Person and Taxes

A little primer

Public Law 101-508 section 11801 A 45, repealed Subchapter E of Chapter 64. This Statue at Large wiped out all of 26 USC 6361 and all State Qualified Income Taxes in 1990. However, the Regs still are published and this cannot be. This is the fraud the IRS uses. Hawthorne, the leading authority states,

“the regulation dies when the statute from which it came from is repealed."

I would say the IRS has a rather large problem because 301 is administrative operation of the IRS and it does not exist because Congress repealed all statutes in 1990. In doing so it deleted about 600 regulations that the IRS still operates under, illegally.

The Qualified State Income Tax applied only to those sources of income and not the income itself; i.e.; the hamburger sold by Wendy’s is not the source, Wendy’s is the source. If your income came from a private company that private company is not the source because the “qualified tax” is shown in the agreement with the State and the IRS. Within that agreement lists the source as business in a revenue taxable activity. Section 61 of 26 USC only lists the ITEMS of income which are taxable. 26 CFR 1.861-8 lists the sources of income that are taxable so the state can implement it’s state income tax. Knowing what to look for and knowing it is business you have to go to the 1909 Corporation Tax Act to see that all income taxes are taxes on corporations and not on people in their natural physical state, but in their artificial state.

Now that means man, in his natural physical personality cannot ever be taxed. But should that man take on the personality of a “person,” IN LAW, then he becomes artificial and subject to the tax. Taking on that personality of “person” makes him a “resident” and is synonymous with “individual” and “inhabitant.” This is borne out by the Supreme Court’s defining the term “resident” as being the same as “inhabitant” in the case of United States v Penelope, 27 Fed. Case No. 16024. The word person in 26 USC 7701 (a) (1) uses the word “individual” to define the word person as well as other artificial entities like association, partnership and corporation, all of whom are artificial. So how do you know you are an artificial personality or a physical personality in the eyes of “the law?”

Here is a rendition from a book that Paul Burge showed me when he obtained a complete set from the LaSalle Law school. The title is Vol 13, Jurisprudence and Legal Institutions, American Law and Procedures, by law professor James Andrews Albany Law school and Ruskin University. [source] I will quote only portions as it is rather large to reproduce it all. I will not emphasize key words as I have done in the past. I will bracket my notes in [ ].

Starting with the term “leading.” You all heard that term used in court where the defense or prosecutor jumps up and says “your honor he is leading the witness.” What is happening is that the witness is being led to believe a set of words or circumstances the defense attorney wants him to believe and the answer from the witness will prove it. So we start in the book with a few passages before Section 64, The legal conception of leading words.

Jeremy Bentham, in his remarks in reference to the inexact use of language by Blackstone in pages 47 and 49 of the Commentaries, says: “When leading terms are made to chop and change their several significations, sometimes meaning one thing, sometimes another, at the upshot perhaps nothing, and this in the compass of a paragraph, one may judge what will be the complexion of the whole context”.

Sec. 64. The legal conception of leading words. Inasmuch as the words person, man, thing, property, rights, wrongs and actions are leading terms constituting the designation of departments of the corpus juris, it will be impossible to obtain clear conceptions of subjects connected with these words until an understanding is agreed upon as to the sense in which these terms are used. If we arrive at the meaning of these words intended by Blackstone and make the same clear, we will have a better idea of his method and perhaps a better opinion of it, and at the same time will be able to show the distinction between the same words in the Roman, the English and in American law.

By now people you should see why the Rule of Presumption is applied in the courts or when you deal with government that YOU are looked upon by the court, government (IRS), NOT as what you think you are and they are applying leading terms to you. I have always said, DO NOT use pro se, or propria persona in any of your pleadings because of the below statements by this professor of law who wrote the best definition of person that you will ever get.

Blackstone apparently uses the Roman word persona as synonymous with the English word “person,” and the latter word interchangeably with “individual” and “man,” whereas he might have avoided all confusion by a closer adherence to that which he professed to follow.

Section 65. The word “person” defined. Gaius says “De Juris divisione” [the divisions of the law] immediately preceding his division of the law; then follows, “De conditione hominm” [meaning the condition or status of men].

In the Institutes “De jura personarum” precedes the expression “all our law relates either to persons, or to things, or to actions. The words persona and personae did not have the meaning in the Roman which attaches to homo, the individual, or a man in the English; it had peculiar reference to artificial beings and the condition or status of individuals.

Still want to write in propria persona on your legal paperwork?

Continuing with section 65;

The word “homo” corresponds to the English word “man,” and, as the Romans expressed it, “unus homo sustinet plures personas;” i.e., one man has many persons, or sustains many status, or many different conditions (34 AUSTINS JUR., 362)

Austin says: “The term ‘person’ has two meanings, which must be carefully distinguished. It denotes a man or human being; or it signifies some condition borne by a man (35 See 4 Harvard Law Review 101). A person (as meaning a man) is one or individual, but a single or individual person (meaning a man) may sustain a number of persons (meaning condition or status)” (36 Austin’s Jur., 363).

