Bork's "Income Tax. Do You Volunteer?"

[LPC]

On his "forum," Bork ("The Jurist") made some unintelligible comments about me and the meaning of "resident," and so I decided to take a second look at his stuff on income tax, and it's worse than I thought.

Primarily, you must understand that the 14th Amendment created two systems of law; one system that is “de jure” (by right) and one that is noted as de facto or an insurgency.

This is both unintelligible gibberish and illiterate, because "de jure" does not mean "by right" and "de facto" does not mean "an insurgency."

In the original form of the Union—which is/was pre-14th Amendment—the people of the several American republics—or countries or nations—generally had nothing to do with the government of the United States.

This ranks as one of the most ignorant and inane things I have ever read in my life.

1. Although the citizens of the states might not have have been able to cast votes for Senators or the President, the Constitution clearly states that members of the House of Representatives are to be chosen by "the People of the several States."

2. Even if you ignore the interstate commerce clause, the Constitution specifies a number of ways in which the federal government could (and did) affect the people of the United States, such as naturalization, bankruptcy law, coining money, punishing counterfeiting, establishing post offices, and patent and copyright law. The federal government was (and is) limited in what it can do, but to say that the people have *nothing* to do with the federal government is absurd.

3. And then there's taxation. Under the Constitution, Congress could (and did) impose *direct* taxes, as well as "duties, imposts, and excises" throughout the United States. Believe it or not, Bork appears to have written 13 pages of stuff about the Constitution and why the federal income tax does not apply to "the people of the several American republics" without ever mentioning, or demonstrating any awareness of, any of the provisions of the Constitution relating to taxes. This may represent a new nadir of tax "scholarship."

I also took the time to check on what Vattel actually wrote, and it contradicts what Bork wants to believe.

• RESIDENT, persons. A person coming into a place with intention to establish his domicil or permanent residence, and who in consequence actually remains there. Residents are distinguished from citizens; residents are aliens who are permitted to take up permanent abode in a country. Reference from Bouvier’s Law, 1856 (pre-14th Amendment) and Vattel.

The above is a fabrication, because neither source said what Bork wants to believe.

The Bouvier definition reads in its entirety:

RESIDENT, persons. A person coming into a place with intention to establish his domicil or permanent residence, and who in consequence actually remains there. Time is not so essential as the intent, executed by making or beginning an actual establishment, though it be abandoned in a longer, or shorter period. See 6 Hall's Law Journ. 68; 3 Hagg. Eccl. R. 373; 20 John. 211 2 Pet. Ad. R. 450; 2 Scamm. R. 377.

Notice that there's nothing said about citizenship. That's because citizenship and residence are two different concepts, residence being simply a matter of where you live regardless of your citizenship.

Meanwhile, Vattel doesn't distinguish between citizens and "residents," but between citizens and "inhabitants," and has this to say in Book 1, Chapter 19:

§ 213. Inhabitants.

The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners, who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound to the society by their residence, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside in it; and they are obliged to defend it, because it grants them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the law or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united to the society without participating in all its advantages. Their children follow the condition of their fathers; and, as the state has given to these the right of perpetual residence, their right passes to their posterity.

[Emphasis added.]

So Vattel recognizes non-citizens who inhabit or reside in a country must abide by the laws of the country, which would presumably include the tax laws of the country.

Which made me wonder, what does Vattel say about taxes?

§ 240. Taxes.

If the income of the public property, or of the domain, is not sufficient for the public wants, the state supplies the deficiency by taxes. These ought to be regulated in such a manner, that all the citizens may pay their quota in proportion to their abilities, and the advantages they reap from the society. All the members of civil society being equally obliged to contribute, according to their abilities, to its advantage and safety, they cannot refuse to furnish the subsidies necessary to its preservation, when they are demanded by lawful authority.

[Emphasis added.]

Vattel actually sounds somewhat Marxist to me.

So the whole citizen/resident dichotomy is an irrelevant diversion, because Bork is really arguing that he is neither a citizen nor a resident of the United States. How can he do that? By concluding that the "United States" doesn't really exist:

[M]ost people refer to the United States of America as a country or nation; however, this is not legally correct; most people refer to the United States of America as a country or nation; however, this is not legally correct: such misuse goes along with the indoctrinated United States citizenship/nationality. In example, the correct terminology is to be considered: “The Union”. And, to further set aside indoctrination, let us provide the evidence that your state is your true country:

• COUNTRY. By country is meant the state of which one is a member.
• COUNTRY. The portion of earth’s surface occupied by an independent nation or people, or the inhabitants of such territory.

