Friday, August 31, 2007

Danny Riley's "Back Of The Napkin" Proof About The Income Tax And Federal Reserve Fraud

YouTube Video Danny Riley on The Income Tax below...

Danny Riley explains the income tax fraud to his fellow americans who are not awake.

For more information, including links - if you are still in denial about the income tax - to other documetaries please visit



Blogger Scott Haley said...


For those uninformed who are still in doubt---

"...the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation." Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 US 103 (1916)

"...the conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes. And the far reaching effect of this ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTION [emphasis added]..." Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. 240 US 1 (1916)

"Silence can only be equated with fraud." US v. Tweel & US v. Prudden

10:58 AM  
Blogger Cia W said...

Is it possible to cut out or at least reduce the 'sheep' references to the 'unknowing masses'? I've used it myself, but I'm beginning to see it as a 'slam' on Christians, since we follow the 'good Shephard'. Quoting from the New Testament of the Bible:

Joh 10:27 KJVA
(27) My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

And another verse, to put it somewhat in context (in relation to being a slave to the Feds):

Luk 4:18 ESV
(18) "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed,

So perhaps references to something more accurate (like being in chains?) than the 'sheep' references and images would be in order. Thanks for your consideration of this request. -cmw

11:58 AM  
Blogger The Freedom Fellowship said...


Good points!

All believers in truth and the Divine Providence - whether we are aware or not - are sheep in the flock of our Good Shepard who is our Lord God Jesus Christ.

The writings of Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772) say this much better than I ever can - see

A great energy/light of truth is upon us right now. We can all "feel" something very special/different is afoot. There's a continued "quickening effect" that becomes more and more pronounced as more light of truth spreads into the darkness. With less darkness manifesting there's more competition for what darkness remains, hence the actions of those who practice evil become more obvious.

Thanks again!

1:09 PM  
Blogger George in Vermont said...

Ok Danny,
If they cannot do this, then explain how they do this. Do not tell us how awful the system is as you are IGNORANT as how things work , Ed’s puppet must be able to explain why Mr. Shiff is rotting in jail. Alternatively, maybe how all Supreme Court rulings are IRRELIVENT? What you do not know will hurt you. When you want help, call me (802) 824-0014 you are going to spend a lot of time in jail because you do not have a clue. That is of course if you do not DIE in the Process. Never refer to me, or anyone that will not through themselfs on the “WIRE” as a SHEEPLE again. Danny Have a wonderful life…… As short as it may be..

3:10 AM  
Blogger Scott Haley said...

To George:

Although your remark was not directed to me, perhaps I can shed some light on "how" they can do this.

Surely you recognize that at different times in our history elements of the Fed Govt have done things unlawfully. Our Govt has overthrown democratically elected governments, for example, in places such as Iran, Chile, and Guatemala. Our Govt has participated in assassinations of properly elected officials in places such as the old S. Vietnam and Chile. Many years ago some black people were (unbeknownst to them) intentionally given syphilis in a Govt research program. In the Fifties, the dangers of the atmospheric testing of atomic bombs was covered up for a long time. The list goes on.

How do they do it? Virtually no one opposes them; the few that do are characterized as ignorant or as "nutcakes". The Govt's philosophy is: the end justifies almost any means.

In the case of 26 USC, Subtitle A, Chapter 1 (the Income Tax), they can do it by having made the law extremely complex, convoluted, and misleading. Even with a Master's Degree and about twelve years of experience interpreting (in my job)
Fed Statutes and Regulations, it took me approximately 100 hours to analyze the Income Tax Statute and the corresponding Regulation (26 CFR). I did so years ago to prove that folks in the Tax Honesty Movement were way off mark. I'm now IN the Tax Honesty Movement... because it's right on the mark.

I had no videos (such as the excellent "Theft by Deception" by Larken Rose) or other already completed previous research to help me. That's why it took so long to break down the misapplication of the Income Tax.

Another "how" they do it is even simpler---the IRS intimidates anyone who even lawfully petitions them with questions regarding the Tax Code vis-a-vis the Supreme Court decisions of long ago that prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the Income Tax is MISAPPLIED to the average American wage-earner.

