Are You Being Fined And Taxed Illegally?

[joyfulliving]

Are Your Being Fined And Taxed Illegally?

<HR style="COLOR: #666d75" SIZE=1><!-- / icon and title --><!-- message -->Walter Chek, a personal friend of Elaine Neiswender, will be in town November 13th-November 29th. Although Walter is not a lawyer he knows more about Constitutional law and our rights than lawyers who are beholden to the state and county governments. Unfortunately, lawyers are like doctors and HAVE to follow the laws and statutes that they are told to--irregardless of the Constitution. I am bringing Walter to Sonoma County from back East to help Sonoma County because laws, fines, codes, and ordinances are being created here on a day by day basis that are unconstitutional. Does anyone know of anyone who is being legally harrassed and needs to speak to someone who is smart, above board, and knows the laws? The Constitution is STILL ALIVE and is the higher law in ANY CASE. Would you like to get together and know more? We are planning a series of meetings when he is here to become more informed. I consider myself to be a law abiding person, never been in trouble with the "law" (never in jail, arrested, etc.) but I know about persecution and unjust laws at the same time. We ALL need to be informed. This information is NOT readily available so please contact me if you would like to come to one of these meetings and help to pay for his trip here. We will be asking for reasonable amount to speak with him so that his costs will be covered. He does NOT charge like lawyers charge! HE WANTS TO HELP US HERE! Elaine 887-8129.:heart:
<!-- / message -->

[petermargolies]

I've heard the somewhat tortured logic that results in declarations of illegal taxation. I also wonder if this friend of a friend has suggestions about how else government at its many levels is to be funded?
I don't like the way tax dollars are wasted any more than anyone else and I think that's where the focus should be. More accountablility, more compassion and more positive results are certainly called for. But to fight the constitionality of taxes is like telling your child that you're cutting off his allowance because all he does with it is buy candy.
We need to insure that both our children and our government officials learn to spend the money we give them with a higher degree of responsibility.
Pete


Are Your Being Fined And Taxed Illegally?

<!-- / icon and title --><!-- message -->Walter Chek, a personal friend of Elaine Neiswender, will be in town November 13th-November 29th. Although Walter is not a lawyer he knows more about Constitutional law and our rights than lawyers who are beholden to the state and county governments. Unfortunately, lawyers are like doctors and HAVE to follow the laws and statutes that they are told to--irregardless of the Constitution. I am bringing Walter to Sonoma County from back East to help Sonoma County because laws, fines, codes, and ordinances are being created here on a day by day basis that are unconstitutional. Does anyone know of anyone who is being legally harrassed and needs to speak to someone who is smart, above board, and knows the laws? The Constitution is STILL ALIVE and is the higher law in ANY CASE. Would you like to get together and know more? We are planning a series of meetings when he is here to become more informed. I consider myself to be a law abiding person, never been in trouble with the "law" (never in jail, arrested, etc.) but I know about persecution and unjust laws at the same time. We ALL need to be informed. This information is NOT readily available so please contact me if you would like to come to one of these meetings and help to pay for his trip here. We will be asking for reasonable amount to speak with him so that his costs will be covered. He does NOT charge like lawyers charge! HE WANTS TO HELP US HERE! Elaine 887-8129.:heart:



<!-- / message -->

[sharingwisdom]

To understand and know about illegal taxation, please take the time to watch Award-winning director (Trading Places and The Rose) Aaron Russo's documentary --America: From Freedom to Fascism: https://www.poodlecrap.com/Hateliars/HL_Video1.asp?Part=0
It's about 1.5 hours long but worth every minute. It played at selected movie theaters around the country last summer and now we can watch it on line.