Notice that this meaning is not so broad as that given by Ortolan. It does not include artificial persons.

Again, he says: “As throwing light on the celebrated distinction between jus rerum and jus personarum, phrases which have been translated so absurdly by Blackstone and others,–rights of persons and rights of things, jus personarum did not mean law of persons, or rights of persons, but law of status, or condition. A person is here not a physical or individual person, but the status or condition with which he is invested. It is a remarkable confirmation of this that Gauis, in the margin purporting to give the title or heading of this part of the law, has entitled it thus: De conditione hominum; and Theophilus, in translating the Institutes of Justinian from Latin into Greek, has translated jus personarum . . . diviso personarum; understanding evidently by persona . . . not an individual or physical person, but the status, condition or character borne by physical persons. This distinctly shows the meaning of the phrase jus personarurn, which has been involved in impenetrable obscurity by Blackstone and Hale. The law of persons is the law of status or condition; the law of things is the law of rights and obligations considered in a general manner, or as distinguished from these peculiar collections of rights and obligations which are styled conditions and considered apart.

A moment’s reflection enables one to see that man and person cannot be synonymous, for there cannot be an artificial man, though there are artificial persons. Thus the conclusion is easily reached that the law itself often creates an entity or a being which is called a person; the law cannot create an artificial man, but it can and frequently does invest him with artificial attributes; this is personality, which we see and by which we are affected.

I never liked Blackstone and his works and now this bears out my beliefs. Sure he led people to believe in freedom when all along he hid words that would show people that the King still ruled America as James Montgomery and I have pointed out. Blackstone is the modern agent provocateur. Further on in this chapter I quote a couple of sentences that make sense of the above and are a kick in the seat, they are;

“The Law does not distinguish between men except by their personality.”

“By nature all men are created free and equal, i.e. of equal rank, equal rights; but the law does not look upon all men as equal, though the law of the United States all men have equal civil rights. See Ex Parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 368

“The word ‘persons’ denoted certain conditions of rank or status with which man was clothed by law.”

Man clothed by law? Does this make you sick or what?

Knowing this now makes all that they are doing to us, for THEY KNOW the law and don’t tell us, a fraud. A complete unadulterated fraud to deprive us of our personality, rights and all that goes with it. However, everyone who claims to be a sovereign doesn’t know what the hell he is talking about. Montgomery and I and a few others never call ourselves “sovereign” because there is only one Sovereign and you are a mere subject of His. As I have stated before who are you to call yourself sovereign? Sovereign over what, another man? Then he is your slave and you are no better than those who have taken your rights and personality away by artifice. Ready for Ortolan’s explanation of Personality in section 65? You people calling yourselves sovereigns better start regrouping after reading this entire article.

Ortolan’s explanation of personality. The substance of the above was undoubtedly taken from Ortolan’s treatment of the subject as given in his History of the Roman Law, which is submitted because it is clear and concise:

“The word ‘person’ (persona) does not in the language of the law, as in ordinary language, designate the physical man. This word in law has two acceptations: In the first, it is every being considered as capable of having or owing rights, of being the active or passive subjects of rights.

“We say every being, for men are not alone comprised therein. In fact, law by its power of abstraction creates persons, as we shall see that it creates things, which do not exist in nature. Thus, it erects into persons the state, cities, communities, charitable or other institutions, even purely material objects, such as the fiscus, or inheritance in abeyance, because it makes of them beings capable of having or owing rights. In the inverse sense, every man in Roman law is not a person. For example, slaves were considered as the property of the master, especially under the rigorous system of primitive legislation, because they are the object and not the subject of law. This, however, did not prevent the Romans from including them in another sense in the class of persons.

“We shall therefore have to discriminate between and to study two classes of person: physical or natural persons, for which we find no distinctive denomination in Roman jurisprudence except the expressions taken from Ulpian, singularis persona (46 Does this not equal “individuals?” See 10 Harvard Law Review., 101); that is to say, the man-person; and abstract persons, which are fictitious and which have no existence except in law; that is to say, those which are purely legal conceptions or creations.

“In another sense, very frequently employed, the word ‘person’ designates each character man is called upon to play on the judicial stage; that is to say, each quality which gives him certain rights or certain obligations-for instance, the person of father; of son as subject to his father; of husband or guardian. In this sense the same man can have several personae at the same time.

Here is even more to cause you to say, man now I know why everybody is losing when calling themselves all these leading presumptive terms in law. Think you are getting the plan of attack organized in you head yet? Here is more to help you and we are still in section 65.

