Ed Brown vs "Authority"
knews4...@yahoo.com
The belief in "authority" drastically warps the way most people
view reality. Oddly, people like to think the belief is a
civilizing influence, when the exact opposite is true: the most
heinous evils because generally accepted as legitimate and good
when done by a perceived "authority." Most people are utterly
incapable of viewing the world without their authority-colored
glasses dramatically twisting what they see. The belief in
"government," man-made "law," and "authority" in general, make most
people unable to see the literal truth of what is going on.
For years now the government and the media have been condemning the
evils of "terrorists." Who are they talking about? Well, if you use
the government's definition, a "terrorist" is one who uses
violence, or the threat of violence, to achieve a political end.
As many of you have heard by now, a collection of several vehicles,
apparently including an armed vehicle, filled with heavily armed
state and federal "law enforcement" personnel, was seen yesterday
heading towards the New Hampshire home of Ed and Elaine Brown. As I
understand it, those "authorities" have now laid seige to the
place, and cut the phone lines, but it sounds like there has been
no raid and no arrest as of yet. (Incidentally, I'm just getting
this from various internet posts, so don't expect me to have any
special inside info.) In one newspaper article, one of the "law
enforcement" personnel said that they had no intention whatsoever
of having a violent conflict with the Browns. Yeah, sure. I guess
they brought along the armored vehicle to do some fun off-roading
in their spare time.
Can anyone tell me, with a straight face, that the government is
NOT using violence, or the threat of violence, to achieve a
political end? Mr. and Mrs. Brown did not assault anyone, or rob
anyone, or defraud anyone. Their "sin" was to not pay the federal
terrorists their "protection" money, which (as far as I can tell)
the Browns had good reason to believe they didn't even "legally"
owe.
But whether a terrorist passes a "law" before committing his
violence makes no difference to whether his actions are righteous
or justified. Unfortunately, it does make a huge difference to
whether people PERCEIVE the actions as justified. If not for the
belief in "authority," any moron could see that the Browns are now
surrounded by a gang of terrorists. But when the terrorism is
"legal" (whatever that means), the vast majority of people suddenly
see the VICTIM as the bad guy, and the perpetrators as noble "law
enforcers."
There is one up-side to the current thuggery being used against the
Browns: it is happening in the open. Normally the terrorism
perpetrated by American "authorities" is only implied, which helps
people not think of it as terrorism. EVERY demand by government is
backed by the ability and willingness to use force, including
deadly force. Because most people comply long before such a threat
ever becomes blatant, we rarely see the true nature of the beast.
Only when people like the Browns refuse to comply with the veiled
threats dressed up as "requests" do we get to see the NON-veiled
threats, which show the true nature of the American terrorists.
If you want a taste of what lies behind the euphemism of American
"law enforcement," go rent "Waco: Rules of Engagement." These
people are murderers and terrorists. Behind their uniforms and
pretended legitimacy, they are despicable, power-happy, authority-
worshiping fascists, who will not hesitate to injure, torture, or
kill their fellow man if the "government" myth tells them to.
I very much hope that the Browns have a better end result than the
Branch Davidians did. One advantage they have is that a lot more
people are paying attention to what is really going on up there
(though it sounds like the terrorists, who like their sins to be
done in secret, have cut their phone lines).
It was only a few short years ago that I considered myself to be a
supporter of "law enforcement." After a few first-hand experiences
(a lot more tame than what the Browns are going through) showed me
who and what these people really are, I am proud to say that I will
forever be an enemy of the state, as any decent person should be.
You cannot be pro-government and anti-terrorism. The two are one in
the same.
Sincerely,
Larken Rose
www.larkenrose.com
Fred Kasner
You are a hopeless goon. You repeat anything such discredited
individuals as Rose display. You are totally gullible and without a
single critical cell in your head.
FK
knews4...@yahoo.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ad hominem.
Why don't you simply address ONE of his points?
