Update 2 Fwd: RE: The current Income Tax System since 1954 has applied ONLY to Washington D.C.!
Bob Hurt
| Subject: | Re: Please read and give me your analysis of this essay on "The current Income Tax System since 1954 has applied ONLY to Washington D.C.!" |
|---|---|
| Date: | Sun, 2 Feb 2020 11:29:10 -0500 |
| From: | Pete Hendrickson <phendr...@losthorizons.com> |
Peymon, thank you for resubmitting this in written form. That's very helpful.
First of all, the 1954 IRC is very largely a
subordinate derivative of prior actual statutes, and Congress
says so plainly (if not with bells on, because that fact is
inconvenient). If you go to http://losthorizons.com/Newsletter/MythBusters/CodeDerivationsTable2.pdf
you can download the entire derivations table published by
Congress and its specification as the guide to getting to the
actual law (and you can also see a less-handily designed and
more weasel-worded version of the same in the "Preliminary
Materials" chapter of Title 26 USC). The courts say the same:
“...absent [substantive] comment it is generally held that a change during codification is not intended to alter the statute’s scope. See Muniz v. Hoffman, 422 U.S. 454, 467-474 (1975).” Walters v. Nat. Assn. of Radiation Survivors, 473 U.S. 305 (1985);
As we said in United States v. Ryder, 110 U.S. 729, 740 (1884): “It will not be inferred that the legislature, in revising and consolidating the laws, intended to change their policy, unless such intention be clearly expressed.” (Citations omitted). Fulman v. United States, 434 U.S. 528 (1978);
"The internal revenue title, which comprises all of the Code except the preliminary sections relating to its enactment, is intended to contain all the United States statutes of a general and permanent nature relating exclusively to internal revenue, in force on January 2, 1939; also such of the temporary statutes of that description as relate to taxes the occasion of which may arise after the enactment of the Code. These statutes are codified without substantive change and with only such change of form as is required by arrangement and consolidation. The title contains no provision, except for effective date, not derived from a law approved prior to January 3, 1939." Preface to the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 (Emphasis added)
In the table you can see the specification of what portion of the 1939 IRC is being represented by the 1954/1986 code sections you wish to analyze, and in turn, see the actual statute(s)-at-large represented by those 1939 code sections. Only then will you see what is actually said by the law you are considering. In the case of the 1954 code, the representations are usually very distorted (deliberately, in opinion).
To the immediate point, see the material at https://www.losthorizons.com/appendix.htm#S&P, which offers some authorities regarding the meaning of "state" to be of great interest. Among other things, it gives the actual statutory definition of "State" (which is enacted in section 3140 of the Revised Statutes of 1873 and is a bit misrepresented in the current 7701(10)).
(Btw, the 1939 IRC sections are generally spot on-- reflective of the fact that the "ignorance tax" scheme had not flowered in the mind of corrupt state actors by that point. I would almost (but not quite) endorse reliance on the 1939 code as written...)
That said, the more important thing in terms of this idea about DC is that because the tax is not actually geographically confined due to its nature the definition of "state" is largely irrelevant. The only exception is in that the FICA surtaxes ARE tied to "state"-related application (but even then only when activities which qualify for the "normal" tax have been conducted). See 'Withholding The Truth' in your CtC for a drill-down on that (and 'The Code Is Born' for some points about the meaning of "state" that you will find interesting).
Regarding the very important "includes"
issue, you are close, but not quite there. "Includes" is a term
of "limited expansion", allowing expansion to other things not
listed in the exemplars given which are within the class defined
by those that are. See http://losthorizons.com/Documents/BriefAndBright.pdf
for the legal details (and also https://www.losthorizons.com/appendix.htm#Includes
and the item immediately following that one, as well, for some
more pithy observations on this issue).
I think you may have relied on output from some of the many folks out there who have taken bits and pieces of my research and tried to work them into their pet theories, but in a necessarily Procrustean way (meaning they have distorted the actual legal and historical facts in an effort to shore up flawed notions). I STRONGLY urge you to just push aside everything you have read or had from everyone and everywhere else and just read CtC three times in a row.
Start, though, with a close and careful read
of the little document at https://losthorizons.com/The16th.htm,
which I consider to be a very important primer, especially for
anyone already burdened with pre-conceptions about the tax from
exposure to the "tax honesty movement".