Having said all that, I agree that one is at risk when one exposes the fraud. We all know that; you really don't need to remind us. The fact is, however, that if enough people learn the truth then the risk to each individual diminishes somewhat. At some unknown critical mass, the Govt will have to cave in relative to 26 USC.

Even CONGRESS agrees (in its not-yet-passed "FAIR TAX ACT" Preamble) that the present Income Tax "taxes income multiple times" and "intrudes on the privacy of individuals".

"How" can they do it? With power, propaganda, a convoluted Tax Code, a complacent public, and naked force. It's really quite simple. [Scroll down to "26 USC and You".]

4:19 AM  
Blogger George in Vermont said...

Hello Scott,
My comments were directed at Danny, and Danny alone. His references to Sheepal are distasteful, I have read your comments with great care and know that your studies have brought you very close to the truth. You speak of dishonor , reservation of rights waiving of rights, and the like. You never mention the Uniform Commercial Code but this is what you speak of in a lot of writings. I have studied the issue of Agency and found the power behind them is completely based on the Code. I have spent years doing battle with the unlawful conduct of agency and their minion’s. The situation in Plainfield was a great opportunity to strike a serious blow to the unholy creatures, both publicly and without a single “shot”. However, this opportunity was wasted on misinformation and ignorance. Most people are already aware that something is wrong, very wrong. Nevertheless, to play the game you must teach the public how they can “win the game” and it is not through “show me the law” it is through “law”. See; United States Code title 28 § 636. To learn about consent. See; U.C.C 1-207 (now 1-308) to reserve your rights. Blacks law Inalienable rights. Rights, which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo.App.,252 See; U.C.C. 3-501 U.C.C. 3-505 to understand “presentment” U.C.C. 2 302 Hell, guess under which rock they hid the “common law” see; U.C.C. 1-103.6 (ANDERSONS EDITION). Read the 1966 TAX LIEN ACT and you will know how “they” work and what Law “they must follow” This is the truth. There is a big difference in “Jury trials” Article 3 or the venerable Article 4 process court. Both are Constitutional, but one is just a fact finding mission. (and the magistrate judge decides the facts) Elliptical service of an attorney verses counsel. Pleas to jurisdiction. Revocation, recourse, and remedy. These are the issues.

11:56 AM  
Blogger albanyNY said...

To know it all George, in Vermont. A law says you can not kill someone, yet people do it all the time. So the government breaks its own laws to keep people "in line" example Irwin Schiff. As far as you calling me ed's puppet, I am no ones puppet.I am doing this for the country. I am sorry if you took it like i was calling you a sheeple for not throwing yourself on the "wire" how you got that from this short vid i have no idea. I made the vid in response to all the people(sheeple), who tell me the 16th amend makes the income tax legal. george i know all about the UCC, and making ones self a secured party, as i am in the process of doing. how eveything is a contract based on the old roman law and how to opt out of the government contracts. george we a dealing with criminals so i am afraid even if the law is on your side and you dot your i's and cross your t's there is still a chance you will lose because its "their" game your playing. So george i am glad you wished me death at least i am out doing something to help save my country while you DO NOTHING but whine, actions speak louder than words and your have no actions, nothing, zip, nada, zero, but to put men of action down and try to discredit them. Do you think george would make a vid explaining to his fellow americans how to use the UCC to help fight the government, no way. DO NOTHING george keeps saying i can save ED but does NOTHING! Have a nice life on magic mountain as us patriots fight and die if necessry to restore our freedoms as you sit home and DO NOTHING!

8:16 PM  
Blogger Scott Haley said...

I will admit that I have not studied the UCC in depth. I am, however, very familiar with the hypothesis regarding the "corporate" status of the U.S. I'm not convinced that there's anything to it. (My mind is still open on the subject though.)

As I pointed out elsewhere on this site, the citation in Title 28 that supposedly proves the U.S. is a corporation (don't have the exact section handy at the moment) does no such thing if you read it in context. Instead, it is referring to federal corporations such as COMSAT. For purposes of brevity, that law uses the "United States" instead of listing all the various federal corps to which the law applies.

