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 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:

http://www.detaxcanada.org

Vicegerent

Archived from group: can>taxes