Tuesday, February 20, 2007

Citizens of the Several States Are Not Generally Liable for the Federal Income Tax

The book that explains why the Federal income tax is constitutional, why millions of citizens of the United States are liable for, or subject to, the income tax, and why most Citizens of the several States are not liable for the Federal income tax. I found a 1920s Federal court case, which, after I had thought about it for several months, finally allowed me to make sense out of parts of the tax code. The case points out that Congress has the ability to lay and collect taxes with a constitutional authority other than article 1, section 8, clause 1. That information allowed me to finally understand the Federal income tax. Until you learn the information in this book, you will never, never, never understand the Federal income tax.

Read more here.


Blogger FredMarshall1937 said...

AVI posts: “I return again to my earlier question, this time more suspiciously. If all this legal interpretation is correct, why don’t lawyers think so? If this loophole were real a few bright guys could make a bundle on this working for Donald Trump or Warren Buffett. You think those guys can’t afford the best tax advice on the planet?”

That cannot be answered in a single sentence. Lawyers are officers of the court, by virtue of their membership in the American Bar Association. Should any one of them attempt to expose the reality of the FRAUD in court, either in a court filing or in oral presentation in court, the judge….also a member of ABA, and SUBJECT TO AUDIT AND INTIMIDATION BY THE IRS….would shut him down (more on this later below), perhaps even have him suspended or expelled from membership, thus ending his career in the practice of law.

Moreover, people like Trump and Buffet can afford the taxes and simply pass them on to someone else in their business dealings and investments. I doubt that either of them pay very much in the way of personal income taxes anyway, as they can tie nearly everything they do to business and thus make most of it deductible.

I sat as a spectator in a federal trial a few years back in which a real estate broker was charged with five counts of Willful Failure to File. Defendant’s defense attorney managed to introduce a 6209 manual into evidence because it was mentioned by the Defendant during defense attorney’s direct examination of the Defendant. Neither the judge nor the AUSA was happy about that, but it slipped in before they could react and deny it. The judge sent the jury out and threatened the attorney, then brought the jury back in.

Since the code used in the Defendant’s Individual Master File was listed in the IRS’s 6209 Manual and indicated that Defendant was assigned a code that clearly showed he was not liable for the income tax, the jury later acquitted him FOR THE TAX YEAR UNDER DISCUSSION AT THAT TIME. When the defense attorney attempted to apply the manual to the four subsequent years, the AUSA objected, claiming that the manual was updated annually because codes constantly changed, and the manual admitted as evidence only applied to the one year. Since defense did not have a manual for each year in the indictment, the judge instructed the jury that this testimony could only be applied to the one year. The fact is….and both the judge and AUSA knew….that the manual is only updated every three or four years and that the particular code in question had not been changed since the manual was printed, nor has it changed since. The jury was bulldozed on that one.

There were four or five other times during the trial in which the judge chastized the defense attorney in the presence of the jury, and he even threatened disbarment in front of them.

When a copy of the transcript of the trial was obtained to prepare an appeal (he was convicted of four of the five counts), considerable portions of the proceedings had been omitted, some had been altered, and several things we all heard were simply not there. In fact, the 45-minute hearing, in the absence of the jury, to determine what jury instructions would be issued, was recorded in only eight double-spaced pages. The Court Recorder was a federal employee of the court. Clearly the AUSA and the judge edited the transcripts.

Now, given the above, it is easy to see how the “courts have held” this and that. The entire process is rigged from the beginning.

Another example is the jury pool list. The defense gets a copy 24 hours before jury selection begins. The AUSA gets one probably a week in advance. They run each name through the IRS database and see who has had trouble with the IRS and who has dutifully paid everything they have been told to pay, without objection. Guess who gets stricken from the jury pool? Any and all who have been the slightest problem to the IRS.

The IRS and the courts win because it is THEIR game and THEY make the rules as they go along. A fair trial before a jury of your peers is a JOKE in federal tax trials.

Ed Brown’s experience was not an anomaly, it was standard operating procedure.

Comment by Fred Marshall — February 20, 2007 @ 9:49 pm

10:05 PM  
Blogger FredMarshall1937 said...

This rather brief "explanation" makes a lot of sense. Anyone know anything about the author Timothy McCrory? Anyone know of any court case in which this defense was used, and was it successful (or disallowed)? Comments welcomed.

Citizens of several States not generally liable

DOJ DENIES in Court filing that IRS is a U.S. Government Agency

10:10 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home