I've seen (indirectly) many people attempt to opt out of the system using UCC procedures; but I've yet to see anyone who has done it successfully.

More importantly, in my opinion none of that is necessary. The DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE really is the only reference needed to opt out. It clearly states that people have unalienable rights, and it illustrates that those rights are independent of ANY government. It reaffirms the concept of individual sovereignty.

Below is a Notice that I constructed based on the above principles. [Also found on my blog, ]

Will the Establishment authorities abide by it? No. Neither will they abide by any "secured person" process according to UCC rules. So, what's the point (?) you ask. The point is civil disobedience. The point is to unequivocally state that we're onto their game.

I've adopted many of the common law movement's tactics, but I remain unconvinced that the UCC is in any way necessary to implement those tactics. Doing it "by the book" (according to the UCC) accomplishes no more than my Notice below...because the "authorities" do not care what rules you follow, you will still be their "slave", so to speak.


"Whereas the Declaration of Independence states with clarity that all individuals are endowed with certain unalienable rights; and,
"Whereas the Declaration illustrates that said rights are independent of any government; and,
Whereas I affirm that I possess said unalienable rights, and thus possess individual sovereignty; and,
"Whereas in Common Law an individual is free to do whatever one wishes, as long as that individual does not trespass upon the rights or property of another individual and honors all lawful contracts;

"Now Therefore:

"I refuse your paperwork that alleges violations of law or contract foreign to my venue, which no oath, promise, or common law attaches me thereto.

"Your documents were received but not accepted.

"All items are refused for cause without dishonor and without recourse to me.

"Your paperwork is returned herewith because it is irregular, incomplete, and void process.

"Further foreign intrusion upon my sovereignty by you or any agent of yours shall result in my charge of $200.00 per hour (or portion thereof) for any time that I must spend responding.

"Recovery of charges shall be pursued in de jure common law superior court.

"No response from you or your agency/department/entity will be taken as agreement with the statements contained in this Notice and Affirmation, according to de jure common law.

"I affirm and attest that, to the best of my knowledge, the above is true and correct. So stated by Affiant: Scott C. Haley, in Skagit County, Washington

Date _____________

Notice and Affirmation received by:
(print name) _________________________________

Date ______________"


I think, George, that you are a worthwhile ally, and a value to the Liberty Movement. I also agree with albanyny regarding his challenge to you to pony up your method for success. If this whole UCC concept is so valuable, show us exactly HOW to use it. Then we'll decide for ourselves as to its value.

Convince me that unlike my NOTICE above, your UCC method (so to speak) will actually be respected by the authorities.


3:11 AM  
Blogger Scott Haley said...

By the way, George...

I did look at 28 USC 636, as you suggested. Like most Statutes, it has so many cross-references (that MUST be read) that I simply don't have the time to analyze it thoroughly.

Likewise, all your other references would require considerable time to research properly. So again, I would suggest that you give us a synopsis of the entire concept---a description of exactly how one can use the procedures in which you believe. I realize that's no small task, but it would be a much appreciated contribution to the Liberty Movement.

3:27 AM  
Blogger George in Vermont said...

Hello Scott, Try this next time Your paper says the same but no "lawful cites" so no "remedy at law"

To be hand written on any and all “presentments”

“I hereby refute the validity of your
unattested presentment “Without Dishonor”
and refuse for cause per UCC 3-501. I am
not party to a contract with you, I do not
owe you any money per Negotiable
Instruments Law UCC 3-104” and I
am not “made liable.” “All Rights Reserved”
U.S. UCC 1-308 / VT. UCC 1-207.
CERTIFIED POST ______________________
Today’s Date: ____ / ____ / _________

Notary Public,
Sworn Before me as TRUE, and CORRECT

X ……………………………….................
Term Expires: _____ / _____ / ________

To be attached to the documents returned to “agency”

CERTIFIED POST # ________________________________



Today’s Date:





