Here is what the Law says;
“An income tax is neither a property tax nor a tax on occupations of common right, but is an excise tax…The legislature may declare as ‘privileged’ and tax as such for state revenue, those pursuits not matters of common right, but it has no power to declare as a ‘privilege’ and tax for revenue purposes, occupations that are of common right.”
“The right to engage in an employment, to carry on a business, or pursue an occupation or profession not in itself hurtful or conducted in a manner injurious to the public, is a common right, which, under our Constitution, as construed by all our former decisions, can neither be prohibited nor hampered by laying a tax for State revenue on the occupation, employment, business or profession. … Thousands of individuals in this State carry on their occupations as above defined who derive no income whatever therefrom. But, where an income is derived from any occupation, business, profession or employment, then the Legislature may lay thereon a tax…”
Sims v. Ahrens, 271 SW 720 (Ark. S. Ct. 1925) (emphasis added)
Right to work and earn a living
Labor is property
Flint v. Stone. 220 U.S. 107. “Therefore our right to labor in a lawful occupation is an inborn and absolute prerogative and the government may not impose a charge or a fee for the exercise of such right.
“Charge: To impose a burden, duty, obligation, or lien; to create a claim against property; to assess; to demand; to accuse; to instruct a jury on matters of law. To impose a tax, duty, or trust. To entrust with responsibilities and duties (e.g., care of another). In commercial transactions, to bill or invoice; to purchase on credit. In Criminal Law, to indict or An encumbrance, lien, or claim; a burden or load; an obligation or duty; a liability; an accusation. A person or thing committed to the care of another. The price of, or rate for, something.”
Butchers’ Union v. Crescent city, 111 U.S. 746, 4 S.Ct. 652, 28 L.Ed. 585 (1884), . It has been well said that ‘the property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands, and to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property. [emphasis added]
Davis v. Boston & Maine Railroad Co. (89 F2d 368, 376) ruled likewise: “Working by an artisan at his trade, carrying on an ordinary business, or engaging in a common occupation cannot be subjected to a license fee or excise… The rights to labor and to do ordinary business are natural, essential and inalienable, partaking of the nature both of personal liberty and of private property.”
Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578, 589-90, 17 S.Ct. 427 (1897): “The ‘liberty’ mentioned in that amendment means, not only the right of the citizen to be free from the mere physical restraint of his person, as by incarceration, but the term is deemed to embrace the right of the citizen to be free in the enjoyment of all his faculties; to be free to use them in all lawful ways; to live and work where he will; to earn his livelihood by any lawful calling; to pursue any livelihood or avocation; and for that purpose to enter into all contracts which may be proper, necessary, and essential to his carrying out to a successful conclusion the purposes above mentioned.”
Adair v. United States, 208 U.S. 161, 172, 28 S.Ct. 277 (1908): “Such liberty and right embrace the right to make contracts for the purchase of the labor of others, and equally the right to make contracts for the sale of one’s own labor; each right, however, being subject to the fundamental condition that no contract, whatever its subject-matter, can be sustained which the law, upon reasonable grounds, forbids as inconsistent with the public interests, or as hurtful to the public order, or as detrimental to the common good,” Id., at 172.
Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1, 14, 35 S.Ct. 240 (1915): “The principle is fundamental and vital. Included in the right of personal liberty and the right of private property-partaking of the nature of each – is the right to make contracts for the acquisition of property. Chief among such contracts is that of personal employment, by which labor and other services are exchanged for money or other forms of property. If this right be struck down or arbitrarily interfered with, there is a substantial impairment of liberty in the long-established constitutional sense. The right is as essential to the laborer as to the capitalist, to the poor as to the rich; for the vast majority of persons have no other honest way to begin to acquire property, save by working for money.” [emphasis added]
Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33, 41, 36 S.Ct. 7 (1915): “It requires no argument to show that the right to work for a living in the common occupations of the community is of the very essence of the personal freedom and opportunity that it was the purpose of the Amendment to secure.” [emphasis added]
Meyer v. State of Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, 43 S.Ct. 625 (1923): “While this court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” [emphasis added]
Morehead v. N.Y. ex rel Tipaldo, 298 U.S. 587, 601, 56 S.Ct. 918 (1936): “Nothing is better settled in our constitutional law than that liberty does not mean merely freedom from physical restraint, but includes the right to work for a living by using the powers of brain and muscle in the ordinary activities of mankind.” [emphasis added]
Greene v. McElroy, 360 U.S. 474, 492, 79 S. Ct. 1400 (1959): “[R]ight to hold specific private employment and to follow a chosen profession free from unreasonable governmental interference comes within the `liberty’ and `property’ concepts of the Fifth Amendment.” [emphasis added]
Quinn v. Syracuse Model Neighborhood Corp., 613 F.2d 438, 446 (2nd Cir. 1980): “It is well-settled that an individual’s liberty can be implicated when a governmentally imposed stigma restricts his ability to seek and obtain employment. This ‘broad and majestic’ principle, Roth, supra, 408 U.S. at 571, 92 S.Ct. 2701, embraces interference with ‘the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life.’
Stidham v. Tex. Comm’n on Private Sec., 418 F.3d 486, 491 (5th Cir. 2005): “The Supreme Court has said that `the right to work for a living in the common occupations of the community is of the very essence of the personal freedom and opportunity that it was the purpose of the [Fourteenth]Amendment to secure[,]’ and this court has ‘confirmed the principle that one has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in pursuing a chosen occupation.’”
Hopkins v. Oxley Stave Co., 83 F. 912 (8th Cir. 1897): “The right of an individual to carry on his business as he sees fit, and to use such implements or processes of manufacture as he desires to use, provided he follows a lawful avocation, and conducts it in a lawful manner, is entitled to as much consideration as his other personal rights; and the law should afford protection against the efforts of powerful combinations to rob him of that right and coerce his will by intimidating his customers and destroying his patronage.”
Beacon Theatres v. Westover, 252 F.2d 864, 871 (9th Cir. 1958):“This right to protection by way of injunction against interference with property or contracts or other pecuniary rights, has been applied so as to protect a person in his right to earn a livelihood and to continue in employment unmolested by efforts to enforce void state statutes.”
State v. Smith, 42 Wn. 237, 84 P. 851 (1906): “The right to follow any of the common occupations of life is an inalienable right. It was formulated as such under the phrase `pursuit of happiness’ in the Declaration of Independence. It commenced with the fundamental proposition that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. This right is a large ingredient in the civil liberty of the citizen.”
“Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;’ and to ‘secure,’ not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor’s injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor’s benefit; second, that if he devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation. BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)
“As a rule, `a definition which declares what a term “means” . . . excludes any meaning that is not stated'” [Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379 (1979), n. 10] It is axiomatic that the statutory definition of the term excludes unstated meanings of that term.
• As judges, it is our duty to [481 U.S. 485] construe legislation as it is written, not as it might be read by a layman, or as it might be understood by someone who has not even read it.” [Meese v. Keene, 481 U.S. 465, 484 (1987)]
Butchers’ Union Slaughterhouse Co. v. Crescent City Live-Stock Landing Co., 111 U.S. 746, 756-57, 4 S.Ct. 652 (1884):
“As in our intercourse with our fellow-men certain principles of morality are assumed to exist, without which society would be impossible, so certain inherent rights lie at the foundation of all action, and upon a recognition of them alone can free institutions be maintained. These inherent rights have never been more happily expressed than in the declaration of independence, that new evangel of liberty to the people: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident’ – that is, so plain that their truth is recognized upon their mere statement – ‘that all men are endowed’ – not by edicts of emperors, or decrees of parliament, or acts of congress, but ‘by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.’ – that is, rights which cannot be bartered away, or given away, or taken away, except in punishment of crime – ‘and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and to secure these’ – not grant them, but secure them – ‘governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.’ Among these inalienable rights, as proclaimed in that great document, is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant the right to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give to them their highest enjoyment. The common business and callings of life, the ordinary trades and pursuits, which are innocuous in themselves, and have been followed in all communities from time immemorial, must therefore be free in this country to all alike upon the same conditions. The right to pursue them, without let or hinderance, except that which is applied to all persons of the same age, sex, and condition, is a distinguishing privilege of citizens of the United States, and an essential element of that freedom which they claim as their birthright. It has been well said that ‘the property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands, and to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property. It is a manifest encroachment upon the just liberty both of the workman and of those who might be disposed to employ him. As it hinders the one from working at what he thinks proper, so it hinders the others from employing whom they think proper.’ Smith, Wealth Nat. bk. 1, c. 10.”