There can be found in the Commentaries of Blackstone no definition of the word person, nor any explanation of the meaning intended to be ascribed to the word “person,” and the word is there used indiscriminately in the popular and the legal sense, interchangeably with “man” and “individual,” and also to designate artificial beings capable of having rights.

Boy, wasn’t Blackstone a real bastard for screwing the people at the behest of the King? Well all you people who claim you are the “People” in the Preamble and by golly you want that Constitution at all costs, don’t you. You have a false god before you rather than believe in the True God of the Universe, the true Law Giver. Well after reading The New History of America you cannot disagree, especially after reading the Padleford case, 14 Ga. 438, but many have disagreed. So with that in mind let us move to Chapter 13, Section 104 of the Law Book. After reading this and you still want to be a Preamble citizen or State citizen then that is your choice. So don’t complain when they want all you have and tell you what to do. Ready for the coup d’etat?

Chapter VIII

Section 104. The people: Identity. In the United States the people are brought on the stage as an acting political entity, acting, it is true, always through representatives. As expressed by Wilson, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence: “In free states the people form an artificial person or body politic, the highest and noblest that can be known” (1 Wilson’s Works).

By “the people” of a state is meant all of the (members) which compose that state and are integral parts of it, together making a body politic (2 Penhallow v Doane, 3 Dall. 55, 93).


“The people as a corporate unit form an artificial person or body politic; thus constituted they form a moral person”. “It is this person we call a state.” (4 1 Wilson’s Works 321- 325: 2 Wilson’s Works 321)” “There is no distinction between the people and the state” (5 Penhollow v Doane, 3 Dall 93).

It must not be forgotten that, in using the expression “the people,” there is a distinction between the population of the nation, as individuals, and the same population organized under a constitution. By “the people,” in this connection, we intend a body politic, a corporate unity. Because of the quality of singleness we may properly use the pronoun “it,” though, this is not usual. It is hard for the citizen to lose sight of the individuals in the body; but correctly viewed, as drops of water lose their forms as drops when they mingle with the whole and become not drops, but one body, even so the citizen in his political capacity loses the civil capacity of (an individual when viewed as a part of that great unit “the people.”

It is the whole mass, and not a majority of the individuals composing it, which constitutes the people, and the people are to be regarded, not as an unorganized mob, but as a corporate unity composing a society (6) This is a big footnote — Jameson, Const. Con. (4th ed.), pp. q8, 19, notes: Von Holst’s Con. Law, 48, 49; Penhallow v. Doane, 3 Dall. 92.
“A distinction was taken at the bar between a state and the people of the state. It is a distinction I am not capable of comprehending. By a state forming a republic (speaking of it as a moral person), I do not mean the legislature of the state, the executive of the state, or the judiciary, but all the citizens who compose the state, and are, if I may so express myself, integral parts of it; all together forming a body politic. The great distinction between monarchies and republics (at least our republic) in general is, that in the former the monarch is considered as the sovereign, and each individual of his nation as a subject to him, though in some countries with many important special limitations. This, I say, is generally the ease, for it has not been so universally. But in a republic, all the citizens as such, are equal, and no citizen can rightfully exercise any authority over another but in virtue of a power constitutionally given by the whole community, and such authority, when exercised, is in effect an act of the whole community, which forms such body politic. In such governments, therefore, the sovereignty resides in the great body of the people, but it resides in them not as so many distinct individuals, but in their political capacity only."

[THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I TRIED TO GET ACROSS IN THE NEW HISTORY OF AMERICA. The U.S was established as a CORPORATION in 1787 with all the states already a body of corporate entities of the King. As the People in the Preamble were those already in power and had money, wealth in land and so forth, these were the People mentioned in the Preamble to the corporate by laws called a Constitution. Only they could vote, if you studied history. You needed so much land or so many pounds sterling to vote. VOTING WAS NOT A RIGHT AND NEVER HAS BEEN. It has always been a PRIVILEGE. For if it was a right then even a beggar would have the “right” to vote. Such was not the case. So let me finish off Section 104 after the above long footnote.

There are dicta to the effect that the people, when spoken of in the political sense, means only those persons having the right to vote, that is, the electors; and it is at the same time said that in the electors is vested the sovereignty. Thus stated, the idea does not, as we shall see, properly obtain, and is contrary to the principles of American institutions. Voters are but parts of the machinery of government. In the constitution “the people” is sometimes used to indicate persons or individuals. So in all provisions in reference to unreasonable seizures and searches. In such provision it is identical with the use in Blackstone.

[Ok, what did you learn in Section 65? You learned that persons and individuals, as just here stated are artificial persons. Men who have taken on the personality as corporate entities and now have no personality as a physical being AS DEFINED BY LAW OF THE CORPORATION.]

