale v. Henkel was decided in 1905 in the U.S. Supreme
Court. Since it was the Supreme Court, the case is binding on all
courts of the land, until another Supreme Court case says it isn't. Has
another Supreme Court case overturned Hale v. Henkel? The answer is
NO. As a matter of fact, since 1905, the Supreme Court has cited Hale
v. Henkel a total of 144 times. A fact more astounding is that since
1905, Hale v. Henkel has been cited by all of the federal and state
appellate court systems a total of over 1600 times. None of the various
issues of this case has ever been overruled.
So if the state through the office of the judge continues to threaten or
does imprison you, they are trying to force you into the state created
office of "person." As long as you continue to claim your Rightful
office of Sovereign, the state lacks all jurisdiction over you. The
state needs someone filling the office of "person" in order to continue
prosecuting a case in their courts.
A few weeks in jail puts intense pressure upon most "persons." Jail
means the loss of job opportunities, separation from loved ones, and the
piling up of debts. Judges will apply this pressure when they attempt
to arraign you. When brought in chains before a crowded courtroom the
issue of counsel will quickly come up and you can tell the court you are
in propria persona or simply "PRO PER", as your own counsel and you need
no other.
Do not sign their papers or cooperate with them because most things
about your life are private and are not the state's business to
evaluate. Here is the Sovereign peoples command in the constitution
that the state respect their privacy :
Right of privacy -- Every man or woman has the Right to be let alone and
free from governmental intrusion into their private life except as
otherwise provided herein. This section shall not be construed to limit
the public's Right of access to public records and meetings as provided
by law.
If the judge is stupid enough to actually follow through with his
threats and send you to jail, you will soon be released without even
being arraigned and all charges will be dropped. You will then have
documented prima facie grounds for false arrest and false imprisonment
charges against him personally.
Now that you know the hidden evil in the word "person", Try to stop
using it in everyday conversation. Simply use the correct term, MAN or
WOMAN. Train yourself, your family and your friends to never use the
derogatory word "person" ever again.
This can be your first step in the journey to get yourself free from all
state control.
From the post of: Billy-Joe Mauldin (Texas) <wildb...@earthlink.net>
Posted by:
Eldon Warman
http://www.detaxcanada.org
Gordon Burditt
>entitled "Definitions." Carefully study this section of the statutes and
>you will find a portion that reads similar to this excerpt:
>
>In construing these statutes and each and every word, phrase, or part
>hereof, where the context will permit:
>
>(1) The singular includes the plural and vice versa.
What is the singular of the word "people"?
>(2) Gender-specific language includes the other gender and neuter.
>
>(3) The word "person" includes individuals, children, firms,
>associations, joint adventures, partnerships, estates, trusts, business
>trusts, syndicates, fiduciaries, corporations, and all other groups or
>combinations.
>
>NOTE HOWEVER, THE DEFINITIONS STATUTE DOES NOT LIST MAN OR WOMAN --
>THEREFORE THEY ARE EXCLUDED FROM ALL THE STATUTES !!!
Note, however, that this does include the word "individuals".
>This Sovereign individual paradigm is explained by the following U.S.
>Supreme Court case:
>
>"The individual may stand upon his constitutional Rights as a citizen.
>He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His
>power to contract is unlimited. He owes no such duty [to submit his
>books and papers for an examination] to the State, since he receives
>nothing there from, beyond the protection of his life and property. His
>Rights are such as existed by the law of the land [Common Law] long
>antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from
>him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution.
>Among his Rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity
>of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a
>warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does
>not trespass upon their Rights." Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at 47
>(1905).
A sovereign individual is an individual.
An individual is a person, by the definition of person quoted above.
A person is subject to various laws such as motor vehicle codes
and income taxes.
Therefore, a sovereign individual is subject to various laws such
as motor vehicle codes and income taxes.
