Detecting language using up to the first 30 seconds. Use `--language` to specify the language Detected language: English [00:00.000 --> 00:02.480] Welcome to the show. [00:02.480 --> 00:07.580] Five months ago, I posted a presentation about the U.S. government presuming it can tax the [00:07.580 --> 00:13.680] growth in value of investment income without that gain being taken by the investor. [00:13.680 --> 00:18.240] Phrased another way, the government asserts it can tax the increase in value of an investment [00:18.240 --> 00:22.040] despite the fact that the gain has not been separated from the capital and as such is [00:22.040 --> 00:24.860] not available for use by the investor. [00:24.860 --> 00:29.220] When I did this story five months ago, it garnered little interest because the public [00:29.220 --> 00:33.420] perceived this matter as an arcane point of tax law. [00:33.420 --> 00:38.200] As I made clear in the presentation, it is anything but an arcane point of law. [00:38.200 --> 00:43.860] Its implications and potential consequences for every American are highly disturbing. [00:43.860 --> 00:49.020] I'm offering you another look at the presentation today because interest in the subject has [00:49.020 --> 00:54.620] skyrocketed since the Wall Street Journal recently ran a story about the controversy. [00:54.620 --> 00:59.420] As you get into the presentation, you'll understand why this is a critical issue for [00:59.420 --> 01:02.260] every American, not just investors. [01:02.260 --> 01:07.140] Make sure to watch to the end because that's where you'll find shocking information about [01:07.140 --> 01:11.180] how the government has fooled the American people into volunteering to pay an income [01:11.180 --> 01:17.480] tax imposed on government-granted privileges, even though your pay and the activity that [01:17.480 --> 01:22.140] creates your pay are constitutionally protected rights. [01:22.140 --> 01:27.660] That story is as fascinating as it is disturbing, so make sure to watch till that part. [01:27.660 --> 01:28.660] Enjoy. [01:28.660 --> 01:31.100] Welcome to the vodcast. [01:31.100 --> 01:37.080] As you're hearing my voice today, the Internal Revenue Service is violating well-settled [01:37.080 --> 01:42.300] constitutional law and the U.S. Supreme Court just accepted a case challenging what the [01:42.300 --> 01:44.060] IRS is doing. [01:44.060 --> 01:48.420] It would be difficult to overstate the changes that would occur in the United States tax [01:48.660 --> 01:52.180] system if the Supreme Court gets this one wrong. [01:52.180 --> 01:58.220] The bottom line is if the court gets this one wrong, Congress will be able to tax anything [01:58.220 --> 02:03.060] and everything at any time, and you'll have no recourse. [02:03.060 --> 02:06.580] Americans will see their tax burden skyrocket. [02:06.580 --> 02:12.340] The good news is that well-settled Supreme Court case law on the subject is substantial [02:12.340 --> 02:13.340] and unequivocal. [02:13.340 --> 02:14.740] Let's take a look. [02:18.420 --> 02:31.380] The Dr. Reality Vodcast with Dave Champion. [02:31.380 --> 02:32.900] Let's start with this. [02:32.900 --> 02:37.380] There haven't been any changes to the U.S. Constitution regarding the limits placed on [02:37.380 --> 02:40.180] Congress concerning federal taxation. [02:40.180 --> 02:46.860] The limits on taxation and the Constitution make what the IRS is doing blatantly unconstitutional. [02:46.860 --> 02:49.140] So why are they doing it? [02:49.140 --> 02:54.900] What the IRS is doing is pursuant to a plan hatched by Joe Biden and Janet Yellen, Biden's [02:54.900 --> 02:56.780] Secretary of the Treasury. [02:56.780 --> 03:03.100] Their plan hopes to achieve an end run by judicial fiat around the limits the Constitution [03:03.100 --> 03:05.700] places on Congress's taxing authority. [03:05.700 --> 03:09.340] In other words, while the Constitution can be changed through the amendment process, [03:09.340 --> 03:14.220] that requires a majority of Americans to support a proposed change. [03:14.460 --> 03:19.900] Biden knows he could never get the American people to remove the taxing limits in the [03:19.900 --> 03:24.860] Constitution, so he wants the courts to do what the American people would refuse. [03:24.860 --> 03:31.160] Coincidentally, I spoke about just that roughly a month ago in this segment. [03:31.160 --> 03:34.780] There are two camps on constitutional interpretation. [03:34.780 --> 03:40.060] One is the originalist view, holding the documents meet exactly what the men who wrote it intended [03:40.060 --> 03:43.440] when they wrote the words and