Well, Bentley, what can the income tax be? The SC ruled in 1895 that a tax on income was unconstitutional. Yet here the banksters are, back again in 1913, with the Federal Reserve Act (what is now 12 USC, creating debt money), and the income tax again, pretending that it is hiding behind the 16th Amendment. It can't be a tax on income, but it is based on the amount of income; looks just like an excise tax on the money used...

But the point about redemption is that lawful money is outside the purview of Title 26, so there is no discussion about all the inconsistencies and mis-direction built into the Internal Revenue Code. Congress never passed a tax on income, because income is defined in the Constitution as the gain on investment, and that is not what the banksters wanted to tax; they wanted to tax wages. So they never passed a tax on anything; they left it to the IRS to write their 'code' in such a way as to get everyone to volunteer, by creating the impression that a)there was an actual tax (there is not), and b)the tax applies to you. Then once you buy into the W-4, endorsement of your paychecks, and submitting a 1040, you are deeply entwined into adhesion contracts and admission under perjury that you 'owe' tax, so then you have to pay it, as the Article I courts will simply administer the contract. The income tax is all about private law, which is easily avoided, by just not participating in the taxed activity. So why is it that the law will not tell you what the taxed activity is? Because if people understood what is being taxed, they would avoid it. The tax is on Federal Reserve debt: don't use it.

Freed