|
The Constitution and Taxation
by Bill Medina
The Constitution and Taxation
TRANSCRIPT OF: 911105, tapes 1 and 2, sides A and B
This transcript is FOR REPRODUCTION OR DISTRIBUTION.
Bill Medina
Post Office Box 70400
Sunnyvale, CA, 94086-0400
(415) 961-7752 (By Agreement)
Bill Medina, speaker.
Dale Oaks, special guest.
John Winters, recording engineer.
A. J. Teel and Annette Blackwell, transcriptors.
(Begin text of 911105, tape 1 of 2, side A:)
(Bill) Good evening ladies and gentlemen. I'm Bill Medina
and this is November 5, 1991 and the time is 7:22 PM California
time.
We have here tonight, our guest, Dale Oaks, and this is
going to be tape number 911105. Our recording engineer is John
Winters and the purpose of this tape is to ask questions and
answer questions. We will give you our address; put your question
into a succinct paragraph and mail it to: Question, Box 70400,
Sunnyvale, CA, USA, Postal Zone 94086-0400.
This is our first, or innaugural, tape, if you will. We
haven't done this before and we have a number of changes we will
be making in the format. Eventually the format will be one where
we receive the questions, collect them for two weeks, read them
into the tape, and provide you with detailed answers. We have not
received actual questions directed to this program as of today,
but we will, I'm sure, in the near future, and subsequent tapes
will be directed to that issue.
Tonight we would like to cover some of the information that
appeared in the Silver Bulletin Articles. The premise upon which
we are moving in the courts and in the administrative arena is
that the people are not subject to the jurisdiction of the
Constitution. The Constitution does not operate on them.
Consequently any act of the legislature which was created by the
Constitution also does not operate on the people. This will then
be inclusive of any titles, rules, codes, or regulations; they,
too, do not operate on the people since it cannot be shown that
the people are subject to the jurisdiction of the Constitution in
the first place. One of the things we have done in the court
rooms, successfully, I might add, is we have waited for the judge
to read the complaint, at which point we address the court, and
the judge would usually ask at that point for an entry of plea.
"How do you plead to this complaint" whatever it happens to be.
At that point we say to the judge, "We are not prepared to enter
a plea at this time until we have resolved certain matters of
jurisdiction and procedure." And the judge may ask, "What
questions do you have with this regard?"
Now at this point it must be understood that the court does
not, at that instant in time, have jurisdiction. If you enter a
plea, you will then _confer_ jurisdiction. Here, I'll refer you
to Black's Law Dictionary where it speaks to appearance, and what
constitutes an appearance. But going back to the scenario, the
judge will ask, "Do you want to enter a plea on this?" or "How do
you plea on this?" and at that point you say "I don't want to
enter a plea," or "I can't enter a plea at this time until the
matters of jurisdiction and procedure have been settled." And at
that point you say "I don't believe that jurisdiction exists in
this court". This is a series of forced moves, by the way. The
judge has to answer "Yes, the jurisdiction does exist in this
court." And then the next question that you ask or that we've
asked is "By what authority do you believe you have the
jurisdiction to hear this matter?" and the judge will inevitably
say "By the authority of the statutes." Then your next question
would be "Are these the statutes as created by the legislature?"
The judge has to answer affirmatively; he has to say "Yes." And
then the next question to the judge is "Is this the legislature
as created by the Constitution?" And again he has to say "Yes".
Then you can talk to the judge, if he is prosecuting the case,
you can talk to the judge, or if it happens to be a prosecutor in
the court room, you can talk to the judge asking him or her to
_order_ the prosecutor to prove that you are subject to the
jurisdiction of the Constitution. And that you are prepared to
enter a guilty plea on the condition that they prove that you are
subject to the jurisdiction of the Constitution. What you can do
then is immediately say to the judge "Now I can prove that _you_
are subject to the jurisdiction of the Constitution, and I can
prove also that the _prosecutor_ over here is subject to the
jurisdiction of the Constitution, but I do not believe that you
can prove that I am subject to the jurisdiction of the
constitution, pursuant to Article VI thereof. This is where they
have taken their oaths of office and so forth. And that all ties
together. They are subject to the jurisdiction and the people are
not, that is to say if your not a person.