I've heard the somewhat tortured logic that results in declarations of illegal taxation. I also wonder if this friend of a friend has suggestions about how else government at its many levels is to be funded?
I don't like the way tax dollars are wasted any more than anyone else and I think that's where the focus should be. More accountablility, more compassion and more positive results are certainly called for. But to fight the constitionality of taxes is like telling your child that you're cutting off his allowance because all he does with it is buy candy.
We need to insure that both our children and our government officials learn to spend the money we give them with a higher degree of responsibility.
Pete

[joyfulliving]

Ah-- the Wise Dragon lady knows the truth! Hurray for someone who is NOT a deceived soul! We have all been deceived in more ways than not and this country is headed for a crash if we don't uphold the Constitution. We have been giving up our rights to Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Freedom to Pursue Happiness, and Freedom to a FAIR HEARING slowly but surely and unless we require government to obey the Constitution we will have no more rights=fascism. If Peter Margoles wants to allow government to tax and fine him into a hole then he, by ever right, can allow them to do that to HIM. You are RIGHT wise dragon lady by the link you sent us....That is a powerful documentary and Walter Chek who will be meeting with people individually and also publicly on November 18th (evening) and on November 19th-20th in a workshop manner will have even more to share in this regard. IF you want to know the truth and how to lawfully require government to uphold your rights/our rights then this is the time to learn how to do it. I, as a law abiding member of this community, felt this to be so essential that I am bringing him here from Oklahoma to be available to members of this community. Call me if you would like to know more about these meetings or if you have been persecuted and want legal remedy. [Did you know that the County Permit Department is going around Sonoma County and requiring property owners to either tear down their homes or rebuild unless they meet 2006 standards which are EXTENSIVE? Do you want them to have that right? Exactly how many of us want government to come in like stormtroopers violating all of our rights and give us 30 days to either rebuild with EXPENSIVE BUILDING PERMITS or tear down our properties with EXPENSIVE DEMOLTION PERMITS? How many of us own homes that predate 2006 standards? MOST of us. Do you want them to be allowed to continue? This is not the only way we are being oppressed as you well know.] You DON'T want to miss Walter when he is here. He will lead you through it ALL so that YOUR personal freedom will NOT be taken away by unlawful methods! If not us in Sonoma County-- then who will rise up and say that we want to be free from oppressive government? Many of us love our freedom and want to be free to pursue happiness. We can't allow the Constitution and our original rights to be carved away chunk by chunk. I don't in ANY WAY consider myself to be politically active or even revolutionary, but I recently faced this kind of persecution and need to say and do something appropriate. I am MUCH MORE spiritually active, but someone has to do something public in this regard. I felt called to bring Walter here to be available for everyone to learn from. Wise Dragon Lady, and ANY OTHER WISE SOULS, EARTH ELDERS, OLD SOULS, ETC you might want to meet with him or come to his meetings here (November 18th evening--November 19th and 20th workshop-conference). Since you know the truth you would have access to an incredible man with incredible knowledge of Constitutional law that is NOT taught or available to the common person. Empire law teaches a course on it for its law students, but you have to be a law student to take it--and MOST lawyers do NOT practice this type of law (none in California that I know of) since the Constitution is being whittled away at by the invasive and continual stream of new ordinances, codes, etc and most lawyers don't know and aren't taught the way to legally stop it. We ALL, as peacemakers, need to learn what to do. Call me..Elaine 887-8129


To understand and know about illegal taxation, please take the time to watch Award-winning director (Trading Places and The Rose) Aaron Russo's documentary --America: From Freedom to Fascism: https://www.poodlecrap.com/Hateliars/HL_Video1.asp?Part=0

It's about 1.5 hours long but worth every minute. It played at selected movie theaters around the country last summer and now we can watch it on line.

[Juggledude]

Elaine,

While I respect your personal experience, and regret any personal prosection you have undergone, I find myself compelled to reply to the tone of your post, if not the specific content. (the conent is worthy of reply, and if I can find the time, I would welcome engaging in a discussion at length). First off, can you please refrain from posting in such large, bold text? It reads to me as if you are shouting at the top of your lungs, and while I understand the passion you bring to the table, I personally would be more receptive to your ideas if they were spoken in a moderate voice (font size). [I have down-sized it now. sorry I missed it - Barry]

I am uninformed yet curious regarding the illegal taxation issues, I have dipped my big toe in the water of knowledge that surrounds this topic, and would appreciate learning from someone actually swimming in that pond. I am also very curious about how you propose to restructure the exisiting system to continue to provide services and support to the community, it's peacekeepers, firefighters, teachers, welfare programs, and all the other myriad of expesive things it takes to keep our society running. Even though we probably agree on the redirection of available funds, and the amount of good the money would do spent on social issues as opposed to military for example, the revenue base still exists because of taxation, would you change that?