Kirby M. Wilson
>
> On Jun 9, 1:59 pm, Fred Kasner <fkas...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > Dear Subscriber, knews4...@yahoo.com
>
>
>
Larken Rose aka "The scammer in the slammer"
> > www.larkenrose.com/tax.scams
>
You are a hopeless goon. You repeat anything such discredited
> > individuals as Rose display. You are totally gullible and without a
> > single critical cell in your head.
> > FK- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Ad hominem.
> Why don't you simply address ONE of his points?
How about all of his points?
www.evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html
www.quatloos.com internet tax scams
www.fraudsandscams.com
www.quatlosers.com
Tax Fraud reporting -
IRS Form 3949-A (available online)
When a scam gets rolling, all sorts of human cockroaches come out of
the woodwork to try to cash in. This is the perfect description of
Larken Rose, a scammer come lately to the world of tax protesting who
runs tax scam website www.taxableincome.net. Not being smart enough
to come up with any unique theory of his own, Larken has simply
latched on to the "861" or "Income Can't Be Defined" arguments that
end up with the conclusion that only foreigners are required to pay
income tax. Larkin's argument has been exploded more times than a pack
of Blackcats at a 4th of July festival (see below) but this hasn't
stopped Larken from marketing his video for $20 on his other website
http://www.theft-by-deception.com or www.larkenrose.com
Larken Rose of Hollywood, Pennsylvania was sentenced in federal
district court to 15 months imprisonment for failing to file tax
returns for the years 1998 -2002, the Justice Department and Internal
Revenue Service (IRS) announced today. In compliance with Judge
Michael M. Baylson's admonition following Rose's conviction in August,
Rose submitted delinquent tax returns for the years 1997-2004 and paid
a substantial deposit to the IRS toward his outstanding tax liability.
The court sentenced Rose to one year of supervised release following
his prison term and ordered Rose to pay a fine of $10,000 and all
taxes, interest, and penalties he owes to the IRS.
"People who intentionally fail to file returns or pay taxes as
required by law can expect to face criminal prosecution, conviction
and imprisonment," said Eileen J. O'Connor, Assistant Attorney General
for the Justice Department's Tax Division. "And they will still be
required to pay the taxes they tried to avoid, plus interest and
penalties."
Rose, a former co-owner of a medical transcription business, was
convicted by a jury in August 2005 of five counts of willfully failing
to file federal income tax returns. The evidence at trial established
that Rose did not file returns for 1998-2002
Paul Thomas
<knews...@yahoos.com> wrote
> Why don't you simply address ONE of his points?
What point was made?
--
"Under certain circumstances profanity
provides a relief denied by prayer"
Mark Twain
---------------------------------------------
Paul A. Thomas, CPA
Athens, Georgia
Richard Macdonald
> Why don't you simply address ONE of his points?
I addressed his points back in the late 1990's on this
group, he did not listen, and ended up in prison.
So go learn from his error of willful ignorance.
--
Richard A. Macdonald, CPA/EA
Be thankful we're not getting all
the government we're paying for.
-- Will Rogers
Condor
> Browns: it is happening in the open. Normally the terrorism
> perpetrated by American "authorities" is only implied, which helps
> people not think of it as terrorism. EVERY demand by government is
> backed by the ability and willingness to use force, including
> deadly force. Because most people comply long before such a threat
> ever becomes blatant, we rarely see the true nature of the beast.
> Only when people like the Browns refuse to comply with the veiled
> threats dressed up as "requests" do we get to see the NON-veiled
> threats, which show the true nature of the American terrorists.
President Bush should give his slumping approval ratings a boost by sending
the Browns and Paris Hilton to Gitmo where there are no taxes, no lawyers,
no Entertainment Tonight, and no habeas corpus.
Condor
Fred Kasner
Why bother? Your support of his work is enough for me. You are so
thoroughly a discredited fool that it is a totally acceptable maxim that
anything you support is total nonsense. There have been no exception to
date about your unerring ability to be taken in by utter nonsense. You
are without doubt the universal village idiot. Of course there have also
been your own forays into utter stupidity (e.g., the attempt to incite
a police officer into losing his cool). If for no other reason that
every item so far supported by you has been totally specious. All the
so-called science you support has to this day produced no example of
anything that can be supported by usable product to accomplish what you
claim others have proven. Political positions you take are almost
exclusively part of con games by others to sell products. You are a
helpless imbecile. Get help. You need psychiatric attention.
