Stija's declaration of fact in re: Quatloos

[LPC]

Repeating the same nonsense over and over again can't make it right, but it can make it ignored.

[stija]

1. If Stija edits post after someone else's reply, it shows, and it's usually for spelling mistakes or adding emphasis on quotes.
2. It is the first time i post "City of Boerne v. Flores."
3. How can LPC or Stija be defined by statutes that are not definitional?
4. Facts don't just cease to exist because you ignore them.

[Duke2Earl]

4. Facts don't just cease to exist because you ignore them.

Perhaps the most accurate thing you have said. The actual fact is you are simply and completely wrong.

[LightinDarkness]

So, OP, you've probably written about 50 pages on Quatloos since you began posting. In all that time, can you point me to where you cited a tax case in which someone used your arguments and prevailed?

You can't?

Hmm. I wonder why.

[stija]

Let's try another approach.

1. Do you guys recognize private rights?
2. Do you guys recognize private property?

I am genuinely asking because i am still trying to understand where the disconnect may be.

[LightinDarkness]

Let's try another approach.

1. Do you guys recognize private rights?
2. Do you guys recognize private property?

I am genuinely asking because i am still trying to understand where the disconnect may be.

I'll answer your questions when you answer mine:

1. Can you cite a single case - ever- in which someone went to tax court and, using your arguments, prevailed? Just one will do. This should be immensely easy if your arguments have any basis in reality.

[stija]

Your question is a) loaded, and b) silly. Can you provide me case law proving that the sky is blue? I will not believe you until i see case law! And your question implies that if there is no case law, one has no cause of action and can't be right. If that's what you are suggesting, how do you think case law is made? Where does case law come from if not from cases litigated for the first time. Are you suggesting that ALL possibilities on EVERY possibly fact alleged have been tested and tried in courts?

Now to answer your question anyway, as simply as i can:

1. Someone with my 'claims' would NEVER set foot in a franchise tax court. My claims do NOT matter in THEIR court because I wouldn't be me, but a federal legal person ALLOWED to sue in that court as a TAXPAYER only.
2. Therefore my claims would NEVER be alleged in tax court.
3. Someone wants to sue me, they are going to do it in Arizona court, or under diversity of citizenship in federal, or under federal property connection or federal public rights I may have involved myself in and remove it from Arizona to federal court.
4. My courts are constitutional courts on grants of power/remedies by the People, of which substance or character I am too.
5. Congressionally privileged courts are for people involving themselves, or availing themselves of congressionally granted privilege, or character, which I am not, unless availing myself of a federal status under some statute granting me relief on a congressionally granted and protected right.
6. I can quote numerous tax court cases where the party tries invoking his constitutionally protected rights only to be told by the court that they are irrelevant to the proceeding and do not apply. Poor Irwin Schiff is a prime example - that guy TO THIS DAY still wonders how his constitutional rights did not apply in his federal case. *
7. Two different court characters that you do not seem to understand. Two different sets of rules apply as well as rules of decisions act requiring the common law of ones domicile to be used as the rules of decisions in federal court, if party not a federal domiciliary.
8. Now, a taxpayer is not a party to the constitution but a legal juristic person entitled to all remedies granted to it in Title 26 only. And he HAS to fulfill the obligations before he is even entitled to file in that court.
9. So your question is loaded, and you didn't even know it.
10. I can also show you how nontaxpayers do not have standing in tax court.
11. Which also infers that such court recognizes people, such as yours truly, who are nontaxpayers and cannot sue in that franchise court reserved to taxpayers only. One more reason why i would never enter court and accept the status of TAXPAYER.
12. Therefore, by suing in that court ONE HAS TO BE ACCEPTED AS A TAXPAYER, and thus lost right there and cannot argue that he is not. ****It is equivalent to entering under a civil rights statute to ask for relief to recognize you that you are not the person subject to the civil rights - the statutes you used to enter court in the first place - which is completely FRIVOLOUS and WITHOUT ANY MERIT!!!!! Think about what those poor souls are trying to do in tax court which only HEARS TAXPAYERS! They are trying to make the court recognize them as something which the rules/laws of such court DO NOT ALLOW!!!
13. Which is why court does not explain the source of wages, and how labor is irrelevant.
14. Tax Court is a creation of public policy in Title 26. One entering under that title as a taxpayer admitting to earning wages lost; it is IRRELEVANT what nonsense he argues BECAUSE BY DEFINITION in Title 26, under which HE ENTERED, ALL WAGES ARE INCOME.

FOR EXAMPLE: You are an Alabama public company and i think you discriminated against me by not hiring me because i am green. I will sue you in Alabama court under the Alabama Constitutionally protected rights which prohibit you, an Alabama public agency, from discriminating against me. I WOULD NEVER sue in federal court under Civil Rights Act, when i have natural and Alabama Constitutionally protected rights which are PRIVATE and not Congressionally granted in Civil Rights Act statutes. The difference is, in one i appear as myself, a private individual, in the latter i appear as a 'United States citizen' which is a federal legal status created by Congressional public policy - ie, public legal person which i am not and which the court in Powe explained to you does not protect a state citizen or a person generally, here:

In its construction it is proper to apply the rule that criminal laws are to be construed strictly, and to bear in mind that other rule that a construction is to be avoided, if possible, that would render the law unconstitutional, or raise grave doubts thereabout. In view of these rules it is held that "citizen" means "citizen of the United States", and not person generally, nor citizen of a State; and that the "rights and privileges secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States" means those specially and validly secured thereby. Thus limited, this section has been enforced as constitutional. Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651, 4 S.Ct. 152, 28 L.Ed. 274; United States v. Waddell, 112 U.S. 76, 5 S.Ct. 35, 28 L.Ed. 673; Logan v. United States, 144 U.S. 263, 12 S.Ct. 617, 36 L.Ed. 429; United States v. Moseley, supra

It is LIMITED because Congress CANNOT legislate for Alabama public rights or my private rights.

Therefore i would never sue under Civil Rights Act because i recognize the fact, and so do the courts, that i exist as a private individual too you know? And Alabama provides me modes of redress, why would i go to federal court?
If you disagree, are you suggesting i could not sue you, in the above example, had Congress not legislated the Civil Rights Act and would have no other mode of redress?