Your use of emotional triggers to belabor your point smacks of the same type of fear mongering the court of King George likes to bandy about, loosing the details in the overwhelming emotional response. I am very interested in the specific details on how to prevent the erosion of our constitutional and merely human rights, but I don't confuse those inalianable rights with taxation, imho that's a separate issue, even though it is addressed in the constitution.

Finally, here are some links to available constitutional law, your statement regarding it not being availble to the common person is just incorrect, unless you classify the common person as someone unable to read.

Respectfully,

Royce

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_law

https://patriotpetitions.us/intro.asp?id=6

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/Constitutional_law

https://www.hg.org/conlaw.html

[don]

Hey Elaine

While I appreciate your efforts to defend our rights, I find it hard to believe your statement below, and I actually find it inflammatory. (If your statement were true it would mean most homes in West County would need to be torn down or rebuilt!) Do you have evidence to support your statement?

While I am no expert here, I have done permitted remodeling of my 50+ year old west county home and worked with many inspectors. I think what you are saying here is out of context, as I don't see inspectors going door to door to tell people to tear down or rebuild their houses, and I am sure that it would have made front page headline news. What you might be referring to is, as I understand it, the Sonoma County Code that requires you, when remodeling your home, to bring it up to code. Building inspectors do not have the right to come on to your property unless they are there for a requested inspection or because of suspected building infringement.

Thanks again for your good intentions.

Don



Did you know that the County Permit Department is going around Sonoma County and requiring property owners to either tear down their homes or rebuild unless they meet 2006 standards which are EXTENSIVE?

[joyfulliving]

Juggledude: I can't respond at length right now but one thing I want to say publicly is that I am sight impaired so I write in a size larger so that I can read it myself. I mean no offense to others and am definitely not yelling. I hope that you can understand now why I write bigger in everything that I write. (This one I will purposely size down so that you won't be upset.) I forwarded your e-mail to Walter and if he has time while he travels here I am sure he will respond to you. Yes what I am speaking about is worthy of discussion and all of use should be concerned about the erosion of our constitutional rights. I am concerned that many just have had no way to communicate (because of fear) about ways that they have been personally challenged in unlawful circumstances and my hope was to share a way out. People can take the opportunity as many are choosing to do in wanting to meet with Walter and others feel that everything is OK. I respect everyone's choice. No one should feel any kind of pressure or upset. It my posting does not apply to you or you choose to not be involved that is fine. What is on WACCObb is a whole variety of opportunities and this is just another one--except this one is not a dance party, but meetings about our human rights instead.
In terms of taxation, if you choose to meet with Walter you would have the opportunity to speak at length with him regarding taxes so that you can understand WHERE really those funds go. They do not go to what most people think they go for. He will be meeting with people in whatever way they feel is most comfortable--in groups, in individual talks, etc. HE knows and has led MANY people through this water in terms of taxes. I know that there is a lot of information on the constitution on the internet, but it is difficult to apply it to a situation unless you KNOW someone who has walked through the waters. Walter has and has led close to 1000 people through it as well as led others regarding other constitutional issues. He is quite brilliant....
Thank you for your links and I will research them as well. We are all just learning and need to get a grasp of what is happening right now which opposes our rights as human beings. Thanks for writing. Elaine


Elaine,

While I respect your personal experience, and regret any personal prosection you have undergone, I find myself compelled to reply to the tone of your post, if not the specific content. (the conent is worthy of reply, and if I can find the time, I would welcome engaging in a discussion at length). First off, can you please refrain from posting in such large, bold text? It reads to me as if you are shouting at the top of your lungs, and while I understand the passion you bring to the table, I personally would be more receptive to your ideas if they were spoken in a moderate voice (font size). [I have down-sized it now. sorry I missed it - Barry]