FK
knews4...@yahoo.com
What exactly does Rose sell besides his labor when not sitting in
prison for standing up for principle and truth?
Whose the goon?
Show me how the income tax as "advertised" is not a direct tax on the
exchange of labor which by law is to be apportioned?
Show me how I can sell my labor avoid it and still eat if it is not a
direct tax and is indirect which is by definition avoidable.
Address the 1925 law like Rose requests of the "Professor."
knews4...@yahoo.com
I still don't get how the U.S. can completely cut off a country like
Cuba from all other political and business relations, yet be able keep
a prison camp there.
Doesn't ANYONE wonder about this shit?
knews4...@yahoo.com
There is'nt any habeas corpus in the U.S. either:
http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=habeas+corpus&sa=Search&domains=rense.com&sitesearch=rense.com
And you can kill all the lawyers and it wouldn't bother me,
so.......your point?
Mysterion
"Fred Kasner" <fka...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:bWHai.14431$rO7....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
Another spineless asshole chimes in to proclaim his love of the all mighty
state.
Bye-bye, fuckwit.
PLONK
Fred Kasner
I don't have to show you anything. The IRS and the circuit court of the
USA has dealt with that to my satisfaction. Rose is a convicted felon.
You are supporting a convicted felon and are too stupid to understand
how it destroys the tiniest bit of credibility you believe you retain.
Why wasn't Rose sent to one of those concentration camps you insisted
are ready all over the USA? You are one sick puppy. Get help. Try to
return to planet Earth and live a real life. Your so called labor is
worthless. I wouldn't hire you to pick up the droppings of my dog. You
would somehow or other screw that up also. Get help. Time is running out.
FK
Fred Kasner
The USA has a long term lease on the Guantanamo base. Any attempt by the
Cuban government to fail to honor the lease would likely be viewed as an
act of war by the USA. The devastation of the Cuban economy would be
almost total if an air war were launched on Cuba by the USA. They know
this and do not fail to honor the lease. They don't even try to harass
the small garrison stationed there.
FK
Fred Kasner
For USA citizens there certainly is a habeas corpus. However those who
are not native born citizens have been abused and certainly denied
access to the courts for defense of their position, especially when they
are arrested outside the USA. The Supremes recently pointed out the
limitations of partial denial of habeas corpus on the part of the
government.
FK
Robert Miller
How can a law require somebody to violate the U.S. Constitution?
As in the right not to incriminate oneself with an income tax form?
Why can no lawyer, judge, or even a former IRS commissioner answer
this very simple question without resorting to name calling or threats?
I've asked both my Senator's to answer this question. One or the other
should be able to answer it, don't you think? Actually I'm expecting a
responce like "I don't understand the question", same as I've heard so
many respond in the past. But I'll keep an open mind. I'm not privy to
perfect knowledge like many others around here.
Robert Miller
What does the Mafia say about someone who refused to pay protection
money? Where is the difference, a law so broadly and vaguely defined as
to mean whatever the beholder says it does. But not in compliance with
any Supreme Court decision.
As I understand the situation you place all the evidence of the income tax
fraud into your Individual Master File when you are first asked to bring
your
records and documents. They can not cherry pick what documents in your
file to bring out before the Jury.
Do they plan to arrest 67 million so called tax protestors? but they can't
deal with 12 million illegal aliens?
Robert Miller
<knews4...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1181446887.6...@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Understand he has not been paid for his labor! He has only received
promissory notes (which are a promise to be paid in the future).
You can not pay your debts with them!, but discharge your debt to
someone else. Not that these agencies actually care about the law.
Or even truth any more than a Mafia boss cares about the law.
