You may have noticed a significant drop in the frequency and number of postings in the last week or so. While I attempt to resume normal activity around here I wanted to let everyone know what’s been keeping me away. And yes, it has to do with the federal government.
While I’ve never written about it here, I’ve been closely tracking the case of Ed and Elaine Brown of Plainfield, N.H., who faced federal charges of income tax evasion and money laundering in January due to their failure to pay off some $215,000 that the Internal Revenue Service demanded from them.
In brief, after the judge denied the Browns the ability to present their defense, that they believed there was no law requiring them to pay taxes, the couple stopped attending their trial and holed up in their home, saying that they could not get a fair trial. They were convicted, of course, and sentenced in absentia in April to 63 months in prison each.
Since that time, supporters in various patriot, militia and anti-tax movements have flocked to Plainfield and stood with Ed Brown, who has said he would resist with deadly force any attempt to seize him. Since that time, the authorities have engaged in a virtual standoff.
U.S. marshals have said they are attempting to avoid a violent confrontation and convince Ed and Elaine Brown to surrender peacefully.
Last week, U.S. marshals, backed up by state and local police, surrounded the 110-acre property for reasons unknown and arrested one of the people staying at the home who was walking the Browns’ dog, prompting fear that the authorities would move in and ignite a violent confrontation. It later emerged that they had seized Elaine Brown’s Lebanon business property and the head honcho around here said he simply wanted to keep a close watch on the Browns during the operation. Ed Brown contends that authorities planned to raid and kill him but aborted the operation after the person walking the dog spotted their team in the woods around his house.
Now U.S. Marshal Stephen Monier says he will outwait the Browns, having cut power, phone and Internet service to the house.
So what the hell does any of this have to do with Homeland Stupidity?
First off, I strongly disagree with many things Ed Brown has said, and I disagree with his assertion that there is no law requiring anybody to pay income tax. There certainly is a law; the judges made it up. They’re allowed to do that in the U.S. and 49 out of the 50 states. Whatever the judges say the law is, is the law, even if what they say has no relation whatsoever to what the statutes say. That’s, unfortunately, how the system works and has worked for almost a thousand years.
I personally believe that taxation is immoral, since it is theft, and cannot be made legitimate no matter how many old men in black robes pronounce it “legal.” But I don’t think anything can be gained at this time by shooting federal agents. As Claire Wolfe said, it’s too early to shoot the bastards.
As you may know, I watch the server closely, primarily looking for evidence of hacking and other malicious activity. A day before last week’s raid, I saw something else: I saw the Department of Justice poking around. They were closely watching a local Web forum which I frequent and checking out people who use the site regularly. So I started checking them out. I’ve done this before, of course. Then I learned about the raid, and I learned that it came right after the burst of Internet activity that I observed.
So on Monday I posted on the forum what I observed, including the name and address of the hotel which some of the federal jackboots were using, and that on that morning there was increased Internet activity again, which may have indicated an imminent raid. That afternoon, the government cut the power and phone line to the house, just as they did during last week’s seizure.
But no raid took place. Instead, it appears the marshals are changing tactics. They want to make the Browns “uncomfortable” and wait them out.
One other thing that did happen is that the bureaucrats took an interest in the person who apparently revealed one of their agents — who was imported all the way from Las Vegas — and, some believe, a plan to raid the house. While they’ve been waiting for the Browns to come out, they’ve been busy plugging my name into Google and various law enforcement databases and coming up mostly empty. Of course, they’ve made no attempt to contact me.
Don’t believe everything you read on the Internet, folks.
After spending a day or so on the road and wondering whether I too was going to be threatened with “40 years” for whatever bullshit charges they can trump up, I’ve settled in and will be trying to get back to something close to a normal routine.
Now the first question I expect from the conservative third of my audience is why? Why poke a stick at the people who are just enforcing the law and trying to bring in two fugitives from “justice”? The answer is simple: It’s a moral issue. It’s wrong to steal from me, even if you can get 99% of the population to agree to it, which it seems that they do. Those who knowingly enable this sort of theft, whether it be by taking the money themselves, or enabling its taking, or locking in cages those who will not submit to the theft, are the bad guys. Their only authority comes from the guns they carry; they have tarnished their own badges through their moral turpitude and their willingness to rationalize away the injustice and wrong they do by saying that it’s their job and they’re just following orders.
And the first question I expect from the liberal third of my audience is why? Why support people who refuse to pay their fair share and want to make the burdens of society heavier on the rest of us? The answer is simple: It’s a moral issue. It’s wrong to steal from me, even if you can get 99% of the population to agree to it. Plus, the ends do not justify the means. You don’t make the world a better place by stealing from me and giving to someone who you think needs it more. You only make me poorer and break his spirit, making him dependent, less able and less willing to fend for himself. You make the world slightly worse with every tax, no matter how well-intentioned.
The final third of my audience already understands all of this and needs no further explanation.
It is my hope, wish and prayer that no further harm come to Ed and Elaine Brown, who have harmed no one by the acts for which they were convicted, and that those who are attempting to lock them in cages will someday see the error of their ways.
If you want to follow the saga of Ed and Elaine Brown as it unfolds, visit this forum thread.
Facebook
Digg
del.icio.us
reddit.com
Newsvine
Loading ...
4 Trackbacks/Pingbacks
June 21, 2007 2:34 am
June 27, 2007 3:26 pm
July 19, 2007 4:28 am
July 23, 2007 11:29 pm
286 Comments
Historically, gunmen and bombers who act on their own — lone wolves — have posed a significant threat in the United States. Indeed, from the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln to the slaying of music legend John Lennon they have presented a far more deadly threat to prominent people in the United States than have militant groups. Additionally, as demonstrated by cases such as the 1991 Luby’s restaurant shooting in Killeen, Texas, or the recent Virginia Tech massacre, they also pose a grave danger to ordinary Americans.
Due to their often solitary, withdrawn nature, lone wolves present unique problems for security and law enforcement, as their very qualities make it hard for law enforcement or protective security details to gather intelligence regarding their intentions. That said, however, they are not impossible to guard against. Lone wolves frequently take actions in advance of an attack that make them vulnerable to detection by a proactive, protective intelligence program that incorporates investigation and countersurveillance.
Although they most often are male, there is no single profile of the lone wolf. Some are ideologically motivated, some are religiously inspired, some are mentally disturbed, and still others can have a combination of these other factors.
On the ideological side are some leaders (especially among far-right extremists) who promote the concept of “leaderless resistance.” This idea perhaps was most widely promulgated by former Klansman Louis Beam. In a February 1992 essay, Beam outlines a plan to overhaul the white supremacist movement — calling for the formation of small, autonomous cells that were to be driven by ideology rather than act under the direction of membership groups. Beam’s argument was that this leaderless resistance would have superior operational security and be more successful in conducting attacks than the membership groups, which he believed (correctly) were filled with informants.
In his essay, Beam envisioned a two-tiered approach to the revolutionary struggle. One tier would be the above-ground “organs of information,” which would “distribute information using newspapers, leaflets, computers, etc.” The organs of information were not to conduct any illegal activities. The second tier would be made up of individual operators and small “phantom” cells that would conduct attacks. These people were to remain low-key and anonymous, with no traceable connections to the above-ground activists. Beam wrote, “It becomes the responsibility of the individual to acquire the necessary skills and information as to what is to be done.”
Perhaps one of the most prolific, and least known, ideological lone wolf terrorists was neo-Nazi Joseph Paul Franklin, who conducted a string of arsons and shootings from 1977 to 1980 in an effort to spark a race war in the United States. Franklin, who frequently targeted mixed-race couples, killed at least 20 people during his attacks, which by his own account also included failed assassination attempts against Hustler magazine publisher Larry Flint and then-National Urban League President Vernon Jordan.
Included in the religious realm are “Phineas Priests,” people who believe they have been chosen by God and set apart to act as his “agents of vengeance” on Earth. Phineas Priests frequently conduct attacks against abortion providers and homosexuals — targets they believe have violated biblical law. Phineas Priests derive their name from Phinehas, an Old Testament character who killed an Israelite man and a Midianite woman and who was credited with stopping the idolatry brought into the midst of the Israelites by Midianite women.
Most Phineas Priests, including Buford Furrow and Eric Rudolph, are adherents to the racist and anti-Semitic Christian Identity religion. Christian Identity, however, does not have a monopoly on religiously motivated lone wolves. Radical Roman Catholics like James Kopp, Protestants such as Paul Hill and Muslims like Mir Amal Kansi and D.C. Sniper John Allen Muhammad also have committed religiously motivated attacks.
Though many, if not most, of the ideologically and religiously motivated lone wolves exhibit some degree of mental illness, other mentally ill attackers have no ideological or religious motivation. Some of these individuals “;go postal” and commit their attacks at work, while others attack at malls or schools. Unlike the ideological (and even some of the religious) lone wolves, who purposefully choose the leaderless resistance model to thwart law enforcement, the mentally disturbed are generally self-motivated and self-contained.
Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme and Sara Jane Moore, both serving life sentences for attempting to assassinate U.S. President Gerald Ford during separate incidents, are two rare female lone wolves. Fromme, a follower of jailed cult leader Charles Manson, pointed a loaded pistol at Ford in Sacramento, Calif., on Sept. 5, 1975, but was wrestled to the ground by a Secret Service agent before she could fire a shot. Seventeen days later, Moore, an accountant and political radical, fired one shot at Ford after he left the St. Francis Hotel in San Francisco, but missed.
The Problem for Police
A prime example of the problem lone wolves pose for police is Unabomber Theodore Kaczynski, who began sending improvised explosive devices in 1978 but was not arrested until 1996. During those 18 years, Kaczynski sent 16 devices, several of which either did not explode or did not function as designed. Although this allowed authorities to recover a large quantity of physical evidence, Kaczynski’s isolation kept him from being identified. It was only after the publication of Kaczynski’s “Unabomber Manifesto” in 1995 that his brother came forward to the FBI and identified him as a possible suspect.
When investigating a militant organization it is possible for law enforcement or intelligence agencies to plant informants within the group. Even small, insular groups are vulnerable because it is not uncommon for one or more members of the group to get cold feet and inform authorities about the group’s plans to commit acts of violence. With a lone wolf, however, there is no such possibility of infiltration or betrayal. If the suspect never discusses his or her plans with anyone else, he or she can easily fly under law enforcement radar. In most cases, these kinds of individuals can be highly successful in carrying out an attack, especially against vulnerable soft targets.
Mentally disturbed lone wolves pose particular problems because they often have an extremely narrow focus of interest and cannot be diverted to an easier target by heightened security measures. There are some notable exceptions to this, however. For example, Furrow conducted surveillance on several Jewish targets and bypassed some of them because he considered their security to be too tight, and Franklin diverted from the Rev. Jesse Jackson to Jordan after he found Jackson’s security to be too robust for his purposes.
Mentally disturbed lone wolves also frequently have an almost total disregard for the consequences of their actions, and quite often show no concern about escaping after they attack, as exemplified by John Hinckley, who did not attempt to flee after attempting to assassinate President Ronald Reagan in 1981. Frequently, as in the case of Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho and Luby’s shooter George Hennard, the attacker will commit suicide.
When lone wolves do choose to escape and conduct a string of attacks, their anonymous nature and isolation frequently complicates the situation for law enforcement, especially if they take efforts to conceal their identities and minimize the amount of physical evidence they leave. For example, Franklin was able to operate for three years before he was identified and arrested because he spaced his attacks apart in terms of geography and time, and frequently changed his vehicles, weapons and appearance. In fact, it was only after his arrest and confession that the full scope of his activities was realized. Rudolph also traveled great distances between targets and took efforts to alter his appearance.
The Threat
Because of this history, and the problems lone wolves pose for them, local, state and federal law enforcement sources say they are particularly concerned about the threat of individual extremists. This is not exclusively a big-city problem, as several lone wolf incidents have occurred outside of major metropolitan areas, in suburbs or smaller cities. Federal counterterrorism sources, citing the relative ease of attacking in a public place — as demonstrated at Virginia Tech and other locations — have expressed serious concern about the possibility of similar assaults being perpetrated by an Islamist militant or a white supremacist. The logic is that if a mentally disturbed individual can execute such an attack, what prevents an ideologically inspired terrorist from doing the same — or worse?
Because lone wolves are widely dispersed throughout the United States and are distributed across the ideological and social spectrum, it is especially challenging for law enforcement to identify them before they act. The same is true of potential lone wolf extremists. Moreover, it is extremely difficult to differentiate between those extremists who intend to commit attacks from those who simply preach hate or hold radical beliefs (things that are not in themselves illegal). Therefore, authorities must spend a great deal of time and resources looking for individuals who might be moving from radical beliefs to radical actions in an attempt to single out likely lone wolves before they strike. With such a large universe of potential suspects, that is akin to looking for a needle in a haystack.
Rearing their Heads
There are some signals that can be watched for in connection with lone wolves. In fact, in retrospect, the majority of lone wolves came to the attention of authorities at some point before their attack. Frequently in workplace violence and school shooting cases, the perpetrators are found to have had prior brushes with the law and/or the mental health system. Attempting to sort lone wolves out from the heavy stream of people who come to the attention of the police and mental health professionals, however, is another difficult search through a very large haystack.
These individuals, though, often frequently exhibit behaviors by which they reveal themselves.
Lone wolves, especially mentally disturbed ones, frequently attempt to make written or telephonic contact with their targets before making physical contact. It is at this time that they can be identified and investigated by security or law enforcement personnel. Monitoring the tenor of the contacts from such individuals can also help to indicate their future intentions and provide indications of a deteriorating mental state.
Another sign of a possible lone wolf is when a dedicated and committed extremist suddenly quits a membership group and goes into “radio silence mode.” For example, Bob Matthews and three other members “left” the National Alliance in 1983 to form the domestic terrorist group “The Order.” In 1999, World Church of the Creator member Benjamin Smith, who had been named “Creator of the Year” for his zeal and dedication, left the group shortly before going on a three-day shooting spree in Illinois and Indiana that randomly targeted racial and ethnic minorities. Smith killed two people and wounded nine before committing suicide while being chased by police.
Perhaps the most common time that lone wolf assailants self-identify — and the point at which they are most vulnerable to being identified before an attack — is when they are conducting pre-operational surveillance of their potential targets; when they are stalking, in other words. Since pre-operational surveillance involves establishing patterns, potential attackers will stalk their targets several times. Thus, each time they improve the chance they will be observed, especially if the target is employing countersurveillance operations in search of such threats.
Countersurveillance — the process of detecting and mitigating hostile surveillance — is an important aspect of counterterrorism and security operations. Good countersurveillance is proactive, meaning it provides a means to prevent an attack from happening. This can be a group effort performed by a dedicated countersurveillance team, or it can be done by individuals who simply make the effort to be aware of their surroundings and watch for people or vehicles that seem out of place.
Lone wolves are especially vulnerable to detection during the surveillance phase because they do not have others to assist them. Conducting solo surveillance against a moving target is one of the hardest tasks any professional surveillance operative can be tasked with, and is even more difficult for an amateur. In a solo surveillance, the operative is forced to reveal himself repeatedly over time and distance, and in different environments. Also, a person unskilled in the art of surveillance, especially one who is mentally disturbed, will frequently commit many errors of demeanor. Thus, their odd behavior and crude surveillance technique — they frequently stalk and lurk — make them easy to pick out.
Because of this, countersurveillance — whether by law enforcement, intelligence agencies, corporations or individuals — is a critical means of spotting lone wolves during the target selection and planning stage, the time the operation is most vulnerable to detection and interdiction. It is important to be able to recognize hostile surveillance by a lone wolf before the next phase of the attack cycle begins — because once the actual attack is in progress, it cannot be undone.
It’s generally considered good etiquette not to post entire articles in comments, but to link to them instead (unless the original site deletes them). Especially since it can raise legal problems for the site owner if you repost the entire article. The article you posted, for instance, originated at Stratfor’s Premium Intelligence Reports.
A man or woman without principles that are ready and willing to die for is dead already and is no use or concequence to anyone what so ever. We have all been stompped on, stomp back!
In the midst of a potential NEW Revolution… You’re spouting “good etiquette”?
“generally considered”??? We ain’t talkin’ ’bout Paris Hilton here!!! Jeeze… Fuck off, unless ya got somethin’ to say about the subject. LJ 304-354-6048
Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad you’re here, but it is my site, and therefore my private property, and if you cannot respect my property rights, I’ll show you the door.
Oh! ’scuse me Mike… I ‘hear’ ya ’bout this bein’ your place… I screwed up! I thought I was talkin freely. You sure are right to manage your place. If I’d have been payin’ attention, and known I was talkin’ to you, as the owner/moderator, I’d have addressed you privately, but NOT much differently… My ’spects to you for squarin’ me away. LJ
The Browns weren’t allowed to present their beliefs about taxes because their beliefs have already been argued and rejected in the courts. These same delusional beliefs have even made it as far as the US supreme court, which summarized them as “surely frivolous”. In a nutshell, people like Ed Brown don’t want to pay their taxes (who does?) but rather than find ways to minimize their obligation within the law or work to elect people who represent their views, they decided to latch onto the tax-denier views, which have a 0.0% success rate in being argued in the courts. Judges don’t “make up” the tax laws – the tax laws very clearly state the basis of the income tax. Judges simply are ruling against these kooks on the basis of what the law clearly says.
On the subject of arresting the guy walking his dog, you failed to mention that he ran from the police after they identified themselves. That, when coupled with constant threats of violence, make his arrest (and release 8 hours later without being charged) pretty easy to understand.
If you want to discuss this further, there are several ongoing threads over on www.quatloos.com devoted to this.
Just to clarify my last post – Ed and many of the people in his house have threatened violence, not the idiot that ran from the police.
Ooo! That’s a point I had not heard about the Income tax law. And its true. Judges do make the law, and that makes sense of why they are careful when and how they prosecute.
I maintain that on the books there is no law, still I pay to avoid having the Mob come and dump my concrete encase body into the river.
I’ve worked on issues like this on and off for several years, most recently last year promoting Aaron Russo’s indy film regarding this very subject. I’m willing to bet your aware of it; America:From Freedom to Facism. For those of you who havn’t seen it, I strongly suggest you do.
I’m sure there’s more to this story, but from the limited info I’ve gotten so far, I can’t find fault with the brown’s and what they are doing, and certanly don’t subcribe to the suggestion that they are breaking the law by not submitting to whatever lawful order handed down by whomever wears a robe. We complain about a system we all helped to create, and fail to realize that the best way to change things is at the local level. Another big problem facing us is the realization that while storys like this and others ‘could’ be a catylist for change, most americans and mainstream media only care about the next chapter of the Paris Hilton saga. As a great comedian once said “There’s no cure for stupid”
buck09 said: “On the subject of arresting the guy walking his dog, you failed to mention that he ran from the police after they identified themselves.”
Of course. I always believe masked gunmen hiding in the woods when they say that they’re cops.
BTW, I think you have some bootpolish on your tongue.
Frankly, Michael I agree with what LJ is stating about free speech. This is what we were trying to discuss. If you are about freedom of speech and so on, then why are you trying to silence the very concept that he is referring to. As for threats against the owner/per se by DDHorton. I disagree totally with you. I read his articles and I find no reference to this what so ever. In fact, I find the opposite is true, that you spout threats to your so called readers, if they do not agree with your concept. DDHorton was trying to educate you and obviously we are still not listening. This is not an open forum if you can pick and choose who you want to listen to.
cap and LJ, this is private property.
“local level.”
I like THAT!
LJ
Local level, That’s cool! Let the vermin in the cities deal with themselves(it won’t take long…) And let the country folk that know how to live, to best continue the species…
LJ
And I DO mean WHITE folk! All the others ever CREATED was the stick & MAYBE the spoon! LJ
If people have no rights, limited or otherwise, to control or manage their property what have you got left…. Law of the Jungle, survival of the fittest, kill or be killed.
The fellow prefers to avoid litigation and just requested that the topic be linked, which renders it readable but not copied and pasted in place. Copy and pasting, possibly, violates someone else’s rights to their property. I did enjoy the writeup and might very well have not followed the link. I see he has not deleted it so he is apparently willing to take the risk of reprinting someone else’s intellectual property.
One should take care and consider carefully whether one wants to violate property rights.
I did copy it! And I’m sure it by-lines where I got it from… I never claimed it as my own, only that I thought it should be shared.. THAT said, Mike did leave it posted even though he dis-agreed with my posting ‘PROTOCOL’… ’spects to mike. Y’all spoke up what ya thiked… THANKS! I’ve tried to make my points here since, with less verbage… SUPPORT to Ed & Elaine. Prayers too! Even though I’m beyond believin’ that they are in any REAL danger… I think it’s a diversion from something to come… I’m NOT there though SO I really am talkin’ out the side of m’neck! I was just thinkin’ “outta-da-box”
LJ
regarding the show of force, there is a nut with a .50-cal currently on site with the Browns, who has said:
“I had trained as a…[I'm not supposed to say it, but I guess I've been out long enough]…as a specialist in nuclear, biological and chemical warfare,” Jose M. Gonzalez said. “This is what scares me. I know how to kill people in mass quantities.”
I think Jose meant ‘one atta time’ ‘from a way LONG distance.’
LJ
Why does a .50 make ya a “nut”?
There was radio station that interviewed ed brown this june, the hosts of the radio show ask some Q and A’s about the browns situation and what he and his wife is standing for, however, during the interview few of the questions that the host’s of the radio station seem derogatory to ed brown…brown stated some fighting word towards them and ended the interview abruptly… the host of the radio show didn’t see any of his questions harmful (neither did I) and spouted back in defense to brown harsh threats.
When i heard about the ed brown story months ago i thought he is doing the greatest thing… that he is the greatest patriot of independence towards a national financial intuition which many have investigate and failed to right the left of its policy’s..but after this incident on the radio station interview …I don’t…i say it was all a big misunderstanding…i didn’t find the questions harmful
There is no law requiring an American Citizen to pay an income tax on their labor or wages. It is a voluntary tax. Why don’t you ask the IRS to see this supposed law yourself? If I am wrong, then please provide me with this law. Also, the 16th Amendment was never Ratified. And for your information, Judges have ruled on this, Supreme Court Justices to be exact. You might want to look that up. This type of build-up of force and intimidation for a non-crime is ridiculous and tyrannical.
Are Nazis better people than Americans?
As I recall, we held Nazi government officials to a moral standard wherein they were individually responsible for morally determining what was right and wrong. Their excuses of “just doing my job” were ruled irrelevant and they were held personally responsible for what they personally did.
By comparison, American government officials are allowed to get away with the “just doing my job” excuse and use it to commit even more attrocities than they would otherwise. The US government has even gone so far as passing laws that say they aren’t individually responsbile, but I’m sure Roland Freisler made similar pronouncements about Nazi responsibility.
If we do not hold US government officials to the same standard to which we held Nazis, then we are admitting that Nazis are more morally capable and responsible than Americans. We are saying that Nazis are more intelligent and capable, and thus more responsible for their actions than stupid, incompetent US government officials.
You whackjobs keep trying to be Wesley Snipes and avoid your taxes based on misinformation that there is no law that compels you to pay. Its the 861 argument and it will always fail.
I just heard about this story and decided to learn more about it. As far as I’m concerned, our government is in great need of vast improvements and the house of our legal “system” needs to be flipped. However, the reason I’m posting is because I always hear people say things like “such and such is actually not a law, try looking it up” and I tried for a little while earlier and that’s how I found this place. I was just wondering if someone could help me out with that. Where is a good place to start researching these laws and amendments? Where is the truth about this? Is there a website I can go to? I’ve found that it is not so easy and any suggestions would be appreciated.
GOOGLE IT!
Anyone that mentions “quatloos” as a source of good, and un-biased, information should have his/her head examined. I agree with Jim Depkin – I think you have some bootpolish on your tongue.
Illegal taxes paid for by illegal paper dollars, yet more infringements on our rights by the gov’t. Add it to the ever-growing list of violations:
They violate the 1st Amendment by opening mail, caging demonstrators and banning books like “America Deceived” from Amazon.
They violate the 2nd Amendment by confiscating guns during Katrina.
They violate the 4th Amendment by conducting warrant-less wiretaps.
They violate the 5th and 6th Amendment by suspending habeas corpus.
They violate the 8th Amendment by torturing.
They violate the entire Constitution by starting 2 illegal wars based on lies and on behalf of a foriegn gov’t.
Support indy media.
Last link (unless Stark County District Library caves to the gov’t and drops the title):
America Deceived (book)
“GOOGLE IT!” is not a useful response. Let’s have some constructive conversation with all side weighing in.
Wikipedia is a good place to start research… don’t stop there though.
“GOOGLE IT!” is not a useful response. Let’s have some constructive conversation with all side weighing in.
Wikipedia is a good place to start research… don’t stop there though.
16th Amendment
“There certainly is a law; the judges made it up. They’re allowed to do that in the U.S. and 49 out of the 50 states. Whatever the judges say the law is, is the law, even if what they say has no relation whatsoever to what the statutes say. That’s, unfortunately, how the system works and has worked for almost a thousand years.”
No offense intended, but that’s a pile of BS. A lie repeated one billion times is still a lie.
NO TAXATION WITHOUT LEGISLATION! I’ll say it again : NO TAXATION WITHOUT LEGISLATION!
And lest anyone fail to understand this simple but oh so vital concept NO TAXATION WITHOUT LEGISLATION!
I apologize for yelling and cursing.
Google yo’ Mama asswipe… We were talkin’! who made you the HALL monitor?
;) LJ
Sorry, you can call me a liar all you like, and deny reality, but it doesn’t change the truth, and it doesn’t help you. This is how they operate. If you want to change the system or get rid of it, that’s one thing, but denying it won’t do any good.
Right ON Mike!
LJ
Too bad a long time ago we eroded states rights in favor of federal rights. Most likely we will continue to need some form of taxes. But I think in the future we need to reduce the authority of the feds and re emphasize states rights. What the Browns are doing is sure to be applauded for raising interest in avoiding Democrat and Republican totalitarianism. We would all be empowered if taxes were paid locally and then a portion were contributed to support a weakened federal system. It might seem more parliamentary then the current system but at least the feds couldn’t commit us to folly as easily. But you don’t want to break up the union completely interstate cooperation is just too useful. I figure the feds should be more of a conference of states managing interstate agreements rather then allowing them to be mandates as they are now. Canada seems to be operating this way in degrees looks like it functions to me. Don’t kid yourselves too much though even state legislator can get to be out of control New York State is one example of that, one of many I suppose…
hey LJ… are you a rednecked racist by any chance?
No “redneck”… Racist, well I donno! I want my grandbabies to look like me, I surely don’t want ‘em all negrefied… Ya know? Big lips, kinkified hair and ape noses… I kinda wanna pass my own heritage down to them… Is that a BAD thing to want? LJ
If THAT makes me a RACIST, then “SIGN ME UP!” lj
yes it IS a “bad thing”! or… can U explain what this weird SUBhuman ideology is about having your family look like U?
there is absolutely NO SUCH thing as “race”! ONLY ethnicity and different aesthetics!
I’d like to kill people like U n’ your whole KKKristian redneck family! why? as my Wife is Chinese and we will be having a bay soon. there is no more room for SUBhumans like U on this earth!
U probably prefer Sons over Daughters as well don’t ya? and… YES… U R a redneck fascist!
I bet your one of them weirdo white fatty males thats into camo / guns / hunting / surviving aren’t ya?
Hey Xmo, You wanna “kill” me? AND my Family! You’re gonna have to wait ’til my Son gets back from his third deployment to the middle east. And here’s my address you coward: SR 33/119, 1/4 mile West of Russett Road, Stumptown West(by GOD!)Virginia 25267 304-354-6048…. let me know if you need gas money PUNK!
LJ
By your logic, all taxes are bad. How ironic that the Internet was created with taxpayer funding and allows you to communicate your views to the world and gives you a greater “voice”. The telecoms didn’t want the technology when it first became available, but 20 years later realized their mistake. Many people have gotten rich from something funded by “bad” taxes who wouldn’t have had the opportunity. This is why society funds research at public universities. It’s often not in companies’ economic interests to fund risky ventures like basic or applied research. Perhaps this is an example of something good coming from something bad or “evil”.
As far as the Browns go, they have created their own suffering. We all do that. I’ve been my own worst enemy at times, but then that’s part of being human. Everyone does stupid things at times. The government has not cornered that market exclusively yet.
West Virgina?!?!?!?! bwahahahaha! and U stated U werent a redneck!
as well… now we know your stupid, meriKKKan football playing, hunting, weight lifting, team sport fan, soldier boy is a tool of usa/corporate terrorism!
hope the brave Iraqis send him home to ya in pieces! one less stupid nowhere livin, UNtraveled, UNcultured, gun crazy meriKKKan white male the better!
ciao ya fags of authority!
>>
I especially like this one LJ… this is your rationale as I know your lot in life is to be a UNcultured, Untraveled WV trash.
what a typical ideology from people who live in NOWHERE places
And let the country folk that know how to live, to best continue the species…
I meant that quote!
These people are being harrassed. They have the courage to confront the government and need support–legally as well as in other areas. All Americans would do well to be informed and obtain research into the reality of the legality of the tax situation. We are not lambs going to the slaughter==this is a free country based on judeo-christian values which should be upheld as our forefathers intended. They are heroes.
Xmo=coward… where do you live my Friend?
LJ
Xmo=TROLL…
It’s is illegal to TAX on private property which is works. State TAX pays for schools, gas tax pays for roads, IRS…pays for ahm???? Bettering our country?? NOPE DONT THINK so…that’s paid by corporate tax based on profit. You you guessed it…the banks get our money…and in return charge us interest when we borrow. In the words of BORAT >…VAARY NAAICE!!
Shangahi China! btw… I am ashamed to say… I was formerly a usa terrorist (aka marine)!
see ya later… flag humping, fitter-inner, obedient, bigoted, uncultured, untraveled, unread, in-compassionate, team-sport fan, patriotic, military (aka capitalism thugs) family, trailer/country trash
Where the Browns have trouble is with His Wives medical Practice. Medicine has a excise tax that is 100% mandatory tax.