the states ratified those words. [03:43.440 --> 03:48.160] The originalist model also seeks to identify the principles of liberty and good governance [03:48.160 --> 03:54.200] behind the Constitution's wording and carry those principles forward into our modern circumstances. [03:54.200 --> 03:57.180] An example of that would be the principle of freedom of the press. [03:57.180 --> 04:02.280] It exists just as much today when we employ computers, super high speed industrial printing, [04:02.280 --> 04:07.640] or an online digital present as when cutting edge technology was a hand cranked wooden [04:07.640 --> 04:09.200] printing press. [04:09.200 --> 04:13.920] The other model is the living document theory, which takes the view that in order for the [04:13.920 --> 04:18.240] Constitution to be durable over the long haul, the original meaning of the founders must [04:18.240 --> 04:24.000] give way to new interpretations based on the circumstances of modern society. [04:24.000 --> 04:29.760] As I'm speaking with you today, I'm 63 years old and I've only ever seen the living document [04:29.760 --> 04:33.240] model advance with two goals intended. [04:33.240 --> 04:38.560] One is to alter the form of the federal government from a representative democracy to some other form. [04:38.560 --> 04:43.340] The second is to do away with certain rights belonging to we the people or substantially [04:43.340 --> 04:44.840] truncate them. [04:44.840 --> 04:49.200] In my opinion, the living document model is despicable. [04:49.200 --> 04:51.080] Here's why. [04:51.080 --> 04:55.800] If people want to change the form of the federal government, okay, the Constitution contains [04:55.800 --> 04:58.040] a means of doing exactly that. [04:58.040 --> 05:00.080] It's called the amendment process. [05:00.080 --> 05:05.060] The Constitution literally contains instructions about how we the people can alter anything [05:05.060 --> 05:07.280] we want in the Constitution. [05:07.280 --> 05:11.680] A proposed amendment requires ratification by two-thirds of the states to become part [05:11.680 --> 05:13.200] of the Constitution. [05:13.200 --> 05:19.200] So for simplicity of illustration, if we say the population of all states is equal, then [05:19.200 --> 05:26.240] at this moment in time, it would require 222,500,000 Americans to agree that making a particular [05:26.240 --> 05:29.940] modification to the Constitution is what we want. [05:29.940 --> 05:35.200] By contrast, those who support the living document model seek to reduce the number of [05:35.200 --> 05:42.800] Americans needed to make a change from 220,500,000 to only the nine Supreme Court justices or [05:42.800 --> 05:46.040] more accurately, five of the nine justices. [05:46.040 --> 05:52.120] Basically, they're looking to overthrow the U.S. Constitution by judicial fiat. [05:52.120 --> 05:56.280] The other reason I find the living document model despicable is the Founding Fathers were [05:56.280 --> 06:00.600] crystal clear that the government is not the source of our rights. [06:00.600 --> 06:05.320] In the earliest days of our nation, the Supreme Court held that our rights existed antecedent [06:05.320 --> 06:07.720] to the formation of the states or the federal government. [06:07.720 --> 06:13.800] Therefore, the states and the federal government have no authority to alter or abolish those rights. [06:13.800 --> 06:18.600] Yet the goal of those who support the living document model is to eradicate or severely [06:18.600 --> 06:22.280] truncate rights they don't like and don't want you exercising. [06:22.280 --> 06:27.960] And again, in a nation of 334 million people, they want just five people to eradicate or [06:27.960 --> 06:30.280] truncate your rights. [06:30.280 --> 06:32.920] In that clip, I mentioned rights. [06:32.920 --> 06:37.320] And you may be thinking this issue doesn't involve rights. [06:37.320 --> 06:38.640] And you'd be wrong about that. [06:38.640 --> 06:42.640] The American people have the right of property. [06:42.640 --> 06:46.620] The Founding Fathers spoke extensively of that right as essential to the meaning and [06:46.620 --> 06:48.840] enjoyment of personal liberty. [06:48.840 --> 06:54.940] While all taxation is, in its nature, an intrusion upon that right, the federal Constitution [06:55.100 --> 07:00.780] in particular, limits Congress's authority to intrude into your right of property. [07:00.780 --> 07:04.980] Now that you understand the tactic Biden is using, let me be clear with you about the [07:04.980 --> 07:07.820] gravity of the situation we face. [07:07.820 --> 07:12.320] If we analogize Congress's taxing authority