Summary of Unconstitutional Court Cases that Protect the Income Tax
INTRODUCTION
As this site proves, the income tax is voluntary and cannot be coerced. See:
How American Nationals Volunteer to Pay Income Tax, Form #08.024
https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/HowYouVolForIncomeTax.pdf
What these cases demonstrate is the following phenomenon by various courts:
- A desire to HIDE the process of volunteering by EXPANDING statutory definitions ILLEGALLY.
- Expanding statutory definitions illegally and in violation of the separation of powers. This is typically done using the word “includes” illegally. See:
Legal Deception, Propaganda, and Fraud, Form #05.014, Section 18.2: Abuse of Includes and Including in statutory definitions
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/LegalDecPropFraud.pdf - Destruction of the separation of powers between the states and national government BECAUSE of the expanded definitions. See:
Government Conspiracy to Destroy the Separation of Powers, Form #05.023
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/SeparationOfPowers.pdf - The exercise of legislative functions by the court, because adding to statutory definitions is an act of legislation.
- A conspiracy against rights by courts, because the purpose of the separation of powers doctrine is to PROTECT private constitutional rights:
This constitutionally mandated division of authority “was adopted by the Framers to ensure protection of our fundamental liberties.” Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 458 (1991) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the Federal Government serves to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front.” Ibid.
[United States v. LOPEZ, 514 U.S. 549 (1995); SOURCE: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/514/549.html]
The scariest thing about these cases is that they mostly come from no less than the U.S. Supreme Court! The corruption obviously has thus reached the pinnacle of the Judicial Branch, which is a sad commentary on the state of our government.
For an example of how to attack the problems common to all these cases in court, see:
- Microsoft Copilot: Is there a limit on what people can consent to if it destroys the separation of powers?, SEDM
https://sedm.org/microsoft-copilot-is-there-a-limit-on-what-people-can-consent-to-if-it-destroys-the-separation-of-powers/ - Meta AI: Social Security cannot be offered in a constitutional state, SEDM
https://sedm.org/meta-ai-social-security-cannot-be-offered-in-a-constitutional-state/
Note that we don’t have a problem with COMITY, which is consent between a government and either people or other governments. “Comity” is described below:
Sovereignty Forms and Instructions Online, Form #10.004, Cites by Topic: “Comity”
https://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/comity.htm
But COMITY cannot be used to EXPAND federal powers or to destroy the separation of powers. The scenario in each of these cases is also not COMITY in a classical sense because:
- Neither the parties nor the court acknowledge or claim that express consent to the status of “State”, or “person” for instance, is involved.
- Consent cannot operate if it is never expressly given and acknowledged by all parties concerned. Because consent is not expressly indicated, something ELSE OTHER than “comity” is involved. That thing is FRAUD.
- The constitution does NOT expressly authorize and therefore FORBIDS constitutional states from CONSENTING to be treated AS IF they are the TERRITORIES mentioned in 4 U.S.C. 110(d).
- Any attempt BY a state would represent a waiver of their sovereignty and rights under the constitution and put them under the jurisdiction of a court OTHER than ONLY the U.S. Supreme Court in the constitution.
- The reason the State, the court, and the governments involved don’t acknowledge or require consent to the status is that:
5.1. It would violate the separation of powers.
5.2. The constitution does not expressly authorize the “benefit” that is being offered extraterritorially within a constitutional state. Doing so is thus unconstitutional and if is undertaken anyway, becomes PRIVATE BUSINESS activity that is non-governmental in nature.
5.3. All parties to the case would have to admit they are engaging in a conspiracy to DESTROY the separation of powers.
5.5. If they required or acknowledged consent to participate in the franchise, most people would unvolunteer from the tax system.