Where is the legislation protecting my 1st Amendment?
Where is the legislation protecting my 2nd Amendment?
Where is the legislation protecting my 3rd Amendment?
Where is the legislation protecting my 4th Amendment?
Where is the legislation protecting my 5th Amendment? Couldn't you argue, that there is no federal law authorizing you to stay quiet and not talk THEREFORE you must talk! Hell no.

The first 8 Amendments to the US Constitution are SELF-EXECUTING and federal judiciary has and always had PRIMARY jurisdiction for such causes of action. Therefore, that is how Stija would sue and appear to recover his property unduly collected under the color of taxation because violative of his 1st, 4th, 5th, 7th, and 10th.

Stija does NOT need a public statute to protect his PRIVATE property or rights when he has the US Constitution. You guys do not get that somehow and i cannot understand why. I am trying to find the DISCONNECT, so can you answer my question now.


Now,

1. Do you recognize private rights?
2. Do you recognize private property?
3. If you steal my property thinking you are paying a tax for me, where do you think you will get sued? What kind of court, for example?

And your question implies that if there is no case law, one has no cause of action and can't be right. If that's what you are suggesting, how do you think case law is made? Where does case law come from if not from cases litigated for the first time.

* Schiff's constitutional protections do NOT apply because he appeared under Title 26 as a legal entity under that title privileged ONLY to the rights as granted by the same Title. Think of it as folders on a computer and the U.S. Constitution being the first folder. Each sub-folder different rules apply - as applied by the sovereign regulating that folder. Title 26 'sub-folder' is property of Congress and publicly regulated. I don't play with Congressional public policy or property.

[stija]

I think the disconnect is here:

1. Tax Court is for taxpayer and income tax issues. Generally one cannot even initiate a suit unless all TAXES are paid first, thus subjecting the entity to becoming a taxpayer who sues for recovery of TAXES overpaid or erroneously assessed.
2. If one is suing for overpaid taxes, or has a tax related issue, the PROPER court is Tax Court.
3. If one is suing for theft or taking of property without due process of laws, one sues under the proper Constitutional amendments, in federal constitutional court.
4. Constitutional courts are for arguing PRIVATE property or rights.

In any franchise court, only rights granted under the franchise/Title apply.
In any constitutional court, the U.S. Constitution (or state constitution if in state courts) and rules thereunder apply.

Just like in Bankruptcy court, only issues relating to bankruptcy are litigated.
Just like in Claims court, only claim related issues are litigated. There are no constitutional rights in such courts....the courts having been franchised for a specific purpose only because of activity - ie bankruptcy or claims.

Title 26 does NOT regulate people but imposes a tax on taxable income, whether one is a nonresident, non citizen, citizen, or resident. Long ago we agreed on this but you guys keep bringing it back because you believe i am suggesting that if one is a nonresident under Title 26 he cannot incur a liability or is exempt or some other nonsense, which is simply neither FACTUAL nor TRUE.

The name of my game (claims) is PRIVATE! Not nonresident or citizen. At least get that straight please so we can drop the irrelevant issue of 'civil' citizenship under such Title, which is NEITHER legislated through the 14th Amendment, NOR deals with the subject of the 14th Amendment. Add +2 to get to the proper Amendment.

Now because the name of my game is private rights:
1. I cannot litigate private rights in franchise courts such as:
a) Bankruptcy Court
b) Claim Court
c) Tax Court
d) any other court NOT CHARTERED by private character - or by the People

Does that make sense? IF you bring up the US Constitution in any of those courts, they will tell you that it is irrelevant and has no bearing to the case or matters litigated. Why? Because matters litigated DO NOT deal with constitutionally protected rights, instead they deal with issues of Congressional character over which Congress has been granted authority in the US Constitution EXCLUSIVELY!

One cannot enter Bankruptcy court to argue to the same court that the Bankruptcy laws he used to enter under do NOT APPLY to him or his specific issues. Arguments such as this are what courts refer to as PATENTLY FRIVOLOUS and WITHOUT ANY MERIT. I hope you can see why....

The Court developed, for its own governance in the cases confessedly within its jurisdiction, a series of rules under which it has avoided passing upon a large part of all the constitutional questions pressed upon it for decision. They are:
6. The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute at the instance of one who has availed himself of its benefits.FN7 Great Falls Mfg. Co. v. Attorney General, 124 U.S. 581, 8 S.Ct. 631, 31 L.Ed. 527; Wall v. Parrot Silver & Copper Co., 244 U.S. 407, 411, 412, 37 S.Ct. 609, 61 L.Ed. 1229; St. Louis Malleable Casting Co. v. Prendergast Construction Co., 260 U.S. 469, 43 S.Ct. 178, 67 L.Ed. 351.
Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 56 S.Ct. 466 (1936)

..meaning that one cannot enter Tax Court availing himself of the privilege granted through that Title and turn around to claim that it is unconstitutional OR ANY OTHER NONSENSE such as that it does not apply to him. HE ENTERED UPON IT!!!! HE USED THE PRIVILEGE!!! HE IS SUBJECT!!!

[LPC]

I think the disconnect is here:

1. Tax Court is for taxpayer and income tax issues. Generally one cannot even initiate a suit unless all TAXES are paid first, thus subjecting the entity to becoming a taxpayer who sues for recovery of TAXES overpaid or erroneously assessed.
2. If one is suing for overpaid taxes, or has a tax related issue, the PROPER court is Tax Court.

No.

Tax Court is for judicial review BEFORE the payment of any deficiency determined by the IRS. The taxpayer has 90 days after a notice of deficiency is issued to petition to the Tax Court. See IRC section 6213.

After a tax has been paid, the taxpayer can sue for a refund in federal district court. See IRC section 7422. If there is a factual dispute, the taxpayer can even demand a jury trial.

3. If one is suing for theft or taking of property without due process of laws, one sues under the proper Constitutional amendments, in federal constitutional court.

Sort of. Suits against the United States that are authorized by statute are brought in federal district court, yes.

4. Constitutional courts are for arguing PRIVATE property or rights.

All federal courts are "constitutional" because they are all authorized by the Constitution.

There is a distinction between what are sometimes called "Article I courts," created by Congress under its authority in Article I, section 8, of the Constitution, and "Article III courts" created by Congress under its authority in Article III, but I don't see how that distinction is relevant anything you're saying.

