The word "Person" in the Income Tax Act
The word person as used in the Income Tax Act can only mean legal person for one simple reason: we all have property rights. When parliament framed the Income Tax Act one must assume that parliament knew the law of the land. The following will clarify why the income tax Act cannot demand that a human pay tribute to the government.
The Socratic Defence
Some key maxims which could apply:
Quae lege communi derogant non sunt trahenda in exemplum. Things derogatory to the common law are not to be drawn in to precedent.
Id quod nostrum est, sine facto nostro ad alium transferi non potest. What belongs to us cannot be transferred to another without our consent. Dig. 50, 17, 11.
Nemo potest facere per alium quod per se non potest. No one can do that by another which he cannot do by himself.
Nemo debet ex alien jactur lucrari. No one ought to gain by another's loss.
Nihil quod est contra rationem est licitum. Nothing against reason is lawful.
Fictio juris non est ubi veritas. Where truth is, fiction of law does not exist.
Error juris nocet. Error of law is injurious.
Construction legis non facit injuriam. The construction of law works not an injury. Co. Litt. 183; Broom's Max. 259.
Derativa potestas non potest esse major primitiva. The power which is derived cannot be greater than that from which it is derived.
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. False in one thing, false in everything. 1 Sumn. 356.
Non faciat malum, ut inde veniat bonum. You are not to do evil that good may come of it. 11 Co. 74.
Hominum caus jus constitutum est. Law is established for the benefit of man.
Error fucatus nud veritate in multis est probabilior; et saepenumero rationibus vincit veritatem error. Error artfully colored is in many things more probable than naked truth; and frequently error conquers truth and reasoning. 2 Co. 73.
To win a case of human rights one must, if possible, ask the judge simple questions. Let it be known that most judges will cower and refuse to answer these questions, so a strategy must be developed which will compel them to do so if one is going to use this defence in open court; if not, this defence may be used as a rhetorical reference while constructing a legal defence in front of the judge. A detailed brief or briefs containing the points herein should be entered as an exhibit.
The following questions relate to natural law which is what the Anglo-Saxon common law is based on, as well as the laws found in the Bible (as Lord Blackstone has stated). Natural law exists completely outside of manmade law and has existed from the beginning, therefore, it rules and takes precedent over human laws.
The Anglo-Saxon common law is totally based on human rights, therefore, no court may make rulings which are derogatory to the (human rights based) common law because to do so would be a violation thereof. And, the legislature cannot make laws that compel us to give up our rights, as it would also be a violation of natural/common law.
Natural law is self evident to anyone who has a mind to contemplate it. It is based on truth and logic and not on arbitrary rules laid down by man; rules of which are frequently based on the political views of those who think they know better.
The following questions do not employ any legal president nor do they relate to common law from a historical standpoint. They are designed to bring out the intent of the true law and what humans can and cannot do to each other.
(section A) Opening questions to establish what the court stands for.
1A) Does this court favour the upholding of statutes – or does it favour justice. In other words, if a statute is derogatory to human rights would this court overrule that statute, or would this court uphold the violation of human rights?
2A) Is all true law based on truth, or can law be based on fallacy as well. In other words, can a statute contradict reason and truth?
(section B) Questions in human equality at-law.
1B) Are we all equal? In other words, are some born superior to others thus giving them the right to compel those who are deemed inferior to obey their rule? Or, are we all peers? (Note, we are speaking of people who are of sound mind and of the age of consent)
2B) If we are all "peers", can we not conclude that no man or woman has the moral authority to compel another to act in a manner which is beyond that of respecting their human rights?
3B) If we are all peers could we not conclude that we are all sovereign? In other words, we are all rulers of ourselves, and we are all responsible for our own actions --- actions which are restrained by the boundaries of other people’s human rights.
4B) Can a group of people come together, through democratic process, and make compulsory rules and regulations that compel the minority of sovereign (human rights respecting) people to obey their laws? If so, how could this be – since we are all peers? At what ratio or critical mass does this become lawful? Is it 3 to1, is it 300 to 1, is it 3 million to one? Put another way, can our neighbours lawfully gather together by democratic process and compel us to act in a manner which is beyond that of respecting their human rights? Would this not violate our rights?
(section C) Questions on human rights at-law.
1C) Do we have the unalienable right to Liberty, which includes the right to choose, move about on the land (trespassing not withstanding), to freely associate with others, and to decline the dominion of others?
2C) Do we have the unalienable right to Security, which is the right to life, which includes protection and sustenance of that life by what ever means is necessary -- provided that the means employed do not violate other people’s rights?
3C) Do we have the unalienable right to Property, which includes the right to acquire, use, enjoy, retain, and exchange property -- provided that these activities do not violate other people’s rights?
(section D) Questions regarding the true role of government at-law.
1D) Is government the creation of the people?
2D) Is the creator unquestionably superior to his creation? Or can the creation make laws which rule over the creator?