to the authority police have when interacting [07:12.320 --> 07:17.680] with you, for the Supreme Court to accept Biden's unconstitutional action, it would [07:17.680 --> 07:22.620] be the equivalent of alleviating the police from needing reasonable suspicion to detain [07:22.620 --> 07:26.320] you probable cause to arrest you or a warrant to search your home. [07:26.320 --> 07:28.560] It is that critical. [07:28.560 --> 07:32.800] If the Supreme Court gets this one wrong, it will be crossing a red line from which [07:32.800 --> 07:38.300] America will never find its way back without violence. [07:38.300 --> 07:40.460] Those are strong words, yes? [07:40.460 --> 07:43.980] So what qualifies me to make such a pronouncement? [07:43.980 --> 07:49.260] I'm the author of Income Tax Shattering the Mist, which is the product of 17 years of [07:49.260 --> 07:55.300] research that tells the American people the truth about what income tax law actually says, [07:55.300 --> 07:59.360] which is that Congress has never imposed the income tax on ordinary working Americans. [07:59.360 --> 08:04.780] That it does apply to ordinary working Americans is a myth propagated by 60 years of government [08:04.780 --> 08:07.300] disinformation and propaganda. [08:07.300 --> 08:11.700] Before I get into what the law says relevant to the matter we're discussing today, let [08:11.700 --> 08:14.900] me tell you why I haven't filed an income tax return or paid a penny of income tax in [08:14.900 --> 08:17.540] 30 years. [08:17.540 --> 08:21.220] I've been informing the American people about the truth of the income tax for more than [08:21.220 --> 08:25.260] 20 years, and I authored the best-selling book in America on the subject. [08:25.260 --> 08:29.380] Yet, here I sit, unmolested by the government. [08:29.380 --> 08:30.380] Why? [08:30.380 --> 08:35.020] Because when you know what tax law really says, as opposed to having accepted the idiotic [08:35.020 --> 08:39.580] false narrative put out by the government, the government will leave you alone. [08:39.580 --> 08:43.140] But you do absolutely need to know what the law really says. [08:43.140 --> 08:45.800] This is not one of those things you can just wing. [08:45.800 --> 08:48.520] You need to see the law with your own eyes. [08:48.520 --> 08:52.800] Once you know what the law says, you can walk away safely from the government scam. [08:52.800 --> 08:57.080] I share all of that to make the point that I know more about the origins, meaning, and [08:57.080 --> 09:01.480] limitations of Congress's taxing authority than almost anyone in the country. [09:01.480 --> 09:06.200] I'm certainly the most knowledgeable person on those matters in the private sector. [09:06.200 --> 09:11.140] With that behind us, I should tell you Biden won this case in both the district court and [09:11.140 --> 09:17.160] at the Ninth Circuit Court, so the Supreme Court is our last stand. [09:17.160 --> 09:20.720] Can we trust the Supreme Court to get it right? [09:20.720 --> 09:21.720] That's a tough question. [09:21.720 --> 09:25.220] I'm sure you've heard of the 16th Amendment, even if you're not sure what it is or what [09:25.220 --> 09:26.220] it did. [09:26.220 --> 09:28.860] I'll say two things today about the 16th. [09:28.860 --> 09:33.580] First, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Amendment did not do anything like what [09:33.580 --> 09:36.200] high school history books say it did. [09:36.200 --> 09:41.040] What you find in high school textbooks is part of the massive government disinformation [09:41.040 --> 09:43.000] campaign I mentioned a moment ago. [09:43.000 --> 09:48.400] Second, and more germane to this discussion, the 16th was necessary because the Supreme [09:48.400 --> 09:54.180] Court made an incorrect decision about the income tax in 1895 in the Pollock case. [09:54.180 --> 09:58.320] The 16th was needed to correct the improper holding in Pollock. [09:58.320 --> 10:02.520] My point is that when you wonder whether the current Supreme Court can be trusted to make [10:03.400 --> 10:07.360] you should know that an earlier Supreme Court got it wrong. [10:07.360 --> 10:13.800] The good news is that in a series of cases after Pollock between 1916 and roughly the [10:13.800 --> 10:18.980] early 1930s, the court made up for that early error with a slew of accurate and precise [10:18.980 --> 10:23.200] holdings concerning Congress's limited ability to tax the American people. [10:23.200 --> 10:26.880] Quick, name one of those cases! [10:27.280 --> 10:33.280] Sorry, but I had to do that to drive home the point that Americans are completely ignorant [10:33.280 --> 