Can a right be taxed?
Do you have a right to sell your labor, or is selling
your labor a government granted privilege? (I use the term ‘government
granted privilege’ loosely, it is actually a contract with the people who
own the IRS).
Can you receive benefits without being a ward of your
As a socialist who receives benefits of your provider,
are you forced, against your will, to contribute your fair share?
An employee, similar to an indentured servant, has no
rights to his own labor. He
gave up rights to his labor in exchange for care and protection.
His provider/master/lord owns his labor rights.
An employer buys labor from the provider/master/lord, (sends in the
provider’s share quarterly), and is expected to give the remaining amount
(paycheck after withholding the providers’ share) to the employee as a
living allowance. By April 15,
employees are allowed, but not required, to square up with their
provider/master/lord for unaccounted “internal revenue”.
The provider’s share can be raised to 100% or more by a simple
majority vote of the employees’ representatives who administer this
foreign program. Employee has
no say in what his living allowance is to be.
The only persons liable for income tax on wages, according to the
Internal Revenue Code, are Withholding Agents.
The legal definition of ‘employee’ seems somewhat
convoluted but it uses the original meanings of the word “use” and the
word “assured” and the word “business”.
If you want to study this start with Clark’s Summary
of American Law
index entry for
“Employees”. Then find a
reprint of a dictionary from the 1800’s and look up the words “hire”
“Business” is the usury of labor. According to Walter Lipmann: “The early Christian writer
looked upon business as a peril to the soul”
(Walter Lipmann was a journalist who’s book Public Opinion exposed how the elite manipulated the media to
create World War I).
I suggest that you read the Mennonite Encyclopedia
entry for the word “Business”. It
is available online at www.mhsc.ca/encyclopedia/contents/B86ME.html
and read why “Business activity on the part of Christians has created some
of the greatest concern for the church.”
“Use” means usury, the employer is using rights to
your labor. Direct-to-you
compensation for work is not the same as buying labor from a third party who
owns the labor rights. Directly selling your labor for a paycheck has never
been taxable according to the courts (see Appendix G).
Don’t think that privately owned employers are
private organizations. They are
agents of the IRS (or whoever owns the IRS).
When they ask for your IRS number, they are performing an IRS
function. Corporations are
incorporated into the government.
To employ means to equitably convert.
Once you get an employee identification number you have been
converted to their use. Corporations
then may USE you for their purpose. IRS can then collect the usury of your
labor. Employers must also pay
for this government granted privilege. And, you must pay usury (income tax) whenever you profit from
labor rights that you no longer own. The
IRS gets wealth from the USE of labor rights that they own.
This is usury.
Business does not purchase labor, they employ the labor
owned by whoever owns the IRS.
The Social Security Act is intended for employees, not for small business owners.
Don’t confuse “self-employed” with a small business proprietor.
Small business owners need not give away the rights to their labor.
Schwing v. United States, 165 F.2d 518:
protects workers whose livelihood depends upon another rather
than upon the public at large.”
Usury comparisons to show what happens when you sell
The bank can make a profit off your deposit
without splitting the profit, you do not have a “beneficial right”
to its use. You sold all rights to profit from “your” deposited
An employer can make a profit off your labor
without splitting the profit. You
gave up “beneficial rights” to you labor when you signed a
financing statement pursuant to UCC 9-302.
interest is not your share of the profit made
from your money. Even if the bank makes bad investments, it must still
pay you for the rights you sold. It is income derived from capital
according to the Supreme Court case of Eisner v. Macomber.
wages are not compensation for the direct sale of
your labor. It is payment
for the rights you sold. It
is income derived from labor according to the Supreme Court case of
Eisner v. Macomber.
While your money is on deposit, you cannot sell
it to someone else.
While your labor is on deposit, you do not have a
right to sell your labor to an employer.
I repeat: you
are not an owner of ‘your’ deposited money; you cannot receive
any profits, or be liable for losses incurred, with ‘your’ money
because you contracted away your beneficial right to the money.
If you signed a financing statement (to deposit
your labor into the socialist trough as collateral for future
benefits), then you are not an
owner of ‘your’ labor.
The Interest you receive is payment for selling
the beneficial rights to use your money.
Taxes paid to the Department of the Treasury,
like interest, are the employer’s payments to buy the beneficial
rights to your labor. The paycheck is the living allowance your owner
pays, through their agent (your employer), to provide for their
Some banks’ contracts let you withdraw your
However, your Social Security Card is a permanent
irrevocable Certificate of Deposit.
Usury is an abomination, Ezekiel 18:13.
Usury is an abomination, Ezekiel 18:13.
If it is still confusing, or if you don’t believe me,
then read the court cases in Appendix G now.
