Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS, Part 33

[JosephSHaas]

When Ed gets released Kat: you ought to give the Feds a Certificate of Correction from the N.H. Underground School of Law. 

Here's some hot sauce for their scrambled eggs over a Reme's. 

[grolled]

When Ed gets released Kat: you ought to give the Feds a Certificate of Correction from the N.H. Underground School of Law. 

Here's some hot sauce for their scrambled eggs over a Reme's. 

What is up with David Quinn and the Forseti Group? Did you read Margot's article about them?

[JosephSHaas]

There's a telephone conference at 11:00 a.m. tomorrow.  Margot asked to listen, but which request was DENIED.  Whatever Order is issued therefrom, she will no doubt report in the Saturday or Sunday paper.

[John Edward Mercier]

I believe for 2006 it was 717 million gallons for the year.
But the federal government was granted the power of excise tax under US Con 1:8:1.
NH RSA 123:1 only deals with the jurisdiction of property, which would be a separate issue.

[JosephSHaas]

I believe for 2006 it was 717 million gallons for the year.
But the federal government was granted the power of excise tax under US Con 1:8:1.
NH RSA 123:1 only deals with the jurisdiction of property, which would be a separate issue.

Thanks.  And for WHERE it has gone and is going over the years since 1934 and into the Interstate Highway System of 1957 and beyond to the General Fund too see: https://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/389

And as spelled out for the very word: excise at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excise the exact wording of WHO pays is at: "While it is the producer who pays the tax directly to the government, ultimately it is the consumer that bears the cost of it, as it is included in the eventual sale price of the product." (paragraph #1 of the definition)

What is a mystery to me right now is WHO pays from* WHERE on these tanker fill-ups in WHAT State? Some refinery- state? There being #__ states of such in this country? And THEN we pay at the pump to reimburse the original payer.

A chart of each state showing the total in-cluding the federal 18.4-cents is over at: __________________ (sorry I lost it at GOOGLE, but did find). See also: http://www.taxadmin.org/Fta/rate/motor_fl.html for all states including New Hampshire of:  Excise 18.0 + Additional 1.625 =  19.625 total.  So what is this "Additional"?

But back to 1-8-17 U.S. to find out from* what states these federal taxes are paid. If from* a state that has NOT yet ceded jurisdictional authority to the Feds, as like our N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 then maybe these lawful taxes "lay"ed were not legally "collect"ed? 

Reference Attorney Lowell "Larry" Becraft's website of: http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm from Huntsville, Alabama; me having found that Secretary of State in MAss.achusetts never received these 40USC255 papers either, and similar for Florida to the governor's office it was supposed to be filed there and was not either.

My presumption is that these federal taxes are paid into some regional office of the federal government? or are they sent to Washington, D.C.? so as to avoid this 1-8-17 dispute? The "Seat" of the Federal Government is in D.C., but like an octopus, it's arms extend into each state, but ONLY by the pre-scribed law here in 1-8-17.

[John Edward Mercier]

1:8:17 and 123:1 deal with real estate. 1:8:1 is the empowering for the excise tax.

The 'plus' cents per gallon I believe goes into a clean up fund at the State level... not sure whether DOT or DES administers it.

Most excise taxes (gasoline, whiskey, tobacco, hunting and fishing supplies, etc) are paid out at the wholesale level.

[JosephSHaas]

1:8:17 and 123:1 deal with real estate. 1:8:1 is the empowering* for the excise tax.

The 'plus' cents per gallon I believe goes into a clean up fund at the State level... not sure whether DOT or DES administers it.

Most excise taxes (gasoline, whiskey, tobacco, hunting and fishing supplies, etc) are paid out at the wholesale level.

Exactly, as they call it "enabling" legislation, it brings the beast into existence. And the beast can bark from D.C. as much as it wants, and has the 1-8-18 enforcement powers it receives from Congress by statutes "for carrying into Execution the FOREGOING Powers" (emphasis ADDed), but that the non-"uniform" taxes AFTERward in the 16th has NO Section 2 enforcement clause, as the surrounding Amendments do. So when enforcement of that is tried it is UNLAWFUL! And here in New Hampshire we have the right and duty to revolt against such as by Article 10 of our Bill of Rights.

But back to the empowering word of "To invest with LEGAL power; authorize." [(emphasis ADDed) from "The American Heritage Dictionary of The English Language", (c)1973 @ page 236] and: "2. To enable or permit." we could ask like "they" do for if they ask what you're doing to YOUR property that does NO harm to your neighbor in either of the five senses of: sight, touch, smell, hear or taste, and that is: "Where's your permit?" or "Do you have a permit for that?"

