Saturday, February 24, 2007

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.


Blogger KOSMIC said...

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 ANYBODY.

Theft By Deception - Deciphering The Federal Income Tax - 88-minute Video

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.

The 861 Evidence via Broadband - 68 minutes

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

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'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


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).

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.

6:56 AM  
Blogger KOSMIC said...

By the way a conservative estimate of the stolen money from labor is about $160,000,000,000 over 80 years. Thats billion $$$$$$$$$$$$$

6:59 AM  
Blogger CRAIG said...

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

8:40 AM  
Blogger CRAIG said...

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?

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.

8:42 AM  
Blogger FredMarshall1937 said...

KOSMIC said...
By the way a conservative estimate of the stolen money from labor is about $160,000,000,000 over 80 years. Thats billion $$$$$$$$$$$$$

6:59 AM

I'd be more inclined to believe $160 TRILLION.

9:21 AM  
Blogger Joey Smith said...

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.

9:41 AM  
Blogger Joey Smith said...

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.

9:42 AM  
Blogger KOSMIC said...

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.

9:45 AM  
Blogger KOSMIC said...

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.

9:54 AM  
Blogger Joey Smith said...

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.

11:14 AM  
Blogger CRAIG said...

"If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you."

John 15: 20

11:45 AM  
Blogger CRAIG said...

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.

11:49 AM  
Blogger TrueLogic said...

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.

12:18 PM  
Blogger Joey Smith said...

No they don't, or else they wouldn't even pay their own taxes.

12:47 PM  
Blogger CRAIG said...

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.

12:52 PM  
Blogger Thurston said...

So, on one hand Joey relies on the court rulings that support his position and ignore the court rulings that state that the 16th Amendment gave no new power to tax (Stanton v. Baltic Mining).

Then he supports courts that refuse to allow people to use the U.S. Supreme Court Rulings, which are the law of the land, as a defense as is a matter of right per Cheek.

What does this make Joey, but a Treasonous individual who is applying the logic of war (Wolfgram 2000) to the governance of the people, and believes that such logic is supreme.

That is State Terroism against the people.

It has been written that Lucifer made the claim of Terrorism against G-D, thus the creation of the Battle Ground of Earth and Freewill of Man. Seems we are full circle then.

Joey claims the Tool of government is supreme no matter what.

Wolfgram has shown the tool of government in the Courts to have made serious errors and violations against the people from the beginning.

George Washington said that government is merely a tool, and like fire it can get out of hand and threaten those it was designed to serve.

Jefferson and whole bunch of men, like those of the English Revolution before them, said that government is to be extinguished when it is no longer serving its proper and righteous function.

The Consitution of the State of New Hampshire states the same explicitly.

Joey like Lucifer is so enlightend by what he sees that he is willing to worship at the throne of arbitrary and capricious acts: Terrorism.

He thinks himself wise in his choice while ignoring the enemy from without that has been raised up for the destruction of his throne of worship.

All are judged by their hypocricy. HIS judgement comes when HE has had enough of people misrepresenting HIM and HIS nature, or when the suffering under HIS judgment is less than the suffering of another generation of Man's wickedness and injustice.

Thus governments are instituted to curb injustice and wickedness, which the land is now rife with, and its worshipers and peddlers like Joey.

FredMashall, you do service to the history of facts and all facets of thsi conflict.

12:59 PM  
Blogger here2daygonetomorrow said...

FredMarshall1937 said...
To all Americans and so-called "tax professionals" - ...

Over the past several months I have taken all of the steps outlined by Fred and have come to the logical conclusion that the American people have been the victims of extortion for years. I have stopped paying my federal income tax.

It seems that most of the information has been focused on the federal income tax, but as for the other taxes being taken from our paychecks I remain confused. I'm speaking mainly of the State, Social Security and Medicare taxes. Can anyone give some insight as to whether those are "legal" taxes that should be paid or are in someway also taxes we have been deceived in to paying? Is there a separation between federal tax and state tax or is the state tax dependent on the status of your federal tax? Are there merits in paying Medicare and Social Security taxes even if they are voluntary, or would we be better off managing that money ourselves.

If anyone with more knowledge about these issues than me could give some enlightenment, I would appreciate it, as others might as well.

Regardless, my main goal was to stop paying taxes to a government that is increasingly becoming the American peoples worst enemy. They are the terrorists.