You may still be confused about the distinction between
a direct sale of labor and the sale of labor rights. Your IRS bureaucrats are not confused. They know exactly when to avoid imprisonment for theft, and
when to boldly attack anyone who profits from labor that is owned by the
Department of the Treasury.
Your Constitution, in Article 1 section 10, prohibits
any state from impairing the obligation of contracts. This means the supreme law of the land prohibits the state
from interfering or regulating any contract between a real (unnumbered)
worker and those who pay him for his labor.
The state and Federal governments have a duty to protect unnumbered
people from any impairment, such as tax or regulation, on their labor.
And they have always protected this right (see Appendix G).
But Employment is not a contract with you as a worker, it is a
contract with those who own your labor rights.
If your employment was a contract between you and your
employer, it could not be impaired or regulated. Yet your employer:
must be sued for your mistakes,
cannot sue you (the assured) for performing your duties
Must still pay you for work he rejects,
is forced to pay minimum wage
is forced to pay half of your FICA contributions, [by the way
Communists are exempt from paying FICA taxes according to Section 3121(b) of
the Internal Revenue Code, exception number 17
because they don’t have to pay their fair share.]
is forced to pay Unemployment insurance,
is forced to pay Workman’s Compensation insurance
is forced take a portion of your pay and send it to your
is forced to make accounting records and submit them to your
How can these impairment of contracts possibly be
Constitutional unless there is a written waiver of rights?
What did you sign that might have waived your rights?
Bureaucrats who can be put in prison for 10 years if
they deny you a right (Title 18, sections 241 & 242
) will boldly impair the obligation of most labor contracts.
How can they be so certain? Simply:
numbered persons have no labor rights.
Go get a copy of IRS form SS-8 and prove to yourself
whether or not you have a right to contract your own labor. An employee does not have a right to benefit from (share the
profits from) his own labor. The
people who own the IRS also own your labor rights, and you have waived your
right to sell your labor. When
you applied for a worker authorization number you voluntarily entered into
an equitable conversion of your future labor (as explained on the next
page). You no longer have a
right to benefit from your labor. You
waived your right to earn wages.
Now for the question: If you receive benefits of your
provider, are you forced, against your will, to contribute your fair share?
Answer: Withholding is authorized by the Federal
Insurance Contributions Act. The
word Federal is not in your
Constitution, it refers to the operation of the foreign receivership that
operates the federal corporation for the benefit of the creditors.
This word Insurance refers
to orthodox socialism. Prove it
to yourself: Now that you know that the Constitution prohibits direct
welfare, and that the poor laws create government wards, and that the
foreign bankruptcy began their federal operation in 1933, go look up the
term “social insurance” in any Law Dictionary.
The word Contribution:
“Right of one who has discharged a common liability to recover of another
also liable, the aliquot portion which he ought to pay or bear... a
partition by which the creditors of an insolvent debtor divide among
themselves the proceeds of his property proportionally to the amount of
their respective credits.” Hint:
you agreed to be the proceeds when you signed a financing statement pursuant
to UCC 9-302.
Rights are absolute.
We are endowed by our creator with unalienable rights.
Your rights cannot be taken away except in punishment of a crime
according to the Supreme Court in Butcher's Union v. Crescent City, 111 US
If you had a right to something, you would have a 100%
unalienable right. If something
can be legally taken from you, or regulated, or a portion taxed from you,
then you cannot say that you had a right to it. If someone can legally take 1% of your wages, it has to be
because you gave up your rights to your wages.
You gave up ALL rights to your wages.
There are several possibilities to explain why you work
without full pay.
1. It could be a simple contract where you agreed that
others could take your wages. This
would be illegal conversion of your labor unless there is a contract.
Did you sign something?
A simple contract without consideration is theft;
therefore the courts must presume that you paid something valuable in
exchange for benefits. Perhaps
you paid something very valuable.
Even without a contract, you are obligated to pay for
your benefits. According to Black's
Law Dictionary: "constructive
contract rests upon the equitable principle that a person shall not be
allowed to enrich himself unjustly at the expense of another, and is not in
fact a contract, but an obligation, which the law creates in the absence of
any agreement. "
I suspect that it is more than just a simple contract
because congress wasn't sure that the Social Security Act
was legal. I've
been looking for the book "The Development of the Social Security
Act" by Edwin E. Witte. I
found an article with this excerpt from the book attributed to Frances
Perkins Secretary of Labor 1933-1945: "This was a new type of
legislation --- nothing of the sort had ever come before congress of the
United States before, it took much explaining and much patience."
I'm also looking for another book: "The Formative Years of Social Security" by Arthur
J. Altmeyer. Let me know if you
2. Another possibility is that it is a binding contract
where you purchased a promise of protection by exchanging all rights to your
future wages. As with other
forms of equitable conversion: you get to hold legal title to your labor,
but only as a security for the balance of the protection you purchased.
