Planet Merrill, the Hendersons and jurisdictional confusion

[Pottapaug1938]

Over on Planet Merrill, there is a thread about (ahem) the horrible injustices being done to Doreen Henderson. A Suitor named Brian thought that the following paragraph was relevant to the debate:

Article 44 of the Massachusetts Constitution, ratified in 1915

”Full power and authority are hereby given and granted to the general court to impose and levy a tax on income in the manner hereinafter provided. Such tax may be at different rates upon income derived from different classes of property, but shall be levied at a uniform rate throughout the commonwealth upon incomes derived from the same class of property. The general court may tax INCOME NOT DERIVED FROM PROPERTY at a lower rate than INCOME DERIVED FROM PROPERTY, and may grant reasonable exemptions and abatements. Any class of property the income from which is taxed under the provisions of this article may be exempted from the imposition and levying of proportional and reasonable assessments, rates and taxes as at present authorized by the constitution. This article shall not be construed to limit the power of the general court to impose and levy reasonable duties and excises.” (emphasis his)

Well, I live in Massachusetts; and to me this says so much about the idiocy and credulity of the Suitors. Our state Constitution (the oldest one in the world, in terms of continuous existence, albeit amended many times) forbids the imposition of a graduated income tax, but permits the classification of real property into different tax brackets (so that residential and commercial properties may be taxed at different rates), and requires the taxation of income from wages and from things like stock, bond and mutual fund income distributions at different rates. How anyone with even an elementary knowledge of the how the United States, and the 50 states of the Union, are governed, could think that this clause has the slightest thing to do with federal tax issues is beyond me.

[Pottapaug1938]

Silly me -- I forgot to add in David Lyn's post. Why didn't we all think of this sooner?

PART THE FIRST
A Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Article I. All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.

If it is unalienable, it can't be taxed.

Gee -- you'd think that the very government which wrote these words would have refused to impose any taxes on the people of the Commonwealth. It's really very odd, because I know that, until around 1833, people were taxed for the support of "ministers of the Gospel" (and they had to profess the RIGHT Gospel -- no Methodists, Unitarians, Universalists, Catholics or Quakers needed apply). They imposed other taxes, too.

But then, I'm sure that David Lyn can point to court cases which support his premise.

[notorial dissent]

Yeah right, like that's going to happen.

[Pottapaug1938]

And now, ManOnTheLand chimes in with this:

Contract trumps law. Contracts confer benefits in exchange for obligations. The only relevant "rights" to the court are "contractual" rights per the terms of the contract. The confusion arises from presuming Doreen is in a court of public law. She is in a court of private law jurisdiction to decide if she violated previously established private law terms and conditions (i.e the orders of the court which she is charged with being in contempt of.) It appears that she has indeed violated those terms. However, it also appears that she is unaware of any contract, which means that no contract was actually formed. But until she makes this argument, the Court will silently presume the contract exists and hold her liable.

Doreen entered into a contractual relationship with the court that ended up ordering her to file tax returns a certain way. She entered into that contract when she answered the complaint originally filed against her. Appearance perfects jurisdiction in a federal court. By appearing before it, Doreen gave that court permission to exercise its equity jurisdiction to make orders binding upon her and the other party. Those orders (and the Court's jurisdiction) presume and depend upon already existing taxpayer obligations, such as filing an accurate reporting of income received. As far as I can tell, Pete and Doreen never disputed the amount of FRN's transferred to them. They only made legal arguments that such transfers were not "wages" and/or "income". The Court clearly did not see things their way.

Doreen and Pete insist on arguing the law when the contract they unknowingly entered into makes the public law irrelevant as far as their cases are concerned.

If you want access to your common law rights, the last place you want to be is in a Federal Court with regard to an income tax matter. I understand the feelings of outrage, but it is misplaced.

The real value of this case I think is to make very clear that you have no common law rights in the Federal Court. There is hardly a better way to illustrate that point than for a Court to order someone to testify a certain way on their tax return and to send that person to prison for failing to comply. From there, one should make an effort to understand how and when one waived one's common law rights. Instead Pete and Doreen beat their heads against the wall, insist upon their interpretation of the law, and whine and complain about judicial corruption, just as many have done before them.

The Supreme Court ruled in Brady v. United States that waivers of rights must be voluntary, as well as knowing intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of the likely consequences. I am sure Doreen (and Pete for that matter) did not voluntarily waive any common law rights, or knowingly enter a contract constituting a waiver of such rights. However, this defense will be unavailable to them until they get a grip on the real rules of the game they are playing.

Wow. Being passively, stupidly dumb is one thing. Being actively, affirmatively, mind-bogglingly brain-dead, like this buffoon, is another thing entirely.

[JamesVincent]

Contract trumps law.

Doesn't law define contracts?

[grixit]

It's ok, it was just her strawwoman that contracted with the court.

[notorial dissent]

Not to mention being totally, absolutely, and mind numbingly wrong on not just some, but all accounts.

On the other hand, that advice is almost as legally brilliant as that which Pete is handing out to help Doreen on her way to her very own prison sentence.

Which is to say that either one will end up with the same result, Doreen spending time in jail.

One thing you can say about the beings on Planet Merrill, they never met a crank theory they didn't like and immediately swear by.

[Pottapaug1938]

And now, Chex opines thus:

Contract trumps law. Contracts confer benefits in exchange for obligations. Once you file an income, the contract is formed.

I bet they do.