I am uninformed yet curious regarding the illegal taxation issues, I have dipped my big toe in the water of knowledge that surrounds this topic, and would appreciate learning from someone actually swimming in that pond. I am also very curious about how you propose to restructure the exisiting system to continue to provide services and support to the community, it's peacekeepers, firefighters, teachers, welfare programs, and all the other myriad of expesive things it takes to keep our society running. Even though we probably agree on the redirection of available funds, and the amount of good the money would do spent on social issues as opposed to military for example, the revenue base still exists because of taxation, would you change that?

Your use of emotional triggers to belabor your point smacks of the same type of fear mongering the court of King George likes to bandy about, loosing the details in the overwhelming emotional response. I am very interested in the specific details on how to prevent the erosion of our constitutional and merely human rights, but I don't confuse those inalianable rights with taxation, imho that's a separate issue, even though it is addressed in the constitution.

Finally, here are some links to available constitutional law, your statement regarding it not being availble to the common person is just incorrect, unless you classify the common person as someone unable to read.

Respectfully,

Royce

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_law

https://patriotpetitions.us/intro.asp?id=6

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/Constitutional_law

https://www.hg.org/conlaw.html

[Juggledude]

Elaine,

Again, thank you for the service you do and are providing to our community. The effort, not to mention the resources, you have graciously put forth to bring a person here who has information that you believe to be of is very much appreciated, at least by myself. I believe a discussion with Walter would be quite informative, and I look forward to the opportunity, should it arise.

I sympathize with your vision difficulties, and would like to offer my help in learning to use some of the accessability features built into windows, or other software. I'm hoping you run a windows machine? If you are a Mac user, I'm afraid my lack of experience will be an obstacle, yet I am confident that the Mac platform, famous for it's friendly intuitive interface has similar functionality.

On my comuter, running windows xp with a scroll mouse, all I need do is click down on the scroll wheel, and the cursor changes to a magnifying glass, scroll the wheel and the text of the posts and everything else increases or decreases with ease. If you don't have a scroll mouse, up on the menu bar, under the view menu, there is a "text size" option, which can be used to increase or decrease the way text is displayed on your computer, so you can read with ease.

Hope this helps!

Royce

[joyfulliving]

Peter I hope that you have had the chance to see and explore the links that have been sent through WACCO so that you can see the truth behind what is happening in this country. You are a good man and a man who is able to communicate to many people in Sonoma County by way of your excellent writing skills. May you be blessed with great understanding in what has been brought to the table now with various people responding to my post. If you follow all of them and watch the Russo film your eyes will truly be opened as mine have been. I have never been politically active, but circumstances in my life were so intense that I had to take up this task of understanding WHY I was being so persecuted and what exactly was going on. Yes more compassion and more understanding, but with that "more accountability" also means that those in power need to tell the truth about what is really happening with tax money--we need to demand NO more fibs, lies, and deception. Take care and I hope that you are also blessed in your table making business. By the way WACCO Peter is a gifted outdoor furniture maker. If you ever need some made or want to purchase some check out what he creates--very nice...Elaine


I've heard the somewhat tortured logic that results in declarations of illegal taxation. I also wonder if this friend of a friend has suggestions about how else government at its many levels is to be funded?
I don't like the way tax dollars are wasted any more than anyone else and I think that's where the focus should be. More accountablility, more compassion and more positive results are certainly called for. But to fight the constitionality of taxes is like telling your child that you're cutting off his allowance because all he does with it is buy candy.
We need to insure that both our children and our government officials learn to spend the money we give them with a higher degree of responsibility.
Pete

[petermargolies]

The 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says, "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Could that be any clearer?