1:02 PM  
Blogger Thurston said...


It is clear from our founders that your conclusion, wheteher or not affected by my conclusion is correct.

In his 1787 "A Defense of the American Constitutions," John Adams said:

"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence."

The moment Adams feared has arrived. The idea that property is no longer sacred has been admitted into society.

If America is too far down the road to stop this insanity and terrorism, fear not, for the enemy from witout has arrisen for HIS purposes.

Unfortunately, correction at their hands will have the greater cost.

But floks like Joey will not believe until they are personally skewered by the coming judgement.

1:20 PM  
Blogger Joey Smith said...

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.

1:39 PM  
Blogger Thurston said...


you are mistaken.

I argued in court and even appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Denied is what Souter said.

The third circuit did not rule on the validity of my speech.

John Wolfgram explained well in the summer of 200 what the problem is with the courts, that they do not address the merits.

This is all a matter of record against your lies and mere opinion.

2:11 PM  
Blogger TruePatriot said...

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!!!

2:24 PM  
Blogger Joey Smith said...

All the better Thurston: You have been PROVEN to be totally wrong.

3:18 PM  
Blogger CRAIG said...

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.

3:38 PM  
Blogger Thurston said...

To Joey...

Partial repost:

The only thing you are right about concerning legal scholars is that they will not hear anything. Their technology, art, thought process is DEAD in academia.

Four years ago I met with Professor Robert Nassau, Head of the Tax Law Department of the University of Syracuse who was lauded as the greatest mind in Tax Law in the State of New York, and an Expert on Foreign Tax Law.

He said he was an expert on 861 and claimed that it only applied to Foreign Source income because of the Title of Subchapter N of the Code.

I showed him 26 USC 7806(b) (construction of statute) that nullifies the Title, heading, or mere location of any law to be of legal significance or effect, in that the words in the law indicate what the law means and nothing was to be inferred by said titles, headings, and construction.

Then he said that the law did not apply to U.S. Citizens.

So, I showed him the 4 cases cited in the IRS publication against 861 and how each of those cases were decided by the court that the law applied to U.S. Citizens.

Then I showed him the 3 where the Courts decided that the law did not apply. (All of these provided to the public by the IRS now.)

Proving the public claims of the IRS to be ambiguous at best he agreed to allow me to SHOW HIM THE LAW as the facts that would determine the truth of it substance and applicability to U.S. Citizens.

I showed him where U.S. Citizens are mentioned no less than 5 times in the statutes and the regulations.

He then claimed that the regulations were not law.

Then I handed him the Chevron case from 1995 where the U.S. Tax Court used U.S. v. Correll (U.S. Supreme Court) to state in an 861 case that since the regulations have remained unchanged for over 80 years that they have the full force and effect of law.

He then argued that the exemption provision of 861 and its regulations only applied to U.S. Citizens if they had gross income from foreign sources.

I excitedly requested that he point that out to me in the law so I could take my correction and could immediately communicate to all of the NITE members to place $20 in interest bearing Canadian bank accounts so that we could claim the taxable foreign interest and then claim applicability of the exemption provision of the regulations, and that I would appreciate a letter to that extent, as I had used a search engine on the entire Code and the regulations and could not find a pre-requisite that 861 determinations and application of exempt income definitions therein depended solely on a preliminary determination of foreign earned income under 862.

(In my research since then this by the way might have been the closest thing to the truth that Professor Robert Nassau had to say about the law, but I was not about to project any legal conclusions upon theories of jurisdiction. My effort was to presume jurisdiction and then reveal the law.)

His response to that request was that he would give no such letter. That 861 did not apply to U.S. Citizens. I asked him to explain how he reached his conclusion in light of the facts of the construction of the law as it had stood for over 80 years.

He said he would not.

I asked why not.

He said because I would not listen to him.

I told him I flew here from central PA, am under Federal prosecution against my speech, and have lost my family over this, I want the proof and I am willing to be proven wrong, otherwise I would not have braved his presence.

He wished me well in court and got up and left the room.

The ruling against me stated that section 861 applied to U.S. Citizens, and that my claim that the exemption provision being applied to U.S. Citizens, in violation of multiple requirements and instructions of lower courts by the U.S. Supreme Court, was to be enjoined for false speech.

