Friday, March 24, 2006

The building blocks of the law

There is no law that requires an American living and working within the 50 states for a private company to file a tax return and pay income taxes. ...I will say it again: there is no law, NO LAW, that requires an American living and working within the 50 states for a private company to file a tax return and pay income taxes. No law. Nada. Period. And the 16th Amendment didn't change anything. The IRS is a fraud and a sham.

Now, 99.9% of the people say I am a loon. Every year, you always take a chunk out of your paycheck and give it to the government. If you don't pay, the government will throw you in jail. But, did you find out what part of the law that requires you to pay in the first place? Guess what, there is no law! If you don't believe me, show me the law (or series of laws)! You can look for days and days, and you can't find it, because it isn't there.

Now, let's get something straight from the beginning: the IRC (or 26 USC) is completely legal and constitutional. I will say it again: the IRC (or 26 USC) is COMPLETELY LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL. If the statutes aren't, the Supreme Court will strike the law down as being unconstitutional. But when you look at the law carefully, you realize that Title 26 AS WRITTEN fails to make the average American liable to file a tax return and pay income taxes. I am using tax avoidance, not tax evasion; there is a difference. Like I said in the previous paragraph, if you don't believe me, look at the law for yourself and prove me wrong!

Like I said before, 99.9% of the people think I am loco. But, the same 99.9% never look at the law to figure it out for themselves. Now, I can't prove a negative: I can't prove a fact that isn't there. But, what I can do is to trace a path in the law that shows you a lawful way that will prove for yourself you have been paying taxes all of your working life...for naught.

It all boils down to a 1917 US Supreme Court decision titled Gould v. Gould. In summary, Mr. and Mrs. Gould were divorced in 1909, and as such, Mr. Gould will pay Mrs. Gould $3,000 per month in alimony. In 1913, the 16th Amendment was ratified, and the IRS listed Mrs. Gould's alimony as "net income" (the same as "taxable income" now). In 1915, Mrs. Gould sued the IRS, claiming her alimony did not fall under "net income". The Supreme Court agreed with Mrs. Gould. The decision states:

"In the interpretation of statues levying taxes it is the established rule not to extend their provisions, by implication, beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out. In case of doubt they are construed most strongly against the government, and in favor of the citizen."

This decision still stands today, and it's an important decision, especially if you want to know what kind of tax you are required to pay (or don't pay). I want to go through the Internal Revenue Code (IRC, or 26 USC) keeping Gould in mind. The IRC is the only title that has to do with the income tax, so we only used sections in the following article (i.e., sections in this post are in Title 26).

Let's start at the beginning. In Section 1, subsections (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e), they all have the same wording. All five sections state, "There is hereby imposed on the taxable income...a tax", and the five subsections have to do with married, single, head of household, estate, trust, etc. In Section 3, it states, "In lieu of the tax imposed by section 1, there is hereby imposed for each taxable year on the taxable income of every individual...a tax". To an untrained eye, that means: that's it, game over; every income is taxed. You chop off your right arm and mail it to the IRS. But, in the Gould case, the Supreme Court said, "[I]t is the established rule not to extend...matters not specifically pointed out. In case of doubt they are contrued most strongly against the government, and in favor of the citizen." In sections 1 and 3, they say you are required to pay taxes on your "taxable income". The question is, "What's taxable income?"

When we scroll down to Section 63, its title is, "Taxable income defined". Here it is. It states, "[T]he term 'taxable income' means gross income minus the deduction allowed by this chapter". The next question is, "What's gross income?" We go backwards (imagine that!) to Section 61. Its title is, "Gross income defined". Good so far. Section 61 states, "[G]ross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:", and it lists some examples like compensation for services, interest, royalties, alimony, etc. To an untrained eye, that means "all income, including my income". You chop off your left arm and mail it to the Treasury Department. But, when you apply a Gould test, you realize all those examples are for gross income. A tax is based on taxable income, not gross income. There is no example on taxable income; there is just a vague term like "standard deduction", "basic standard deduction", "additional standard deduction", etc. Hummmm.