– See more at: http://www.truth-attack.com/jml/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14&Itemid=252#sthash.QxlCIIad.dpuf
Dent v. West Virginia, 129 U.S. 114, 121, 9 S. Ct. 231 (1889):
“It is undoubtedly the right of every citizen of the United States to follow any lawful calling, business, or profession he may choose, subject only to such restrictions as are imposed upon all persons of like age, sex and condition.” – See more at: http://www.truth-attack.com/jml/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14&Itemid=252#sthash.QxlCIIad.dpuf
Becker v. Illinois Real Estate Admin. and Disciplinary Bd., 884 F.2d 955, 957 (7th Cir. 1989):
“Several professions have been recognized as constituting ‘common occupations.’ These professions include an attorney, Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U.S. 232, 238-39, 77 S.Ct. 752, 755-56, 1 L.Ed.2d 796, police officer, physician and nurse, Bigby v. City of Chicago, 766 F.2d 1053, 1057 (7th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1056, 106 S.Ct. 793, 88 L.Ed.2d 771; psychologist, Illinois Psychological Ass’n v. Falk, 818 F.2d 1337, 1344 (7th Cir. 1987); and schoolteacher, Thomas v. Board of Examiners, 866 F.2d 225, 227 (7th Cir. 1988) (per curiam).” – See more at: http://www.truth-attack.com/jml/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14&Itemid=252#sthash.QxlCIIad.dpuf
Hopkins v. Oxley Stave Co., 83 F. 912 (8th Cir. 1897):
“The right of an individual to carry on his business as he sees fit, and to use such implements or processes of manufacture as he desires to use, provided he follows a lawful avocation, and conducts it in a lawful manner, is entitled to as much consideration as his other personal rights; and the law should afford protection against the efforts of powerful combinations to rob him of that right and coerce his will by intimidating his customers and destroying his patronage.” – See more at: http://www.truth-attack.com/jml/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14&Itemid=252#sthash.QxlCIIad.dpuf
Take The Test; http://www.howyoubecomeliable.com
What then shall we do?
Massive archives at http://www.losthorizons.com
Also get the book Cracking the Code, available at Lost Horizons, $24.95 or the author has graciously made it available for free; https://www.1215.org/lawnotes/misc/ctcforfree.pdf
That’s the third edition, it is in it’s 14th edition so if you want the new one, you have to buy that one, but this is still more than you had before. The follow up is Was Grandpa Really A Moron?
Bob’s Bicycles, excerpt from Was Grandpa Really A Moron?
I had to read Cracking the Code 3 times to unbrainwash myself. And I was raised by a paranoid mother. I began my battle in 2007. I have done this researching and learning and fighting with words and words in print, (that way you have a record of everything) all while fighting gallstones and a duodenal ulcer. It has been hard because of that. Now I know why choleric people are considered cranky, when my stomach hurts, I get cranky.
I learned that I am in an occupation of common right (nurse, not working for any federal entity). I learned my husband is an “employee”. I learned how to file us separately, even though we are happily married and not separated. But this is the way we must file if we are to maintain integrity and insist the IRS follow the law.