I, Mr. ____________________Affiant, Declarant herein, one of the People in the _______________Republic, one of The United States of America, a Union of republic states, declare under penalty of perjury under the Laws of the United States of America and of the ________________ Republic, that Declarant is competent to be a witness and that the facts herein are true, correct and complete to the best of Affiant’s first hand knowledge and bears my signature.
“All Rights Reserved” “Without Prejudice” U.S. U.C.C. 1-308 / VT. U.C.C. 1-207

X………………………………............ NOTARY PUBLIC
Mr. ____________________________ Sworn Before Me

Today’s Date: / /

Term Expires: _____/_______/______

Dear “Operation Services / tw,” Agent, Et al or ANY and ALL others having an interest in this matter;

The enclosed paper items are Refused For Cause Without Dishonor and timely returned to you pursuant to UCC 3-501, for the following reasons, including but not exclusive to wit:

I, Mr. _______________, hereby exercise Necessary Diligence and demand verified authority to support your presumptuous demand per the Uniform Commercial Code under which all liens, levies and tax matters must “conform.” This refusal for cause is made timely, not intended for delay and does not assent subject matter jurisdiction, in-rem jurisdiction, or in-personam jurisdiction per Fed. Rule 12(b).

Attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference are copies of the original instrument(s), refuted, “Refused for Cause” and returned for proper validation. A copy of the refuted presentment will remain in my file as evidence that I am not in dishonor of your instrument(s) or demand(s).
Reasons for the refusal and return of the unattested presentment(s), demand(s) are as follows:
UCC 3-501(b)(2) Upon demand of the person to whom presentment is made, the person making presentment must:

(i) exhibit the instrument,

(ii) give reasonable identification and, if presentment is made on behalf of another person, reasonable evidence of authority to do so, and

(iii) sign a receipt on the instrument for any payment made or surrender the instrument if full payment is made.
I am not neglecting or refusing to pay, but demand proof of claim and verification of obligation alleged to be owed pursuant, but not limited to 15 U.S.C. § 1692g of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and “without dishonor” per UCC 3-501.

[1]. Affiant, has not been provided with and is unaware of an instrument in “Good Faith” at UCC 1-201(19) of which I Knowingly, Intentionally, and Willingly entered into, that shows I am “made liable” per your demand(s) at UCC 3-104(a), regarding negotiable instruments, pledge, or promise.

[2]. Affiant has not been provided with any evidence that you are “holder in due coarse” per UCC 3-106(b), UCC 3-302, UCC 3-303, UCC 3-305, UCC 3-306, or that I am “made liable” to you or your agency by a court “order.”

[3]. Affiant has not been provided any evidence of your authority to make presentment demand per Title 31 United States Code or if you are making presentment for another per UCC 2-609, or UCC 2-210.

[4] Affiant has not granted consent under any Territorial Application and “judicial forum” of UCC 1-105 and further asserts that none exists that I have agreed upon that contain my signature’

"The Federal Tax Lien Act of 1966, Pub. Law 89-719 § 101, 80 STAT 1125 (1966) was adopted in order to conform the lien provisions of the internal revenue laws to the concepts developed in the Uniform Commercial Code." Slodov v. U.S. 436 U.S. 236 at 257 and footnotes 19-24.
I have no recourse to a remedy at law on an instrument that you claim to maintain a security interest in per UCC 1-201(37), that makes you a Holder per UCC 1-201(20) of my personal property. Your presentments are fraudulent, unverified and unconscionable at UCC 2-302. Your presentment is discharged under UCC 3-601 and “that the discharge is effective even against holders in due course without notice”, and without resort to a commercial tribunal.
Failure to validate presentment within the prescribed time on a point by point basis or to have proper “holder” certify authenticity will mean that you accept that I have no liability, and you have no such “negotiable” instrument(s) as a “person entitled to enforcement” per UCC 3-501(a)(i) to present and demand payment per UCC 3-104(a).