In any franchise court, only rights granted under the franchise/Title apply.

I have no idea what you mean by a "franchise court." That phrase has no meaning in any statute or court decision I could find.

In any constitutional court, the U.S. Constitution (or state constitution if in state courts) and rules thereunder apply.

If you believe that there is a court in the United States in which the U.S. Constitution does not apply, you are mistaken. The U.S. Constitution is the "supreme Law of the Land" (Article VI of the Constitution).

Just like in Bankruptcy court, only issues relating to bankruptcy are litigated.
Just like in Claims court, only claim related issues are litigated. There are no constitutional rights in such courts....the courts having been franchised for a specific purpose only because of activity - ie bankruptcy or claims.

Wrong, as I said.

The name of my game (claims) is PRIVATE!

There is no right to "private" that excludes income (or anything else) from federal tax.

The Supreme Court ruled in 1796, with the concurring votes of two members of the Constitutional Convention then sitting as Justices on the court, that Congress could impose a tax on a citizen of Virginia for carriages held for private use. Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796).

“Similarly, Latham’s instruction which indicated that under 26 U.S.C. § 3401(c) the category of ‘employee’ does not include privately employed wage earners is a preposterous reading of the statute. It is obvious that within the context of both statutes the word ‘includes’ is a term of enlargement not of limitation, and the reference to certain entities or categories is not intended to exclude all others.”

United States v. Latham, 754 F.2d 747, 750 (7th Cir. 1985).

"[T]he courts have uniformly held that the ordinary remuneration received by privately employed workers qualifies as taxable ‘wages’ under the Internal Revenue Code.”

United States v. Peter Hendrickson, 2010 TNT 81-15, n. 5, No. 2:08-cr-20585-DML-DAS (U.S.D.C. E.D. Mich. 4/26/2010) (rejecting requests for jury instructions on the meanings of "wages" and "employee").

“[Billman] contends that, as a ‘private individual defined in the Privacy Act,’ he is not required to pay tax because the ‘IRS has admitted that the * * * [Internal Revenue Code] does not apply’ to such individuals. He notes that the Privacy Act requires the Internal Revenue Service to (5 U.S.C. sec. 552a(e)(3)): ‘inform each individual whom it asks to supply information * * * the authority * * * which authorizes the solicitation of the information.’ He then concludes that, because the Form 1040 ‘Privacy Act Notice’ fails to mention section 6012, I.R.C. 1954, he is not required to provide any tax related information and, indeed, is freed from paying any tax at all. In our judgment, petitioner’s position is based on sheer sophistry. We hold that the Form 1040 ‘Privacy Act Notice’ does satisfy the requirements of the Privacy Act, and that, in any event, even if there were a failure to comply with the Privacy Act, such failure would not nullify petitioner’s liability for Federal income taxes.”

Billman v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 534 (1984), aff’d 847 F.2d 887 (D.C. Cir. 1988).

Not nonresident or citizen. At least get that straight please so we can drop the irrelevant issue of 'civil' citizenship under such Title, which is NEITHER legislated through the 14th Amendment, NOR deals with the subject of the 14th Amendment. Add +2 to get to the proper Amendment.

I don't read minds, and I can only respond to the words you use. If you make false claims about citizenship, I assume that they are relevant to your arguments and I refute them. If you don't want me refuting your false claims, then stop making them.

Now because the name of my game is private rights:
1. I cannot litigate private rights in franchise courts such as:
a) Bankruptcy Court
b) Claim Court
c) Tax Court
d) any other court NOT CHARTERED by private character - or by the People

As noted above, the phrase "franchise court" has no meaning to me, and does not appear in any statute or court decision I can find.

I also don't know what you mean by "private rights" in this context.

Does that make sense?

No.

IF you bring up the US Constitution in any of those courts, they will tell you that it is irrelevant and has no bearing to the case or matters litigated.

The court might rule that you don't have the right you claim, but that is because you don't have the right that you claim and not because the U.S. Constitution is irrelevant. The courts you list above are bound by the Constitution and rule on constitutional issues all the time. The fact that they don't rule the way you'd like doesn't mean that the Constitution doesn't apply in those courts, but that the Constitution doesn't mean what you think it means.

Why? Because matters litigated DO NOT deal with constitutionally protected rights,

The right to due process before a deprivation of life, liberty, or property is a constitutionally protected right. If you think a federal court can deprive you of property without due process, you are wrong.

instead they deal with issues of Congressional character over which Congress has been granted authority in the US Constitution EXCLUSIVELY!

I have no idea what you think that means. Could you provide an example?

One cannot enter Bankruptcy court to argue to the same court that the Bankruptcy laws he used to enter under do NOT APPLY to him or his specific issues. Arguments such as this are what courts refer to as PATENTLY FRIVOLOUS and WITHOUT ANY MERIT. I hope you can see why....

Well, yes, because you can't file a petition in bankruptcy court and then claim that the bankruptcy laws don't apply to you. That would be silly. If you don't believe that the bankruptcy laws apply to you, then don't file a petition in bankruptcy court.

The Court developed, for its own governance in the cases confessedly within its jurisdiction, a series of rules under which it has avoided passing upon a large part of all the constitutional questions pressed upon it for decision. They are:
6. The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute at the instance of one who has availed himself of its benefits.FN7 Great Falls Mfg. Co. v. Attorney General, 124 U.S. 581, 8 S.Ct. 631, 31 L.Ed. 527; Wall v. Parrot Silver & Copper Co., 244 U.S. 407, 411, 412, 37 S.Ct. 609, 61 L.Ed. 1229; St. Louis Malleable Casting Co. v. Prendergast Construction Co., 260 U.S. 469, 43 S.Ct. 178, 67 L.Ed. 351.
Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 56 S.Ct. 466 (1936)

..meaning that one cannot enter Tax Court availing himself of the privilege granted through that Title and turn around to claim that it is unconstitutional OR ANY OTHER NONSENSE such as that it does not apply to him. HE ENTERED UPON IT!!!! HE USED THE PRIVILEGE!!! HE IS SUBJECT!!!

[/quote]
I'm not sure what you're quoting from, but the cases that are cited do stand for the proposition that a litigant can't claim the benefit of a statute and then question the constitutionality of the statute. But I don't understand what that has to do with your claims about "private rights."

