In transliterating certain terms such as “understand,” or to “stand under,” and “knowledge,”
or a “ledge” upon which we “know,” we are able to gain insight of the source that creates the
basic meaning of them, and such is the transliteration process of many, many words.
In review of the term “income” and by the defining transliteration thereof, we learn that it
means – to “come in,” and recognizing that this includes all things that come in to one who
starts, at a point, with nothing, all things are counted, one article at a time, until every article
that “comes in” has been counted and included, moment by moment in time so that
everything, without exception, has been accounted for by the process of confirming them,
each, as they “come in.”
This process of determining each item as they “come in” recognizes such process of
movement and confirming as an “activity,” for it is without question that each item must
move toward the objective source in order that they may “come in” to the objective source
itself by such movement, or travel, or “activity.” Even those things that travel at electronic
speeds or like speeds, appearing to move instantaneously are recognized to “come in” as a
matter of movement, or “activity” in their doing so.
The movement of each item that is to “come in” makes the process an “activity,” and the
process of “confirming” and “counting” makes the “activity” a “transaction,” even though
nothing may have been exchanged for the article or item to “come in.”
Consequently, a tax on an “activity” is an “activity tax,” and a tax on a next-step
“transaction” is a “transaction tax.” A “transaction tax,” whether regarded from the
standpoint of the purchaser or the seller, is commonly known as a “sales tax,” and is
generally expected to be paid, or collected, at the point of the transaction or sale itself.
It is for this particular reason that the “Internal Revenue Service federal agency” has avoided
officially defining “income” at all, for if doing so, would find themselves incapable of
collecting it in the capacity as “sales tax” is to be collected, even though a State is generally
equipped to do that, the reason that the aforementioned “federal agency” moves to push State
agencies to collect, or cause to be collected, an “income tax” for them, because they cannot
actually do it for themselves.
However, the matter does not end there in regards to a “sales tax” or “income tax,” for as we
look at the travel of the item(s) of income past the point of the transaction itself, we discover
that such item(s), minus the amount required to be set aside for the benefit of the local or
State government under whose governmental umbrella the item(s) continue to travel, as a
natural process or occurrence, becomes converted to “property,” having now “came in,”
coining, for this purpose only, the word “incame,” past tense, for its controlling possessor
claims or signifies, either by putting the item(s) into the one’s pocket, purpose, etc., or if
one’s money only, then into one’s bank account, etc., “I have it, and it is mine,” signifying
that the incame is now property, the property of the one who possesses and controls it, or
owns it as the result of the “transaction” that came before it.
By placing a tax on incame, or property, we create the “property tax,” so called and known
by that term, to be made the subject of collection at some time thereafter, bringing all known
laws on the subject of “property” forward to bear on it in order to determine when, how, how
much, and the consequence of the lien of the “property tax” itself.
If the property now owned is considered to be “public,” then anyone and everyone has the
right to question or have concern for its existence, and to require an ongoing accounting of it
during business hours, and to come to where such “public property” exists in order to support
its continued secure value to the public which the “any one” is a part of.
Ordinarily, people such as business owners, merchants, or as individuals who are made the
owners of incame are not considered to be owners in the public sense, but are owners of the
incame, whatever it is, in the private sense only, or that is, owners of private property.
Recognizing that money, as incame, or property, exists only as a universal substitute for
private property for instant exchange purposes only, money itself, when being made a part of
the incame state and no longer a part of the income, or transaction, state, becomes cognizable
as the private property of the one who comes to own it, as before described.
Were it not so, the laws that apply to public property would make it unbearable for everyone
possessing any increment of “money” to even possess it for any amount of time, for they
would be subject, legally, to continuous scrutiny on where, how much, and with whom such
money was “spent” at any time it was so “spent,” and what the condition of the money was
each time it was spent, coming with the incorporated right for everyone to get into
“everyone’s” business, where money possessed or owned is not considered to be “privately
owned” and not “publicly owned” on a case by case basis.
It is when we begin to thoroughly expose the question of the “property tax” to a closer
scrutiny that we run aground of the United States Constitution’s Fifth Amendment, last
phrase therein, as to why, except that politicians have made it so, “property tax” is purely
unconstitutional, and has always been so from the date that the people embraced the
Constitution and its Amendments for themselves.
For according to the particular applicable language of the Fifth Amendment as it applies to
the taking of private property (which comes under the newly recognized area of law known
as Takings Law”) for public use, that which is being taken must be paid for in its full or
actual, not speculative, value, value paid for value received, even if it may be taken – for
public use only – against the private property owner’s will.