We're going to turn this over to Dale for a little bit, and
see if he has any input on this.
(Dale) Okay, thank you. When you are at the arraignment
preceding, you can do as Bill has mentioned above, and I
subscribe to that. For those who like to write, or do pleadings,
you can do a Motion to Quash, which is a _special appearance_.
When you do a Motion to Quash, it puts the burden on the
prosecution, and they have to prove that your _res_ is among the
jurisdiction of the court.
(Bill) Is that res as in r-e-s, Dale?
(Dale) That's the one, Bill.
(Bill) Thank you, Dale.
(Dale) Okay, now, I've got a few notes, and I'm just going
to be quite informal, if you all don't mind.
The jurisdiction is determined as to where do you live, or
where is your residence, which is a loaded question, because we
have all been hoodwinked. Domicile is a synonym for status, is a
synonym for citizenship. In this country, pursuant to that area
known as the Conflict of Laws, and formally known as Private
International Law, you have the laws of the government domiciled
in the foreign state known as the District of Columbia. And then
you have the laws of California as opposed to the laws of the
State of California. If you would like to take a look at section
13005 of the California unemployment insurance code it so states
who an employer is: "subject to laws of this state, (small s),
the state of California". Without straining too far, what is your
legal headquarters? That is going to determine whether the court
has jurisdiction. If you do anything other than do a Motion to
Quash, or as Bill has recommended, if you demure a Motion to
Dismiss and answer, you're in.
(Bill) The act of demurring confers jurisdiction to the
court which is what we are talking about.
(Dale) That's right.
(Bill) The procedures that we have outlined here, of which
Dale has just described the second, constitute the lines of
defense. Imagine yourself in the center of a set of concentric
circles, with yourself in the center. These rings constitute your
lines of defense. And the first line of defense is the challenge
to jurisdiction by way of status and jurisdiction. And that is to
say, where you command them to prove that you are subject to the
jurisdiction of the Constitution. If it cannot be shown that you
are subject to the jurisdiction of the Constitution, then it
cannot be shown that any act of the legislature, title, or
anything else under that, operates upon you.
(Dale) Bill, when you look at the California code of civil
procedure, section 418.10, it talks about the Motion to Quash,
pursuant to the Rutter Group Publication of civil procedure
before trial. That is the only vehicle that you have to challenge
the jurisdiction of the preceding. My recommendation would be to
take, within that motion, Bill's argument. Courts have been known
to lose transcripts or have a problem with the docket sheets as
to what's happened, if you know what I mean.
(Bill) Records have disappeared, is that what you mean?
(Dale) Yes, so when you do this proper Motion to Quash,
which again is a _special_ appearance, using Bill's argument,
"Show me where I am subject to the Constitution which created the
government, which created the law, that I am accused of
violating. I wanna see it! Lets see it. Where is the document
and/or laws?"
(Bill) One of the things we used very successfully in the
Paul Hilf matter, was to file a formal declaration of title by
hereditary succession. The argument that we used there sort of
dovetails with this argument of not being subject to the
jurisdiction of the Constitution. The people who wrote the
Constitution, I like to call them the "Floundering Fathers",
because they were never authorized to do what they did, came up
with the constitution and established the central government.
These people perhaps bound _themselves_ to a document, a
contract, allowing for the establishment of the central
government. But they cannot bind, for example, a third party. And
let me just give an example, and see if I can re-explain that.
We're talking about a third party obligee, someone who has to
make performance as a third party to a contract. I go down to
Sears Roebuck, and I say "Gee, I really like that Kenmore
refrigerator over there. Could you send it over to my house? And
by the way, send Dale Oaks here the bill. He'll pay for that."
That is binding Dale to a third party obligation. Dale is not a
beneficiary to the obligation. The object here of what we are
bringing forward in the federal courts and in the United States
position, is that the people are not guarantors of a federal
obligation. If the United States, all ten miles square of it,
makes a contract with lenders to borrow money, it does not
obligate the people to perform under that contract.