If you're saying that you can't file a petition in Tax Court and then claim that the Tax Court is unconstitutional, I would agree, but so what?

If you're saying that you can't file a petition in Tax Court and claim that the federal income tax is unconstitutional in some way, or the procedures of the IRS are unconstitutional in some way, then you're wrong. See, for example, See, for example, Tate & Lyle, Inc. v. Commissioner, 103 T.C. 656 (1994), holding that an Internal Revenue Service regulation was unconstitutional when applied retroactively. (The Tax Court was reversed on appeal, 87 F.3d 99 (3d Cir. 1996), but that doesn't detract from the fact that the Tax Court ruled the taxpayer's favor on a constitutional issue.)

Once again, repeating something you don't what to hear and so is going to have to be repeated: The fact that a court rules that you don't have the rights you claim means that you don't have the rights that you claim, and not that the U.S. Constitution is irrelevant.

The fact that courts don't rule the way you'd like doesn't mean that the Constitution doesn't apply in those courts, but that the Constitution doesn't mean what you think it means.

[Pottapaug1938]

stija asserted: "It is LIMITED because Congress CANNOT legislate for Alabama public rights or my private rights."

Anyone who remembers the civil rights struggles of the 50s and 60s knows how absurd that is.

Therefore i would never sue under Civil Rights Act because i recognize the fact, and so do the courts, that i exist as a private individual too you know? And Alabama provides me modes of redress, why would i go to federal court?

Oh... perhaps because 1) what is at issue is a right protected under the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land and binding on any state authority, and 2) because, as happened so often in Alabama during those years, people could not depend upon the Alabama courts to uphold those rights?

[LPC]

3. Someone wants to sue me, they are going to do it in Arizona court, or under diversity of citizenship in federal, or under federal property connection or federal public rights I may have involved myself in and remove it from Arizona to federal court.

The above is irrelevant to the IRS.

If the IRS determines a deficiency, they send you a notice of deficiency. You then have 90 days to petition the Tax Court to challenge the deficiency, if you want. If you don't file a petition in Tax Court, then the IRS assesses the tax shown on the deficiency.

As confirmed by the Supreme Court:

“The assessment is given the force of a judgment, and if the amount assessed is not paid when due, administrative officials may seize the debtor’s property to satisfy the debt.”

Bull v. United States, 295 U.S. 247, 260 (1935).

So if you don't file a petition in the Tax Court, then the IRS assesses the tax and starts to seize your property by levy.

In other words, the IRS never has to "sue you in court."

Once the tax has been paid in full, you can sue the IRS to recover the tax you don't think you owe, but then you're the plaintiff and not the defendant.

4. My courts are constitutional courts on grants of power/remedies by the People, of which substance or character I am too.

You have your own courts? That must be nice.

5. Congressionally privileged courts are for people involving themselves, or availing themselves of congressionally granted privilege, or character, which I am not, unless availing myself of a federal status under some statute granting me relief on a congressionally granted and protected right.

The phrase "Congressionally privileged courts" is meaningless to me.

6. I can quote numerous tax court cases where the party tries invoking his constitutionally protected rights only to be told by the court that they are irrelevant to the proceeding and do not apply.

If you can quote just one case, please do so.

As I've just remarked in the previous posting, the fact that a court rules that you don't have the rights you claim means that you don't have the rights that you claim, and not that the U.S. Constitution is irrelevant. The fact that courts don't rule the way you'd like doesn't mean that the Constitution doesn't apply in those courts, but that the Constitution doesn't mean what you think it means.

Poor Irwin Schiff is a prime example - that guy TO THIS DAY still wonders how his constitutional rights did not apply in his federal case. *

His constitutional rights applied. The fact that courts don't rule the way you'd like doesn't mean that the Constitution doesn't apply, but that the Constitution doesn't mean what you think it means.

* Schiff's constitutional protections do NOT apply because he appeared under Title 26 as a legal entity under that title privileged ONLY to the rights as granted by the same Title.

Gibberish. Schiff's constitutional protections applied, but you don't understand the nature and limits of those constitutional protections. The fact that courts don't rule the way you'd like doesn't mean that the Constitution doesn't apply, but that the Constitution doesn't mean what you think it means.

14. Tax Court is a creation of public policy in Title 26. One entering under that title as a taxpayer admitting to earning wages lost; it is IRRELEVANT what nonsense he argues BECAUSE BY DEFINITION in Title 26, under which HE ENTERED, ALL WAGES ARE INCOME.

Well, yes, wages are income under the Internal Revenue Code. And the Tax Court follows the Internal Revenue Code as a law of the United States just like every other court, state or federal, would follow the Internal Revenue Code as a law of the United States. What did you expect?

FOR EXAMPLE: You are an Alabama public company and i think you discriminated against me by not hiring me because i am green. I will sue you in Alabama court under the Alabama Constitutionally protected rights which prohibit you, an Alabama public agency, from discriminating against me. I WOULD NEVER sue in federal court under Civil Rights Act, when i have natural and Alabama Constitutionally protected rights which are PRIVATE and not Congressionally granted in Civil Rights Act statutes. The difference is, in one i appear as myself, a private individual, in the latter i appear as a 'United States citizen' which is a federal legal status created by Congressional public policy - ie, public legal person which i am not and which the court in Powe explained to you does not protect a state citizen or a person generally, here:

What you seem to be saying is that you can sue in Alabama court under Alabama law, or in federal court under federal law. Assuming that is correct, so what?

When you have won or lost the case, what difference does it make whether the Alabama rights are "natural" or "private"?

It's obviously very important to you to attach those labels to legal results, but what difference does it make AS A PRACTICAL MATTER. Yes, the voices in your head might be yelling at you for getting involved with unnatural or un-private proceedings if you sue in federal court, but if you can get a $X judgment in either court, what real difference does it make how you characterize the different laws.

And there's something else I have to point out. If you are green because you dyed yourself green, and you lose, the reason you lost will probably not be because rights are "natural" or "private" or you became a "juristic person," but because the laws don't protect people from discrimination who decide to dye themselves green.

I point that out because the fact that courts don't rule the way you'd like doesn't mean that the Constitution doesn't apply, but that the Constitution doesn't mean what you think it means.