This means that you get to keep "full" legal
title to your labor. In a
moment, I'll explain what this deceptive term means.
3. A third possibility is the medieval system of corvee
labor. This requires some
forced labor as a tax payment to the lord of the manor.
If your tribute is taken before you are paid, then you have performed
some corvee labor without pay. You
authorized your employer to accept this labor by a card in your right hand,
or by a number from your forehead.
This is nothing new.
The Hebrew word mac (Strong’s
H4522) is used 23 times in the Old Testament referring to a system of forced
labor as a tax to a feudal lord, a king, or a foreign ruler.
Moses lived in such a system. This
is the corvee system. If you
want to see how history repeats itself, try to find the Book
of Jasher and read chapter 65, verses 19-34.
The Book of Jasher is
mentioned in the Bible in Josh 10:13 and 2nd Sam 1:18).
4. The fourth and most likely possibility is that
Social Security is a Cestui Que
trust. It is a trust structured
like a vow of poverty. You
contracted for a trust whereby you conveyed to the trustee the beneficial
interest in all your future labor in exchange for your benefits.
You are left with legal title to your labor.
Go to a law dictionary and look up the definition of
title.... the apparent right of ownership and possession, but which
carries no beneficial interest in the property, ... it may also mean
appearance of title as distinguished from complete title....
Apparent right of ownership with beneficial or equitable title in
another." [Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition , page 897]
The trust contract was executed through the Secretary
of the Treasury who is an agent for the trustee, as I will show later.
Having taken a vow of poverty, you of course would be a
government ward. As with other
vows of poverty, you are dependent upon the system that supports you.
Does this sound Catholic to you?
Perhaps there is a reason for this.
The trustee's agent is the Secretary of the Treasury.
Perhaps his role as trustee is outside his governmental duties.
If so, this would explain a lot.
More about this later. The
Cestui Que trust would be a private trust and enforceable in any
court. Now that the Social
Security Administration is an independent agency, there is much speculation
about the real nature of the trust.
In Flemming v. Nestor your US Supreme Court ruled that Social Security Benefits are
noncontractual and can be eliminated at any time by Congress.
They also stated (at 80 S.Ct page 1379):
“The people covered by this Act are now able to rely with
complete assurance on the fact that they will be compelled to contribute
regularly to this fund whenever each contribution falls due.”
If you want to do some research, try to figure out the
inconsistency. How can the
Supreme Court can call it a fund, when there is no trust fund.
By the way, withholding is voluntary.
US Citizens are not subject to withholding according to Title 26 Code
of Federal Regulations Section 1.1441-5
entitled “Claiming to be a person not subject to
withholding.” [Although this
section was recently repealed, the Tax Court rulings cited in the section
remain as precedent].
Internal Revenue Code, section 6109(a)(3)
requires employers to REQUEST the “identifying number as may
be prescribed for securing proper identification of such other person.”
Numbered persons have waived the equitable rights to
their labor, and no longer have the right to benefit from their labor,
thereby making their labor taxable. These
people are called “employees”. Except
for civil servants, only indigent avowed socialists can fall into the
government’s hidden definition of an ‘employee”.
Bureaucrats can tax this labor without risking
imprisonment, because they have evidence of a sworn affidavit, sworn
contrary to scripture, that the numbered employee is an indigent avowed
socialist who has equitably converted his labor.
An indigent so desperate (unable to support himself and not supported
by family, church or state) that he applied for federal funds in order to
survive, knowing that the Constitution does not provide welfare to anyone
other than government owned slaves.
The rights to the indigent’s labor belong to whoever
owns the IRS and these labor rights are administered by the Secretary of the
Treasury. More about this
later, but you won’t like it.
“Enemies of Christ” have been captured, vanquished
and subdued and PUT INTO PERPETUAL SLAVERY.
This has been the stated intent of the Catholic church ever since the
Papal Bull called the Doctrine of
Discovery in 1452. It seems
as though their web has snared many. Is
this entrapment? Just like a
police sting operation, their web traps only those who are predisposed to
become enemies of Christ.
US Citizens were not subject to withholding according
to the recently repealed Title 26 Code of Federal Regulations Section
1.1441-5 entitled “Claiming to be a person not subject to
If you want to get out of withholding, here are some
resources to investigate.
Read Title 26, Code of Federal Regulations, section
31.3402(p) and prove to yourself that a W-4 is a voluntary request for
Go to www.nossn.com
page down to the bottom and click on “freedom materials” then click on their W-4T withholding termination form.
Go to www.taxfreedom101.com/library/social_security.htm
and read about the male nurse who was able to get his withholding refunded.
Go to www.taxtruth4u.com/nwrc.html
for the National Workers Rights Committee