Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at 47 (1905)
EG Warman
The grand disregard of this case in the US courts has to go back to
the most likely reason that the Lord Nelson Hotel Case(1950) is
disregarded by Canadian judges. That reason is the assumed "contract
of servitude to the State" which arises when a free man obeys the
provisions of a statute - which only applies to "persons".
Eldon Warman
http://www.detaxcanada.org
we_are_j...@whoever.com (John Galt) wrote ...
> U.S. Supreme Court case: Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at 47 (1905).
>
> "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 therefrom, 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."
>
>
> "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 man or woman, 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 man or woman.
>
> The Sovereign man or woman doesn't need and has NEVER NEEDED
> 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 ALL HAVE UNALIENABLE HUMAN RIGHTS, IRRESPECTIVE OF WHAT ANY
> 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 man or woman.
>
> Sovereign men or women 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 man or woman does not have to pay taxes.
>
> If you 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 case Hale v. Henkel has been researched and here is what is
> 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.
Stephen Jenuth
> John,
>
> The grand disregard of this case in the US courts has to go back to
> the most likely reason that the Lord Nelson Hotel Case(1950) is
> disregarded by Canadian judges. That reason is the assumed "contract
> of servitude to the State" which arises when a free man obeys the
> provisions of a statute - which only applies to "persons".
Except that the Lord Nelson Hotel Case, which in reality is called
Nova Scotia (Attorney General) v. Canada (Attorney General) [1951] SCR 31
and also the Nova Scotia Interdelegation reference had nothing to
do with contracts at all.
From the headnote of the case:
"The Parliament of Canada and each Provincial Legislature is a
sovereign body within its sphere, possessed of exclusive jurisdiction to
legislate with regard to the subject matters assigned to it under s. 91 or
s. 92, as the case may be. Neither is capable therefore of delegating to
the other the powers with which it has been vested nor of receiving
from the other the powers with which the other has been vested."
It says that the federal parliament cannot delegate its
authority to the provincial legislature. In the particular case,
it was decided that the federal government could not delegate its
power of indirect taxation to the province.
It says nothing about income tax, or an assumed contract of servitude.
--
Best regards,
Stephen Jenuth
(jen...@homacjen.ab.ca)
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
pgp/gpg public key available at http://keyserver.pgp.com
EG Warman
> In can.taxes EG Warman <egwa...@outgun.com> wrote:
> > John,
> >
> > The grand disregard of this case in the US courts has to go back to
> > the most likely reason that the Lord Nelson Hotel Case(1950) is
> > disregarded by Canadian judges. That reason is the assumed "contract
> > of servitude to the State" which arises when a free man obeys the
> > provisions of a statute - which only applies to "persons".
>
> Except that the Lord Nelson Hotel Case, which in reality is called
> Nova Scotia (Attorney General) v. Canada (Attorney General) [1951] SCR 31
> and also the Nova Scotia Interdelegation reference had nothing to
> do with contracts at all.
>
> From the headnote of the case:
>
> "The Parliament of Canada and each Provincial Legislature is a
> sovereign body within its sphere, possessed of exclusive jurisdiction to
> legislate with regard to the subject matters assigned to it under s. 91 or
> s. 92, as the case may be. Neither is capable therefore of delegating to
> the other the powers with which it has been vested nor of receiving
> from the other the powers with which the other has been vested."
>
> It says that the federal parliament cannot delegate its
> authority to the provincial legislature. In the particular case,
> it was decided that the federal government could not delegate its
> power of indirect taxation to the province.
>
> It says nothing about income tax, or an assumed contract of servitude.
>
there is a legitimate contract (or a non-contested assumed contract)
of servitude to the Crown, then such matters as the lord Nelson case,
or in the US, the case of this thread, are moot relative to income
tax, as the income tax is a tribute burden placed on slaves of the
Crown (State), and are administered in Roman civil law as such.