Paul Maffia
"Robert Miller" <robe...@windstream.net> wrote in message
news:81b11$4679da23$4b5b25cc$19...@ALLTEL.NET...
> How can a law require somebody to violate the U.S. Constitution?
The income tax law does not require you to violate the Constitution.
> As in the right not to incriminate oneself with an income tax form?
> Why can no lawyer, judge, or even a former IRS commissioner answer
> this very simple question without resorting to name calling or threats?
Moron, read Archmedes answer, not that I have any hope yo will understand
it. Let's see, Dan Evans is a lawyert and you can read the quoted law in
detail on his web site as well as the opinions of judges and the Supreme
Court which cite the law you morons say does not exist. Then there is the
lawyer who used to sign himself as Shyster her who used to constantly quote
the law to you and the oither morons here.
> I've asked both my Senator's to answer this question. One or the other
> should be able to answer it, don't you think? Actually I'm expecting a
> responce like "I don't understand the question", same as I've heard so
> many respond in the past. But I'll keep an open mind. I'm not privy to
> perfect knowledge like many others around here.
You are not privy to knowledge - period, you are a moron.
Paul Maffia
> What does the Mafia say about someone who refused to pay protection
> money? Where is the difference, a law so broadly and vaguely defined as
> to mean whatever the beholder says it does. But not in compliance with
> any Supreme Court decision.
The law is neither broad nor vague except to morons, like you.
> As I understand the situation you place all the evidence of the income tax
> fraud into your Individual Master File when you are first asked to bring
> your
> records and documents. They can not cherry pick what documents in your
> file to bring out before the Jury.
>
> Do they plan to arrest 67 million so called tax protestors? but they can't
> deal with 12 million illegal aliens?
One of the other marks of the tax morons like yourself, is the fantasy that
there are so many of you. In reality there are substantially less than
50,000 of you nuts.
Paul Thomas, CPA
"Robert Miller" <robe...@windstream.net> wrote
> Understand he has not been paid for his labor!
He did just that, being paid for his labor, from his medical transcription
business customers (who used someone else during his stint on the pokey).
> He has only received promissory notes (which
> are a promise to be paid in the future).
Which carry value, as other people ~want~ thoes "promissory notes" and will
gladly trade them for goods and services the holder of the "promissory
notes" may want from time to time.
> You can not pay your debts with them!,
Shhhhh..........don't let my creditors hear that. They've been duped for
decades and I don't need them claiming I still owe them.
> but discharge your debt to someone else.
Hell boy. There's value to that, donchaknow.
Fred Kasner
Actually one can fill out an income tax return without specifying a
source of income. One can label an amount illegal income and pay the
taxes. If they haul you into court to explain more details then you can
plead the fifth amendment right to not self incriminate. You cannot be
tried for an illegal act that is not specified in the charge save for
some of the worst depradations of the "Patriot Act". Neither a Grand
Jury or a trial court can force you to provide any information that
could lead to your revealing any details of income illegally obtained.
But it is a crime to not file an income tax return. If you do that they
can put you away. Why? Because that is in itself a specific violation of
law. If you have no income that is taxable you still have to file a
return. Or if you have income and won't disclose it you can be
prosecuted. They sent Al Capone away for not filing income tax returns
on what was clearly a large amount of income. He lived rather lavishly.
FK
Fred Kasner
Not true. They can ask for what ever they want that may have any
connection to what they view as illegal. Failure to provide such
documents is illegal itself. If you claim there are no such documents at
all then they can go to court and claim you are obstructing justice or
they can ask the court to compel your providing of the documents. If you
still fail to or refuse to they can find you in civil contempt and jail
you for the duration of the term of the grand jury that called you. Then
they have to let you out. But the feds can bring it up to a new grand
jury and thus keep putting you away until satisfy the court's order. In
the case where the they have independent evidence of your income without
your documents they can then attach any bank or other funds you have to
pay your taxes as they compute them. All this is legal without any
cooperation on your part.