(Dale) I have a kind of a saying I use frequently in any
pleading letter, diatribe, or whatever, (thank you to Howard
Freeman who gave me the lead on this), "The undersigned denies
any liability associated with the compelled use of the private
notes issued by the private joint stock company known as the
Federal Reserve and guaranteed by an insolvent government, who is
civilly dead in law, domiciled in a foreign state known as the
District of Columbia."
(Bill) I'd like to comment on that if I may, Dale. You
brought up a whole host of things. First I would like to talk a
little about Howard Freeman. Howard has done some excellent work
in this field and has brought up a wonderful argument where he
goes into the courts and asks the judge "Is this a criminal
matter or a civil matter?" That is a really key ingredient in
sorting out some of this confusion. One of the other key
ingredients that I was most impressed with came from Rudy Booty.
He goes into court and asks the judge "Are you operating in your
administrative capacity or are you operating in your judicial
capacity?" I just wanted to comment on those two things. And then
I also want to comment momentarily about what Dale brought up
about the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve has been in
operation for about 79 years and it has never been audited, not
once. It cannot be audited because it is autonomous. It is a
common law joint stock company where the investors are the people
who own series "K" bonds. Series "K" bonds only draw 3% interest,
but that 3% interest is payable in gold. Alot of the
decapitalization that has gone on is described in some detail in
the Silver Bulletin articles. Those articles are available from
the C.B.A. Bulletin (The American's Bulletin) Post Office Box
935, Medford, OR, USA, Postal Zone: 97501, (503)779-7709. You can
obtain this information by calling Robert Kelly, the editor, and
he will provide you with copies of the Silver Bulletin articles
if you should desire.
One of the things I would like to comment on also, is some
of the fine workers in the field. As we get farther and farther
into this tape, we will be talking about these people. Thinking
in terms of Lee Brooks who is probably one of the nation's
experts on the Admiralty jurisdiction. This is the jurisdiction
where we find ourselves. That again is spoken to in some detail
in the Silver Bulletin articles. I want to see if I can get some
input here from Dale on this.
(Dale) What would you like to discuss, Bill?
(Bill) Well let's go back if we can to this status and
jurisdiction argument. I think, for the folks out there, you will
find that we lean very heavily on words and the legal meanings of
words. One of the reasons that we do this is that our language
has been subverted. They are using more and more of their
definitions of the words redefining the language or eliminating
words completely. Let me give you an example of this. By going
into Black's Law Dictionary, 4th edition, and looking up the
definition of the term "common lawyer", you will find "someone
who is learned in the common law". By going into the 5th edition
of Black's Law Dictionary, and looking up the same term, you will
find in there "an obsolete term". Now that should raise some
questions. Do you want to take over at that point Dale?
(Dale) Well, I can start with Black's 5th here. "Status -
standing, state, or condition; social position. The legal
relation of an individual to the rest of the community. The
rights, duties, and capacities and incapacities which determine a
person to a given class. A legal personal relationship not
temporary in its nature or terminable at the mere will of the
parties with which third persons and the state are concerned."
Now, when we talk about jurisdiction and status, that determines
(again that is domicile) ... well... where is your status
located? In what jurisdiction? If you want to talk about
political jurisdictions, look at the California Evidence Code
section 220. It talks about the definition of the word "state".
It means "the State of California unless applied to other parts
of the United States in the latter case it means any state (small
s), D.C., possession, territory, etc." We compare that with
section 18 of the California Government Code which says "State -
The State of California unless applied to other parts of the
United States in the latter case it shall include (key word;
include = means) the District of Columbia." Now that doesn't
square with the evidence code. So we have two different
jurisdictions here. Which one are you in? Which one do they want
you to think you are in?