I read somewhere Al Capone was found guilty of Tax evasion but it wasn’t income it was failure to pay his tax on the Booze he sold. We have a case of Apples and Oranges.
The US Stars and Stripes in a court ( with a Gold Fringe on it) suspends the Constitution. The US Army rules and Regulations says nothing shall be placed on the flag . Being the Flag is surrounded with a fringe it has been captured, the rule of Maritime Laws.
William Cooper ( BEHOLD A PALE HORSE ) exposed the trusts where the monies were kept. Yes Federal Income Tax is skimmed off and sent to trust number 2. Then skimmed off and the IMF and the World Bank play Nation building with our Sweat Equity
The government has been openly – and shamelessly – using the Constitution for toilet paper for a very long time. Shame on them, and shame on us for letting it happen. Enough recriminations. I support the Browns. I’m not sure that this is the battle I would choose to fight, but from a strictly constitutional standpoint they hold the high ground. Of course, that isn’t going to stop the stormtroopers from butchering them like two-legged cattle.
You know, Doug brings to mind the Nazis. The Nazis never ignored Germany’s highest law; they changed it to make everything they did legal. Our government takes a different route. They ignore the constitution completely.
The constitution is supposedly the highest law of our country, and the government is supposed to be bound by it just as private citizens are. If a private citizen breaks the law, they are accountable. What then do we do when the government breaks the law??? I think the answer to that question can be answered by the events of the year 1776. Perhaps to solve today’s problems we should look to the past.
Did you ever notice how people who say this are the first to accuse people of being “racist”? Obviously logic is not their strong suit. Some of the strongest advocates for the concept of race are Black and Chinese. Think of all those “affirmative action” jobs that would be lost if there was no race. Eventually, work on the human genome will put this issue to rest.
But none of this relates to Poor Ed & Elaine Brown, who are definitely not racist. The government is The Man, no matter what race you are.
Race is how they, the system controls us it is a fact the Super rich FAMILIES who control, are on both sides of a issue. They control the outcome( KNOWLEDGE )as we are only as good as our AUTHOR. The Smartest minds that are churned out in our SCHOOLS are controlled with Grants-The system does not want any competition. WE are all different, not the same! If we were supposed to be at birth there would only be one race or color on the EARTH. Our CREATOR chose to do that and thats the way it is. To focus on the problem with the BROWNS that type of issue, you will always have the system bring other issues into the thought process to cloud and confuse their opposition???
anybody know whats going on right now? I have been to several websites and they seems to be interference.
Taxes suck. Who in thier right mind wants to pay them?? It is the law. Some suffer more than others. Write the government officials, contact the media and do your part to make changes. They could do a better protest. Jail is no party. Look how it made Paris throw a fit. They will get special treatment too. The majority of taxes go to government officials salaries so, good luck. Do you really think they want a pay cut?? There’s a new BMW sitting at the lot that they want in thier garage. It’s Money that Matters in The USA. Just like the old song.
I don’t give a flyn u know what, on what political scale, party; in whatever club, order, or animal lodge they belong too; (EXCLUSIVE DUMB ASS MEN BERS); still…are not intelligent enough to get past, playing cops and robbers. Cowboys and Indians. UH WHOSE GOT THE BIGGEST GUN? Duh.. MY GOD may you have mercy on us please!!!! You who claim to be the most intelligent while dumbing the rest of us down. Apparently you weren’t paying attention in World History or to your toother or academy ivy leage professor. “OR>>>>>the BEST FOR LAST. YOUR BIBLE. Whether you beleive or not, it’s still there and you have not been able to destroy that little part about the 10 commandments, nor will you. But the Basics of every law, cause and effect, are there, everything that you have ever thought of, or dreamt of, spoke of its in there, its all there in black & white.
Now…. lets see if…. maybe we can create a game that teaches the Constitution of the United States. Boys just love there games. We can even play red coats against the Rags, kinda like…. skins versus shirts. Get it!! Okay here goes. Question #1 – By the very ACT of signing the Constitution of the United States, broke WHAT LAW? (This is just example, men, don’t blow a blood vessel over it. Answers at the end of this comment. :}
Okay now I do really want to be serious about We the People and Justice For All. Boston Tea Party and all that. My real question is What seemed to fall through this crack or maybe I missed something in the reading. BUT WHAT HAPPENED TO NO TAXATION WITHOUT FAIR REPRESENTATION. AND WHATEVER HAPPENED TO INNOCENT BEFORE PROVEN GUILTY AND A TRIAL BY A JURY OF YOUR PEERS? WHERE IN THE HELL IS THE COMPLAINTANTS PROOF??? OR THE PROSECUTIONS BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. Oh maybe they’ve changed that part of the Constitution too…When… Where was I? With my Head in my CYBER VIRTUAL REALITY PLAYBOY MANSION>>HE
Sent to prison by a JUDGE THAT WAS PROBABLY NEVER ELECTED by the People, and THAT NOT ONE DAMN LAW YELLER WILL REPRESENT THEIR CASE. YOUR JUST GONNA GO IN and STRING EM UP. USE FEDERAL Militia against your own PEOPLE? Whew . . . . and then you wonder why the people riot and burn. There is only so much in-justice a people can endure. Read the story about the French Revolution, Really guys its a good story. Oh and this year the best guy movie and I loved it was “300″. The SPARTANS, now thats what I call a great hero/underdog good beat-em-up, sword, slash their heads off movie. Real Warriors with a Real Cause. And they laid their lives down with every breath and thought that they had for the common good of their be-loved country. But remember, they were betrayed, why? you ask. Because he couldn’t honestly, didn’t have the strength to hold up the shield and would be a liability that would in the end, be their death. Tempted by the lust of the flesh and their you have it men…, your flesh is warring with your spirit. The spirit of the Devine (God). So you have made the world according to your LAW. LOOK! Look what you have done!… You went against everything that is good, natural and have no-one but yourselves to blame. And those that are above the law, What have you gained? An ugly, and dying, decayed planet, that would rather shake you off like a bad case of fleas. And it will. Your de-llusion/illusion is… what you see is what you get. You thought of it… remember? Answer: reason add a T and you get????
“Some of the strongest advocates for the concept of race are Black and
Chinese.”
———-
hey Dujo… and where on earth did I ever say that you are not correct in this?!?!?
I have argued w/numerous “black” people for example… that they go about fighting for rights and equality when the spew words like affirmative action and “black power”!
i ALWAYS say the CORRECT argument for someone who is discriminated is to say… “hey I am a human being… why are you against me simply because they way I look on the outside? Inside, I am the same as everyone”.
again… THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS RACE!
Wow there is some very good information here but, what is the solution??? Not everyone is going to agree. We all have different groups, religions, races and ideas. We need to exercise our integrity to come to a compromise. Are taxes theft? Maybe to some. Maybe not to others. They say what you put in you get back in the form of you supporting your ideas through your political party, roads, national parks, the protection of the military, police, fire departments, social programs to reduce crime (so they say) and so much more. The unfair part is some pay more than others. It’s a tough issue. Should they implement a tax program that would make all Americans pay a certain percentage or rate?? There are so many ways they can reduce taxes. Should people be more important than money??? Why is it fair to burden some people more than others…
@ John Moore – if you think that tax money supporting education like universities is good, consider this…I went to a public university, where among other things I had dirt cheap housing, and a bunch of benefits, absolutely free & unlimited use, that include visits to doctors, lawyers, gyms, swimming pools, buses, (dang! no dental!), rental of vehicles whose engine unfortunately cuts out when you hit 99 mph, and who knows what else that i cannot even remember. While I do have a bit of student loans to deal with (at very low interest rates), I sincerely thank all the tax payers for your support.
My research/graduate studies were sponsored by the industry, and just a few years later, I’m doing corporate for-profit kind of stuff, and loving every minute of it.
Why don’t you do some research on education in India?
As for taxes in general…well, to each their own. But consider that the powerful have money, and means to take it to the place they want it. Consider this:
Old news by now…but hey, now that the US (government) has to compete on international grounds, things cannot keep getting worse forever. And if they do, maybe eventually the good folks in Mexico will have to build a wall to keep the folks from the US out :)
You should um, fix your web page. Where the form says
input type=”hidden” name=”comment_post_ID” value=”1548″
well, it looks like the person who just posted before me got the same “value” and their post showed – my didn’t.
I’m too lazy at the moment to re-type it all
Never mind
26 USC § 1
I strongly recommend it to the Brown’s and the fools who support them.
I pity Americans.
You pray to god that doesn’t exist.
Answer to a lowlife mudererer in the Whitehouse.
Live in a sick, artificial distorted ‘Mcdonalds’ reality.
Your Educational system is garbage.
Your Health Care system is a sick joke by intl. standards.
Your arrogance knows no bounds.
Oh. and btw chuck, hank, joey, dwayne, elmer, laura and mary-lou –
This prick in the whitehouse is in point of fact NOT the ‘leader of the free world’ as we so often hear from the excrement known in the USA as the ‘media’ – he’s a zit.
A real president might be [in part] the leader of the *USA govt. & military, and *that is where it ends.
You are 5% of this planet, and right now – a very unpopular 5%. So learn you place – or else.
So much for the stark mangled banner.
Burn it.
Good luck kids.
:-)
Markus,
I couldn’t agree with U more… U R spot on!
but PLEEEEEEZ… DO realize that NOT all of us who had the misfortune to be borne there are flag-humping fatty rednecked meriKKKan males. some of us had the ingenious idea to actually leave there and NOT even have to worry about the pathetic IRS and pig cops as there is absolutely NO WAY I am gonna pay that #1 terrorist state on earth one friggin penny!
Michael, you think some of these pro tyranny posters may actually be government antagonist?? ..Just sayin…
The now infamous DDH once admitted in one of his post to being a government employee. And also used the “we are just doing our jobs” excuse. Maybe not in those words exactly, but the meaning was there.
Here is a pertinent link on the Browns’ situation.
In the fall of 2000 to the early spring of 2001 a someone who say his name is john titor on the internet who claims to be from the future 2036 spoke about future events and a civil war in America and no one heard from him since, but he spoke about a lot of disasters that have already come to past, he even spoke about a Waco type event some time between now and 2009 (was he talking about the browns?) and it was one of the many reasons he claims why civil war in America became inevitable, now as too what he means by civil war in America is anyones guess ..it seem like civil war was the battle between authority’s against authority’s U.S. citizens against authority’s and non U.S. citizens against everyone… and being invaded by another country during that time and he said that would go on for about 5 years…and in 2015 world war 3…and that would last for one year….in the end he said 3 billion people dies world wide….he also said that “i am confident that you will start a war all by your self…” i guess he was referring to everyone when he said that…. you can look up this story at
We have the National Guard and many other respected service men helping us be secure today. We need to stop a World War 3 by using integrity to get along somehow. Everyone is’nt always going to like eachother but, we have to compromise. If we don’t we will destroy our planet. Scientists have said Mars froze to death. That is what would happen in the event of World War 3 with the weapons we have today. God or whomever we worship would not want that. We read the book of Muslim and have studied more religions. None of them have said war is ok or it is ok to destroy America. The time to be a hero is now. Just being decent we can save the world and be truly free. Law enforcement should get raises for preventing crime not creating it.
Guys, respect to you all for your positions and passions on your opinions.
Might i suggest from an outside perspective that rather than argue loudly with each other, that you argue with your Gov???
Surely you all abide by the rules of your land ( US ) and as such you are not above those rules. Those rules not only apply to you but also the government??
You live in a country where chruch and state are divided
You live in a country with freedom of speech
You live in a country where opportunity is your guardian angel, where your limitations are set by your own hand
I live in the UK, i am a UK citizen, born and bred, we have NO written constitution, only what is state by the government in the unwritten sense, and as such getting anything done here is a long arduous slog.
You all have the power to change laws by legislation, easier than any other country in the world, Governments server the people, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND !!
Don’t waste your rights, exercise them, stand up and be counted
Without truth there is no justice, without justice there is no life and without life there is nothing.
Here is a link to Wikipedia’s list of U.S. tax laws US tax acts. Without laws made by reasonable people who were elected to represent us, your possessions and livelyhood would be seized and controlled by your nearest warlord or militia leader. I have no doubt that if Ed Brown and his supporters were to get their way and the U.S. government were to collapse, then they would be the ones in power. And if they needed a road built or needed to defend their territory, they would simply seize what they needed by force, not by law, forcing the weaker into slavery and taking what treasure from them that they could.
I briefly heard Randy Weaver speak on the Alex Jones show.
Unfortunately, the show ended before the live ‘press conference’ ended. I think Randy was reporting for the show.
Listeners of the Alex Jones show know exactly what’s going on. Alex is tirelessly trying to wake us up by exposing the criminals. Consider that we are being lied to by our officials. It seems that we are making fun of the situation, as if to say we know, but don’t CARE. I challenge the journalists, as Randy Weaver has said, to do real investigative journalism and find out the truth, not what your bosses tell you to report. THIS IS SERIOUS!!
Investigate the Randy Weaver story. Check out, PLEASE, DR. Steven Jones’ paper on 9/11.
RED FLAG operations.
Investigate the eye witnesses, among them, firefighters, who said they heard loud ‘bangs’ coming from the basement before the planes even hit the towers. I challenge you.
Not convinced? See building 7. You tell me what happened.
We the people have to learn to discern what’s truth from fiction. This guy Weaver has inspired me. His wife was shot in the head, while holding her baby.
Who are the terrorists? Specialized snipers wearing ski masks in camouflage coming for you. The whole fiasco was found to be a set-up. Anyone got punished? NO, they were doing their jobs. Militia men coming after their own citizens. WAR ON TERROR?
WE are being terrorized people. Weaver is right. we need to hear his message. Religion and politics are designed to control us, to divide us, to keep us bickering amongst ourselves. We think ‘Our Lord’ is going to save us. How many millions of ‘Christians’ are getting murdered through these wars? How about Hindus, Muslims?
Who do you call upon then?
I suggest we need to call upon ourselves, united.
This is when “The Lord’ comes in: It’s when we ask OURSELVES
for the inner strength, courage, and fearlessness to stand up against tyranny. We gain these qualities by introspection, and we all have them, religion or no religion.
The church is a farce. Our clergy cannot grant us salvation anymore than our neighbour can. We need to question authority. Research the works of the master Jordan Maxwell.
The whole Christ story is a fake.
See the mind control going on?
Designed to dumb us down.
As for the income tax thing, do a little research gullible America. Check out the works of Aaron Russo.
THERE IS NO LAW!!!!!
Furthermore, the IRS is not a government agency. They are HQ’d in Puerto Rico!! They get you by INTIMIDATION and FEAR, not the Law. Check it out. I challenge you.
I ADMIRE THE COURAGE OF THESE BRAVE MEN. MANY HAVE BEEN SILENCED.
People, this cannot keep happening.
The people need to know what’s going on!
Why no press????
What kind of journalism is this? Mr. Weaver puts it into perspective when he said we see more coverage of the Hilton girls than the real issues.
There are dark forces operating here that control the media, the government, the church, the military.
Why are trillions being spent on defense when people are going hungry all over the world? I suggest that they know we are awakening, and they’re running scared!
Also, for the real thinkers, we need to look at the exopolitical perspective. Check out the evidence. Do the research instead of lame character bashing. Many researchers have gone missing for their work. If there’s nothing to it, then why?
We can’t let our citizens keep disappearing like this.
When will we stand up?
Thank You. Namaste.
Some facts:
1. The IRS is an “off-shore” company, and is not part of the consitutionally authorized departments of goverment.
2. The income tax is for those who work in/for the United States
3. The definition of United States for purposes of tax law is:
The term “United States” when used in a geographical sense includes only the States and the District of Columbia. (click here for reference)
4. The definition of State for purposes of tax law is:
The term “State” shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.
5. Therefore, the income tax only applies to those who work for the United States in the District of Columbia (the “United States”)
6. The definition of income is NOT defined in Title 26 (the Internal Revenue Code).
7. The Supreme Court has already defined “Income” many many times… which is “gains or profits from coporate activity.”
8. There is NO LAW which allows the goverment to collect any tax from workers in the private sector. Private means owned by people, public means owned by local, state, or federal goverment.
9. NONE of tax collected from the private sector pays for ANY services people expect from their goverment. Only taxes at the local level pay for raods, schools, police, fireman, etc.
10. The constitution only allows for two types of taxes. One is an excise tax – a tax on a privelege – which means, you pay a tax for any activity that you voluntarily do. If you want to smoke, you pay tobacco tax. If you want to drink alcohol, you pay whiskey distilling tax. If you DON’T want to pay those taxes, you simply avoid the activity. The second type of tax is a “direct” tax. It is a tax that the goverment can lay down on the people if it requires funding to meet an obligation. Direct taxes ae apportioned, which means they must be dealt evely, by census of the state, and then the state divides the bill evenly amongst the population of that state. Everyone pays EXACTLY the same amount.
11. The Supreme court has determined that the Income Tax is neither a “direct” tax, nor an “excise/indirect” tax… because it is NOT apportioned (it is not even amongst the population) and is not avoidable (you cannot avoid paying the tax according to corrupt judges and law-makers). Therefore, the income tax is an illegal, unconstitutional tax. It cannot be made leagl or constitutional no matter how many judges think it is. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE!
12. The income tax, indirectly, goes straight into the pockets of the owners of the Federal Reserve (which is neither federal, nor has any reserves – it is a private corporation).
13. The federal reserve system was gievn powers illegally by a then corrupt congress, and has absolutely NO jurisdiction within law… neither does the IRS for that matter.
14. These several States (the united states of America) are sovereign, and do not have to follow laws dictated by the federal goverment – rather, the federal goverment must adhere to the limited powers gievn to it by the states. A state is not alive, it is not a person, nor does it have rights. Only the PEOPLE in those states are flesh and blood. The PEOPLE comprise the “state”, therefore, the federal goverment CANNOT force ANYTHING unto the very people which gave it limited powers to begin with.
15. IRS documents DO NOT contain a valid OMB number.
16. The Paperwork Reduction Act states that no entity can force someone to provide ANY information unless it has been authorized by the Office of Management and Budget. That is why documents contain an OMB number, and a Paperwork Reduction Act statement.
17. No paperwork (yes, not even a 1040) from the IRS contains a legitamite OMB number, therefore you CANNOT be compelled to fill one out… it is ILLEGAL! (Click here for more info)
18. No matter how you slice it, Ed and Elaine Brown are completely innocent of any accusations, since they are being accused of breaking laws which don’t exist.
19. Judges DO NOT make laws – Congress (state and federal) does. Judges are ONLY there to enforce the will of the people (the jury). A judge does not even have the authority to decide if a law is even valid… only a jury has that power.
20. Did you know that if you are ever on a jury, and even if the person did do something that is against the “law”… a jury can determine that the law is “unconstitutional” or “invalid” and can say that the person is innocent simply because the jury has determined that the law cannot be upheld? THE JURY HAS ALL THE POWER… THE JUDGE HAS NONE!
21. Did you know that 99% of all Americans have no idea about anything having to do with being a sovereign, or what is means to be free, or what the obligations of the goverment are, or how the goverment even works, or how laws work, or how to be an American, or how to defend their rights, or what the Constitution and Bill of Rights says… or means?
WAKE UP!
It’s time to wake up from your sleepy slumber, and take back this America… YOUR America.
In the words of the great Ben Stern (father of Howard Stern): “Stop being stupid, you moron!”
I encourage everyone there supporting the Brown’s to take a look at “The Occult World Of Commerce” by the master researcher Jordan Maxwell and Jason Whitney.
PLEASE!!!!
It was posted on google video for a long time, but guess what?
Thank God it’s still on YouTube.
I’m sure there are intellectuals who can dig into this, and pull up the judge’s files, where the funds are going, etc.
Once we realize how corrupt the system is, we can use it to our advantage. This is when this research counts the most,
by those willing to stand up and expose the lie!
Much has been mentioned about Aaron Russo’s film, but nothing about the master Jordan Maxwell. As he is so used to saying, “somebody better do their homework.” He’s been researching this stuff for over forty years. He knows what he’s talking about.
It’s pretty sad when Alex Jones is willing to fund Weaver’s travel to the Brown home, when there are mega news corporations with unlimited funds and the best of equipments… And NO coverage!!!
We need to wake up.
Thank You. Namaste.
Ladies and Gentlemen, Boys and Girls…You, like the Browns, are all delusional. I live in Plainfield, NH. We have known for years that Ed Brown is a whack job, and his latest antics are just more proof. Ed and the rest of you fools are more than happy to drive on the roads that have been paid for with federal tax money. You are more than happy to have the protection of the military that is paid for with federal tax money. That’s right, you fruitcake from WV, your son is getting paid by the taxpayers. But not by Ed Brown.
Income taxes in this country are currently the primary means of funding the US Government. As others have suggested, if you aren’t happy you have a few choices. Because our government is “by the people, for the people” we have been given the right to elect our representatives. So what you could do is get a candidate for office that is eloquent enough to run and win (and that would exclude all of the marginally literate on this site), and work tirelessly to get him or her elected. If your ideas and values really do represent the majority of how Americans think then it shouldn’t be too difficult. I think we all know how that will turn out. Your other option is that you can do what that doofus that is now living in China has done. You can move. If you don’t like it here, pack your bags and hit the bricks.
Right, wrong, or indifferent our government is what it is. We can’t pick and choose to follow what we like, and ignore, or make ridiculous arguments to avoid that which we don’t like. Ed and Elaine are wrong. They have been convicted and sentenced. They need to face reality and give up before innocent people get hurt.
Here is the law. 26 USC section 1, et seq.
It’s not just judicial; it’s very clearly statutory as well.
Like moths to a flame, some people find themselves irresistibly drawn to the tax protestor movement’s illusory claim that there is no legal requirement to pay federal income tax. And, like the moths, these people sometimes get burned. Lorin G. Sloan believed these claims and because he acted upon them now faces four months in a federal prison; there can be little doubt that he has been burned.
[…]
The real tragedy of this case is the unconscionable waste of Mr. Sloan’s time, resources, and emotion in continuing to pursue these wholly defective and unsuccessful arguments about the validity of the income tax laws of the United States. Despite our rejection of Mr. Sloan’s legal analysis of the tax laws, we are not unmindful of the sincerity of his beliefs. On the other hand, we are less sure of the sincerity of the professional tax protestors who promote their views in literature and meetings to persons like Mr. Sloan, yet are unlikely ever to face the type of penalties incurred by him. United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499 (7th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1060 (1992).
See this site:
“We can’t pick and choose to follow what we like”
actually… YES people can ya fuckin flag waving faggot of authority, capitalism and nationalism!
its called being in individual rather than an obedient fitter inner! its what being free really is about!
btw… i liked your LIES about what the taxes pay for. especially the one about the world’s #1 terrorist army (the us army) “protecting us”… nice try government shill!
““There certainly is a law; the judges made it up. They’re allowed to do that in the U.S. and 49 out of the 50 states. Whatever the judges say the law is, is the law, even if what they say has no relation whatsoever to what the statutes say. That’s, unfortunately, how the system works and has worked for almost a thousand years.”
No offense intended, but that’s a pile of BS. A lie repeated one billion times is still a lie.
NO TAXATION WITHOUT LEGISLATION! I’ll say it again : NO TAXATION WITHOUT LEGISLATION!”
=============================================================
Um OK…
The tax laws are created by CONGRESS (not the courts) and therefore are our REPRESENTATIVES. (”No taxation without representation“)
The Internet is interesting in the way it let’s us peer into the minds of the average, rather stupid, American.
Simple question: if you don’t believe taxation is right, how do you propose to pay for things like schools, highways, etc.? These are necessary and NOT free. And you and I both know the average schmuck won’t cough up one thin dime for either — or anything else for the good of the public — if he has the choice not to.
Oh, and there’s the small matter of our military. No taxes means no military, which means no national defense. The days of farmer/fighters rebelling against a distant king are over. The untrained masses, whether armed or not, would be no match against even a small country’s trained, equipped military. No matter how many guns you’ve got stashed in your hideaway, see what good they’ll do against tanks and choppers with chain guns. Or for that matter, see what your community is like once the cops, judges and jailers are all gone and the animals are running loose in your streets, taking your property and life, raping your family. “Oh, but I have guns. I’ll be fine.” Yeah, that’s what people in all these little tax-free, backwater shithole countries thought, too. Now they’re basically slaves of warlords who keep the peace by handing over their 14 year old daughters for the entertainment of the thugs.
Now don’t go railing on about “that’s not what taxes really pay for” — sure it is. Don’t be a dismissive dumbass. I’ll grant you that millions, if not billions, are squandered and used for unsavory purposes. But compared to what’s spent toward uses of lasting value (infrastructure like roads, water treatment, education, and — like it or not — military defense) that’s a small part of it all.
No, I don’t want my tax money misused. And even if 90% is being misused, that doesn’t mean taxes aren’t right. It means people aren’t paying attention and voting right.
If a single one of you can show me a way to run this country right and have what we have now (or better) WITHOUT taxes, show me. I’ll make sure you’re elected president. I’m absolutely open to another plan. But in my experience, the anti-taxers and every other whiner are all complaint, no plan, which is the case with 99.99% of all complainers. If that’s the case, move to the fucking sticks somewhere, be self-sufficient with no income, then you’ll be free of taxes. Otherwise, shut the fuck up. Don’t complain about the conditions you so happily prosper and take comfort in. This internet didn’t pop up all by itself either, you know. Developed with taxes.
“#
Swordsman | June 16, 2007 2:09 am
26 USC § 1
I strongly recommend it to the Brown’s and the fools who support them.”
thats sweet of you to bring this to attention, but i’ll bet that 80% of the idiots posting here don’t even know what that stands for, nor how to even begin to go about researching it.
Who else thinks LJ is a Fed?
This is the craziest thing I have heard in a long time. If its not written down, doesnt mean its not a law. People have been paying this for a long time, we all have to do it. Shame on you Mr and Mrs. Brown, you make all hard working, TAX PAYING Americans look bad. Stand up and take responsiblity for your thoughtless, selfish selves. I hate to be a negative thinker, but this doesnt look good. If we learned anything from WACO is that when these people make up their minds, the outcome looks bleak. I hope for all the best for all concerned.
Hey David! That’s a joke, right? I’ve been on the web for damned near 20 years, and unlike others I never chose to be anonymous. My “creds” can be determined by my many entries and posts, all over the web, that can be found by searching my nick-name “Little Joe”… I’m Webmaster for my Club’s sites as well as others. I live on SR 33/119(1/4 mile West of Russett Rd.)Stumptown, West(by God!)Virginia, I can be reached by phone 24/7 at 304-354-6048… I’m a 53 year old ‘Aging Biker Thug’, Single Father, raised a Fine Son who is off in the Navy now! Far from “FED”, even you would be amused at that assumption if ya knew even a little about me!
LOL!
LJ
WE Support Ed & Elaine!
www.hmcnomad.com
www.hessiansmc.com
LJ
If you are not a Fed I apologize. But it certainly seems to be so the way you are attempting to incite violence on this forum. This is a common practice by the Feds. Incite then arrest.
As far as the address and creds, the Feds have a lot of tax supported resources in which to fabricate this info. It is not a way to reliable way to clarify who you are. The whole racist thing really seems to something that would be in an undercover work training manual.
Do the right thing dude, quite your job and come back to being an American and a patriot. You can do it. I believe in you.
Ok David, apology accepted! I can tell we probably do have differing aspects on the world around us and in particular the issues at hand. I feel obliged to mention that I see the FED as the ones that FIRST introduced “violence” toward the Browns. I am of the opinion that violence can only be opposed with a defence that may include greater violence to protect oneself. At this point in the ‘game’ it seems that the FED leave many folk, few if ANY, other choices.
In any case y’all are welcome to come by for a sip of (untaxed) brew, set on the porch an’ discuss the ways of the world… at this stage of my life I fear none, and the FED know me well e’nuff to jus’ wanna leave me alone…
Unlike that which was surmised above by others, I am NOT “un-traveled nor un-educated… I AM however rather opinionated!
Peace and POWER to ya and the Browns! LJ
Taxes aren’t unjust, and they aren’t immoral. Like roads? Like traffic signals? Like Police & fire depoartment services? How about food that’s not rotten, drugs that aren’t counterfeit, gasoline that doesn’t have water in it? How about getting clear radio, televsion, and cel phone reception? How about not seeing snuff films at the theatre?
The government, in it’s ideal role as protector and servant of the people, NEEDS money to do it’s job.
If, in fact, it’s suffering from malignancies, we need to quit voting for bastards, and become an informed electorate.
Sorry, let me clarify: “As a hardworking, overtaxed, middle-class American that pays more than my fair share of the bills this crackpot country of mine incurs, I have NO SYMPATHYU for affluent tax cheats.”
I mean, Jesus, look at that house. It’s huge, & sits on 110 acres, and they’re GOING to go to jail or get shot over $200,000? Fuck ‘em.
The corupt-ness of this government’s political leaders is all but apparent. The impotance of our vote is legend! It seems that our power to withhold the finance of the ‘out-of-control’ continuance of these crimes lay in only to STOP paying for it! The government needs to be required to do the PEOPLES bidding! The people need to be informed better of that with which the government does with their $$$… I’ll pay for that which betters AMERICANS not the rest of the world… Let’s get the veterans out of the gutters, let’s get health care for ALL Americans, let’s get education on par, nay BETTER than CUBA… If we DO need to fight WAR, let’s at least care for the fallen and wounded warriors… LJ
Hey Newt, let me remind you that state taxes and motor vehicle registration fees & purchases pay way more than enough for our “roads”, “traffic signals” and related infrastructure. Taxes on our groceries along with the taxation of the providers of same pay for the safety of our food. The drug companies are a whole different story, they make plenty from the suffering of the un-well. The communication industry makes plenty from their fees from advertisers and information/entertainment from that which should be their obligation to the people. Let’s not be blind to the amount of taxes are paid for EVERY gallon of gas we buy! The government gets PLENTY of $$$ to do THOSE jobs that they should do. We’ve mostly agreed to pay these taxes, but how many times must we PAY? If I bust my ass at labor or other form of income, why must I pay from that income too? JEEZE! The Multi-nationals go “global” to avert taxation while enjoying the profits of our purchases. DAMN! I can go on-and-on, but I ’spose so can you… LJ
Wow Elaine got a education subsidized by American tax dollars and then she has the gall to complain about income taxes.