Dear Vlad, Larry, Pete and freedom lawyer, paralegal and legal researchers friend of Peymon,
It seems that if I were to write a legal essay about this legal theory, it will be easier for all of you to read, understand, , agree or rebut my proposal that “The current Income Tax System since 1954 has applied ONLY to Washington D.C.”
So, here is the essay:
26 USC 7701(a) (9) and (10) https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title26-section7701&num=0&edition=prelim
states:
Ҥ7701. Definitions
(a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof-
(9) United States
The term "United States" when used in a geographical sense includes only the States and the District of Columbia.
(10) State
The term "State" shall be construed to
include the District of Columbia, where such construction is
necessary to carry out provisions of this title.”
So, “United States in a “geographical Sense” (the only sense that
really matters) includes ONLY Washington D.C.
However, we need to do as our good friend Larry Becraft insists;
look at the historical development of this Code to be sure that we
do not miss any statues at large that may change or expand this
definition.
The 1954 version of the 26 USC 7701(a) (9)
and (10) at https://uscode.house.gov/statviewer.htm?volume=68A&page=911
states:
“The term ‘United States’ when used in a geographical sense
includes only the States, the Territories of Alaska and Hawaii,
and the District of Columbia.
The term ‘state’ shall be construed to include the Territories
and the District of Columbia, where such construction is
necessary to carry out provisions of this title.”
So, Alaska and Hawaii were a part of States and United States in
1954. Other territories of United States were also included in
“state.”
If you were to see the first Amendment of this
statue that was enacted on June 25, 1959 https://uscode.house.gov/statviewer.htm?volume=73&page=146
it removes Alaska from definition of United States by stating:
“Section 7701(a)(9) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954
(relating to definition of ‘United States”) is amended by
striking out ‘the Territories of Alaska and Hawaii” and
inserting in lieu thereof ‘the territory of Hawaii.” The
same thing happened with Section 7701(a)(10), but the link above
fails to show Section 7701(a)(10). Please feel free to look up the
next page of the statue that shows Section 7701(a)(10) and prove
me wrong.
Why was Alaska taken out? Because Alaska became the 49th state on
January 3, 1959 and no longer a territory of the United
States. See https://uscode.house.gov/statviewer.htm?volume=73&page=146
The next amendment of this Statues at large was enacted on July
12, 1960 and removed Hawaii from Definitions of United State
and State as found in https://uscode.house.gov/statviewer.htm?volume=74&page=416
which states:
“(i) Section 7701(a)(9) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1954 (relating to definition of ‘United States”) is amended by
striking out ‘the Territory of Hawaii,.
(j) Section 7701(a)(10) of the Internal Revenue Code (relating
to the definition of ‘state’) is hereby amended by striking out
‘, the Territory of Hawaii and’.
(K) The amendments contained in subsections
(a) through (j) of this section shall be effective as of August
21, 1959.”
Not only Hawaii was removed from definition of United States and
state, but, because the law was enacted in July 12, 1959,
abou1 11 months after Hawaii had become the 50th State,
the law was made effective retroactively to August 21, 1959,
the EXACT DATE THAT HAWAII BECAME A STATE! Does that not show
Congressional intent?!
Alaska and Hawaii were both US Territories and a part of United States and State as defined in the IRC and taken out when they became States. If you read the statues I listed above, you will see that the same acts in the preceding paragraphs also took out or added Alaska in other laws, because Alaska and Hawaii were not longer Territories of the United States and became Union States.
Some people argue that the term “includes” in the IRC is often a term of expansion, not a term of limitation. This is an erroneous argument. The US Supreme Court in Messe v. Keene, 481 U.S. 465, 484 (1987) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/481/465/ states:
“It is axiomatic that the
statutory definition of the term excludes unstated meanings of
that term. Cokbutti v. Franklin, 439
U. S. 379, 439
U. S. 392, and n. 10 (1979). … As judges, it is our
duty to construe legislation as it is written, not as it
might be read by a layman, or as it might be understood by
someone who has not even read it.” Axiomatic means
self-evident truth or evident without proof or reasoning. See https://www.thefreedictionary.com/self-evident
and https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/self-evident
If that is not enough Congressional intent to narrowly define the
terms United States and State, can any one tell me why 26 USC,
Section 4612(a)(4)(A), relating to a tax on crude oil in the
“United States” defines United states as:
“(a) Definitions
For purposes of this subchapter-
The term "United States" means the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, any possession of the United States, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.”