FK
Fred Kasner
Promissory notes are documents that can be sold to those who would be
willing to buy them. So the feds can seize promissory notes and either
keep them to extract the funds from the signer of the notes or auction
them off for whatever they will bring to pay part of the judgment they
get against the person trying to avoid paying taxes. He would still be
liable for the deficiency between what he owes the feds and what was
obtained from the asset that is the promissory note.
FK
Usene...@the-domain-in.sig
pma...@centurytel.net says...
I vaguely recall reading an actual IRS publication that said
something about refusing certain requests. Maybe it was about
trying to appeal to the federal court, after an audit resulted in
a tax-due bill.
And it included something about induhviduals who had already been
officially designated as "tax protestors." And that those people
would receive less consideration.
I took that to mean people with big mouths. The ones who
actually spout the Constitutional arguments, and so forth, about
how the US income tax is bogus.
Which is a lot different to the much larger hordes of folks who
are involved in mistakes or misinterpretations or arguments about
specific amounts. Or people just don't have the money to spare,
and are looking for a break.
--
Get Credit Where Credit Is Due
http://www.cardreport.com/
Credit Tools, Reference, and Forum
Archmedes
Here are some of the dummies. These are people who really believed in
the tax protestor literature, who followed it to the letter, and then
was either sent to prison for tax evasion, or sanctioned or fined for
asserting a stupid theory in court, or had some goofy case against the
IRS dismissed, etc. These cases demonstrate conclusively that
irrespective of what the scam artists who sell the tax protestor
materials tell you, the only thing that will happen is that you will get
creamed by the IRS in court. Oh, and you will also have lost the money
you paid for the materials, your defense attorney's fees, the value of
your lost time fighting the IRS, and your reputation as a sensible
individual.
Recent Losses by the Tax Protestor Idiots:
a.. United States v. Schiff; “America’s leading untax expert” is
convicted of three counts of attempted tax evasion and one count of
willful failure to file. Some expert!
b.. United States v. Schiff; Schiff tries for a reduced or corrected
sentence on the grounds that his fee speech and free association rights
were being violated, and that by filing a tax returns he was being
compelled to testify against him self. He loses, again.
c.. Schiff v. United States; Schiff tries for a reduced or corrected
sentence on the grounds that his fee speech and free association rights
were being violated, and that by filing a tax returns he was being
compelled to testify against him self. He loses, again.
d.. Schiff v. Cox; Schiff files a Writ of Habeas Corpus to try to get
out of jail. He loses this too.
e.. In re Schiff; Schiff also files a Writ of Mandamus. It is denied
too.
f.. Tully v. Commissioner; T.C. Memo. 1999-422; No. 16008-98 (December
27, 1999)
Tax evasion promoter who established exempt organizations for
individuals was liable for the fraud and failure-to-file penalties, and
on its own motion, assessed the maximum section 6673 penalty for abuse
and delay.
g.. Snyder v. Department of State Revenue; Cause No. 49T10-9806-TA-70
(January 21, 2000) Argued that wages are not income under either Indiana
law or the Internal Revenue Code.
h.. Bibbs v. United States; 85 AFTR2d Par. 2000-348; No. 99-5117
(January 11, 2000)
Argued that as Ohio private citizens they are not subject to U.S.
income taxation.
i.. Scoville v. United States; 85 AFTR2d Par. 2000-355; No.
94-0936-CV-W-6 (December 3, 1999)
Court held that insurance proceeds payable to wife of tax protestor
could by levied upon by the IRS since the couple had structured their
affairs specifically to avoid the IRS's lien for back taxes owed.
j.. Greene v. Commissioner; T.C. Memo. 2000-26; No. 15225-98 (January
21, 2000)
Argued that the federal income tax laws apply only to employees of
government-related entities.
k.. Treglowne v. United States; 84 AFTR2d Par. 99-5618; No.
