DEFINITIONS: “Property”
EDITORIAL:
More cites on property are available at:
- Cites by Topic: Property, Family Guardian
https://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/property.htm - Authorities on Rights as Property, Form #14.017
https://sedm.org/authorities-on-rights-as-property/ - Laws of Property, Form #14.018
https://sedm.org/Forms/14-PropProtection/LawsOfProperty.pdf
United States v. County of Allegheny, 322 U.S. 174, 187-188 (1944)
”The “Government” is an abstraction, and its possession of property largely constructive. Actual possession and custody of Government property nearly always are in someone who is not himself the Government, but acts in its behalf and for its purposes. He may be an officer, an agent, or a contractor. His personal advantages from the relationship by way of salary, profit, or beneficial personal use of the property may be taxed, as we have held.”
[United States v. County of Allegheny, 322 U.S. 174, 187-188 (1944);
SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15956856368624581892]
EDITORIAL: This case COULD be interpreted as government workers remuneration for their own labor is taxable. HOWEVER, it is taxable to the GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATE OWNER of the labor contract, which isn’t you while you are merely exchanging your energy for pay while working. You are the owner of the PAYMENT for the labor when OFF duty. Use of the franchise mark (SSN) in connection with the otherwise PRIVATE PAYMENT for the labor CONVERTS the PAYMENT into property of the PAYOR AFTER it is received. See:
- 26 C.F.R. §301.6109-1(b).
- About SSNs and TINs on Government Forms and Correspondence, Form #05.012
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/AboutSSNsAndTINs.pdf
That’s how the courts get away with keeping the system going – by phrasing their decisions in incomplete statements or explanations, and using equivocation and logical fallacies. Maybe that’s the origin of the maxim: “The devil speaketh with ‘forked tongue'”.
U.S. v. San Francisco, 310 U.S. 16, 29-30 (1940)
Article 4, § 3, Cl. 2 of the Constitution provides that “The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory and other Property belonging to the United States.” The power over the public land thus entrusted to Congress is without limitations.[23] “And it is not for the courts to say how that trust shall be administered. That is for Congress 30*30 to determine.”[24] Thus, Congress may constitutionally limit the disposition of the public domain to a manner consistent with its views of public policy. And the policy to govern disposal of rights to develop hydroelectric power in such public lands may, if Congress chooses, be one designed to avoid monopoly and to bring about a wide-spread distribution of benefits. The statutory requirement that Hetch-Hetchy power be publicly distributed does not represent an exercise of a general control over public policy in a State but instead only an exercise of the complete power which Congress has over particular public property entrusted to it.[25]
[U.S. v. San Francisco, 310 U.S. 16, 29-30 (1940);
SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16289769564691933181]
Alabama v. Texas, 347 U.S. 272, 273-274 (1954)
The motions for leave to file these complaints are denied. Article IV, § 3, Cl. 2, United States Constitution. United States v. Gratiot, 14 Pet. 526, 537: The power of Congress to dispose of any kind of property belonging to the United States “is vested in Congress without limitation.” United States v. Midwest Oil Company, 236 U.S. 459, 474: “For it must be borne in mind that Congress not only has a legislative power over the public domain, but it also exercises the powers of the proprietor therein. Congress `may deal with such lands precisely as a private individual may deal with his farming property. It may sell or withhold them from sale.’ Camfield v. United States, 167 U. S. 524; Light v. United States, 220 U. S. 536.” United States v. San Francisco, 310 U. S. 16, 29-30: “Article 4, § 3, Cl. 2 of the Constitution provides that “The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory and other Property belonging to the United States.’ The power over the public land thus entrusted to Congress is without limitations. `And it is not for the courts to say how that trust shall be administered. That is for Congress to determine.’ ” United States v. California, 332 U. S. 19, 27: “We have said that the constitutional 274*274 power of Congress [under Article IV, § 3, Cl. 2] is without limitation. United States v. San Francisco, 310 U. S. 16, 29-30.”
[Alabama v. Texas, 347 U.S. 272, 273-274 (1954);
SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13082344449606716128]
Nichols v. Coolidge, 274 U.S. 531, 541 (1927)
Certainly, Congress may lay an excise upon the transfer of property by death reckoned upon the value of the interest which passes thereby. But under the mere guise of reaching something within its powers Congress may not lay a charge upon what is beyond them. Taxes are very real things and statutes imposing them are estimated by practical results.
[Nichols v. Coolidge, 274 U.S. 531, 541 (1927);
SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1007736972096196998]
Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113, 148 (1877)
“The legislation in question is nothing less than a bold assertion of absolute power by the State to control at its discretion the property and business of the citizen, and fix the compensation he shall receive. The will of the legislature is made the condition upon which the owner shall receive the fruits of his property and the just reward of his labor, industry, and enterprise. “That government,” says Story, “can scarcely be deemed to be free where the rights of property are left solely dependent upon the will of a legislative body without any restraint. The fundamental maxims of a free government seem to require that the rights of personal liberty and private property should be held sacred.” Wilkeson v. Leland, 2 Pet. 657.”
[Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113, 148 (1877);
SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6419197193322400931]
Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U.S. 41, 55 (1900)
The right to take property by devise or descent is a creature of the law, and not a natural right—a privilege, and therefore the authority which confers it may impose conditions upon it.
[Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U.S. 41, 55 (1900);
SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16237964956954109764]
Majestic Star Casino, LLC v. Barden Development, Inc. (In re Majestic Star Casino, LLC), 716 F.3d. 736 (3d Cir. 2013)
EDITORIAL: This case establishes that “tax statuses” and “civil statuses” represent a PROPERTY interest for those adopting the status. The reciprocal is also true: The property they represent was GRANTED by the creator of the tax status or civil status and it is ON LOAN to all those who invoke it as a PRIVILEGE. In that sense, it is a “res” or THING legislatively created and owned by the government.