So, when Congress wants to include the 50 states and a bunch of other specific territories, it can and has done so. In case of IRC, in general, the whole IRC applies to D.C. ONLY.
Part 2
Some of you may be asking WHY did Congress limit the IRC in general to Washington D.C. Not that it legally matters, but I do have a theory to explain the WHY. You all know that 16th Amendment did not give Congress any new powers to tax; that Brushaber court and its progeny cases state that the Income tax is an indirect tax on income; income is a gain that Congress can NOT define at it’s pleasure. The US Gov. faced limitations on it’s taxing the labor of average Americans even after passage of the 16th Amendment.
From 1913 till mid 1930’s Congress taxed “income” as limited by Brushaber and it progeny. However, that Socialist traitor Franklin Roosevelt agent of banksters who stole our gold and was told to make America a Socialist labor camp and threatened to “pack the US Supreme Court” found a better solution to his desire to tax/enslave American People’s labor; write the tax laws as applicable to Washington D.C. and territories, but do not let Americans know the important fact that the term United States does not refer to the 48 Union States.
Back in 1930’s and 1940’s very little Federal Litigation took place (compared to today) and very few lawyers even bothered to pay for an have any Federal Law Books; the simply did not need them. Only a few bigger law firms and federal judges had access to Federal law books (and very few public law libraries that only judges and lawyers used.) They American Public had no convenient, inexpensive way of finding and reading the laws to discover these very limited/deceptive definitions used by Roosevelt and his law drafting lawyers.
This whole scam was facilitated courtesy of the
Majority Opinion in Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244
(1901); a long case that Wikipedia’s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downes_v._Bidwell
correctly summarizes as:
“The Supreme Court decided 5-4 that the newly-annexed
territories were not properly part of the United States for
purposes of the Constitution in the matter of revenues,
administrative matters, and the like. However, the court was
careful to note that the constitutional guarantees of a
citizen's rights of liberty and property were applicable to all:
such guarantees "cannot be under any circumstances transcended,"
said Justice Edward Douglass White, in his concurring
opinion.[2] Territories were due the full protections of the
Constitution only when Congress had incorporated them as an
"integral part" of the United States.”
The Majority in Downes, Supra ruled that since “ The Island of Porto Rico is not a part of the United States within that provision of the Constitution which declares that "all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States… The Constitution has undoubtedly conferred on Congress the right to create such municipal organizations as it may deem best for all the territories of the United States… As Congress derives its authority to levy local taxes for local purposes within the territories not from the general grant of power to tax as expressed in the Constitution, it follows that its right to locally tax is not to be measured by the provision empowering Congress "To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises," and is not restrained by the requirement of uniformity throughout the United States...”
This dangerous precedent was condemned by the
minority in the U.S. Court who predicted this:
“The idea prevails with some, indeed it has expression in
arguments at the bar, that we have in this country substantially two
national governments; one to be maintained under the
Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be
maintained by Congress outside and independently of that
instrument, by exercising such [unlimited] powers as
other nations of the earth are accustomed to.... I take
leave to say that, if the principles thus announced should ever
receive the sanction of a majority of this court, a radical
and mischievous change in our system will result. We will,
in that event, pass from the era of constitutional liberty guarded
and protected by a written constitution into an era of legislative
absolutism.... It will be an evil day for American Liberty
if the theory of a government outside the Supreme Law of the Land
finds lodgment in our Constitutional Jurisprudence. No higher duty
rests upon this court than to exert its full authority to prevent
all violation of the principles of the Constitution.”
The Social Security Tax was the first such “municipal tax” written for the United States and States which are defined in 26 USC Section 3121(e) https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:26%20section:3121%20edition:prelim)%20OR%20(granuleid:USC-prelim-title26-section3121)&f=treesort&edition=prelim&num=0&jumpTo=true where it states:
“(e) State, United States, and citizen
For purposes of this chapter-
(1) State
The term "State" includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.
(2) United States
The term "United States" when used in a geographical sense includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.
An individual who is a citizen of the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (but not otherwise a citizen of the
United States) shall be considered, for purposes of this
section, as a citizen of the United States.”