Please note that just because I believe the income tax exists (in
both the USA and Canada) and that EG Warman is subject to it, doesn't
mean I like it. There is a difference between something not existing
and wishing something doesn't exist. Some people seem to have
problems understanding the difference.
Gordon L. Burditt
Mike Kemp
Gordon Burditt wrote:
>One of the very first of your state statutes will have a section listed
>entitled "Definitions." Carefully study this section of the statutes and
>you will find a portion that reads similar to this excerpt:
>
>In construing these statutes and each and every word, phrase, or part
>hereof, where the context will permit:
>
>(1) The singular includes the plural and vice versa.What is the singular of the word "people"?
>(2) Gender-specific language includes the other gender and neuter.
>
>(3) The word "person" includes individuals, children, firms,
>associations, joint adventures, partnerships, estates, trusts, business
>trusts, syndicates, fiduciaries, corporations, and all other groups or
>combinations.
>
>NOTE HOWEVER, THE DEFINITIONS STATUTE DOES NOT LIST MAN OR WOMAN --
>THEREFORE THEY ARE EXCLUDED FROM ALL THE STATUTES !!!Note, however, that this does include the word "individuals".
individual what?
StaR
Burditt) wrote:
>>One of the very first of your state statutes will have a section listed
>>entitled "Definitions." Carefully study this section of the statutes and
>>you will find a portion that reads similar to this excerpt:
>>
>>In construing these statutes and each and every word, phrase, or part
>>hereof, where the context will permit:
>>
>>(1) The singular includes the plural and vice versa.
>
>What is the singular of the word "people"?
>
>>(2) Gender-specific language includes the other gender and neuter.
>>
>>(3) The word "person" includes individuals, children, firms,
>>associations, joint adventures, partnerships, estates, trusts, business
>>trusts, syndicates, fiduciaries, corporations, and all other groups or
>>combinations.
>>
>>NOTE HOWEVER, THE DEFINITIONS STATUTE DOES NOT LIST MAN OR WOMAN --
>>THEREFORE THEY ARE EXCLUDED FROM ALL THE STATUTES !!!
>
>Note, however, that this does include the word "individuals".
>
At law, an INDIVIDUAL is a SINGLE PERSON - NOT a single woman or man
as you have just tried to infer here. When the CORPORATE LAW (laws
created by the CORPORATE BODY) addresses an "individual", the
reference is the FICTITIOUS (created by the LAW) LEGAL ENTITY known as
a PERSON.
----------
The Century Dictionary
http://216.156.253.178/CENTURY/index.html
individual
3. Of but one person or thing; pertaining or peculiar to, or
characteristic of, a single person or thing, or each separate person
or thing: opposed to collective: as, individual character; individual
labor or effort; individual action.
----------
Black's Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition, The West Group © 1999.
Individual. adj. 1. Existing as an indivisible entity. 2. Of or
relating to a single person or thing, as opposed to a group.
----------
Webster's 1828 Dictionary
CORPORATION, n. A body politic or corporate, formed and authorized by
law to act as a single person; a society having the capacity of
transacting business as an individual.
----------
DUHAIME'S LAW DICTIONARY
Person
Individuals are "persons" in law unless they are minors or under some
kind of other incapacity...
----------
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth
Edition
indi·vidu·al·ly adv.
Usage Note: The noun individual is normally used to refer to an
individual person as opposed to a larger social group or as
distinguished from others by some special quality:
----------
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary
individual
2. Of or pertaining to one only; peculiar to, or characteristic of, a
single person or thing; distinctive; as, individual traits of
character; individual exertions; individual peculiarities.
----------
WordNet 1997 Princeton University
individual
adj 1: being or characteristic of a single thing or person;
"individual drops of rain"; "please mark the individual pages"; "they
went their individual ways" [ant: common]
----------
>
>>This Sovereign individual paradigm is explained by the following U.S.
>>Supreme Court case:
>>
>>"The individual may stand upon his constitutional Rights as a citizen.