3D) Is the government a hired servant? In other words, has government been "created" by the people to serve the people? Or does government exist by itself for itself?
4D) Are all servants beneath their masters? Or can servants some how rise above their masters thus compelling their masters to obey compulsory rules and regulations? For instance, if you hired a house full of servants to take care of the day-to-day domestic activities such as cleaning, cooking, paying bills, grounds maintenance, as well as your personal security, and one day you came home and were confronted by these servants who presented you with a list of rules and regulations that you must obey or you will be fined and/or imprisoned - would you obey them? Would it be lawful for them to do this? Keep in mind, you elected them to take care of your property and personal security, therefore, they reasoned that it was necessary to put you to their laws for your own good. Not only that, but they also reasoned that you must continue to pay them and that they may raise their pay at any time if they think it is necessary. What would you do?
5D) Is it lawful for government (the servant) to make laws which compel people, who are the creators and masters of government, to give up any of their rights?
6D) Is it lawful to deprive people of their rights in the anticipation of a favourable outcome. In other words, can evil be done in order to bring about good?
The Income Tax versus true law (the law of the land).
The question one must ask is this. Do we own all our labour or can someone lay claim to all or part of it? Put differently, is there much of a difference between slavery and compulsory taxation? Let’s look at the facts.
Fact: A slave does not own his labour because he is owned by his master, therefore, anything he produces is not his property. The inverse must also be true; those who do not own all their labour must in some way be slaves -- with one exception -- unless they have entered into a contractual agreement which states they must pay some sort of percentage as a result of an on going service – like an actor pays his agent. If a valid contract does exist, then there must be full disclosure, they must know its a contract, the contract must have a beginning and an end, and there must be quid-pro-quo.
Fact: A master lets his slaves retain a portion of the fruits of their labour, not necessarily because it is right, but because it is necessary in order to maintain their capacity to work. In other words, a slave owner feeds and shelters his slaves, not necessarily because he wants to, but because he has to -- or they’ll die. And, if they should die he can no longer reap the unearned rewards that slavery has brought him. This would threaten his parasitic existence.
Fact: The government has stated that they are entitled to the fruits of our labours by engaging in compulsory taxation. In other words, we do not own all of our labour. This must be so, because the government sets the rate of taxation – not us. We take home a portion of our labour, not because we own it, but because the master must give his slaves a living allowance. In other words, the government, like the slave owner, takes whatever it needs, and leaves the taxpayer/slave to live on the remainder – a remainder which the government/slave owner deems suitable.
Fact: If we attempt to retain the fruits of our labour the government will punish us by fines and/or imprisonment -- thus again proving that we do not own our labour.
The question is, what is the difference between outright slavery and compulsory taxation? The answer is, not much. Since we must all acquire some form of income to live this means we must all pay taxes or face the wrath of government, therefore, our lives are held at ransom, i.e. "if you don’t want to pay taxes -- don’t work -- but if you don’t work you’ll die – or at least you’ll have to seek charity from your fellow slaves - who do work". This is somewhat reminiscent of a slave owner saying "if you don’t work – you don’t eat – so get bank to work!".
We must therefore conclude that compulsory taxation is not only a violation of our God given property rights but it is also a form of slavery – however gentle and mild. The government has reasoned that it is necessary to enslave people for their own good as well as to secure its own existence. In other words, they have reasoned that evil may be done that good may come of it. And the former assumes that they naively have our best interest at heart, and are not engaged in some conspiracy of a more maniacal and insidious nature – such as the undeserved enrichment of the banking elite.
Any reasonable man would conclude that this is not lawful. And, no reasonable man would vote in such tyranny, therefore, we must also conclude that government has usurped the authority of the people.
Given all the above, we can say that no individual human or group of humans can come together and forcibly divest another human of their property (except by due process of law, and only in the form of victim restitution), therefore, the framers of the Income Tax Act had one of the following in mind:
1) They knew they were breaking the law of the land by constructing a statute that forced people to give up the fruits of their labours,
2) The Act was to be totally voluntary, as the wording would suggest,
3) The word "Person", as used in the Act, only means legal person because a legal person, such as a corporation, is the creation of the state, and since the creator can rule over his creation this means the government can compel its creation to pay a tax. However, all humans are the creation of God, they answer only to God, and are only subject to God’s natural laws which are few and simple – which means they do not answer to the state, except in cases of human rights violations.
Let’s look at the facts.
Fact:
No human hath dominion over another because all humans are equal.Fact: All humans must respect each others individual rights, without exception. This is God’s (common) law.
Fact: The supposed needs of a group cannot give cause to abrogate the rights of a single human or group of humans because we are all equal and sovereign. Put differently, no man, woman, or group has the moral authority to compel another to act in a manner which is beyond that of respecting their human rights?
Fact: evil may not be done that good may come of it.
Conclusion: Compulsory taxation of any kind goes against natural law and, therefore, is not lawful.
All taxes are voluntary.
We rest our case.