So, the jurisdiction can be way of public or private
statutes. And, of course, we are trying to get away from the
administrative arm of government if we are not participating in
the benefits. Their basis for any cause of action against you is
based upon an obligation. Now a cause of action has a nucleus of
common operative facts. Where we are going with this is into an
action in law of trespass on the case in the proper court. If you
are in a court that has gold-fringed flags, you are in the wrong
one.
(Bill) That is certainly reflective of the admiralty
jurisdiction. For the folks out there, I would like to propose
that there are only two jurisdictions. We can see this from
space. If you look down at the earth from space, you see two
colors: one is blue and the other is brown. All the blue is under
the admiralty jurisdiction and all that brown is under the
jurisdiction of law, meaning the common law or the law of the
land. What has happened here, is that with the advent of the
Constitution, we established, well not we, but our "floundering
fathers", established a ten mile square admiralty jurisdiction
for the purposes of trade and commerce which is analogous to the
thirteen square block district in London, called London-Town, or
London-Town Proper. Lee Brooks is a real expert in this regard,
or area, and I'm sure that Lee could provide several hours of
description dealing with that particular aspect. But the other
side of the thing is that we are trying to operate within the
framework of law, that is to say, the common law. There is some
interesting things connected with that. For example, during the
course of the colonies, 16% of all incoming commerce, (that is,
coming into the colonies) were law books. The common law was
something that everyone knew. Ignorance of the law was simply no
excuse. Everyone was learned in the law. Today, virtually no one
is learned in the law. And most of the people are told that you
have to go to some kind of specialist, which is called a lawyer.
Here I would refer to the Ferada Case, Ferada v. California,
which I don't have instantly at my finger tips, but will most
likely provide you with by the end of the tape. To read the
Ferada case is a real inspiration. Here, the Supreme Court talks
to inadequacies of the lawyer and the fact that colonists never
trusted lawyers. Those lawyers operate in the admiralty
jurisdiction. A flag is an ensign... you can look this up in your
Black's...a flag is an ensign, and that ensign is to identify who
you are. I guess it got its start in the 1400-1600's. When ships
would sail from port to port, they would have a flag to identify
the sovereign to whom the ship belonged. That would be a
sovereign nation. For example, Spain had its flag, and England
had its flag, and so forth. That was so when they sailed into a
foreign port, the people on shore would know the meaning of any
commercial transactions with that particular sovereign. And the
laws of that particular land and commerce connected, therewith.
The admiralty flag for the United States is the American flag
with gold fringe on it. This is reflected again in some 1946
documents, which we dug up. I don't have those document sights
available to me, but they are sighted out in the Silver Bulletin
articles. So you can go ahead and pull those sights and
investigate those military documents connected with that flag. So
what Dale was talking to here, is when you walk into that court
room and you see that gold fringed flag, (which I like to call
the federal fringe, because it really directly relates to the
Federal Reserve Company) you understand that you are in a court
of admiralty, and you are not in a court of law. Dale, do you
want to expand some more on that? Those two jurisdictions?
(Dale) The two jurisdictions, I think we alluded to that
earlier in the tape and its covered in the conflict of laws. By
the way I would like to make a comment now: There's no substitute
for spending the money on the books. There is no substitute for
slugging your way through these, and after awhile its not going
to be a flood of facts, it's going to be a treasure hunt, because
you know the answer is going to be there, and when you get filled
up with knowledge, you're going to kick some butt! Once you know
how to bring your argument, which is the whole purpose why Bill
does his work, and why I do mine, and why Lee, and Howard, and
Burn Holland, and so forth do their work.
Now I'm going to list some books I think you should need.
First of all, get your Black's Law Dictionary for the current
definitions. Back that up with Oxford's Dictionary, plus learn
how to sheperdize a statute in a case. The books that I highly
recommend is the Rutter Group, called Civil Procedure Before
Trial. That's $60 out the door. It's written by two L.A. county
judges. It's an excellent book. Because where we are going to get
them is before, remember, before, we're going to quash,
jurisdiction, that happens before we get into the merits. We're
going to shut it off right there. The other books you are going
to want, (we mentioned Black's Fifth) we talked about Rutter's;
you are also going to need a code of civil procedure from West's
Publishing, that's a twenty dollar bill; you're evidence code for
the use of words, that's about $10 to $12; you will also want a
civil code. Remember there is a code of civil procedure and a
civil code, and I think you will enjoy reading 52.1, because that
is the state's version of 18 U.S.C. 241, 242 almost.