>>He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His
>>power to contract is unlimited. He owes no such duty [to submit his
>>books and papers for an examination] to the State, since he receives
>>nothing there from, beyond the protection of his life and property. His
>>Rights are such as existed by the law of the land [Common Law] long
>>antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from
>>him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution.
>>Among his Rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity
>>of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a
>>warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does
>>not trespass upon their Rights." Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at 47
>>(1905).
>
>A sovereign individual is an individual.
>An individual is a person, by the definition of person quoted above.
>A person is subject to various laws such as motor vehicle codes
>and income taxes.
>
There is no such thing as a SOVEREIGN individual. At law, an
INDIVIDUAL is a SINGLE PERSON. A PERSON is a LEGAL EXISTENCE, a LEGAL
IDENTITY that is ESTABLISHED (created) by the LAW. It EXISTS in
contemplation of the law ONLY.
>Therefore, a sovereign individual is subject to various laws such
>as motor vehicle codes and income taxes.
See above.
>
>Please note that just because I believe the income tax exists (in
>both the USA and Canada) and that EG Warman is subject to it, doesn't
>mean I like it. There is a difference between something not existing
>and wishing something doesn't exist. Some people seem to have
>problems understanding the difference.
>
> Gordon L. Burditt
Some people think that at LAW an "individual" means a "man" or
"woman". Some people seem to have problems understanding the
difference between a MAN and the PERSON of a MAN.
----------
"The signification in Our Jurisprudence .... The word ‘Person,’ in its
primitive and natural sense, signifies the mask with which actors, who
played dramatic pieces in Rome and Greece, covered their heads. These
pieces were played in public places. and afterwards in Such vast
amphitheaters that it was impossible for a man to make himself heard
by all the spectators. Recourse was had to art; the head of each actor
was enveloped with a mask, the figure of which represented the Part he
was to play, and it was so contrived that the opening for the emission
of his voice made the sounds clearer and more resounding, vox
personabat, when the name persona was given to the instrument or mask
which facilitated the resounding of his voice. The name persona was
afterwards applied to the part itself which the actor had undertaken
to play, because the face of the mask was adapted to the age and
character of him who was considered as speaking, and sometimes it was
his own portrait. It is in this last sense of personage, or of the
part which an individual plays, that the word persona is employed in
jurisprudence, in opposition to the word man, homo. When we speak of a
person, we only consider the state of the man, the part he plays in
society, abstractly, without considering the individual". 1
Bouvier’s Institutes, note 1.
----------
StaR
Jimmy
few years back. Never had to pay the fines levied against my alleged
person though as I never took responsibility for the "person" that was
ticketed and subsequently fined for failing to carry a valid insurance
card and driver's license on 4 seperate occasions. A third party
collection agency took care of that. And no, the collection agency has
no standing to collect anything from me, the man who is different from
the "person". A delite to read this info.
Naturally, this will cause the demons to blow fire and smoke from deep
within the pit of their evil stomachs again.
Jimmy
egwa...@outgun.com (EG Warman) wrote in message news:<2005a7f1.02122...@posting.google.com>...
Detax Unmasked
>Please note that just because I believe the income tax exists (in
>both the USA and Canada) and that EG Warman is subject to it, doesn't
>mean I like it. There is a difference between something not existing
>and wishing something doesn't exist. Some people seem to have
>problems understanding the difference.
Very well said.
(And BTW, Eldon's private definition of "person" was debunked many
months ago. See
http://www.visi.com/~fredg/detax_unmasked/person.html)
====
Learn the facts about Eldon Warman and Detax Canada at:
http://www.visi.com/~fredg/detax_unmasked/
Ron
> gordon...@sneaky.lerctr.org (Gordon Burditt) wrote:
>
> >Please note that just because I believe the income tax exists (in
> >both the USA and Canada) and that EG Warman is subject to it, doesn't
> >mean I like it. There is a difference between something not existing
> >and wishing something doesn't exist. Some people seem to have
> >problems understanding the difference.