99-CV-70323-DT (November 17, 1999)
Argued that he was not required to provide incriminating information
to the IRS under the Fifth Amendment.
l.. Miller v. United States; 85 AFTR2d Par. 2000-390; No. 98-4021
(August 4, 1999)
Aruged that the income tax established under the Internal Revenue Code
("IRC") does not apply to him because, inter alia, there is no statute
or regulation that makes him "A PEOPLE, A Private Christian" liable
under the IRC; as "A PEOPLE, A Private Christian" he did not earn
"wages" or "gross income" as defined in the IRC or regulations; and he
had no taxable "income" according to the meaning of the term and the
Supreme Court's definition of the term.
m.. McQuatters v. Commissioner; T.C. Memo. 2000-34; No. 16871-98
(February 3, 2000)
Argued, among other things, that letters addressed to "Dear Taxpayer"
were fraudulent, and that "income" cannot be defined -- In addition to
losing, he additionally received a $5,000 fine from the court for making
frivolous arguments.
n.. House v. Commissioner; 85 AFTR2d Par. 2000-419; No. 2:99-2428-23AJ
(January 10, 2000) Aruged that they are not "persons" within the meaning
of the IRS statutes as they are instead "citizens of the Sovereign State
of South Carolina" and cannot be taxed by the United States
Other Losses by the Tax Protestor Idiots:
a.. United States v. Melton, No. 94-5535 (4th Cir. 1996)
Argued that the law requiring them to pay taxes and file returns is
unclear.
b.. United States v. Ross, No. 93-1010 (7th Cir. 1995)
Argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction because Indiana is
not part of the United States, and because there were no regulations
issued to implement the criminal statute under which he was convicted.
c.. United States v. Gardell, No. 93-1916 (1st Cir. 1994)
Argued that he has no obligation to pay taxes because he has "the
Status of Freeman and . . . has no Contractual, Quasi-Contractual or
implied agreements with the Federal Government."
d.. United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255 (8th Cir. 1993)
Argued that the district court did not have "inland jurisdiction,"
that wages are untaxable, that the income tax is voluntary, and that
they were "Free Citizens of the Republic of Minnesota.
e.. United States v. Steiner, 963 F.2d 381 (9th Cir. 1992)
Argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction over "sovereign
citizens," that he was not a "taxpayer" under the federal tax laws, and
that the word "includes" is a term of restriction, not expansion.
f.. United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499 (7th Cir. 1991)
Argued that there is no law imposing a tax on income, that "freeborn"
state citizens are exempt from income tax, and that an individual is not
a"person" under the tax code.
g.. United States v. Saunders, 951 F.2d 1065 (9th Cir. 1991)
Argued that IRS summonses are invalid without an OMB control number,
that the IRS lacks authority to issue and enforce summonses because no
Treasury Delegation Orders were published in the Federal Register, and
that the district court has no jurisdiction.
h.. United States v. Hicks, 947 F.2d 1356 (9th Cir. 1991)
Argued that he should be acquitted of tax evasion because the IRS
failed to display OMB numbers on Form 1040 and because the IRS failed to
publish Form 1040 in the Federal Register.
i.. Schiff v. United States, 919 F.2d 830 (2nd Cir. 1990)
Argued that federal reserve notes are not taxable income, that the
Constitution does not authorize an income tax, and that tax assessments
are takings.
j.. United States v. Bowers, 920 F.2d 220 (4th Cir. 1990)
Argued that the IRS failed to comply with the publication requirements
of the Administrative Procedure Act.
k.. United States v. White, No. 89-10533 (9th Cir. 1990)
Argued that there is no law requiring him, as "a sovereign citizen of
the state of Nevada," to file income tax returns.
l.. United States v. McDonald, No. 88-5239 (9th Cir. 1990)
Argued that as a "white, natural born, state citizen," the income tax
does not apply to him, that he is not a "person" or a "resident," and
that the district court lacked jurisdiction.
m.. In re Becraft, 885 F.2d 547 (9th Cir. 1989)
Argued that the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct
non-apportioned tax on citizens residing in the United States.
n.. Miller v. United States, 868 F.2d 236 (7th Cir. 1988)
Argued that the Sixteenth Amendment was never legally ratified.