In its construction it is proper to apply the rule that criminal laws are to be construed strictly, and to bear in mind that other rule that a construction is to be avoided, if possible, that would render the law unconstitutional, or raise grave doubts thereabout. In view of these rules it is held that "citizen" means "citizen of the United States", and not person generally, nor citizen of a State; and that the "rights and privileges secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States" means those specially and validly secured thereby. Thus limited, this section has been enforced as constitutional. Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651, 4 S.Ct. 152, 28 L.Ed. 274; United States v. Waddell, 112 U.S. 76, 5 S.Ct. 35, 28 L.Ed. 673; Logan v. United States, 144 U.S. 263, 12 S.Ct. 617, 36 L.Ed. 429; United States v. Moseley, supra

First, have you considered that a rule of construction for criminal laws might not apply to a civil lawsuit under the federal Civil Rights Act?

Second, I have no idea why you think this quotation has meaning in this context. Generally speaking, federal statutes enforce federal rights and state statutes enforce state rights, and it has always been recognized that the rights of a citizen of the United States might be different from the rights of the same citizen under state law. So what?

It is LIMITED because Congress CANNOT legislate for Alabama public rights or my private rights.

Are you just now realizing that federal law is separate from state law?

This is kind of basic federalism, that first year law students come to grips with in cases like Erie Railroad v. Thompkins. I'm not really trying to make fun of you here, but pointing out that, to a lawyer, you are excitedly pointing out that the earth revolves around the sun, and not vice versa.

Therefore i would never sue under Civil Rights Act because i recognize the fact, and so do the courts, that i exist as a private individual too you know? And Alabama provides me modes of redress, why would i go to federal court?
If you disagree, are you suggesting i could not sue you, in the above example, had Congress not legislated the Civil Rights Act and would have no other mode of redress?

Why would I care about your choice of court?

Couldn't you argue, that there is no federal law authorizing you to stay quiet and not talk THEREFORE you must talk! Hell no.

Look up "strawman argument."

The first 8 Amendments to the US Constitution are SELF-EXECUTING and federal judiciary has and always had PRIMARY jurisdiction for such causes of action. Therefore, that is how Stija would sue and appear to recover his property unduly collected under the color of taxation because violative of his 1st, 4th, 5th, 7th, and 10th.

You would "appear to recover"?

And you've assumed your conclusion by stating that your property was "unduly" collected.

Stija does NOT need a public statute to protect his PRIVATE property or rights when he has the US Constitution.

Good for you.

You guys do not get that somehow and i cannot understand why. I am trying to find the DISCONNECT, so can you answer my question now.

That's easy. Everyone else in the United States who earns income is required to pay federal income tax on that income. You claim you're not, and you keep offering up gibberish and bullshit when asked why.

[stija]

No.

Tax Court is for judicial review BEFORE the payment of any deficiency determined by the IRS. The taxpayer has 90 days after a notice of deficiency is issued to petition to the Tax Court. See IRC section 6213.

After a tax has been paid, the taxpayer can sue for a refund in federal district court. See IRC section 7422. If there is a factual dispute, the taxpayer can even demand a jury trial.

Agreed. I made a mistake. I meant the district court under 7422 (or other sections as well) which is article I court. You are right.

Sort of. Suits against the United States that are authorized by statute are brought in federal district court, yes.

Any suits against United States have to authorized by statute in their Article I courts. They have to surrender immunity through statutory language or implict action - ie not following their adminstrative rules and providing remedy after you've exhausted them.

All federal courts are "constitutional" because they are all authorized by the Constitution.

There is a distinction between what are sometimes called "Article I courts," created by Congress under its authority in Article I, section 8, of the Constitution, and "Article III courts" created by Congress under its authority in Article III, but I don't see how that distinction is relevant anything you're saying.

True again. I remember you saying that all courts are statutory, which is why i made the distinction of 'constitutional' v. 'statutory. The CORRECT distinction is Article I (taxation I:8:1) and Article III (div citizenship). That is what i meant by statutory and Constitutional, but the correct nomenclature is Article I v. Article III, so i agree 100%.

I have no idea what you mean by a "franchise court." That phrase has no meaning in any statute or court decision I could find.

I argued, if you recall, loooong ago that IRC is contract law, ie franchise law. You disagree, i know that, but that is what i mean by 'franchise' courts. I mean courts with specific purpose such as:
1. Bankruptcy Court
2. Circuit Courts
3. Claim Courts
4. Tax Court
5. And even some territorial District Courts legislated through Article I.

“Revenue Laws relate to taxpayers and not to non-taxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedures are prescribed for non-taxpayers and no attempt is made to annul any of their Rights or Remedies in due course of law. With them Congress does not assume to deal and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of federal revenue laws.”
Economy Plumbing & Heating v. U.S., 470 F.2d. 585 (1972)

So if you are not a franchisee (taxpayer) the courts do not deal with you and neither do the laws. Same is true of bankruptcy laws.

If you believe that there is a court in the United States in which the U.S. Constitution does not apply, you are mistaken. The U.S. Constitution is the "supreme Law of the Land" (Article VI of the Constitution).

I agree. In Article I courts, the Constitutional authority pursuant to that Article exists. But there is no Bill of Rights in Article I of the U.S. Constitution. That is why the SCOTUS says that your Bill of Rights protections are self-executing. You invoke it straight into court, an Article III court that have jurisdiction over issues dealing with citizens and inhabitants. Where are citizens or inhabitants mentioned in Article I? I argue nowhere because Article I deals with subject matter legislative authority and not modes of redress to citizen provided by Article III.

The Supreme Court ruled in 1796, with the concurring votes of two members of the Constitutional Convention then sitting as Justices on the court, that Congress could impose a tax on a citizen of Virginia for carriages held for private use. Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796).

Yes i agree and i know. Did you read the reasoning why it was an excise tax? Because he could pass the cost on the consumer, thus having pursued a 'business activity' that was regulated by Congress under the excise taxation rule.

I am not arguing that if one as a private citizen makes what are wages under Title 26 or has corporate income, or any other income earned trough PRIVATE labor, he is not liable for tax. You are jumping the gun....slow down.