Of course, judging from the syntax and grammar of a lot of posters here, I really wonder if you availed yourselves of the educational opportunities provided by our tax dollars.
Seriously, do something more productive than whine about taxes. (like work).
Whining about taxes? I think its already been mentioned, but some seem to think we reap some benefit from the money taken from us unlawfully. It is considered un-American to protest this taxation. I say the opposite is true- those who are educated, realize that the IRS uses the money for things we don’t know about, and we assume we are getting better access to education and other items. Reagan investigated this in his tenure and found that not one penny goes toward things we use like roads and education. Wow!
Again, Newt, I think you assume that a government should provide all those things. Even if that were cool (which we shouldn’t even be dependant on those things), we could provide those things for ourselves and be FREE! And also, we shouldn’t assume our taxes are even close to paying for those things.
FUCK ‘EM! Once again I say, “Shoot at their heads, they wear body armor…” OFF their dogs and robots too! I only feel bad for the DOGS! LJ
FEDS! Go home to your Families & your Children, do NOT die for the un-just whims of your corrupt MASTERS… LJ
Even if you care little for the dozens you may KILL over this, do y’all think it will be worth even the one, two or many of you that will perish over this issue? You FEDS still have the choice NOT to follow un-lawful ORDERS!
LJ
FEDS! What will you tell the wives and children of YOUR fallen brothers? You ’splain to their children why their Fathers died! For WHAT? Money… That will surely comfort their Families(sic)… PAY your money to MAMMON but don’t expect all of us too… LJ
hey “Texan”
could U possibly expose yaself further as a TYPICAL mainstream fitter-inner fatty white meriKKKan male?
Immigration law goes unenforced every single day nationwide for people who are here illegaly because it may cause them some hardship. Nobody seems to care wheather the Browns, who are here legally, suffer any hardship because of “IRS law”. As I see it this is unfair and unequal treatment and judgement should be for the Browns based on discrimination.
I really feel sorry for people like Some Guy. The name is perfect as this seems to be 90% of the uneducated masses out there think the same way. The United States as a whole is a lost cause. The masses have been brain washed with belief in the communist manifesto or fascist thought. The only chance us “crazys” have is to move to New Hampshire. Leave the rest of these poor misguided fools behind. We can not save them and really I would not even want to try. They are worthless to me. A waste of space at the least and dangerous as hell at the most.
God! I am damn tired of the misinformation about how the internet was created with tax money. It wasn’t. Do some god-damned research on the subject you mindless idiot (some guy). It is really easy to continue to spout misinformation without ever checking on the facts yourself isn’t it, you government schooled semi-functional moron?
Here is another one for you on the same subject;
Al Gore created the internet.
Now read, memorize and repeat to everyone you come across and you will sound real smart.
One for the road;
Humans are the main cause of global warming.
Repeat this often enough and you may even win an award for your misinformation.
Retard.
Simple question: if you don’t believe taxation is right, how do you propose to pay for things like schools, highways, etc.?
Oh, and there’s the small matter of our military. No taxes means no military, which means no national defense. The days of farmer/fighters rebelling against a distant king are over.
========================
As for schools, private schools can do a much better job with much less money. Can you say slash your property tax bill?
As for highways, I already pay for that via speeding tickets, gasoline taxes, registration, tolls, and other similar things. And guess what? The roads are still congested every morning. Doesn’t sound like the government is doing that good a job, now does it?
You think farmers rebelling against a distant king are long over, huh? I vaguely recall a few times in history the US has sent highly trained combat units, who ended up humiliated by the local farmers. I also vaguely recall a few times the government has promised a short swift military intervention that turned into a never-ending war because, well, those darn farmers’ rakes must be a dangerous weapon. We better outlaw them.
========================
Taxes aren’t unjust, and they aren’t immoral. Like roads? Like traffic signals? Like Police & fire depoartment services? How about food that’s not rotten, drugs that aren’t counterfeit, gasoline that doesn’t have water in it? How about getting clear radio, televsion, and cel phone reception? How about not seeing snuff films at the theatre?
========================
I hate our roads, they’re too congested, and too slow. I also hate traffic signals, because whenever I have to make a left turn I generally have to wait for several cycles of the traffic light. Fire departments used to be traditionally volunteers, while today they must come to my apartment when my dinner sets off the state-law mandated smoke detectors. I suppose they’ve become some sort of a sex symbol, too. The police spend most of their time to my knowledge enforcing victimless crimes. As for bad products, surely by now you know how fast information travels; money greedy companies have it in their interest to keep customers happy, or their customers will take their money elsewhere. Fords blowin up would be a perfect example; the government didn’t do much, but the consumer spoke with his money. Quite honestly, I don’t see the government playing a significant positive role in my daily living. There was some company, that wanted to test 100% of the imported food for some disease, unlike the FDA, which tests only 1%, and the FDA wouldn’t let them…darn short term memory, I can’t remember the details again.
David your the retard, the Government did create the internet and approations funds or tax funds paid the bill,as you stateed “The only chance us “crazys” have is to move to New Hampshire. Leave the rest of these poor misguided fools behind”. Now your talking then the government won’t have to look to far to find all of you.
The only misinformation is this crap your reading on this site. If I were you I would be very careful on what I was spouting off about. Looks like no one actually knows who Michael Hampton really is, maybe this site was set up to get the line on the “crazys” like you. Maybe this is a Government site. HA HA tag your it. Hampton will take this posting off soon as reads it, WHY? LET HIM PROVE WHO HE REALLY IS. DD HORTON
They say nothing is certain but death and taxes. Are taxes fair??? Do people desserve the oppurtunity to become rich and fulfill thier dreams?? When you have it people want to steal it and when you don’t have it they could care less. If people can’t be decent and civilized how are they going to solve problems. The Brown’s have rights just like all of us. Why is it if someone has more than the rest they are nuts?? That is an unfair and unjust way law enforcement uses people to steal by labling them as nuts. This is dead wrong. Taxes are a difficult subject but, an easy solution is possibly universal taxes with all people being able to implement where it should go not just the rich and powerful. All people desserve a fighting chance. Another game that is being played out is a group of gangsters find a house they like then they play the people out by running up high bills and ect..so, they become unable to pay the taxes. This is true crime. Some of thier family members work in law enforcement. Could the Brown’s be victims ?? We have seen it happen before. This is not our URL.
I’m wonderin’ ’bout this Blog, or whatever ya call it! I’ve given up my home address and all here, as well as my opinions, I don’t regret THAT! But I’ve had a small private plane do a 360 once or twice t’day, THAT hasn’t happened in 4 years… Now I’ve had THEM do ‘THAT’ to me before SO I’m in lockdown mode… I’m “loaded & locked”… It ain’t gonna be EZ fer ‘em…
LJ
Actually, the US gov did create the father of the modern intnernet called Arpanet. This was supposed to be a form of communication that your hard earned tax dollars would have enabled the military to perform their last duties when the fire rained from the skies and obliterated humanity from the face of the earth. It was the first digital Command and control system. Fortunately, it wasn’t ever used in that fashion.
But if you think that being taxed, is unfair, how does fair play when money taxed from you is WASTED on stupid futile projects and failed befor ethey even start… and all cos your Gov says they have too.
the UK government wasted millions and millions on IT systems and Radio systems and military systems without any proper thought to where that wasted money could have actually done some good. Yet we have to pay cos otherwise we’re put into prison. It’s organised robbery which ever way you look at it. I have no problems paying taxes for essential stuff, but i draw the line at paying for peoples mistakes.
I have read most of these as I too follow the Browns, and you know I never really put people in their place as they have a right to an opinion, but damn people get your facts straight.
Cirino AKA Reno, has the .50 cal not his father, who has military training in bio chem and nuc warfare.
Not to attack or single out, but buck09 you are similar to the masses that are blinded by your own views of just let me eat my cereal, watch my cartoons, and oh if there is a murder going on next store, please allow me to turn up the stereo so that I may not be forced to take action!
Do you think by ignoring the problems of the world that they will just go away?
Are you familiar with Ruby Ridge, Waco, the Browns case, how about Yori Kahl and his father who was a WWII decorated veteran, who after he was brutally murdered and dismembered by us marshals on federal orders, he was buried with full military honors?
Nothing but smoke and mirrors, the intent is to keep you on the fence, those who sit on the fence are nothing more than buzzards watching and waiting to see which one will go first.
Looks folks, I’m not a fanatic, but I am now a father, and with that I have and feel an inherent responsibility to make this world a better place by any means necessary.
The greatest teacher of violence, the United States, has taught me that at first use Diplomacy, if Diplomacy doesn’t work use volume, and when volume doesn’t work, use bullets!
I have never killed anyone in my life nor do I ever intend to, but if they show up at my door next, my family and I will die to protect our constitutional freedoms.
In fact, I believe the system is setup so that they can show force in any situation.
Why else would they teach us growing up, the constitution, the bill of rights, and its importance for the American people, just to show us as adults they can ignore it?
They knew this would cause outrage, just as they know they are further breeding terrorist in other parts of the world, simply by killing their family and friends.
The government is all powerful through its mazes of think tanks and genius’s however when was the last time you saw a professional, genius who wasn’t a killer?
Ever notice in the media, I know I said it, when you hear cases of murder within upscale communities, I don’t mean the Domestic Violence type…
BTK is an example. He even has his own family!
How about the Doctor who several years ago was found out to be killing for years and was burying the bodies of his kill on his property?
And I’m sure there are more. My point is these are the type of people you have elected, murderers, guns for hire, baby killers and rapist. Child molesters….
But just wait till next election and try again!
Get your head out of the sand and start taking action for your lives, your children’s lives, and your children’s children’s lives!
As always no violence intended, there are always peaceful solutions to every movement. Just be prepared to re-attack with greater force then what was first initiated against you.
Nonya
“I have never killed anyone in my life nor do I ever intend to, but if they show up at my door next, my family and I will die to protect our constitutional freedoms.”
They showed up at the Brown’s door because they broke the law…yes, the law…were convicted…sentenced…and chose not to go to jail. Last time I checked, that wasn’t really an option.
As far as the rest of you moving to New Hampshire, thanks but no thanks. We’ve got more than our share of small minded dumb asses. We don’t need any more. You’ve clearly not done any research into the New Hampshire tax system. Live free or die…hardly.
“Looks folks, I’m not a fanatic, but I am now a father, and with that I have and feel an inherent responsibility to make this world a better place by any means necessary.”
What exactly does that mean? It would have made you sound like much less of a skinhead had you just ended that sentence after “a better place.”
Paying taxes is not the problem, it’s the wreckless unconstitutional spending(breaking the rule of law)by our politicians that is the real crime problem we have nowadays.
Nobody minds paying their fair share. In fact the Browns have paid more taxes than most people on this post, seeing how the Browns are self made millionaires.
Who wants an IRS who totes around paramiltiaristic weapontry.
Not me. Who wants a tax system based on your labor. Not me.
Federal income tax only serves right now to pay interest on national debt.
It’s not the minority of tax evaders that’s the problem, it’s the spending that is out of control.
Put the heat on the politicians, not decent people like the Browns.
I don’t mind paying taxes, I consider it a small tribute and expression of gratitude to the blessing that being born here is to me. That being said, I also recognize that the politicians and bureaucrats are stealing us blind.
Take a look at your State’s budgets for the last 25 years. Outrageous increases every year yet no improvement in services and usually a significant decline in services. Where’s the money going?
Anyone remember all the hoopla about how allowing state lotteries would pay for education and ease the property tax burden on us citizens? Billions of dollars are generated by the lotteries every year and yet property taxes continue to rise and the quality of education continues to decline. Where’s the money going?
The government is spending untold tens of thousands of dollars to apprehend a couple that “owes” them a paltry sum of money (comparatively speaking)and spends not a penny to apprehend or prosecute the perpetrators of the 80,000+ deaths per year caused by medical mistakes in hospitals in this country. More deaths per year than American KIAs in 10 years of the Viet Nam conflict eliminating untold millions in potential tax revenue yet no one is held responsible by our government.
There are 4 types of people today.
1) People who have no idea – clueless. Think typical 17-22 year olds. They are oblivious to their own government.
2)People who hear this and disregard it and its speakers as garbage and nuts (my former classification)
3)People who hear this news and understand and believe and support Ed and Elaine and oppose the macro picture of a new world order.
4)People who hear these things, know it’s true, and want it and more of it.
No one who has looked at not only the current federal register, but especially the former federal register dealing with Title 26 of the U.S. code can conclude anything other than tax on income does not apply to American citizens earning income exclusively in the U.S.
Start there with your research and pay close attention to the wording of the statute and how language “disappeared” during the last revision. There is no doubt it was written and continues to be written to deceive you.
Judges do not make law. IRS does not make law. Read the constitution and you’ll learn what government branch makes laws. You’ll learn who is authorized with “coining and regulating the value of currency.” This is not trivial, but critical. The power to tax is the power to destoy. That is why a direct tax levied on individuals is unconstitutional. That is why any direct tax must be apportioned. That is why the U.S. supreme court ruled after the 16th amendment was passed the amendment “gave no new taxing power to the federal government.” The amendment language has to do with defining “income” and “apportionment” and “source” not with simply taxing all wages earned by everyone. That much is obvious from the constant reference to “taxable income” in statute and IRS publication. The direct tax is prohibited because it could be used in an example like this. Congress attempts to pass a law requiring anyone who has something negative to say about the federal government to apply for and receive a permit to do so. The statute is promptly struck down by the supreme court upon the first citizen challenge. So the congress places a $100,000 tax on any “durable” media commentary on the federal government. Circumventing the 1st amendment and the separation of powers. “Durable” typically means in print, recording, or internet – not fleeting conversation. Now you are starting to see how dangerous this notion is that the federal government can place a direct tax on to a citizen. But it is more than that. Once you have done thorough research you will find out that this is a small part of a big picture in America. A path that is well engineered, financed, sinister and deadly. I didn’t believe what I was hearing until I found out for myself through months of research that for example “REX – 84″ exists. That the last three presidents have done awful things to the integrity and soverignty of the USA. The congress and courts are the accomplices. Accomplices to what? It really got off the ground in 1913 – and continues today. Read the United Nations NPT (Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty) My fellow American it calls for not only nuclear arms reduction, but disarmament of all conventional arms under international supervision – and the U.S. has signed it. The entire intent of the history of this nation has been in creating a one world government. Forcing people to pay tax on wages and government confiscation of land without just compensation are 2 critical elements to timing the erasure of the borders and soverignty of the USA. Each and every part of the puzzle is on the table and ready to be assembled so to speak. Whether it’s Veri-chip implant, establishment of a world court, attack on traditinal family and morals by media culture, or rich villans pitting the two groups who offer the most opposition to their plot of world conquest against each other, to kill and weaken each other and leave the world helpless to their takeover – it is all happening right now in our lifetime. Those two groups are Christians and Muslims.
First they will demand your firearm, then your Bible. I hate to tell you there are government publications defining terrorists as Christians or people who frequently use the word “constitution.” In this brave new world you and I are the terrorist. That is why when you see a maggot like George Bush erasing amendments from the bill of rights – it concerns you. Whether you were snatched by some intelligence beaurocracy in the middle of the night and whisked off to a secret location to be held “indefinitely” without any access to a lawyer or even a grand jury or someone else was doesn’t matter. If it happens to anyone – it can happen to you. It establishes precident. Every bit of freedom you surrender, you never get back without bloodshed. The witholding of money from your paycheck is a good example. That isn’t income tax to pay the interest owed to the federal reserve bank (which is where your tax money goes) No, that is war money. To assist in the cost of fighting World War II. You didn’t know that? In the early 40s it was passed off as the “war tax” or “defence tax”. Someone call the congress and let them know World War II has ended so they can stop withholding money from my pay now.
The same way national ID card legislation can be slipped into and emergency war funding bill, the political powers once again in 1943 stuck a knife into the back of a sleeping America. It takes a lot of courage to look at all the evidence and accept the truth as depressing and frightening as it is, however, we must. Denial only digs our hole deeper. If you want to change things in America, first off realize you aren’t alone. Do your own research instead of taking someone else’s word. Finally, co-ordinate. We must work together whether Democrat, Republican, Independent – it doesn’t matter. We all must support candidates at every level who support constitutional government. That is how lobbyist have turned politicians into whores. They aren’t concerned with any particular district, they financially support whoever is for sale, to pass their agenda into legislation. We can easily do this through sharing information. We can elect principled men and women as easily as lobbyists can elect whores.
Don’t forget your supreme power as a juror. Concerned friend you are the ultimate authority on a grand jury or any jury. You may return a vote of not guilty at any trial. Consider this carefully because it may be you on trial one day – proceed as if the person on trial was you or your loved one. Even if someone’s behavior fits the desciption of a criminal act to a “T” you may find them not guilty. We the people have the right to try the law at the same time as we try the accused.
When government fears its citizens you have liberty, when citizens fear their government you have tyrrany.
United we stand.
I maybe a little late with this, but the internet or more specificly the World Wide Web was not created by the US goverment. The US Gov did have something in the way of creating a portion of the internet but was not at all the primary force behind it.
“It was then followed by the opening of the network to commercial interests in 1985. Important, separate networks that offered gateways into, then later merged with, the NSFNet include Usenet, BITNET and the various commercial and educational networks, such as X.25, Compuserve and JANET. Telenet (later called Sprintnet) was a large privately-funded national computer network with free dial-up access in cities throughout the U.S. that had been in operation since the 1970s. This network eventually merged with the others in the 1990s as the TCP/IP protocol became increasingly popular. The ability of TCP/IP to work over these pre-existing communication networks, especially the international X.25 IPSS network, allowed for a great ease of growth. Use of the term “Internet” to describe a single global TCP/IP network originated around this time.”
It is the “private interests” that are the major contributing factor here and not the gov’s military net which was added later. Sorry for all of you that have been decieved.
Gordon Kahl shot two federal agents in self defense as those agents attempted to ambush him. The whole issue began over taxes. Eventually the federales cornered him and murdered him. Does anyone remember that?
For all of you bootlicking, flag-waving, government butt-kissing folks who actually believe that our federal income taxes go to anything but the cofers of the Federal Reserve, please take this time to pull your heads out of your hineys and do a little research before coming to the aid of our assholic, corrupt government. If you spend ANY time at the Quatloos site, you are obviously a brainwashed dumb ass. How about spending quality time with Aaron Russo or Alex Jones (you know, people who really care where our once sovereign republic is headed) Please stopped with that old worn out line, “The courts have consistantly ruled” horsepoo. Didn’t your mom and dad ever teach you that 20,000 wrongs don’t make a right? The problem with blogs is that certain people (some guy) have not put the time in doing investigative research before spouting their positions. It’s true that some old farts will always believe what their government officials tell them no matter what. But hey guys, correct me on this one if I’m wrong, but won’t most politicians whore their own mothers out for a saw buck? We can only try to support guys like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucenich even though they’re underdogs and the Diebold voting machines are rigged.
In this whole article you make one point worth repeating:
Their only authority comes from the guns they carry; …
Since it’s the same people who own the media and corporations that put themselves into high power political positions, the reason voting has become irrelevant, I have a suggestion as to where ‘We the People’ begin our revolution. We stop supporting corporations. Buy local. Quit your corporate jobs – I did. Farm, if you can. Use as little utility, electricity and water, as you can. Drive as little as possible. Move close to where your necessary supplies are located. Encourage your friends to get together to discuss finding ways to use corporations less. Never go to stores like Wal-Mart and Best Buy. What is it that they sell that you absolutely cannot live without OR cannot buy locally elsewhere or even via the internet (while there are no taxes yet). Let’s start using our heads and sticking it to the man. Do we really need television? I watch almost no television and haven’t watched network tv for years. I have never shopped at Wal-Mart (I’ve only been to Target 10 times in my life and I’m 34). If we give corporations less money they in turn have less money to give to dirty politicians. Do we really need to be taking the 15 prescription per day the doctor (who gets kick backsfrom the pharm corporations) tell us we need? Educate yourself and cut out what you don’t really need to live.
Instead of us talking and bitching let’s start taking ACTION and live less wastefully. Let’s stop giving away our money on useless junk. Stop being consumerist spendoids. Let’s start with ourselves and then go after the politicians. We cannot be hypocritical about this – our revolution. Start at home. Revolt!!
I have read many, many, many comments on the Browns and rights and taxation and what is or is not legal. Since so many of you are against paying taxes, you don’t, right? Well, why not practice what you preach? But, I am guessing that most, if not all, of you do pay your taxes. If you don’t like this country and prefer to sit and complain about everything, when you could actually be out doing some good, why not leave. Get a passport, defect, become a citizen somewhere else. There are plenty of other countries. We don’t need anarchy here. The Browns are wrong. It’s simple really. I’m not getting into the politics of all of this, because I do not want to be like the rest of you anti-Americans. There are other issues not being addressed. Elaine Brown hurt many many people. Her patients. People who depended on her for her services as a doctor of dentistry. She left them without regard to what would happen to them. No one can get their records and now they have to find someone else that they can trust? She took their money for services rendered and did not pay taxes. Ed Brown simply has no regard what-so-ever for this country, the State of New Hampshire, or the people who live here. So get out. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out a solution to the Brown’s complaints. Actually, deportation could prove to be the perfect punishment. That is if any other country will have them. Life is just too short for this crap.
All you “they should pay their fair share” mindless idiots need to wake up. I used to think just like you 3 weeks ago. Watch America: From Freedom to Fascism and be open to the fact that everything you know is a lie. It makes me sick to say that I have fallen for these scum like Bush and his trash cohorts. I am awake now and more dangerous now than when I was a sleeping dolt. see my blog at to see how I woke up and see the resources that brought me there. Want to learn more about the unconstitutional nature of the income taxes? download Joe Bannister’s – Former IRS Investigator at
BTW – WE LIKE THIS COUNTRY! The Democratic Republic not your version of a POS Democracy/Oligarchy
LIVE FREE!
Actually there is no law that says you have to pay income tax. The Supreme Court has stated the income taxes are illegal. Watch America: Freedom to Fascism on Google Video.
Idiots. The feds have a right to levy taxes you morons. How the hell are they supposed to pay for national defense, government functions, etc. Those idiots should do us all a favor and shoot themselves.
They are wasting my hard earned tax money right now. THEY OWE ME MONEY.
Agreed. And the longer this goes on, the more we pay. So ship the Browns out…Let’s try the Sudan? They don’t pay taxes there…
I support Ed and Elaine Brown, a couple who have been convicted of tax evasion by the government of the United States.
The Browns are right, and their refusal to pay income tax is not only right, but legal.
In fact, the taxes that the Browns are being forced to pay is illegal.
Let me begin.
There are many forms of taxation.
Property, excise, sales, and income are just a few of the commodities that are taxed in the United States.
Of those, income tax is a tax that is based on earnings, with a certain percent going to tax.
Until 1913, there was no such thing as an income tax.
At that time, Congress brought forth the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the federal income tax amendment, which was allegedly ratified in 1913.
To ratify the 16th Amendment, at least 3/4 or 36 of the states had to approve the amendment.
There were 48 states at that time.
Of those 48 states, only two actually ratified the 16th amendment, and those same two may not have done so legally.
In other words, the 16th amendment giving the government the right to tax income, was never made legal.
To put this into more simple terms, it is illegal to collect income tax.
It has been illegal since 1913.
The government has no right to make you pay an income tax.
In fact, it is theft.
In 1913, Secretary of State Philander Knox announced ratification by 38 states, but among those same 38 states, there is absolute proof that:
The Kentucky Senate voted down the resolution by a 22 to 9 vote.
The California legislative assembly never recorded any vote to ratify the 16th amendment.
The State of Minnesota sent nothing to the Secretary of State in Washington.
The California legislative assembly never recorded any votes which means that no one knows how California voted, if it even voted at all.
This all means that the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was never ratified, meaning it was never approved.
So the U.S. Government never had the legal right to collect income tax from its people.
This means that Ed and Elaine Brown are right in refusing to pay this tax, and the government is wrong.
I am in complete support of them!
If you are as well, please sign this petition:
Thank you.
George Vreeland Hill
I think there’s a bigger problem here. This is it:
We have a hard time believing that our government or elected officials or the media or our institutions or our church will deliberately lie and deceive us. We are unwilling to question authority. So we accept their claims, thinking that they are for our best interest. But we need to question. As humanity, we need to wake up and realize that these institutions are not acting on the voice of the people, but they are self-serving. They do this by keeping us in the dark. We think we are living in the land of the free. Freedom is an illusion. We are being controlled. By fear! Check this out:
September Clues…
Check this out folks: There were no planes on 9/11!
Google video
I think the problem is we can’t believe that our government will lie to us. We think they have our best interest in mind. Come to your own conclusions! FEAR is the name of the game. That’s how our masters keep us in line. Do we want to be slaves? We CAN awaken! WE MUST!!!
It all goes back to one thing when it comes to taxes to run the government.
Federal taxes would be nothing if the federal government ran only on what it is Constitutionally required to do.
Ron Paul is right when he asks “what should the role of the government be.” We’ve embraced the nanny state in America.So government coddles you from cradle to grave.
We need to get back to Constitutinal rule of law and live by it.
Make government smaller and we won’t be wasting money to collect money, at the barrel of an automatic military-grade weapon.
Very well said Jason, Kurt and George. As for Sue and Bob…these 2 are just too stupid to realize what idiots they are. I thought I heard banjo music in the background when I read Sue and Bobs posts…Perhaps Sue and Bob benefit from people as a whole being deceived, lied to and fleeced? And it sickens me to know that people died so they could have their “opinions” which are like asswholes and Sue and Bob certainly have big Size #20 ones lol I will write Sue and Bobs “opinions” down on a piece of toilet paper and file them. And next time I run out of “poo tickets” I’ll take them out and use their “opinions”.
Gee, the “gold fringe conspiracy” is widespread! Look at all the sites who are in on the “cover up”:
The American Legion:
“Flags of the World”:
(I dunno who this guy is, but he’s gotta be in on it):
And these _clearly_ must be part of the conspiracy, since they admit that they are ‘debunking’ the whole gold-fringe TRVTH:
Clearly, the only thing to do is to _only_ read websites that agree with your beliefs. Any site that disagrees is, by definition, either part of the conspiracy, or a dupe.
Proof: _You_ know everything, thus, anyone who disagrees is either stupid, or has malicious intent.
Keep up the good work here. Before to very long, the revolution will begin, and once the evil Government is eradicated, everything will be wonderful. Especially the schools, the roads, and business in general. Food quality was ever so much better before They started meddling, with their frivolous food safety regulations.
ESL!
Bookman
(the revolution, of course, will be nearly bloodless. Just like the Civil War)
It has been suggested that we “free” citizens of these United Sates do not know enough about the laws of this country. May I suggest rather than “google” or “wikipede”
that we visit our local law library. Every county has one
at the county seat. These libraries were not set up for lawyers only but for free and sovereign citizens like us.
As for the application of income taxes, one must ask the question: When did I volunteer for this voluntary tax?
which leads to the question: What documents did I sign when I became an employee? What is that govmt. number they asked me for as a condition of my employment?
What is our status as legal persons? Are we a corporation
with privleges or a sovereign with rights?
My fear is that Ed and Elaine don’t know the law well enough
and need to get educated very quickly.
To AWK;
You are correct. Your local law library is a good place to start. From there you can find, with a little work, that the law that demands one to pay taxes is found in the legal concepts of “asumpsit” and, “conversion”. Simply put, all money is contract, and all contracts are money. If you use the federal reserve note, you agree to the obligations and duties inherent in the commercial paper and tax treaties formented by the United States. The legal theory of conversion is, in this country, the root concept of justice. It is where you will find the meaning of “realized” or taxable income. Hope this helps.
To AWK;
Sorry AWK, that should be “assumpsit”. I really should use my reading glasses when I write these things.
To understand all of this, you must understand the bases of law. The bases is do no harm to your neighbor. We have stop lights to prevent a crash,which is harm. The other sphere of law is contract. You agree to shingle your neihbors roof, then you must do it because you agreed. Thats the whole of it folks, the rest is b.s. Tax on the property of a freemans labor is theft not law. Your Government is the Constitution, not the men in your Gov. They are your servants, not your Gov. Your servants are braking the law. they are going against your Government. They are the enemy.
Ralph
they better pay their taxes instead of trying to make others that do pay taxes feel worthless stupid. tax is collected so that the money flow is controlled and leveled out to everybody. and everybody contributes their personal share. if they don’t want to be part of society and pay tribute to their community well then fine: then they should move away to some south American swamp, build a ranch and live of the land. it will be fun i guess. all they’ll have to pay there is the death squads. if they choose the right location they’ll even be allowed to be living next to a bunch of antisemites like themselves, nazi offspring and the corrupted politicians they hate so much.
if they accept money from somebody they better accept the tax on it. you cannot split these two things. either accept the concept of money – or don’t. if you don’t accept money, you’ll have none, and thus you cannot be taxed. but they obviously accepted money, which is by law to be taxed. if they aren’t capable of bookkeeping, or don’t know how to do business without money: well yeah: everybody depends upon money, so when everybody starts to narrow the cash flow there will be nothing floating soon – collapse. it is agreed that money is the devil. if they propose a new system and live it by running a community with it that functions and grows well then i’ll check their stats and look of it is something i’d do as well. but they are just lazy criminals trying to crawl out of their responsibility. they must yet make proof of their new world tax free order.
i understand their fears and paranoia, but they are against the community. they prepared themselves to die, they are against their neighbors, they are against the elected representatives and against those that execute the law. that’s alright, it’s perfectly fine as it is just a simple stand off that might end up at the pub and everybody drinking and cheering. but they started to take down a community. and all they have to offer in return is paranoia. that paranoia is hitting them right back, welcome to reality: let the court decide what is better: the current system or the Ed & Elaine system. if they don’t accept the judgment: others did and are applauding the lawmakers, judges and cops, because they want a system where there is tax and control about how a society functions. most people don’t want to deal with the Ed & Elaines of the world.
my verdict: Ed an Elaine brown know exactly what they are doing: they are criminals trying to point away from their plot by attacking the system. if they want to replace a somewhat functioning system with their own constitution of paranoia, suspicion, antisemitism, anti authority, anti everything, then good luck, they’ll find plenty of paranoid buddies out there.