The latter is from Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th edition. The first definition above is from Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856. As you can plainly see the definition from Bouvier’s is definitive. To brainwash Americans into believing that the “territory” of the several states of America is collectively a country and nation took awhile to accomplish. The several States are only a country in regard to treaties and some other things which are found in the United States Constitution. In sense, the United States is a quasi-country of sorts.

There's a logical chasm in there that Bork does not recognize, which is that calling Pennsylvania a "state" does not necessarily mean that it is a "state" in the same sense that Bouvier uses the word in his definition of "country." Bouvier actually has several different meanings for "state":

STATE, government. This word is used in various senses. In its most enlarged sense, it signifies a self-sufficient body of persons united together in one community for the defence of their rights, and to do right and justice to foreigners. In this sense, the state means the whole people united into one body politic; (q. v.) and the state, and the people of the state, are equivalent expressions. 1 Pet. Cond. Rep. 37 to 39; 3 Dall. 93; 2 Dall. 425; 2 Wilson's Lect. 120; Dane's Appx. §50, p. 63 1 Story, Const. §361. In a more limited sense, the word `state' expresses merely the positive or actual organization of the legislative, or judicial powers; thus the actual government of the state is designated by the name of the state; hence the expression, the state has passed such a law, or prohibited such an act. State also means the section of territory occupied by a state, as the state of Pennsylvania.

2. By the word state is also meant, more particularly, one of the commonwealths which form the United States of America. The constitution of the United States makes the following provisions in relation to the states. [Constitutional references omitted.]

It's also significant that Bork looks for the meaning of "country" in American law dictionaries, instead of in references on international law. Let's see what Vattel has to say:

§ 1. What is meant by a nation or state.

NATIONS or states are bodies politic, societies of men united together for the purpose of promoting their mutual safely and advantage by the joint efforts of their combined strength.

Two observations:

1. Vattel treats the words "nation" and "state" as interchangeable, which they are for this purpose, and yet one could hardly call Pennsylvania a "nation."

2. The critical element is that of a body politic "united together." How does the Constitution begin? "We, the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union...." A people uniting together to form a government. What Vattel would call a "nation."

So Bork's pastiche is just that, a word salad of definitions and quotations stitched together with his unsubstantiated and nonsensical conclusions.

Ultimately, what Bork is saying is: Pay no attention to what Vattel says, or Bouvier says, or the Constitution says, or the Supreme Court says. You don't need to pay taxes. I just know it.

[Cathulhu]

However, since Dan's post is reasoned, scholarly, did the background research and makes sense, Bork will ignore it and respond only to other posts.

[LPC]

I want to add something about the meaning of "country," which is that there are, generally speaking, at least five attributes of sovereign nations that distinguish them from other forms of governments:

1. They can make treaties (or war) with other sovereign nations;
2. They can control who crosses their borders;
3. They can raise and maintain armed forces;
4. They can define their own citizenship; and
5. They can define their own currency.

The government of the United States can do all of those things; the states of the United States cannot.

[The Operative]

Similar to other tax denier and sovereignoramouses, Bork picks and chooses quotes (or simply makes them up) wherein he attempts to redefine words so that he hopes it appears to support his contentions. Unfortunately for him, the only ones that are fooled by his shenanigans are typically those who are blinded by greed or those with IQs barely above room temperature in degrees Celsius.

The simple fact is that Constitutional scholars from both before and after the 14th amendment recognize that a person born within one of the states also automatically became a citizen of the United States. The only complication was the Supreme Court's decision regarding Dred Scott.

The citizens of each state constituted the citizens of the United States when the Constitution was adopted. The rights which appertained to them as citizens of those respective commonwealths, accompanied them in the formation of the great, compound commonwealth which ensued. They became citizens of the latter, without ceasing to be citizens of the former, and he who was subsequently born a citizen of a state, became at the moment of his birth a citizen of the United States. Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity. - William Rawle, LL.D. A View of the Constitution of the United States of America, 2nd Edition, Chapter 9, pgs. 85-86.

[Joey Smith]

Bork is a retard who can't get anybody who matters to agree with his screwed-up interpretation.

[Harvester]

To answer the question, no, I don't volunteer as "citizen" or "resident" or any other custom lawyer-created term seemingly designed to entrap. I'm an American national, don't volunteer to be taxed, I don't pay that tax and I have no issues. The truth is out there.

Without investigating much of Bork's argument, he gets credit for trying.

[wserra]

Ultimately, what Bork is saying is: Pay no attention to what Vattel says, or Bouvier says, or the Constitution says, or the Supreme Court says. You don't need to pay taxes. I just know it.