YOU HAVE 30 DAYS WITH WHICH TO COMPLY FROM RECEIPT OF THIS CERTIFIED MAIL. Extension of 30 days will be granted if requested.
A fault, UCC 1-201(16), must therefore exist if you do not respond in a timely manner. Being a fault exists; it would be on your part and the burden of proof is upon you to prove your cause of action. If you persist you create a fraud through material misrepresentation which would vitiate a presentment from the beginning for failure to adhere to the principles of Law and Equity per UCC 1-103.
Failure on your part to vacate the presentment demand will result in my pressing criminal charges under 26 USC 7343 of Title 15, theft by deception, duress, coercion, fraud by inducement, material misrepresentation, malfeasance of office under color of law, and extortion using the mail system. The United States is a Corporation and Internal Revenue Service are corporations and there is no immunity for anyone who deals in commercial paper under Erie and Clearfield Doctrine, see F.R.C.P. Evidence 902 paragraph 9, but not limited thereto.
“Without Prejudice” U.S. U.C.C. 1-308 / VT. U.C.C. 1-207

“All Rights Reserved“, Before Me,

X………………………………............ X……………………………….........

Today’s Date: / /

Term Expires: / /

3:57 PM  
Blogger George in Vermont said...

The first short document is a proper refute of any bill or request for payment of money. This must be done as the “bill” are request for payment. If not returned in a timely manner you “accept both amount and terms” . Bill means many things, it can be a “tax bill, a traffic ticket, property tax, an invoice from your lawyer an assessment of a civil penalty If you refute the bill and terms so you do not accept by “acquiescence” Never throw away or ignore a demand for payment. Very simple, I do not owe you anything…
The longer document says prove I owe you the money, very different from trying to prove you do not owe the debt. What we do here is reversing the burden of proof. Colored law requires that you use an affirmative defense, (prove you are innocent) Well that is obviously wrong, see 5th amendment U.S.A. constitution. They must prove the claim. But you must stand your ground and demand properly. Your bill of rights only works for you if it is demanded CORRECTLY. You are not required to fill out forms or give any evidence that can hurt you. However THEY must answer point for point and in affidavit format or no controversy exists. No day in court.
Even the President uses the code, research presidential signing statements, easy to find..
The 14th amendment conspires with the rules of civil procedure to make you a subject citizen without rights only privilege. The 14th is where you find the reference to the public debt . The 16th amendment has nothing to do with personal taxes. They are not taxes that are being demanded, that is what they call them. Remember the semantics game Civil and Civil. (7th amendment v. roman)
Blacks law: in a general sense any contribution imposed by government upon individuals for the use and service of the state, whether under the name of toll, tribute, tallage, gable, impost, duty, custom, excise, subsidy, aid, supply or other name. And in its essential characteristics it is not a debt. City of Newark v. Jos Hollander inc. 136 N.J.Eq. 539 42 A.2d 872, 875.
What do they do with all the money they steal from us? They use it to sevice the Public debt. So it is not taxes as most will say The so called tax is an assessment of a person share of the public debt. Servicing COMMERCIAL paper. This is why the U.C.C. is the law.
and works in all situations. including ciminal.
Commercial Crime C.F.R.27 72.11Sec. 72.11 Meaning of terms.
As used in this part, unless the context otherwise requires, terms shall have the meanings ascribed in this section. Words in the plural form shall include the singular, and vice versa, and words importing the masculine gender shall include the feminine. The terms "includes" and "including" do not exclude things not enumerated which are in the same general class.
Commercial crimes. Any of the following types of crimes (Federal or State): Offenses against the revenue laws; burglary; counterfeiting; forgery; kidnapping; larceny; robbery; illegal sale or possession of deadly weapons; prostitution (including soliciting, procuring, pandering, white slaving, keeping house of ill fame, and like offenses); extortion; swindling and confidence games; and attempting to commit, conspiring to commit, or compounding any of the foregoing crimes. Addiction to narcotic drugs and use of marihuana will be treated as if such were commercial crime.

10:52 PM  
Blogger Scott Haley said...

To George:

Many thanks! I've copied both and your instructions to a Word document.

I'm still not clear as to why you might think that this would be more "effective" than my Notice. It seems to me that the "authorities" will simply re-send their paperwork with a letter stating that the UCC is not applicable in this case. Why would they not do that?