>
> Very well said.
>
> (And BTW, Eldon's private definition of "person" was debunked many
> months ago.
The above allegation coming from someone who spent the better part of
a year replying to posts with, "BZZZZZZZZT.....SAS informs me....",
all of which came to a screeching halt when his good buddy Rayder
posted;
"Fred was the one promoting the sunrise in the west
theory. The ONLY one buying that theory was himself
and the rest of YOU fools."
Quantrell
> detax_u...@hotmail.com (Detax Unmasked) wrote in message news:<3e0fc6e7...@news.visi.com>...
> > gordon...@sneaky.lerctr.org (Gordon Burditt) wrote:
> >
> > >Please note that just because I believe the income tax exists (in
> > >both the USA and Canada) and that EG Warman is subject to it, doesn't
> > >mean I like it. There is a difference between something not existing
> > >and wishing something doesn't exist. Some people seem to have
> > >problems understanding the difference.
> >
> > Very well said.
> >
> > (And BTW, Eldon's private definition of "person" was debunked many
> > months ago.
>
>
>
> The above allegation coming from someone who spent the better part of
> a year replying to posts with, "BZZZZZZZZT.....SAS informs me....",
> all of which came to a screeching halt when his good buddy Rayder
> posted;
>
> "Fred was the one promoting the sunrise in the west
> theory. The ONLY one buying that theory was himself
> and the rest of YOU fools."
MoRon,
Your sad attempts at character assassination do not change the fact
that the private definition of "person" which you detax fools have
adopted has no basis in law, custom or reality.
Q
Quantrell
The conclusions reached in the post below have no basis in law.
Q
egwa...@outgun.com (EG Warman) wrote in message news:<2005a7f1.02122...@posting.google.com>...
EG Warman
>
> What is the singular of the word "people"?
>
And, since it refers to men (and women) as a grouping,
one must refer to the context of the word's usage to
comprehend the status of the men or women in that group.
In the Magna Carta term "ecclesia", sometimes translated
as "people", it meant the "congregation of Christians".
Their status was that of Sons of God - sovereign individual
men and women.
In the Constitution of the UNITED STATES, "the People" meant,
(regardless the incorrect assumptions of Americans) the
"crewmembers" (men as corporate body parts) of the make-believe
ship (body politic), and defined legal entity called the
(proper noun) State. This puts the men and women thus defined
as subjects/servants/slaves/citizens(slaves who are given some
privilege rights and freedoms for fielty and tribute to the State.
>
> >NOTE HOWEVER, THE DEFINITIONS STATUTE DOES NOT LIST MAN OR WOMAN --
> >THEREFORE THEY ARE EXCLUDED FROM ALL THE STATUTES !!!
>
> Note, however, that this does include the word "individuals".
>
Yes, but "individual" what. If you assume that it is a man or woman,
then what is their status? - free will individual man; or, a man
of slave/corporate body part status?
> A sovereign individual is an individual.
Only if you have pre-defined the individual as a man or woman.
And then, you have recognized that this man or woman is
not of slave/corporate entity status, would it be a sovereign
individual. "Individual" is NOT a noun that can stand alone
and be definitive. It only stands when the "individual" is
known by context. I see "individual" snowflakes falling from
the sky.
> An individual is a person, by the definition of person quoted above.
But, when did a word (person-persona) that is clearly definitive
of an actor's role (mask) become a definitive word for a flesh and
blood free will man? Now, when a man is reduced in status to that
of a slave/servant, he no longer has free will, and with that, out
go rights. The man ceases to be a free will Son of God, and becomes
a body part to a corporate entity - a make-believe ship (or the
totally subservient property of another man).
> A person is subject to various laws such as motor vehicle codes
> and income taxes.
>
In the status of a servant/subject/slave of the State, yes.
> Therefore, a sovereign individual is subject to various laws such
> as motor vehicle codes and income taxes.
>
A wrong conclusion resulting from ignorance or intended deceit.