See: https://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=393575 for 40USC255 and the very first paragraph of: "Unless the Attorney General gives prior written approval of the sufficiency of the title to land for the purpose for which the property is being acquired by the United States, public money may not be expended for the purchase of the land or any interest therein."

Thus WHERE is the U.S. A.G.'s WRITTEN approval? of Year 2007 in June (as per the June 6th + 7th incidents) or before; and toward the October "acqui"sition of the land by seizure to have gained possession of both it and its two caretakers on Thu., Oct. 4, 2007, since the "sufficiency of the title" from the Latin word sufficere from the word suffice from where we get the word sufficient is to be stated in writing PRIOR to the expenditure of public money for the "purchase" of either the land or ANY "interest" therein, but not thereON the land!  as for the people and buildings!! The word purchase, as I've explained before meaning not merely of that obtained in exchange for money, as in something bought, but also "3. A secure hold" (page 573).

So when I called a "Point of Order" in the co-conspirator part of this case, I was not merely looking for their operational papers as the receipt of federal filing to N.H.'s RSA Ch. 123:1 but also as a taxpayer to find out WHO the Attorney General of the United States is, and when did he sign such a "written approval" with what sufficiencies or adequacies, if any, as in a financial bond to satisfy this requirement should it not be done and his delegated action to others by paragraph #2 be illegal! "The Attorney General may delegate his responsibility under this section to other departments and agencies, subject to his general supervision and in accordance with regulations promulgated by him." So what Regulation #s in the plural  are we talking about?

I've read that over $3 million in "public money" was expended on this case, and have in the past attacked the transports over to Maine both existing and after-the-fact of having occurred illegally as against 18USC3232 and even filed a protest in writing with the sub-committee of the House Judiciary to look into it, but that the woman there told me that my complaint had to be endorsed by one of my either Senators or Federal Reps., and so have written AND called to ALL of them, plus visits to the majority in Concord, (Gregg and Hodes) plus: Manchester and Dover (for Shea-Porter), yet to visit Shaheen's office, but that NOTHING is being done! And Gregg supports Ayotte to continue this crap!?, C.T.C. I call it! Disgusting! Thoroughly dis-gusting! When are we going to get a public servant from N.H. who will be the check and balance here?

[JosephSHaas]

....

... since 1934....

since 1919 when Oregon was the first state to charge an excise tax on gasoline; see:

http://www.ehow.com/about_5047991_federal-excise-tax.html

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mod:

What is the exact Title #___ U.S. Code Section ______ for this excise tax?*  I'd like to find out who pays this 18.4-cents per gallon and where? who do service us here in New Hampshire.

Plus check this out: four states have an automatic increase in their state excise tax if ever the Feds do reduces their share, being: CAlif., Nevada, Okla. and Tenn. see: http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/Federal_State.html and for Oklahoma: http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=92043

Also: http://www.gaspricewatch.com/usgastaxes.asp for this "other" of the N.H. State tax: "New Hampshire    18    18    Plus 0.1 cpg for oil pollution control fund, 1.5 cpg for UST cleanup fund, 1 cpg for AST and bulk storage fund. Also 2 cpg for fuel oil and bulk fuel oil storage."

* See: http://books.google.com/books?id=R6I9y_T9Q-0C&pg=PA2080&lpg=PA2080&dq=federal+excise+tax+gasoline+Title+U.S.+Code+Section&source=bl&ots=t2IwLEEKdy&sig=9KueAFLj9K7gPuAzlz_JCedBhZ4&hl=en&ei=q8lpSpHZD8qltgesxvG6Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2 for: The Federal Gasoline Sales Tax, Section 617 of Title IV of the Revenue Act of 1932 places a tax on gasoline sold by any producer or importer.

So the producer of at the well withIN the United States or the importer at the port to where it lands on that exact place on our border, right? Then passed onto us, the consumers. Just how much __% goes into the infrastructure http://www.thefreedictionary.com/infrastructure compared to __% to The General Fund.

I did find over at: http://vlex.com/vid/sec-imposition-tax-19211185 that the actual federal tax is 18.3 cents + 0.1 cent for the leaking underground storage tank trust fund = the 18.4 cents per gallon.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Hey! Check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_the_United_States of: "State and local government taxation - - All states are recognized as having a plenary power** to assess taxes on their citizens and on activities that occur within their borders,"

** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plenary_power of: "A plenary power or plenary authority is the complete power of a governing body. The concept is also used in legal circles to define complete control in other circumstances, as in plenary authority over public funds, as opposed to limited authority over funds that are encumbered as collateral or by a legal claim. It is derived from the Latin term plenus ("full")."