The 3rd Circuit refused to address the issue of the correctness of my speech and violated multiple requirements and instructions of lower courts by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Yes, I was enjoined for speech agreeing with the IRS, and the shining experts of Academia are afraid to talk about the what the law actually says.

This is proof of the corruption and intellectual putrefaction of the institutions of America and the United States of America, to the point that there is no Rule of Logic or reason. Only Caprice and FORCE, the Logic of War that Wolfgram wrote of.


No legitimate organization will take the case because they have known for over 21 years since the publication of the Law review articles of Shaw in 1986 and Wolfgram on 2000, that the Courts are corrupt and are at War against the People and their Laws as enacted by the symbol of their consent in the Congress.

Their refusal to defend is no more legitimate than the refusal of the U.S. Supreme Court to hear Judicail Petitions for Redress, in violation of International Law (Wolfgram).

They are scared of the corrupt courts, and they are terrified to tell the people the true condition of the law in this Land.

They are collective cowards like Professor Robert Nassau.

They are intellectually dishonest and delusional as they live in their denial of the ugly painful truth of their hypocrisy.

We have torn the veil of legitimacy off of the Executive, the Courts, the U.S. Supreme Court who is made politically irrelevant on everything since the lower Courts ignore its edicts by case law (and by the way has no power to enforce its rulings), and academia for its best and brightest running from the room in my face as I SHOWED HIM THE LAW.

Thus your position on legitimacy is gone, and has played into our hands for us to show the world that there is no institution looking out for the People telling the truth, for Academia, the DOJ, the Judges, the IRS, and Rights protecting NGO's all run from any discussion of the actual words of the law.


The DOJ, in the case against me where the Court stated that section 861 applied to U.S. Citizens and thus enjoined me for telling people that 861 applied to U.S. Citizens, said my position was "frivolous because it is frivolous".

The court disagreed with the DOJ, agreed with me that 861 applied to citizens, but enjoined me.

In US v. J.B. Kotmair and SAPF the court took that ruling against me in the PA and applied its reasoning practically word for word to the Defendants. even though there was no record that either defendant promoted application of 861 to Member's cases to teh IRS, and had 10 years previously been determined to be a First Amendment organization, not a Tax Shelter and thus its nature was res judicata.

Watch the 4th Circuit who has already read that judge the riot act.

Who is WORNG?

The Courts, the Executive, Academia for not protecting the minds of the people and forcing the issue of the construction and words of the law, and YOU anonymous IRS Agent.

Also who is WRONG, are the people who seek to have the Rule of the Law of the People to govern this land and make their Government that Rules by their Consent to be accountable, for their fate was to be born onto the WRONG side of anonymous IRS Agent's Law of the Jungle.

Actually, the subjective notion of who is WRONG is now in flux. The pendulum is clearing center line.

The media has now reported and acknowledged the pattern jury instructions in GA, the Right to make the defense of your choice in Watada, and the denial of due process by the suppression of witnesses and exculpatory evidence in Border Guard cases.

The media now acknowledges the corruption before the WORLD.

The legal profession has been publishing on it for over 21 years as shown at

The only people who are WRONG and HATE America are the groups I have listed in the sixth paragraph of the Third point above, and includes the U.S. Department of Justice, and you Mr. anonymous IRS agent.

You are part of the group applying the logic of war (Wolfgram Law Review Article, 2000) to the due process of the people, and seek to obfuscate the facts of the law and the court rulings from the people.

Your lot is responsible for more pain, suffering, death, terror, and destruction than a thousand 911's for your lot terrifies the people from their duty and Birth Right to control their government and enforce its accountability in every way.

Your lot is the enemy of the Republic for you have proved your Logic of War against the letter of the Law of the People.

The injustice is so RANK and Gross that there is no way that our foreign enemies can hate us because we are free. They HATE our government because YOU are WRONG, EVIL, TREACHEROUS, and INIQUITOUS. (Wolfgram 2000)

Yes Wolfgram predicted what would happen to me as it has been going on for a long time. He predicted domestic terrorism would lead to foreign terrorist against America because we have no recourse.

Before the IRS came after me for my speech, I filed suit against the IRS on September 10, 2001, the planes hit on September 11, 2001.

I did not read Wolfgram's Article until December 2006.

You are the disease Joey. You serve your Father Lucifer well.

Even the NH Constitution mentions the disease of nonconforntation of a lawless government being the key to the loss of freedom.