> Please note that just because I believe the income tax exists (in
> both the USA and Canada) and that EG Warman is subject to it, doesn't
> mean I like it.
Eldon-Gerald: Warman is "not" subject to anything, or anyone, except
my Heavenly Father.
ELDON GERALD WARMAN was "maybe" subject to the income tax until
Eldon-Gerald: Warman laid common law copyright claim to the legal
entity ELDON GERALD WARMAN which was created by the Crown and
attached to the body of Eldon-Gerald: Warman, under the legal maxim
"accessio cedit principali"; and further, has indebted by lawful
lien under UCC/PPSA that legal entity under right of bottomry.
> There is a difference between something not existing
> and wishing something doesn't exist. Some people seem to have
> problems understanding the difference.
There is also a difference between someone who knows of the devious
scams, hoaxes and fraud which has been perpretrated upon the people
of north America, and those who wish to remain ignorant of the facts,
and wish to remain as ignorant slaves.
Eldon Warman
http://www.detaxcanada.org
>Gordon L. Burditt
EG Warman
> gordon...@sneaky.lerctr.org (Gordon Burditt) wrote:
>
> >Please note that just because I believe the income tax exists (in
> >both the USA and Canada) and that EG Warman is subject to it, doesn't
> >mean I like it. There is a difference between something not existing
> >and wishing something doesn't exist. Some people seem to have
> >problems understanding the difference.
>
> Very well said.
>
> (And BTW, Eldon's private definition of "person" was debunked many
> months ago. See
> http://www.visi.com/~fredg/detax_unmasked/person.html)
>
who keep telling us that modern day Jews have a "right" to
the land of the Palestinian people? Sure!!! Freddie.....
EG Warman
> ban...@hotmail.com (Ron) wrote in message news:<436a5d81.0212...@posting.google.com>...
> > detax_u...@hotmail.com (Detax Unmasked) wrote in message news:<3e0fc6e7...@news.visi.com>...
> > > gordon...@sneaky.lerctr.org (Gordon Burditt) wrote:
> > >
> > > >Please note that just because I believe the income tax exists (in
> > > >both the USA and Canada) and that EG Warman is subject to it, doesn't
> > > >mean I like it. There is a difference between something not existing
> > > >and wishing something doesn't exist. Some people seem to have
> > > >problems understanding the difference.
> > >
> > > Very well said.
> > >
> > > (And BTW, Eldon's private definition of "person" was debunked many
> > > months ago.
> >
> >
> >
> > The above allegation coming from someone who spent the better part of
> > a year replying to posts with, "BZZZZZZZZT.....SAS informs me....",
> > all of which came to a screeching halt when his good buddy Rayder
> > posted;
> >
> > "Fred was the one promoting the sunrise in the west
> > theory. The ONLY one buying that theory was himself
> > and the rest of YOU fools."
>
> MoRon,
>
> Your sad attempts at character assassination do not change the fact
> that the private definition of "person" which you detax fools have
> adopted has no basis in law, custom or reality.
>
> Q
What "law" are you talking about Rayder? Talmudic law?
Talmudic custom? The "reality" of make believe of the
Zionists?
Eldon Warman
http://www.detaxcanada.org
Detax Unmasked
>Gordon Burditt wrote...
>>
>> What is the singular of the word "people"?
>>
>"people" is singular.
False. "People" is plural.
Look it up at www.m-w.com ...
... oh, I forgot, you're too busy making it up to take the time to
look it up ... (8-(
StaR
Unmasked) wrote:
>egwa...@outgun.com (EG Warman) wrote:
>
>>Gordon Burditt wrote...
>>>
>>> What is the singular of the word "people"?
>>>
>>"people" is singular.
>
>False. "People" is plural.
>
>Look it up at www.m-w.com ...
>
>... oh, I forgot, you're too busy making it up to take the time to
>look it up ... (8-(
>
What a PATHETIC "freak". Doesn't even have the faculty to understand
what he reads.