Also, Section 61 is strikingly similar to the 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and the Constitution is the "Supreme Law of the Land"; there's no law which takes precedence over the Constitution, including its amendments. Every Senator and Representative, executive and judicial, federal and state, took and oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution" before taking office. And recently (2006), in Murphy v. IRS [.pdf], the appeals court said, "The Supreme Court has held the word 'incomes' in the [16th] Amendment and the phrase 'gross income' in Section 61(a) of the IRC are coextensive." The "official government interpretation" of the 16th Amendment is that amendment gives Congress a new power to collect a direct income tax without apportionment, and the people bought it hook, line, and sinker (but there is no "direct" anywhere in the amendment--hummmmm). But, looking it in a Gould context, you would also interpret that the 16th Amendment could mean only that, in certain types of taxes (income taxes), Congress was prohibited from moving the tax to direct taxation, which requires apportionment (et al), and it should remain in indirect taxation, which doesn't. The 16th Amendment confers the government no new power to tax incomes. That fits in the wording of the 16th Amendment, doesn't it? And if it does, looking at it from Gould (which the Supreme Court decision still stands), it takes precedence over the government.

And it does. In 1895, the Supreme Court threw out the federal income tax as unconstitutional in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.:

"In the matter of taxation, the Constitution recognizes the two great classes of direct and indirect taxes, and lays down two rules by which their imposition must be governed, namely: The rule of apportionment as to direct taxes, and the rule of uniformity as to duties, imposts, and excises [i.e., indirect taxes]."

In 1913, the 16th Amendment was (supposedly) ratified. In 1916, the Supreme Court decided on two cases: Brushaber v. Union Pacific:

"It is clear on the face of this text [16th Amendment] that it does not purport to confer power to levy income taxes in a generic sense, -an authority already possessed and never questioned, -or to limit and distinguish between one kind of income taxes and another, but that the whole purpose of the Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from apportionment from a consideration of the source whence the income was derived."

and Stanton v. Baltic Mining:

"[I]n saying this we are not here considering a tax...entirely beyond the scope of the taxing power of Congress, and where consequently no authority to impose a burden, either direct or indirect, exists. In other words, we are here dealing solely with the restriction imposed by the 16th Amendment on the right to resort to the source whence an income is derived in a case where there is power to tax"

Even the Treasury Department agreed (2nd indention):

"The provisions of the sixteenth amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited [Congress' original power to tax incomes] from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation, to which it inherently belonged, and being placed in the category of direct taxation, subject to apportionment." [Treasury Decision 2303]

and even a legislative draftman in the Treasury Department (1st indention):

"The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of the tax." [Congressional Record--March 27, 1943]

In 1918, the Supreme Court, in William E. Peck & Co. v. Lowe, agreed with the obvious:

"The Sixteenth Amendment...has no real bearing and may be out of view. As pointed out in recent decisions, it does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects."

As recent as 1988, the Supreme Court, in South Carolina v. Baker, says the same thing again:

"The legislative history merely shows that the words 'from whatever source derived' of the Sixteenth Amendment were not affirmatively intended to authorize Congress to tax state bond interest or to have any other effect on which incomes were subject to the federal taxation, and that the sole purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment was to remove the apportionment requirement for whichever incomes were otherwise taxable."

You tell me what interpretation of the Sixteenth Amendment (the government or mine) would seem most accurate, according to the courts?