Peter I hope that you have had the chance to see and explore the links that have been sent through WACCO so that you can see the truth behind what is happening in this country. You are a good man and a man who is able to communicate to many people in Sonoma County by way of your excellent writing skills. May you be blessed with great understanding in what has been brought to the table now with various people responding to my post. If you follow all of them and watch the Russo film your eyes will truly be opened as mine have been. I have never been politically active, but circumstances in my life were so intense that I had to take up this task of understanding WHY I was being so persecuted and what exactly was going on. Yes more compassion and more understanding, but with that "more accountability" also means that those in power need to tell the truth about what is really happening with tax money--we need to demand NO more fibs, lies, and deception. Take care and I hope that you are also blessed in your table making business. By the way WACCO Peter is a gifted outdoor furniture maker. If you ever need some made or want to purchase some check out what he creates--very nice...Elaine

[joyfulliving]

The 16th amendment was passed illegally by only part of Congress. The law specifies that the entire Congress must be in session and voted on in its entirety before any amendment is added. First of all Peter, these are not our opinions, these are historic facts that you can look up if you were to study the history of our country. Approximately 2 years after the Civil War, Congress was in session. They tried to pass some amendments including the 16th amendment regarding taxation. The entire Southern convention got up and walked out of Congress' session because they did not agree with this amendment. Two weeks later, President Abraham Lincoln ordered everybody back. The Southern Convention did not come because they were deadlocked and did not agree on the tax issue. Abe Lincoln passed additional amendments including the 16th when all of Congress was divided in this regard and not present, which was unconstitutional and illegal hence against the law to even impose these things. It has not been resolved even now because they have kept this from the American people. With the information age, we are now just exposing this fact. They have been purposely and knowingly deceiving us into believing that this amendment is lawful when it is not. The gray area here Peter is not whether or not we need to pay taxes--for that is a foolish question, but lets do it legally. Lets get it right and decide as American people. We need a legal vote to support the taxes or not support taxes. It was done illegally, accepted as legal by the American people, and now needs to be corrected. If you will read and study the Constitution of the United States you will see the protection that our forefathers intended for us. Taxation was not agreed on and we have been fooled into believing that it is something we are in contract to uphold. The law should be for the protection of all Americans. That does not mean that everyone has to agree in vote to paying taxes, it would need to be a majority rule to even apply these taxes. Remember that the government employees are Public Servants, meaning that they are there to serve us. When government does not serve the people it is our duty to make it serve us legally and honestly. People deserve the truth.

The 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says, "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Could that be any clearer?

["Mad" Miles]

With regard to historical fact: President Lincoln was dead by the time two years had passed since the end of the Civil War. He hardly could have passed anything, legally or not, at that time.

As for the legality/constitutionality of Income Tax. Whatever the history of it, those who claim it to be illegal have failed to make or win their cases in courts of law for decades. Some have paid dearly, both in money and jail time, for insisting on this claim. Let the buyer beware!

"M"M

[joyfulliving]

You are right, I got my presidents mixed up. It was Woodrow Wilson somewhere between 1895 and 1913 (according to various accounts) who passed the 16th amendment. Most accounts say that it was then that the nation become doomed to failure. President Abe Lincoln died at almost the exact end of the Civil War to the month and year...1865. My error. Old age is my only flaw here---Sometimes I mix up Presidents. History was not my favorite subject in college-- I rechecked my history books.

One account says: The Underwood Act was approved Oct. 3, 1913. It was the first tariff legislation uninfluenced by special interests since the Civil War. It greatly enlarged the free list, reduced general rates from a level of about 40 percent to 26 percent, and imposed the first income tax under the 16th Amendment.
I have a question for you MAD Miles: Did you watch the Russo movie which explains all of the history of the tax issue and why they are unconstitutional? I am not suggesting anyone "buy anything"-just be open to discussion about what is happening in this country as WACCO discussions have done. We ALL are learning how to deal with the complexities of this life and we need to be informed, all of us, historically and currently as to why things in society are not working right. In the things I do in my life I see MANY POOR people and wonder why such things exist in society--especially in the Unites States which is considered to be the richest country in the world. Aren't taxes one of the reasons why people are strapped financially? It causes me to question what exactly is up with these fees, taxes, etc.? Should the normal person be "taxed or fined" like this? There appears to be the very rich and the very poor. Most of society is either very poor or living on the edge of poverty these days. We all just need to be informed. I am not attempting to lead some sort of radical protest...I just want to know the truth. Learning the truth is a good thing. I personally know a LOT of people who don't pay taxes and they are not in trouble with the law. They just don't make enough money to even pay taxes because they are creative with the way that they live: barter, trade, etc etc. Not every one is a rebel or wanting to cause a riot. I am a peacemaker only.
And second question: What are you MAD about Miles? What should I think about your "handle-title"?



