We are being screwed.

How does the information that I’ve been mining help us?

I am constantly trying to grasp the big picture as new information keeps being put into place.

A general statement one could make is “Corporate America/big business constantly shifts the burden onto the people while minimizing the amount of benefit received by the people.”

Corporate America strives to pay less tax upon their gains, while we treat the money we are using to scrape by as profit— the real meaning of income.

American culture is tweaked and subverted to make the rich into demi-gods, and to make the people think they will someday be demi-gods as well.  “Be patriotic– don’t let the government take the money from businessmen!”

When you see what is really happening, you can only feel disgust.

“Businessmen” get rich through the privileged activities of acting through a corporation and gaining from investment of money. Both of those things are sanctioned/enabled by the government, and are TAXABLE.  This is, in fact, the basis of our internal revenue system; once a business is INCORPORATED, it has been “brought into the body”. We have seen references to “body politic” and “body corporate”.  To receive that benefit is to fall under the jurisdiction of the government.

These corporations’ activities, arising from privilege, are taxable.

Our activities, such as earning a living, and taking shelter in a house are done as a matter of right.

By claiming our house and land to be real property, we are declaring it to be owned as a privilege and used for business purposes, and not a permanent, private living space.

By claiming our pay to be income, we are submitting the figure as profit, which purports to be gained through the privilege of “employment”, defined in Title 26 as working for the federal government.

Meanwhile, the real beneficiaries of privilege receive tax cuts, subsidies, what-have-you.

Friends may talk about moving to another country to escape the greed that is so entrenched in American leadership. Here is the ideal scenario: the burden gets shifted back upon big business (whose leaders make more money than even they know what to do with, and seem addicted to acquisition) to pay a healthy tax on their gains, because they are making amounts above and beyond what would be deemed proportionate to their time and investment.

People NOT involved in any privileged activity (living in a house, working for pay) do NOT pay a tax on those activities. Activity is indeed what is being taxed when an income tax or property tax is enforced… but only “activity-on-paper”.

The authorities know that we are not all using our homes and land for business; they also know that we are not all receiving hourly pay via connection with government.

However, legally, they have a leg to stand on because we offer them the presumption that these things are happening. We do not rebut their assertion that we are living on “real property”, or that we are “employees” receiving “income”.

If my use the terms “employment” and “income” are not clear to you, and their meanings for you are still “working” and “pay”, respectively, you need to read “Cracking the Code” by Pete Hendrickson. While I do not espouse everything the man says (and wouldn’t it be strange if I did?),  he has done a remarkable amount of research on the income tax and all of the court decisions and history surrounding it. I read it 6 times to soak it up, and would probably benefit from another read.

Do we need to stop receiving benefit from the government?

Hell no. we need to know which activities are privileged and which are not.

Back to that “ideal scenario” I mentioned: you are working for pay, getting paid generally what your time seems to be worth, are not in debt as a matter of course, and have some money left over as a cushion. You invest that money in some sort of stock thingy I know little about. That is a privileged activity, and you will pay tax on that. Essentially, you are making money off extra money you do not absolutely need. This will set you up in later years during an emergency or retirement/unforeseen circumstances.

What I am getting at is that, because the Federal and local governments can only tax certain activities under their jurisdictions, we can all be very clear on whether we are involved in those activities.

As it is, we the people are paying an “unfair share” of the budgetary burden; we are paying it due to having the wool pulled over our eyes. Explicit, above-board application for benefits when we know exactly what we are giving up for what we are getting, is the only future path that is acceptable for us. To obfuscate this relationship gives power to those in charge of the coffers, essentially making the money trail untraceable, or at least untraced.

The burden keeps getting heavier upon us, while obscene dollar amounts are being hoarded by those bent on having as much wealth as possible.

It makes me sad, and then angry when average/below-average workers support the idea that “big business should not be taxed”, and that to do so is bad for the economy. The opposite is true. You do not have a right to exploit the system and not pay a tax upon that. You do have a right NOT to be in the system. If you can become rich through private endeavors, without corporate powers and conveniences, more power to you. None of the rich are doing that.

I have tried before now to minimize the editorial aspect of this blog, but the more I read and research, the more the implications become central to my mind.  We are being screwed.

The Meaning of “United States”…could be VERY different depending on context!

Have a quick look at this:

http://www.freedom-school.com/code-defines-united-states.pdf

I was looking to refresh my memory on the several definitions of “United States”, because the common understanding is that it always means “The 50 states of the union”. In fact, it rarely means that.