“[Billman] contends that, as a ‘private individual defined in the Privacy Act,’ he is not required to pay tax because the ‘IRS has admitted that the * * * [Internal Revenue Code] does not apply’ to such individuals. He notes that the Privacy Act requires the Internal Revenue Service to (5 U.S.C. sec. 552a(e)(3)): ‘inform each individual whom it asks to supply information * * * the authority * * * which authorizes the solicitation of the information.’ He then concludes that, because the Form 1040 ‘Privacy Act Notice’ fails to mention section 6012, I.R.C. 1954, he is not required to provide any tax related information and, indeed, is freed from paying any tax at all. In our judgment, petitioner’s position is based on sheer sophistry. We hold that the Form 1040 ‘Privacy Act Notice’ does satisfy the requirements of the Privacy Act, and that, in any event, even if there were a failure to comply with the Privacy Act, such failure would not nullify petitioner’s liability for Federal income taxes.”

Gibberish. This is a bogus claim.

I don't read minds, and I can only respond to the words you use. If you make false claims about citizenship, I assume that they are relevant to your arguments and I refute them. If you don't want me refuting your false claims, then stop making them.

I did not make a false claim. Are you referring to the 14th Amendment citizen or Article I:8:1 civil citizen legislated thereunder? I argue you are mixing the two. 14th Amendment is legislated in Title 8 and not Title 26. And i am still a national of Arizona under Title 8 1101(21) and 23) because national refers to domicile, or civil status. Citizenship is a 1st amendment choice of political affilation and NOT one gov't can include you or define you. They can just offer a 'door' in, so to speak, and an individual has to accept it by using his FREE choice to associate with such political body of people binded together into a state. Look up the definition of a state in Black's law, it is not a gov't. It usually involves three things: territory, the people, and the government they created through their constitutent political binding together.

As noted above, the phrase "franchise court" has no meaning to me, and does not appear in any statute or court decision I can find.

Hmm....franchise courts are created through legislative action, or Article I. Article III courts need not be legislated, that is why i refer to them as 'constitutional.' The constitution legislated them so to speak. You can't read about Tax Court in Article I, thus it does not exist 'constitutionally' being created through legislative action of the Congress on authority from Article I. I hope that clarifies what i am saying. Franchise courts refers to courts created with only specific 'franchise' rights: taxation, small claims, federal benefit claims, bankruptcy. They are not Article III courts dealing with CITIZENS, but 'special' courts dealing with specific 'subjects', and anyone who has a claim in re: to the subject is welcome to argue.

I have no idea what you think that means. Could you provide an example?

Article I:8 gives Congress EXCLUSIVE authority:
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Article III gives the Judiciary EXCLUSIVE authority:
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

That is why City of Boerne v. Flores decision tells us that the Bill of Rights is self executing and you can go straight to the judiciary for review, there is no requirement for Congress "[T]o make all laws which shall be necessary and proper....." before you can sue.

Article I are powers vested in Congress.
Article III are powers vested to the United States judiciary.
They are two different departments, two different sovereigns, if you will, completely independent within their spheres of powers, one under Article I (and others) and the other under Article III in this case.

Well, yes, because you can't file a petition in bankruptcy court and then claim that the bankruptcy laws don't apply to you. That would be silly. If you don't believe that the bankruptcy laws apply to you, then don't file a petition in bankruptcy court.

EXACTLY!!! Bankruptcy laws do not apply to anyone, they deal with bankruptcy. I hope you misspoke and didn't mean to imply that bankruptcy laws apply to a specific class of citizens, or residents. Instead, as i assume you meant to say, bankruptcy laws deal with bankruptcy issues, irregardless of residency, whether state or federal, because EXCLUSIVE legislative authority over such SUBJECT was given to Congress in Article I, right?

Well now apply the same logic to tax court please. Only a moron files a petition in Tax Court to turn around to argue that Income Tax laws do NOT APPLY TO HIM. Again, i know that income tax don't apply to people but tax incomes, i am just saying it exactly the same so you understand where i am coming from.

What idiot goes to bankruptcy court to try to prove that he was not involved in a bankruptcy?
What idiot goes to tax court to try to prove that he has not taxable income?
That is why i call them 'franchise' courts, or subject matter courts. Subject being taxation and bankruptcy, if your claim is not one of those, then go to a proper court.

Therefore, same logic applies: If you don't believe that the bankruptcy laws [income tax laws] apply to you, then don't file a petition in bankruptcy [tax] court. If you don't understand what i am saying now, then you are purposely not trying to.

I'm not sure what you're quoting from, but the cases that are cited do stand for the proposition that a litigant can't claim the benefit of a statute and then question the constitutionality of the statute. But I don't understand what that has to do with your claims about "private rights."

If you're saying that you can't file a petition in Tax Court and then claim that the Tax Court is unconstitutional, I would agree, but so what?

That is exactly what 'patriots' or 'tax protesters' do! Enter court to claim that their private labor is nontaxable, when there is no private labor in Title 26. Is there? Tax court created by Title 26 right?

If you're saying that you can't file a petition in Tax Court and claim that the federal income tax is unconstitutional in some way, or the procedures of the IRS are unconstitutional in some way, then you're wrong. See, for example, See, for example, Tate & Lyle, Inc. v. Commissioner, 103 T.C. 656 (1994), holding that an Internal Revenue Service regulation was unconstitutional when applied retroactively. (The Tax Court was reversed on appeal, 87 F.3d 99 (3d Cir. 1996), but that doesn't detract from the fact that the Tax Court ruled the taxpayer's favor on a constitutional issue.)

Geee, i wonder why they reversed. Go read it and report back. Judge Woodrough won in District Court and then Appellate Court only to be reversed by SCOTUS because the 'taxes' he alleged were diminishing his pay were NOT taxes but a contractual agreement he entered in by accepting a judicial salary that was included in gross income, thus knowing HE WOULD HAVE TO RETURN some of it back.

Once again, repeating something you don't what to hear and so is going to have to be repeated: The fact that a court rules that you don't have the rights you claim means that you don't have the rights that you claim, and not that the U.S. Constitution is irrelevant.

It is relevant only in so much the court was legislated through ARticle I. After that the taxpayer is entitled ONLY to the rules and privileges accorded to him by Title 26. In other words, taxpayers due process has boiled down to the rules of tax court.