It is dangerous to be right when you government and the courts are wrong.

3:47 PM  
Blogger here2daygonetomorrow said...

I'm a little alarmed that a lot of time and energy is being used in arguing back and forth with "joey smith" in most of the comment sections. I've submitted the suggestion in an earlier post in a different comments section that we just let little joey post to his hearts content, but not give him credence by acknowledging him. It just keeps him feeling self important. Evidently the suggestion was ignored as the back and forth continues. I understand people wanting to educate those that are unaware of the issues at hand, but in the case of joey I think we can assume that he is not to be enlightened. He has a personal agenda not to be changed, so why bother?

Anyway, if anyone would like to further educate one who is in agreement with the movement (me), I ask that you refer to an earlier post of mine (above) questioning State, Social Security and Medicare taxes. Any information would be appreciated and not wasted as bantering with joey evidently is.


4:18 PM  
Blogger Joey Smith said...

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.

4:55 PM  
Blogger Thurston said...

861 regulations were argued in the Chevron case.

It was successful as the IRS tried to claim that the rgulations were not law. That was 1995.

The Boeing case it was argued again, and I believe that was this century as well.

So your position is false Joey.

The queston is then what was argued in those cases where the regulations were upheld and what was specifically ruled in my case? Did they address the regualtiosn I was speaking of?

I was speaking of exemption provisions of the regs. So the answers are no and no, but still, aregument of regualtons is no frivolous or wrong as Chevron and Boeing prove.

Anyone who reads the post will disqualify your statements because the Professor did not answer, and the jusge ruled 861 applies to U.S. Citizens.

I was enjoined for agreeing with the courts and the law.

Missed again Joey. Because you ignore the case law that disproves your childish absolutes.

5:30 PM  
Blogger Joey Smith said...

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.



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; 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; 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; 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;

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.”

5:38 PM  
Blogger Thurston said...


All of your quotation of case law will not change the facts of the existence of the law defining "exempt income" in relationship to U.S. Sources.

All of your quotations will not change the fact that Judge Conner in my case stated that 861 applied to U.S. Citiznes.

All the quoatations of cases by you will not cahnge the fact that of the seven cases cited by the IRS in the publication warning that 861 arguments are fivolous will never change the fact that of the cases cited about half state that 861 does not apply to U.S. Citizens and the other half state that it does.

No matter how many cases you cite none will ever show that under strict scrutiny of Spieser v. Randall and Dennis v. U.S. that the court have ever addressed the two sections of 861 regulations that defined both exempt sources and items of gross income.

Never has there been any specific analysis by anyone but Larken Rose.

Now some have said this section only applies to allocation of expenses and deductions, but the fact is that the Tax Court itself in the Chevron (1995) case stated that it does many things INCLUDING the allocation of expenses and deductions.

Professor Nassau stated he was not familiar with that case.

So much for the expert of experts.

That excludes you as well.

You continue and persist in serving your Father Lucifer quite well.

G0D is merciful to forgive you even at your last breath to denounce your Father Lucifer.

Blessed be the Name of HaShem.

8:11 PM  
Blogger Brian said...

And let's look at what is considered to be "exempt income" under 26 CFR 1.861-8T Thurston.

26 CFR 1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii)(D) says that "foreign earned income as defined in section 911" is not exempt.

But yet, 26 USC 911 creates an exemption for such income.

So how is it that the regulation can say that foreign earned income is NOT exempt when the statute says it IS exempt?

Let's say Thurston worked overseas and made $60,000 in foreign earned income.

Section 911 says such income is exempt.

26 CFR 1.861-8T says it is NOT exempt.

How do you reconcile this?

Ditto the other sections of 26 CFR 1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii). All say that the income is NOT exempt when the income it mentions isn't taxed.

Foreign earned income NOT connected to a U.S. trade or business is considered not exempt under the regulations ... when non-residents do NOT have such income included in their gross income. How is that?

DISCs aren't taxed. 26 USC 991. And yet, somehow, under 26 CFR 1.861-8T their income is not exempt! Again, how is that?

Maybe you have a cogent explanation since the regulation clearly seems to be making taxable income which is not taxed under the statutes.

Or maybe, you just don't know what 861 really does ... and that's why you lose (and not because of some government conspiracy)

8:39 PM  
Blogger here2daygonetomorrow said...