From Pete Hendrickson, Cracking the Code and his many writings and ramblings;
Definition of Employee
IRC 3401 (c )
For the purposes of this chapter, the term “employee” includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing.
Definition of income
• Remuneration (either immediate or deferred) paid by the federal government including– but not confined to– “wages” (see below);
• Benefits paid by the federal government;
• The proceeds of, and from, federal (“United States”) corporations or instrumentalities such as national banks, railroads, etc.;
• The proceeds of, and from, the conduct of a “trade or business” (the performance of the functions of a public office).
(‘Proceeds’ means any form of related payment or gain, including, for example, dividends paid to stockholders, etc.. To invest in an activity is to engage in that activity.)
• Remuneration of any kind, and by any name (including ‘salary’, ‘fee’, etc.) paid to any “employee” (see below), and to others in positions in the federal civil or military services.
• A federal government worker or office-holder;
• Workers and office-holders of the local governments of the District of Columbia and the territories and possessions;
• Workers and office-holders of any federal, D.C., or territorial or possessions government agency or instrumentality;
• Officers of any federal corporation.
‘The terms “excise tax” and “privilege tax” are synonymous. The two are often used interchangeably.’ (American Airways v. Wallace 57 F.2d 877, 880)
“An income tax is neither a property tax nor a tax on occupations of common right, but is an EXCISE tax…The legislature may declare as ‘privileged’ and tax as such for state revenue, those pursuits not matters of common right, but it has no power to declare as a ‘privilege’ and tax for revenue purposes, occupations that are of common right.” (Simms v. Ahrens, 271 SW 720) (1925)
“We are of opinion, however, that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes. And the far reaching effect of this erroneous assumption…” (Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. 240 US 1) (1916)
“The Sixteenth Amendment, although referred to in argument, has no real bearing and may be put out of view. As pointed out in recent decisions, it does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects, but merely removes all occasion, which otherwise might exist, for an apportionment among the states of taxes laid on income, whether it be derived from one source or another.” (Peck v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165) (1918)
“You are never told that the terms on the forms such as “wages”, “employee”, and “trade or business” are terms of art, defined very cleverly in the tax code to conform to the law, yet give you the impression that your private-sector earnings are taxable. You cannot read the tax code and understand it without careful study of the definitions in the code of these terms.” (Pete Hendrickson, Cracking the Code and other ramblings)
“If one’s earnings from labor have been filed with the government on a W-2 form, which declares them as federally-connected, which form does one file to declare that they are not? Form 4852.
“It is also almost certain that you are unaware that the courts, unless given evidence otherwise, presume that any earnings you receive are federally-connected. You are never told that failure to produce such evidence dooms any case you might make that you do not owe the tax…………….But you shouldn’t be upset, after all, you are supposed to know the law, are you not?” Pete Hendrickson, Cracking the Code
“…Most cases in which the IRS eventually accepted an “enlightened” return began this way, with some sort of bluff.
“In a recent conversation with an official at the Internal Revenue Service, I was amazed when he told me that ‘If the taxpayers of this country ever discover that the IRS operates on 90% bluff the entire system will collapse'”. — Henry Bellmon, Senator (1969)
“The Tax Code represents the genius of legal fiction… The IRS has never really known why people pay the income tax… The IRS encourages voluntary compliance, through FEAR.” — Jack Warren Wade Jr., former IRS officer in charge of the IRS Nationwide Revenue Officer Training Program, in his book ‘When You Owe The IRS’
Many of the filers of “enlightened” returns eventually accepted by the IRS engaged in an exchange of letters in which they firmly declared what they knew to be the truth about the income tax laws. The IRS responded with different gambits, many with clever language that sounds more threatening than it actually is. Ultimately, in hundreds of cases, the IRS eventually acknowledged the truth and issued a check or dropped a claim for back taxes against the filer.” Pete Hendrickson, Cracking the Code
“You will notice that Congress is making reference to the gross income WHERE THE U.S. GOVERNMENT (UNITED STATES) IS THE SOURCE of that income, or where it is the “sovereign” authority (possessions). ALSO CAREFULLY NOTE THAT THIS SECTION REVEALS THAT THE TERM “UNITED STATES”, in the I.R. Code, MEANS THE “U.S. GOVERNMENT”, NOT THE NATION OR THE WHOLE COUNTRY. THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT. It indicates that where the phrase “within the United States” or “without the United States” is used, it is NOT being used in the geographical sense (deceptively), BUT IS BEING USED TO INDICATE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT as the (ONLY) lawfully affected “source” of the income ! Now go back and reread again everything to this point with that understanding and see if this doesn’t all begin to make REAL sense, as never before !