10:39.040] of what income tax law says and how limited Congress's taxing authority is. [10:39.040 --> 10:43.160] In the course of showing you why Biden's actions are unconstitutional, you're going to learn [10:43.160 --> 10:45.600] about some of those limitations today. [10:45.600 --> 10:49.280] Before I move forward, I need to point out that while Biden and his Secretary of the [10:49.280 --> 10:54.800] Treasury initiated this unconstitutional action, they are not doing so in a vacuum. [10:54.800 --> 11:00.960] They are relying on a statute passed by a Republican Congress in 2017 and signed by [11:00.960 --> 11:03.560] Donald Trump, a Republican President. [11:03.560 --> 11:10.240] I tried to warn people about the problems with the GOP tax bill in 2017, but as usual, [11:10.240 --> 11:14.040] Americans had zero interest in actually reading the bill because it was easier to just believe [11:14.040 --> 11:17.240] the media when it told them they'd get a tax cut. [11:17.240 --> 11:22.000] Among a number of problems with that legislation, we now find ourselves facing a constitutional [11:22.000 --> 11:24.480] crisis because of it. [11:24.480 --> 11:28.360] With all that said, I'm encouraged by the fact that the Supreme Court decided to hear [11:28.360 --> 11:33.120] the matter because if the justices agreed with the Ninth Circuit, the Court could have [11:33.120 --> 11:36.800] simply rejected the case and the Ninth's decision would stand. [11:36.800 --> 11:39.080] They didn't do that. [11:39.080 --> 11:44.880] So what is this unconstitutional action being pursued by the Biden administration and supported [11:44.880 --> 11:50.160] by Republicans who passed the legislation and the GOP President who signed it into law? [11:50.160 --> 11:59.760] What the law purports to permit is the government to tax you on income you have not received. [11:59.760 --> 12:01.760] How is that for nifty? [12:01.760 --> 12:05.680] Imagine you were entitled to a significant payout on a project down the road, but the [12:05.680 --> 12:11.280] IRS decides it's going to tax you on that payment now, even though you haven't received [12:11.280 --> 12:12.280] the income. [12:12.280 --> 12:17.040] Where would you get the money to pay a tax on money you haven't received? [12:17.040 --> 12:19.020] This is not hypothetical. [12:19.020 --> 12:23.020] This court case exists because the IRS did exactly that. [12:23.020 --> 12:26.780] The IRS sent a married couple a tax bill for money concerning which the couple had not [12:26.780 --> 12:28.280] taken possession. [12:28.280 --> 12:33.360] To put it in a way you're going to hear in case law, under Biden, the IRS is taxing gains [12:33.360 --> 12:38.140] on investment capital even though the gains remain in the custody of a third party and [12:38.140 --> 12:41.940] have not yet been separated from the capital for the taxpayers' use. [12:41.940 --> 12:49.300] And as you're about to see, that is 100% in opposition to the decisions of the Supreme [12:49.300 --> 12:50.300] Court. [12:50.300 --> 12:54.500] But more importantly, in those decisions the Supreme Court is articulating the constitutional [12:54.500 --> 12:57.060] boundaries of Congress's power to tax. [12:57.060 --> 13:01.180] The Court is confirming the limits the Constitution imposes on Congress. [13:01.180 --> 13:05.300] I hope every American is aware that in Norton v. Shelby County the Supreme Court held that [13:05.300 --> 13:06.300] quote, [13:06.300 --> 13:09.420] An unconstitutional act is not a law. [13:09.420 --> 13:10.620] It confers no right. [13:10.620 --> 13:11.920] It imposes no duties. [13:11.920 --> 13:13.280] It affords no protection. [13:13.280 --> 13:14.720] It creates no office. [13:14.720 --> 13:20.900] It is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed. [13:20.900 --> 13:22.120] Close quote. [13:22.120 --> 13:26.640] In other words, while the Republicans passed this abortion into law, Biden is violating [13:26.640 --> 13:31.520] the Constitution and his oath of office by enforcing it on the American people. [13:31.520 --> 13:36.880] And Biden is knowingly doing so because the case law is crystal clear. [13:36.880 --> 13:40.000] In April of 2022, I discussed this exact matter. [13:40.000 --> 13:44.400] I discussed what the Supreme Court has said about whether the government has the constitutional [13:44.400 --> 13:48.320] authority to tax gains that have not been separated from capital. [13:48.320 --> 13:52.060] Before I share that with you, I want you to know I'm going to send a copy of Income Tax [13:52.060 --> 13:56.760] Shattering the Mist to the plaintiff's attorney to ensure he knows