o.. United States v. Genger, No. 87-1043 (9th Cir. 1988)
Argued that the district court erroneously exercised admiralty
jurisdiction over him, and that filing a federal tax return violated his
First Amendment right to freely exercise his religion.
p.. McLaughlin v. United States, 832 F.2d 986 (7th Cir. 1987)
Argued that the federal income tax is a contract, and that he didn't
owe any tax because he rescinded the contract.
q.. Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68 (7th Cir. 1986)
Argued that wages are not income under the tax code, and that the
income tax is a taking.
r.. United States v. Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438 (9th Cir. 1986)
Argued that the Sixteenth Amendment was never properly ratified.
s.. Casper v. Commissioner, 805 F.2d 902 (10th Cir. 1986)
Argued that wages are exchanges of property rather than taxable
income.
t.. Eicher v. United States, 774 F.2d 27 (1st Cir. 1985)
Argued that the Fifth Amendment allowed him to withhold all financial
information from his income tax return.
u.. Newman v. Schiff, 778 F.2d 460 (8th Cir. 1985)
Irwin Schiff offered $100,000 to anyone who could prove that the tax
code requires individuals to pay income tax.
v.. Olson v. United States, 760 F.2d 1003 (9th Cir. 1985)
Argued that he owed no taxes because he had not obtained any privilege
from a governmental agency.
w.. Charczuk v. Commissioner, 771 F.2d 471 (10th Cir. 1985)
Argued that the Constitution does not authorize an income tax, that
there is no law imposing an income tax, and that the definition of
"income" is vague.
x.. Ficalora v. Commissioner, 751 F.2d 85 (2d Cir. 1984)
Argued that Congress does not possess the constitutional authority to
impose a "direct" tax, that no law makes any individual liable to pay a
tax or excise on "taxable income," and that "income" has no defined
meaning and is unconstitutionally vague and indefinite.
y.. Lovell v. United States, 755 F.2d 517 (7th Cir. 1984)
Argued that they are exempt from federal taxation because they are
"natural individuals" who have not "requested, obtained or exercised any
privilege from an agency of government."
z.. United States v. Condo, 741 F.2d 238 (9th Cir. 1984)
Argued that Federal Reserve notes cannot be taxed, that the Sixteenth
Amendment only allows taxing income from "sources," not persons, and
that the word "includes" is a term of limitation, not expansion.
aa.. United States v. Heise, 709 F.2d 449 (6th Cir. 1983)
Argued that his failure to file proper returns constituted a valid
exercise of his Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory
self-incrimination.
ab.. United States v. Drefke, 707 F.2d 978 (8th Cir. 1983)
Argued that he was a "nontaxpayer" because he did not enter a contract
for government services, that the district court had no jurisdiction,
and that the tax code violated his Fifth and Thirteenth Amendment
rights.
ac.. McCann v. Greenway, 952 F. Supp. 647 (W.D. Mo. 1997)
Argued that a state court lacked jurisdiction over him because the
flag in the courtroom had yellow fringe on it, thus converting it into
the "maritime flag of war." A Favorite!
ad.. United States v. Hartman, 915 F. Supp. 1227 (M.D. Fla. 1996)
Argued that payment of income taxes is voluntary, and that summonses
from the I.R.S. cannot be enforced without implementing regulations.
ae.. United States v. Rhodes, 921 F. Supp. 261 (M.D. Penn. 1996)
Argued that "income" under the Sixteenth Amendment is limited to
profit proceeding from property, and that he is not a "person" under the
Internal Revenue Code.
af.. United States v. Greenstreet, 912 F. Supp. 224 (N.D. Tex. 1996)
Filed UCC-1 financing statements against federal employees. Argued
that as a "white Preamble natural sovereign Common Law De Jure Citizen
of the Republic/State of Texas," the district court lacked jurisdiction,
that the case should be moved to "Our One Supreme Court for the Republic
of Texas," and that fringe on an American flag denotes a court of
admiralty.
ag.. Albers v. Internal Revenue Service, No. 95-3068 (D. Neb. 1996)
Argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction, that they were
non-resident aliens because Nebraska is not part of the United States,
and that they did not fall within the provisions of the tax code.
ah.. Valldejuli v. Social Security Admin., No. 94-10051 (N.D. Fla.