There are some 75 separate definitions of “United States” listed here, which goes to show that a term varies greatly, dependent upon the context. Laws are always an expression of jurisdiction; you can’t apply laws to a place in which you can’t enforce them. 

Note how some of the definitions mention the 50 states, some do not. One of the biggest caveats to reading these definitions is the word “includes”, the danger being that people often complete these in their heads by thinking “Oh, in addition to the common meaning of ‘state’,  it includes Washington DC and all the territories and possessions.” However, a definitions means precisely what it says, and nothing else. That is what makes it a definition.

Going thru those 75 versions of “United States”–

“TITLE 5 PART III Subpart F CHAPTER 71 SUBCHAPTER I

Sec. 7103. Definitions; application

(18) ‘United States’ means the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, and any territory or possession of the United States.”
 
Because the 50 States are mentioned here, “LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS” can be legislated anywhere in the country, as a service to and to defend the rights of all Americans, not just those receiving privilege/benefit from the Federal government aka the US.
 
“7 USC Sec. 1359jj  TITLE 7 CHAPTER 35 SUBCHAPTER II Part B
subpart vii
Sec. 1359jj. Administration
c) ‘United States’ and ‘State’ defined
Notwithstanding section 1301 of this title, for purposes of this subpart, the terms ‘United States’and ‘State’ means (FOOTNOTE 1) the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.”
________________________
“7 USC Sec. 2116 – TITLE 7CHAPTER 53 
Sec. 2116. Definitions
As used in this chapter:

(e) The term ‘United States’ means the 50 States of the United States of America.”
 
” 7 USC Sec. 6102 TITLE 7 CHAPTER 90 
Sec. 6102.
Definitions

…(15) State and United States The terms ‘State’ and ‘United States’ include the 50 States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.”
 
7 USC Sec. 6202  TITLE 7 CHAPTER 91
Sec. 6202. Definitions

As used in this chapter:
(15) State and United States
The term –
(A) ‘State’ means each of the 50 States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; and
(B) ‘United States’ means the 50 States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.”
 
26 USC Sec. 4612  TITLE 26 Subtitle D CHAPTER 38 Subchapter A –

 
Sec. 4612. Definitions and special rules 
(a) Definitions For purposes of this subchapter
(4) United States
(A) In general The term ‘United States’ means the 50 States, the District of

Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, any possession of the United States, the

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.”
 
“TITLE 5 PART III Subpart F CHAPTER 71 SUBCHAPTER I 
Sec. 7103. Definitions; application
(18) ‘United States’ means the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, and any territory or possession of the United States.”
 

That is 7 definitions out of 75 that actually pertain to the 50 states.  I can’t say the list is exhaustive,  but I can’t imagine that this is not more or or less a cross section of laws, representing the general relationship of laws applying to the 50 states, vs those applying to Federal areas or applying to both.  I could go on all day about the implications of what is specified and what is not in these definitions, but the reader can certainly look into these more deeply. This illustrates that it is simple and easy to mention the 50 states of the union when it is applicable to do so.

 
Contrast the above definitions with this one, which is to be found throughout the U.S. Code in some form or another, but never mentioning the 50 states:
 
“5 USC Sec. 5911  TITLE 5 PART III Subpart D CHAPTER 59

SUBCHAPTER II
Sec. 5911. Quarters and facilities; employees in the United States
(a) For the purpose of this section –
(4) ‘United States’ means the several States, the District of Columbia, and the territories and
possessions of the United States including the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico”
 
What you find is that when “several States” are mentioned, or “Any State of the United States”,

“State” is defined as inclusive of DC, Guam, Virgin Islands, etc.– any place that the Federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over.

 

Are Corporations People?

I just became aware of this book “Corporations Are Not People: Why They Have More Rights Than You Do and What You Can Do About It” credited to Bill Clements.

Corporations are not people, and there is no law that says they are, anywhere in the books.

Mitt Romney has said they are in a famous video clip, but his word is not law (thank the gods!).

Laws define the term “person”, and a corporation can be a U.S. Person or a U.S. Citizen.

The implication of this is clear: when you affirm that you are a “U.S. Person” or a “U.S. Citizen”, you are volunteering into the lowered status of a fictional entity that exists solely on paper, and your rights are equal to or less than that of a corporation.

This book addresses the question of whether corporations are people; to wrap one’s head around the issue, we first must be clear that “people” and “persons” are not the same thing. “People” is NOT the plural of “persons”, no matter what you and I learned in public school.

