To all Americans and so-called "tax professionals"
By Fred Marshall
I've read discussions claiming there is a law requiring most of us to pay an income tax and file a return annually, and have seen lame attempts at trying to construct a legal explanation. Most who have studied the matter insist (rightfully) that THERE IS NO SUCH LAW. For those who don't know for sure, here is one way that even the most indoctrinated IRS or DOJ employee or lawyer will see the light and realize the depth and the deliberateness of the fraud and deception that is the 100% constitutional income tax code and its 100% fraudulent administration. It'll take a little while and require total concentration, but the LEGAL reality of the income tax will be crystal clear when you finish.
Read more in the reader comments here.
I've read discussions claiming there is a law requiring most of us to pay an income tax and file a return annually, and have seen lame attempts at trying to construct a legal explanation. Most who have studied the matter insist (rightfully) that THERE IS NO SUCH LAW. For those who don't know for sure, here is one way that even the most indoctrinated IRS or DOJ employee or lawyer will see the light and realize the depth and the deliberateness of the fraud and deception that is the 100% constitutional income tax code and its 100% fraudulent administration. It'll take a little while and require total concentration, but the LEGAL reality of the income tax will be crystal clear when you finish.
Read more in the reader comments here.
posted by The Freedom Fellowship at
5:25 AM
25 Comments:
FredMarshall1937 said...
To all Americans and so-called "tax professionals" -
I've read discussions claiming there is a law requiring most of us to pay an income tax and file a return annually, and have seen lame attempts at trying to construct a legal explanation. Most who have studied the matter insist (rightfully) that THERE IS NO SUCH LAW. For those who don't know for sure, here is one way that even the most indoctrinated IRS or DOJ employee or lawyer will see the light and realize the depth and the deliberateness of the fraud and deception that is the 100% constitutional income tax code and its 100% fraudulent administration. It'll take a little while and require total concentration, but the LEGAL reality of the income tax will be crystal clear when you finish.
Step One - You must clear your mind of all pre-conceived notions and "conventional wisdom" and commit yourself to look at the whole picture to see the reality in its proper context. Accept that, and abandon any idea that there is a single sentence somewhere (as there is in most laws) that makes it clear one way or the other. You have to be suspicious when a law the size of Title 26 starts off with "married persons" instead of "Definition of Income" (found nowhere in the Code).
Step Two - Watch this 88-minute video when your mind is sharp and you can pay total attention throughout. It helps to watch it two or three times. But you can see CLEARLY the magnitude of the deception and know forever that it was no accident. The intent to deceive the American people cannot be denied....by ANYBODY.
Theft By Deception - Deciphering The Federal Income Tax - 88-minute Video
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7521758492370018023
Step Three - Watch this 68-minute video. You'll get a little history of the Constitution here and a great condensed review of the above TBD video, plus you'll come to understand that some pretty smart and experienced people have seen the light Larken Rose's research revealed to them. You will also come to understand why the IRS and DOJ absolutely MUST label the 861 "EVIDENCE" as a FRIVOLOUS "ARGUMENT." They simply cannot defeat it with any legitimate legal logic or on any moral grounds. THE LAW SAYS WHAT IT SAYS, one just has to look at it in its totality to understand that. Here it is in two formats, at two separate locations on the Internet.
Larken Rose's "The 861 Evidence" - 68 min.
http://www.3rdear.com/861info/
The 861 Evidence via Broadband - 68 minutes
http://web6.streamhoster.com/vinyasi/stream/861_Evidence/broadband/index.html
Step Four - Now watch this one-hour-49-minute documentary movie produced and directed by Aaron Russo. You now have a good background to better understand many things you may not have understood when (if) you watched it previously. You'll get some more history and a great overall view of how the income tax came into existence in the first place, who and what was behind it, who benefits (and who pays dearly) and you'll better understand the "necessity" (for the scoundrels) for the deliberate deception you saw above. You can then understand that the few people behind it had/have the money and power necessary to corrupt the number of people it takes to keep such a massive fraud from the general public. By now you will clearly understand that those who correctly tell you "THERE IS NO LAW" are not a bunch of kooks, but a pretty savvy bunch of honorable people.
