- Delivering Truth Around the World
Custom Search

Re: The Constitution, Income Tax, and You

Smaller Font Larger Font RSS 2.0

From: "Eldon Warman" <>

To: <>

Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 9:29 PM

Subject: Re: The Constitution, Income Tax, and You


The 2 hour video on " The Constitution, Income Tax, and You (Video)" is very misleading. It is 'old technology' that has proved to be useless in court cases dealing with income tax, and thus, very dangerous to the rights of property and liberty of those who attempt to use it.

I recently posted a thread on the News Groups [can.taxes and us.taxes] regarding those who may argue that income tax is, or is not constitutional. The uncovering of the 'name game' government scam in the early 2000s made it a 'moot' question regarding income tax.

The thread: Regarding the question: Is Income Tax 'Unconstitutional'?

[Canada] If income tax was administered as a law, yes, it would be contrary to the BNA Act 1867, but that Act (a British Act) ceased to exist with the death of Queen Victoria in 1901.

She removed Section 2, the succession rights, from the BNA Act in 1893, thus terminating the Act upon her death. Section 2 said: Where Her Majesty is referred to in this Act, it shall mean her successors and heirs, the Kings and Queens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

The Statute of Westminster, 1931 further emphasized that fact that the BNA Act of 1867 was no longer effective in the governance of the land called Canada. Thus, the Trudeau 'Constitution Act" was a total farce.

[USA] As George W,. Bush says: "It's just a goddamned piece of paper" And, he is correct. It was never ratified by the intended Sovereign of the American Republic - the people of America. It is only a 'proposed' Constitution. And, no original copy of the proposed Constitution exists. The British destroyed those when it burned the White House in 1814.

[The way it is] The income tax is administered as a term of a contract of servitude. It is the extraction of the labour of an owned slave. Contract law is superior to legislated law in that it derives from the unalienable property right - the part that says owned property can be exchanged, sold, given away or bequeathed. Law cannot interfere with the lawful exercise of a right.

Human slavery is forbidden in any human compacts, because it vilolates the unalienable rights of life, free will, freedom to travel, enjoyment and use of one's primary property - labour, and due process of law. However, that applies only to 'involuntary servitude'. The feudal system of the Middle Ages was supposedly 'voluntary servitude', but even that was limited by Queen Elizabeth I to something like 5 years. If continuation was desired, the contract of servitude had to be renewed, and voluntarily.

So, how did the Canadian (and all western world) people find themselves in a 'contract of servitude' on a voluntary basis, and having to turn over the fruits of their labour to government? It was as simple as the government having human parents registering the live birth of their children with the government registry, supposedly to provide litigation protection for both parents and child. Registry means to 'turn over to the Monarch (Regis).

Thus, the child was 'offered up' to the Monarch, and became the property of the Monarch. The child was 'given' names, and the family name originally was merely a reference name to specifically identify the given names. That helped the 'King's Exchequer' (tax collectors) keep track of people. This is the way people were claimed as 'subjects' - privileged slaves until the 1933 period, when the national bankruptcy required that the population be surrendered as chattel (the slave's labour) to the creditor, the Vatican, through its agent, the Rothschild Bank of the City of London, a wholly owned enclave of the Vatican within England.

This resulted in the 'birth certificate', a money value placed upon the child as a provider of future labour. Many in Canada or the USA did not know of the existence of birth certificates until the late 1960s or later.

The scheme of the birth certificate was to create a 'legal identity' name that the child would accept as his own name upon reaching the age of majority. The family name was changed to a 'surname', meaning the primary name, and the given names then became referential. This is the reverse to reality. By making that change, the corporation replacing the Monarch, the Crown, (or State in the USA) claimed the new name as intellectual property, and anyone using it would have the status of 'plantation slave'. The education system, run directly or indirectly by the Romanized church, insured that people used the Crown or State owned birth certificate name.

So, how does the 'voluntary servitude' come into play? By 'voluntarily', albeit ignorantly, enveloping oneself in the Crown or State owned name, one becomes an accessory to the principal, the Crown or State owned name. The legal maxim, accessio cedit principali, is then applied - an accessory attached to a principal becomes the property of the owner of the principal.

The income tax is then just the extraction of the labour from the slave, as has always been done since antiquity. A slave who protests or 'cheats' the slave owner of his property (your labour and life) becomes a 'disobedient slave', and corporate administrative courts, (the only kind of court now existing) then invoke Roman rules in dealing with 'disobedient slaves', as all humans are slaves regardless of status in the Roman system. The first thing these courts do is revoke the rights to 'due process of law' in any cases dealing with disobedience to the slave master.

Now you know why the courts do as they do in any case dealing with disobedience to the Crown's (State's) Acts, statutes, laws, rules or regulations.

Learn the easy and free method of filing a $0.00 Tax Owing 'return of income' - CRA T1 or IRS 1040:

All info on my website, or offered, is free.

Eldon Warman