For those interested in the discussion of taxable income from the Aaron Russo board, please see the report “Taxable Income” available free at theft-by-deception (type same into any search engine).
I will have more comments for Peter K. shortly.
By Michael’s permission, and at the request of Jeff Hoyt, I am here responding further to Jeff Hoyt and Gregory K. Sloat regarding my comments which originally appeared under the post announcing the recent passing of Aaron Russo. (William Brown was also in that discussion, and I look forward to more dialogue with him.)
I have read Michael’s post above. But I have not read the 138 comments which were already posted when I got here.
Gregory K. Sloat –
I do not know why the links I posted to the specific statutory sections, or to the United States Code generally, did not appear where I typed them in my comment.
I can describe how to type in the website that gets you to the place where you can find the specific sections.
Start with the four letters which are the initials for Hyper Text Transfer Protocal. Then a colon. Then TWO of those things that look like a profile of a domino falling to the right (they share the keyboard key with the question mark). Next, six letters without a space “uscode”. Then that little speck that used to be called a “period”. The five letters “house”. Then another period. Then three letters “gov”. Then another of those falling domino profiles.
Now hit “enter”. That will get you to a place where you can search the code.
When you look at Title 26, Subtitle A, Chapter 1, Subchapter A, Part I, Section 1, you will see that Congress did, in fact, enact an income tax. The IRS is not making it up, and it was not a fabrication of unelected judges.
In Title 26, Subtitle F, Chapter 61, Subchapter A, Part II, Subpart B, Section 6012, you will see a description of who is required to file a tax return. Again, this is an Act of Congress, not something the IRS or the judicial branch dreamed up.
Jeff Hoyt –
No, if it was my job to explain what the government wants us to do with regard to paying income taxes, I would not produce Title 26 as it is now written.
But that is very typical of federal legislation. It is a product the sheer size of the federal government. With a government of that size, it is far more cost-effective for a special interest to lobby for special treatment for itself (or special regulation against its competitors) than for an overall policy of limited government and a level field.
I do not know what you mean by “those of [Aaron Russo's] persuasion”. If you mean libertarians, I’m one of them. If you mean income tax opponents, that’s me.
But if you mean income tax denialists — people who insist the income tax itself, or the constitutional authority for it, does not exist or is somehow significantly less comprehensive than the IRS tells us — I’m not one of those.
That position is simply inaccurate, and it sends good people off in the wrong direction. That is why I have said that I wish the late Mr. Russo had used his talents and resources to make a legally and historically accurate film about the income tax and its many harmful consequences.
Peter K,
Again, thank you for your response.
Should I sum up the thrust of your argument, I would say you are telling us that wishing doesn’t make it so.
Fair enough.
And I appreciate your explanation as to where you stand; my statement about being one of “those of his persuasion” was unjustifiably vague.
It seems as if you want the rest of us to do our homework better, so that the fight against this kind of “very typical federal legislation.” can be more effectively fought.
Again, fair enough.
At this point, there will be responses here that will, frankly, either go over my head or frustrate me with their justifiable and necessary tedium, because we are talking about unraveling a series of laws that would make the legendary Gordian knot look like a half-hitch in comparison.
Allow me, then, to pose a question – not just to you, but to the general readership – that goes beyond the nuts-and-bolts of Title 26: Leaving aside the Supreme Court cases that have consistently and specifically stated that Congress does not have the power to directly tax an individual’s labor- which would render any legislation attempting such void – when does the citizenry have the obligation to recognize that their representatives are willing participants in the violation of the people’s rights under natural law, if not statutory law, and refuse to pay such taxes?
When do we say, “What you are doing is wrong, therefore the laws, which you claim support your actions, are wrong. That they exist or don’t exist has now become moot; if they exist, their justification and validity have been rendered void, if not by Supreme Court decision, then by morality; if they don’t exist, the end result is the same. The just powers of government are derived from the consent of the governed, and we no longer consent to your evil. Therefore, we will no longer pay, and if you attempt to force us to do so, you will do so at the price of blood. It was well said by Thomas Jefferson that ‘The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.’ We are willing to be patriots, if you are willing to be tyrants.”
My response to Peter K. is as follows. The income tax is indeed constitutional and legal. It is, however, grossly misapplied. The framers of the constitution never intended the federal government to have the power to tax income “sourced” from within the individual states. The 16th Amendment likewise did not give them this power. Any tax on income would have to be restricted to sources over which the federal government had jurisdiction: international (or possessions) commerce. To this day, income sourced from such activity remains taxable but from little else.
Rather than entering pages of citation in support of the preceding, I refer Peter K. and all interested parties to “Taxable Income” by Larken Rose. This is a free report that exposes the current fraud disguised under the color of law. Go to theft-by-deception dot com and click the button near the bottom to download the PDF file. Those wishing to see a video on the subject may purchase same at the website.
To close, and hopefully to ignite a lively discussion, I request Peter K. answer the following 6 questions (elaborated in full on page 52 of the aforementioned report):
1) Should I, an American citizen living in the United States and deriving all of my income from within the 50 states, use the rules found in 26 USC § 861(b), and the related
regulations beginning at 26 CFR § 1.861-8, to determine my taxable domestic income?
2) If some individuals — including myself — should not use those sections for determining their taxable domestic income, please show me where the regulations say who should or
should not use those sections for that.
3) If a U.S. citizen lives and works exclusively within the 50 states, and receives all of his income from within the 50 states, do 26 USC § 861(b) and 26 CFR § 1.861-8 show such
income to be taxable?
4) Should one refer to 26 CFR § 1.861-8T(d)(2) to determine whether the “items” of income he receives (such as compensation, interest, rents, dividends, etc.) are excluded
for federal income tax purposes?
5) What is the purpose of the list of non-exempt types of income found in 26 CFR § 1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii), and why is the income of the average American not on that list?
6) What types of income (if any) are not exempted from taxation by any statute, but are nonetheless “excluded by law” (not subject to the federal income tax) because they are, under the Constitution, not taxable by the federal government?
WB
George,
A few thoughts…
First, I have found this site to be, far and away, superior to most of its kind. It is comprehensive, informative, thought-provoking, and well-moderated. In short, it’s a high-class place. With that in mind, let me suggest that you go beyond the norm, and adopt a degree of decorum in your writing that befits the site. Use proper punctuation; use a word processor to prepare your comments, then copy-and-paste them to the comment box; take time to proof your grammar and study the flow of your arguments. Join those of us who like to have a place where we can go to discuss issues that are important to us that also encourages us to be “a cut above”; a sort of scholastic dress code, if you will. You won’t be disappointed with the result. And please, don’t assume that I think I’ve arrived; I’m just persuaded of the benefit of learning how to jump 8-foot fences even if all the fences you expect to encounter are 6 feet high.
In your post of August 22, you state that “they better pay their taxes instead of trying to make others that do pay taxes feel worthless stupid.” Or what, George? Let me ask you this: Would you be willing to approach Ed and Elaine Brown’s house, alone, with a weapon, to enforce what you apparently believe is a just governmental requirement, or do you expect others to do it for you because you don’t want to feel worthless or stupid?
“tax is collected so that the money flow is controlled and leveled out to everybody.” Is this your opinion as to why taxes should be imposed, or are you claiming that this is governments reason for doing so? I ask because the only proper reason for an individual to “pay” is to receive goods and/or services in return. Logically, then, we must conclude that when we pay taxes, we are to receive something in return, such as fire, police, and emergency services, well-maintained roads, and so forth. If your comment reflects the reason why you believe taxes should be collected, then what you are suggesting is reflected in Karl Marx’s credo “From each according to his ability; to each according to his need.” In other words, you are advocating socialism.
”and everybody contributes their personal share.” Really? And how is the amount of this “contribution” determined? And what do you get in exchange for your “share”? Let us start out with the assumption that you expect the government to be objective and fair in its distribution of services; that one Interstate highway fits all, say. Based on this, let me offer the following hypothetical scenario…
You and I live in the same area, but have radically different incomes. Located somewhere between our two homes, there is an auto parts store. We both own the same older-model pick-up truck; I, because I can’t afford a new one on my income, and you, because you are wise and frugal, and the truck serves your purpose. It turns out that we both need a muffler, and we both head for the store at the same time. I arrive first, and as you wait behind me, you note with some amusement that I need the same muffler as you. But you are surprised when the fellow behind the counter asks me my income! I tell him that I make about $32,000.00 a year, and he says that the muffler will be $19.95. I leave and you step up and remark on how funny it is that you need the same muffler. You get the same question, and you reply that you earned $157,000.00. You are then informed that the muffler will cost you $317.95. Understandably shocked, you sputter the question “Why is the same muffler that cost that other guy 20 bucks costing me over 300?”
Why, indeed? If you can come up with a morally valid reason why a “rich” person should pay more for the same services as a “middle-income” person, then by all means, say on. Good luck…
“i understand their fears and paranoia, but they are against the community.” Their fears and paranoia? What fear and paranoia? What community? The ones that came and held the equivalent of a block party?
I’ll allow that you may have some valid points in this somewhere, but trying to find them is like trying to catch feathers in a prop wash.
However, I suspect that if you genuinely want to learn about the inevitable tension between individual liberties and the commonweal, this is a good place to visit.
Jeff Hoyt –
I don’t have an answer for your philosophical questions in comment 141. Read Walden Pond. But also consider the possible harmful consequences of civil disobedience, for example, whether you have children who would be made practically fatherless, or whether as a result of interest, penalties, liens and civil enforcement, the federal government would end up with even more of your money than if you had just paid the taxes.
To me, Ed and Elaine Brown would be much more deserving of hero or iconic status if your sentiments were the ones they are expressing.
Instead, their complaint is a rather petty one, that nobody “showed me the law”. (Suppose Rosa Parks had merely insisted that somebody show her the law requiring her to go to the back of the bus.)
And if your sentiments are what the late Mr. Russo had intended to say in his film, I don’t think he did, or if he did, that’s a nugget buried under a lot of something else.
I agree with what you said in comment 143 with respect to decorum.
On the rest of it, two comments:
1. If the function of government was limited to protecting rights to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness and property from would-be violators and foes foreign and domestic, then progressive taxation might be justified on the ground that those with more property or getting more out of life are getting more value from the protection of same.
But it isn’t.
2. Furthermore, no one can read through Title 26 and get the impression that its primary thrust is making everyone pay a “fair share”. Most of it has to do with incentives and disincentives for personal and economic choices.
William Brown –
With regard to your first paragraph in comment 142, one rule of statutory construction is that one does not resort to legislative history to find ambiguity in the text, but only to resolve ambiguity.
The framers of the Constitution allowed Congress a plenary power to tax in Article I, Section 8:
“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”
Nothing in that taxing power excludes a tax on income, foreign or domestic. But Article I, Section 9 contains some additional limits on the taxing power, and those are the only express limits outside of Section 8 itself. Section 8 says:
“No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”
So if, as you say, the framers did not intend to give Congress the power to tax domestic income at all, they did not write anything into the Constitution which says that. Furthermore, even if they thought all income taxes to be “direct taxes”, what census or enumeration would be relied upon? Did they intend to count everyone in the world? No.
Also, with respect to the precise wording of the 16th Amendment, your reading does not square very well with the phrase “from whatever source derived”.
My response to your specific questions:
1. No. Title 26, Section 861 is within Subtitle A, Chapter 1, Subchapter N, Part I. Part I is plainly headed “Source Rules and Other General Rules Relating to Foreign Income”. In your hypothetical, you have only domestic income, so you should not use Section 861.
It appears to me that the purpose of this section and Part I is to provide persons with foreign income rules by which to know what is or is not included in gross income and taxable income from sources within or without the United States, because there are places within the Code where it makes a difference.
For example, a nonresident alien individual has to pay taxes on income from sources within the United States, under Sections 871 though 879. So, if Queen Elizabeth II, believing she may be subject to those Sections (I think she owns an interest in some thoroughbred racehorses) , might consult Part I to ascertain what is and is not included.
2. I decline the opportunity to do legal research free of charge. However, I doubt the regulation you describe exists (although it may). Since most people reading the United States Tax Code would know that a part labeled “Source Rules and Other General Rules Relating to Foreign Income” does not apply to a United States Citizen and domiciliary with only domestic income, there would appear to be no need for a clarifying regulation.
3. No, not that section. 26 U.S.C. Section 63 (read in light of Sections 61 and 62) shows that income to be taxable or not, depending on the amount and the person’s circumstances.
4. I am not going to read the Code of Federal Regulations.
5. See response number 4.
6. I do not know. There is an argument to be made that one holding of Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust which survived the ratification of the 16th Amendment is the holding that a tax on the interest of state and municipal bonds is unconstitutional as a violation of federalism, but the plain words of the 16th Amendment would seem to refute that.
The courts have not had an opportunity to decide that because Congress keeps leaving that class of income not taxable.
P.S. I have now skimmed the earlier comments. It is amazing how many people comment without realizing that links don’t make it in.
Peter K. -
Thanks for your answers to some of my questions. I am at a loss as to why you would not venture to read the Code of Federal Regulations to answer questions 4 and 5, but I am grateful for the answers I did receive. Repeated letters providing the 6 questions to the IRS, my elected representatives and the Secretary of the Treasury have resulted in: non-answers, no answers, and on more than one occasion, threats of legal repercussions. All I did was ask 6 questions!
Yes, “The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes”, and the regulations enumerate specifically what income is taxable and from whom. The code is replete with references to use Section 861 for “determining taxable income from sources within the United States” [26 CFR § 1.863-1(c)]. Furthermore, prior to 1988, the title to Subchapter N, Part I was “Determination of Sources of Income” suggesting that Section 861 had application far beyond determining just taxable income from foreign sources. (Titles of parts and other “descriptive matters” in the law carry no legal weight (26 USC 7806(b)), in any case, the underlying law pertaining to Section 861 did not substantively change in 1988.)
If you bother to read 26 CFR § 1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii) you will find the income of most Americans is not on a short list of income that is not exempt from taxation (sorry about the double negatives).
Here are the correct answers to the questions: (1.) No. (2.) No sections say I should not use Section 861 to determine taxable income from sources within the United States. Some sections do direct taxpayers to Section 861 for the same purpose. (3.) No. (4.) Yes. (5.) The domestic income of American citizens is not taxable under the Constitution. (6.) Same as (5.).
Upon request, I will support each of these answers with citations.
William Brown –
You might be right in stating that “prior to 1988, the title to Subchapter N, Part I was ‘Determination of Sources of Income’ suggesting that Section 861 had application far beyond determining just taxable income from foreign sources.”
I guess if that was not what was intended, and they realized the heading was causing the confusion you describe, they should have changed the heading so that it would be clear what the intent was.
And that is, apparently, exactly what they did. They changed it to the current heading.
You are also correct that as a matter of general law, headings of parts in the law carry no legal weight. That is also true of former titles. Yet, oddly, you place heavy reliance on what the former heading was.
You should use Section 861 to determine whether income from a source within the United States is includable, in those cases where the Code says it matters whether the source is within the United States. Not otherwise.
I will admit that it may be a little confusing for some, looking at Section 861 in isolation, out of the context of the rest of Subchapter N. Perhaps the framers of the Constitution should have created some way that controversies over the meanings of statutes could be resolved, some place where out-of-context interpretation of Section 861 could be compared with the plain words of Sections 61, 62 and 63.
Well, you know what? They did. It is called the Judicial Branch.
There is a general rule of statutory construction that if the appellate courts, especially the highest court, have interpreted a statute in a particular way, and the legislature has since met and has not corrected the interpretation, the legislature is presumed to have found no error in the judicial interpretation.
How many times has Congress met without adopting your interpretation of Section 861? How many times has it met without changing Sections 61, 62 and 63?
Go ahead, I’ll humor you by reading your alleged supporting citations.
In response to 147 paragraph 4:
“You are also correct that as a matter of general law, headings of parts in the law carry no legal weight. That is also true of former titles. Yet, oddly, you place heavy reliance on what the former heading was.”
I place “heavy reliance” on the heading because it has been the heading for over 80 years and still is. The heading did NOT change in the law itself–the “statutes at large”–nor in the USCS printing of the Code where it remains “Determination of Sources of Income” to this day. So much for clearing the intent.
And 147 paragraph 5:
“You should use Section 861 to determine whether income from a source within the United States is includable, in those cases where the Code says it matters whether the source is within the United States. Not otherwise.”
Please provide a citation for these assertions. For a counter citation: “The taxpayer’s taxable income from sources within or without the United States will be determined under the rules of Secs. 1.861-8 through 1.861-14T, for determining taxable income from sources within the United States.” [26 CFR § 1.863-1(c)].
If one were to look at the titles and tables of contents in 1970, here is what he would see in the statutes:
Subtitle A – “Income taxes”
–Chapter 1 – “Normal taxes and surtaxes”
—-Subchapter N – “Tax based on income from sources within —-or without the United States”
——Part I – “Determination of sources of income”
——–Section 861 – “Income from sources within the United
——–States”
———-Subsection 861(a) – “Gross income from sources
———-within United States”
———-Subsection 861(b) – “Taxable income from sources ———-within United States”
Does any of the above even hint that most people should NOT be using these sections? Certainly not. Quite the opposite. And again, the text of the law is what matters, and you will find nothing in Section 861, or the regulations thereunder, suggesting that most of us should not be using these sections.
To be continued.
William Brown –
I suspect you are a “true believer” in your cause, immune to any reasoning and facts which do not support your belief system, and desparately attempting to fit disconfirming facts to fit that belief system.
You tell me that a heading on a section or part of a statute carry no legal weight. Then you tell me the former heading is determinative. Now you complain that the present headings are defective because they fail to hint that most people should not be using the sections over which they appear.
There is a reason why these sections are placed in titles, subtitles, chapters, etc. You know each by the company it keeps. That is the purpose of codification.
Otherwise, laws would only be accessible in the order in which they were passed, no matter what the subject matter is. We’d all have to read the entire collection of U.S. statutes passed since the very first Congress, the entire collection statutes for the state in which we live or through which we may pass, and a plethora of local ordinances, just to keep out of trouble.
Obviously, given the clear words of Sections 61, 62 and 63, those are the ones which tells us what is taxable. And since Section 861 only tells us rules to govern whether something falls into a source category, then its only application if for places where the source category matters.
The company Section 861 keeps are the other sections in Subchapter N. Unless you fall under Subchapter N, Section 861 does not matter.
Nothing in Section 861 says it substitutes for Sections 61, 62 or 63, does it? Nothing in Sections 61, 62 or 63 says “except as limited by Section 861″, does it?
Go back and look at “America: From Freedom to Fascism”. See the part where Russo interviews the supposed sympathetic lawyer. Notice how the lawyer tells interviewer Russo that to be taxable income, it must result from “some activity”.
Did you notice how, right after that, Russo (as voice-over narrator, out of the interviewee’s earshot) tells us that he was just told that income must result from “corporate activity”? If your view is correct, why was Aaron Russo unable to find a lawyer to espouse this point of view? Why did he have to resort to putting words in the guy’s mouth?
Also, when a former IRS official tells interviewer Russo that a case he was citing was “inapplicable” to the point he was trying to make and that nothing Russo was going to get him to say would be helpful, why did Russo, as narrator, tell us that he had been told that the Constitution is inapplicable to the IRS and that the man had threatened him in Yiddish?
No one who is right has to resort to that.
Howdy, folks. These days I usually avoid such discussions as these, as they usually quickly transform from discussions into assertions and insults. (This one is headed that way, but it took a while.) But I thought I’d throw in a quick comment here. (For the not-at-all-quick version of my “comments,” you can go download my free “Taxable Income” report from the link at the bottom of the web site.)
So someone argued the following:
“Obviously, given the clear words of Sections 61, 62 and 63, those are the ones which tells us what is taxable. And since Section 861 only tells us rules to govern whether something falls into a source category, then its only application if for places where the source category matters.”
Many arguments include responses such as, “Show me something supporting that!” I like to back up one more step, to: “Why would you even think that to begin with?” Why, for example, would anyone think that 861 should be avoided like the plague, unless you’re in some unusual situation? Below is a list of some of the things which point, without condition or exception, to 861 as the place to be regarding domestic income:
1) Cross reference under Section 61: “Income from sources — Within the United States, see section 861 of this title.” (The origin of that would be Section 22(g) of the 1939 Code, pointing to 119–predecessor of 861 through 863–regarding “computation of gross income from sources within and without the United States.”)
2) The indexes of the USC (in the USC, USCA, and USCS printings), under “gross income,” “deductions,” “taxable income,” and “sources of income.”
3) The plain wording of Section 1.861-1(a)(1), 1.861-1(b), 1.861-8(a)(1), 1.862-1(b), and 1.863-1(c) of the current regulations.
4) The summary of the purpose of 861 and following, as found in Treasury Decision 6258.
Over and over again, we are told in no uncertain terms, by the official regulations, that 861 and related regs give the rules for determining one’s “taxable income from sources within the United States.” So why would someone (like the author quoted above) think that 61 through 63–and NOT 861–are the sections which “tell us what is taxable”? (Look up the regs under 63, and see if you can use them to determine your taxable income.)
The author also asks this:
“Nothing in Section 861 says it substitutes for Sections 61, 62 or 63, does it?”
It doesn’t “substitute”; it performs a completely different function. Whereas 61 and following sections tells which ITEMS may or may not be taxable, 861 and following “determine the SOURCES of income for purposes of the income tax” (1.861-1). Section 61 says nothing about who is receiving the income or where it is coming from. That’s what Subchapter N of the code (”Tax based on income from sources within or without the United States”) is for. In fact, the regs under 861 specifically mention Section 61, saying that the “items” listed therein make up “classes of gross income,” which can include EXEMPT income (1.861-8(a)(3) and 1.861-8(b)(1)). The regs then lead the leader right to the list of non-exempt income found in 1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii).
The author also asks:
“Nothing in Sections 61, 62 or 63 says ‘except as limited by Section 861′, does it?”
Actually, Section 61 BEGINS by saying “Except as OTHERWISE provided” by Subtitle A, and the regs under 61 (1.61-1) say that ANY other statute or regulations which deals with a certain type of income shall apply, “NOTWITHSTANDING” 61 and its regs. (And, as mentioned above, from 1954 to 2001 in ALL major printings of the code, and in the USCS since, 61 itself had a cross-reference POINTING to 861.)
But again, I revert back to my original question: Why would anyone think they should NOT be using 861? I can think of only one reason: that “someone” has been reading legally worthless IRS propaganda. Because the LAW certainly wouldn’t make anyone think that.
Sincerely,
Larken Rose
Peter K.
I said: “the text of the law is what matters”. I mentioned the heading because you brought it up in the first place (see your answer to question 1 and your non-answer to question 2 in 144).
Before addressing your other points in 147 (possibly on a subsequent evening), allow me to make a correction and to post the citations I promised in 146. In 146, I answered “No” to question 1. The answer should have been “Yes”. The hour was late and I apologize for any confusion.
The questions, my answers, and the citations:
1) Should I, an American citizen living in the United States and deriving all of my income from within the 50 states, use the rules found in 26 USC § 861(b), and the related regulations beginning at 26 CFR § 1.861-8, to determine my taxable domestic income?
My answer: Yes.
Citations: “The taxpayer’s taxable income from sources within or without the United States will be determined under the rules of Secs. 1.861-8 through 1.861-14T, for determining taxable income from sources within the United States.” [26 CFR § 1.863-1(c)]. See also: CFR 1.861-1(a)(1), 1.861-1(b), 1.861-8(a)(1), 1.862-1(b)); all point to Section 861 and following for determination of taxable income from sources within the United States.
Prior to 2002, Section 61 (“all income from whatever source derived”) contained a cross-reference: “Income from sources — within the United States, see section 861 of this title.” This reference, while not law, does go to intent. This and other unrelated cross-references were removed from the Code in 2002 without explanation.
2) If some individuals — including myself — should not use those sections for determining their taxable domestic income, please show me where the regulations say who should or should not use those sections for that.
My answer: No sections say I should not use Section 861 to determine taxable income from sources within the United States. Some sections do direct taxpayers to Section 861 for the same purpose.
Citations: I cannot cite the negative in the first assertion. The second assertion follows from the affirmative answer and citations given to question 1.
3) I will not cite the answer to question 3 since on that question we are in agreement.
4) Should one refer to 26 CFR § 1.861-8T(d)(2) to determine whether the “items” of income he receives (such as compensation, interest, rents, dividends, etc.) are excluded for federal income tax purposes?
My answer: Yes.
Citations: The citations to question 1 take us to Section 861 and following. Therein it is stated that “items” of income listed in Section 61 make up “classes of gross income” (26 CFR § 1.861-8(a)(3)). We are then directed to another section – 26 CFR § 1.861-8T(d)(2) – “which provides that a class of gross income may include excluded income” (26 CFR § 1.861-8(b)(1)). Finally, we are directed to 26 CFR § 1.861-8T(d)(2), the subject of question 4 (26 CFR § 1.861-8T(d)(2)).
5) What is the purpose of the list of non-exempt types of income found in 26 CFR § 1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii), and why is the income of the average American not on that list?
My answer: The domestic income of American citizens is not taxable under the Constitution.
Citations: (Citations for this assertion would add pages to an already extended post. See pages 1-5 of the reference given in 142 paragraph 2.)
6) What types of income (if any) are not exempted from taxation by any statute, but are nonetheless “excluded by law” (not subject to the federal income tax) because they are, under the Constitution, not taxable by the federal government?
My answer: Same as (5).
Larken Rose and William Brown –
One or both of you state “the domestic income of American citizens is not taxable under the Constitution.”
In support of this position, one of you cites something written by the other, with the excuse that to do so “would add pages to an already extended post”.
OK. Then just give 3 citations. Also, please make sure the citations you give are to something written by some person or institution specifically mentioned in the Constitution as having the function of resolving cases or controversies which may arise thereunder.
Also, state the full, correct name of the decision, the volume in which the decision is found, the page on which the decision begins, and the specific page or pages within the decision wherein you believe you have found specific support for this proposition.
Also, quote the entire paragraph, at least. And without elipses.
Both of you seem to take the position that the IRS is trying to hoodwink us into believing that Congress passed a law requiring payment of income, when, according to you, Congress has passed no such law. Interestingly, one of you also takes the position that the IRS published a regulation listing non-exempt types of income, taking care not to include “income of the average American” (that is, writing the list so that “average Americans” income is exempt). Asking yourself why the IRS would say the income of the average American is exempt, you state that the IRS was merely following the Constitution.
Well, which is it? Is the IRS a deceitful, lawless bureaucracy, or a steadfast adherent to the Constitution?
Also, you both seem to believe that when it comes to interpretting Section 861 (headed “Source Rules and Other General Rules Relating to Foreign Income”), the IRS regulations should be delved into on the question of what is taxable. Yet, when it comes to interpretting Section 63 (headed “Taxable income defined”, you ignore any and all IRS regulations (not to mention Section 63 itself).
Furthermore, you disregard headings on the ground that they’re not part of the law, but treat editorially-supplied cross references as revealed Truth.
You both appear ignorant of the fact that United States Code Annotated (”USCS”) and United States Code Service (”USCS”) are privately edited and published.
One of you asks why would anyone think that Section 861 should not be used to determine taxable income?
Well, I cannot speak for everyone, but one reason is that if there’s something in the tax code which comes with the heading “Taxable income defined”, as Section 63 does, and it’s within a Subchapter headed “Computation of Taxable Income” as Subchapter B is, most people with curiosity on the matter of how “taxable income” is defined in the tax code, are just somehow drawn to it. (I can’t really explain it; it’s kinda mysterious.) Then, when they read it, the first thing they notice is that it says:
“(a) In general — Except as provided in subsection (b), for purposes of this subtitle, the term “taxable income” means gross income minus the deductions allowed by this chapter (other than the standard deduction).”
That somehow (again, quite mysteriously) sends readers off in different directions: For one, they want to find out what exactly is in subsection (b). Also, they want to find out what are “the deductions allowed by this chapter” and what is a “standard deduction”.
Some of these curious seekers go on to read subsection (b); some believe they detect a definition of “standard deduction” in subsection (c).
Some find “deductions allowed by this chapter” when they see in Section 63 references to “adjusted gross income”, and that somehow (once again, quite unexplainably) draws them to the previous section (that is Section 62, headed “Adjusted gross income defined”) and find, therein, a bunch of things called “deductions”.
Now, so far, I’ve left out those diligent searchers for meaning in the tax code who just can’t rest until the matter of “gross income” itself is settled. They turn to Section 61 (headed “Gross income defined”). For whatever reason, they think they’ll find the answer there.
It turns out, they’re right, for there in Section 61, subsection (a) is a general statement, “Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items” which is followed by a list of 15 (fifteen) items.
But perhaps I’ve been a little bit unfair to your position. Maybe there is something in one of these clearly applicable sections which somehow excludes things not mentioned in your beloved Section 861 (headed “Source Rules and Other General Rules Relating to Foreign Income”).
Section 61 (headed “Gross income defined”) includes, in addition to subsection (a), another one which is dubbed “subsection (b)– Cross references”. Maybe — just in the interest of fairness and open-mindedness — we should read this, looking not only for specific references to Section 861, but also for more general references to Part I of Subchapter N (which includes Section 861), or even Subchapter N generally.
Here is what Section 61, subsection (b) says:
“For items specifically included in gross income, see part II(sec. 71 and following). For items specifically excluded from gross income, see part III (sec. 101 and following).”
No reference at all to Section 861 or Subchapter N.
Have I explained it well enough for you?
Larken Rose point out, as I have, that Section 61 begins
“Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means . . .”