America Freedom to Fascism Authorized version - 1 hr. 49-minute Video
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4312730277175242198&q=
Step Five - To this point you have seen, and hopefully digested, the MEAT of the subject, but you have had to rely upon the research of Larken Rose (and others, much of which Larken incorporated into his presentations), so you can STILL believe or not believe whatever you choose. Now it's time to get down to where the rubber meets the road and put the final touches on the matter....it's time to put your computer skills to work and let the computer "data-mine" the tax code for you. Once you've done that, there can be no remaining doubt. Actually, it has all been done for you. You can check any part of it you want to, but you can read and look at the charts and the CORRECT picture will come into sharp focus for you. Almost everything leads to 861, and 861 does not show the domestic incomes of most Americans to be taxable.
Tax imposed = [individual + (citizen or resident) + alien] + united states + taxable income
= [who] + where + what
= Sec. 861
Data Mining the Tax Code - Computer-based Tax Research
http://whatistaxed.com/who_is_taxed.htm
Step Six - CONCLUSION
For We the People - What possible conclusion can you now reach OTHER than that the tax code simply does not apply to most of us. Now, think of how much money has been extorted from you since you held that first job at McDonald's or wherever. If you are 20, then it hasn't been much. But if you are 55, it has been a BUNDLE. How do you feel about that? Irritated? Betrayed? Exploited? Mad? Furious?
For IRS employees and DOJ lawyers - How do you feel now, about the "work" that you do? Does it make you feel big and bad and brave to know that you have been victimizing and defrauding your fellow Americans and they've been paying you to screw them? Do you have enough character to resign, as Joe Banister and Sherry Jackson and John Turner (and others) have? Or will you continue to be a traitor to your country and your fellow Americans and keep on stealing from them and putting innocent people in jail? Now that you know the truth, how do the provisions of Titles 18 and 42 apply to you? How about "misprision of a felony" and conspiracy laws?
For Lawyers and CPA's - How do you feel now that you know you have given out a great deal of erroneous advice and charged fees for misleading people? Do you feel guilty enough to refund the money to any of them? Or to at least start telling them the truth?
Thanks for your time and indulgence. Don't you feel a little better now that you KNOW? As Larken says, "Once you learn something, you cannot UN-learn it." Ignorance was bliss, wasn't it? It was also quite expensive (as ignorance usually is).
Godspeed!
4:55 AM
KOSMIC said...
If after all that you believe just 5% is truth and you clearly realize all the money stolen from americans paychecks it is then your DUTY as an american to stop paying this income tax on labor. You must do whatever you can to stop it. File exempt, Claim 100% refund, Stop all withholding from you pay. That is the only way to fix this problem. Don't let government tell you we need a flat tax or fair tax or national sales tax. The constitution tells the government how to lay a direct tax and there is a darn good reason it was written that way. It keeps government in check. Since the 3 branches of government are no longer separate but are in fact one now, there is but one non violent option left. Everyone needs to stand together with Ed Brown and stop all withholding from our payroll checks, our wages and our labor. This is about supporting our families and our country. One last note, The government will not fall apart because it has other options for raising revenue without destroying the working poor in this country. Please become informed and help us end this 80 year old problem once and for all.
By the way a conservative estimate of the stolen money from labor is about $160,000,000,000 over 80 years. Thats billion $$$$$$$$$$$$$
I would like to have clarity on how exactly the 16th Amendment to the Constitution implies taxes upon every "person" when Article 1 Section 9 Clause 4 clearly states that no direct tax can be imposed without apportionment.
This really troubles me to believe that the 16th Amendment overturned a direct Constitutional limitation upon the Congress. In other words how can Congress pass a law, the 16th Amendment, in direct violation to Congress' limitations imposed by Article 1 Section 9 Clause 4 under capitation and direct taxes?
Did the 16th Amendment overturn the capitation and direct tax limitations imposed by the Constitution? Thank you
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social
Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be
completely voluntary,
2.) That the participants would only have to pay
1% of the first $1,400 of their annual
incomes into the Program,
3.) That the money the participants elected to put
into the Program would be deductible from
their income for tax purposes each year,
4.) That the money the participants put into the
independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the
General operating fund, and therefore, would
only be used to fund the Social Security
Retirement Program, and no other
Government program, and,
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees
would never be taxed as income.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are
now receiving a Social Security check every month --
and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of
the money we paid to the Federal government to "put
away" -- you may be interested in the following:
-------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the
independent "Trust Fund" and put it into the
General fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically
controlled House and Senate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax
deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social
Security annuities?
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the
"tie-breaking" deciding vote as President of the
Senate, while he was Vice President of the US.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving
annuity payments to immigrants?