1994)
Argued that he was fraudulently induced into signing a "contract" with
the Social Security Administration, and that he is a natural sovereign
citizen of the United States who is not subject to the Social Security
system.
ai.. United States v. Sato, 704 F. Supp. 816 (N.D. Ill. 1989)
Argued that Congress' power to tax does not extend beyond the District
of Columbia and other federal areas, and that the Sixteenth Amendment
was never ratified lawfully.
aj.. United States v. House, 617 F. Supp 237 (W.D. Mich. 1985)
Argued that the Sixteenth Amendment was never legally ratified.
ak.. Young v. Internal Revenue Service, 596 F. Supp. 141 (N.D. Ind.
1984)
Argued that the IRS was not created by "positive law," that the tax
code does not apply to "sovereign citizens," that the tax code is a bill
of attainder, and that the district court lacks jurisdiction.
al.. Snyder v. United States, 596 F. Supp. 240 (N.D. Ind. 1984)
Argued that the I.R.S. is a private corporation and not part of the
government of the United States.
am.. McKinney v. Regan, 599 F. Supp. 126 (M.D. La. 1984)
Argued that as a "Sovereign Individual," the "Common Law of the United
States of America, a Republic" protected him from penalties for filing a
frivolous tax return.
an.. Wisconsin v. Glick, 782 F.2d 670 (7th Cir. 1986)
Argued that a land patent from the United States conveyed clear title
and no one may encumber the property with mortgages, thereby preventing
foreclosure.
ao.. Hilgeford v. Peoples Bank, 776 F.2d 176 (7th Cir. 1985)
Argued that drafting and signing a "federal land patent" grants an
interest superior to that of a bank trying to foreclose.
ap.. Nixon v. Individual Head of St. Joseph Mortgage Co., 612 F. Supp.
253 (N.D. Ind. 1985)
Argued that court should dismiss foreclosure action on the basis of a
"land patent" which he drafted, executed, and recorded in the County
Recorder of Deeds Office.
aq.. Britt v. Federal Land Bank Assoc. of St. Louis, 505 N.E. 2d 387
(Ill. Ct. App. 1987)
Argued that creation of land patents required that the bank return
foreclosed property to possession of plaintiffs.
ar.. United States ex rel. Verdone v. Circuit Court for Taylor County,
851 F. Supp. 345 (W.D. Wisc. 1993)
Argued that the traffic laws infringed on his right to travel and that
enforcement of the traffic laws constituted a conspiracy.
as.. City of Spokane v. Port, 716 P.2d 945 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986)
Argued that a law requiring that drivers have licenses
unconstitutionally restricts one's right to travel.
at.. State v. Gibson, 697 P.2d 1216 (Idaho Ct. App. 1985)
Argued that as a "free man" the motor vehicle laws do not apply to him
without his consent.
au.. State v. Turk, 643 P.2d 224 (Mont. 1982)
Argued that Montana's compulsory automobile liability insurance
statutes are unconstitutional.
The Seventh Sign
And do not forget my favorite.
State Vs Marvin L Barmes (Indiana 2004, DEA Pittsburgh PA, And the
IRS )
Put marvinlbarmes in your URL if the site is still up and read it
some.
Every idiot wants to lose the IRS and the blood sucking government
taxes but there is no where that doesn't have them.
And some of those countries are worst than ours.
Try it in any other country they more than likely would just doze
your home and harm your family and then finally get around to you and
make you beg like a dog for your life. All uncle sam wants is the
money + interest and penalties.
TSS
Archmedes
Probably less than 1% of all taxpayers are subject to interest or
penalties. On the other hand, delusional tax protester types are always
subject to interest and penalties, and perhaps garnishments and levies.
Comes with the territory, like flies on shit.