However, today, since the Tax Honesty message is spreading far and wide, the government has no choice but to strong-arm (i.e., apply terrorism to) the courts in order to hide the message. The text-book example of this is the aforementioned Murphy case. The basic outline of timeline is: 1) Murphy paid the tax to the IRS, and then sued it to get the tax refunded. 2) The 3-judge decision sided with Murphy, and it was a flawless decision. 3) The IRS wanted to appeal that decision in front of the entire court (i.e., en banc). Since that decision is so flawless, the full court and, if needed, the Supreme Court, had no choice but to deny the case and let the case stand. 4) After a while (i.e., after the government goons "talked" to the judges), the 3 judges decided to vacate the origional decision and rehear the case themselves. 5) The decision on the rehearing reversed the origional decision and sided with the IRS. 6) Murphy wanted to appeal the decision en banc, but it was denied. 7) Today, Murphy is waiting to petition the Supreme Court. I will bet that the Supreme Court won't hear the case, essentially backing Murphy to square one. We will wait and see.

Now, back to the income tax. Now, 99.9% of the tax preparers don't dive deeper than Section 61...if that. Most tax preparers are blind as you on tax law, and they rely on a chart or graph to enter how much you earned to find out how much tax you owe. Now, some tax preparers (but not all) are honest, but, like you, they are duped by what they have heard when growing up, in government schools, from your mom and dad (who are clueless as you), so as you enter the work force, you have a false belief that if you earned money, you have to give a part of it to the government. How wrong you are!

But back to tax law. Section 61, similar to the 16th Amendment, said "gross income" is all income, "from whatever source derived". But, the Supreme Court said the 16th Amendment gives Congress no new powers of taxation. Looking at it though a Gould lens, is there anything missing? What's source? Looking thousands and thousands of pages away from Section 61, you reach Subchapter N, named "Tax Based on Income From Sources Within or Without the United States". I finally found it! But, if you look inside Subchapter N, all you see is parts with titles that have to do with foreign income. Hummmm. The first section in Subchapter N is Section 861, titled, "Income from sources within the United States". I, and a vast majority of you, earned income exclusively within the United States, so this must be it. In Section 861 Subsection (a), it's entitled, "Gross income from sources within United States", and it reads, "The following items of gross income shall treated as income from sources within the United States:", and it lists items, including interest, dividends, personal services, etc. That's fine, but Section 1 states you are taxed on your "taxable income", not "gross income". In Subsection (b), it's titled, "Taxable income from sources within United States". Finally. It reads, in part, "From the items of gross income...there shall be deducted.... The remainder, if any, shall be included in full as taxable income from sources within the United States."

IF ANY??? But I thought if you earned income, then you have to pay taxes, regardless! But, in Section 861 Subsection (b), it phrases taxable income to include, "if any". And if you look at the law though the Supreme Court's Gould mandate, it must mean "if any", including "none". Hummmm. Where do we go from here? Let's go to the US Treasury's regulations. The regulations are the authoritative interpretations of what the statutes mean and how to apply them. The regulations are more tedious than the statutes. In each respective statute, there is a correlative regulation. If there is a Section 861 statute, there must be a Section 1.861 regulation.

In the beginning, in Section 1.861-1, it's entitled, "Income from sources within the United States". It's an outline of the section, including, "Categories of income", "Within the United States", "Without the United States", yada, yada, yada. No news here.

In Sections 1.861-2 through 1.861-7, they list certain items of income like interest, dividends, compensation of labor, etc. But, in Section 1.861-8, it's entitled, "Computation of taxable income from sources within the United States and from other sources and activities". There we go. In Subsection (a), it reads, in part, "This section provides specific guidance for applying the cited Code sections by prescribing rules for the allocation and apportionment of ["deductions"] of the taxpayer. The rules contained in this section apply in determining taxable income of the taxpayer from specific sources and activities under other sections of the Code, referred to in this section as operative sections. See paragraph (f)(1) of this section for a list and description of operative sections."

In other words, the rules in this section (the one that tells us how to compute taxable income from sources within the United States -- that's what we are looking for, after all, is it not?) apply in determining taxable income from activities covered by other sections of the Code which are called "operative sections". Go to paragraph (f)(1) to find "operative sections". So let's go to paragraph (f)(1).

Subsection (f) of 1.861-8 is entitled, "Miscellaneous matters". Sounds unimportant (or "frivolous"), right?

Wait and see!