BECAUSE they (the U.S. government) ONLY have AUTHORITY over their OWN AFFAIRS (their employment contracts). They DO NOT HAVE AUTHORITY over PRIVATE contracts in “foreign countries” without tax treaties, or over private contracts in the 50 states. ” Pete Hendrickson, Cracking the Code
“i. The White Rabbit
Everything changed in 1942, in the midst of the patriotic fervor of World War II.
The 1942 Revenue Act established “withholding,” whereby “employers” who paid “wages” ostensibly became obligated to withhold a portion of those employees’ wages and send them to the federal government. On August 21 and 22 1942, at a congressional finance subcommittee meeting at which Milton Friedman, Sen. John A. Danaher, Sen. Bennet Clark and Charles O. Hardy of the Brookings Institution were present, Mr. Hardy admitted that the tax would be withheld from both taxpayers and non-taxpayers but, according to Friedman, non-taxpayers (including individuals and corporations) would be entitled to a refund upon filing their returns. The withholding from non-government employees would essentially operate as an interest-free loan to support the war. The spigot was never turned off and our current system is the result of this immoral, a posteriori, ends-justify-the-means thinking.
“Here is how the Code operates to get everyone believing they have a legal obligation to pay income tax. It begins with very clever use of inexact language in a context that demands precision. Subtitle C, the withholding part of the Code, threatens employers with fines and imprisonment if they do not report their employees income and do not withhold a federal tithe from their employees’ wages. ” Pete Hendrickson, Cracking the code.
Can you see Bob’s Bicycles in here yet?
Pete’s a good writer, and a good teacher. I want to put more in but I encourage you to read his whole work and read it not just once, I must emphasize again, it took me 3 readings to get unbrainwashed, And even now it is a good idea to refresh my memory and reread it again, like the bible. We must, as citizens, keep our wits sharp in these affairs as we defend our position. We must know the truth and know how to fight for it. We must educate those tax agents who seek to promote falsehood, we must ever put the law in their face. We must even seek to convert them to the truth.
In a nutshell; When I file for my Dear Husband, (he is federal) I file him as head of household and make sure to include the Medicare taxes and Social Security taxes that were taken out, add them in to the total taxes deducted, because they were. They are all from the general fund. They were list separately on the pay stub to confuse us. To imply that they couldn’t be counted as taxes paid. But they were. I file us on paper and snail mail, not electronically, because I want to be able to write in the margin what I am doing so there is no confusion on their part. So far there has only been a hair of confusion at the beginning, that was what taught me to file separately. And write in the margin “$____ Medicare, $____ Social Security” so they can’t pretend they don’t know where this money came from. And so far, they have never given us grief about his return. We do use the EZ 1040.
Mine, when I work, is also the EZ 1040, but I staple the 4852 to it. And declare my gross wages “0” and on down to where the questions declare what taxes were taken out including the SS and medicare, and then declare they owe me a refund. And then prepare for the forms of threat and I just keep sending back laws in print and insist on my position. I would not be able to do this I think except for being raised by a single mom who insisted on her rights. And at times she did it loudly.