everything you're going [13:56.760 --> 13:58.980] to learn right now. [13:58.980 --> 14:03.260] And with that, let's get into what the Supreme Court has said on this subject, thus confirming [14:03.260 --> 14:06.900] Biden is knowingly violating the law. [14:06.900 --> 14:08.700] Enjoy. [14:08.700 --> 14:13.040] About two years ago, I did a presentation on capital gains. [14:13.040 --> 14:14.040] Who owes it? [14:14.040 --> 14:16.980] And again, more importantly, who doesn't? [14:16.980 --> 14:21.700] Second, if you're unfamiliar with the Supreme Court's various decisions over the decades [14:21.700 --> 14:27.060] about matters such as direct tax and indirect taxes that pertains to the income tax, some [14:27.060 --> 14:31.340] of the quotes I'm going to share with you may lack meaningful context because you're [14:31.340 --> 14:33.780] unfamiliar with what the court was actually trying to say. [14:33.780 --> 14:39.260] But just go with it in terms of the definition of income, which is what we're talking about. [14:39.260 --> 14:44.140] Whenever we consider the income tax, there are three factors or three elements that bear [14:44.140 --> 14:48.860] upon the legality, the constitutionality of income tax. [14:48.860 --> 14:55.460] The first is Congress's inherent right to impose a tax on certain people for certain [14:55.460 --> 14:56.460] activities. [14:56.940 --> 15:02.460] The slight modification made by the 16th Amendment and number three, the various tax acts passed [15:02.460 --> 15:05.220] after the adoption of the 16th Amendment. [15:05.220 --> 15:08.440] The good news is we don't need to get into all that in order to discuss the meaning and [15:08.440 --> 15:11.180] definition of income for the purpose of the income tax. [15:11.180 --> 15:15.820] All we have to do is look at what the United States Supreme Court has said. [15:15.820 --> 15:19.340] Let's start with Merchant Loan and Trust v. Smetanka. [15:19.340 --> 15:25.820] Its site, if you want to look it up and read for yourself, is 255 U.S. 509, United States [15:25.820 --> 15:27.420] Supreme Court 1921. [15:27.420 --> 15:33.380] And here's a quote, Income must be given the same meaning in all the income tax acts of [15:33.380 --> 15:38.280] Congress than it was given in the Corporate Excise Tax Act. [15:38.280 --> 15:48.660] And what that meaning is has become definitely settled by the decisions of this court. [15:48.660 --> 15:53.340] The Merchant Court continues with this quote, In determining the definition of the word [15:53.340 --> 15:58.660] income thus arrived at, this court has consistently refused to enter into the refinements of [15:58.660 --> 16:03.900] lexographers and economists and has approved in the definitions, quoted what it believed [16:03.900 --> 16:09.140] to be the commonly understood meaning of the term, which must have been in the minds of [16:09.140 --> 16:15.180] the people when they adopted the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, close quote. [16:15.180 --> 16:20.780] In other words, in Merchant, the United States Supreme Court was saying that the term income, [16:20.820 --> 16:26.780] the meaning of the term income, had to be the same as in the Corporate Tax Act of 1909 [16:26.780 --> 16:31.340] as in the tax acts of 1913, 1916, and 1917. [16:31.340 --> 16:38.180] Now the important part about this is that the 16th Amendment was adopted in 1913, the [16:38.180 --> 16:39.420] early part of 1913. [16:39.420 --> 16:46.260] So the Corporate Excise Tax Act of 1909 was pre-16th Amendment and the other three tax [16:46.740 --> 16:51.300] that the court is considering in Merchant were post-enactment of the 16th Amendment. [16:51.300 --> 16:56.780] And what the court is saying is that the definition of income has to be consistent through all [16:56.780 --> 16:57.780] of those acts. [16:57.780 --> 17:01.980] In other words, the meaning that it was given before the 16th Amendment is the same meaning [17:01.980 --> 17:05.780] it has after the 16th Amendment because when the people of the United States adopted the [17:05.780 --> 17:11.460] 16th Amendment, the definition that was applicable to the Corporate Excise Tax Act of 1909, to [17:11.460 --> 17:14.280] quote the court, must have been in their minds. [17:14.300 --> 17:18.400] The next case relevant to our inquiry is Eisner v. McComber, again the citation, if you want [17:18.400 --> 17:23.720] to look it up and read it for yourself, is 252 U.S. 189, it was decided in 1920. [17:23.720 --> 17:28.680] Since we're talking about cases that were decided back in the early 20th century, I [17:28.680 --> 17:34.240] want to take a moment to share that