So my question is: Are the "public funds" for transports between states of inmates from and back to one and the other either: (1) plenary or complete; or (2) limited?  As in limited to only those inmates who gave their "consent", otherwise an illegal expenditure in violation of 18USC3232, and so for ANY citizen or taxpayer to put in a claim, but where? I've already sent a bill to Judge George Z. Singal's Clerk in Portland, Maine that he told her to ignore that and any and all future bills, and so incorporated into the case for the jury to decide, or did they? As in the end does NOT justify the means!  I doubt that the attorney for Ed from the court itself, as compared to the U.S. Attorney who is appointed directly from Congress, would bite off the hand that feeds him, put (past tense) this into the case, nor will (future tense) put it into any appeal to Boston for the First Circuit), and so for me to present same bill up the chain of command to my Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter in Dover too, (to get a copy of this next week, in person from me) to Nancy Peloisi, the co-head as House Speaker of this Art. III, Section 1 "inferior" tenant court of Congress, and of the GSA landlord of the building there, and if I get any flak http://www.thefreedictionary.com/flak or opposition from her, to take my case to what or who? The U.S. Court of Claims for a breach of contract? as in the performance of non-duty to comply with this statute that they wrote, AND the U.S. Constitution, per their oath of office, and/or to The President by his Art. II, Section 2, clause 1 power to grant Reprieves*** for offenses against the United States, as in to modify or eradicate this conviction that was obtained by a violation of this Statute in that the end does NOT justify the means since we're supposed to have procedural due process of law, and the fact that this court had no jurisdictional authority withOUT them having filed their 40USC255 papers per our N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1.

*** reprieve: to hold back or postpone the punishment of until this matter can be looked into, and if and when found to be a violation of the statute, then to either hold a new trial with ALL (100%) of the proceedings toward the trial withIN the district too, and/or to issue a pardon or commutation of the sentence because there had been no filing and so the court was and is without jurisdictional authority until that time, and since N.H. has a retrospective Article 23 against back-dating a case, and the U.S. has it the Constitution by Art. I, Sec. 9, Clause 3 and Art. I, Section 10 for both the Feds and states respectfully; then like they say: Do you have "Price Albert" in a can?  Then let him out! 

[John Edward Mercier]

The 16th amendment didn't empower taxation... just expanded the format.
An amendment is like going back into the original document, crossing out certain words and replacing them with the amended meaning.
Like the 18th Amendment wasn't removed through the 21st Amendment just repealed its enforcement.

[JosephSHaas]

The 16th amendment didn't empower taxation... just expanded the format.
An amendment is like going back into the original document, crossing out certain words and replacing* them with the amended meaning.
Like the 18th Amendment wasn't removed through the 21st Amendment just repealed its enforcement.

The expansion being FROM the uniform TO the un-uniform.  The "foregoing" powers in 1-8-18 ONLY referred to the uniform.  Thus to ADD by Amendment ANOTHER category of tax does NOT place that ADDITIONAL type of tax withIN the former, as by a "replacing"* but that as a latter to be enforced, would have had to have a Section 2 enforcement clause.

Plus what do you mean that the 21st merely removed that Section 2 of the 18th enforcement clause?! It removed or repealed the ENTIRE three clauses within the whole of 18 leaving no slices of the pie.  And as for that additional Section 2 of 21, see: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment21/ and between footnotes #37 + 38 in the text of: "The Twenty-first Amendment grants the States virtually complete control over whether to permit importation or sale of liquor and how to structure the liquor distribution system." See also: "Congress may condition receipt of federal highway funds** on a state's agreeing to raise the minimum drinking age to 21, the Twenty- first Amendment not constituting an ''independent constitutional bar'' to this sort of spending power exercise even though Congress may lack the power to achieve its purpose directly. 39 "