I agree that by “this subtitle”, Congress has referred to Subtitle A. I also agree that Section 861 is included in Subtatle A. Furthermore, I agree that if Section 861 says anything different about what “gross income means”, then there is at least the argument to be made that it would have precedence over Section 61. (That argument would somehow have to get passed the objection that Congress has left Sections 61, 62, 63 and 861 alone, despite the number of judicial decisions over the decades reaching what you believe to be the wrong interpretation.)
Section 861, however, says nothing about what what “gross income means”. It only addresses the issue of how specific items of gross income should be treated when it matters whether the source is within or without the United States. See my earlier example of Queen Elizabeth II and her income from thoroughbreds stabled at Churchill Downs, Kentucky.
Larken Rose suggests we just accept an assertion that something called “Treasury Decision 6258″ supports your position. Yet no help for finding a link to “Treasury Decision 6258″ is included, and Larken Rose does not actually quote “Treasury Decision 6258″.
I did look for “Treasury Decision 6258″ on the internet. I have not found it. I found a reference to it. It was written by someone going by the name “Larken Rose”.
The Treasury Department includes the IRS. Again, which is it — Is it an outlaw agency attempting to decieve us, or the source from which Truth About Taxes springs?
Peter K,
I’ve been absent for awhile, so if you and all others will allow, I’ll try to get back on the train, but only until the next stop…
Thank you for your comments and the recommendation. I’ve heard of Walden Pond, and read the common excerpts, but have never read the book. I’ll head for Amazon when I’m finished here and order a copy.
I must disagree, though, and strenuously, that “they didn’t show me the law” is a petty argument. I can’t think of anything more fundamental to the legitimate practice of law enforcement than citing the law that a person is charged with violating. Can you imagine being arrested without being told what law you broke? Oh, and for what it’s worth, I consider Mr. and Mrs. Brown to be somewhat embarrassing as representatives of libertarian thought, but that’s just me.
I consider your argument regarding the proportional value of the protection of property as valid; if I have two homes in Marin County threatened by wildfires, I would consider it reasonable to pay a greater amount to the fire-jumpers than if I owned one – assuming they saved both of them. But as is usually the case, the United States government is misapplying the principal. The services that they are allowed to render are extremely limited, being valid only if specifically enumerated by the Constitution. And it does not fall under their purview to guard my wealth, my health, my happiness, or anything else. In fact, any action that the United States government undertakes that affects me directly as a citizen of the several states is a betrayal of the intent of the Founders, who never intended a direct relationship between me and the “feds”. My relationship to government, when the Constitution as envisioned by the Founders is properly understood, stops at Richmond, Virginia. Beyond that I am not supposed to exist as an individual. Our representatives to Congress represent all of us here in the Commonwealth en masse. This is the principle behind, and the propriety of, the Electoral College, in spite of the foolishness we hear every time the “wrong” candidate wins. (I don’t intend this as a defense regarding the results of the 2000 election; I don’t know what happened then, and it’s a little late to pursue it now.)
At least that’s the way it’s supposed to be, the 14th and 17th Amendments notwithstanding.
As I suspected, the give and take of the posts that have proceeded here since the heartbreaking loss of Aaron Russo proves – to me – what I was already sure of: the virtual impossibility of anybody on either side of the issue to prove his case to the satisfaction of everyone else, be they government official or private citizen. Just scanning through the posts is a dizzying experience for someone like me. I can’t help but wonder if that’s the point: complicate the situation to the point of mind-numbing legal and verbal convolution, then use the natural doubt and confusion that such a situation creates, throw in a complicit judiciary and a good measure of fear and – Voila! – the ideal situation for any batch of tyrants who want to look like saints as they pontificate about their compassion and their desire to “protect the American citizens”.
Finally, I must also disagree with a statement you made as you addressed the validity of proportional value of protection, wherein you state your belief that governments role is not limited to “protecting rights to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness and property from would-be violators and foes foreign and domestic…”
Government has no legitimate function beyond these parameters; this is the heart of the libertarian philosophy.
“A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government”. – Thomas Jefferson (1801)
“There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him.” – Robert Heinlein
“It is not the business of government to make men virtuous or religious, or to preserve the fool from the consequences of his own folly. Government should be repressive no further than is necessary to secure liberty by protecting the equal rights of each from aggression on the part of others, and the moment governmental prohibitions extend beyond this line they are in danger of defeating the very ends they are intended to serve.” – Henry George
“The power to tax is the power to destroy.” – John Marshall
“There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible to live without breaking laws.” – Ayn Rand
“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” – Thomas Jefferson (1781)
Once again, thanks to you all, and especially to Michael for hosting this discussion. Not that I think it any particular loss to anyone, but I’m bowing out on this discussion now. I think we’ve passed the point where the argument legitimately concerns whether or not there is actually a law regarding the taxation of personal labor. I think the argument is whether or not the people responsible are going to be held accountable for their treason, quite apart from any tax issues, in spite of it being such an obvious focal point.
Jeff Hoyt –
You “disagree” with things I did not say. I did not say that government’s legitimate role is anything other than protecting rights to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness and property from would-be violators and foes foreign and domestic. I would count enforcement of contract rights as a necessary component of that.
You inserted the adjective “legitimate” into my statement about what the functions of government are. Then you proceeded to argue as if it was me who did that, not you.
If the indictment of the Browns did not state what law they were violating, it would have been thrown out (and if it wasn’t, that might be a valid appellate issue). What they are saying is that they did not pay income taxes or file tax returns in the first place because no one showed them the law.
That is as petty and inconsequential a scenario as if Rosa Parks had only refused to surrender her seat to a white man until the bus driver showed her the law requiring her to do so.
As for Aaron Russo, while he was a sincere libertarian, it appears to me he became committed to making a film “exposing” the income tax as a fraud, and simply failed to let go of it after he knew or should have known that he did not have the evidence. So he tried to salvage his investment by faking it, by putting words into people’s mouths (see last 4 paragraphs of 149, above), and having someone on camera reciting the names of Supreme Court cases, but not reading the cases themselves to be sure they actually say what the speaker says they say. In one case, the speaker (I think it was Irwin Schiff) changed the name of the case, apparently so no listener would realize it concerned the corporate income tax, not the personal income tax.
Peter,
I hope the increase in familiarity doesn’t offend.
In comment #144, you stated:
“1. If the function of government was limited to protecting rights to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness and property from would-be violators and foes foreign and domestic, then progressive taxation might be justified on the ground that those with more property or getting more out of life are getting more value from the protection of same.
But it isn’t.”
It’s been a tiring week, and I’ll gladly acquiesce to a charge of obtusity, but that passage sounds like you are suggesting that government has things it should do beyond what you list. In your most recent response, you add enforcement of contract rights “as a necessary component of that.” Agreed; but if protection of contract rights is a component of the functions already listed, what else is there for government to do besides what you listed?
Or, as has happened on more than one occasion in the past, am I missing something here?
As to inserting the word “legitimate” to your statement about the functions of government, is the following passage what you are referring to?
“Finally, I must also disagree with a statement you made as you addressed the validity of proportional value of protection, wherein you state your belief that governments role is not limited to ‘protecting rights to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness and property from would-be violators and foes foreign and domestic…’
Government has no legitimate function beyond these parameters; this is the heart of the libertarian philosophy.”
If so, you will notice that the close quotation marks after the ellipsis indicate that I was no longer quoting you. I can’t find any other place where I might have inserted the word “legitimate”. But again, the current Jeopardy champ has no threat in me.
I understand what you mean now by “…no one showed me…” I agree that it is the responsibility of the citizenry to be aware of legislation that affects their activity. Maybe it would have been better to say “We asked four different lawyers, 12 IRS workers, consulted with 6 tax experts, and read Homeland Stupidity for 6 months, and never got the same answer twice. So we gave up.”
But, once they were charged, was it not a reasonable request? And what do we do with those, admittedly few so far, cases where the juries have wondered the same thing, and returned with a not guilty verdict because nobody could “show them the law”?
I guess my personal pipe dream in all this is that sufficient attention is drawn to the lunacy of the tax code so that the whole thing gets tossed out and replaced with the Fair Tax. But then, can you imagine the Federal Reserve allowing that?
Jeff Hoyt –
I did not say that the government should be doing more than what I listed.
I did say that the government is doing more than what I listed. I said that that fact meant that the only arguable justification I could think of for progressive taxation would not apply.
You stated that you disagreed with something I said, but it was not clear whether you disagreed with:
(1) my statement that progressive taxation might be justified on the ground that those with more property or getting more out of life are getting more value from the protection of rights to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness and property from would-be violators and foes foreign and domestic, if it was the case that that government’s role was so limited; or
(2) my statement that the function of government is not limited to protecting rights to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness and property from would-be violators and foes foreign and domestic.
From your statement,
“Government has no legitimate function beyond these parameters; this is the heart of the libertarian philosophy”
I inferred that you thought you “disagreed” with me on point (2) above, but that you only reached that point by inserting “legitimate” in front of function. Thus, I pointed out that you “disagreed” with me on something I did not say.
Also, I never said it is the responsibility of the citizenry to be aware of legislation that affects their activity. That goes a bit too far.
Jeff Hoyt –
I just realized I did not respond to all of your questions.
You wrote:
“But, once [the Browns] were charged, was it not a reasonable request [that someone show them the law requiring filing of tax returns, etc.]?”
YES, a very reasonable request. They should have made that request of the lawyer they hired to defend them, or, if they had not hired a lawyer to defend them, then, if they could afford one, they should have hired one. On the other hand, if they could not afford one, then they should have taken the court up on its offer to assign them one. (Then, their dream of having their legal questions answered at taxpayer expense would have been fully realized.)
It might have been difficult to hire a lawyer if IRS leins were encumbering everything they owned, but if they had hired one before that point it would not have been a problem.
(It would not surprise me at all if the pre-trial paperwork in all this actually shows the whole logical sequence by which the Tax Code lays out what was expected of the Browns, as well as the statutory authority by which Congress allowed the IRS to assess the taxes based on information available to it.)
You wrote:
“I guess my personal pipe dream in all this is that sufficient attention is drawn to the lunacy of the tax code so that the whole thing gets tossed out and replaced with the Fair Tax. But then, can you imagine the Federal Reserve allowing that?”
You have a perfectly good pipe dream: The repeal of the Tax Code. Why would you screw it up by replacing it with the misnamed “Fair Tax”?
In your fantasyland, is the “Fair Tax” somehow going to become immune to exceptions for favored industries, etc.? Don’t you think the income tax was at one time considered “fair”?
Have you considered how much more a simple two-bedroom house will cost under a “fair tax”? Don’t you think the self-delusional geniuses in Congress will respond by trying to “fix” that?
Even in the “Fair Tax” proposal itself, the government is supposed to mail out checks to those who can’t afford it.
Which means, of course, that if you can’t afford to pay this “fair” tax, you have to report your income to the government to prove your case. Sound familiar?
Peter K,
It happens at the strangest times, like maybe 4:00 a.m. after I’ve made my usual nocturnal journey to the bathroom. I finally get it! Consider me acquiesced – and obtuse.
In my mind – and a scary place it can be – I had you saying:
“If the function of government was (supposed to be) limited to…” instead of “If (in reality) the function of government was limited to…
My apologies for the confusion I caused, as well as for the time you had to waste explaining something that you shouldn’t have had to explain.
GOOD RIDDENCE,ANOTHER GUN NUT IN JAIL,MY CONDOLENCES TO ALL YOU HILLBILLYS WHO SUPPORTED THEM
The browns got pwn3d. Taste the fail.
Today is the first day that Ive heard about all this and I cant say that I feel sorry for the Browns.Cause its seems like if you made that kinda of money the you should be able to pay your taxes unless your a crackhead.I went though it with the IRS a few years back and to be honest they were easy to deal with.The state of NC,a different matter.Made my life hell..But It was my fault,it is the law,I dont agree with it but I must respect it.Maybe one day,we can get rid of that unfair tax,cause it is unfair,unless your a millonaire like everyone in congress and the senate and the excitive branch.And the Browns…
Finally. Those whack jobs are in jail where they belong. And based on the additional charges that I am sure are to follow, should remain there for a long, long time.
where in America did the Heavenly Father make a slave land?
If the Heavenly Father is the Father of the Messiah, Give the names of mortal men Americans owe a tax to? Use your brain! I know it is real hard..If you created everything, you own everything including your children[ the Messiah] then what mortal man would you owe a tax to. Oh I forgot the rest of you are not the Messiahs brothers or sisters..But I am the Messiahs brother , the bible says so. Then who the HELL are you people??
Read 1 corth. 7:23
plainfield resident give statutory definition of whack jobs,for most of us do not have a brain as small as flea, therefore we can not understand a moron or retarded statement such as yours. Good luck in HELL!! Bet your mother is real proud of you!
Subject: someone else is sending letters && it is not the irs I repersent stupid! WOW
CtC Warrior David _ has also learned the truth, and risen to take action. David has made use of his complete knowledge of the law and true patriot’s sense of responsibility, and, on May 25 secured his second complete refund from the federal government of everything withheld from their earnings in connection with the “income” tax, this time during 2006. In addition to being David’s second, this victory is of special interest due to the fact that between the two, David was selected for a rather bizarre special contact from everyone’s favorite ’service’. Almost a year ago, David received a letter containing the following:
David had no idea what this was about, and promptly submitted an FOIA making the following request:
The response he received was rather comical:
The response David received to his latest claim for the return of his withheld property, on the other hand, is not comical in the least! Enjoy it at .
Check out or read the book cracking the code by Peter Eric Hendrickson
Poop scooper does not seem to be a careful enough reader of this site to know that links don’t get included, so the meaning of whatever he typed is lost on us.
Peter K.– Google–: cracking the code for the web site. Read the book Cracking the Code
read about david at Pete Eric Hendricksons news letter on page one [1]] it is in the refund section where copies of refund checks from the U.S. Gov. are shown.
In law {income}is gainful activity involving the Federal Government.
Income is not money,earnings or receipts.
Federal reserve notes are not money, they are iou notes & are not redeemable. Just try goin to the bank & exchanging these notes for gold or silver. I know for I work at a bank!
Thanks for the info, Pat.
I’d like to help you out by taking all that worthless paper “money” off your hands. I’ll just take my chances that I won’t be able to exchange it for gold or silver.
The tax system in America is completely unconstitutional. Nowhere is there a statute that says you even have to FILE a return. Ask any IRS pirate to show you where there is…….he can’t. This “witholding” shit started out as a temporary tax to fund World War II. It was called the “Victory Tax” and was REPEALLED on May 13, 1944.
The “Federal Reserve” isn’t Federal at all, and they blow our tax dollars on crap you & I would NEVER support.
There are TWO Presidential candidates committed to abolishing the “Internal Robbing Service.”…..Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee.
But they don’t appear to be crooks or ass-kissers, so they probably won’t get enough funds to wage a credible campaign against Giuliani, Romney or McCain.
But….before we lose ALL of our rights (and the feds are working on it 24-7), we need to band together as a people and throw these modern-day “redcoats” OUT!
Nothing short of a revolt is going to change anything in this country. And we’d better do it quick before the Mexicans (and the terrorists who sneak over the line with them), completely take us over. Time’s almost up, folks.
Peter K. Your not SMART at ALL!! you are a I.R.S. (I REPERSENT STUPID ) {I Represent Satan} agent. IRS agent get it? yet?
Incomes not money, earnings or receipts.
In the law (income) is gainful activity involving the Federal Government. Ref. Blacks law dictionary 5th edition
Peter K. you must be able to read blacks law dictionary 5th
Look up ,person, human being, corporation, citizen ;these all have the same meaning & can be taxed. Got a clue yet big Peter K. or should one say little dick no brain which all vertebrates have !
The general term ” income” is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code US vBallard,535 F2d 400, 404 (1976)
Mr Peter K. tell us what a Form 4852 is for, is a Form to reclaim all funds to be returned to private sector workers or is it for federal emplyees?
I am not an employee of any part of the federal or any state or municipal government, and I never have been. I oppose the income tax, and I think most of what it finances is harmful.
My differences with a lot of the commenters here are mostly that I think people who oppose the income tax should do something about it or contribute money to others who are doing something about it.
Not paying your taxes makes it difficult to do either: If you don’t pay, the interest and civil penalties, enforced by liens and civil lawsuits, pile up against you. These result in more money going to the federal government than would have otherwise gone to it. Thus you have little or no money to contribute to good causes, like opposing the income tax.
Furthermore, the civil actions against you take up a lot of your time and money to defend against. Time you could have devoted to a good cause or to making money to donate to a good cause, like the ballot drive currently going on to end the state income tax in Massachusetts.
Finally, there is the possibility of a criminal prosecution against you. The government wins almost all of these, and it’s not possible to donate any meaningful time to a good cause from inside a federal prison. And even if you’re one of those who gets acquitted, you’re still using up your own time and your money (or, ironically, the taxpayers’ money) on the defense of it. AND you still have the civil judgment and liens against you.
And for a crowd which seems to include a lot of people who don’t believe Federal Reserve Notes are real money, there sure are a lot of you who don’t want to let go of them.
Individualized responses follow (and please note, I am not responding in kind to insults).
Ed Vosgein –
United States Code, Title 26, Subtitle F, Chapter 61, Subchapter A, Part II, Subpart B, Section 6012 requires the filing of the tax return, with some exceptions.
I cannot right now point you to the part of the Code involving withholding, but I know I have seen it.
Mike Huckabee may have said something which sounds sort of like he would abolish the IRS, but he never said he would eliminate its function, which is to collect revenue for the federal government. Who cares what you call it?
pat part time –
I do not have a Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition.
I do not know what that form you mention is for. Why are you asking me?
“Income” is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code. There is nothing unusual about a statute not defining each and every term used in the statute. Usually, terms are defined when what is intended is something other, broader, or narrower than its commonly understood meaning. (It’s not like Congress invented the word “income”.) To define a word, one needs to employ other words. A skeptic could then complain that the words used in the definitions are not defined. Or if they are defined, the complaint could be that those definitions employ other words that are defined right in the very same definitions section, so it would then be derided as “circular logic” concocted by the very scoundrels who wrote the tax code.
Congress did not pass Black’s Law Dictionary, no matter how good or bad its definitions may be. It did, however, pass the Internal Revenue Code, which is Title 26 of the United States Code.
The Internal Revenue Code defines “gross income”: Title 26 ,Subtitle A, Chapter 1, Subchapter B, Part I, section 61, subsection (a) says:
“Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including “(but not limited to) the following items:
“(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;
“(2) Gross income derived from business;
“(3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
“(4) Interest;
“(5) Rents;
“(6) Royalties;
“(7) Dividends;
“(8) Alimony and separate maintenance payments;
“(9) Annuities;
“(10) Income from life insurance and endowment contracts;
“(11) Pensions;
“(12) Income from discharge of indebtedness;
“(13) Distributive share of partnership gross income;
“(14) Income in respect of a decedent; and
“(15) Income from an interest in an estate or trust.”
Subsection (b) of same says:
“For items specifically included in gross income, see part II (sec. 71 and following). For items specifically excluded from gross income, see part III (sec. 101 and following).“
The Internal Revenue Code is confusing, but I do not think its flaws include a failure to define things, or that it disappoints afficianados of arcane rules which explain things in excruciating detail.
Definitions of “adjusted gross income” and “taxable income” follow in Sections 62 and 63.
As always, a well-presented response from Peter K.
I agree with you regarding the best ways to fight the current system. And I got a genuine kick out of your comment regarding the unwillingness of others to let go of their FRN’s! Just so you know, I’m not giving mine away, either!
To all who may be interested, there is an interesting link that can be found at a website called Make the Stand, which can be found by Goggling “ed and elaine brown”. The story concerns a criminal trial in which the jury returned a “not guilty” verdict to 161 (as I recall) separate charges brought against a business owner.
Best to all,
Jeff
Peter K.
Title 26 is not positive law
Ask Dave Champion at original intent or email him at nontaxpayer.org, Go on his radio show & debate Dave on your BS.
You do not have enough dirt to cover up the truth, there is not enough dirt on earth to cover up the Messiahs Truth, got that YET?
Again what is a form 4852? Don’t be a dumb ass! SPEAK UP peter!
Peter K. look up the I.R.S. form 4852 on the internet,Google it, call the I.R.S. office or ask someone on this site.
Peter K. tell the rest of us which tax form to use for the income tax? The tax form that is for Americans working in the private sector ,that means Americans that are NOT Federal Employees? Got it?!! What do you actually know about
Tell us what Wages are as defined in section 3401 (A)
Tell us if you Peter K. have always received dollars for pay or just federal reserve notes? Show us your bank statements ; bet you never took any gold or silver to the bank and if you did prove it with documentation signed by the bank president.
You are just a bunch of smoke & fog for the Federal Reserve & now the rest of us know your are a stupid Idiot. You only have lies!!
pat part time –
You would communicate much better if you learned the rules of spelling, grammar and punctuation.
If you want to know how something is defined or what a form is for, look that up yourself. Why are you asking me these things?
I do not see what difference it makes to you how I have been paid. Why would I take gold or silver to a bank, unless to put it in a safe deposit box, in which case, why would you expect a bank statement to prove anything one way or the other?
I never said anything in defense of the Federal Reserve. My offer to take whatever Federal Reserve Notes you have — in light of your belief that they are worthless — stands. Why bother carrying these things around with you? Why bother keeping them hidden under your mattress? They are only a fire hazard, so why not give them to me?
Peter K.
You will bruise my heel but I will crush your head.
Knowledge will for ever govern Ignorance.Deal with that you fool! I misspell so a fool has something to talk about. Say something about an individual in a wheel chair. You have already exposed yourself. I hope you spent the rest of your time here on earth talking about misspelled words or retarded people. Hook um up big boy!
Peter K.
You will bruise my heel but I will crush your head.
Knowledge will for ever govern Ignorance.Deal with that you fool! I misspell so a fool has something to talk about. Say something about an individual in a wheel chair. You have already exposed yourself. I hope you spent the rest of your time here on earth talking about misspelled words or retarded people. Hook um up big boy!
Umm, Peter K,
Once again, it’s just a suggestion….
your tax’s are “RENT” for living in the world’s best country,don’t like it? move!
Why don’t all of you shut up and grow up. If you don’t like paying taxes, then don’t pay them and good luck to you if you don’t. Stop complaining, stop being disrespectful to our President, our flag, and our country. You can leave. Live somewhere else, but I am quite sure that you will find something there to start complaining about, as well. Those of you who were in the military and claim to be terrorists; my grandfather, father, and husband each served over 20 years in the military and I have never been prouder of anyone than I am of them. Oh, and if any of you are Vietnam Vets, I just want to say…Thank you. It’s time to move on. Why not expend all of this energy you people have here to do something great. Oh, I don’t know…Kids are starving, being abused, and dying. Hey, there’s a start. HELP SOMEBODY. And guess what? It won’t cost you a cent.
you won’t pay tax’s but you will want government handouts like social security and medicaid some day won’t you, you pack of hillbillys?
Do the illegal aliens ask,want,receive,get social security & Medicare,Medicaid benefits ? You better believe they do. I know because I are a Mexican. I don’t have a drivers license either.I am not a pack of hillbilly. The law does not require a illegal to have a drivers license. I think that the law requires a hillbilly to have a ss# & a drivers license. If I am wrong show the law here so I can read it
I can not get a D.L. cause I do not Have a ss# & I can not get a ss# cause I do not have D.L.#
Whats wrong with this Peter K.?
I do not pay Income tax because I do not have a SS# why is this?
LOOPY…LOOPY…LOOPY?????? ..illegals obtain the social security cards of other people ,they get a job,pay the tax,but will NEVER collect,the cards not in their real names!! they don’t care,they just want the job NOW!!same with medicare….now yes they can walk into a emergency room and get service but thats AN IMMIGRATION ISSUE,NOT TAX?
joe no they do not. I work with 16 other people that have no ss# at all .The man I work for pas us all cash.
Peter K.
I need the statutory definition of these 8 words. Please give them to me.
1. WAGES
2. Employee
3. Employer
4. Citizen
5. person
6. trade or business
7. money
8. Employment
After I have these definitions, You & I can move on to the reason you might not owe a income tax. Surely someone can give us these statutory definitions.The definitions can be found in title 26 which was never enacted into Law.
Peter K., a form 4852 is the I.R.S. form used to correct a incorrect W-2 & or inform the I.R.S. that the individual is not a Federal Employee & that he is a American working in the private sector.Guess what happens after this? They reclaim the incorrect funds withheld from their pay & receive a check from the U.S. Treasury for every penny withheld. This includes the Income Tax,Soc.Sec.& Medicare. Read the book Cracking the Code by Peter Eric Hendrickson. Need a copy of the check? Give address & i will send you it to you.
David –
You state that you need eight statutory definitions, and that they can be found in Title 26.
Well, if that’s the case, then my theory is that you should look them up, and that the place to do so is Title 26. Why the hell are you asking me?
You go on to tell us that Title 26 (the United States Internal Revenue Code) “was never enacted into law”. Thanks for giving everyone this keen insight into the basis for the income tax denialist position. That position rests on the belief that something which appears in books which purport to be the official published version of the United States Code was never actually voted into law by the House of Representatives and the Senate, or if it was so voted, it was not signed by a President, and no President allowed any of it to become law without his signature, or else a President vetoed it and Congress did not override the veto.
For whatever reason — or lack thereof — you also believe that form 4852 can be used to “inform the I.R.S. that the individual is not a Federal Employee and that he is a American working in the private sector”. Well, in a purely technical sense, you might be right. It is after all a piece of paper and can be used for whatever use one might put to paper, including origami.
But according to the instructions on the form itself, which I looked up, the form
“is completed by taxpayers or their representatives when (a) their employer or payer does not give them a Form W-2 or Form 1099-R, or (b) when an employer or payer has issued an incorrect Form W-2 or Form 1099-R.”
Interestingly, the instructions also include this information:
“Potential penalties for the improper use of Form 4852 include:
“Accuracy-related penalties equal to 20 percent of the amount
of taxes that should have been paid,
“Civil fraud penalties equal to 75 percent of the amount of
taxes that should have been paid, and
“A $5,000 civil penalty for filing a frivolous return or submitting a specified frivolous submission as described by section 6702 of the Internal Revenue Code.”
Why is it that some people who claim to be against Big Government, people who claim to be libertarians, try so hard to talk other libertarians into courses of action which will result in more libertarian money going to Big Government, and less going to promote libertarianism?
No. I do not need a copy of a check you received from the United States Treasury. Please send me the original, with your autograph on the back. I will then submit it to my bank and they will inform me in a matter of days as to whether it is genuine.
Of course, that won’t tell me WHY the treasury issued you the check, but by then I’ll know it went to my favorite cause.
Are you smart enough to google the Dennis Hertel letter
The “Dennis Hertel” letter, to which I believe the anonymous person referred, concerns IRS enforcement procedures, not the existence of the tax itself or the obligation imposed on most of us working types to file the tax returns.
The topic of my posts has been the irrational, unfounded denial that the income tax exists, that it applies to most income earned by most people, and/or that a law exists requiring the filing of the tax returns.
I have never defended IRS enforcement procedures. I am not sure that Congressman Hertel read the law correctly either. He seemed to be saying that, just because one sentence in the section (6331) says how the IRS should levy the wages of a federal employee, that the section as a whole applies only to federal employees, and only to their wages. I think the correct reading is that the section applies, as it says, to “any person liable to pay any tax” and that the IRS can levy upon “all property and rights to property (except such property as is exempt under section 6334) belonging to such person or on which there is a lien provided in [Chapter 64 of Title 26] for the payment of such tax”.
I don’t think its constitutional to levy anyone’s property until there’s authority from a court.
Whats this you don’t think It is constitutional to levy anyone’s property?
You either know or you do not know, which is it Peter K.??
Go to the county recorder & look at all the I.R.S. Notice of Levey that are on file or recorded & not one of them have the I.R.S. agents signature, finger print or picture on the document, these are requirements! There will be NO judges signature on it. Go look! Oh & no court order!
Whats this you don’t think It is constitutional to levy anyone’s property?
You either know or you do not know, which is it Peter K.??
Go to the county recorder & look at all the I.R.S. Notice of Levey that are on file or recorded & not one of them have the I.R.S. agents signature, finger print or picture on the document, these are requirements! There will be NO judges signature on it. Go look! Oh & no court order!
Anyone whose employer is sent a “Form 668-W Notice of Levy on Wages, Salaries, and Other Income”, a standard tactic used to co-opt third parties into doing for the IRS what it can’t do for itself, (and entirely at that third party’s risk, by the way), will take great interest in noting that the IRC excerpts thoughtfully provided on the back of the form, from section 6331 of the code, leave out the first paragraph of that section, paragraph (a), and begin with paragraph (b). The missing section is as follows (with emphasis added):
sam –
Your quote somehow got ommitted, but I think it includes the one sentence I was talking about.
anonymous –
I do not understand your question.
How will looking at lien notices change my opinion about the unconstitutionality of judicially unauthorized liens?
Notice of levy on wages…Section 6331 entitled”Levy and Distraint” and section 6331(a) IRC entitled “Authority of Secretary”, ” Levy may be made upon the accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee or elected official of the United States, District of Columbia,or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia, by serving a notice of levy on the employer of such officer, employee or elected official…”, does not provide authority to levy wages of private citizens in the private sector.
The omission of this section from IRS form 688- w may be misleading to some employers,
MR.Peter K. this is right out of title 26. Do you have the page #? Do you want it? Make more excuses? You need a good spanking> & I am the one who just did it!!!!!!!!!!
Comment number 194 above (October 10, 2007 1:03 a.m.) is attributed to me, but I did not write it. Whoever wrote it and stole my identity to do it is a coward.
But I’ll respond anyway.
My position is that just because one sentence in Section 6331 says how the IRS should levy the wages of a federal employee, it does not follow that the section as a whole applies only to federal employees, and only to their wages.
The person who wrote comment 194 knows this as well. That is why he or she quoted only that one sentence out of the entire section, and misrepresented that it was the entire section. That one sentence is not even the entire subsection (a).