Other deceptive definitions were also not disclosed to the unsuspecting American People, such as 26 USC Section 3401(c) https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title26-section3401&num=0&edition=prelim , where the term employee (from which the term employer is also derived) states:
“(c) Employee
For purposes of this chapter, the term "employee" includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term "employee" also includes an officer of a corporation.”
This deception is consistent with 26 USC Section 6331(a) (that IRS conveniently omits from its Notices of Levy) which states:
“Levy may be made upon the accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee, or elected official, of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia, by…”
Also see 26 USC 701(a)(26) https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title26-section7701&num=0&edition=prelim which defines “The term "trade or business" includes the performance of the functions of a public office.”
26 USC Section 7701(30) builds on this deception by stating:
“The term "United States person" means-
(A) a citizen or resident of the United States,
(B) a domestic partnership,
(C) a domestic corporation,…”
What does the term “domestic” mean? 26 USC 701(a)(26) (see above link) states:
“The term "domestic" when applied to a corporation or partnership means created or organized in the United States or under the law of the United States or of any State unless, in the case of a partnership, the Secretary provides otherwise by regulations.”
So if you are a citizen of resident of D.C. you are subject to the Income Tax. If your partnership of corporation is created or organized in D.C. it is subject to the Internal Revenue Code.
Can Congress tax corporations in the 50 states, since their excise activities of operating as a limited liability companies may be taxed? Definitely yes. However, since the plan of the SOCIALISTIC DEEP STATE was to deceive the unsuspecting Americans into paying the income tax on their labor, they wrote the entire income tax system since 1954 for Washington D.C., (even for the corporations), knowing that the corporations are going to file and pay income tax, since the corporation were used to doing so for several decades and too busy to want to “buck the system.”
Thank you for taking your precious and valuable time to read, understand and analyze my essay. Your comments, suggestions and feedback are sincerely welcomed and appreciated.
Yours’ in freedom and justice,
Peymon Mottahedeh, President
Freedom Law School
www.LiveFreeNow.org (813)444-4800
p.s. I believe the advent of Internet and codes, statues and Court cases readily available at our fingertips, allowing us to share accurate first hand legal authorities, like I have done above, is KEY to educating the American people to stop this abuse heaped on them by the Banksters and their allied DEEP STATE in the highest ranks of the US Gov. Bureaucracy. I believe this is a unique historical/technological opportunity for us to stop this mis-application of the Income Tax on the unsuspecting American People, much like how the Gutenberg Press gave birth to the Protest Christianity.
Read: https://classroom.synonym.com/impact-did-invention-printing-press-spread-religion-6617.html
Which states:
“Johann Gutenberg’s invention of the printing press around 1448 had a significant impact on the spread of ideas in Europe and beyond. Printing technology traveled quickly across Europe and, at a time of great religious change, played a key role in the success of the Protestant Reformation. Reformation leader Martin Luther could only preach to a small number of people, but the printed word could spread his message to thousands more, points out Mark U. Edwards of Harvard Divinity School.”
-------- Forwarded Message --------
| Subject: | Re: The current Income Tax System since 1954 has applied ONLY to Washington D.C.! |
|---|---|
| Date: | Sat, 1 Feb 2020 11:55:04 -0500 |
| From: | Pete Hendrickson <phendr...@losthorizons.com> |
Peymon, I have always done my best to be as polite and as patient as possible, as shown by the repeated multi-hour conversations we have had over the years whenever you have called.
Over all those years, I have directed you time and again to the ever-mounting, and long-since enormous body of concrete acknowledgements of the 100% accuracy and completeness of my research, analyses and conclusions about the tax, now totaling several $billion in returned and retained funds by 10s of 1,000s of Americans who pay attention (amongst the latest examples of which are a couple of particularly nice "deficiency" allegation defeats, the more recent of which I would hope you all saw when it appeared in the newsletter a few weeks ago...). At the same time I have directed you to the utterly dispositive body of legal and historical authority by which the true nature of the tax is made unmistakably and inarguably clear.
In all that time, claiming difficulty with
English and a need for smaller, more bite-sized chunks than my
complete articles, you have admittedly never actually looked at
any scholarship to which I have directed you (something I must
assume to be true of others in this email distribution, as well
from whom I have never heard with any indication to the
contrary). Instead, you have spent whatever contact and
influence opportunities you have had with others to direct them
somewhere other than to CtC, and even into the very harmful
practice of "non-filing" (http://www.losthorizons.com/comment/NonFiling.pdf)
by still flogging the completely misguided "There is no law"
nonsense (see http://www.losthorizons.com/comment/TIAL.pdf
for a very brief debunk of that one).