----------
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth
Edition
Usage Note: As a term meaning "a body of persons sharing a culture,"
people is a singular noun, as in As a people the Pueblo were
noteworthy for their peacefulness. Its plural is peoples: the many and
varied peoples of West Africa.
----------
>
>====
>
>Learn the facts about Eldon Warman and Detax Canada at:
>http://www.visi.com/~fredg/detax_unmasked/
Oh how DESPERATE our resident DCG's are getting.
StaR
Quantrell
> > > >
> > > > >Please note that just because I believe the income tax exists (in
> > > > >both the USA and Canada) and that EG Warman is subject to it, doesn't
> > > > >mean I like it. There is a difference between something not existing
> > > > >and wishing something doesn't exist. Some people seem to have
> > > > >problems understanding the difference.
> > > >
> > > > Very well said.
> > > >
> > > > (And BTW, Eldon's private definition of "person" was debunked many
> > > > months ago.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The above allegation coming from someone who spent the better part of
> > > a year replying to posts with, "BZZZZZZZZT.....SAS informs me....",
> > > all of which came to a screeching halt when his good buddy Rayder
> > > posted;
> > >
> > > "Fred was the one promoting the sunrise in the west
> > > theory. The ONLY one buying that theory was himself
> > > and the rest of YOU fools."
> >
> > MoRon,
> >
> > Your sad attempts at character assassination do not change the fact
> > that the private definition of "person" which you detax fools have
> > adopted has no basis in law, custom or reality.
> >
> > Q
>
> Talmudic custom? The "reality" of make believe of the
> Zionists?
Q 2) What law do you think I am speaking of?
Substance is required.
@reefermadness.org Smokin'
always agree with his arguments, but I certainly do agree with him that
forcing free men to pay taxes for stuff they do not want and quite possibly
find repugnant is, well, repugnant. This is no way to run a liberal western
democracy or a supposedly "free" country. Regardless of the various legal
arguments and definitions, forcing dissenters to obey (and pay) is akin to
slavery.
"Quantrell" <majorqu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a21d998d.02123...@posting.google.com...
McGyver
news:2005a7f1.02122...@posting.google.com.... . .
> The word "person" in legal terminology is perceived as a general word
> which normally includes in its scope a variety of entities other than
> human beings. See e.g. 1 U.S.C. sec 1. Church of Scientology v.
> U.S. Dept. of Justice (1979) 612 F.2d 417, 425.
> (3) The word "person" includes individuals, children, firms,
> associations, joint adventures, partnerships, estates, trusts, business
> trusts, syndicates, fiduciaries, corporations, and all other groups or
> combinations.
> NOTE HOWEVER, THE DEFINITIONS STATUTE DOES NOT LIST MAN OR WOMAN --
> THEREFORE THEY ARE EXCLUDED FROM ALL THE STATUTES !!!
> Under the rule of construction "expressio unius est exclusio alterius,"
> where a statute or Constitution enumerates the things on which it is to
> operate or forbids certain things, it is ordinarily to be construed as
> excluding from its operation all those not expressly mentioned.
Your post is a classic. I have saved it. I occasionally suffer from a
compulsion to explain how crackpots arrive at their impossible theories.
Your intentional misinterpretation of law provides an excellent example.
Humans are not persons under the law, humans are not subject to any
legislative law or regulation by the government until they hold an office
such as "Person" or become wards of the court? That's priceless. I am in a
profession which sometimes involves imaginative interpretations of law, so
that it comes out favorable to a client. But I'm not in your league.
McGyver
Douglas Hollingsworth
"Gordon Burditt" <gordon...@sneaky.lerctr.org> wrote in message
news:47623D5EE68DB109.805BC07C...@lp.airnews.net...
You leave out the fact that the above "individual" isn't in the code.