If one reads the whole thing in context, it is obvious that it has a much wider application.
I am still waiting for “anon” or “anonymous” (comments 190 and 191) to tell me why he or she thinks it is constitutional for a levy to occur without judicial authorization, and why he or she thinks that looking at recorded levies will change the mind of anyone who thinks it is unconstitutional.
Any unlawful act or crime committed by Government or state agencies or their employees are unconstitutional.
All Notices of Levy recorded by the county recorder are recorded as a Levy. This is unconstitutional.
All notices of levy display that individuals Social Security Number, these Numbers are on the notice of levy and can be view by the public. This is unconstitutional. The state or Government agencies are not allowed to make Social Security Numbers available to the public. This is unconstitutional.
NEED 10 more unconstitutional items?
A notice of levy ca not be signed by a judge. Even if it were signed it would serve no purpose for it si only a notice that a true levy may occur in the future.
IRS agents never sign a notice of levy, IRS agents never sign any levy ever.Go to the county recorders office and look at 2 or 3 thousand of the leveys and not one will ever have an IRS agents signature on it.
Property (House Land, Car,Money) seized By the IRS can be returned to the rightful owner.
Just take these documentations to court and show that there is no levy and that the document is just a NOTICE with no signatures. I did this very thing!!
It is amazing what you can learn when you are a county recorder.
mark –
Are you sure you are not confusing “levies” with “liens”? At registries of deeds, I have seen many a “Notice of Federal Tax Lien Under Internal Revenue Laws”, which are pursuant to Title 26, Sections 6321, 6322 and 6323.
The Section we were discussing is a different one, Section 6331, which I think has been misread to apply only to federal employees. Section 6331 is long, and I’m not going to quote the whole thing. One sentence of it applies only to federal employees.
These are the sections which are the bases of the “Notice of Lien”:
Section 6321:
“If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the same after demand, the amount (including any interest, additional amount, addition to tax, or assessable penalty, together with any costs that may accrue in addition thereto) shall be a lien in favor of the United States upon all property and rights to property, whether real or personal, belonging to such person.”
Section 6322:
“Unless another date is specifically fixed by law, the lien imposed by section 6321 shall arise at the time the assessment is made and shall continue until the liability for the amount so assessed (or a judgment against the taxpayer arising out of such liability) is satisfied or becomes unenforceable by reason of lapse of time.”
I will not quote Section 6323 at length, but I will say this very long section sets out who has priority over an IRS lien, and who does not. In the case of real estate, if your seller has one of these IRS Notice of Liens filed against him, you better make sure IRS gets paid off the amount of the lien entirely at or before the closing.
I will make this very simple for you Peter K. No tax lien is ever signed by a IRS agent. Do you understand this Peter K.?
I will make this very simple for you Peter K. No levy is ever signed by a IRS agent. Do you understand this Peter k.?
I will make this very simple for you Peter K. No IRS agent ever signs a notice of levy. Do you understand this Peter K.?
Peter the Secretary of the Treasury never signs a lien,levy or Notice of levy. Do you understand this Peter K.?
The reason they do not sign these documents is the fact that a IRS agent has no authority. They would be held responsible [liable] for damages. (liable) understand?
Without a Federal Court Order signed by a judge,signed by the IRS agent and the individual in question,
the document is void. This means the lien, levy,notice of levy is void.
PETER K. I have never observed a Federal Judges signature on any of these Documents!
You seem to be in the know so please Post one of these signed documents so I can have that Americans property returned to them!!Their name & address will be on the document so I will be able to contact them. I have helped six [6] Americans take back their property this year.
Peter K. You never gave the Statutory Definitions of the word in # 189.
Please give the statutory Definition for the word coward or just make up some definition.
Also give us all the irs forms # used for a notice of levy, a irs forms # for a lein, a irs forms # for a levy. Would it be W-668? I don’t know .
joe –
Somehow, you seem to have gotten the idea into your head that I do not understand that an IRS agent or the Secretary of Treasury or a federal judge does not sign a lien, levy or a notice of lien.
Alhough we may have our differences, joe, we do have one thing in common: Neither one of us knows how you got that idea into your head.
You also seem to think that if an IRS agent or the Secretary of Treasury ever did sign a lien, levy or a notice of lien, he or she would be held liable for damages.
I don’t know how that idea got into your head, either.
Anonymous –
There are a lot of words in comment number 189. All of them have definitions. Some may have statutory definitions. Whether any one of the words has a statutory definition, or a non-statutory definition, you are free to look it up.
In addition to your demand that I give you a definition for “the” word in comment 189, you also demand that I give you a definition for a word that does not appear in comment 189, to wit, “coward”.
Although, as I previously pointed out, the word “coward” does not appear in comment 189, it does have something in common with all of the words which are in comment 189. That is, you are free to look its definition up.
I see no reason to do it for you.
I see no reason to do legal research for you, either, except perhaps to confirm or refute a clear and well-articulated point. So far, I have not seen one from you.
I don’t have any documents to post, and if I did, I would not do it. I see no reason to do so.
A search of Title 31 United States Code will reveal a list of activites for the Secertary of the Treasury but no Duties.
The Secretary has no delegable power because he has no duties.
A notice of Federal tax lien contains no FACTS and the signature is that of a mere employee and that it attest to nothing.
A “Notice of Liens” will be the only evidence of a “lien” and that no TRUE lien has been recorded. Got it yet Peter K.???????
Remember that if you have not filed a return there can be no tax.
IRS employees will not chance signing anything that might provide the proof of a false statement or perjury.
joe –
My, you are one angry little bug, aren’t you?
You might be right about Title 31. I don’t know because I have not looked at Title 31. That, in turn, is because we’re talking about Title 26.
Title 26, Section 7801 is headed “Authority of Department of the Treasury”, and subsection (a) is called “Powers and duties of Secretary”. It says, in part:
“(1) In general
“Except as otherwise expressly provided by law, the administration and enforcement of this title shall be performed by or under the supervision of the Secretary of the Treasury.”
I don’t know what point you were trying to make, but I guess that makes two of us.
I have seen the statutory section authorizing either the Secretary of the Treasury or the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to complete a return for someone who has not filed one but who is required by law to file one, based on best available information, and to assess the tax, but I can’t find it right now.
Also, as I told Ed Vosgein, back at comment 173, United States Code, Title 26, Subtitle F, Chapter 61, Subchapter A, Part II, Subpart B, Section 6012 requires the filing of the tax return, with some exceptions.
So, if you’re required under Section 6012 to file the tax return, and the IRS has information that your income brings you under Section 6012, eventually the IRS will prepare a return and assess taxes based thereon, and begin collection procedures.
That, I believe, is the Ed and Elaine Brown story. It did not work for them, and it won’t for you.
So pay up, be and stay a prosperous and free man, so that you can help the cause.
I am happy that you have been corresponding with a angry little bug. What kid of bug is it? Are angry little bugs required by law to file a return?
I have a copy of my I.M.F. and I am not required to file a return. Guess why? A letter from the I.R.S. states that a American working the private sector is not require to pay the income tax. WOW!!!!
United States Citizens are required to file a return.
[person, human being, citizen, Cooperations and other
abominations]
I do not file a return. I am not required by law to file a return. What IRS form should a individual file? Give us that forms Number.
Give us all the slave land that the Creator made here on earth where one has to pay a tax?
The Messiah is my brother and I owe no mortal man a tax. Do you understand English.
Tell us all what the Messiahs real name is in Hebrew?
You are in direct defiance with the Creator if your paying a tax you know that you do not owe. 1 Corinthians 7:23.
How did you get to the point in your life that made you think you owed a tax to some mortal man?
anon –
Thank you for clarifying the basis of your beliefs, with the best rationale of which you are capable. What more any of us could ask, I know not.
The I.R.S. takes in more Money {federal reserve notes] than it takes to make [produce] all the cars & trucks in the United States in one year.
All this money goes to the federal Reserve. Not one nickel goes to the American inter structure. Read the Grace Commission Report that President Ronald Regan ordered.
Read the book Tax Facts or the book I.R.S. Humbug.
better read the book Cracking The Code.
Hey: Peter K. what is that form 4852 that one guy ask about?
Readers of ‘Cracking the Code- The Fascinating Truth About Taxation In America’ have already retained or taken back well over
from the federal and state governments– including Social Security and Medicare ‘contributions’– and kept it in their own pockets where it belongs, simply by knowing what the law actually says. These Americans have gotten back every penny they’ve paid or had withheld from them during the year in connection with the “income tax”, and have secured written acknowledgements that they owed nothing– many for several years in a row now.
YOU NEED TO KNOW THE TRUTH, TOO!!
THE LOST HORIZONS NEWS
October 12, 2007
Robert the correct total is $2,477,112.73
When will the rest of the people learn the truth?
dennis r. –
It’s an IRS form, which some people erroneously claim can be successfully used by taxpayers to get back all the taxes they’ve paid.
For the start of the discussion, see comment 174, in which one of these people presumed that I knew something about it (which I didn’t, until I looked it up).
Non taxpayers use form 4852.
Form 4852 is not for tax payers .Read Cracking the Code by peter Eric Hendrickson.Its in the UC-Davis Law Library.
bill g. –
So, it’s an IRS form for people who don’t pay taxes to get back the taxes that they didn’t pay?
Ref. 212 :Thats right Peter K. I know your not that dumb.
Read the book cracking the code. Get out side that little box your in.
Listen to Dave Champion on the American radio show. Just type a www. in front of American radio show And then type .com after it . You will be good to go then.
Remember, the Supreme Court has unambiguously instructed us that “income” is not to be defined as “all that comes in” and it’s not defined at all in the code..
Only an agent of the federal government, or payer operating under the federal Government’s special jurisdiction, is required to file a return– and by virtue of the same qualification, payments made from such a source are “income”, and are not challengable by the payee.
Ref. 212 :Thats right Peter K. I know your not that dumb.
Read the book cracking the code. Get out side that little box your in.
Listen to Dave Champion on the American radio show. Just type a www. in front of American radio show And then type .com after it . You will be good to go then.
Remember, the Supreme Court has unambiguously instructed us that “income” is not to be defined as “all that comes in” and it’s not defined at all in the code..
Only an agent of the federal government, or payer operating under the federal Government’s special jurisdiction, is required to file a return– and by virtue of the same qualification, payments made from such a source are “income”, and are not challengable by the payee.
Peter why do you block the post I try to make?
You ask questions but I can not answer you. Guess you don’t want the truth.
Ref. 212 :Thats right Peter K. I know your not that dumb.
Read the book cracking the code. Get out side that little box your in.
Listen to Dave Champion on the American radio show. Just type a www. in front of American radio show And then type .com after it . You will be good to go then.
Remember, the Supreme Court has unambiguously instructed us that “income” is not to be defined as “all that comes in” and it’s not defined at all in the code..
Only an agent of the federal government, or payer operating under the federal Government’s special jurisdiction, is required to file a return– and by virtue of the same qualification, payments made from such a source are “income”, and are not challengable by the payee.
peter k. your a fiction & have no purpose on this earth.
Ref. 212 :Thats right Peter K. I know your not that dumb.
Read the book cracking the code. Get out side that little box your in.
Listen to Dave Champion on the American radio show. Just type a www. in front of American radio show And then type .com after it . You will be good to go then.
Remember, the Supreme Court has unambiguously instructed us that “income” is not to be defined as “all that comes in” and it’s not defined at all in the code..
Only an agent of the federal government, or payer operating under the federal Government’s special jurisdiction, is required to file a return– and by virtue of the same qualification, payments made from such a source are “income”, and are not challengable by the payee.
Anonymous –
I am not doing anything to block your posts or anyone else’s posts, I do not have the ability to do so. I believe this site is monitored by its owner, who has some standards for civility, which you may be attempting to violate.
anon –
Yes, I have asked some questions which you have not answered. If it is because you cannot answer them, then that indicates a gap in your knowledge of the subject on which you purport to speak. Your guess that I don’t want the truth is wrong.
I am still waiting for “anon” or “anonymous” (comments 190 and 191) to tell me why he or she thinks it is constitutional for a levy to occur without judicial authorization, and why he or she thinks that looking at recorded levies will change the mind of anyone who thinks it is unconstitutional.
Thank you for your support.
Termination of Authority to Withhold
An individual can notify the company they work for at anytime to stop any and or ALL withholding of funds from their pay.
One can end it at any time by simply withdrawing any implied or explicit permission.
Anyone currently working for others who has been fooled or forced into improperly submitting a W-4 might wish to withdraw the authority to withhold that the form represents,by filing an appropriately worded instrument with their personnel department.
To the person or persons who insist on repeatedly posting the same message –
I will not read the book which you insist supports your position. We are talking about what the law is, not what any of us wishes it was. The law appears in published sources, in particular, statutes and decided cases. If you cannot back up your position with rational arguments based on statutes and cases, all correctly cited and quoted in context, then your opinion does not really matter.
I have not seen anything in your discussion of these issues which would lead a rational person to expect that any book upon which you would rely has any more credibility than you have.
If you cite a statute, give the title and section, at least.
If you cite a case, give the full name, the volume and page number at which the case begins, as well as the page number where the point you are making is supported.
Every time I look up the places in the law where these arguments of the income tax deniers are supposed — by them — to be supported, I find that they have badly and profoundly misread or misunderstood the law (statute, regulation, decision) upon which they rely.
Every time. No exceptions.
And the result is that people like Ed and Elaine Brown (remember them?) swallow this nonsense, won’t let go of it, and end up forfeiting huge sums to the federal leviathan and going to prison.
How this supports liberty has never been explained to me. It sounds like the political equivalent of the South Park Underpants Gnomes’ Business Plan.
Recall once again the definitions Key terms in section 3402
(c) Employee
For the purposes of this chapter, the term “employee’ includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State or any political subdivision thereof, or the district of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term ‘employee’ also includes an officer of a corporation.
(d) Employer
For the purposes of this chapter, the term “employer’ means the person for whom an individual performs or performed any service,whatever nature, as the employee of such person..
It is obvious that in the case of this form, as in so much else associated with the “income” tax, any requirement of execution, and adverse consequences of declining to do so, are restricted in their application to Federal and “State” governmemt workers exclusively.
The most lucid explanation of the U.S. Tax code written., June 5, 1998
By A Customer
Do you care to fully understand your rights and obligations to the U.S. Government as it pertains to the Internal Revenue Code? Read this book. Mr. Kowalik’s in depth explanation of the evolution of the United States Tax Code is the best thus far written. Though it requires some dedication to comprehend, it is a valuable read. This book exposes the fraud instituted by the U.S. Government against it citizens better than any thus far published. This isn’t simply about being a “tax cheat”, you can hire and accountant or tax attorney to help you with that, and pay handsomely for the privilege. This is about the common individal being permitted to excersize their common right to exist and pursue the establishment and maintenance of that existance without harrassement by the various governments of these United States. Do we have a moral obligation to support our government? Of course. However, the United States Government has the duty and obligation to defend the U.S. Constitution and not merely, through tawdry political process, shirk that responibility and consequently diminish the greatness of the documents which makes us who we are. Read it.
No direct un-apportioned tax confirmed by the US Supreme Court rulings.
Watch
anon –
Your comment number 223 illustrates very well the point I made in comment 222. In comment 222 I said:
“Every time I look up the places in the law where these arguments of the income tax deniers are supposed — by them — to be supported, I find that they have badly and profoundly misread or misunderstood the law (statute, regulation, decision) upon which they rely.”
In comment 223 you have quoted from Section 3401 (not, as you said, 3402) but you confused the word “includes” with “means”.
Section 3401, subsection (d), by its very terms tells us what a word — employer — “means”.
Section 3401, subsection (c), again by its very terms, assumes we already know what the subject word — employee — means, but goes on to tell us that Congress specifically “includes” government and corporate officials in its reach.
If Congress, in subsection (c) had used the word “means” instead of “includes”, you would be right. But Congress didn’t, and you’re wrong.
sue –
Whatever you were intending to say did not come through, probably because you disregarded or were not able to follow the instructions (look up at top) on how to post a link.
My guess is that you wanted us to watch a video called America: From Freedom to Fascism, in which the late Aaron Russo attempted to teach about Supreme Court decisions by means other than actually reading Supreme Court decisions.
The Supreme Court decisions he or some of his interviewees talk about do not actually say what he wishes they said, do not actually say what he says they said, and in at least one case, is not even a case about the same tax which is supposed to be the subject of the film.
Try quoting the actual cases, correctly named, with volumes and pages where each named case begins, and the page number where the words appear in support of whatever it is you’re advocating.
You’ll find it is very difficult for an intelligent person to do that and come to the same conclusion that Aaron Russo or the other income tax deniers do.
A search of the Federal Register and C.F.R. will not find TITLE 26 USC SECTION 7201, and TITLE 26 USC SECTION 7203 of the Internal Revenue Code anywhere. This fact seems to contradict the mandate of Title 44 U.S.C. Sec 1505 (a) which says, “For the purpose of this chapter (Sec. 1501 et seq.) every document or order which prescribes a penalty has general applicability and legal effect” and that those “having general applicability and legal effect” are “required to be published.” From this it would appear as though these penalty statues should be in the Federal Register and the C.F.R., but Congress limited the application of these penalty statutes and all of chapter 75 of the Internal Revenue Code to a person described in
TITLE 26 SECTION 7343, a person who is ” under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs.” The person under a duty is only a person who effectively connected himself with U.S. Government income and willfully made some of that income part of their own estate by criminal conduct, such as fraud or perjury. Upon proof of fraud or perjury, the additional punishment of these statutes is applicable. Hence, sections 7201 and 7203 are not statutes of primary punishment, they only provide for additional punishment after a primary act has been charged and proven. Only then does the U.S. Court have authority to impose the additional punishment under section 7201 and section 7203 upon such a person, and no other.
If these statutes were laws prescribing primary punishment, they would have general applicability and would be required to be noticed. But, these laws state they are additional punishment, so they cannot lawfully be used as primary punishment. The fact that they are not noticed is evidence that they can only be applied upon the specific person described in section 7343 and only upon specific U.S. Government income. Absence in the Federal Register tells that the subject matter is limited to internal revenue service and not possible to use for external revenue purpose.
With sections 7201 and 7203 being applied generally through malicious prosecutions, there remains only one other source of authority being used by Federal Government employees. Unlawfulness notwithstanding, Federal Government employees must be relying on authority received by judicial decisions, referred to as case law by lawyers within and without the U.S. Government.
NOW THEN, is withholding Federal income tax from your check voluntary? The answer is without a doubt YES. From hereon I will let you go to the following Internal Revenue Code sections on your own. Under Title 26 USC section 3402(p) (Voluntary Withholding Agreements), the only section in the entire Code relating to voluntary withholding is explained. Does Title 26 USC have any legal effect? The answer is in section 7806(b). Does the sixteenth amendment give IRS any new powers? I’m so tired of listening to the pros and cons of the sixteenth amendment all I can say is there are many Supreme Court cases on this matter that stated, it did not give Congress any new taxing powers and that the main body of the Constitution explains the taxing power of the Federal Government. In respect to the word income, once again there are many Supreme Court cases defining income as profit and gains. As far as I am concerned SECTION 7701(a)(31) is the key to everything.
(31) FOREIGN ESTATE OR TRUST.-The terms “foreign estate” and “foreign trust” as the case may be, the income of which, from sources without the United States which is not effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the United States, is not includible in gross income under subtitle A.
In respect to the Code of Federal Regulations index and finding aids, I have a list of the codes from Title 26 USC relating to the enforcement powers of said codes where most of the enforcement is in Title 27 C.F.R.,BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, AND FIREARMS. If you would like a copy you can e-mail me.
anon –
The reason Sections 7201 and 7203 of Title 26 of the United States Code are not published in the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) is that they are not regulations of an administrative agency such as the Internal Revenue Service.
They are Acts of Congress. They are published where codified Acts of Congress are published, to wit, in the United States Code. In particular, they are in Title 26 of the United States Code. They even have their own sections within that Title. Their section numbers are, respectively, 7201 and 7203.
They were noticed: Notice was given to your elected representatives in a body called the House of Representatives. Apparently, alot of people in that body voted for them. More, in fact, than voted against them.
Same thing happened in another body, called the “United States Senate”.
Then, a guy with a title — “the President” — signed it.
Then these sections became law. This procedure is set out in another document called the “Constitution”.
anon –
You have reached the conclusion that withholding from everyone’s check — by which I infer you mean “paycheck” is voluntary. You appear to base this upon the label applied to a single subsection, “Voluntary Withholding Agreements” and — without bothering to read it — you concluude that it must be about the withholding that is taken from an employee’s paycheck.
You also bypass the subsections that have to do with MANDATORY withholdings.
The subsection on “Voluntary Withholding Agreements”, subsection (p), clearly states that it pertains to “Certain Federal payments” (which — by the way — are not federal paychecks issued to federal employees), “Voluntary withholding on unemployment benefits” and “Authority for other voluntary withholding”.
The subsections on MANDATORY withholding are subsections (a) through (o), the very subsections you somehow missed on your way to subsection (p). Here are some highlights, because the whole thing is too long. Look for words like “requirement” and “shall” and “penalties”:
“(a) Requirement of withholding
“(1) In general
“Except as otherwise provided in this section, every employer making payment of wages shall deduct and withhold upon such wages a tax determined in accordance with tables or computational procedures prescribed by the Secretary. . . . ”
“(d) Tax paid by recipient
“If the employer, in violation of the provisions of this chapter, fails to deduct and withhold the tax under this chapter, and thereafter the tax against which such tax may be credited is paid, the tax so required to be deducted and withheld shall not be collected from the employer; but this subsection shall in no case relieve the employer from liability for any penalties or additions to the tax otherwise applicable in respect of such failure to deduct and withhold.”
The 16th Amendment added no new powers; it simply removed a restriction on the power of Congress to tax, a power set forth in Article I, Section 8 (”The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes . . . “). There was no express restriction in the original constitution on the taxation of incomes.
That restriction was on laying and collecting taxes on real estate (”direct taxes”, which had to be apportioned) and state bonds. The Supreme Court held that if Congress taxes rent, it is taxing the real estate rented, which counts as a “direct tax” albeit by “indirect means”. It also held that a tax the income from on state bonds is a tax on the bonds themselves, which is an impairment on the independent functioning of the issuing states.
The case was Pollock v. Farmers Loan and Trust, 157 U.S. 429 (1895), and it did not address any other kind of income tax because no one challenged any other kind of income tax.
So it is literally correct that the 16th Amendment added no power. It removed a restriction on the power to tax rents. The power to tax all other kinds of income was never held subject to the apportionment requirement, but the 16th, by its plain terms, means that NO category of income taxation is subject to the apportionment requirement.
(However, if Congress ever tried to pass a national tax on land, it would have to be apportioned.)
Yes, income includes the profit and gain one gets by showing up at work and doing your job, to wit, your paycheck.
I have no idea how you think that a definition in a section full of definitions is “the key to everything”. You’d have to explain that.
Typo correction: I meant to type
“It also held that a tax on the income from state bonds is a tax on the bonds themselves, which is an impairment on the independent functioning of the issuing states.”
Now you may ask…so what is the difference between positive and non-positive law? Okay, an example of wording that can be used to make positive law is in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It starts out “No Person…” it is clear that no one is excluded. In certain statutes, a phrase such as “any person is required” is used to indicate that the statute applies to anyone. Now when the simple word “is” is omitted from such a phrase, making it read “any person required,”(AS IN 26 U.S.C. SEC.7203), it is saying that this law only applies to a specific person. This is not positive law. It only applies to the person who exercised his personal choice (sovereignty) to become effectively connected with it by accepting some duty that made him a “person required,” i.e. the person in SECTION 7343 of the Internal Revenue Code who is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs. Each Title of the United states Codes indicate whether or not it contains positive law. As an example, Title One, General Provisions, (Appendix O) starts out with: This title has been made positive law by section 1 of the act July 30, 1947, ch. 388, 61 Stat. 633, which provided in part that: “Title 1 of the United States Code entitled “General Provisions,” is codified and enacted into positive law and may be cited as 1 U.S.C. Sec…” Title 26, Internal Revenue Code makes no statement that it is positive law. Congress just says that Internal Revenue Codes were enacted and how they may be cited. No reference to the Internal Revenue Code being positive law confirms that it applies to specific persons. These specific persons are those who chose to become effectively connected with the U.S. Government income and the “individual” in the Internal Revenue Code is a person with the specific status of Federal Government employee.
The authority of the IRS is limited to seeing that a proper return (kickback) of the U.S. Government property (income) is made by Federal Government employees in the name of tax. When IRS employees act upon property not within the authority given them by the Internal Revenue Code, they are NOT acting in behalf of the U.S. Government and personally accept the consequences of their actions. THEREFORE THE ONLY PERSON THAT ARE REQUIRED TO PAY FEDERAL INCOME TAX IN THE NAME OF A “1040, U.S. INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX RETURN,” ARE THOSE THAT RECEIVE A CHECK DIRECTLY FROM THE U.S. TREASURY. All other income is not includable in gross income as stated in subtitle A. In other words if you work for the federal government lets say as Congress Person, Representative, etc., as part of your employment agreement with the U.S. Government, you are required to make a return in the name of a U.S. Individual Income Tax Return,(1040). However, lets say you also have a private business. The monies from that business is not included in gross income as defined in subtitle A and therefore you are not required to report said private business monies in the name of a U.S. Individual Income Tax Return.
Now most people when asked the question think that monies withheld from their checks goes to pay for much needed federal government services like welfare, military, government buildings, and I could go on and on, but the answer is “FALSE.” The monies collected from “YOU” in the name of federal income tax goes to the IRS, from there to the federal reserve, from there to the world banks and most of the time to communist countries. So you’re hard earned money that you have worked your butt off for, is in actuality supporting the one thing you thought everyone was opposed to, communism. It absolutely does not pay for any services here. Sorry to bust your bubble. What pays for goods and services is EXCISE TAXES. When you buy certain goods for instance, tobacco, firearms and other material items, there is a federal excise tax added on. That is what pays for everything.
Ok, once again “anon” visits us from his planet.
No law requires a worker to file a form W-4 (or its equivalent). In U.S. v. Mobil Oil Co. 82-1 USTC para. 9242, U.S.D.C.ND Tex.Dallas 1981 CA. 3-80-0438=G,the court ruled that an entity does not even have to send a W-4 form or other employment forms to the Internal Revenue Service unless served with a judicial court order summons to do so.
Under IRC sec.6301, the Entity, acting as a “tax collector”,has not provided evidence of having a written delegation of authority from the Secretary to collect from me, the taxes imposed by the internal revenue laws. No implementing regulation exist under 26 CFR.
CtC Takes Its Place In The Law Library At UC-Davis (Look Under “Taxation”)
In comment 234, anon engages in a typical income tax denialist trick, citing an alleged court decision by a means which almost no one can easily look up and verify, because he cites the report of it (if it is a real case at all) in a relatively obscure and specialized publication, instead of the standard Federal Supplement (or “F. Supp.”) citation.
They do this in order to give their rantings the air of authority, and avoid having their balloon popped by the news that the case does not say what they say it says, does not actually exist, has since been reversed by a higher court or overruled or corrected by the same court.
But on to the substance of what anon claims this case held: That is, according to anon, that “no law requires a worker to file a W4 form”. NOT TRUE.
Title 26, Section 3402, subsection (f), reads, in relevant part:
“(f) Withholding exemptions
“(1) In general
“(A) On commencement of employment
“On or before the date of the commencement of employment with an employer, the employee shall furnish the employer with a signed withholding exemption certificate relating to the number of withholding exemptions which he claims, which shall in no event exceed the number to which he is entitled.”
The subsection goes on to impose mandates regarding reporting of changes of status, such as number of exemptions to which the employee is entitled.
– Which raises another question which has — apparently — not occured to anon and his fellow income tax deniers: Since the W4 form tells your employer the number of exemptions to which you’re entitled, why would you NOT want to turn it in? So that your employer will be forced to assume you’re entitled to no exemptions, and withhold MORE money from your paycheck?
peter k. it is okay for you to be a whore for the I.R.S. {irrelevant ruthless scumbag } I know who you are & I accept your service to them. You owned nothing when you were born you were a Slave of the state, government & the federal reserve.Go for it you mindless fruit.You accepted a number & I have not.Youare just a chemical reaction on this planet.
Anonymous –
As a longtime opponent of income taxation (who — unlike you — believes the income tax should be repealed), it is highly unlikely that I would ever want to become a whore for the IRS.
However, if I ever do, and in the even more unlikely event that I will feel the need for your approval, thanks for giving it in advance.
As for whatever else you were trying to communicate, I find it well nigh indeciferable, except it sounds like some kind of insult.
Facts are stubborn things, as John Adams said in his defense of the British soldiers charged in the Boston Massacre. These are facts, as I have demonstrated: The constitution allows income, including wages, salaries, commissions and proceeds of businesses of all sizes and forms, to be taxed, without “apportionment”. Congress has chosen to exercise that power, and to administer and enforce it through the IRS and the courts.
Instead of believing fanciful theories about how and why the income tax may not exist, or how you may somehow not be required by existing law to pay it, why not just confront the fact that it does exist and applies to you, and work to end it and reduce the size of the government it supports?
Short of keeping your income below the amount of the total of the personal and dependent exemptions to which the law entitles you, plus the standard or itemized deductions, there is no other way out of it that does not involve the risk of prison and/or liens and forfeitures.
This is reality. Deal with it.