these are still good decisional law in the United [17:34.240 --> 17:35.240] States. [17:35.240 --> 17:39.200] The Supreme Court has not reversed any of these cases, either in whole or in part. [17:39.200 --> 17:43.720] So these stand, as I'm recording this in 2021, as the law of the land. [17:44.160 --> 17:52.120] So onto the text from Eisner v. McComber, income is derived from capital, the gain derived [17:52.120 --> 17:54.840] from capital, etc. [17:54.840 --> 18:00.000] Here we have the essential matter, not gain accruing to capital, not growth or incremental [18:00.000 --> 18:08.360] of value in the investment, but a gain, a profit, something of exchangeable value severed [18:08.360 --> 18:17.280] from capital, however invested or employed, and coming in being quote, derived, that is [18:17.280 --> 18:25.520] received or drawn by the recipient for his separate use, benefit and disposal. [18:25.520 --> 18:32.720] That is the income derived from property, nothing else answers the description. [18:32.720 --> 18:37.060] We can clearly see that the court has determined the definition of income in terms of being [18:37.060 --> 18:43.900] able to tax income is that the gain or profit from an investment must be, to quote the court, [18:43.900 --> 18:50.540] received or drawn by the recipient for his separate use, benefit and disposal. [18:50.540 --> 18:54.880] Janet Yellen, really, unrealized capital gains? [18:54.880 --> 19:00.660] The Supreme Court has said unrealized gains are not income subject to taxation. [19:00.660 --> 19:04.180] Now let's discuss one of the key restrictions that the founding fathers built into the federal [19:04.180 --> 19:06.780] government's ability to tax. [19:06.780 --> 19:10.900] That comes from Bruce Schaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, and again the citation, if you want [19:10.900 --> 19:18.260] to look it up and read it for yourself, is 240 U.S. 1, this case is from 1916, and quoting [19:18.260 --> 19:23.860] the court, concluding that the classification of direct was adopted for the purpose of rendering [19:23.860 --> 19:34.660] it impossible to burden by taxation accumulation of property, real or personal, except subject [19:34.660 --> 19:37.460] to the regulation of apportionment. [19:37.460 --> 19:40.940] In other words, the Supreme Court is saying that the income tax cannot be used to burden [19:40.940 --> 19:46.140] the accumulation of property, or phrased a way that might make more sense here in 2021, [19:46.140 --> 19:53.260] the court was saying that the income tax cannot be used to burden the accumulation of wealth. [19:53.260 --> 19:59.180] And this from Bruce Schaber, quote, moreover, in addition, the conclusion reached in the [19:59.180 --> 20:06.820] Pollock case recognized the fact that taxation on income was, in its nature, an excise, entitled [20:06.820 --> 20:13.460] to be enforced as such, unless or until it was concluded that to enforce it would amount [20:13.460 --> 20:18.620] to accomplishing the result, which the requirement as to apportionment of direct taxation, okay, [20:18.620 --> 20:20.320] I'll translate that for you. [20:20.320 --> 20:24.760] The court was saying that the income tax is an excise, we're going to get into that in [20:24.760 --> 20:25.880] a moment. [20:25.880 --> 20:32.760] And it's entitled to be enforced as an excise, until enforcing the tax that's supposed to [20:32.760 --> 20:36.680] be an excise actually burdens the accumulation of wealth. [20:36.680 --> 20:40.480] At that point, it fails to be an excise. [20:40.480 --> 20:46.640] All of the exact, specific and complex reasons that that is true, you'll have to find it [20:46.640 --> 20:47.640] income tax. [20:47.960 --> 20:53.040] I can't do it here in a video, you can't translate 408 pages into a video. [20:53.040 --> 20:55.840] So just roll with me on this for now. [20:55.840 --> 20:59.320] In those quotes from Bruce Schaber, you heard the court talk about direct and indirect taxes. [20:59.320 --> 21:01.560] So let's talk about direct for a moment. [21:01.560 --> 21:06.160] Direct taxes under the federal system are more narrow than the generalized term direct [21:06.160 --> 21:07.280] taxes. [21:07.280 --> 21:12.560] Direct taxes as that term was met by the founding fathers when they placed it in the United [21:12.560 --> 21:17.760] States Constitution meant a tax on land or slaves. [21:17.760 --> 21:23.440] That was confirmed in the 1796 Hiles and case and again, in the 1895 Pollock case. [21:23.440 --> 21:27.660] And of course, since the 13th Amendment, obviously, there's no more slaves. [21:27.660 --> 21:33.840] So a direct tax for