AND MY FAVORITE:
A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Then, after doing all this lying and thieving and violating
of the original contract (FICA), the Democrats
turn around and tell you that the Republicans
want to take your Social Security away!
And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!
==============================================
If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe changes will take place.
NO accredited legal scholar believes that "there is no law".
NO judge believes that "there is no law".
NObody who matters believes that "there is no law".
The ONLY people who believe that "there is no law" are a bunch of poorly-educated losers who (1) obviously have a reading comprehension problem; and (2) have drunk the tax protestor koolaid to the point where they cannot open their minds to the FACT that THERE IS A LAW.
Merely repeating over and over the LIE that "there is no law" in the hopes that someday that LIE will come true, does not mean that "there is no law".
It is FUNNY that after literally decades of tax protesting that the tax protestors have (1) never had a single judge opine that taxes are not owed or (2) never had any true legal scholar say that taxes are not owed.
CRAIG: You do understand the purpose of an "Amendment" don't you? Otherwise, negroes would still be non-citizens and women would be denied the right to vote. The very purpose of an Amendment is to either clarify OR CONTRADICT something in the earlier document.
Despite the fact that FICA is an excise tax authorized by the 16th amendment, Social security is in fact Voluntary under Law. The Income tax on labor is not an excise tax and is not authorized by the 16th amendment.
I would like to make the point again that if you can prove the income tax legal on labor and win the prize you will have to give half of it to the government for tax. You will be a US citizen earning income in the United States and therefor you lose anyways.
THERE IS NO PRIZE! Ed and Elaine are offering two buildings which are going to be sold to forfeiture and to pay their back taxes.
Merely repeating over and over that there is a "challenge" doesn't mean that $1,000,000 is going to magically appear. Have Ed and Elaine put it into the bank in an escrow account, or else it is like so much else of their making: A lot of hot air.
"If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you."
John 15: 20
Luke 11:
42 "Woe to you pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God. You should have praticed the latter without leaving the former undone"
43 "Woe to you pharisees, because you love the most important sats in the synagogues and greetings in the marketplaces."
46 "AND you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down withh burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them."
The jurors have the power to ignore the court's instructions and bring in a not guilty verdict contrary to the law and the facts. Horning v. District of Columbia, 254 U.S. 135, 138, 41 S.Ct. 53, 54, 65 L.Ed. 185 (1920).
But they should not be told by the court that they have this power.
United States v. Krzyske, 836 F.2d 1013, 1021 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 832, 109 S.Ct. 89, 102 L.Ed.2d 65 (1988); United States v. Avery, 717 F.2d 1020, 1027 (6th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 905, 104 S.Ct. 1683, 80 L.Ed.2d 157 (1984); United States v. Burkhart, 501 F.2d 993, 996-997 (6th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 946, 95 S.Ct. 1326, 43 L.Ed.2d 424 (1975).
They should instead be told that it is their duty to accept and apply the law as given to them by the court. United States v. Avery, supra at 1027.
Actually Joey... Most accredited legal scholars know for a fact, that "there is no law". And they also know that any Laws which DO impose Tax upon Labor, do not Obligate the Majority of American Citizens.
Until you know what the Laws say Joey, Noone will listen to the words you Speak.
No they don't, or else they wouldn't even pay their own taxes.
And joey has seen every one of their tax returnes to know for a fact that they pay tons and tons of money to the IRS every year.
Yeah, Thurston, you are so confident in your position that you rolled over like a wet poodle when the DOJ sought the injunction against you.
Now, you go on back to the car lot.
http://hereisthelaw.blogspot.com
Hello all~
I'm merely wondering WHY joey smith has such disdain towards illegaltax protestors. Let's assume (for a NY minute) that he's not a government agent & is really just a masochistic citizen, who is passionate about relinquishing a sizable portion of his wages to finance the national debt. An national debt, mind you that is mostly interest charged by the Federal Reserve (which is NOT a gov agency) to our government on the loan for the $$$ it prints... out of thin air!!!
That's right; WHY should the citizens of this country give even 1/2 of 1% of their labour to fatten the pockets of the PRIVATE bank when our government SHOULD be printing its OWN currency!!!
I ask rhetorically & the answer is because presidents such as Woodrow Wilson sold this country out to the bankers & every since, we've been indentured servants & joey smith (or whatever your real name is) is either an agent of this insidious treason, by perpetuating this brobdingnagian fraud, or one of the most ignorant people I've (virtually) met!!!