Consequently, while the value of a property such as a vehicle may have lesser actual value
than that which its owner holds subjectively over the private vehicle/property, the actual
value and not the owner’s proposed value, where a public use of such property is duly
deemed to be necessary, will be what the owner of the private property in question will
In the case of incame-money as private property, however, the value of each monetary
increment is exact, and no lesser value than what each bill expressly shows may be claimed
for a tax on private property purposes. As such, when polls have been taken that ask the
question, How much do you want for a hundred dollars, the answer is always, invariably, a
hundred dollars. This realization, and right, voids out what we currently call the “income
tax,” recognizing it for what it is because of how and when it is collected, as actually being
an “incame” or property tax, not actually taxable under the Fifth Amendment’s “private
property for public use” to be paid for by government value for value, or dollar for dollar, so
that the effect of proposing any property tax and lawfully collecting it is made moot.
Whether or not the Constitution’s Framers knew this when they constructed the Fifth
Amendment in 1789, it is the result of “findings of fact and conclusions of law” that makes it
just this exact thing regardless.
The theory of the “income tax,” an actual “activity tax” and “transaction tax,” being a “sales
tax” and not otherwise, is defined by when it is due to be set aside in escrow or trust for the
State government to whom it is owed, as an immediate requirement, not a delayed after-the fact
one, and may not be collected, or accounted for collection purposes, after the receiver
thereof has said, in effect, “I have it and it is mine,” signifying that the transaction period has
past and that which has been received is now “property,” “private property,” the collection
upon, for the minimal reasons indicated, is unconstitutional, and, politicians’ unlawful acts to
the contrary notwithstanding, always has been from the beginning.
As to property tax liens placed on private property for “uncollected private property
overdue,” the concept of damaging private property in order to “take it” for an incremental
amount alleged to be owed on it, recognizing that you cannot separate the intrinsic value of
the property from the property itself, which recognition has brought about the area of
“takings law” and its involvement of government taking private property (for “public use”)
when damaging it, which deceptive form of “taking private property for pubic use” was
suspected and remedies by our neighboring State of Utah in its own State Constitution in
1896, wherein its Article I, Section 22:
Article I, Section 22. [Private property for public use.]
Private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use without just
NOTE here that the words “or damaged” tie into the “for public use” the same as the word
“taken,” for it is known that a government may deceptively, or politically, “take” a private
property for public use by damaging or diminishing its value, thus taking its value, increment
by increment, by way of each act that “takes the ‘value-property” away from the property
value of the tangible property itself, both of which were bought, inseparably, by the owner
thereof at the time the private property was purchased for a private property use, the total
taking of private property by way of damaging the same for public use being known as
“trash,” which we set by the roadside, being lost to us because of its being damaged/taken to
just that extent.
Volumes could be written on the subject, demonstrating how corrupt politicians began the
unlawful process of the “property tax” long ago, by which innumerable estates have been
devoured, unlawfully, because the public did not have sufficient understanding to oppose it at
the polls, and to seek redress and punishment upon the very politicians who imposed it upon
them in the first place.
IDENTIFYING THE TYPE OF TAX.
The type of tax that pertains to any taxable issue is determined, primarily, by when it is
collected, for it cannot be denied that if a tax is due when the item upon which the tax is to be
based first appears on the scene of exchange, if the debt for the tax is considered to arise at
that moment of time, and not later, it exists, from such activity, as a Transaction Tax, or that
is, a Sales Tax, and if it is determined that the Tax upon such item is not to be due the instant
it first appears for an exchange purpose, but is to be due later after the person receiving it has
the ability to possess it indefinitely, or that is, to own it, then it is not and cannot be a
Transaction Tax or Sales Tax, but is regarded as a Property Tax instead.
For there are only two (2) times when a Tax may be determined as a Tax; (1) at the time
when the item to be taxed first appears and may be comprehended for that purpose (or
“now”), and (2) at a later time, and not “now,” signifying that it is not important to determine
the tax (not being a Transaction Tax, or Sales Tax) at the time of Transaction, but may be
applied later, when the ownership of the item or items to be taxed have been more definitely
confirmed as to the owner of it, or that is, a Property Tax, and not otherwise.
COVERING THE ISSUE OF “PENALTIES.”
While the term “penalty” seems to be a benign term that government administrative powers
can throw around and use anytime it suits them, there is an alternative term which better
describes what a “penalty,” from which the word “penal” is drawn, actually is under the law,
and that word is “punishment.”
Under the United States Constitution, it is not lawful, and in fact it is illegal, for one to take
upon himself/herself to punish another where no court jurisdictional authority was first
involved, by which due process it was determined that an offender was found worth of such
punishment that a court of law provided for, excluding the other two branches as having any
authority to punish except a court’s own authority was first extended thereto before a single
bit of punishment can be imposed upon an accused, except it be an abuse of process, a
misuse of process, and contemptuous conduct, as well as a violation of law, if doing so.
