Libertarian Activist Caged for 1.5+ Years for Refusing to Perjure Herself!

[NewRightLibertarian]

Here is a short documentary I produced featuring Michigan liberty activists. It's a gut-wrenching story, but it needs to be shared. Please help make this go viral, the information contained in it is tremendously important for curbing federal abuses:



Here is some backstory:

THE SHOCKING TRUTH THE IRS DOESN'T WANT YOU TO KNOW: The limited nature of the 'income' tax...

Buried in Supreme Court rulings, legal minutia, tax code jargon, and the minutes from Congressional hearings is the truth that the what is commonly referred to as the income tax is meant to be a simple excise tax levied on those benefiting in some way from a federal privilege.

This means that government workers and office-holders, federal reserve bankers, subsidy recipients, investors in federal corporations, and any other person benefiting from the profitable exercise of federal privilege were meant to pay the tax, NOT independent hard-working American citizens.

RELEVANT COURT HEARINGS:

"...in Spinger v. U. S., 102 W.U. 568 (1880), it was held that [the] tax upon gains, profits, and income was an excise tax or duty, and not a direct tax, within the meaning of the constitution, and that its imposition was not, therefore, unconstitutional." - United States Supreme Court, Pollock v. Farmer's Loan & Trust, 158 U.S. 601 (1895)

"...taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforces as such," United States Supreme Court, Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916), quoting and reiterating language used in its ruling in Pollock v. Farmer's Loan and Trust

IT DID NOT CHANGE AFTER 16TH AMENDMENT:

"The provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation..." - Stanton vs. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916)

"The Sixteenth Amendment, although referred to in argument, has no real bearing and may be put out of view. As pointed out in recent decisions, it does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects..." - Peck vs. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165 (1918)

“The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of tax.”
–F. Morse Hubbard, Treasury Dept legislative draftsman. House Congressional Record, March 27, 1943

These findings, along with other research meticulously gathered by Pete Hendrickson and presented in Cracking the Code, outline the limited nature of the income tax. This information, if truly understood and effectuated by the American public, could limit government faster than any electoral result or any half-baked reform scheme coming out of Washington D.C.

In 'Free Speech on Trial,' you will see the lengths to which the minions of the corrupt federal system will stoop to tread upon the rights of freedom-loving Americans and keep their illicit scam under wraps.


To summarize: The feds are desperate to keep the information contained in Cracking the Code under wraps. That is why this lady was railroaded and thrown in prison, not because she violated any tax law that's on the books. Help make this video go viral so Doreen Hendrickson did not make her stand for integrity in vain.

 

[TheCount]

To summarize: The feds are desperate to keep the information contained in Cracking the Code under wraps.

So many people are having success with Hendrickson's method that he had to shut his forum down because it was overwhelmed by posts of his followers losing cases good news stories.

 

[Zippyjuan]

RELEVANT COURT HEARINGS:

"...in Spinger v. U. S., 102 W.U. 568 (1880), it was held that [the] tax upon gains, profits, and income was an excise tax or duty, and not a direct tax, within the meaning of the constitution, and that its imposition was not, therefore, unconstitutional." - United States Supreme Court, Pollock v. Farmer's Loan & Trust, 158 U.S. 601 (1895)

"...taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforces as such," United States Supreme Court, Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916), quoting and reiterating language used in its ruling in Pollock v. Farmer's Loan and Trust

IT DID NOT CHANGE AFTER 16TH AMENDMENT:

"The provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation..." - Stanton vs. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916)

"The Sixteenth Amendment, although referred to in argument, has no real bearing and may be put out of view. As pointed out in recent decisions, it does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects..." - Peck vs. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165 (1918)

Stanton vs Baltic Mining ruling said that the 16th was valid but that income taxation did not apply to the output of the mine.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/103/

This Court has, under § 238, Jud.Code, jurisdiction of a direct appeal from the judgment of the district court refusing to enjoin a corporation from paying the tax under the Income Tax Law of 1913, in a suit brought by a stockholder on the ground of unconstitutionality of the statute.

The Income Tax Law of 1913 is not unconstitutional as not conforming with, or being beyond the authority of, the Sixteenth Amendment. Brushaber v. Un. P. R. Co., ante, p. 240 U. S. 1.

There is no authority for taking taxation of mining corporations out of the rule established by the Sixteenth Amendment; nor is there any basis for the contention that, owing to inadequacy of the allowance for depreciation of ore body, the income tax of 1913 is equivalent to one on the gross product of mines, and, as such, a direct tax on the property itself, and therefore beyond the purview of that amendment and void for want of apportionment.

Independently of the operations of the Sixteenth Amendment, a tax on the product of the mine is not a tax upon property as such because of its ownership, but is a true excise levied on the result of the business of carrying on mining operations. Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U. S. 399.

Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad was similar.

The Income Tax provisions of the Tariff Act of 1913 are not unconstitutional by reason of retroactive operation, the period covered not extending prior to the time when the Amendment was operative, nor are those provisions unconstitutional under the due process provision of the Fifth Amendment, nor do they deny due process of law, nor equal protection of the law by reason of the classifications therein of things or persons subject to the tax.

The provisions for collecting income at the source do not deny due process of law by reason of duties imposed upon corporations without compensation in connection with the payment of the tax by others.

The uniformity of taxation required by the federal Constitution is geographical. Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U. S. 41.

The Fifth Amendment is not a limitation upon the taxing power conferred upon Congress by the Constitution.

Arguments as to the expediency of levying a tax which is within the power of Congress to levy are beyond judicial cognizance.

 

[NewRightLibertarian]

So many people are having success with Hendrickson's method that he had to shut his forum down because it was overwhelmed by posts of his followers losing cases good news stories.

You are confused. Here is Pete's bulletin board with hundreds of successful tax returns posted:

http://losthorizons.com/BulletinBoard.htm

Stanton vs Baltic Mining ruling said that the 16th was valid but that income taxation did not apply to the output of the mine. Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad was similar.

Hendrickson isn't claiming that the 16th Amendment is invalid, just that the income tax is more limited in scope than most have been led to believe.

 

[TheCount]

You are confused. Here is Pete's bulletin board with hundreds of successful tax returns posted:

http://losthorizons.com/BulletinBoard.htm

That's adorable, but no, this is the the actual bulletin board: http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3226