All the better Thurston: You have been PROVEN to be totally wrong.
truepatriot said...
joey smith (or whatever your real name is) is either an agent of this insidious treason, by perpetuating this brobdingnagian fraud, or one of the most ignorant people I've (virtually) met!!!
Truepatriot, as you can see, joey only likes to call people names and put out statements that he can't back up. joey says that all scholars, cpa's and tax professionals know there IS A LAW which is why they file a 1040 return and pay a HUGE portion to the IRS each and every year. Yet he doesn't prove it. There is only one way to know and that is if you see the original document (1040) filed by each of these persons named by joey. Anything else would be an assumption on joey's part and not admissible.
Well that just further proves it, Thurston. You went an saw a law professor, presented your evidence, and he stated that you were wrong. You just didn't like his answer, and so you continued to argue with him.
If you had gone to probably 1,000 other law professors, they would have told you the same thing. It is not because they are close-minded, it is simply because you are WRONG.
Notably, 861 is such a stupid argument that not only do the courts CONSISTENTLY reject it, but they also hit those who argue it with fines because of their stupidity. NO COURT has ever given 861 even the slightest whiff of legitimacy, which is fitting because it has none.
Thurston, your total ignorance of tax law is stunning. You aren't even in the ballpark, much less in the proper field. You don't even understand when 861 properly applies so you can't distinguish those cases from tax protestor cases.
Sheesh.
From http://www.irs.gov/taxpros/article/0,,id=159932,00.html#_Toc153765510
Some maintain that there is no federal statute imposing a tax on income derived from sources within the United States by citizens or residents of the United States. They argue instead that federal income taxes are excise taxes imposed only on nonresident aliens and foreign corporations for the privilege of receiving income from sources within the United States. The premise for this argument is a misreading of sections 861, et seq., and 911, et seq., as well as the regulations under those sections.
The Law: As stated above, for federal income tax purposes, “gross income” means all income from whatever source derived and includes compensation for services. I.R.C. § 61. Further, Treasury Regulation § 1.1-1(b) provides, “[i]n general, all citizens of the United States, wherever resident, and all resident alien individuals are liable to the income taxes imposed by the Code whether the income is received from sources within or without the United States.” I.R.C. sections 861 and 911 define the sources of income (U.S. versus non-U.S. source income) for such purposes as the prevention of double taxation of income that is subject to tax by more than one country. These sections neither specify whether income is taxable, nor do they determine or define gross income. These frivolous assertions are clearly contrary to well-established legal precedent.
In March 2005, a federal district court in Florida barred Gregory T. Mayer from preparing false or fraudulent returns and selling fraudulent tax schemes relying upon, among other things, the frivolous section 861 argument, which falsely claims that income from sources in the United States is not subject to federal income tax. See http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2005/March/05_tax_119.htm; see also 2005 TNT 49-63 (Mar. 14, 2005). In August 2005, a federal district court in Florida permanently barred Carel “Chad” Prater and Richard Cantwell from promoting tax-fraud scams relying on the section 861 argument. See http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2005/September/05_tax_505.html; see also 2005 TNT 204-51 (Aug. 30, 2005).
In May 2005, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the conviction and 108 month sentence of Ernest G. Ambort for willfully aiding and assisting in the preparation of false income tax returns. The basis of the conviction involved seminars conducted by Mr. Ambort where he falsely instructed the attendees that they could claim to be nonresident aliens with no domestic source income, regardless of place of birth, so that they were exempt from most federal income taxes. United States v. Ambort, 405 F.3d 1109 (10th Cir. 2005); see also 2005 TNT 86-10 (May 3, 2005).
In August 2005, a Philadelphia jury convicted Larken Rose on five counts of willful failure to file federal income tax returns based on the frivolous section 861 argument. Mr. Rose was sentenced in federal district court to 15 months imprisonment, and must pay a fine of $10,000, as well as all taxes, interest and penalties that he owes to the IRS. See http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2005/August/05_tax_418.htm; see also 2005 TNT 157-22 (Aug. 12, 2005); 2005 TNT 225-17 (Nov. 22, 2005).