the purpose of federal taxation applies exclusively to land. [21:33.840 --> 21:38.600] When we consider the income tax, there's either direct or indirect and as we've just discussed, [21:38.600 --> 21:40.860] there is no federal direct tax. [21:40.860 --> 21:44.300] So the income tax must be an indirect tax. [21:44.300 --> 21:47.740] And there are several forms of indirect taxation, but when it comes to the income tax, the only [21:47.740 --> 21:51.020] one that's relevant is something called an excise tax. [21:51.020 --> 21:54.860] So the court has already stated in one of the previous quotes that we heard that the [21:54.860 --> 21:58.020] income tax is in its nature an excise. [21:58.020 --> 22:00.700] So what is an excise tax? [22:00.700 --> 22:05.860] Well, according to the federal courts, this from American Airways v Wallace, quote, the [22:05.860 --> 22:13.180] term excise tax and privilege tax are synonymous to are often used interchangeably, close [22:13.180 --> 22:14.460] quote. [22:14.460 --> 22:17.500] As an aside, were you aware that working for somebody else or hiring people to work for [22:17.500 --> 22:21.900] you has been adjudicated by the federal courts to be a constitutionally protected right? [22:21.900 --> 22:24.560] It is a fundamental right. [22:24.560 --> 22:26.180] It's not a privilege. [22:26.180 --> 22:31.980] So if it's not a privilege, then how can an excise tax, which is a privilege tax, we just [22:31.980 --> 22:36.620] heard that from the federal court, then how come how can money be taken out of your paycheck [22:36.620 --> 22:43.180] to pay an excise privilege tax for something which is when you do it, a fundamental right? [22:43.180 --> 22:48.540] The answer is as simple as it's probably going to be disturbing to you. [22:48.540 --> 22:56.340] It's because you filled out a form W four, which is you attesting under penalty of perjury [22:56.500 --> 23:02.140] that you are in this tiny, tiny, tiny percentage of people for whom earning a living in the [23:02.140 --> 23:06.420] United States is not a right, but a privilege, therefore subject to the income tax. [23:06.420 --> 23:11.300] So you signed under penalty of perjury that you're in that tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny group [23:11.300 --> 23:16.340] of people for whom earning a living in the United States is not a right, but a privilege [23:16.340 --> 23:21.120] along the same lines, owning a business and performing whatever it is you, your business [23:21.760 --> 23:28.240] for other people or other companies is also a constitutionally protected right, not a privilege. [23:28.240 --> 23:34.560] So how is the fruits of that subject to an excise privilege tax, the income tax, [23:35.200 --> 23:37.760] when all you're doing is exercising a fundamental right? [23:37.760 --> 23:42.560] And of course, we know that no government within the United States can tax any right. [23:42.560 --> 23:46.960] So how is it that what you do is taxed as a privilege when it's actually a right? [23:47.520 --> 23:53.920] Well, just like people who work for others, people who own businesses fill out a form W nine, [23:54.560 --> 24:01.200] which again is them attesting under penalty of perjury that they are in this small, small, [24:01.200 --> 24:07.760] small group of people for whom earning a living within the United States is a privilege, not a [24:07.760 --> 24:15.760] right. It's all right there in the law. You've just never read it. But back to the definition [24:15.760 --> 24:26.960] of income. Why has the Supreme Court defined income? Well, that's because there is no definition [24:26.960 --> 24:36.400] for income in the tax code. Imagine a body of law that purports to tax income that never defines [24:36.400 --> 24:41.280] income. Yes, my friends, it's all part of the government's flim flam that's been run on you [24:41.280 --> 24:47.920] for your entire life concerning income taxation and what you think it is because you've been [24:47.920 --> 24:52.800] socialized to believe this and such where you think it is versus what it really is when you [24:52.800 --> 25:00.000] read the law. And if you'd like to know more about that, a lot more about that, I want to encourage [25:00.000 --> 25:06.400] you to go to drreality.news pick yourself up a copy of income tax shattering the miss. But I have [25:06.400 --> 25:14.240] to warn you, you are going to be pissed off. When you see the evidence, when you see what the law [25:14.240 --> 25:21.200] really says, and when you determine what the government has actually done and how they have [25:21.200 --> 25:25.440] lied to an entire nation committing