Chemnor wrote:"An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy; because there is a limit beyond which no institution and no property can bear taxation."
M'Culloch v. State, 17 U.S. 316, 327
But the servant [federal government] was never granted the power to destroy the sovereign Citizen from which Congress's derives its authority. It was only granted the power to destroy that which it created. Congress did not create our wages. Congress did not create me. Did Congress create you? Now if you work for the IRS or the BLM or the BATF or the Post Office then your wages are a Congressionally Created right and so Congress can "destroy" your wages by taxing them out of existance. They have no such authority concerning wgaes they did not create.
Senator Daniel Webster made it VERY clear as to what Congress had the power to destroy in a speech delivered in the Senate of the United States on the 22nd of February in the year of our Lord 1834:
“But, Sir, how are we to get through the first experiment, so as to be able to try that which is to be final and ultimate, that is to say, how are we to get rid of the State banks? How is this to be accomplished? Of the Bank of the United States, indeed, we may free ourselves readily; but how are we to annihilate the State banks? We did not speak them into being; we cannot speak them out of being. They did not originate in any exercise of our power; nor do they owe their continuance to our indulgence. They are responsible to the States; to us they are irresponsible. We cannot act upon them; we can only act with them; and the expectation, as it would appear, is, that, by zealously cooperating with the government in carrying into operation its new theory, they may disprove the necessity of their own existence, and fairly work themselves out of the world!”
Congress did not speak me into being; and therefore Congress cannot speak me out of being or even have the power to destroy me by and through the power of taxation. Congress did not originate the exercise of my power; and I do not owe my continuance to indulgences to Congress.
At viewtopic.php?f=8&t=4558#p73177 reference was made to the judge magistrate's report and recommendation that contains:
Even if defendants had lawfully rescinded their United States citizenship and are in fact “de jure New York national[s]”, as they claim, (Dkt. #6, p. 8; Dkt. #15, attached Memorandum of Law dated June 6, 2007, ¶3), it is well settled that they remain subject to the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States. See United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499, 500-501 (7th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1060 (1992) (rejecting defendant’s argument that he was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States because he was a “freeborn, natural individual, a citizen of the State of Indiana, and a ‘master’-not ‘servant’-of his government”); United States v. Gardell, 23 F. 3d 395 (1st Cir. 1994) (unpublished opinion), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 869 (1994) (rejecting defendant’s argument that he was a “ ‘Freeman’ without contractual obligations to the government”, and thereby not subject to the district court's jurisdiction); United States v. Jagim, 978 F. 2d 1032, 1036 (8th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 952 (1993) (rejecting defendant’s argument that as a citizen of the Republic of Idaho, he could not be unished under the tax laws of the United States); United States v. Price, 798 F. 2d 111, 112-113 (11th Cir. 1986) (same); United States v. Hilgeford, 7 F. 3d 1340, 1342 (7th Cir. 1993) (same); Bey v. Internal Revenue Service, No. 1:CV:02-1413, 2003 WL 1700293, at *2 (M.D.Pa. February 25, 2003) (same).
It is also well settled that “[a]ll individuals, natural or unnatural, must pay federal income tax on their wages, regardless of whether they requested, obtained or exercised any privilege from the federal government.” Sloan, supra, 939 F. 2d at 501; Studley v. United States, 783 F. 2d 934, 937 (9th Cir. 1986) (rejecting argument that plaintiff was not a taxpayer because she was an “absolute, freeborn and natural individual”); United States v. Gerads, 999 F. 2d 1255, 1256 (8th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1193 (1994) (rejecting defendants’ contention that “they are not citizens of the United States, but rather ‘Free Citizens of the Republic of Minnesota’ and, consequently, not subject to taxation”); see also 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(b) (“In general, . . . all resident alien individuals are liable to the income taxes imposed by the code whether the income is received from sources within or without the United States.”). Further, federal district courts have jurisdiction over “all offenses against the laws of the United States”, including those involving violations of the tax laws and regulations. 18 U.S.C. §3231; see U.S. Const. art. III, §2; United States v. Mundt, 29 F. 3d 233, 237 (6th Cir. 1994).
The second would seem to answer the first.