I must respectfully disagree, Dan. Here's Bork's conclusion:

You must take the appropriate legal measures to “emancipate” yourself of this “Feudal Situation” or you will remain a subject of/to Washington D.C. under private, special and positive law of the federal nation; hence, be subject to ITS Marxism. ERGO: That is when Income Tax becomes voluntary—but not in any other manner. Now you know the whole story—Federal Emancipation is how you totally discharge the tax liability pursuant to international law and the Constitution. Moreover, you will then live in your state as a “state national” and are not a “resident” presumed to be operating as an “entity” created by the 14th Amendment who is subject to special taxation.

And how do you go about achieving "Federal Emancipation"? Why, you pay Bork. So what Bork actually says: Pay no attention to what Vattel says, or Bouvier says, or the Constitution says, or the Supreme Court says. You don't need to pay taxes. Just pay me instead.

A minor difference to us, perhaps, but not to LB Bork.

[Nikki]

One thing (among a million others, but who's counting?) which Bork and his "I'm not a Citizen, so I don't have to pay taxes" consistently fail to address rolls back to, ironically,



wait for it




wait




§861 -- sort of.

Well, it's close enough to crank up the irony meters.

Bork and ilk (that begs a limerick) conveniently ignore that non-citizen residents are liable for income taxes. Now, before everyone jumps on me, I realize that many of them are covered by one of the many specific exemptions relating to non-citizen residents, but the potential tax liability (and specific actions to be taken to avoid or lessen it) is an issue for them.

So, <rhetorical question> how do Bork's "I'm not a citizen. I'm a resident." people differ from other people who are not citicens but are residents? <end rhetoric>

I'm sure if the Jurist were to even consider such an issue, it would resemble one of the more explosive scenes from Scanners.

[fortinbras]

Bork's various arguments have already been trotted out in numerous court cases and NEVER worked.

As for denying his citizenship, besides being very tacky for someone who associates with the "patriot" movement, he is completely wrong: Citizenship is not a requisite for income tax. EVERYONE in the US, regardless of citizenship status, is subject to the income tax, and US citizens are subject to income tax even when outside the US.

[Joey Smith]

It would be cool if we could take all these "I'm not a citizen"-types and deport them. But who would clean our pools?

[Thule]

Bork lying to trick more people into his scheme? Say it ain't so, LB.

[Harvester]

It ain't so, Thul of the banksters. BTW, the censored link can be easily found by googling "Woe Unto You Lawyers." A 1939 book by law professor Fred Rodell.

[ArthurWankspittle]

It would be cool if we could take all these "I'm not a citizen"-types and deport them. But who would clean our pools?

How big is Guantanamo Bay? You seem to be emptying it slowly. Like I said elsewhere, can't you get Homeland Security to take care of them pending establishment of their proof of citizenship? (Though I tend to go for the Douglas Adams sentence of being put on an uninhabited planet and being told to evolve into a better species.)

[ArthurWankspittle]

It would be cool if we could take all these "I'm not a citizen"-types and deport them. But who would clean our pools?

Er, given the average sovereign type's ability to selectively and partially read the law, would you trust them with maintenance manuals and the instructions on cleaning fluids?

[Pottapaug1938]

It would be cool if we could take all these "I'm not a citizen"-types and deport them. But who would clean our pools?

Someone of Hispanic descent - and while you might have to put up with them listening to Tejano or mariachi music, they will be on time and probably get the job done quicker and for less money, and it will be three guys doing the job (one skimming, one checking systems and one doing clean up).

I'll take a crew like this, even if they blast salsa music (we don't hear much Tejano or mariachi up here). If I hired sovruns, they'd probably have dozens of excuses how the pool maintenance manual and warranty instructions don't apply to them; and the other sounds I'd hear from them would be much less pleasant.

[Pottapaug1938]

Having attempted to wade through "Woe Unto You, Lawyers", I can see why our resident troll population loves it so much. It looks Very Erudite and Scholarly; but it contains enough "organic fertilizer" that it's too bad that our farmers can't grind it up and find a use for it.

So much to rebut; so little time.

[The Observer]

...but it contains enough "organic fertilizer" that it's too bad that our farmers can't grind it up and find a use for it.

Sorry, I don't want to consume anything that was grown in that waste.

[Pottapaug1938]

...but it contains enough "organic fertilizer" that it's too bad that our farmers can't grind it up and find a use for it.

Sorry, I don't want to consume anything that was grown in that waste.

That's right -- after all, their brains are full of lead, so their waste is certainly toxic.

[wserra]

Someone has put up a summary of Bork's gibberish "Red Amendment" on Wikipedia, under the title "State National". Now who could have done that?

Is anyone minding the asylum over there? What's next, a Stormfront piece on genetics?

[JamesVincent]

"To those who wish to comment on this entry, please note that it is under opening development. Also, the authors apologize for the multiple entries due to the fact we are getting used to the Wiki format."

Now who does that remind you of? Doesnt know how to use the preview function there either.

21:07, 15 November 2010 When it was created.