United States Code
TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle F - Procedure and Administration
CHAPTER 68 - ADDITIONS TO THE TAX, ADDITIONAL AMOUNTS, AND ASSESSABLE
PENALTIES
Subchapter B - Assessable Penalties
PART I - GENERAL PROVISIONS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Penalty assessed as tax The penalties and liabilities provided by this
subchapter shall be paid upon notice and demand by the Secretary, and shall
be assessed and collected in the same manner as taxes. Except as otherwise
provided, any reference in this title to ''tax'' imposed by this title shall
be deemed also to refer to the penalties and liabilities provided by this
subchapter. (b) Person defined The term ''person'', as used in this
subchapter, includes an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or
employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or member is under
a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs.
This is from the Hale v. Henkel cite:
"...He owes no such duty [to submit his
books and papers for an examination] to the State,...".
So the individual to which you refer in your cite
cannot be the "person/individual" under duty.
because HE OWES NO SUCH DUTY.
However, the Hale v. Helkel cite does not apply
to "individuals" found in the tax code.
U.S. Supreme Court
BRASWELL v. UNITED STATES, 487 U.S. 99 (1988)
487 U.S. 99
BRASWELL v. UNITED STATES
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 87-3.
Argued March 1, 1988
Decided June 22, 1988
If petitioner had conducted his business as a sole proprietorship,
United States v. Doe, 465 U.S. 605 ,
would require that he be provided the opportunity to show that his act of
production
would entail testimonial self-incrimination as to admissions that the
records existed,
were in his possession, and were authentic.
However, representatives of a collective entity act as agents,
and the official records of the organization that are held by them in a
representative
rather than a personal capacity cannot be the subject of their personal
privilege
against self-incrimination, even though production of the papers might tend
to incriminate them
personally. The plain mandate of the precedents is that the corporate entity
doctrine applies
regardless of the corporation's size, and regardless of whether the subpoena
is addressed
[487 U.S. 99, 100] to the corporation or, as here,
to the individual in his capacity as the records' custodian.
Any claim of Fifth Amendment privilege asserted by the agent would be
tantamount
to a claim of privilege by the corporation, which possesses no such
privilege.
No individual found in the tax code that is under duty to open
his books and papers for examination has a 5th amendment privilege.
>
> Please note that just because I believe the income tax exists (in
> both the USA and Canada) and that EG Warman is subject to it, doesn't
> mean I like it. There is a difference between something not existing
> and wishing something doesn't exist. Some people seem to have
> problems understanding the difference.
What about when it doesn't really exist and they want to force you
to believe it does exist. Title 26 does recognize our 5th amendment right.
But, it doesn't call us an "individual" when it does so.
It designates us with a distinct expression so as not to confuse
us with the "individuals" with no 5th amendment "privilege".
Sec. 5848. Restrictive use of information
TITLE 26,
Subtitle E, "Alcohol, Tobacco, and Certain Other Excise Taxes"
CHAPTER 53, "Machine Guns, Destructive Devices..."
Subchapter B, PART I, Sec. 5848
STATUTE
(a) General rule
No information or evidence obtained from an application, registration,
or records required to be submitted or retained by a natural person
in order to comply with any provision of this chapter or regulations issued
thereunder,
shall, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, be used,
directly or indirectly,
as evidence against that person in a criminal proceeding with respect to a
violation of law
occurring prior to or concurrently with the filing of the application or
registration,
or the compiling of the records containing the information or evidence.
(b) Furnishing false information
Subsection (a) of this section shall not preclude the use of any such
information
or evidence in a prosecution or other action under any applicable provision
of law
with respect to the furnishing of false information.
The above does not apply to the class of "individual" found in the tax code.
It only applies to "natural persons".
A distinct expression found NOWHERE in the income tax code.
The term "individual" is not a distinct expression to include "natural
persons"
and for enforcement of the tax, cannot be "included" without one.
Parallel authorities for 26 USC 6331 (from CFR)
"...The terms ``includes'' and ``including'' do not exclude things
not enumerated which are in the same general class."