Ok, I give up. I think the name of this blog ought to be changed to "Why Are We Giving The Time Of Day To Joey Smith?". You people are giving joey just what he wants. I can appreciate why Ed Brown gets frustrated at times. All of you are right about one thing, the law is the law and that fact will not change. So you can all argue back and forth with joey all you want but it's getting to be like a little kid's playground here. I can't imagine why any of you would want to stoop to joey's level. Wow, all of this energy that could be put to use in some constructive way. Do you remember about the issue of credibility? That doesn't just have to do with what you say, and whether you know what you're talking about. It also has to do with your actions and how people perceive you. Have at it boys, I'm leaving the pissing contest.

8:54 PM  
Blogger Joey Smith said...

Tell it to the hand, Thurston, tell it to the hand.

9:13 PM  
Blogger TrueLogic said...

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.

10:40 PM  
Blogger TrueLogic said...

Keep telling YOUR OWN STORY... To YOUR OWN HAND Joey.

10:42 PM  
Blogger Thurston said...

Nice sleight of hand Brian.

Do not address 1.861-8T(d)92)(ii)(A), nor 1.861-8(a)(3) (if my memory recalls correctly).

Neat how we can ask questions of anything but the law in point, just like the Borwns are allowed to say anything but the law that they read that convinced them that there is no applicable law.

Tidy, tidy angle to the same way that the Jury is not allowed to hear the law that was used in their determination that the income tax did not apply to them (the Brown's).

Your tactic of "let's do everything we can to avoid addressing the law" that was spoken of on my website and by Gene Webb where Judge Ann Conway and the IRS accepted the returns, is not proof of anything but conspiricy, just like the Pattern Jury instructions.

The work of Mr. Rose regarding the simple wording of the law in the 1920's is applicable under multiple U.S. Supreme Court rulings that the lower courts are required to apply and none has seen fit to do so.

Robert Nassau could not answer the question thus your answer will not satisfy me.

Strange how you aand Joey have a target rich environment here but are zeroing in on me.

That tells me how threatened you two are, because earlier today there was only one of you. Now there are two.

11:46 PM  
Blogger Brian said...

Thurston brings up exempt income ... and then when potential problems with his theory are brought up ... and a straightforward example showing the application of his theory to the facts is shown to call into question his theory ... Thurston engages in the typical tax protestor evasion.

Here it is again Thurston.

You are a U.S. citizen and you earn $60,000 in foreign earned income since you work overseas.

Section 911 says your income is exempt.

26 CFR 1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii)(D) says your income is not exempt.

What's the problem and how do you reconcile this seeming conflict between the regulations and the code?

12:18 AM  
Blogger Thurston said...

I am not responsible for Brian's confusion about the law and rhe english language.

Since the case regarding me was regarding my speech I will not address his off point belief in a conflict within the law.

12:45 AM  
Blogger Brian said...

And there you have it. Thurston, one of the major promoters of the 861 "argument" takes his ball and goes home and can't answer a simple question. Of course, the obvious answer is that he cannot confront the potential contradiction he'll have to explain ... how can the list of income that is "not exempt" income be "not exempt" when the statutes clearly exempt the income in that list?

Thurston (and Larken, and Dr. Tom) all get real quiet and will no longer have the time to answer questions (even though earlier today, Thurston was sitting here pontificating at length about how he beat up on some expert).

Of course, you can baffle someone with BS if the other person has no clue what it is your trying to get at. I'm quite sure that if Mr. Nassau had time to review what it was that Thurston was saying he would've been able to present a more cogent answer.

As one can see, I (and some others) have taken the time to review the BS arguments of people like Thurston and Larken, and so it's easy to point out the problems with their silly arguments.

Thurston's excuse ... "well, this guy over here couldn't answer my questions so that's what I'm going to go by."

Maybe that's why you lost in court and got enjoined. You only heard and believed what it was convenient for you to hear and believe.

Way to go Ace.

And by the way, the confusion isn't mine ... it's evidently yours ... you were the one harping about how the income under 26 CFR 1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii) was non-exempt income (when the statutes clearly say it is exempt.) And you wonder why the court's don't buy into your banalities.

3:12 AM  
Blogger Thurston said...

Actually Brian, Larken might answer your question.

I on the other hand am enjoined from talking about the Law, yet I can talk about my case.