While civil contracts may provide for the use of an agreed to “penalty” or “punishment” due
to some breached condition, government, any branch thereof, does not possess the lawful
authority to enter into private civil contracts with private citizens in order to effectuate any
“breach of contract” civil penalty against them (is not entitled to use them, civil contract
provisions); the authority to do so just isn’t there, and never has been.
Under the United States Constitution’s Article IV, Section 4, a guarantee for Republican
Form of Government requires three (3) distinct and separate forms or branches of
government within that Government itself, and one of those three branches is the judicial, or
court, branch. Because the judicial, or court, branch, is the branch that is to determine
whether or not any citizen should be or must be “punished for even the most insignificant
detail of offense imagined, and neither of the other two (2) branches have the right to
circumvent the judicial branch power to be the one and only branch to make such a decision
as that, then all forms of claims by an administrative or executive department for any
“penalty” or “punishment” to be imposed upon any citizen for any reason constitutes and
suggests a “bootleg” form of punishment as being imposed upon the citizens, for which the
executive department imposing it has no lawful accountability as to how it reached the
conclusion of who was to be punished (by it), and why and when and how.
This being the matter of the fact, for it is literally incontestable to propose that the words
“penalty” and “punishment” are not related terms, before a taxpayer must concur with the
State Tax Commission’s opinion that such taxpayer is to be “Punished” by it for any
unintentional failure to timely pay a Sales Tax on a particular transaction on any tax matter, it
would be reasonable for the taxpayer to require of the State Tax Commission the
answers to the following questions, by which such taxpayer’s civil rights to not be punished
except by exact due process of law, does lay (in the United States):
1) When was the case filed against the taxpayer in a District Court
concerning the idea that the same be punished, or made to pay a penalty, for
such taxpayer’s unintentional, unknowing, late payment of a Sales
2) What was the address of the District Court where the penalty or
penalties in question were submitted for case trial or hearing and thereafter
determined by the court in accordance to fact and law?
3) What was the case number for such case?
4) What was the name of the judge for such case?
5) What courtroom was the trial or hearing of held in?
6) Since any form of debt owed, inclusive of a tax debt, is not a matter of law,
neither a matter of claim, but exists only as a matter of fact and must be tried
by a trier of fact, or jury, what was the name of the fore-person of the jury, if
known? And was a trial by impartial jury waived at any time?
7) What was the verdict of the Jury? and did the named judge in the case indicate
any opposition to it?
8) And how was the citizen, as named taxpayer, directed, by either judge or jury,
to go about being subjected to the punishment prescribed for him by that
court, under that case number, in that courtroom, before that judge and jury,
on that date, at that time?
These questions are posed as a hypothetical demonstration of the error of claiming the right
to impose any “penalty” upon any taxpayer from an administrative department standpoint
only, and the countless number of times that it has been unlawfully committed against the
people does not diminish the liability of doing so for the State, but adds to it exponentially in
the event that the people ever come to understand what was done to them, even if it is
believed that this will never happen in one’s lifetime. Obviously, bad counsel-giving
attorneys for the legislature, pretending that they knew what they were doing, or else not
pretending at all, were much responsible for the legal dilemma that this practice creates the
longer it is engaged in, any opinion that it is “okay” not-with-standing (notwithstanding).
If these questions cannot be answered by the State Tax Commission, then no “penalty”
or “punishment” can be claimed to be owed by any taxpayer for any penalty amount at all,
and any charges of “penalties,” being “punishments,” not going through a lawful court of
the state has always been in executive department error, no matter to whom it has applied them.
COVERING THE ISSUE OF “INTEREST.”
While interest is lawful, it may not be applied to “penalties” or “”punishments” that have not
been pre-approved by a court of law, and the fact that it has been “gotten away with” for
many decades is not a justification or approval by society or government that it does not
constitute an offense against the people of the State, at large, and is not actionable in its own
And even though interest on an owed, unpaid balance is lawful, such interest cannot be
actually charged and mandated that it be paid until it has been ascertained by a court hearing
or trial by a trier of fact (debt owed is a fact, not law or claim) that the debt itself is factual
and that there are no conditions that would deny any exception to the debt alleged before any
balance of debt owed could be reached, by verdict or otherwise;
The complexity of which (due process is not excusable due to its complexity) does not
constitute a release of duty to comply with every aspect of procedure required on the matter,
another aspect that the Constitution’s framers recognized as making a sales tax a more
desirable, more honest, form of taxation over a property tax (see The Clause 5 Exhibit,