That I have examined Sections 871 thru 878, 1441, 1442, 1443, 3401(c), 6001, 6011, 6012(a), 6331(a), 7203, 7205 and 7343 of the IRC (Title 26, U.S.C.), and I am entirely convinced and completely satisfied that I am not now, nor was I ever, any such “person” or individual referred to by these sections. And further,
That, after careful study of the IRC, and after consultations on the provisions of that Code with informed lawyers, tax accountants and tax preparers concerning the provisions of the IRC, I have never found or been shown any sections of the IRC that imposed any requirement on me as a Sovereign natural born free State Citizen and unprivileged inhabitant, living and working within a County within a State of the Union, to file a “Form 1040 Income Tax Return”, or that imposed a requirement upon me to pay a tax on “income”, or that would classify me as a “person liable”, as a “person made liable”, or as a “taxpayer” as the term “taxpayer” is defined in 26 U.S.C. Section 7701(a)(14), which states: “The term ‘taxpayer’ means any person subject to any internal revenue tax.” And further,
That, after the study and consultations mentioned in paragraph 17, the only mention of any possible requirement upon me, as an individual, to pay a tax on “income”, that I could find, or was shown in 26 U.S.C., was the title of Part I under Subtitle A, Chapter 1, Subchapter A (which is deceptively titled “Tax on Individuals”) and Section 6012(a), Subtitle F, Chapter 61-A, Part II-B, Subpart B, and the Texas Tax Statutes; that a careful study and earnest examination of these parts of the IRC revealed that the “individuals” to whom these sections refer are, in fact, either individuals who work within a foreign nation like France and are taxed according to a tax treaty, or they are nonresident aliens who receive income which is either effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the corporate jurisdiction of the “United States”, or derived from sources within the corporate jurisdiction of the “United States”, although not effectively connected with the conduct of trade or business within the corporate jurisdiction of the “United States”, according to Sections 871 and 872 of the IRC; and that, to the best of my knowledge, I have never conducted any trade or business within the corporate jurisdiction of the “United States”, nor have I ever derived income from sources within the corporate jurisdiction of the “United States”. And further,
That, after the study and consultations mentioned in paragraph 17 above, my attention was called to the IRC, Chapter 21, entitled “Federal Insurance Contributions Act” (Social Security), and my attention was also called to Subchapter A of Chapter 21 entitled “Tax on Employees”, which includes Section 3101, wherein the Social Security tax is identified as a tax on “income”, not as an “Insurance Contribution”, not as a “Tax on Employees”, and not as a tax on wages or earnings; that my attention was further called to these facts: there is no provision in the IRC that imposes the tax on employees or requires them to pay the tax; a voluntarily signed and completed Form W-4, “Employee’s Withholding Allowance Certificate”, allows an employer to withhold money from a worker’s pay for Social Security “income” tax, even though the worker has claimed on that form to be “exempt” from the graduated “income” tax; and an employer has no authority to withhold money from a worker’s pay for the Social Security “income” tax, for the graduated “income” tax, nor for any IRS-imposed penalty or assessment, if there is no voluntarily signed “Form W-4″ in force and no “Form 2678″ in force Granting Power of Attorney.
anon –
I think you’ve merely established yourself to be incredibly dense. You may well be convinced of this idea that you are not covered by the tax laws (and if your income is low enough, which I suspect it may be) you may be correct.
However, if your income is above the amount which the tax code imposes a responsibility to file, you have to file; and if your income is above the amount which the tax code imposes a tax, you have to pay the tax.
It is illogical to conclude that the entire tax code does not apply to you, just because some of the sections do not apply to you.
I know you don’t like to actually quote the sections upon which you rely, because that would make it clear to everyone reading it how obviously wrong you are. It would also raise some obvious questions, which you also don’t like to answer because providing an answer would be a threat to your fragile belief system, and the psyche which depends upon it.
However, for the benefit of others, I will nonetheless quote the beginning of one of the sections you mentioned, Title 26, Section 6012:
“(a) General rule
“Returns with respect to income taxes under subtitle A shall be made by the following:
“(1)(A) Every individual having for the taxable year gross income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount, except that a return shall not be required of an individual – - -”
[The section goes on to list exceptions and the exceptions to the exceptions.]
I also suspect that if you did have “consultations on the provisions of that Code with informed lawyers, tax accountants and tax preparers”, that they simply grew tired of showing you the laws and explaining them to you.
I’m rather tired of it myself.
I’m confident that I have no liability under Texas law to pay income tax. I don’t live, work or conduct business in Texas. But I cannot comment about your liabilities.
A tax is a mandated contribution. The fact that the Act of Congress mandating participation in the funding of social security calls it a “contribution” in the name of the law, but calls it a “tax” in the text, does not mean you don’t have to pay it. Politicians call their schemes by self-serving, deceptive, bullshit names all the time. You think that means you don’t have to take part?
An individual that has no gross income owes no tax. Get it yet?
Better yet tell me what the word income is & where is it defined in the code, give me the page number so I may read it & post it here for all to see.
Where is income defined in Title 26,Internal revenue Code?
Are you Still delusional about income or gross income?
Your reality is not mine or the other 63 million Americans that do NOT FILE A return {?} It is voluntary.
Section 441-Withholding of tax on non resident aliens
Section 1442-Withholding of tax on foreign corporations
Section 1443 Foreign tax-exempt organizations
Sec. 1461 is the only place in subtitle A of the IRC where anyone is “made liable” for a tax, by the way– here it is in its entirety:
Sec.1461.- Liability for withheld tax
Every person required to deduct and withhold any tax under this chapter [ Chapter 3- Withholding of a tax on Nonresident Aliens and Foreign Corporations -PH ] is hereby made liable for such tax and is hereby indemnified against the claim and demands of any person for the amount of any payments made in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.
The only ones allowed to withhold a tax is a withholding AGENT for the IRS. I told you that you were a IRS AGENT. Withholding agents must have number, tell us what that number is.
AGAIN Income is NOT money, Earnings or receipts. In the law (income) is gainful activity involving the Federal Government.
Peter this is why I said to you, you are a irs agent or you are connected with the Government that is why YOU HAVE to PAY the income tax. The tax is the privilege for whoring [working] for the Federal gobberment. Get it yet?
The authority of a Withholding Agent (defined in Sec.7701 (a) 16, 26CFR Sec. 301.7701-16) to withhold from ones pay or remuneration (IRC Sec. 1441, 1442,1443,and specifically in 26CFR Sec.1.1441-7) applies to nonresident aliens.It does not apply to me.
A withholding Agent is required to have the specific FORM 2678 on file with the IRS to be legally authorized to withhold from my earnings for the IRS, or a FORM 8655 Reporting Agent Authorizing Certificate from the Treasury Financial Management Services.
Again these two forms [ 2678 & 8655 ] only allow the IRS agent to withhold from Nonresident Aliens. I can post the forms if you like.
State-Federal agreements for administration of qualified state income tax are authorized by PART 215 of 31 CFR. The authority applies to exclusive to federal government agencies and personnel; it does not extend to general population in States of the Union. Pursuant to 31 CFR sec,215.9 and 26 USC Subtitle A. unless I voluntarily give my written consent to have sums withheld,the enitity lacks authority to take amounts from my pay. I do not give my consent.
The internal revenue applies to taxpayers ; not to non taxpayers. If you think you may not be a taxpayer go to nontaxpayer.org
Thank you so much and have a great day!
“The general term ‘income’ is not defined in the Internal Revenue code” (United States V. Ballard, 535 F.2d 400, at 868
“(P)ersons who are not taxpayers are not within the system and can obtain no benifit by following the procedures prescribed for taxpayers, such as the filling of claims for refunds.” (Economy Plumbing and Heating V. U.S., 470 F.2d 585, at 589)
I like this!!!!!A Shreveport attorney who has challenged the government for years on the legality of filing federal income taxes has been acquitted on charges he failed to file returns.
A federal jury unanimously found Tommy Cryer not guilty this week on two misdemeanor counts of failure to file.
And according to Cryer, the prosecution dismissed two felony charges of tax evasion prior to trial.
Attempts by The Times on Thursday to reach U.S. Attorney Donald Washington or Bill Flanagan, first assistant U.S. attorney, were not successful. Calls made to the two were not immediately returned.
“The court could not find a law that makes me liable or makes my revenues taxable,” Cryer said. “The Supreme Court has ruled that the government cannot impose an income tax on anything but the profits and gains. When you work for someone you give your service and labor in exchange for money, so everything you make is not profit or gain. You put something into it.”
Cryer was indicted last year on two counts of tax evasion. The indictment alleged he evaded payment of $73,000 in income tax to the Internal Revenue Service during 2000 and 2001.
Cryer created a trust listing himself as the trustee, and received payments of dividends, interest and stock income to that trust, according to the indictment. He also was accused of concealing his receipt of the sources of income from the IRS by failing to file a tax return on behalf of that trust.
“I determined that my personal earnings were not 100 percent profits, some were income,” Cryer said. “I refuse to file, I refuse to pay unless they can show me I have a lawful reason to pay.”
“What I earned was my own personal labor. I am giving something in exchange. I’m giving my property and I don’t belong to anyone else.”
Cryer says he stopped filing returns more than 10 years ago after he investigated claims that income tax was a sham. He contends the law doesn’t actually tax personal earning.
joe –
Tommy Cryer was not acquitted this week for failure to file income tax returns. That happened back in July.
This means that Tommy Cryer’s only liability for failure to file the returns and pay the taxes for the years in question will be the civil liabilities for the amount of the taxes plus the interest and penalties, all of which will be enforceable through liens on everything he owns and everything that anyone owes him.
It also means that he will have less funds at his disposal should the federal government again decide to enforce the law, should he fail to file or pay taxes for any subsequent years. He will not be immune to criminal prosecution for subsequent failures to file or pay taxes.
The fact that O.J. Simpson and Robert Blake were acquitted of homicide in California does not mean that homicide is now legal in California. Nor does it mean that you can commit a homicide in California and expect to get a jury to acquit you.
The fact that Tommy Cryer got acquitted of failure to file tax returns does not mean that failure to file a tax return is never a crime. Nor does it mean that you can refuse to file an income tax return and expect to get a jury to acquit you.
Ed R. and anonymous –
The general term ‘income’ is not defined in the Internal Revenue code. I never claimed that it was. “Income” is one of many, many words that we are somehow able to understand without any help whatsoever from the government.
The fact that a statute uses a word, but does not define it, does not mean that the statute has no meaning. Meaning is derived from usage and context, in statutes as in everyday speech.
In the case of “taxable income”, the Internal Revenue Code supplies a definition. That definition employs the term “gross income”. The Internal Revenue Code also supplies a definition for “gross income”. That definition emplys the word “income”, but does not define it. Instead it supplies a lot of examples of what is included in ‘gross income”, which is all the meaning and context you need.
Somehow “anonymous” got it into his little head that I don’t understand that “an individual [who] has no gross income owes no tax”.
I’ve stated that fact repeatedly in this very blog. I’ve advised him that if he keeps his income below the amount of the total of the personal and dependent exemptions to which the law entitles him, plus the standard or itemized deductions, he can pay no income tax, cannot be convicted for failure to do so, and there will be no civil obligation to enforce.
I would add that if he keeps his income below the total of the personal exemption plus the standard deduction, he does not even have to file the 1040 or any of the variations. (However, if it is self-emplyment income, he may have to file and pay the self-employment tax.)
No, I am not employed, and have never been employed, by the Internal Revenue Service or any state taxing authority, or any federal or state government agency at all.
As I’ve said, I’m one of those people who thinks the income tax should be repealed, because it funds a massive, harmfully large federal government, and requires most working people to take large chunks out of their productive and joyful lives to keep records, fill out paperwork, meet deadlines, and report to the government on themselves.
“Anon” or “anonymous” is not among the people who believe that. He (or she) espouses ideas which are useful to income tax and big government supporters, and opponents of personal and economic liberty, in two ways:
(1) When these ideas are expressed by income tax opponents, income tax supporters don’t have to think up “strawman” arguments of their own. These false ideas are so easily torn down and ridiculed, it is almost as if pro-tax people planted them.
(2) When income tax opponents latch onto these erroneous arguments, they get distracted from pro-liberty activism, in that:
(a) They see no reason to advocate intelligent arguments for the repeal of the income tax, becuase they think the income tax does not exist (so why repeal it?) and/or most of the intelligent arguments have little weight in the context of the limited extent of the income tax in the minds of these people;
(b) Income tax opponents rely on these false ideas in resisting the income tax, which can and often does result in one or both of the following outcomes:
(i) They have less money to donate to pro-liberty causes because they have to pay interest and penalties to the IRS, enforced by liens on their bank accounts and real estate and other property, and/or they have to pay attorney fees to fight against civil collection and criminal indictments; and
(ii) They have less time and availability to engage in pro-liberty activism and advocacy because they’re in prison or fighting to stay out of prison.
The Gov. tells you on line one (1)on the 1040 form that they are only taxing you on taxable income. Peter if you put non taxable income on line one (1) then HOW can they know its not taxable? Apparently you still do NOT KNOW what is taxable And what is NOT taxable.
Hey BIG BOY tell us what is taxable.
Hey BIG BOY tell us what is not taxable.
Hey Capt.america tell us what is income .
Hey BIG BOY tell us what wages are.
Tell us if you are a United States citizen.
Dolt look at your pass port, whats it say ?
Bruce and Sharon Doughty have taken action and won a victory for our American heritage of lawful, limited government and natural rights. Bruce and Sharon know that control over their property is in their own hands, but only if they stand up and assert their claim. They have done so, and on May 21, Bruce and Sharon received a complete refund of everything paid over to the federal government in connection with the “income” tax during 2006.
Bruce and Sharon’s victory in upholding the law over the ambitions of our public servants to be free of all restraints can be enjoyed at
joe –
You stated:
“The Gov. tells you on line one (1)on the 1040 form that they are only taxing you on taxable income.”
I disagree. On line 1 of the 1040 tax form, the government does not tell me anything. It asks for filing status. My guess is yours is, always has been and ever will be “single”.
Next, you ask me:
“[I]f you put non taxable income on line one (1) then HOW can they know its not taxable?”
I do not know why you would put nontaxable income on any line of the 1040 (other than the line that asks for it), especially the line where your filing status goes.
The line for taxable income is one of the lines on the back of the form, and you know what to put there by just following the math instructions on that line and all the lines that come before it. Quite simple. A reasonably bright child could do it, but I doubt you have any around.
Next, you surmise:
“Apparently you still do NOT KNOW what is taxable And what is NOT taxable.”
Not off the top of my head I don’t. But as I have mentioned before (in comments 144 and 152), 26 U.S.C. Section 63 (read in light of Sections 61 and 62) shows income to be taxable or not, depending on the amount and the person’s circumstances. You could also just check the instruction booklet that comes with the 1040.
Section 63 is quite long, so I will only quote part of it:
“(a) In general
“Except as provided in subsection (b), for purposes of this subtitle, the term “taxable income” means gross income minus the deductions allowed by this chapter (other than the standard deduction).
“(b) Individuals who do not itemize their deductions
In the case of an individual who does not elect to itemize his deductions for the taxable year, for purposes of this subtitle, the term “taxable income” means adjusted gross income, minus—
“(1) the standard deduction, and
“(2) the deduction for personal exemptions provided in section 151.
“(c) Standard deduction
“For purposes of this subtitle—
“(1) In general
“Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, the term “standard deduction” means the sum of—
“(A) the basic standard deduction, and
“(B) the additional standard deduction.
“(2) Basic standard deduction
“For purposes of paragraph (1), the basic standard deduction is—
“(A) 200 percent of the dollar amount in effect under subparagraph (C) for the taxable year in the case of—
“(i) a joint return, or
“(ii) a surviving spouse (as defined in section 2 (a)),
(B) $4,400 in the case of a head of household (as defined in section 2 (b)), or
“(C) $3,000 in any other case.
“(3) Additional standard deduction for aged and blind
For purposes of paragraph (1), the additional standard deduction is the sum of each additional amount to which the taxpayer is entitled under subsection (f).”
And it goes on and on.
joe: You then go on make inquiries of “Big Boy”, “Capt.america” and “Dolt”
I do not see any comments on this blog from anyone of those names. It could be you are confused.
In any event, I believe I just answered your first two questions of Big Boy. But you can check Section 63 yourself for more detail.
Your other question of Big Boy and the one to “Capt.america” are the kinds which can best be answered by use of something available in the free market, known as a “dictionary”.
I do not know who the question about American citizenship is addressed to, but I hope not everyone who reads this blog will respond.
You ask “Dolt” to look at his passport, and tell you what it says. If I was “Dolt”, I would not do that. If he has a passport, it probably has his real name on it (maybe an address, too), and it is not a good idea to post a real name and address on a blog, especially one read and monitored closely by an unstable person like you, joe.
All the comments were for you dumb ass.Got it peter k.? What is an imf.
Your NEW NAME is now BIG BOY. ALL will respond to you as dolt, big boy or capt. america.
I do not care what the instruction booklet says about taxpayers or the I.R.S. code says, it does not apply to me, I am a non taxpayer.
All those REGS.& instructions apply to you & all other taxpayers. I will tell you again I am not a taxpayer.
Get a clue, go to nontaxpayer.org .Find out why I am a nontaxpayer.
I do not want you to stop paying the income tax because you owe it to the I.R.S. You took the mark & now you must Pay or Lucifer will have you put in prison peter pumpkim eater.
What is the max.amount the I.R.S. can tax you peter?
What is the max.amount the I.R.S. can tax a taxpayer?
Did you know that the I.R.S. regulations were repealed in 2003.Where have you been peter?
Bob, joe, anon, Anonymous and other children (assuming these are actually 4 different people, and not just one very insecure and immature individual) –
You have certainly helped Homeland Stupidity live up to its name.
I will assume that joe does not know how to spell “maximum” in asking the two questions he most recently put to me. I will now answer those two questions accurately.
The maximum amount the Internal Revenue Service (an agency within the Treasury Department of the executive branch of the United States) can tax me, or any taxpayer (or any nontaxpayer) is ZERO.
The role of the IRS is limited by the U.S. Constitution, which places the taxing power in the hands of Congress, Article I, Section 8. Congress has exercised that power many times, and its current exercises are codified in the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 of the United States Code. Congress can, and has, delegated the administrative and some enforcement functions to the IRS, but the taxing power itself is non-delegable.
There is no Constitutional limit specific to the taxing power which Congress has, other than the limit stated in Article I, Section 9 and in Section 8 itself. To the extent that the limit of Section 9 applied to the taxation of income, it has been amended by the 16th Amendment making the power to tax incomes a plenary one.
Thus the only limit on Congress’ taxing power are the general limitations in such places as the Bill of Rights, and the nascent ones of elections and the amendment process.
These last two require income tax opponents who are able and willing to do productive things, as opposed to sitting around stewing up bizarre, groundless, hopeless, delusional misinterpretations of plainly written laws (such as Sections 61, 62 and 63 of the aforementioned Title 26). It appears quite plainly that Bob, joe, anon, Anonymous and a few others who post here lack that ability.
Neither peter k. a Entity or the state have provided any evidence of having entered into a SECTION 218 Voluntary Agreement for coverage of social security specific to me or anyone, pursuant to 42 USC 418 I did not consent to have amounts taken from my pay for social security coverage.
I and most Americans working in the private sector do not derive Subtitle A wage Gross Income (IRC sec.61,911, and 26 CFR sec. 1.861-4,1.61-2 and my REMUNERATION does not constitute WAGES for withholding purposes under IRC sec.3401 (a)(8)(a)(i).
I do not derive taxable income as defined in 26 CFR sec. 1.863-1(c) from a taxable;e SOURCE defined in the OPERATIVE section of 26 CFR sec. 1.861-(f)(i). I am not engaged in a revenue taxable activity, event, or commodity. I am outside the venue and the jurisdiction of 26 USC and 26 CFR.
1. I do not derive income taxable under 26 USC sec. 3101 and am therefore classified as a “non- covered” worker.
2. I have never been made liable for such tax pursuant to 26 USC sec. 6201;
3. I have never been issued any LAWFUL Assessment for any such tax, pursurant to 26 USC sec.6203
4. Pursuant to 26 USC sec. 3402 (p)(3) I DO NOT CONSENT to have amounts taken from my pay.
5. ” Where rights secured by the constitution are involved,there can be NO Rule making or legislation which would ABROGATE them:Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436,491.Federal and / or staet withholdings from my remuneration can ONLY be ACCOMPLISHED by giving my VOLUNARTY CONSENT. I do not CONSENT.
Peter k. you use to go by frank buckner; glad to know your still Lucifer’s bitch, has your work improved?
Knowledge will for ever govern ignorance.
Unlike peter k. the slave of Lucifer;
I am free,a living spirit man, not a person, human being, citizen, cooperation,or other Abomination.
There is no Section 61,911 in the tax code. The numbers don’t go that high.
I have not alleged that anyone entered into a voluntary agreement for social security, so why would you expect me to produce evidence of it?
In order for your remuneration not to constitute wages for withholding purposes under IRC sec.3401 (a)(8)(a)(i) I think you’d have to be a citizen or resident of the United States temporarily living abroad. If you are, then fine. But most don’t fall into that category. They’re having taxes withheld from jobs right here in the U.S.A.
Oh, so you’re a “spirit man” not a person or a “cooperation”, and you think I’m some guy named Frank Buckner who is actually a slave to Lucifer?
Well, there are treatments for that, spirit man. Why not ask your shrink to hook you up with some meds?
Go to to learn the truth about the income tax.
Go to to understand the income tax, you may not owe the tax.
Go to l and find out how to receive a refund.
Knat said:
on April 25th, 2007 at 7:48 am
It’s much more complicated than that, however though Snipes is substantially correct, the IRS is relying on certain loop holes or alleged acts of “volunteering to be subject to there jurisdiction” in declaring him and all his income from what ever source, taxable.
It’s a sham-scam perpetrated for over 6 decades against the American People, initially under the guise of acquiring the cooperation of the American people in support of the war effort; and before that, the scam to tie everyone into the jurisdiction of the system was(is) masquerading as the Social Security System offered as a panacea to a people ravaged by a manipulated economy.
Check Title 26 and read your history.
Whether it was for greed, righteous indignation at being cheated by his own government or a desire to be the
Michael Walker said:
on July 1st, 2007 at 3:47 pm
I have studied the IRCode, the Civil Procedures Guide, the Handbook for Special Agents and the Federal Register for more than 20 years.
I have used numerous search engines to attempt to prove and disprove both sides of the “story”, as it were, and I have come to a simple conclusion.
“We The People” are being lied to, falsely accused, falsely imprisoned, slandered, maligned, used, abused, and forced into situations where some have chosen to take their own lives by a greedy, corrupt, and out of control government that has grown fat on the ignorance of its “people”.
Only, and I mean ONLY, when “We The People” stand up, en masse, and demand, yes “DEMAND”, that the TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, be revealed, in specificity, regarding the fraudulent declaration that the 16th Amendment was ratified, ONLY when those who have knowingly and willfully abused their “alleged” authority and power have been made to account for their actions, and ONLY when restitution has been made to the American People and the so called “16th” Amendment has been repealed, ONLY THEN will this great country, once again, be a Nation of “We The People”.
John F. Kennedy once said “Ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country”.
Terrific sloganism of the time. Loosely translated it means “Ask not what those in power can do for you, but what you can do for those in power”.
Intimidation through custom and tradition and the loss of freedoms by degree over long periods of time have reduced this country to what it has fought from its inception, a fascist state.
Recall when the “seat belt law” was passed. They “Those in power”, in specificity, stated that they would never use that “Law” to pull any person over just for not wearing a seat belt.
In less than 3 years that’s exactly what was being done, giving police broadened “powers” to go on “fishing” expeditions.
I used to be a police officer, so I am familiar with the mentality and knew that, even though it (the seat belt law) would pass under certain auspices, that those same considerations would be thrown out like the baby with the bathwater.
The “IRS” is no different, they are our “Gestapo”, and if you have any doubts about that then your ignorance is our governmental bliss.
I received a letter from the Treasury Department stating that for the years 2000, and 2001 I “owed” nearly 27 billion dollars in back taxes, penalties, and interest.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
Apparently I’ve been a baaaad boy.
That or they have an idiot working for them.
You tell me…
Michael Walker said:
on August 26th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
You might want to check out certain information (if you haven’t already) at , the We The People foundation, and the Lie Free Zone.
The first reference will give you the entire transcript of the Cryer trial in Louisiana where he took on the IRS and won, something you can use as a paradigm in your own case.
Also Truth Radio, re replays a Paul Harvey comment over and over again on how the McKees got their money back from the IRS in a 9th circuit appeal because they argued that the IRS Code was too difficult for the average person (even most IRS agents) to understand, so it was made “Void for vagueness”.
And don’t forget the Kuglin references, she beat them on the fact that she asked for and never received information on where, exactly, within the confines of the Code was her “Tax liability and filing requirement” created> They never told her, they took her to court, she showed the jury her “Good faith” requests and walked away free from the IRS and their heavy handed tactics.
Good luck Wes.
Now you get to take on some REAL bloodsuckers…
Richard Palmquist
Who is more to blame? Snipes/Kahn or the IRS? Can you believe an agency with the sophistication of the IRS would VALIDATE the Bills of Exchange produced by Kahn, causing the refunds to be issued? Then, can you believe the IRS would go FIVE YEARS before focusing upon Snipes? Who is more to blame? Kahn and Snipes for not thinking clearly about the law? Or the IRS for being incometent to enforce the law?
Michael Walker said:
“And don’t forget the Kuglin references, she beat them on the fact that she asked for and never received information on where, exactly, within the confines of the Code was her “Tax liability and filing requirement” created> They never told her, they took her to court, she showed the jury her ‘Good faith’ requests and walked away free from the IRS and their heavy handed tactics.”
But that is not actually true. Vernice Kuglin was acquitted of her criminal tax charges, apparently because prosecution failed to persuade the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that she was not in “good faith” in her belief that she did not have to do what the IRS insisted that she do.
That would not help in a civil case, and the double jeopardy clause does not protect her from a civil judgment for the taxes, civil penalties and interest. Also, since a civil case would be under the “preponderance of the evidence standard” the government still has the opportunity to prove the pertinent facts without meeting the “beyond the reasonable doubt” standard.
Finally, Vernice Kuglin would again be subject to criminal prosecution if it is alleged that she has failed to obey the tax laws in the future. It will be difficult for her to rely on her “good faith” ignorance after she’s already been through a criminal and possibly a civil proceding, in which the laws were laid out for her.
So, Vernice Kuglin is hardly “free from the IRS and their heavy handed tactics.”
Also, I doubt very much that the 9th Circuit, or any other federal court, ever said that the entire tax code was void for vagueness, although it is possible that a court said that about one or more particular sections, but not Sections 61, 62 or 63.
One could use the Cryer transcript as a model for beating your own criminal tax case, but of course it may not work for you in that your facts may be different, the government may have a better prosecutor, and you will have a different jury. You may have a jury which is, like most juries, skeptical and unsympathatic to those who don’t pay taxes.
But you could win the criminal case. After which you will still be liable civilly for all of the taxes, civil penalties and interest. And if you don’t win, then there’s free food in prison, by the coerced curtesy of taxpayers.
When it comes down to it, what law triggers the requirement to file a Tax return?
What LAW (statute) triggers the REQUIREMENT to FILE a TAX RETURN?
What LAW Triggers the requirement to file a Tax Return?
There you go!!!
The 7 th circuit says it is sec. 7203
The 6th & 9th circuit says it is sec 6012 & 7203
The 11th circuit says it is 6012with any of the ABOVE
The 6th & 7th circuit says there is no REGULATION involved
So tell me peter k.where is the law or the REGULATIONS?
I know you are smarter than all these Judges
The 11th circuit says it is only sec.6012 that triggers the Requirement to file a return.
The 11th circuit fail to mention what kind of return. A return for an over payment of tax, a payment for a tax payment, a payment for additional taxes owed in the future. The 11th circuit never says anything about a 1040, 1040x, 2255, 4852,they do list any form.
I have looked for a return, but need to know what form is mentioned in the law they are talking about.
Vessel and TRCP 52 Name alleging a Corp. doc. (24)
TRCP 52 ALLEGING A CORPORATION: An allegation that a corporation is incorporated shall be taken as true, unless denied by the affidavit of the adverse party, his agent or attorney, whether such corporation is a public or private corporation and however created.
Dr. Pepper Co. v. Crow, 621 S.W.2d 464,465 (Tex App.—Waco 1981, no writ). “Plaintiff plead defendant was a corporation. Defendant did not deny by verified pleading pursuant to [TRCP] 52 and 93 … that it was not a corporation; thus, such fact was established.”
You are a corporation until you deny it via affidavit! Your all caps name on you DL, Voter Reg., SS# is not you but you have contracted to be responsible for the all Caps name putting you into slavery by Contract. You made the Choice and you have to choose to change. The Fiction you represent can do nothing!!!
Full caps legal person v. the lawful being
Just who is the full caps person, i.e. JOHN JAMES SMITH? He’s the legal fiction the government created to take the place of the real being, i.e. John James Smith. The lawful Christian name of birthright has been substituted by a legal fiction created by the government.
If the lawful Christian name answers as the legal person, the two are recognized as being one and the same. However, if the lawful being refuses acceptance of the legal fiction, the two are separated.
Therein lays the simple solution to the entire matter: refusal by the lawful Christian to accept or answer for the legal person.
How did this happen? A result of the federal government bankruptcies was their creation of a legal fiction known as THE UNITED STATES as a part of their legal reorganization. Each STATE was also converted to their respective fictional legal person, i.e. THE STATE OF TEXAS.
Legal fictions can create further legal fictions, such as corporations or any other fictional persons easily identified by being written with full caps. Once this was accomplished, the entire process was set into motion.
All areas of government, including the purported courts of law, are currently authorized by, and operating as, legally created fictions. For example, the CIRCUIT COURT OF WAYNE COUNTY or the U.S. DISTRICT COURT can only recognize other legal persons. This is why your lawful name is never entered in their records. It has been substituted with the legal person written with full caps. Jurisdiction in such legal fiction courts is only with other legal fictions – persons.
The only jurisdiction a lawful being can enter into is a lawful constitutional court – a common law venue. The “catch 22″ is that lawful courts no longer exist. Only legal courts are available to Americans.
The purpose and reason for the government use of proper names written in full caps is now revealed. The only way to counter this is for lawful Americans to stop accepting the use of the substituted legal fiction the State has given them. Every document now issued by any government addresses the person written in full caps. Lawful Americans must insist that they are not that legal fiction and refuse to accept it. By joining together and doing so from the local level, each community will begin to upset the legal order. Lawful Americans must begin to demand lawful government and lawful courts. The legal fictions can only come to an end when the people refuse to use or recognize them.