Excerpt from Uniform Commercial Code in a Nutshell, 6th ed. page 228: (With respect to negotiable instruments)

If A signs the name of A to an instrument and the signature is an authorized signature of P, the following rules apply:

1) If the form of the signature shows unambiguously that the signature is made on behalf of P who is identified in the instrument, A is not liable on the instrument. [Sections] 3-402(b)(1), 1-201(b)(33). Example: Peter Principal Corporation, by Alice Agent, Treasurer.

2) If (i) the form of the signature does not show unambiguously that the signature is made in a representative capacity (Case #3 in Sec. 3-402 Comment 2) or (ii) P is not identified in the instrument (Cases #1 & 2 in Sec. 3-402 Comment 2): A is liable on the instrument to a holder in due course that took the instrument without notice that A was not intended to be liable on the instrument.

END OF EXCERPT

So basically Pete and Doreen are not really fighting the irs, they are fighting the private owned federal reserve bank because Pete and Doreen used their product and not paying for the usage of it.

Then the hired irs the authorized representative http://definitions.uslegal.com/a/aut...ative-hearing/ are seeking the damages from Pete and Doreen inflicted on the FRB because the FRB paper duped as money has not been paid for the usage of the product.

Funny how the same principal stands as the privately held Legal status of the ownership http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ownership of the FRB http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_reserve_bank

Search

As the nation's central bank, the Federal Reserve derives its authority from the Congress of the United States. It is considered an independent central bank because its monetary policy decisions do not have to be approved by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branches of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by the Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms.

Corporation Search Results aka the players http://www.corporationwiki.com/searc...e+bank&x=0&y=0

Business is business as in In 1933, Ingram bought out Anderson, and the following year the company moved its corporate headquarters to Columbus, Ohio.

The company remains privately held and its restaurants are company-owned; they are not franchised in the United States. Co-founder Billy Ingram was followed as head of the firm by his son E. W. Ingram, Jr. and grandson E. W. Ingram, III. http://www.whitecastle.com/faqs

The business keeps going http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/i...-to-expire.htm

But remedy has been given. http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/section16.htm

[Famspear]

This stuff is so laughable that it's hard to write a parody of it that would be funnier than the stuff itself.

[Famspear]

This stuff reminds me of the kinds of things that three bored eighth graders might come up with while cooped up in a school library in study hall while whispering to each other, gazing out the windows, and doodling on notebook papers on a warm, late spring day.

[notorial dissent]

Since fantasy reigns supreme over there, none of this should be surprising. Much of it based on the simple inability or intentional refusal to read and comprehend simple English phrases.

The thing is, that most of the 8th graders I've known wouldn't make the outlandish jumps of illogic that these clowns regularly live by. They would either come up with something that made sense and was direct or would be totally and obviously fantasy depending on their mood.

[Pottapaug1938]

One of my favorite Van Peltian lunacies may or may not have come from the Saving to Suitors circle-jerk. It came from a buffoon who said that, if a judge asks you if you understand the charge(s) against you, at all costs you should NEVER respond. If you say "yes", then by saying that you understand the charges then you are "standing under" the power of the court and have contracted with their legal system, making you their subject and raising the risk that you may be judicially punished for asserting your rights as a freeman on the land (I may not have that exactly right; but I'd rather go outside and watch the grass grow than try to understand idiocy on this scale.

[Thule]

This stuff reminds me of the kinds of things that three bored eighth graders might come up with while cooped up in a school library in study hall while whispering to each other, gazing out the windows, and doodling on notebook papers on a warm, late spring day.

Alternatively; Sixteen monkeys, 23 minutes.

[notorial dissent]

Even monkeys would do a better job of it. And I think comparing them to monkeys is an insult to the monkeys actually, they're generally smarter and better behaved.

[LPC]

Contract trumps law.

Doesn't law define contracts?

Yeah, and torts trump contracts.

[LPC]

And now, ManOnTheLand chimes in with this:

In which of the worlds of Gulliver's travels did the people live in cities that floated in the sky, and in which the people needed to be gently hit with bladders filled with air to help them stay conscious and focused on the real world?

That's where ManOnTheLand is now, and that where most tax deniers migrate when given the opportunity.

I observed, here and there, many in the habit of servants, with a blown bladder, fastened like a flail to the end of a stick, which they carried in their hands. In each bladder was a small quantity of dried peas, or little pebbles, as I was afterwards informed. With these bladders, they now and then flapped the mouths and ears of those who stood near them, of which practice I could not then conceive the meaning. It seems the minds of these people are so taken up with intense speculations, that they neither can speak, nor attend to the discourses of others, without being roused by some external taction upon the organs of speech and hearing; for which reason, those persons who are able to afford it always keep a flapper (the original is CLIMENOLE) in their family, as one of their domestics; nor ever walk abroad, or make visits, without him. And the business of this officer is, when two, three, or more persons are in company, gently to strike with his bladder the mouth of him who is to speak, and the right ear of him or them to whom the speaker addresses himself. This flapper is likewise employed diligently to attend his master in his walks, and upon occasion to give him a soft flap on his eyes; because he is always so wrapped up in cogitation, that he is in manifest danger of falling down every precipice, and bouncing his head against every post; and in the streets, of justling others, or being justled himself into the kennel.

[grixit]

Laputa, the magnetic island, floated over its subject territories because of the extensive deposits of lodestone. They used a huge bar magnet on a swivel to move around. The savants of Laputa were parodies of ivory tower scholars that Swift despised. While oblivious to the real world, they at least understood the subjects they studied, unlike Merrill and his merry band of suitors. Later in the book, we meet the mad scientists, for whom Swift has total contempt. If you want to see a great example of scathing literary criticism, read the Isaac Asimov edition of Gulliver. In the Luputa chapters, the Good Doctor champions the scientists and excoriates Swift.