(John) So what we are talking about, in either quashing a
case, or proving that there is no jurisdiction, the whole point
of that is to get rid of the case before it goes to trial.
(Dale) Right. What you do, is you put the burden on the
prosecution. One of the things I haven't done yet in my quashes,
of which I have a couple working right now, is ask them to
identify your alleged cause of action based upon an obligation
that you allege is instilled in me, "Is this pursuant to a public
or private statute?" We're going to ask them that. You are all
going to have to be jail-house lawyers sooner or later if you
really want to do this. In that Rutter Group, they are going to
show you how to do interrogatories, admissions, discovery, all
your service of process, how to verify all your documents, they
give you samples of the documents. It's an excellent book.
Definitely worth the investment. Did I answer your question,
John?
(John) Yes.
(Bill) You have another book there, too, that is dealing
with what an action or an exemption...? Could you talk to that a
little bit for us, Dale?
(Dale) Oh I'd love to Bill. I'm mouthy anyway. This was just
tried in the last thirty days. I'm going to have to build a
background for this. You will find this in the code of civil
procedure. You won't find this in the back of notices of state
tax liens, or notice of proposed tax, cause they don't want you
to know about this. What you will find at 688.010 is ... Burl
Zolo is the one who gave me the lead on this; he has done
excellent work. What you are going to find is that a warrant for
collection of a tax, a levy, a notice of levy, or an earnings
withholding order, creates a state tax lien, which shall be
treated as a money judgement. But it is a prima facia, or
rebuttable presumption of a money judgement. I think it is around
the 703 series in the code of civil procedure, where it tells you
how to do your claim of exemption.
(Bill) May I ask a question real fast, Dale?
(Dale) Sure Bill.
(Bill) Would that lien be reported in the books of the state
controller as money being owed to the state?
(Dale) It could be. It might be worth while just to do an
IPA or a FOIA. Well let me see, the state is going to be under
the California Public Records Act of general information.
Personal Information will be under the Information Practices Act.
(Bill) Would that be like civil code section 1798?
(Dale) Yeah. And in the government code around 62...uh...
(Bill) 6250, I believe, is the equivalent of the FOIA. And
1798 is the equivalent of the 5 U.S.C. 552a., the Privacy Act.
(Dale) On our claim of exemption, getting back to that, the
basis for the claim can be living expenses of the family,
operation of the business, _OR ANY OTHER STATUTE_. And when you
see that, you quickly open your evidence code to section 145
where it says "Statute - any treaty or constitutional provision".
That rang my bell (ding). I believe that's the fundamental law of
the land, and I being one of the indigenous people of California,
and all my income from within California, as opposed to that
state defined in the government code in section 18, which is the
political equivalent to the District of Columbia, I don't believe
I'm over there. So the basis for my claim of exemption is my
_STATUS_ as determined by the statute known as the constitution
and me being in the preamble, one of the people.
(Bill) Is that Sui Juris?
(Dale) Well I believe that might be a very appropriate
synonym for that. So this claim of exemption has to be done in a
certain way, and you'll see in the code of civil procedure, it
has to be under oath, it has to allege certain things and so
forth. Now what happens, and you do it like you would do a
pleading, because that is where it is going to end up if they
respond. So far in this one that we have done, all that happened
was we got a telephone call, the individual did, and they wet in
their pants, wondering what he is going to do, and we said it's
on them. You handle it. So we did get a rise out of them, a
telephone call, let alone a letter.
(Bill) You want to give us a little background on that story
there?
(Dale) His wife's wages were leined for earnings witholdings
for payroll tax.
(Bill) Is that FTB?
