I alone am responsible for what is today. I alone am responsible for what I set in motion. Me, you blame me and no one else. Thats how it is. You judge daily. I judge you - are we getting clearer now? Honor? what exactly is that? https://youtube/watch?v=7OqwKfgLaeA 04-15 - HR 10-15 - HR Its very personal, lop their dicks off. Re: L.A. Federal District Citizen #548-23-9573 Birth Certificate Good #001934521, Bank Note Franchise of US-CA, Mr. Chiang et al., This serves as my tax refund filing for the tax years 2007 to 2013. W-2s are attached. Your “US-CA” Franchise fraudulently classifies me as an “owned citizen ‘good’ of UNITED STATES, INCORPORATED” and Franchise State. I’m not a “good” under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), which applies only to items for sale or lease – owned things. I’m a “citizen ‘service contract worker” of the United States for America”, unincorporated. This is a legally shattering distinction. Classification as a “server of labor” as opposed to a “good sold or leased” confers an absolute exemption, privilege or immunity from all strains of tax withholding, billing or attempted collection. A “citizen good” is an “alien citizen status” identified by ONE’S NAME in all capitalized letters, an owned subject under UCC’s Sales Law: ● for a person: a heading in capitals …. ● Treason . . . when real, merits the highest punishment. I. “Citizen ‘Good’ of the UNITED”, Owned, In Debt Franchise misclassifies me as an owned “good for hire”, a U.C.C. “housed ware”: Warehouse means a person engaged in the business of storing goods for hire. Franchise’ frivolous position is that I do not own and sells my own labor contract services. Its repugnant stance is that it owns and leases my body-good to employers for its tax taking collections. Franchise does so as an agent of Federal Reserve (FR) owners. It does so solely to operate a second class citizen business, as cover monopoly interest on criminally fixed financial services FR provides by contract to my Government: 100% of what is collected in income taxes is wastefully gobbled by double law cast systems and by interest on the state-federal debt …. All individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services taxpayers expect from government. Five UCC definitions pin this underhanded second class “citizen-good” grouping: ● Goods means all things … movable … identification to a contract for sale. The term includes … animals, … crops, and other identified things … ● for a person: a heading in capitals …, or in contrasting type, font, or color …. ● for a person: language … in … contrasting type … that calls attention to it …. ● for a person or an electronic agent, a term … so placed in a record or display that the person or electronic agent may not proceed without taking action …. ● Conspicuous … means so written … or presented that a reasonable person against which it is to operate ought to have noticed it. The problem in marking me as a “capitalized name good” is that I serve my time by working; I do not sell “my body good” for resale or end user consumption. I provide labor services in my capacity as a first class, native born American “service contract citizen”. I am not the “electronic agent” for service or collection processes or otherwise accountable in any way for the fictitious “owned good of sales” you call MY NAME. Accordingly, none of your UCC based (or linked) “Sales Law of Goods” applies to me. This is a head severing “citizen exempt, privilege and immunity” shield from any attempted “human good” grading for any purpose. a. The “Goods” Tax, Human Sales and Leases Franchise knows its UCC based tax code applies only to income derived from the sale or lease of goods. It does not apply to income derived by service contract work. This issue has been repeatedly confirmed by courts in the context of mixed “labor-service and good” contracts. i. The Bonebrake Case Bonebrake instructs: The described contract is not the type of contract which falls within the statutory scheme of the U.C.C. It involved … labor, as well as goods, with a lump sum price. The Code was meant to cover contracts for the … sale of goods, not labor contracts. The contract(s) you act on is a raw service job contract. My employer(s), however, has a “mixed contract”: “I served goods” (food and beverage) to clients. But I derived no income from the sale of goods. I was paid a flat $8.00 per hour - to serve goods my employer sells. I did not “make the goods” I sold, I did not “cook the food” or “make mixed drinks”. I make no commission on the “food and drink goods” I sold for my boss. I merely contracted to sell my labor – to take set up, take orders, serve another’s goods, and clean up. That’s all: The Code was meant to cover contracts for the … sale lease of goods, not … labor-service … contracts of this type. ii. Serving Blood, Hybrid Cases Service job contracts like mine sound entirely in supplying blood-time by laboring for a price. As such, I am not a “Taxable Sale of Goods” under the UCC based Tax Code: Supplying blood, by time working, is the rendition of a service, not a sale of goods; UCC doesn’t apply. One seminal decision on this subject is Perlmutter v. Beth David Hospital. Beth involved a professional (doctor) who served impure blood to a client-patient. The court held the entire body of UCC’s “CAPITALIZED NAME Law of Sales” could not be legally used or acted on. No UCC jurisdiction exists, the court stressed, because supplying blood was entirely subordinate to the over-all function of furnishing the services of a trained employee staff, skilled personnel. The