Paragraph (1) is entitled Operative sections (the same as the beginning of this section). It states, "The operative sections of the Code which require the determination of taxable income of the taxpayer from specific sources or activities and which give rise to statutory groupings to which this section is applicable include this section describe below." In other words, there is a list on what is taxable.

Subparagraph (i) is, "Overall limitation to the foreign tax credit" (that's not me).

(ii) is [reserved].

(iii) is, "DISC and FSC [foreign] taxable income" (that's not me).

(iv) is, "Effectively connected taxable income. Nonresident alien..." (that's not me).

(v) is, "Foreign base company income" (that's not me).

(vi) is, "Other operative sections. The rules provided in this section also apply in determining-- (see below).

(A) is, "The amount of foreign source items..." (that's not me).

(B) is, "The amount of foreign mineral..." (that's not me).

(C) is [reserved].

(D) is, "The amount of foreign oil and gas..." (that's not me).

(E) is [reserved].

(F) is [reserved].

(G) is, "The limitation...incurred to the Virgin Islands" (that's not me).

(H) is [reserved].

(I) is, "The special deduction granted to China Trade Act corporations..." (that's not me).

(J) is, "The amount of certain U.S. source income...of a controlled foreign corporation..." (that's not me).

(K) is, "The amount of income from the insurance of U.S. risks under section 953(b)(5) (later).

(L) is, "The international boycott factor..." (that's not me).

and finally (M) is, "The taxable income attributable...under the section 607 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936..." (that's not me).

In other words, of 18 separate choices, there is only one which is not concerning foreign commerce, and in (K), we look at Section 953. This section came from Part III (INCOME FROM SOURCES WITHOUT THE UNITED STATES) and Subpart F (Controlled Foreign Corporations), and there is no Paragraph (b)(5) in Section 953 in the IRC. What then?

There is the Internet! I can search the IRC and see what comes up. The page in this paragraph does that. I entered the search term, and the computer gave back the results. Do you know what familiar section I came up with?

In the search, the only regulation in the IRC which states both, "income that is exempt" and "income that is not...exempt" is Section 1.861-8T(d)(2).

Let's look at Section 1.861-8T. In Paragraph (d)(2), the only Subparagraph which taxes is not exempt is (iii), titled, "Income that is not considered exempt." It reads, "The following items are not considered to be exempt, eliminated, or excluded income and, thus, may have expenses, losses, or other deductions allocated and apportioned to them:"

(A) "In the case of a foreign taxpayer..." (that's not me, on both counts).

(B) "In computing the combined taxable income of a DISC or FSC and its related supplier, the gross income of a DISC or a FSC" (that's not me).

(C) "[T]he gross income of a possessions corporation [e.g., DC, Puerto Rico, Guam, Virgin Islands; US lands outside of the 50 states] for which a credit is allowed..." (that's not me).

(D) "Foreign earned income..." (that's not me).

What all it concludes is, so far, people like me don't have income taxes (under Subtitle A; read on).

And finally, let's look at Section 6012, titled, "Persons required to make returns of income". Now, that section is like many sections presented by the IRC (e.g. Section 1441, Section 1442, Section 1461, Section 6151, Section 6651, et al), and it is most sinister. I will give you an illustration. The imaginary section states, "People who are pregnant are required to do the following: (a) get 8 hours of sleep; (b) eat balanced meals; (c) do a moderate amount of exercise." Now, all three are healthy choices to live by, but by looking at the section, it excludes me, the rest of the male population, and female population who are not pregnant. Section 6012, Subsection(a) [titled "general rule"] states, "Returns with respect to income taxes under subtitle A shall be made by the following:". To an untrained eye, that means I have to file a tax return (e.g., Irwin Schiff). But, in looking at it closely, every section I mention except 6012 is from Subtitle A (see the previous paragraph). Thus, individuals in the beginning of this article don't have to file. That is also the case in Section 6072. If you do, you risk violating the more serious charges of Section 7201 and Section 7206. Besides, both the Fourth Amendment protects your "papers and effects" (e.g., your tax forms) against unwarranted confiscation, the Fifth Amendment protects yourself from self-incrimination, and the Thirteenth Amendment bars involuntary servitude.