(Dale) Yes, or EDD, either one. It doesn't make a
difference, they are administering the same law. I was coming up
to speed on this exemption (fish or cut bait, for a lack of a
better term) so we did it. We established the status of both the
individuals, I believe he had some state tax lien too, which we
lumped all together and shot it to them. Always certified mail,
never any other way. When they receive that, they have to stop
all collection activity, and within ten days they have to file a
notice of opposition under oath, and a notice of motion in the
proper court, all within ten days. Now as you see when you read
688.010, the superior court will have jurisdiction because you
are contesting the legality of the obligation.
(Bill) Now give us that sight again, 688.010 in the code of
civil procedure?
(Dale) Right. Now, if they fail to file a notice of
opposition under oath, and a notice of motion with the proper
court within ten days then ---"I'm sorry, you have to give the
money back!" They have to give it all back. You will probably
have to end up going to court to get a court order. Now the
court, if they do file the motion, is going to determine the
veracity, or truthfulness, of your claim. The agency is going to
have to refute your exemption with facts. Now I believe Bill,
isn't a 1099 or W2, isn't that not done under oath? Isn't that
heresay?
(Bill) Oh, I thought you'd never ask. What we did about, ah
let's see, this paper was filed on July 4, actually it was in
fact mailed on July 4 because we mailed it from the AMF, a twenty
four hour mail service, at the San Francisco Airport. The paper
that went out was what we call a Stambaugh paper. This was a
paper going to the franchise tax board demanding that the W2's
and the 1099's meet the criteria of section 6065 of the Internal
Revenue code where it states that any statement, declaration, or
document, etc., has to be made under the penalties of perjury.
Now I have examined hundreds of 1099's and W2's, and I have never
seen one that met the criteria of 6065. There is never a penalty
of perjury statement on any of them. In the vernacular, that's
called a jurat statement. I've never seen a jurat on a 1099 or
W2. We went back to the company, TSI, in Minnesota, and said, "We
want you to certify this man's W2's under penalty of perjury."
They fired the man. That was the result of that. The 1099 is the
same thing, it does not meet the criteria of 6065, so if they
come along and say "Well, according to our records,..." well
their records have to be a 1099 or a W2..."According to our
records you owe us this tax obligation". We say, "Well let's take
a look at your records", and "Do your records meet this
criteria?" Now if the 1099 and the W2 do not meet this criteria
of 6065, then they are heresay, that's right, heresay, and any
kind of a tax obligation based on heresay is invalid.
(Dale) If I may ask, Bill...
(Bill) Please do.
(Dale) I think we discussed as earlier today, is that 6065
verification just that when you attach them to your tax form...
(Bill) Oh yeah, this is the way it works, and thank you for
bringing that up. Thank you for bringing that up Dale, that's a
good one. Since there is no verification on the 1099 or W2, the
place and time where they get verified...hello...is when you
staple your W2's and 1099's to your 1040 and then you certify on
the 1040 that this form i.e. the 1040, is true and correct and
all attachments made thereto. All the attachments made thereto
are all of the W2's and 1099's that you attach to that 1040.
Guess what? You are doing
the verification that the so-called employer is supposed to be
doing. I have never seen a W2 in my life that met the criteria of
the employers' tax guides, IRS circular e. In other words, the
W2, to begin with, goes to the Social Security Administration,
that's in your circular e, it's sent to Baltimore, and then, for
social security purposes, all so-called "income", which I
consider to be payment, but none the less, payment being
property, all income is applied to the 7.51% social security tax.
That is to say the total. That is the social security number.
However, there is certain income that is taxable as income and
then there is payment for labor. And payment for labor is non-
taxable. Now this is supposed to be differentiated on the W2. Let
me give you an example.
I believe it is box 10 that contains the big total of
everything. I believe it is box 13 or so, that only the taxable
income is put in. Now what is taxable income? The Britains are a
little more honest about the thing, because they call it unearned
income. And unearned income is taxable as a gift, as a gratuity,
it is a taxable item. But earned income is not a taxable item.
What is unearned income? Unearned income is the dollar value of
the turkey you got for Thanksgiving. it's the $500 Christmas
bonus you got. It's the paid vacation, etc. That all is
classified as unearned income. That is taxable under the so-
called rules, that is to say even if the rules apply to you.
