27 April, 01:08
😼 One mo’ time: TAXES ARE UN-CONSTITUTIONAL‼️
🇺🇸 ULTRA FarRight TrumpGirl
@ traceytray17
🇺🇸 Peter Gibbons, Tax Attorney
“It’s actually very simple.
Congress tried to enact an income tax in 1894.
The Supreme Court said that it’s unconstitutional.
When SCOTUS says something is unconstitutional
IT’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL‼️
They tried again in 1913 & SCOTUS said
'The 16th amendment conferred no new power of taxation.'
So if they didn’t have it then & they didn’t get it
THEY DON’T HAVE IT.
THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS
FOR ATTACKS ON THE WAGES OF AMERICANS
living & working in the 50-states of the Union. Period.”
🇺🇸 Tom Selgas, Tax Honesty
“I have a letter here from Daniel Inouye’s office
of the U.S. Senate that says…
‘THERE IS NO PROVISIONS WHICH SPECIFICALLY
& UNEQUIVOCALLY REQUIRE AN INDIVIDUAL
TO PAY AN INCOME TAX.’
Period. End of Story.
THERE IS NO LAW & TO DATE
NOBODY’S BEEN ABLE TO SHOW THERE IS A LAW….”
🇺🇸 @ ishjay1960
#TaxIsTHEFT
🇺🇸 ULTRA FarRight TrumpGirl
@ traceytray17
🇺🇸 Peter Gibbons, Tax Attorney
“It’s actually very simple.
Congress tried to enact an income tax in 1894.
The Supreme Court said that it’s unconstitutional.
When SCOTUS says something is unconstitutional
IT’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL‼️
They tried again in 1913 & SCOTUS said
'The 16th amendment conferred no new power of taxation.'
So if they didn’t have it then & they didn’t get it
THEY DON’T HAVE IT.
THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS
FOR ATTACKS ON THE WAGES OF AMERICANS
living & working in the 50-states of the Union. Period.”
🇺🇸 Tom Selgas, Tax Honesty
“I have a letter here from Daniel Inouye’s office
of the U.S. Senate that says…
‘THERE IS NO PROVISIONS WHICH SPECIFICALLY
& UNEQUIVOCALLY REQUIRE AN INDIVIDUAL
TO PAY AN INCOME TAX.’
Period. End of Story.
THERE IS NO LAW & TO DATE
NOBODY’S BEEN ABLE TO SHOW THERE IS A LAW….”
🇺🇸 @ ishjay1960
#TaxIsTHEFT
Notice: Undefined index: tg1tga_access in /home/admin/www/anonup.com/themes/default/apps/timeline/post.phtml on line 396
Yup, 'Tis True.
We been DEFRAUDED.
We been DEFRAUDED.
02:11 PM - Apr 27, 2024
In response Kat istheSea3 to her Publication
Only people mentioned by ol_cowboy in this post can reply
27 April, 02:18
In response ol_ cowboy to his Publication
Notice: Undefined index: tg1tga_access in /home/admin/www/anonup.com/themes/default/apps/timeline/post.phtml on line 396
ol_ cowboy
@ol_cowboy
27 April, 03:05
In response Kat istheSea3 to her Publication
Yes indeedie, that would be...
"fraud vitiates everything"
98 US 61 Supreme Court 1878
United States v. Throckmorton
...and while we're at it, might as well add:
"a law repugnant to the constitution is void"
5 U.S. 137 Supreme Court 1803
Marbury v. Madison
Interestingly, 98 US 61 has also been a super-big and commonly-cited precedent in cases under the system of Admiralty Law that was imposed over America, and therefore has been continuously validated on an ongoing basis and accepted by the courts (regardless of the foreign-capture of our Judicial System) including by the BAR courts (British Accreditation Registry) for 146 years and counting.
The implications of it all are just mind-boggling.
"fraud vitiates everything"
98 US 61 Supreme Court 1878
United States v. Throckmorton
...and while we're at it, might as well add:
"a law repugnant to the constitution is void"
5 U.S. 137 Supreme Court 1803
Marbury v. Madison
Interestingly, 98 US 61 has also been a super-big and commonly-cited precedent in cases under the system of Admiralty Law that was imposed over America, and therefore has been continuously validated on an ongoing basis and accepted by the courts (regardless of the foreign-capture of our Judicial System) including by the BAR courts (British Accreditation Registry) for 146 years and counting.
The implications of it all are just mind-boggling.
Notice: Undefined index: tg1tga_access in /home/admin/www/anonup.com/themes/default/apps/timeline/post.phtml on line 396