Now, what do we know?

We are at the end of studying thoroughly the statues, as well as the regulations, and what is the final conclusion? The same as the beginning of my article: there is no law that requires an individual living and working within the 50 states for a private company to file a tax return and pay taxes. End of story. If this is not right, please show me the correct path through the law. ...I'm still waiting.

And, putting gas on the fire, if you are employed, look at Section 3402, titled, "Income tax collected at source". In Paragraph (a)(1), titled "In general", it states, "Except as otherwise provided in this section [see later], every employer making payment of wages shall deduct and withhold upon such wages a tax..." To an untrained eye, it means if I work for someone else, I have to deduct a part of my paycheck for taxes. But, in the beginning, it said, "Except as otherwise provided in this section". In Subsection (n) [in this section], titled "Employees incurring no income tax liability", it states, "Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, an employer shall not be required to deduct and withhold any tax under this chapter..." (geez! legaleese) ; in layman's terms, the law states (and all Americans are required to follow the law as written) you are not required to pay taxes if you post a "withholding exemption certificate" which states you incurred no liability to pay taxes last year, and you assume that you will incur no liability to pay taxes this year (see the previous paragraph). In other words, if it was me, I just write "Exempt" on my W-4 [.pdf] (#7), if you think you are required to fill out a W-4 to keep your job. And again, you are not required to fill out your 1040 [.pdf] (see the Fourth and Fifth Amendments 3 paragraphs earlier).

And about state income taxes, 9 states (Texas, New Hampshire, Florida, Washington, Nevada, Tennessee, Wyoming, South Dakota, and Alaska) don't have an income tax, but the rest do. However, there is an interesting concept about state income taxes, and here it is: all state income taxes are dependent on the federal income tax to levy a tax. In other words, if there is no federal income tax, there is also no state income tax. Now, I am not going to list 41 states just to prove my claim, but let's take Oklahoma (the state where I live) for example. Looking at the Oklahoma Statutes, Title 68, Section 2355 (titled Tax Imposed - Classes of Taxpayers), Subsection B, it states, "Individuals. For all taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2008, a tax is hereby imposed upon the Oklahoma taxable income of every resident or nonresident individual, which tax shall be computed as follows:". What is Oklahoma taxable income? Backtrack two sections to Section 2353 (titled Definitions), Subsection 12 (in part), it states, "'Oklahoma taxable income' means 'taxable income' as reported (or as would have been reported by the taxpayer had a return been filed) to the federal government." Since I have no "taxable income" to report to the federal government, I have no "Oklahoma taxable income" to report either.

That's it. If you don't believe me, ask Larken Rose. He has his Taxable Income report [in PDF; it's long], a shorter course for those who are new to Section 861, and his videos, Theft by Deception and The 861 Evidence, which will lay out in video what I laid out to you. In 2005, he was charged with 5 counts of Section 7203, titled "Willful failure to file return, supply information, or pay tax". The section states, "Any person required under this title to pay any estimated tax or tax, or required by this title or by regulations made by authority thereof to make a return, keep any records, or supply any information". I'm not required under this title to pay anything in the aforementioned sentence (see pregnant people above). Anyway, the defense against any charge of "willfulness" is found in the Supreme Court decision Cheek v. United States:

"A good-faith misunderstanding of the law or a good-faith belief that one is not violating the law negates willfulness, whether or not the claimed belief or misunderstanding is objectively reasonable."

Now I have a specific defense to the charge of "willful failure to file...". What about charging him with (just) "failure to file..."? Rose admitted he hadn't filed nor paid since 1997. If the government charge Rose with "failure to file", that charge is a slam dunk! But, he was only charged with "'willful' failure to file"; (just) "failure to file" is not a crime. Why is that? If you sincerely don't know, the answer is posted at the beginning of this post. In 2003, Rose, with former IRS Revenue Agent Sherry Jackson, were guests on a radio show, The Peter Mac Show, talking about the misapplication of the federal income tax law, and the IRS refusing to talk about the evidence in the law. This hour long show [in mp3] is broken down into three segments: 1, 2, and 3.