Read for yourself– Title 26 of the U.S. Code (The Internal Revenue Code) never defines the word “People”. Nor does Title 8 (Immigration and Nationality).

Black’s Law 5th Edition says:

“Person. In general usage, a human being (i.e. natural person), though by statute term may include a firm, labor organizations, partnerships, associations, cor­porations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers. National Labor Relations Act, § 2(1).

(This bit is tricky… by statute it doesn’t include natural person or human being– Ed.)

Bankruptcy Act.    “Person” includes individual, part­ nership, and corporation, but not governmental unit. Sec. 101(30).
Corporation. A corporation is a “person” within meaning of equal protection and due process provi­sions of United States Constitution.    Allen v. Pavach, Ind., 335 N.E.2d 219, 221; Borreca v. Fasi, D.C.Ha­ waii, 369 F.Supp. 906, 91 1. The term “persons” in statute relating to conspiracy to commit offense against United States, or to defraud United States, or any agency, includes corporation. Alamo Fence Co. of    Houston    v.    U.    S.,    C.A.Tex.,    240    F.2d    179,    1 8 1 .
Foreign government. Foreign governments other­ wise eligible to sue in U.S. courts are “persons” entitled to bring treble-damage suit for alleged anti­ trust violations under Clayton Act, Section 4.    Pfizer, Inc. v. Government of India, C.A.Minn., 550 F.2d 396.
Illegitimate child.    Illegitimate children are “persons” within meaning of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Levy v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 68, 88 S.Ct. 1509, 1511, 20 L.Ed.2d 436; and scope of wrongful death statute, Jordan v. Delta Drilling Co., Wyo., 541 P.2d 39, 48.
Interested person.    Includes heirs, devisees, children, spouses, creditors, beneficiaries and any others hav­ ing a property right in or claim against a trust estate or the estate of a decedent, ward or protected person which may be affected by the proceeding. It also includes persons having priority for appointment as personal representative, and other fiduciaries repre­senting interested persons.    The meaning as it relates to particular persons may vary from time to time and must be determined according to the particular pur­ poses of, and matter involved in, any proceeding. Uniform Probate Code, § 1-201(20).
Municipalities.    Municipalities and other government units are “persons” within meaning of 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983. Local government officials sued in their official capacities are “persons” for purposes of Sec­ tion 1983 in those cases in which a local govern­ment would be suable in its own name.    Monell v. N. Y. City Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611. See Color of law.
Protected person.    One for whom a conservator has been appointed or other protective order has been made.    Uniform Probate Code, § 5-101(3).
1029
PERSONAUTER
Resident alien. A resident alien is a ‘person” within the meaning of the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. C. D. R. Enterprises, Ltd. v. Board of Ed. of City of New York, D.C.N.Y., 412 F.Supp. 1164, 1168.
Unborn child. Word “person” as used in the Four­teenth Amendment does not include the unborn.    Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S.Ct. 705, 729, 35 L.Ed.2d 147.    A fetus is not a “person” and is not entitled to protection under the equal protection clause.    Mur­row v. Clifford, C.A.N.J., 502 F.2d 1066, 1068.
A viable unborn child, which would have been born alive but for the negligence of defendant, is a “per­son” within meaning of Wrongful Death Statute. Simmons v. Howard University, D.C.D.C., 323 F.Supp. 529.    Unborn child is a “person” for purpose of remedies given for personal injuries, and child may sue    after    his    birth.    Weaks    v.    Mounter,    88    Nev.    1 1 8, 493 P.2d 1307, 1309.”

(Emphasis mine.)

The term “Person” is completely malleable, and its meaning depends entirely upon context (forum) and the definition relevant to the reading.

Black’s on “People”:

“People. A state; as the people of the state of New York.    A nation in its collective and political capaci­ty. The aggregate or mass of the individuals who constitute the state.    Loi Hoa v. Nagle, C.C.A.Cal., 13 F.2d    80,    8 1 .    In    a    more    restricted    sense,    and    a s generally used in constitutional law, the entire body of those citizens of a state or nation who are invested with political power for political purposes.    See also Citizen; Person.”

So, the people ARE the state. The see also part may be there as contradistinction (indication what people are not), or because the terms are often used interchangeably, albeit incorrectly. A citizen is a subject of the state, rather than its consituent.

This is not a review, but pointing out a common, detrimental misunderstanding. Let’s get the argument right rather than waste our time. This books looks worthwhile overall; it has a blurb by the Ben & Jerry guys and a foreword by Bill Moyers.

http://www.amazon.com/Corporations-Are-Not-People-Rights/dp/1609941055