🚀 go-pugleaf

In <5952io$9n3@elaine35.Stanford.EDU>, jgadams@leland.Stanford.EDU (Joseph G. Adams) writes:

>>Neither of which require, even in the most extreme circumstances, a
>>current tax rate of >%60 and most assuredly not a future promised >82%
>>tax rate to sustain.

>But neither do they prohibit it.  Your claim was that the Constitution
>prohibits restrictions on your liberty to the extent that it doesn't
>interfere with others.  You haven't located that right convincingly
>in the Constitution.

Ah, but does not the Constitution (US or Canada) prohibit Slavery?

In mathematical terms, as taxation --> 100% then taxpayers --> slaves

At which point does the taxpayer become a slave?  Does slavery require
whipping, torture, imprisonment, confinement of freedom, restriction of
freedom/livelihood?  How about the right to refuse?  At what point and
by what method are we to determine slavery?

If you do not have the right to refuse to pay taxes on threat of various
tortures, imprisonment and other curtailments of your ordinary rights,
have you not just defined yourself to be a slave?

Does not the Criminal law proscribe Coercion, Extortion, Theft and
Conspiracy?

Now then, if I refuse to consent to the handing of my personal property
to any person (including the Government or the Crown), then does not the
creation of a statute by men acting "to a common purpose" to remove that
property without my consent (ie, by Theft) constitute a proscribed
criminal conspiracy?

Historically speaking, the right to rape, pillage, plunder and affect
persons in their persons and property is a right reserved unto the
conquoring warlord or the King.

US law would seem to require some sort of Constitutional backing for the
refusal to pay taxes, however, I think that should come more easily than
it does in Canada (at least prior to 1985, when the supremecy clause of
the Constitution came into effect) by virtue of the US being
constituted a Republic rather than as a (whatever a state headed by a
King chosen by lineage is called).

In the US, the right to refuse to take part in taxation schemes is a
right that is requried to be protected by the head of state, and
recourse where this right has not been protected lies in suit against
the President.

In Canada, the matter is muddied by the fact that neither a Governor nor
Parliament has ever had the right to infringe on the property of His
Majesties Royal Subjects.  In fact, historically, entire Courts have
been beheaded (The Ship-Money case) and Governors executed (Fabrigas)
because the right to affect his majesties subjects in their property and
persons with impunity is a right reserved solely unto the King, and does
not vest in Parliament, which is merely a collection of men constrained
to act within the law, and excercizing no power nor authority which is
not vested in the individual.

To quote the immortal words of Lord Mansfield:

   "To put forth in an English court the monsterous proposition such
    that a Governor, acting under authority of letters patent, may affect
    his majesties subjects in both their property and their persons with
    impunity is a position which cannot be maintained"

In Canada, all that is done is done by authority of Letters Patent
granted at Westminster, and the right to extort taxes does not flow from
that grant.  (and these letters patent were never actually signed, so
take that info as you may -- the Parliament of Canada and the Governor
have no actual authority, in law, whatsoever).

In fact, Parliament and its members and the Govenor have entered into a
Criminal Conspiracy for the purpose of extorting money (property) from
persons when they created the Income Tax Act, if it is to be construed
in any manner or term other than being voluntary.

That is to say, more clearly, that if the Income Tax Act is interpreted
as mandatory, and that it presumes to override the consent of the
individual to the transfer of personal property (income), then it
becomes Criminal under the Canadian Criminal Code (since, Criminally
speaking, the overriding of this requried consent defines the offence).
Since this interpretation yeilds a Criminal result, then the creation of
the legislation, with the intended outcome as stated, implies that the
creation itself was a Criminal Act, and that maintaining or enforcing
this interpretation requires the commission of various Criminal
offences.

The proscribed penalty for Conspiracy to commit an indictable offense is
ten years imprisonment, and each of the Members of Parliament is guilty
thereof, as is any minion of the state conspiring or acting so as to
achieve that end.

There is also the matter of extortion, since the Income Tax Act appears
on its face to impose threats in order to induce compliance, and the
threats all directly relate to constitutionally protected rights -- the
right to seek and maintain a livelihood in any province, the right to be
secure from search and seizure, the right not to be arbitrarily
detained, etc etc.

Furthermore, and interestingly enough, the Federal Government does not
have the Constitutional Authority to sieze personal property -- the
preservation and enforcement of personal property rights is granted
soleley to the Province -- and the Federal Government only obtains this
right by way of the Lease Agreement Act which was struck by the Supreme
Court of Canada in 1950.

-------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Medcalf      (416) 410-5791      http://www.dessus.com/
Keith Medcalf & Associates, 152-275 Broadview Avenue, Toronto
IBM OS/2, LAN Server, DB2/2, TCP/IP, DOS, Windows, Windows NT
IBM System Management Software Specialist  IBM BESTeam Member
          IBM OS/2 Warp Server Software Specialist