If you want to look at the website of the pro-income tax advocates, there is no better website than Professor Jonathan Siegel's. Siegel is an attorney who teaches law at George Washington University. I have to say that Siegel has the best rebuttal (so far) for my argument (i.e., "there is no law..."). Of all Siegel's "Tax Protestor Myths" , it boils down to sections 1, 63, and 61, as does mine. In the middle of Siegel's page, he states, "So, between sections 1, 61, and 63, we see that the tax code passed by Congress imposses a tax on your taxable income, which includes all your income, from whatever source derived, less the deductions allowed by the tax laws [emphasis mine]. Coming from an untrained eye, that is a sound, well-reasoned argument. But when looking at a Gould decision (in the beginning), I add to the end of that, "...which equals nothing for the average American." After that (sections 6012, 6151, and 6072, listed earlier), that is a similie of a pregant man.

If you still don't believe Rose, Siegel, and me, believe the Treasury Department and the IRS. I called the Treasury Department, the IRS, and my Congressmen, twice. FOUR TIMES TOTAL! I asked them, "Where is the law...?" Surprisingly, I received an answer every time, but all I received was a form letter which doesn't answer my question, and said my question is "frivolous". If my question is frivolous, why doesn't the IRS (et al) have a form letter which includes an answer to my question? I even asked H&R Block, Tax Masters, and Jackson Hewitt--multiple times. Unsurprisingly, these so-called "reputable income tax companies" never called back. This trend is not only Rose and I, but a growing group of concerned American (mostly Christian) patriots and activists who have done the research and know the truth (like me), called the Tax Honesty Movement. One such patriot is former IRS Special Agent Joe Banister. Banister is the most noble, unpretentious, and honorable man I know. On a radio show, he tells his story from being a gun-toting IRS Agent to, after he found out the truth, quitting the agency, and later (with his attorneys), winning in court [in mp3] here.

Still not convinced, ask Bob Schulz. On July 19, 2004, approximately 550 people from nearly every state of the Union gathered in the ballroom at the National Press Club in Washington DC. They again, were there awaiting a formal response from high ranking federal officials to a May 10 letter respectfully requesting those officials to attend the July 19 meeting and to respond to the We the People's (I am a member of WTP) Petitions for Redress of Grievances regarding the government's violation of the taxing, war powers, privacy, and, most of all, the money clauses of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (including questions like mine).

As has been its established practice, the government once more, chose to ignore WTP and their Petitions. The officials didn't send anyone to meet with WTP, to address the issues or to respond to the Petitions by at least letting WTP know when they would answer their questions. Not the President, not the Treasury Secretary, not Congress, not even Rep. Ron Paul: "The Taxpayers' Best Friend!" The definition of "taxpayer", found in Section 7701(a)(14) and Section 1313(b), states, "The term 'taxpayer' means any person subject to any internal revenue tax under the applicable revenue law." What about "The 'Nontaxpayers'' Best Friend ??? (from the IRS [.pdf] and from Dave Champoin)" The courts gave a definition of "nontaxpayer" in Long v. Rasmussen [1922] and again in Economy Plumbing & Heating v. United States [1972]:

"Revenue Laws [i.e., IRC or Title 26] relate to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedures are prescribed for nontaxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights or remedies in due course of law. With them [nontaxpayers], Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of federal revenue laws."

In plain English, that means Congress can't pass any law concerning nontaxpayers; they can only pass laws concerning taxpayers. Are you angry yet? If Congress doesn't want to address WTP's concerns, then WTP will have no choice but to quit paying taxes until Congress does, like the 1774 Journals of the Continental Congress:

"If money is wanted by Rulers who have in any manner oppressed the People, they may retain it until their grievances are redressed, and thus peaceably procure relief, without trusting to despised petitions or disturbing the public tranquility."