Going back to what Dale was talking about...
(Dale) Okay. That was interesting about you authenticating
the 1099 and W2. One person we need to mention is Laurie Jacks of
Houston, Texas. She has done excellent work, "ticket to liberty",
it's got a nice example of a 1040NR in which I know a gentleman
was facing criminal prosecution. He went to district council. He
had filed the 1040NR's that very day and sent them certified mail
to Baltimore, Philadelphia. To put it succinctly, he rang their
bell. They were real upset about it. And we were all real sorry
about the whole thing. I would suspect that if you were receiving
a 1099 or W2 and they inquired about that, I believe I would file
showing that income came from within California, the one in the
evidence code, small s state, as opposed to government code
section 18, that state. It wasn't over there; it was over here.
(Bill) So that was over here at law?
(Dale) Right.
(Bill) As opposed to over there in the admiralty. Now going
back to this W2 thing, when you attach the W2 to the 1040, and
you sign that under the penalties of perjury, you are certifying
that the attachment to that 1040 is in fact true and correct. On
that basis... Dale, you have something to say about that W2 thing
don't you?
(Dale) Well, a little bit. You can have income, but from
where? In other words, you are going to have to talk about
foreign and domestic. But before we do that, it's like, if I am
standing in Tahoe, on the California side, I am within
California, say domestic, but if you are on the other side, we
have two political jurisdictions, foreign and domestic. And where
we are going with this is into the Internal Revenue code, where
their definition of foreign and domestic, and their definition of
United States and state, which I am not going to belabor right
now but, it depends upon from where you are looking, where you
are pointing to as foreign, and what is domestic. I submit to you
that, if you are an individual, who is one of the indigenous
people of California as opposed to say a federal subject or
whatever, as we know all federal subjects are taxable on all of
their income, they are also known as citizens of the United
States... I you work for a corporation that was chartered by that
_state of California_ defined in Government Code section 18 and
that Corporation is doing business in _California_, one of the
States of the United States of America, the Republic,...
(Bill) ...which is a foreign franchise...
(Dale) ...yeah... its a foreign corporation in California.
If they hire you as one of the indigenous people of California to
work for this corporation that is doing business in California,
and this corporation was created in that foreign jurisdiction
known as the State of California which we find in government code
section 18, then I believe that your income is coming from the
Republic and I don't believe that the Revenue and Taxation Code,
which is the application of the Internal Revenue Code pursuant to
Revenue and Taxation Code section 17024.5, I don't believe that
there is a liability there.
(Bill) This is income that is derived from within the
Republic at-law and it is not derived from the United States in
Admiralty.
(Dale) Correct.
(Bill) So, you are saying that the income, or so-called
income, may not necessarily mean payment for property or labor.
But the income that derived from within the United States, that
is to say all ten miles square of it, then that would be taxable
income and is derived from within the admiralty jurisdiction,
whereas the payment for labor being derived from the republic is
non-taxable.
(Dale) With one other qualification, which is we know that
when we look at the C.F.R. the federal tax regulations at 1.1-1
or 1.6012 that defines who is subject to the tax, who is going to
file a return, and as we all know, that is citizens or residents
of the United States signifying that government domiciled in D.C.
So, C's or R's of that United States are taxable on their world-
wide income no matter where they are at. So if they are in the
republic they are still taxable because their status is dependant
upon the government which is created by the Constitution by we
the people, I don't believe I am both of those. I believe I am
over those with we the people.
(Bill) Would you say that's a 14th Amendment citizen?
(Dale) Well, yes. Funny you should say that Bill. I happen
to have a horn book, which I will go into in just a minute.
---------
TRANSCRIPT OF: 911105, tapes 1 and 2, sides A and B
This transcript is FOR REPRODUCTION OR DISTRIBUTION.
Bill Medina
Post Office Box 70400
Sunnyvale, CA, 94086-0400
(415) 961-7752 (By Agreement)
|
|