[stija]

Here is a perfect example of a legislative court under Article I, or other power EXCLUSIVELY vested into Congress:

As the only judicial power vested in Congress is to create courts whose judges shall hold their offices during good behavior, it necessarily follows that if Congress authorizes the creation of courts and the appointment of judges for a limited time, it must act independently of the Constitution and upon territory which is not part of the United States within the meaning of the Constitution. In delivering his opinion in this
Page 182 U. S. 267
case Mr. Chief Justice Marshall made no reference whatever to the prior case of Loughborough v. Blake, 5 Wheat. 317, in which he had intimated that the territories were part of the United States. But if they be a part of the United States, it is difficult to see how Congress could create courts in such territories except under the judicial clause of the Constitution[ARTICLE III]. The power to make needful rules and regulations[ARTICLE I]would certainly not authorize anything inconsistent with the Constitution if it applied to the territories. Certainly no such court could be created within a state except under the restrictions of the judicial clause. It is sufficient to say that this case has ever since been accepted as authority for the proposition that the judicial clause of the Constitution has no application to courts created in the territories, and that, with respect to them, Congress has a power wholly unrestricted by it. We must assume as a logical inference from this case that the other powers vested in Congress by the Constitution have no application to these territories, or that the judicial clause is exceptional in that particular.

This case was followed in Benner v. Porter, 9 How. 235, in which it was held that the jurisdiction of these territorial courts ceased upon the admission of Florida into the Union, Mr. Justice Nelson remarking of them (p. 50 U. S. 242), that
"they are not organized under the Constitution nor subject to its complex distribution of the powers of government as the organic law, but are the creations exclusively of the legislative department, and subject to its supervision and control. Whether or not there are provisions in that instrument which extend to and act upon these territorial governments it is not now material to examine. We are speaking here of those provisions that refer particularly to the distinction between federal and state jurisdiction. . . . (p. 50 U. S. 244). Neither were they organized by Congress under the Constitution, as they were invested with powers and jurisdiction which that body were incapable of conferring upon a court within the limits of a state."

Downes v. Bidwell
There, one example.

1. Notice that the court makes a clear distinction between constitutional and legislative courts.
2. This really talks about a 3rd class of courts, PURELY legislative, not even through Article I.
3. I bet you did not even know that Congress can legislate extra-constitutionally under 4:3:2 and WHICH is soooo important to understand under which authority a federal statute was legislated.
4. So you and me agree that there are Article I and Article III courts.
5. Scotus just informed us that there are extra-constitutional courts too.
6. Note the last sentence, the US constitution is INCAPABLE of conferring jurisdiction within a state to ANY federal court.
7. Thus those domiciled in states of the union are subject to their courts which have in personam jurisdiction over the citizens, residents, and inhabitants alike.

The ONLY Article III judicial power of Congress mentioned above:

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Article I courts are not vested with judicial powers but Congressionally granted powers of review over certain subject matters. That is the main differnce.

As you said, it would be silly to enter tax court to try and prove that it doesn't apply to you. BUT THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT IDIOTS KEEP DOING and they lose every time. Which section of Title 26 would you suggest authorizes such a tax court to rule that the person who entered can be recognized as non liable or non subject? Or which section provides that wages are earned from private labor which is non taxable??? Do you get it what is happening? These people are claiming frivolities that are NONEXISTENT in title 26 and ask a title 26 court to rule that it EXISTS SOMEHOW!!

Now having said the above about tax courts, stop asking me to prove an impossibility. It is akin to asking me to prove that someone in bankruptcy court won by having the court declare him not subject to bankruptcy laws. Plus now you now that i am not silly to enter court dealing with a subject i allege i have NOTHING with.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Faith without works is dead, Stija - what are you going to actually do?

1. Nothing if it is privately funded and has no public connections; i recognize the First Amendment, I am not a Commie.

If what is privately funded? And what are "public connections?"

2. File a complaint, 450$ of my private property, against the owner if it is either: a) publicly funded, b) publicly operated, c) or has any other public affiliations;

File a complaint? In what venue? Against whom? What are "public affiliations?"

3. American citizen at work.

That has nothing to do with the question. You're allegedly working; how does that represent taking action against those you see as the enemy?

4. Because Stija private man and has alot of private nontaxable income, he has property to spend according to his will and his proportions, and not Congressional public policy.

Which means what? Please, try to use real-world terms and phraseology.

5. Stija is first going to write to their legal counsel and ask whether public connection exists.

You're going to write to someone's "legal counsel?" What - anonymously? And how are you going to find their "legal counsel" - assuming they even have or need one? And under what theory would they be required to respond to pseudo-legal gibberish from an anonymous crackpot? Do you possess some other magical power that would compel them to respond?

6. Will keep you posted, don't worry.

Will keep us posted on what? Some new fantasy?

[stija]

You're going to write to someone's "legal counsel?" What - anonymously? And how are you going to find their "legal counsel" - assuming they even have or need one? And under what theory would they be required to respond to pseudo-legal gibberish from an anonymous crackpot? Do you possess some other magical power that would compel them to respond?

Quatloos! The views herein are not those of Financial and Tax Fraud Education Associates, Inc. -- Legal Issues Fax to 877-698-0678 and admin issues to sooltauq [at] gmail.com

Piss off to the hole you came from.

You don't have to respond until you're summoned. Then please don't respond.

[Thule]

You don't have to respond until you're summoned. Then please don't respond.

Moderators, I believe the old 'put up or shut up' rule applies here.

[LightinDarkness]

Your question is a) loaded, and b) silly. Can you provide me case law proving that the sky is blue? I will not believe you until i see case law! And your question implies that if there is no case law, one has no cause of action and can't be right. If that's what you are suggesting, how do you think case law is made? Where does case law come from if not from cases litigated for the first time. Are you suggesting that ALL possibilities on EVERY possibly fact alleged have been tested and tried in courts?

Looks like after that whole wall of text the answer is "no, I have no case cite to show that my theories actually work in court." Truthfully I expected this. Funny that you think its a "loaded" question because it seems quite reasonable to me and anyone else who actually wants evidence for your theories. Its a very simple concept, really. If your legal theories are true then there would be some case, some where, in some court, where they worked and someone got out of paying their taxes.