That is the only pro-active, non-violent way of restoring the republic by bringing the government back under control of the people and our rule book--the Constitution of the United States of America.

And finally, as I write this, Aaron Russo just finished his documentary, America: Freedom to Fascism. His other films, which includes "Trading Places" (starring Eddie Murphy and Dan Aykroyd) and "The Rose" (starring Bette Midler) have received six academy award nominations. Russo has personally won both an Emmy and a Tony awards, and his films have also won a number of Golden Globe awards.

But his latest film is his masterpiece, because it is the truth. I haven't seen the movie yet, but I read articles by people who have seen it. Even Siegel rebutted the movie. He states, "Don't take your legal advice from Aaron Russo. That would be like taking medical advice from Tom Cruise. Not a good idea." First of all, Aaron Russo plays Aaron Russo in this movie; an average Joe, and Russo doesn't give legal advise. He just asked questions (that I ask), and the "pro-tax experts" can't answer Russo's questions. Siegel rebuts arguments the movie gave. Now I don't have the time to counter Siegel rebuttles, but again Siegel boils down to this (Siegel states it a lot), and again I say this. If Siegel repeats it ad nauseam, I can rebut at least two times!

But in this film, Russo prowls halls of government trying to get someone to show him the same law as I emailed the Treasury Department, IRS, and my Congressmen with. Former IRS Commissioner Sheldon Cohen (he should know!) couldn't answer Russo's questions. Cohen, on camera, admits the "tax statues only call for 'voluntary compliance'". Finally, Cohen abruptly ends the interview without answering Russo's question. Even Paul, Congressman from Texas, finally admits, "I can't site a law; no, I cannot" [1:09:06 into the film]. I believe this single, fact-filled, educational documentary about the steady erosion of our freedom, if seen by millions of Americans, has, by itself, the potential to develop the pro-active, non-violent, mass movement needed to achieve the primary strategic objective and turn this country around for liberty. As I write, the movie is pre-screening in select cities all around the country. America: Freedom to Fascism is tentatively scheduled for release nationwide July 28.

As more and more people start to realize the con-game played by the IRS, the same people will quit paying, and the IRS will be abolished by We the People. Like I said earlier, when this happens, only death will be the certainty in our lives.


At 7:53 PM, Blogger Baron & Megan Eidson said...

awesome site! i'm studying american government in college and this is some good stuff! keep it up

At 7:43 PM, Blogger Thomas Bell said...

I'm sorry, but you can't find this in your college class, especially if the university is funded by taxpayers (and most of them are!). But, this is the truth.

At 5:03 PM, Blogger Steve Graham said...

Larken Rose used to teach this concept and is now in federal prison and his wife was also convicted. Given the courts' rejection of this, how does this material help us?

At 5:06 PM, Blogger Steve Graham said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At 9:13 PM, Blogger Thomas Bell said...

Larken Rose was found guilty because of his conceit, and his superiority over the prosecution. He was underestimating the adversaries. Tessa Rose, Larken's wife, hired an accomplished lawyer, but not a tax-lawyer. But Larken's understanding and applying tax statutes and regulations, he is on the money. You both need to have knowledge of the law, plus a legal mind to apply it effectively. The IRS is sneaky and evil, but not dumb. In every Larken and Tessa Rose and Irwin Schiff, there are Joe Banister, Vernice Kuglin, and Dave Champion. Champion, in particular, is a founder of, the Executive Director of Original Intent, and host a 2-hour weekly show, American Radio; all of this deals with the same things as I wrote on this blog. Champion knows more about tax law than anybody. Dave "follows the law as written" earlier than Larken, and he never gets charged.

At 2:39 PM, Blogger Sheldon Richman said...

Let's look at your opening statement:

"There is no law that requires an individual living and working within the 50 states for a private company to file a tax return and pay taxes."