More recently, it appears, you have been spending your time and energy chasing the notion of a territorially-circumscribed tax. Although you may not even have been thinking about CtC while doing so, you having spent that time is the very essence of my little illustration at https://www.losthorizons.com/MidEditionUpdate/StickWithMe.jpg.
Please let it register: THE INCOME TAX ISSUE IS RESOLVED. And it's NOT because it is confined to Washington, D.C., the inhabitants of which are as much protected by the Constitution as are any body else-- something to which the Supreme Court has even spoken directly. See https://www.losthorizons.com/comment/TheExclusiveLegislationClause.pdf, and also the discussion of several of the rulings typically misrepresented (or misunderstood) by folks pushing this "only in D.C." myth you will find at https://losthorizons.com/tax/Misunderstandings/TJN.htm.
Understand btw, that it was in knowing that this latter article speaks MUCH more harshly than the "Lawnmower" one to which I sent you yesterday that I didn't initially reply with that link instead. I was doing my best to keep on a friendly level what I don't at all have friendly feelings about. My wife spent 22 months in prison in part because folks like you have persisted in kicking chaff into the air with your wasted efforts to figure out a tax that has been naked before any eyes with the wit and humility to look for more than 16 years.
Were you all to have shelved your egos long enough to recognize and acknowledge the truth, my Doreen might have been spared that. All the weight of all those who persist in turning to you for guidance on the tax issue would have been lent to effective efforts to knock down the walls behind which the "ignorance tax" schemers and their defenders crouch, instead of dissipated on misguided nonsense like "territorial jurisdiction" arguments.
I will finish by urging you once again to actually spend the time needed to read carefully and thoroughly through everything at every link I have sent you today and yesterday, even though I know that you won't, and I am wasting my keystrokes...
16 years of denial and averted eyes is shameful. Sadly, it seems clear that by this time next year it'll be 17 years-- which will be more shameful still.-------- Forwarded Message --------
| Subject: | RE: The current Income Tax System since 1954 has applied ONLY to Washington D.C.! |
|---|---|
| Date: | Fri, 31 Jan 2020 21:17:18 -0500 |
| From: | Diaz |
| To: |
Hi Peymon,
My research has shown that the United States wear many different hats according to the SCOTUS, and the IRC defines United States several different ways depending where you are in the IRC. For instance, there is a section in the IRC (I can’t think of the section now) where officers and employees of the IRS are barred from disclosing tax return information and the term United States is redefined there to include the 50 states of the union, but the general definition given at 7701(a)(9) does not include any language that would indicate it includes the 50 states of the union, that’s why they redefined it in the section that bars disclosing tax returns information, because they need to give it an added element to include the 50 states of the union.
Now there are other sections that include the states of the union when they define the United States such as when they have certain authority concerning oil that comes in and is received into ports of entry such as crude oil to be distributed and there includes the 50 states of the union. However, in many sections it does not include the states of the union, and that they are talking about federal activity in places where the United States government has exclusive legislative jurisdiction or authority. So there are many exceptions throughout the IRC.
And as for a “silver bullet”, I believe the silver bullet is simply obey the law as written and stop doing the things “taxpayers” do or required to do under the law, stop filling out tax forms who are exclusively to be used by taxpayers and their agents or representatives. Fill out no tax forms, get no information returns, and you won’t hear from IRS. This is my 2 cents my friends.
Diaz
From: pey...@livefreenow.org <pey...@livefreenow.org>
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2020 6:35 PM
Subject: RE: The current Income Tax System since
1954 has applied ONLY to Washington D.C.!
Dear Peter,
I included you in this email, because I
respect your scholarly research abilities, not to get insulted
that I am looking for a “silver bullet.” My request was for
you to listen and watch the presentation FIRST and THEN put in
your 2 cents.
I already knew your position on this issue. I believe everyone
in this group, like you (and me until recently) believes that
there is no territorial limits to the Internal Revenue Code.
Although the Congress taxing powers can be applied in the states with constitutional limitations, in DC, the US Gov is not restrained by such limitations and avoids those thorny issues about what is income and what is taxable.