NOTE: Most IRC definitions avoid using the term "means" because
Congress only intended to include certain classes.
So, "individuals" with no 5th amendment "privilege" are a different class
from "individuals" with a 5th amendment "right". Only distict expressions
of the former class exists. No distinct expression of an "individual" with
a 5th amendment "right" can be shown as intended by Congress.
They are manifestly and Constitutionally incompatible.
Sec. 7701. - Definitions (a)
When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed
or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof -
--
There are none so blind as those that will not see.
Israel
Quantrell
Q) Don't try to make too much of this case. It relates to testimony
given before a grand jury, not the obligation to file a 1040.
Q) Again, don't make to much of this.
The import here is that anyone who suspects he is going to be charged
with or investiagted for, a tax crime doesn't have to trow his books
open at the request of the IRS.
> > Please note that just because I believe the income tax exists (in
> > both the USA and Canada) and that EG Warman is subject to it, doesn't
> > mean I like it. There is a difference between something not existing
> > and wishing something doesn't exist. Some people seem to have
> > problems understanding the difference.
>
> What about when it doesn't really exist and they want to force you
> to believe it does exist. Title 26 does recognize our 5th amendment right.
> But, it doesn't call us an "individual" when it does so.
> It designates us with a distinct expression so as not to confuse
> us with the "individuals" with no 5th amendment "privilege".
Q) Bunk. Case law says the exact opposite. One may claim one's 5th
amendment privilege the moment one suspects he is being investigated.
Q) Just more word parsing bunk.
Don't you detax personas ever learn?
Israel
Yes, but, it makes a distinction between a "person/individual"
with that right, from the ones distinctly expressed in the tax code
that don't have that right and are the individual
under duty to report and pay the income taxes for the 7701 "person".
Two classes of persons/individuals are pointed out in the case.
Only one of which is distinctly expressed in the income tax code.
The other being manifestly incompatible with the intent of the
definition(s).
Sec. 7701. - Definitions (a)
When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed
or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof -
When what is used in this title? Answer: "Definitions".
Where what is not otherwise distinctly expressed? Answer: "Definitions".
Manifestly incompatible with the intent of what? Answer: "Definitions".
Meaning that if the IRS is investigating you.
You should not fear being accused/charged of a tax crime.
Yeah, right. Nobody worries about that.
Again you fail to see the distinction made above.
A sole proprietor has that right.
No one distinctly expressed in the tax code does.
See IRC cited previously above.
> > > Please note that just because I believe the income tax exists (in
> > > both the USA and Canada) and that EG Warman is subject to it, doesn't
> > > mean I like it. There is a difference between something not existing
> > > and wishing something doesn't exist. Some people seem to have
> > > problems understanding the difference.
> >
> > What about when it doesn't really exist and they want to force you
> > to believe it does exist. Title 26 does recognize our 5th amendment
right.
> > But, it doesn't call us an "individual" when it does so.
> > It designates us with a distinct expression so as not to confuse
> > us with the "individuals" with no 5th amendment "privilege".
>
> Q) Bunk. Case law says the exact opposite. One may claim one's 5th
> amendment privilege the moment one suspects he is being investigated.
WRONG. Read the above case again.
Now read the distinct expressions in the IRC cited above.
NONE of them can claim the 5th.
Different class of individuals that those that can claim that right.
Also, manifestly incompatible.
NOTE: Sole proprietor is not even expressed here.
Except as otherwise provided, any reference in this title
to ''tax'' imposed by this title shall be deemed also to refer to
the penalties and liabilities provided by this subchapter.
(b) Person defined The term ''person'', as used in this
subchapter, includes an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member
or
employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or member is
under
a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs.
NOTE: "any reference in this title
to ''tax'' imposed by this title shall be deemed also to refer to
the penalties and liabilities provided by this subchapter."
> >
Question: What does "means and includes" do that "includes" does not.
Answer: includes the actual meaning of the term.