Gee, how much plainer can it get? Now let us see what happens to this “individual” who is synonymous with “person” because “individual” is used in 26 USC 7701 (a) (1) to define person and that person is liable according to their law because he is an artificial entity. Where is the sovereignty spoken of? There is none in a corporate body politic because all “members” must support the corporation at all costs and the corporation has the right to take whatever wealth from its members to prevent its collapse. Guess what shows up on all “Individual Master Files?” Yup, you guessed it, the first four letters of you name in all caps denoting the artificial man from the physical man. It even says so in the VAL 1 code, that someone else is using the physical man’s SS number. I wonder who that could be? What personalities are working here?

And while we are at it the definition of “Individual” in Title 5 USC 552 (a) (2) is that United States citizen who is a “member” of the “body politic.” They don’t use the word “person” but “individual” which is a word describing “person.” I am now going to go way back to 1990 when I published Which One Are You and quote from page 203. Many people say the book is just as hard to understand as is the code I was trying to make understandable. Those people are those that belong to a group that the Lord said, “There will always be the poor among you.” Meaning not money poor, but comprehension poor or those that have eyes will not see and those that have ears will not hear. Here is the section out of my book that now, maybe, when put beside this article will show what I was trying to get across. You will also see how in Hale v Henkle the court slides back and forth with the word “individual” by talking about it in the “common sense” and then the “legal sense.” This proves we have to look at those “LEADING TERMS” that I quoted at the very beginning of this article.

“It is an AXIOM that “he who deals with or trusts in government does so at his own peril,” (see American States Report Digest, ‘Bills and Notes’ etc.). So when in doubt, always treat the government as a corporation in a COMMERCIAL posture /environment /endeavor, for “The individual owes NOTHING to the State, for he receives nothing therefrom.” (Hale v Henkel, 201 U.S. 43), but where that individual becomes involved with government’s commercial activities and actually or constructively receives a “benefit” therefrom, he is bound with no escape (eg. Wickard v Filburn, 317 U.S. 111), even unto criminal sanctions, (Mala Prohibita remember) attaching to what is substantiallly a “civil” involvement (US v Grimaud, 220 U.S. 506; Wickard v Filburn supra), “civil” meaning a “private” or “commercial” relationship or “NEXUS” with the corporate State or United States.

Go back in this book and look for your unalienable rights in the definition of “citizen” and you will find the NEXUS. The United States and States of the Union not only are, but should be considered a commercial corporation and dealt with, with extreme care and such dealings, if at all possible, should be avoided like the plague.”

[END OF QUOTE FROM Which One Are You.]

Oh, let us now venture to section 133 in the professors book and see what that says about that “individual” and if I wasn’t correct back in 1990.

Section 133. An individual contracts with a state at his peril.

It is now well settled that there is no judicial remedy in favor of an individual against a state to compel the performance of a contract, though it is settled that a state can pass no law impairing the obligation of a contract once made (18 Murry v Charleston, 96 U.S. 432 is an instructive case on this subject).

Well you Preamble citizens, you cannot complain now that you know what you put yourself into. And you sovereign citizens can now see what an oxymoron term that is. And those signing pro per or propria persona will abruptly stop that if you want to retain the personality of that natural physical man that is not bound by your fellow man’s, those artificial persons, laws. I now quote right from my book, for those of you that have not read my book The New History of America, a case that states you don’t have to join their corporate venture.

“When a change of government takes place, from a monarchial to a republican government, the old form is dissolved. Those who lived under it, and did not choose to become members of the new, had a right to refuse their allegiance to it, and to retire elsewhere. By being a part of the society subject to the old government, they had not entered into any engagement to become subject to any new form the majority might think proper to adopt. That the majority shall prevail is a rule posterior to the formation of government, and results from it. It is not a rule binding upon mankind in their natural state. There, every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent.” Cruden v. Neale, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E. 70. Emphasis added.

By this very principle espoused by the court you cannot be made to “retire elsewhere” because, if anything, you retire from the corporate STATE and live upon the land of the Lord in the geographical place called North Carolina rather than the State of North Carolina. Go back and look at the Hamilton case where they said that you “* * * shall take an oath of abjuration and allegiance, or depart out of the State.” Let them keep their corporate State; depart out of it. Isn’t that what the Bible tells you “Come out of her?” What do you need it for? To continually be robbed by legal plunder? Not that they are going to stop if you do, because maybe, just maybe, the masses will wake up and want out also, thereby destroying the State’s power over you. What’s the King going to do now? That is why so many of us with the knowledge are demonized by the spin doctors of government, using media to set the masses against us.

Peace be with you people in hopes that you will not be poor in comprehension so that you will know the truth, which will set you free. Yea, providing we have enough physical personalities that know what to do against tyrants that just perpetrated their kind from the start of the country.

The Informer