The only way to restore lawful government in America is for the people to refuse the privileges of the legal government now unlawfully in place. We’ve all been duped and the billboard was right before our own eyes. The use of full caps to write a proper name is absolutely no mistake.
…………………………….
A vessel of the United States has been defined in Title 18, section 9,
“Vessels of the United States defined. The term vessel of the United States as used in this title means a vessel belonging in whole or in part to the United States or any citizen thereof or any corporation created by or under the laws of the United States or any State or Territory or district or possession.”
-CITE- 18 USC Sec. 9 01/22/02
-EXPCITE-
TITLE 18 – CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I – CRIMES
CHAPTER 1 – GENERAL PROVISIONS
-HEAD- Sec. 9. Vessel of the United States defined
-STATUTE-
The term ”vessel of the United States”, as used in this title, means a vessel belonging in whole or in part to the United States, or any citizen thereof, or any corporation created by or under the laws of the United States, or of any State, Territory, District, or possession thereof.
-SOURCE- (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 685.)
-MISC1-
HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTES
Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Sec. 501 (Mar. 4, 1909, ch.
321, Sec. 310, 35 Stat. 1148).
Section is made applicable to the entire title rather than to
sections 481 et seq. of title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed.
Minor changes in phraseology were made.
Anonymous –
As I said in comment 173:
“United States Code, Title 26, Subtitle F, Chapter 61, Subchapter A, Part II, Subpart B, Section 6012 requires the filing of the tax return, with some exceptions.”
Try to keep up.
I am fairly certain that Congress has authorized the Internal Revenue Service or the Treasury Department to adopt administrative regulations not inconsistent with the law. They’ve been doing it a long time, and neither Congress nor the courts have done anything to stop them.
I’m not going to look up regulations for you.
You do not have to look up REGULATIONS for ME,I already have all of them. REGULATIONS are NOT [NOT] LAW PETER K. Go ahead & look up the REGULATIONS for yourself because you don’t know any of them.
You post no Statutes or gobberment forms thats why you are talking through your ASS because your mouth knows better.
1. Section 3506(c) mandates a detailed information collection
evaluation procedure requiring each agency to establish a process within the office designated under subsection (a), independent of program responsibility, to evaluate proposed collections.
REGULATIONS are nothing without a STATUTE!
STATUTES are nothing without REGULATIONS.
OMB must approve all gobberment forms.
You just proved yourself to be a DUMB ASS!!!
You won’t look up any Statutes or regulations for yourself or anyone ELSE so how in hell can you come to a Lawful conclusion?
Oh I understand you just disagree or dream up some bull shit statement & go by that!
The gobberment agency MUST [SHALL]
Review a collection of information before it is submitted to
OMB for review, that includes making an independent evaluation
of its need; preparing a description of it, a collection plan,
and a burden estimate; pilot testing the collection, if appropriate;
and developing a plan for the management and use of
the information to be collected;
Ensure that information collections are inventoried, display
a control number and, when appropriate, an expiration date;
indicate the collection is in accordance with the Act; and contain
a statement informing the person being asked why the information
is being collected, its use, its burden, and whether
responses are voluntary, required to obtain a benefit, or mandatory.
This requirement is transposed from current law (section
3504(c)(3)) to make it more clearly an agency responsibility,
rather than a duty of OMB. Note that this requirement
must also be certified to by each agency (see section
3506(c)(3)(F); and Assess the information collection burden of proposed legislation
affecting the agency.
This is Congress’ explanation as to why it changed or rewrote the 1980 PRA.
Note that “this requirement must be certified…” Guess what,** it is not certified. ** How can it be (?) when all one must do is look at the Form and see if it is or is not meeting all (not just any) of the above or as provided at section 3506(c)(1)(B)(1995). This applies to every form of request. And how about “contain a statement” and just what does “contain” mean? So, for those of you dealing with the political spin in opposition to the PRA protection entering into that fiction of fear for failure to answer questions believed to subject one to penalties, civil and criminal, the protection provided by the PRA of 1995 has penetrated that fiction and in the spirit is kicking its behind!
Just simply tell who ever that if it comes down to what the law says or what an agency says the law says, and both oppose one another, which one controls is up to you and since you stand and will fight and send your family to foreign countries to fight and die for the rule of law in that or those countries, it would be beyond explanation why you would not stand for the rule of law here at home. It is a disgrace to say that the rule of law, where the law is the rule, and not the IRS, has been somehow compromised here in America. Not in my house and now and not ever!
Jim cohen –
I did not say I would not look up regulations. I was responding to “Anonymous”, who, in comment 261, asked me to look up a regulation for him. I told him I will not do that.
I don’t look up regulations for someone else. If he has a point to make about what the laws say, he should (1) look the law up himself, (2) quote it accurately, (3) cite it accurately, that is, if he’s quoting from the United States Code, tell us the Title and Section; if he’s quoting from the Code of Federal Regulations, tell us the same; if he’s quoting from a court case, tell us (a) the name of the decision, (b) the volume and page where the official report of the case is, (c) what page he’s quoting from.
Reading much of the commentary on here, I see alot of people who cite the wrong authority for what it is you’re trying to say or prove:
For what the Constitution says, the correct authority is the Constitution; for an interpretation of what the Constitution means, cite the courts, especially the Supreme Court, or the persons responsible for getting the provision in question into the Constitution in the first place.
For what Congress says, go to the U.S. Code. It makes no sense to go to regulations to prove what it is that Congress said. Congress does not write the regulations.
Also — not a good idea to use abbreviations without explaining what they’re abbreviations for.
If we can’t tell what you’re talking about, we’re justified in assuming that you don’t either.
You and “Anonymous” only present yourselves to be ignorant when you resort to name-calling, instead of calm, rational, fact-based, informed and informative discussion
I do not agree with you that “Statutes are nothing without regulations.” Regulations are not even mentioned in the Constitution. (If my state legislature has passed a law against murder, would I get away with it on the grounds that no state agency has issued a regulation on it?)
As for your assertion that all government forms have to be approved by the Office of Management and Budget, even if that was true it would not mean that it would absolve you of a Congressionally-imposed obligation to file a form, if you have such an obligation.
And I don’t believe it is true. Full citation in correct form, please. Evidence, please.
Talking to or trying to explain the income tax to you, is like trying to teach a PIG how to sing, it is a waste of time and it annoys the pig.
You use a lot of words to say absolutely nothing.
The laws of the constitution do not apply to Americans.
The Constitution And its law apply only to United States Citizens.
Ever here of a sovereign citizen to the federal circuit?
You may be like the President {george bush} and not know the meaning of the word SOVEREIGN.
There is a statutory definition for the TERM CITIZEN.
PROVE which ONE you ARE!
Your knowledge on the income tax would be GREATLY improved by going to non taxpayer.org And speaking to Dave Champion.
His book on the income tax will be out in December.
Sure it will make YOUR HEAD SPIN!
58.
AzraelsJudgement | August 3, 2007 2:35 pm
If we didnt have the “federal” reserve then we wouldnt need to pay taxes. Our federal tax goes into the bankers pockets who charge the government interest for making our own money!
If the government made the money then there would be no interest on every dollar made therefor no federal tax to pay the interest rate.
When people say the federal tax pays for our roads, police etc they have done no research.
Tolls pay for roads, state tax pays for police. Federal tax goes into bankers pockets. Thats why the IRS is so militant about protecting their “law”.
Post a Comment
58.
AzraelsJudgement | August 3, 2007 2:35 pm
If we didnt have the “federal” reserve then we wouldnt need to pay taxes. Our federal tax goes into the bankers pockets who charge the government interest for making our own money!
If the government made the money then there would be no interest on every dollar made therefor no federal tax to pay the interest rate.
When people say the federal tax pays for our roads, police etc they have done no research.
Tolls pay for roads, state tax pays for police. Federal tax goes into bankers pockets. Thats why the IRS is so militant about protecting their “law”.
Post a Comment
It is very apparent that “Jim cohen”, “anon”, “Anonymous” and “joe” are all the same person. The same very confused, explosive person.
For my education and enlightment, I did look at this “nontaxpayer” site maintained by a fellow called Dave Champion, who appears to have the ability to compose complete sentences. He seems like a fairly refined guy, too, not someone who would just start calling people names because they disagree with him. By this I mean it appears he is not like “Jim cohen”, et al.
Although I visited his site for education and enlightment, what I found instead was amusement. (I suppose I should not be amused, when I think of how much productive time and energy will be wasted by the gullible who follow what appears to be his advise. I say “appears to be his advise” because I base my surmise of what his advise is on the theories espoused in a link he provides. His actual advise is something I’d have to pay for.)
On a link to Constitutional issues, I found an unsigned discussion which contained many of the usual misunderstandings of court cases to which I have alluded in earlier post. For example, the author takes an out-of-context, incomplete quote from a case called Eisner v. Macomber, without telling the readers what the case was about. The case was about whether the personal income tax applied to stock dividends, and ruled that it did not.
(A stock dividend is different from a cash dividend, in that you don’t receive anything that you can spend. It is a mini stock split, that is, the corporation declares a dividend of — for example — 0.03 shares of stock for every share owned. Since every share gets the same stock dividend on a proportional basis, each shareholder has exactly the same percentage of ownership in the corporation as he had before. Thus no income, only more certificates representing the same net worth.)
This misunderstanding and others appear to form the basis of his conclusion that ordinary income cannot be taxed without “apportionment” among the states, despite the plain words of the 16th Amendment, and despite repeated Supreme Court income tax cases to the contrary.
I also noticed something curious about the author’s discussion of the difference between “direct” and “indirect” taxes. The author defined “direct” taxes as taxes which “cannot be avoided because they are upon things that are fixed – such as your physical being, your real property, and certain fundamental rights” (a definition which I will go along with, although I do not entirely accept it).
Later on in the essay, the author says:
“Historically, Americans of yesteryear were aware that a direct tax was upon their person, or their real property (including slaves), or their exercise of other fundamental rights. They were also aware that a tax on the fruits of one’s property (such as receiving payment from renting a piece of real property) was also a direct tax unless those earnings where in the course of a privileged activity, and then they were subject to an excise tax.”
Slaves were never considered “real property”. They were always “personal property”. More importantly, the way this is worded creates the impression that the author views ownership of slaves is among “fundamental rights”.
Finally, the author appears to view earning a living as a “fundamental right” — that forms part of the basis for his theory placing taxation of ordinary income into the category of “direct” taxation — but at the same time, other places in the essay suggest that certain ways of earning a living can be labeled a “privilege” by governmental whim, slapped with an “excise” and thereby magically fall into the “indirect” category.
If Congress can call some occupations “privileges”, why not all of them?
It was not until the late 1990’s, when the Internal Revenue Code was digitized (and thus made searchable) that it became possible to decipher its deliberately confusing and misleading construction. Only then could complete searches be done of all 3,413,780 or so words (not counting regulations) for every incidence of “liable”, “imposed”, “income”, “employee”, and dozens of other key or misleading terms– checking every reference, exception, definition and source. Only then could it be established that, as written, the laws behind the code and the taxes that they impose technically comply with the Constitution, just as all the judges have said over the years.
But the same analysis also reveals that, as written, these laws don’t apply to most of the receipts of most private citizens. Indeed, the two things are interdependent– the former couldn’t be true unless the latter was also true.
What you will learn as you read this book is that specific Constitutional limitations on the federal government’s power to tax do shape related law, and have generated a coherent Supreme Court doctrine which clearly and soundly answers the question of what is taxable “income”. Both the statutes and the doctrine acknowledge the exemption of the vast majority of private-sector receipts from that taxing power’s reach.
However, you will also learn about a complex combination of craft, routine bureaucratic incoherence, and casual– and not-so-casual– corruption by virtue of which many people are led to inadvertently allow, and even participate in, the legal transformation of their untaxable earnings into taxable “income”. Such people are tricked into voluntarily and utterly unnecessarily enabling the diversion of a river of wealth from their own hands, usually never to be seen again.
Thanks to an unhappy coincidence of reiterations and amendments of the law, a series of complicated judicial rulings, and the passage of time and memories, the details of American tax law– and the principles upon which it is based– have come to be widely misunderstood. The opportunities presented by that reality have been seized upon, by those paid to maximize revenue flow to the government, to successfully construct an elaborate and deceptive tax scheme rooted in today’s Internal Revenue Code.
This scheme capitalizes on widespread public ignorance of general legal doctrine and rules of statutory construction. It practices a careful gauging of extraction levels to the tolerance limits of key demographic segments. It relies upon the concealment of the underlying actual-law-in-force behind the misleading words of the code, which is legally no more than ‘evidence of the law’, and not the law itself.
Fundamental to the scheme is designing that code to be so dauntingly and profoundly confusing as to force the vast majority of those against whom it’s directed to abandon even a pretense of personal comprehension. These targets are thus compelled to surrender their decision-making to the code’s administrative bureaucracy or a professional class of fixers and go-betweens– the members of either of which are dependent on the scheme for their own earnings. Unsurprisingly, both assure any who ask that of course private-sector receipts are taxed under the law. If pressed, these experts will trot out carefully selected, out-of-context and ambiguous fragments of law calculated to convincingly suggest that what they claim must be in the law, somewhere. But somehow, they never manage to demonstrate exactly where. ‘Cracking the Code’ is going to provide that missing context, unravel the tangle of deceit and confusion, and make clear that not only is it not in there anywhere, what is in there is just the opposite.
For the 64 years of its existence, the U. S. Internal Revenue Code has been ridiculed, feared and despised by virtually everyone. And why not? As presented by the Internal Revenue Service, the code appears illogical, inconsistent and incomprehensible. As presented, the code defies practically the entire Bill of Rights– requiring citizens to testify against themselves, allowing searches and seizures without warrants, levying fines and penalties without trials and imposing a tax on the basic right to earn a living. As presented, the IRC would appear to turn everything we all thought we had learned in grade school English and Civics on its head.
Is it possible that we all just misunderstood those simple lessons? Maybe. But researcher, analyst and scholar Peter E. Hendrickson believes that after Cracking the Code, you’ll agree that what has been misunderstood is the 3,413,780 word monstrosity itself– and how, and to whom, it applies.
Hendrickson delves deep into the history, statutes and case law behind the Code to reveal its startling and liberating secrets; and unless you live in a cave, you need to know what he’s uncovered.
Once you’ve finished “Cracking the Code”, the tax laws will never mean the same thing to you, or your bank account, again!
NOW IN ITS EIGHTH PRINTING!
1) No law makes me “liable” for income taxes;
(2) The income tax is not “traceable” to any power given to Congress by the Constitution to “lay and collect taxes”;
(3) The indictment are secured by fraud, because U.S. attorneys fraudulently mislead the grand jury concerning the legal meaning of “income” as that term is used in our revenue laws;
(4) There is no provision in the Internal Revenue Code that gives federal courts jurisdiction to prosecute anyone for alleged criminal violations of our income tax laws.
I’m goin’ in, Jeff.
It’s pretty simple really.
1. If you don’t want to pay income tax, keep your income below taxable levels.(There is a break even point where you basically keep everything you earn.) The result if everybody does this; the government goes broke.
2. If you want to make a large income but still don’t want to pay tax, then DON’T. If they throw you in jail, at least you will be comfortable in the knowledge that you’re not paying for it. The result if everybody does this; the government goes broke.
3. If you want to complain about it and whine that it isn’t fair and stomp on your hanky while you recite the tax laws and the Constitution…. but pay it in the end anyway, you’re really not accomplishing anything. You just make yourself look like a puffed up, red faced tom turkey making a lot of useless noise. It will just go on and on until they eat you for Thanksgiving.
This isn’t new, you know. Governments have always been this way. They take all they can get. Do something about it if you don’t like it! Either choose to be poor like Ghandi or fort up like Ed and Elaine because you won’t solve anything like this. You guys have written books here!
(I’ve chosen poverty, by the way. It’s not too bad.)
For the record, I am not the Bob from comment 248.
I think you should give up on these guys Peter K.. You seem like a level headed guy, I gathered that from the beginning of comment 173. I don’t think I got through the whole comment though. My eyes started to glaze over when I saw numbers and paragraph subsections. Sorry about that. I’m going to go and see if I can find the link that Jeff Hoyt talked about.
4. If the IRS continues to harass the employer, he should take a neutral stance, and notify the IRS that he will honor an appropriate court order. As you well know, Governmental Agencies have ready access to the US District Courts and if they wanted a court order, the IRS would obtain it – if they could
The Service has not sought Federal Court decisions in similar type cases, even though frequently requested. The reasoning is most obvious. The government attorneys believe the court would quickly rule that the employer has no responsibility here.
5. Incidentally in the Mobile Oil Company case, the US District Court ruled that an employer does not even have to send S W-4 form or other employment forms to the Internal Revenue Service unless served with a legal summons to do so. (82-1, USTC 9242)
The employer will be in Fond company by honoring his employees federal form and as the State and Federal agencies along with most employers, ignore the IRS letter. Many companies are not even sending to the IRS the exempt; or other W-4 forms and the government does nothing. Then the problems do not ever arise.
Hey : Bob Ref. 274; you just showed your stupidity & Ignorance.
2. If you want to make a large income but still don’t want to pay tax, then DON’T. If they throw you in jail, at least you will be comfortable in the knowledge that you’re not paying for it. ***The result if everybody does this; the government goes broke.****
The government will NOT go BROKE without the INCOME TAX.
All income tax revenue goes to the FEDERAL RESERVE.
Not one (1) penny goes to support any government agency.
Do I make myself CLEAR??
No Government agency is paid with any funds from the INCOME TAX.
Bob say what you mean & mean what you say.
Again bob is incorrect, please tell us what government agency is paid for with funds from the income tax?
There is a chance we will learn which government agencies are funded by the income tax. Name just one.
Read the book TAX FACTS or the book IRS HUMBUG
NOTICE TO EMPLOYERS
IRS THREATS: ALL BLUFF
According to an official Internal Revenue Service Memorandum, agents are directed to make threats and no more to employers who honor their employees W-4 forms according to law, i.e. 26 U.S. Code 3402 (n).
In fact, low-level agents are directed by their superiors to make false representation or lie – but again, do no more, according to paragraph 9 (partially reprinted below) of National Office Memorandum dated 30 Dec 80
Across the country, thousands of employees are lawfully filing exempt or claiming extra allowances on the W-4 withholding certificate, thereby depriving the Treasury Department of both interest-free use of money not owed and effective control of a portion of a citizens freedom.
The bureaucracy naturally is fighting this tax loophole for working men and women but are hampered by both an Act of Congress [IRS 3402 (n)] that requires employers to honor the W-4 form as filed and decision in the Federal Courts US vs. Malinkowski 347 F Supp 352 (1972) which ruled: “The employer is not authorized to alter the form or to dishonor the employee’s claim.” (emphasis added)
The deceitful and unethical instructions of top level IRS officials to the field staff are spelled out in detail in the 30 Dec 80 Memorandum which is available to you from the agent who contacted you or from the Disclosure Office in your District Director’s office under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 USC 552. Excerpts include:
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE MEMORANDUM DATED ~30 DEC 1980
TO: All District Directors and Service Center Directors All Assistant Regional Commissioners (Tm and Examination) (Information Copy to All Regional Commissioners, Regional Counsels)
FROM: Director, Examination Division CP:E Director, Taxpayer Service Division Tx:T
NOTICE TO EMPLOYERS
IRS THREATS: ALL BLUFF
According to an official Internal Revenue Service Memorandum, agents are directed to make threats and no more to employers who honor their employees W-4 forms according to law, i.e. 26 U.S. Code 3402 (n).
In fact, low-level agents are directed by their superiors to make false representation or lie – but again, do no more, according to paragraph 9 (partially reprinted below) of National Office Memorandum dated 30 Dec 80
Across the country, thousands of employees are lawfully filing exempt or claiming extra allowances on the W-4 withholding certificate, thereby depriving the Treasury Department of both interest-free use of money not owed and effective control of a portion of a citizens freedom.
The bureaucracy naturally is fighting this tax loophole for working men and women but are hampered by both an Act of Congress [IRS 3402 (n)] that requires employers to honor the W-4 form as filed and decision in the Federal Courts US vs. Malinkowski 347 F Supp 352 (1972) which ruled: “The employer is not authorized to alter the form or to dishonor the employee’s claim.” (emphasis added)
The deceitful and unethical instructions of top level IRS officials to the field staff are spelled out in detail in the 30 Dec 80 Memorandum which is available to you from the agent who contacted you or from the Disclosure Office in your District Director’s office under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 USC 552. Excerpts include:
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE MEMORANDUM DATED ~30 DEC 1980
TO: All District Directors and Service Center Directors All Assistant Regional Commissioners (Tm and Examination) (Information Copy to All Regional Commissioners, Regional Counsels)
FROM: Director, Examination Division CP:E Director, Taxpayer Service Division Tx:T
The question is whether the IRS legally has or has not the authority to change an employee withholding certificate; and if the agency has that power, surely its legal staff would spell out its authority, carefully for you, directly quoting the applicable statutes. No, the IRS will only, according to said memo
10. Where the Employment Tax Coordinator and/or District Counsel are unable to persuade an employer to comply with our withholding instructions, Examination should consider initiating an employment tax examination. In very serious situations, Examination will seek advice from District Counsel as to an appropriate course of action (e.g. seek an injunction against the employer).
Thousands of employers are obeying The Congress and the Courts, i.e. honoring the worker’s payroll status and not once has the IRS sought court action. On the other hand employees have filed suit and collected damages against employers.
In conclusion the above excerpted memorandum, easily available in its entirety from the IRS, your Congressman or from the person who sent you this notice, shows only part of the disgraceful conduct of an administrative agency running wild. The employers best course is to abide by the letter of the law.
The dispute over withholding is a matter between the citizens and the tax collector, the company should remain neutral.
Dear Mr. anon noname. Maybe you aren’t using all of your brain cells either.
Let’s see……what other sources of government revenue are there besides income taxes? Property tax, fuel tax, tolls, sales taxes, licence and permit fees, government royalties and tariffs………geez, gosh you’re right, they have lots of other money coming in! But wait, who exactly is going to pay and generate all that money if we are all in jail?!?! How will they be able to pay to keep us all in jail? Think it through little buddy, I know you can do it.
The poverty option brings about the same result because the GNP drops through the floor.
Boy, these guys are something Peter K.. You’ve been having a battle of wits with unarmed men.
Patriots Whip Department of Revenue (DOR) in SC, elsewhere
Several years ago at Freedom Law School , Peymon advised Dr Clarkson that Congress required the IRS, in Tax Court, to produce authentic evidence of wages and salaries. The tax return of the sheeple satisfies this requirement.
The non-filers produced no evidence that can be used against them in Tax Court or various state equivalents. Most state laws require that their DOR produce wage affidavits or income statements from the employer or payor, such as the W-2 or 1099 forms.
Frequently, the IRS cannot locate these mandatory documents unless the foolish taxpayer provides them attached to his 1040 form or the intended tax victim produces them to the tax court pursuant to discovery. The non-filers who destroy this essential documentation before their tax court filing cannot be required to produce records they do not have.
Most states’ DOR receive their payor information on a printout from the IRS. However, these state’s tax procedure codes requires DOR to file a certificate of wages or authenticated wage document with the seal/ribbon from the IRS . This is especially true in administrative courts.
Unfortunately, the state revenue departments and in many cases the federal revenue agency must in ALL court cases produce documents that simply do not exist. In other words if you do not produce the essential documents, they cannot and thus do not have a case.
Last month Patriot Michael from Spartanburg had a telephone hearing in the Carolina Patriots’ Greenville office, against the SC DOR before a SC Administrative Law Judge, which is our version of Tax Court. Dr. Clarkson and many great patriots surrounded the speaker phone to assist Michael. However this patriot was well prepared and handled the hearing very well by himself.
The highly paid chief council of the SC tax agency had filed many motions against Michael, including two motions to compel discovery. When the Administrative Law Judge came on the line, the tax liar dropped all of his harassment motions and concentrated on the lies against this fine patriot and on his responses to discovery.
The ALJ ruled against the tax collectors on the first motion. Then DOR Counsel verbally changed the second motion to what he meant to say. The tax villains lost both motions.
Last week, the tax court in Atlanta ruled against District Counsel due to her failure to produce any wage statements. Atlanta patriot Richard Clark stood his ground and did not back down to the assaults and slander against him. He represented himself with Dr. Clarkson sitting at the table with him. Richard had taken the time to prepare and do his homework. Dr. Clarkson was only needed for moral support.
The tax court judge ruled that the IRS agent MUST produce wage affidavits or her case would be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The IRS had discovered that one employer no longer existed, another was too small to expend the resources to collect the information and the third one told the IRS to scram! Therefore the IRS had no, none, nada, nothing in the way of evidence against our brave patriot. We missed a total, smashing, recorded victory because Dr. Clarkson was overwhelmed with other cases and unable to prepare responses to discovery on time. Therefore, Richard filed his mandatory pleadings as the Judge noted, “belated. “
The tax court judge said Richard had not obeyed the rules because Richard (Dr. Clarkson) did not know what they were. That is not true. We know what the rules are; we just did not have the resources to fully comply. However the PN is taking on new staff members to handle the midribs of tax appeal.
SMASHING VICTORY—THE WIPE OUT!!
This week SC DOR in the case of long time freedom fighter LT, admitted officially and under oath they had no wage documentation, no official payor statements and no authentic evidence against this courageous freedom fighter.
All courts require that both sides produce in all trials, evidence which is authenticated and legal. IRS printouts just do not count. This admission came in response to LT’s request for admissions found on our website under Audit Procedure.
Since the DOR does not have the documentation required by law they must stop harassing LT and all other patriots in SC. Then the PN staff will make all the State tax collectors stop harassing patriots and non-filers.
When Dr. Clarkson read the Admissions from SC DOR, the good Doctor was in shock and used some exuberant language. In effect, the lawyers for the tax collectors told the truth and made an admission that wipes out the state’s harassment of non-filers.
Clarkson was quoted in a recent press announcement that “The SC DOR will have to make arrangements with us just as their predecessor, the SC Tax Commission did. Patriots demand that the state tax thieves leave us alone. Twenty-five years ago they agreed to that informal deal.”
Not one loss. The procedural method works !!!
Cases Clarkson has won!
Patriot Paralegal Sherri B. of Florida recently won a bank summons case on appeal to Federal Court of Appeals in Atlanta. She already won two remands in this same case before the 11th Circuit Court on paperwork errors of the District Court, without a decision.
Dr Robert Clarkson helped Sherri through this long and difficult case. Her appellant brief and a copy of the Appeals decision can be viewed from our Members Only section of this website. She and Clarkson wrote a magnificent appeals brief.
This is the second 11th Circuit Court decision for the PN this year. Another victory is expected any day on an illegal Federal Tax Lien.
Peymon at Freedom Law School recently won a 7609 case and is now suing for damages. Dan Lying, paralegal at FLS, was on the brief. Dan won his 7609 case years ago.
Click here to view other cases we have won .
You go guy! Stick it to the man!
This is a point I have made before; they do not have statutory authority to make a substitute 1040 for anyone. Both the regs under 6020(b) and the IRM do not list the 1040 as a form for which they are authorized to make a substitute. Further, the SFR is NEVER signed by anyone (lacking accountability) as required under 6065, which states:
26 U.S. Code 6065 VERIFICATION OF RETURNS.
Except as otherwise provided by the Secretary, any return, declaration, statement, or other document required to be made under any provision of the internal revenue laws or regulations shall contain or be verified by a written declaration that it is made under penalties of perjury.
Of course, the point then becomes, if they are not authorized to create a 1040 SFR they do not have to sign it according to 6065 because it is a document NOT REQUIRED TO BE MADE.
IF they cannot make a SFR for a 1040, does this not also suggest we are the ONLY ones with first hand knowledge of our status and thus are the ONLY ones who can testify, by way of a 1040/4852, concerning that status?
Therefore, if the company issues a W2 stating one thing and we rebut that “information” with a 4852, does not the company issuing the W2 have the obligation to prove its information to be correct and accurate? The IRS is a third party beneficiary and “should” not be a party to whether the W2 as issued is correct and accurate due to conflict of interest. Would they not side with the party claiming that which would benefit the IRS?
The following might be helpful in your situation as culled from the LostHorizons forum:
t is a common practice for the IRS to generate SFR’s to get people to fill out and sign a 1040 so as to not have a lien recorded at the local register of deeds (Wisconsin). I have a 82 year old buddy who has not filed in 13 years who in 2004 received two such SFR’s for 1998 ($30,000+) and 1999 ($15,000+) tax years saying he owed $45K+. In U.S. Tax Court, the judge denied the IRS attorney’s motion for summary judgement with the IRS’s SFR’s attached as evidence. You can peruse the following for helpful info.
I typed up the following for the fellow that received the above items who used it in tax court, where the judge denied IRS summary judgement:
When you use no brain cells & it works , keep doing it!
THERE IS NOTHING MORE IMPORTANT TO THOSE WHO EXPLOIT IGNORANCE ABOUT THE “INCOME” TAX THAN KEEPING AMERICANS FROM READING CtC.
Google Robert Clarkson or go to the Patriot Network
Call Robert Clarkson 864-255-3061 Beat the I.R.S.
The actual “legal duty” is a question of law – another series of cases not provided in this post so as stay strictly on this one topic. The mandate of of 26 USC § 7805 to enforce the IRS Code is only by regulations with Supreme Court of the United States holding same. You will find a couple of references to 26 CFR § 1.6012-1 in a case or two herein provided. The people that brought this argument in were unprepared and the judges misstated the use of regulations to the ignorant defendants. It is fairly easy when you finally understand, but it is hard to get your head out of the sand and evaluate the facts that conclusively prove the use of substantive regulations.
a “law of Congress” is only in the District, territories and possessions. This is not a “Law of the United States.” This is another subject and will not addressed in this post as I don’t have the time to even present a thumbnail sketch for list members to understand
Post a Comment