what I refer to as the largest financial crime in the history [25:25.440 --> 25:29.920] of the world, you are going to be pissed. Now, what you do about that is up to you. [25:31.200 --> 25:35.520] I don't know how many tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of people have looked at the [25:35.520 --> 25:40.480] information income tax shattering the miss and chosen to leave the system. You may not be that [25:40.480 --> 25:45.520] guy, but you should know should you not what the truth is and that the government is running a [25:45.520 --> 25:52.080] flim flam on you. And while you're at drreality.news, there's two other things that might be very [25:52.080 --> 25:58.560] useful to you. One is the withholding guide for businesses, which talks about the truth, [25:58.560 --> 26:03.600] it's very short, it's like 13, 14 pages. I designed it so that people who want to leave [26:03.600 --> 26:06.800] the system can take that to their payroll department, to their boss, who depending on [26:06.800 --> 26:10.960] circumstances and show it to them and say, look, it's just very short 13 to 14 pages, [26:10.960 --> 26:17.040] give that a read and then let's talk because there is absolutely no way to rebut the facts. [26:17.040 --> 26:22.720] Once you see what the law really says, and for the purpose to the narrow purpose of withholding from [26:22.720 --> 26:28.640] a paycheck, I designed the business withholding handbook. The other one that many people will [26:28.640 --> 26:34.400] find interesting and have found interesting is the business guide for W9 and 1099. I hinted about [26:34.400 --> 26:38.560] that a moment ago concerning people who own their own businesses, and they're constantly being [26:38.560 --> 26:43.600] requested to fill out W9s, which when they do declares that what they're doing is not a [26:43.600 --> 26:49.040] constitutionally protected right, but rather a government granted privilege. Yeah, you're [26:49.040 --> 26:52.640] probably thinking this is insane, right? But that's what happens every time you fill out a W9, [26:52.640 --> 26:56.640] you're attesting that you're not actually exercising a constitutional right, you are [26:56.640 --> 27:02.720] engaged in a government granted privilege. And the W9 1099 guide, just like the withholding [27:02.720 --> 27:09.040] handbook details in about 13 pages what the law really says. And people who own their own business [27:09.040 --> 27:13.920] have used this to considerable success when somebody they're doing business with says, hey, [27:13.920 --> 27:20.960] man, I need you to fill out this W9. Like, well, not really here. Read this. Boom, end of story in [27:20.960 --> 27:26.480] the majority of cases. With all that said, to get the full and complete picture of what the [27:26.480 --> 27:32.160] United States government has done, the largest financial crime in the history of the world, [27:32.160 --> 27:37.520] you need to read Income Tax Shattering. It's not 400 pages. It's going to be the most mind blowing [27:37.520 --> 27:42.960] 400 pages you have ever read. You have my word on that. Also, if you want to find out about [27:43.920 --> 27:48.720] establishment flimflams, while you're there, grab yourself a copy of Body Science. And [27:48.720 --> 27:53.440] when you read that, you will learn that virtually everything that you have understood to be true of [27:53.440 --> 27:59.520] physiology, with a specific emphasis on nutritional physiology has been much like the income tax, [27:59.520 --> 28:04.320] just another establishment lie. But the good thing about reading body science is you can never get [28:04.320 --> 28:08.800] flimflammed again. Once you read body science, it will give you a frame of reference anything [28:08.800 --> 28:14.240] that the establishment whether it's some industry funded bogus research, whether it's some statement [28:14.240 --> 28:17.680] by the United States government, whether it's from the American Heart Association. [28:17.680 --> 28:21.840] Once you've completed body science, you will have all of the information up here. [28:21.840 --> 28:25.840] So as you look at these various preposterous statements, you will for the first time in your [28:25.840 --> 28:32.240] life know that they are preposterous and empowers you to make the best and most correct decisions [28:32.240 --> 28:38.240] for your health in your life. And by purchasing Income Tax Shattering, this body science, one of [28:38.240 --> 28:44.960] the handbooks, not only do you get amazing fabulous information worth well more than the cost of the [28:44.960 --> 28:49.760] product, you help me stay here for you. Thanks.