Please check out the legal citations I provide here (all based on IRC Cite statutes and 2 US Supreme court cases) that make the definite case that the IRC, AS WRITTEN SINCE 1954 is made primarily applicable to D.C. only.
IF you can refute my citation please do so. I love to learn from anyone and be corrected. It is the ONLY to make sure that I will be correct.
Yours’ in freedom and justice,
Peymon Mottahedeh, President
Freedom Law School
www.LiveFreeNow.org (813)444-4800
From: Pete Hendrickson <phendr...@losthorizons.com>
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2020 4:28 PM
Subject: Re: The current Income Tax System since
1954 has applied ONLY to Washington D.C.!
Having spoken myself hoarse for approaching two decades now entreating all of you to wake up to the evidence of thoroughly-settled and deep and broad legal authority along with what are now more than 500,000 individual instances of concrete acknowledgements of every possible variety by more than three dozen tax agencies (and the sometimes even more telling acknowledgements in the form of government efforts to evade and suppress what is simultaneously being acknowledged the other way), all I can do is throw up my hands and shake my head.
There is no territorial limit to the application of the tax, nor any limit based on occupation, or legal status, or anything of the sort. See https://losthorizons.com/tax/Misunderstandings/RegardingIncomeTaxJurisdiction.htm. That doc will seem a bit harsh in its observations concerning some folks, but frankly, those folks have been being roadblocks to the liberation of lots of Americans from the actual "ignorance tax" scheme-- as discussed in the article at https://losthorizons.com/tax/Misunderstandings/TheBabelCurse.htm. So let the chips fall where they may, and let shoes be worn on the feet that they fit.
That said, every one of you would be welcomed with open arms into the community of Americans (and others around the world) engaged in the real work of restoring and upholding the law in the area of the tax. You all have considerable skills of various sorts, and could be of great use in this great project.
You just have to abandon searching for silver bullets and get up to speed with the actual truth about the tax. If you do, you'll be glad that you did, and a big, welcoming community will also be glad that you did.
-Pete
On 1/31/2020 12:50 PM, pey...@livefreenow.org wrote:
I am sorry friends that I forgot to provide the link in the email below. Here is the link to see the legal research/analysis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rx-F0ZlFsx0&t=1143sPeymon-----Original Message-----From: pey...@livefreenow.org <pey...@livefreenow.org>Sent: Friday, January 31, 2020 12:29 AMTo: 'Larry' <bec...@hiwaay.net>; 'Shawn O'Connor' <sh...@freeenterprisesocietyservices.org>; 'Dave Well' <dave...@hotmail.com>; 'Donald MacPherson' <m...@beatirs.com>; 'Nathan MacPherson' <nat...@beatirs.com>; 'Scott' <sc...@beatirs.com>; 'JB' <j...@npn.net>; 'Law...@lawdr.us' <Law...@lawdr.us>; 'Bob Hurt' <b...@bobhurt.com>; 'JB' <j...@npn.net>; 'vgd...@startmail.com' <vgd...@startmail.com>Subject: The current Income Tax System since 1954 has applied ONLY to Washington D.C.!Dear Larry and other freedom lawyer and attorney friends,The attached link is my presentation earliest today, explaining why the current Income Tax System since 1954 has applied ONLY to Washington D.C.! The citations are in the presentation.You can skip to first 9 minutes of the presentation and then end at the 43 minutes which I go through citation and statutory history of this issue.Your analysis, input an any corrections that you may find would be greatly appreciated.Yours’ in freedom and justice,Peymon Mottahedeh, PresidentFreedom Law Schoolwww.LiveFreeNow.org (813)444-4800
--
Visit http://losthorizons.com/The16th.htm
and learn the individual-empowering and
state-restraining truth about the income tax. Then
spread it like your liberty depends on your effort
(which it does)!
Bob Hurt
-------- Forwarded Message --------
| Subject: | ***SPAM*** Re: [Lawmen: 7017] Update 2 Fwd: RE: The current Income Tax System since 1954 has applied ONLY to Washington D.C.! |
|---|
| Date: | Mon, 3 Feb 2020 06:28:30 +0000 (UTC) |
|---|---|
| From: | Massimo Libertà |
| To: | Bob Hurt <b...@bobhurt.com> |
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lawmen" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lawmen+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lawmen/b8ba4f86-b596-b489-7ca1-2dd1ea89ca92%40bobhurt.com.