Your discovery of a contradition in the law is your idea not mine, so I cannot talk about new ideas like yours.

Now, you might find an answer to your question at

Your question still and never will address the definitions of exempt sources and exempt items of gross income.

Since Nassau, nor the DOJ, nor the Judge addressed the law, you have nothing to back up your presuppositions as to why the Court agreed with me that 861 applied to U.S. Citizens but nevertheless enjoined me.

Good luck with your resarch a

1:50 PM  
Blogger Brian said...

I on the other hand am enjoined from talking about the Law, yet I can talk about my case.

Your discovery of a contradition in the law is your idea not mine, so I cannot talk about new ideas like yours.

Thurston now stoops to lying that he cannot talk about the law. He knows full well that the appellate court hearing his First Amendment concerns read the injunction against him narrowly so as to prevent him from engaging in commercial speech that basically advocated breaking the tax laws.

It does not prevent him from discussing the tax laws at all.

In fact, the court in his case quite clearly stated:

Bell's case is not the first where the breadth of an injunctive order against a tax protester has skirted constitutional limits. In Kaun, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit construed an injunctive order narrowly rather than remand to the district court to write a new order. We will do the same here. We will construe paragraph 1(a) of the order to mean that Bell may only be found in contempt for violating the order where the evidence demonstrates that he advertised, marketed or sold false tax advice, or aided and abetted others, directly or indirectly, to violate tax laws. We will also construe the language in paragraph 3 ordering Bell to remove “materials designed to incite others to violate the law (including the tax laws)” as an order to remove materials aiding and abetting violations of the tax laws. The remainder of the order will be affirmed. Bell is free to criticize the tax system. Based on grounds of false commercial speech and aiding and abetting violations of the Internal Revenue Code, the order prohibits him from further violation of the tax laws without raising constitutional issues.

U.S. v. Bell, 414 F.3d 474 (3rd Cir, 2005) (internal citations omitted).

It's ok Thurston, I can understand why you might be hesitant to answer my rather simple question.

But lying about whether you can talk about it or not? ... lol, I guess that's not all that surprising.

2:39 PM  
Blogger Thurston said...

Again it is all how you read it.

"We will also construe the language in paragraph 3 ordering Bell to remove “materials designed to incite others to violate the law (including the tax laws)” as an order to remove materials aiding and abetting violations of the tax laws."

It looks like they may be saying that my posting of tax laws is ading and abetting violations of tax laws.

(My do you and Joey have a whole lot of access to things about me.)

Now it appears that I am allowed to bring up constitutional issues, yet I already had, and they refused to address them as the Murphy case decided on August 22, 2006 shows that the original intent of what it taxed, and thus the orignal wording of the law is required to be analized in the process of determinng what it taxable under the law and the 16th Amendment.

Basically that it cannot be expanded from what it originally was.

Larken's research on the contemporaneous legislation of 861 pointed all of this out, but the MDPA and 3rd Cir. decided not to be confused by the evidence of the law as used in Murphy as was required in analysis in Myers v. U.S.

Constitutonally there is little doubt that the Congress can tax foreign earned income, it is plainly within their jurisdiction.

Since any provision of Congress create for any number of reasons to not tax the first $60,000 of foreign earned income if they like, as you claim the law says, is a matter of statutory law within the Jurisdiction of the Congress, such is a discussion of the tax laws that I may or may not be enjoined from speaking of.

Thus, I am still not the person who can help you with your confusion.

To me, there appears to be no contradiction within the law, only specifics in how they choose to implement the law. So your question is just a ruse to ignore the provisions of the law governing U.S. Sources and Items of gross income that defines "exempt income" at the Code sections I had previsously cited and no court of law has made specific analysis back to the contemporaneous legislation as required in Spieser v. Randall, Dennis v. U.S., and Myers v. U.S., as used last year by the DC Appellate Court to strike a section of the IRC as unconstitutional in Murphy.

Facinating how Murphy shows that there are constitutional limitations upon the reach of the IRS/Federal Government, based upon the 16th Amendment which gave no new powers of taxation per Stanton v. Baltic Mining.

Your reaching for foreign earned income issues will never address the definition of exempt income in relationship to U.S. Sources and items, which is in Subtitle A and thus does govern section 61 as the first seven words of the statute state.

3:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...



7:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

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!

2:06 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home