** So now we're back to the "federal highway funds" again.    A federal carrot over the head of the State, that if we, in N.H. want a portion of this 18.4 cents of tax, we have got to keep the drinking age at 21 years of age. But back to Art. 12 - N.H. of not WHO were our Federal Reps who voted for this 26USC4081 (in the "gaspricewatch" website above from which I did find that 0.1 pollution slice of the federal tax) in that put life into this creature, but that WHEN and HOW did our General Court (in the plural of our "representative body") give its 1-8-17 "Consent" for the arms of this octopus to not only touch us, but to reach into our pockets for our wallets!? My guess is that by individual consent if you do not protest like to try to get this money back, that you have therefore consented by pretending that they have filed their 40USC255 papers and so you believe in something that does not exist!  But not for me!  I'll be filing my gas tax receipts next week for a rebate, and if not "prompt"ly re-paid, will sue for theft of such in the RSA Ch. 541-B:1-23 State Board of Claims against the Safety Commissioner over the D.O.T.  cc: to my new friends over at Dover and this: http://www.cnht.org/ at: Coalition of New Hampshire Taxpayers - 8 North Main Street - Concord, NH 03301 - Phone: 603.471.0138

[Tunga]

The 16th amendment didn't empower taxation... just expanded the format.
An amendment is like going back into the original document, crossing out certain words and replacing them with the amended meaning.
Like the 18th Amendment wasn't removed through the 21st Amendment just repealed its enforcement.

The 16th confers no new powers of taxation to the Federal Government. Federal employees generate income because they exercise a privilege. The words apportioned and uniform have not been scratched, defaced or removed from the Constitution. The 18th Amendment has been stricken.

Still can't find the Definition of "Income" in title 26 Jed?

What's the hold up?

[John Edward Mercier]

The 18th amendment has not been stricken... simply amended by the 21st.
The same way the 16th amendment simply amended 1:8:1
'but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;.
Duties, imposts, and exicises are still uniform throughout the United States.

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090724/NEWS01/907240318

entitled: "This Panel is part of the "Protection Racket"! "

of: "

For somebody who likes to index, and has the time, you might like to visit this place at 4 Chenell Drive in Concord, see: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/committees/attydiscip/index.htm since the files there are indexed NOT by name (of either the petitioner, or respondent), NOR number NOR even by subject matter, but for WHEN it was filed by the DAY! This is done on purpose so that "they" are left in a disorganized manner, as the Supreme Court even told them NOT to categorize, but if they do, that it NOT be an official part of the filing system, but for their own internal way of finding it for THEM, but not the public.  In fact after two years (2) the "grievance" files are destroyed.

Plus Maddi, these "grievances" are NOT "complaints" until AFTER the screening committee votes yes to proceed onto the next step.  Otherwise when somebody calls into the office to enquire about a certain attorney whether they have ever had any "complaint"(s) filed against them, the office can say" no, as it might have been #__ grievances that never made it up to the level of a complaint, because what this place is in my opinion is a "Protection Racket" for their brothers and sisters of the Bar Association.

Case in point of when I did sue the U.S. Attorney Tom Colantuono as the Respondeat Superior to his underling: William Morse, Assistant who I later found out was licensed by the D.C. Bar, for failure to comply with Rule 16(c)of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to provide all exculpatory evidence to the judge, to wit: there being no 40USC255 paperwork on file as required by RSA 123:1, that "they" wrote back that they had no jurisdiction over this non-bar member, and I could not file an indirect case, and even though I, as a federal taxpayer, he was my public non-servant, I was not his client, and so no "complaint"!

The D.C. Bar having it in their Rules that you have to have been a "client" of his too, in a private, not public contract, and so if no justice withIN their system, then withOUT as to complain against these tenants of the GSA landlord over there who could not care less either, neither does the head co-tenant, Nancy Pelosi care either about how their Art. III, Sec. 1, U.S. "inferior courts" of Congress are without operating papers, the malpractice done to their "clients" having to be remedied by first a Reprieve and then a modification or eradication of any conviction wrongfully imposed in violation of the laws! by The President under Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBC27Xem-EU "

[Tunga]

The 18th amendment has not been stricken... simply amended by the 21st.
The same way the 16th amendment simply amended 1:8:1
'but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;.
Duties, imposts, and exicises are still uniform throughout the United States.

Income Jed. Define it with the code or go home.

[keith in RI]

how about this one jed?

title 26 cfr sec 312-6b. yes it deals with corporate taxes but!..........

"(b) Among the items entering into the computation of corporate
earnings and profits for a particular period are all income exempted by
statute, income not taxable by the Federal Government under the
Constitution, as well as all items includible in gross income under
section 61 or corresponding provisions of prior revenue acts."

so if their own interpretation of the code (federal regulations) says that there is an income that is not taxable under the constitution i leave you the question, what income isnt taxable under the constitution?????