Eldon Warman
Quantrell
Q) The ability of detaxers to "deduce" that court decisions say what
they don't say is truly amazing and explains why these poor fools are
0 for life in court.
When corrected they either, like Eldon, repeat their already refuted
conclusion or run away from the thread as has John!
John Galt
You know what they say ... everyone has an opinion like everyone has an asshole --
only it looks like yours is bigger than most.
Ron
Perhaps Eldon should repost "America the FRAUD"
You were very conspicuous by your absence when asked to refute it Squirmy.
EG Warman
Refuted? By whom? Certainly no by a lying pigs rectum like you, Rayder?
Eldon Warman
http://www.detaxcanada.org
Quantrell
Eldon,
In this case you were refuted by Stephen Jenuth. John was refute by
me.
Neither of you two losers have been able to respond with substance.
Perhaps you boys need to do more than cut and paste detax propaganda
from other sites and pretend it is your own scholarship?
Have you considered actually reading the cases to see if they say what
some other detaxer has duped you into believing they say?
Q
EG Warman
Hmmm.... I don't recall that the obese pig, Jenuth, refuted anything?
All he did was offer some legalese bafflegab and avoided all the
issues of Anglo-Saxon Common Law, a topic which he is obviously
either totally ignorant, of by evil choice, refuses to contemplate.
It is certain that he has never been exposed to Anglo-Saxon Common
Law in any Canadian law school. The only so-called common law which
he alludes is the perversion of Roman civil law which the English
Monarchy and English "black robed" judiciary foisted off on the
ignorant English people as common law, starting around 1300 AD.
Eldon Warman
http://www.detaxcanada.org
Stephen Jenuth
> Hmmm.... I don't recall that the obese pig, Jenuth, refuted anything?
> All he did was offer some legalese bafflegab and avoided all the
> issues of Anglo-Saxon Common Law, a topic which he is obviously
> either totally ignorant, of by evil choice, refuses to contemplate.
I managed to lose 30 lbs in the last year, so obese is a little
off the mark. On the other hand, I admit that I have no idea
what your idea of Anglo-Saxon Common Law is. From what I can
see, it has nothing to do with any form of law which ever existed
on the planet Earth.
Perhaps it is something which existed on Mars, or in a galaxy far,
far away.
> It is certain that he has never been exposed to Anglo-Saxon Common
> Law in any Canadian law school. The only so-called common law which
> he alludes is the perversion of Roman civil law which the English
> Monarchy and English "black robed" judiciary foisted off on the
> ignorant English people as common law, starting around 1300 AD.
I suppose that's the common law which england was governed by and
in which things like jury trials developed. Prior to that time,
there seemed to be all sorts of weird ideas, like trial by combat
etc.
Quantrell
> All he did was offer some legalese bafflegab and avoided all the
> issues of Anglo-Saxon Common Law, a topic which he is obviously
> either totally ignorant, of by evil choice, refuses to contemplate.
Q) Hey, old man, YOU are the one who wanted to talk about Canadian
case law. But now that it turns out that the Lord Nelson Hotel case
don't say anything about contracts you want to talk about something
else.
What's the matter old fart, you don't want to admit you have your head
up your ass and didn't even read the case but instead cut and pasted
some bull shit from another site?
While you are up you own poop chute tell John to come out and talk
about Hale v. Henkel!
He didn't read that case either!
LOL!!!!
> Eldon) It is certain that he has never been exposed to Anglo-Saxon Common
> Law in any Canadian law school. The only so-called common law which
> he alludes is the perversion of Roman civil law which the English
> Monarchy and English "black robed" judiciary foisted off on the
> ignorant English people as common law, starting around 1300 AD.
>
Q) You are one clueless loser, Eldon. How do you expect to have any
credibility when you can't even follow your own thoughts through your
own post.
Maybe if you get your wrinkled old ass down to the local mental health
clinic they might be able to help you. Decreased intellectual capacity
is one of the symptoms of schizophrenia, ya' know.