5.6. So the court is complicit in HIDING consent in this case to protect their revenue. See:
Invisible Consent, FTSIG
https://ftsig.org/how-you-volunteer/invisible-consent/
The courts cannot touch any of the problems mentioned above because they are all third rail issues that would result in professional suicide to even mention in the court record. For a list of such issues, see:
Third Rail Government Issues, Form #08.032
https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/ThirdRailIssues.pdf
Below is what the designer of our three branch system of government said about the exercise of this corruption by the court and legislating from the bench;
“When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty; because apprehensions may arise, lest the same monarch or senate should enact tyrannical laws, to execute them in a tyrannical manner.
Again, there is no liberty, if the judiciary power be not separated from the legislative and executive. Were it joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control; for the judge would be then the legislator. Were it joined to the executive power, the judge might behave with violence and oppression [sound familiar?].
There would be an end of everything, were the same man or the same body, whether of the nobles or of the people, to exercise those three powers, that of enacting laws, that of executing the public resolutions, and of trying the causes of individuals.”
[. . .]
In what a situation must the poor subject be in those republics! The same body of magistrates are possessed, as executors of the laws, of the whole power they have given themselves in quality of legislators. They may plunder the state by their general determinations; and as they have likewise the judiciary power in their hands, every private citizen may be ruined by their particular decisions.”
[The Spirit of Laws, Charles de Montesquieu, Book XI, Section 6, 1758;
SOURCE: http://famguardian.org\Publications\SpiritOfLaws\sol_11.htm]
For other examples of how judges “make law” as they did here, see:
How Judges Unconstitutionally “Make Law”, Litigation Tool #01.009
https://sedm.org/Litigation/01-General/HowJudgesMakeLaw.pdf
1. Sims v. United States, 359 U.S. 108 (1959)
This case unlawfully expands IRS levies upon private people OTHER than those expressly listed. They abuse the word “includes” to add ANYTHING they want to those subject to levy. This violates the rules of statutory construction and interpretation. More at:
- Sovereignty Forms and Instructions Online, Form #10.004, Cites by topic: Levy
https://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/levy.htm - Sovereignty Forms and Instructions Online, Form #10.004, Cites by topic: includes
https://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/includes.htm - Legal Deception, Propaganda, and Fraud, Form #05.014, Section 18.2: Abuse of Includes and Including in statutory definitions
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/LegalDecPropFraud.pdf
2. Howard v. Commissioners, 344 U.S. 624, 626, 73 S.Ct. 465, 97 L.Ed. 617 (1953)
This case unlawfully extends state jurisdiction into federal territory and thus DESTROYS the separation of powers. They unlawfully expand the definition of “State” in 4 U.S.C. 110(d) in doing so, as does the next case below. This case is the basis for ALL state income taxes. More at:
- Government Conspiracy to Destroy the Separation of Powers, Form #05.023
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/SeparationOfPowers.pdf - Citizenship Status v. Tax Status, Form #10.011, Section 15.4: Legal Status of Federal Enclaves within the States
https://sedm.org/Forms/10-Emancipation/CitizenshipStatusVTaxStatus/CitizenshipVTaxStatus.htm#15.4_Legal_Status_of_Federal_Enclaves_within_the_States
3. Davis v. Michigan Dept. of Treasury, 489 U.S. 803 (1989)
In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court unlawfully enlarged the definition of “State” in 4 U.S.C. 110(d) to include a constitutional state of the Union within “State” taxation, which in this case was Michigan. The definition of “State” reads:
4 U.S. Code § 110 – The States, Definitions
(d) The term “State” includes any Territory or possession of the United States.
By doing this, they were in effect exercising legislative powers reserved to the legislature to expand statutory definitions. Granted:
- There is no liability statute for either states or individuals so everyone participates by consent, including states of the Union.
- People in states of the Union are nowhere listed in the I.R.C.
However, in order for people or a State protected by the Constitution to consent:
- They must in effect adopt a CIVIL STATUS under the Internal Revenue Code which the code itself does not even expressly authorize them to do.
- In so doing, they are committing a fraud upon the United States in pursuing a benefit.
- The Constitution does not authorize either people or States of the Union to act AS IF they domiciled elsewhere or representing an entity domiciled elsewhere.
This case also contains a long and valuable history of intergovernmental taxation in the United States that is worth reading.