The excuse that your theories are a tautology ("case law proving that the sky is blue") doesn't work to anyone who knows how case law actually works. If your insane theories are such a established point of law, there is at least no dispute that the IRS disagrees - but thats OK, because when someone takes the IRS to court and gives them your theories, the Judge should go "Yep, your right, case dismissed, no taxes owed." And yet with all the thousands of tax cases we have, not one person has prevailed using any tax protestor theories - including yours - and yes Virginia, your theories are pretty standard and are only minor variations on classical tax protestor arguments.

You can shut us all up and "win" in a very easy manner. Just cite one case. One line and you win, we lose. Can we get that cite please? Hint: It doesn't exist. Because your theories have no basis in actual law.

[stija]

Sure brother, right after you cite a case from Bankruptcy court that proves an individual in that court received a ruling that Bankruptcy laws do not apply to him.

There is no theory involved here. The only theory is that a man can't earn a living without incurring taxable income. That can be only true in a Communist country where every man is public property.

I. Nothing in society will belong to anyone, either as a personal possession or as capital goods, except the things for which the person has immediate use, for either his needs, his pleasures, or his daily work.
II. Every citizen will be a public man, sustained by, supported by, and occupied at the public expense.
III. Every citizen will make his particular contribution to the activities of the community according to his capacity, his talent and his age; it is on this basis that his duties will be determined, in conformity with the distributive laws.[6]

So if there is no case law telling you that grass is green and sky is blue, it's a theory?
Are you, like the other guy, suggesting that ALL possible legal arguments ON ALL possible alleged facts have been exhausted so far?
Lol.

What you want is a sure thing, and someone else to do your work and bidding for you. That's why you have a chain around your neck. I was the same at one time long ago, and it was real hard to let go. And scary.

Is it really hard to accept that not everything that a man earns is taxable income.

“We must reject in this case, as we have rejected in cases arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909 (Doyle, Collector, v. Mitchell Brothers Co., 247 U.S. 179, 38 Sup. Ct. 467, 62 L. Ed.--), the broad contention submitted on behalf of the government that all receipts—everything that comes in-are income within the proper definition of the term ‘gross income,’ and that the entire proceeds of a conversion of capital assets, in whatever form and under whatever circumstances accomplished, should be treated as gross income. Certainly the term “income’ has no broader meaning in the 1913 act than in that of 1909 (see Stratton’s Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 416, 417 S., 34 Sup. Ct. 136), and for the present purpose we assume there is not difference in its meaning as used in the two acts.”

Southern Pacific Co., v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330, 335, 38 S.Ct. 540 (1918)

Whatever may constitute income, therefore, must have the essential feature of gain to the recipient. This was true when the sixteenth amendment became effective, it was true at the time of the decision in Eisner v. McComber, supra, it was true under section 22(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, and it is likewise true under section 61 (a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. If there is no gain, there is no income.

303 F.Supp. 1187 (1969)

Title 26 wages by definition include gain. I don't make Title 26 wages. It's that simple. If one makes Title 26 wages, one has a gain and therefore income.

If what you suggest were true, than income would be defined something like this:

Income means whatever a person, (citizen whoever) makes or comes in from whatever source derived.

And income tax laws wouldn't be so voluminous. But that can only happen in a communist country where YOU ARE PUBLIC PROPERTY.

[LightinDarkness]

Sure brother, right after you cite a case from Bankruptcy court that proves an individual in that court received a ruling that Bankruptcy laws do not apply to him.

There is no theory involved here. The only theory is that a man can't earn a living without incurring taxable income. That can be only true in a Communist country where every man is public property.

Yawn. Nice job attempting to deflect, but I'm afraid you've failed again by trying to draw an invalid analogy (but you knew that). Is anyone claiming, as you do with tax law, that there is some truth about bankruptcy law that enables someone to have it not apply to them? No. But you are claiming that with tax law.

Call it whatever you like, by calling it a THEORY I was actually being generous. In reality it just bats**t crazy legal gibberish. By the way, I love your whole Communist shtick, very McCarthy era of you. All who disagree with you are of course secret communists, there could be no other reason for disagreement.

By the way, although we'll never know I bet if we had access to your income level we'd hilariously find that you get way more benefits from US taxpayers than you pay in taxes. Most tax protestors seem to be on social welfare programs, although there are a few dentists and chiropractors in the mix. But since you don't pay taxes, I am sure you never benefit from US taxpayers right? Whoops except that by typing on quatloos you do, as the internet was a research project funded by taxpayer dollars. Why are you taking advantage of something you don't pay for? You should never be on the internet if you don't pay taxes.

This is really simple. If you are correct it takes one line of text, one case citation, to prove that your arguments have any basis in law. Put up or shut up.

[stija]

By the way, although we'll never know I bet if we had access to your income level we'd hilariously find that you get way more benefits from US taxpayers than you pay in taxes. Most tax protestors seem to be on social welfare programs, although there are a few dentists and chiropractors in the mix. But since you don't pay taxes, I am sure you never benefit from US taxpayers right? Whoops except that by typing on quatloos you do, as the internet was a research project funded by taxpayer dollars. Why are you taking advantage of something you don't pay for? You should never be on the internet if you don't pay taxes.

Do you want to see my Cox bill with federal surcharge fees/taxes on it?
I pay taxes, don't allege falsities. I don't pay income taxes because i don't incur taxable income. Say it properly or don't imply that i break the law.

I don't benefit from anything public because I TRY MY HARDEST to stay away from public rights and property as they always come with strings attached. One example is Income Taxes, you just don't get it buddy.

And i am a medical professional, just like the ones you mentioned

Everytime I buy bread i pay federal taxes as 75% of the price is regulatory fees on machinery, farming and production taxes. You just don't see them
Everytime i fill up with gas, i pay federal taxes.
Everytime i use something that is taxable i pay taxes.
You're just a moron who does not understand anything and I would hate for you to sit on someones trial in re: income taxation since you are FINANCIALLY BIASED.

I don't want anything from the public, nor do i give anything to the public:

"There is a clear distinction in this particular case between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for an examination at the suit of the State. 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 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 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).

Did i trespass on your rights somehow?
I exist outside of public policy unlike the corporate entity in the above case. It owes its artificial existence to the public, having been created by it.
I existed antecedent any public policy and independent of it.
If Title 26 ceased to exist tomorrow, i could function.
So could you, you just don't get it.