exact principle of law applies here. “It has long been recognized that, when service predominates, and transfer of personal property is but an incidental feature of the transaction, the transaction is not deemed a sale within the Sales Act. As Benjamin’s Sale of Goods explains, a contract of sale is not constituted merely by reason that the property in the materials is to be transferred * * *. If they are simply accessory to work and labour, the contract is for work, labour and materials. Such is the case of medicine supplied by a medical man to a patient, or by a farrier to a horse. b. The “Goods Served” Have Been Taxed Franchise already charged and collected taxes on the goods (food and beverage) I served. It did so by passing its “sales tax” onto my clients. Client receipts confirm. Franchise illegally pools and splits held interest, e.g., with employers who collect for it and FR. Notably, Franchise also charged my employer a tax on his revenues from selling food and beverage goods to clients. II. “Citizen ‘Service Income”, Not Taxable It is illegal to classify me (or any other person) as a UCC “good” or “article of commerce” for tax or any other purpose. 15 USC, §17 cautions Franchise in this situation: a. The labor of a human being is not a (UCC) commodity or article of commerce. b. “One does not derive or earn income by rendering services.” I’m not an owned “good for hire” that you lease for taking purposes. I never waived my status as a tax exempt service contractor. I didn’t volunteer to donate-pay Franchise anything. Furthermore, the definition of “income” doesn’t apply to anyone who earns roughly $20,000.00 or less. On average, one’s “work related overhead in serving” exceeds that, and Franchise knows it. To serve, the body-machine requires: a roof, food (seven days a week), transportation expenses, insurance, medical, dental, eye-care, clothing, laundry, hygiene, haircuts and so forth. You’ve already done the math, so average it out, pay it back and kill it – forever: c. “It is only earnings, profits and gains which the statute subjects to tax.” d. “The function of the words ‘gain’ and ‘profit’ limit the word ‘income’”. e. “Income must have the essential feature of gain to the recipient.” III. Closing, All Rights Reserved Treason . . . when real, merits the highest punishment. Franchise simply has no jurisdiction to even attempt to collect any tax from my pure service-employment contract(s). Franchise-Treasury and its FR partners falsely claim ownership “title” to my body (my birth certificate pink slip). Franchise-CA and Treasury “issued” (sold me for cash) to their FR colleagues, tagging me as their debt-servitude property, a UCC “Good”: ● Issuer means a franchise-Treasury bailee that issues a document of title.... Over the past seven years Franchise heads, with Federal Reserve heads, talked and “agreed” to criminally “boycott” and “refuse to deal” with the rights raised herein, crossing 18 USC 241. It remains open: “Without prejudice, all rights reserved” (UCC 1- 308). Here, a restraining order aimed at Franchise Heads is proper. FRCP 65’s Restraining Order reads: The court may issue a restraining order without … notice to the adverse party … only if: 1) specific facts in an affidavit … clearly show immediate and irreparable cash injury, loss … will result … before the adverse party can be heard …; and 2) the movants … certifies in writing efforts made to give notice and why it should not be required.” Franchise keeps “illegal title” to my cash pursuant to constructive trust. I’d appreciate the immediate return of every penny, plus interest. And please don’t embezzle the interest on what you’ve taken from my paychecks, as you have since I began selling my service labor in 1982. Owing to Franchise Head’s criminal concealment, no statute of limitation blocks any action. Right now I’m not asking for all of mine: tripling of the full amount. Delay and I may. In sum, collection acts for caste system Reserve Owners are not “acute acumen”: 100% of what is collected in … taxes is absorbed running illegal cast system and by interest on the national and state debt …. My receipt confirmed tax filings from 2008 - 2013 are incorporated herein by reference. K U.C.C. §2-103(1)(b)(i)(A). Cramer v. United States - 325 U.S. 1 (1945). U.C.C. §7-102 (13) - Definitions and Index of Definitions. The Grace Commission Report, President Ronald Reagan (1984). U.C.C. §2-103(1)(k) (Definitions). U.C.C. §2-103(1)(b)(i)(A). U.C.C. §2-103(1)(b)(i)(B). U.C.C. §2-103(1)(b)(ii). U.C.C. §2-103(1)(b). Bonebrake v. Cox, 499 F.2d 951 (1974). Bonebrake v. Cox, 499 F.2d 951 (1974). Goelz v. J. K. & Susie L. Wadley Research Institute & Blood Bank, 350 S.W.2d 573 (Tex. Civ. App. 1961; error refd n.r.e.). Perlmutter v. Beth David Hospital, 308 N.Y. 100, 123 N.E.2d 792 (1954). The impure blood involved was homologous serum hepatitus. Perlmutter v. Beth David Hospital, 308 N.Y. 100, 123 N.E.2d 792 (1954). 15 USC, §17. Edwards v. Keith, 231 F111 (1916). United States v. Ballard, 535 F.2d 400 (8th Cir. 04/28/1976). Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330 (1918). Conner v. United States, 303 F. Supp. 1187 (S.D. Tex. 1969), affd in part and revd in part, 439 F.2d 974 (5th Cir. 1971). Cramer v. United States - 325 U.S. 1 (1945). U.C.C. §7-102(a)(8) - Definitions and Index of Definitions. FRCP 65 (b)(1)(A) and (B). Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services, Inc. - 504 U.S. 451 (1992). The Grace Commission Report, President Ronald Reagan (1984).
Posted on: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 07:08:47 +0000