On October 17, 2006, an eight-count indictment was unsealed charging actor Wesley Snipes with conspiracy to defraud the IRS, presenting a fraudulent claim for refund to the IRS, and for failure to file income tax returns. According to the indictment, Snipes’ co-conspirators, Eddie Ray Kahn and Douglas P. Rosile, promoted a fraudulent tax scheme through an organization named American Rights Litigators (ARL), also known as Guiding Light of God Ministries (GLGM), based on the section 861 argument, and prepared amended returns for Snipes fraudulently claiming refunds of taxes previously paid totaling almost $12 million. In a related development, Florida lawyer Milton H. Baxley II was sentenced to 18 months in prison and a $10,000 fine for violating an injunction that barred him from promoting an abusive tax scheme through ARL/GLGM. See http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/usaopress/2006/txdv06W_Snipes.html; http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/txdv06747.htm.
The IRS issued Revenue Ruling 2004-28, 2004-1 C.B. 624, which discusses section 911, and Revenue Ruling 2004-30, 2004-1 C.B. 622, which discusses section 861, warning taxpayers of the consequences of making these frivolous arguments.
Relevant Case Law:
Great-West Life Assur. Co. v. United States, 678 F.2d 180, 183 (Ct. Cl. 1982) – the court stated that “[t]he determination of where income is derived or ‘sourced’ is generally of no moment to either United States citizens or United States corporations, for such persons are subject to tax under I.R.C. § 1 and I.R.C. § 11, respectively, on their worldwide income.”
Takaba v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 285, 295 (2002) – the court rejected the taxpayer’s argument that income received from sources within the United States is not taxable income, stating that “[t]he 861 argument is contrary to established law and, for that reason, frivolous.” The court imposed sanctions against the taxpayer in the amount of $15,000, as well as sanctions against the taxpayer’s attorney in the amount of $10,500, for making such groundless arguments.
Williams v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 136, 138 (2000) – the court rejected the taxpayer’s argument that his income was not from any of the sources listed in Treas. Reg. § 1.861-8(a), characterizing it as “reminiscent of tax-protester rhetoric that has been universally rejected by this and other courts.”
Corcoran v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-18, 83 T.C.M. (CCH) 1108, 1110 (2002) – the court rejected the taxpayers’ argument that his income was not from any of the sources in Treas. Reg. § 1.861-8(f), stating that the “source rules [of sections 861 through 865] do not exclude from U.S. taxation income earned by U.S. citizens from sources within the United States.” The court further required the taxpayers to pay a $2,000 penalty under section 6673(a)(1) because “they . . . wasted limited judicial and administrative resources.”
Aiello v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-40, 69 T.C.M. (CCH) 1765 (1995) – the court rejected the taxpayer’s argument that the only sources of income for purposes of section 61 are listed in section 861.
Madge v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-370, 80 T.C.M. (CCH) 804 (2000) – the court labeled as “frivolous” the position that only foreign income is taxable.
Solomon v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-509, 66 T.C.M. (CCH) 1201, 1202 (1993) – the court rejected the taxpayer’s argument that his income was exempt from tax by operation of sections 861 and 911, noting that he had no foreign income and that section 861 provides that “compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United States . . . are items of gross income.”
Tell it to the hand, Thurston, tell it to the hand.
The reason Joey's Brain is so Soft everyone, is Because
Joey's Hand is always Communicating with His Dick, thus, leaving his Brain unused for anything other than to Pass Flatulent Gas...
If He's stroke His Brain instead of His Monkey, He might be able to form a reasonable and Logical Conclusion based on the FACTS and the LAWS as they are Written in Todays Statutes regarding Income Tax.
Keep telling YOUR OWN STORY... To YOUR OWN HAND Joey.
JOEY SMITH SAID,
I DON'T KNOW ANY JUDGES
Hmmmmm, seems like whenever there is a post that mentions the reward for showing the tax law little Joey comes in to try and discredit it claiming there is no money.
Joey - There's a hell of a lot more money available for this challenge that Ed Browns property. How come you always leave that bit of info out of your posts?
We the people foundation has had 50k available for years now. There's also many other individuals who have put up funds for the challenge. Of course you always neglect to mention that.
Joey - For someone who hates the browns, the fair tax movement, this blog, the people posting etc, etc, you sure spend a lot of time here.
I wonder why that is?
Your true colors show blindingly.
As for your constant crap about the 16th amendment... it does not matter if the 16th was ratified or not (not) because its been clearly ruled already that the 16th amendment gives the government NO new taxing powers. What part of NO NEW TAKING POWERS don't you understand?
Here's a question for you Joey:
Why do you hang out on this blog all day long every day?
Why are you afraid to do a radio interview? And yes you are AFRAID to go on the air with your so called facts.
You a pathetic excuse for an American!
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home