This is plain nonsense because it misconstrues what it means for a law to exist. For many years there has been a duly enacted section of the federal legal code that Congress, the executive branch, and the courts all interpret as "requir[ing] an individual living and working within the 50 states for a private company to file a tax return and pay taxes."

Now I doubt you will deny that. If it weren't true, no one would be penalized for not filing and paying taxes, and you wouldn't be writing long blog posts on the subject. You may disagree with that interpretation, but unfortunately those with constitutional power say you're wrong.

But that is what it means for there to be such a law. Thus your statement that there is "no law" is patently wrong. Law, in the positive (not natural) sense, is what Congress and the Executive, ratified by the courts, say it is.

At 2:49 PM, Blogger Sheldon Richman said...

Murphy bit the dust today:

At 7:29 AM, Anonymous MikeA said...

I love the work put into this piece, excellent work. Problem, if HR 1955 is allowed to pass we'll all be considered domestic terrorists for even discussing anything afoul to accepted norms. We all need to act, send letters, call, be a pain in your senators ass!

At 8:06 AM, Blogger Thomas Bell said...

Downsize DC is the best vehicle to write your Congressmen with, but it doesn't have H.R. 1955 (I think it should).

At 6:17 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

There's a lot of excellent research here, but some definitions are in order, courtesy of the IRC:

1) "United States" does not include the 50 states.

2) "Individual" is only defined in the CFR, and the definition doesn't apply to anybody who doesn't work and/or live in DC or the territories. You, as well as the 50 states, are "foreign" with respect to DC, and federal law has NO jurisdiction inside the 50 states.

3) The W-4 is for FEDERAL EMPLOYEES only! The definition of "employee" in the IRC is someone who works in some capacity for the U.S. government! If you work in the private sector and fill one of these out, your company and the IRS can get away with categorizing your earnings as "wages," which are defined in the IRC as payments to federal employees. This is how they get away with stating on a W-2 that every cent you earned that year was "wages." The 1040 instructs you to take the amount from the W-2 and enter it on a line called "Total Wages." It also instructs you to attach the W-2 to the form. You then proceed to sign and swear, under penalty of perjury, that every cent you earned was "wages" subject to tax. They use the form and W-2 to verify the totals. So after duping you into submitting a W-2, you were duped into swearing that this was all true, correct and complete. Nice, eh?

A couple of other things. The IRC is not positive law. It is prima facie evidence of law, and cannot be cited as admissible evidence in either a civil or criminal proceeding. This is undoubtedly why IRS indictments never mention any section of the code that the defendant allegedly violated.

Nobody is required to submit IRS forms, and nobody is required to sign any income tax form under penalty of perjury. If somebody is scared to death not to file, they can make up their own form and then just sign it and date it, without making any claims as to accuracy. As regards withholding, for federal purposes, a very good site I've visited says you should use an amended W8-BEN instead of a W-4.

At 6:20 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oops!! When I said this . . .

"So after duping you into submitting a W-2, you were duped into swearing that this was all true, correct and complete. Nice, eh?"

I meant to say W-4. Sorry.

At 6:40 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Marvelous, what a blog it is! This website presents valuable facts to us, keep it

Here is my blog :: how to lose weight quick

At 12:12 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thankѕ for anοther magnifiсent ρost.
Whегe else could anyοne get that kinԁ of іnformatіon
in ѕuch a perfect waу of ωritіng?

I've a presentation next week, and I'm on the loοk for ѕuсh info.

Alѕo visit mу wеb page - Lloyd Irvin

At 5:04 AM, Blogger Zafor sadik Siam said...

Income tax is tax paid by individuals on the amount of salary or profit earned and is applicable if the salary of the individual is above a minimum specified limit prescribed by the income tax department. The income calculated for this purpose is normally the money earned within the limits and borders of the United States. However, income tax does not cover the income generated outside the borders of the country. A different kind of tax law is applicable for this kind of income.To know more about income tax please visit-Tax Lawyer


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home