>>518032
Hale v. Henkel & Taxation
Hale v. Henkel was a Supreme Court case decided in 1906, where the Court ruled that a corporation could not assert the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination to refuse to produce documents or testify before a grand jury. This decision established that corporations are not "persons" for the purposes of the privilege against self-incrimination.23
Regarding the claim that non-corporations, particularly sovereign individuals, do not owe anything to the public and are not required to report information about themselves or their businesses to the government, this interpretation is not supported by the Hale v. Henkel decision or other Supreme Court rulings. The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination applies to individuals, but it does not mean that individuals are exempt from all reporting requirements or taxes.4
The Hale v. Henkel decision did not address taxation or voluntary compliance for non-corporations. The idea that sovereign individuals do not have to pay taxes based on this case is a misinterpretation of the ruling and is not legally valid.4
John,
The grand disregard of this case in the US courts has to go back to
the most likely reason that the Lord Nelson Hotel Case(1950) is
disregarded by Canadian judges. That reason is the assumed "contract
of servitude to the State" which arises when a free man obeys the
provisions of a statute - which only applies to "persons".
Eldon Warman
http://www.detaxcanada.org
we_are_j...@whoever.com (John Galt) wrote ...
> U.S. Supreme Court case: Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at 47 (1905).
>
> "The individual may stand upon his constitutional Rights as a citizen.
>
> He is entitled to carry on his PRIVATE business in his own way.
>
> His power to contract is UNLIMITED.
>
> He OWES NO SUCH DUTY [to submit his books and papers for an
> examination] to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond
> the protection of his life and property.
>
> His Rights are such as existed by the law of the land [Common Law]
> long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be
> taken from him by due process of
> law, and in accordance with the Constitution.
>
> Among his Rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the
> immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except
> under a warrant of the law.
>
> HE OWES NOTHING TO THE PUBLIC so long as he does not trespass upon
> their Rights."
>
>
> "The individual may stand upon his constitutional Rights."
>
> It does not say, "Sit on his Rights." There is a principle here: "If
> you don't use 'em you lose 'em."
>
> YOU HAVE TO ASSERT YOUR RIGHTS, DEMAND THEM, STAND UPON" THEM.
>
> Next it says, "He is entitled to carry on his PRIVATE business in his
> own way."
>
> It says "PRIVATE BUSINESS" - you have a Right to operate a PRIVATE
> business.
>
> Then it says "IN HIS OWN WAY." It doesn't say "in the government's
> way."
>
> Then it says, "His power to contract is unlimited."
>
> As a Sovereign man or woman, your power to contract is unlimited. In
> common law there are certain criteria that determine the validity of
> contracts. They are not important here, except that any contract that
> would harm others or violate their Rights would be invalid. For
> example, a "contract" to kill someone is not a valid contract. Apart
> from this obvious qualification, your power to contract is unlimited.
>
> Next it says, "He owes no such duty [to submit his books and papers
> for an examination] to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom,
> beyond the protection of his life and property."
>
> The court case contrasted the DUTY OF THE CORPORATION (an entity
> created by government permission – feudal paradigm) to the duty of the
> Sovereign man or woman.
>
> The Sovereign man or woman doesn't need and has NEVER NEEDED
> permission from the government, hence has no DUTY to the government.
>
> Then it says, "His Rights are such as existed by the law of the land
> [Common Law] long antecedent to the organization of the State." This
> is very important. The Supreme Court recognized that humans have
> inherent Rights. The U.S. Constitution (including the Bill of Rights)
> does not grant us Rights.
>
> WE ALL HAVE UNALIENABLE HUMAN RIGHTS, IRRESPECTIVE OF WHAT ANY
> CONSTITUTION SAYS.
>
> The Constitution acknowledges some of our Rights. And Amendment IX
> states, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain Rights, shall
> not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
> The important point is that our Rights antecede (come before, are
> senior to) the organization of the state.
>
> Next the Supreme Court says, "And [his Rights] can only be taken from
> him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution."
>
> Does it say the government can take away Your Rights?
>
> NO!
>
> Your Rights can only be taken away "by due process of law, and in
> accordance with the Constitution." "Due process of law" involves
> procedures and safeguards such as trial by jury. "Trial by jury"
> means, inter alia, the jury judges both law and fact.
>
> Then the case says, "Among his Rights are a refusal to incriminate
> himself,and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or
> seizure except under a warrant of the law." These are SOME of the
> Rights of a Sovereign man or woman.
>
> Sovereign men or women need not report anything about themselves or
> their businesses to anyone.
>
> Finally, the Supreme Court says,
>
> "HE OWES NOTHING TO THE PUBLIC so long as he does not trespass upon
> their Rights."
>
> The Sovereign man or woman does not have to pay taxes.
>
> If you discuss Hale v. Henkel with a run-of-the-mill attorney, he or
> she will tell you that the case is "old" and that it has been
> "overturned." If you ask that attorney for a citation of the case or
> cases that overturned Hale v. Henkel, there will not be a meaningful
> response.
>
> The case Hale v. Henkel has been researched and here is what is
> found :
>
> We know that Hale v. Henkel was decided in 1905 in the U.S. Supreme
> Court. Since it was the Supreme Court, the case is binding on all
> courts of the land, until another Supreme Court case says it isn't.
>
> Has another Supreme Court case overturned Hale v. Henkel?
>
> The answer is NO.
>
> As a matter of fact,since 1905, the Supreme Court has cited Hale v.
> Henkel a total of 144 times.
>
> A fact more astounding is that since 1905, Hale v. Henkel has been
> cited by all of the federal and state appellate court systems a total
> of over 1600 times.
>
> None of the various issues of this case has ever been overruled.
That's the point - it has nothing to do with contract. So, if
there is a legitimate contract (or a non-contested assumed contract)
of servitude to the Crown, then such matters as the lord Nelson case,
or in the US, the case of this thread, are moot relative to income
Message too long. Click
here
to view full text.