Understand, I don't know if it's applicable or not; but EVEN IF IT IS, I would imagine that The Man would simply say that it isn't. Likewise, I think any corrupt court would say the same thing. So then we're back to square one---the "UCC Refused for Cause" (so to speak) method is a good way to protest, but will not be honored by the corrupt officials.



3:22 AM  
Blogger Scott Haley said...

p.s. to George---

27 CFR deals with Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.

Any section within that Title, such as 72.11 (which you cited) is referring to activities, situations, or terms related to alcohol, tobacco, and firearms.

Why do you think it applies to all crimes? Or did I misunderstand?

3:42 AM  
Blogger George in Vermont said...

Hello Scott
This document is fashioned after, and addresses the very body of your work. The difference is it has authority. If you stand before a judge and say “you cannot do this because it is against the law” He will ask what law? And you say the Constitution, the response no matter how it is worded will be “These proceedings are unknown at the common law”. If you are in a roman courtroom or having dealings with roman agents, you must speak Latin. If you go to Spain and get arrested you cannot demand your bill of rights be enforced. In the place you stand, it does not exist. This is the power of Agency, and the courts. The administrative record must be in your favor and legally correct. I help many people and do it at no cost to them.
I handled an issue for a man in Penn. He sent a variation of this document along with a separate 505 demand to the agency involved. They sent him a court date (you must attend or a default judgment will be entered) the instructions were clear Do not swear in or enter any plea. (waving all common law advantage, and acceptance of the authority of the judge and court)) Do not fill out the financial statement as his agency demanded (the evidence of willful contempt and the tier of facts to be ruled on). The only thing you say and do is “Reserve all Rights without Prejudice” Ask the judge if he has received a copy of his affidavits and demands for discovery “addressed” to his clerk. When he acts dumb, serve the Judge a copy of your paper. “That’s ok judge I have a copy right here for you” (The sheriff who happens to be the court officer does this) The document was previously sent to the clerk of the court. Addressed to her and attention to the judge and prosecutor NOT as a motion, she after all sent him the paperwork to appear in court. The judge started to yell at Peter “He did not care what the papers say and you are getting yourself in big trouble” This Judge actually said to my client “I am not hearing this case until you start to act like an adult and fill out the financial statement. Then made him wait in the hall. Telling him to, “get out of his sight”.
Peter calls me from the courthouse ready to cry. Well the phone went quiet when I started to laugh. Pete asked me what was so funny that this person was mad and does not care what we have written or anything having to do with the U.C.C. Moreover, he has the bailiff following me around “He did not understand that he won “He will not hear the case until you comply?” What is wrong with that Pete? Just sit there and do not say another word.
The judge calls peter back into the court to witness his power . He summarily sent one man to jail, and sentenced a second to “community service” Peters turn at bat came and he again reserved his rights and refused to “comply” with the judges demands. Well he told Pete to get out of the courthouse and he ever returned he would have a lot of trouble on his hands.
They can say what they like Scott, BUT no harm can come to the man. If it does they stand naked without the much debated immunity they have. Then they can be sued. Only, if you are standing in the right spot.
Peter went home and the Judge has nothing to rule .
Scott read the list of “crimes” What do they have to do with Alcohol, Tobacco or Firearms? Not a thing. It is one of the few places in the law where the “nature” of the action and offence is outlined. You will always receive the Cause of action when dealing in the Agency courts . but you need both Nature and Cause to effectively respond and defend.

2:13 PM  
Blogger Scott Haley said...


I'm beginning to see what you're saying, but remain unclear on some points. I'll have to mull it over more.

I'm very grateful for your input, for I may have to use it before my life is over.


p.s. As to the "crimes", I agree it's rather odd to have that section in Title 27. I suppose one could stretch the imagination and say that someone with a liquor bar could also be running (for example) prostitution in the establishment. But still, that particular part of 72.11 seems to be totally out of place. Perhaps it was placed there as a method of deception---burying it somewhere where few people would ever look. I'm not sure.

12:11 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home