With regard to historical fact: President Lincoln was dead by the time two years had passed since the end of the Civil War. He hardly could have passed anything, legally or not, at that time.

As for the legality/constitutionality of Income Tax. Whatever the history of it, those who claim it to be illegal have failed to make or win their cases in courts of law for decades. Some have paid dearly, both in money and jail time, for insisting on this claim. Let the buyer beware!

"M"M

[petermargolies]

Sorry, but I see this argument - that the 16th Amendment was passed illegally - as a desparate stretch. Virtually all of the questions regarding taxation are well settled in case law. Just ask all the people currently residing in jails around the country who have tried this approach to avoiding taxes.
Courts at all levels, including the Supreme Court, have settled the question of the 16th Amendment.
One side of any argument can be very persuasive. We've all had the experience of watching married friends break up. You listen to the wife and are convinced the husband is a complete jerk. Then you hear the husband's story and suddenly we see a second side. Eventually we put together the complete picture.
And since when does Congress have the exclusive right to amend the Constitution? Don't three quarters of the state legislatures have to approve after Congress acts?
Not only are average Americans being taxed as a result of the 16th Amendment. So are millionares, billionares, zillionares and the richest corporations in America. Think they'd put up with it if they saw a way out?

The 16th amendment was passed illegally by only part of Congress. The law specifies that the entire Congress must be in session and voted on in its entirety before any amendment is added. First of all Peter, these are not our opinions, these are historic facts that you can look up if you were to study the history of our country. Approximately 2 years after the Civil War, Congress was in session. They tried to pass some amendments including the 16th amendment regarding taxation. The entire Southern convention got up and walked out of Congress' session because they did not agree with this amendment. Two weeks later, President Abraham Lincoln ordered everybody back. The Southern Convention did not come because they were deadlocked and did not agree on the tax issue. Abe Lincoln passed additional amendments including the 16th when all of Congress was divided in this regard and not present, which was unconstitutional and illegal hence against the law to even impose these things. It has not been resolved even now because they have kept this from the American people. With the information age, we are now just exposing this fact. They have been purposely and knowingly deceiving us into believing that this amendment is lawful when it is not. The gray area here Peter is not whether or not we need to pay taxes--for that is a foolish question, but lets do it legally. Lets get it right and decide as American people. We need a legal vote to support the taxes or not support taxes. It was done illegally, accepted as legal by the American people, and now needs to be corrected. If you will read and study the Constitution of the United States you will see the protection that our forefathers intended for us. Taxation was not agreed on and we have been fooled into believing that it is something we are in contract to uphold. The law should be for the protection of all Americans. That does not mean that everyone has to agree in vote to paying taxes, it would need to be a majority rule to even apply these taxes. Remember that the government employees are Public Servants, meaning that they are there to serve us. When government does not serve the people it is our duty to make it serve us legally and honestly. People deserve the truth.

["Mad" Miles]

"And second question: What are you MAD about Miles? What should I think about your "handle-title"?"

I adopted the "nom de keyboard" "Mad" Miles a about two years ago after referring to myself as a mad forwarder of political emails on this list. (or was it the previous yahoogroup? Can't exactly recall.) Someone replied to me and called me Mad Miles and I thought it covered a lot of territory. Am I Angry? Crazy? Enthusiastic? All of the above?

Note the Mad is in quotes, indicating irony. I'm still a daily "mad forwarder" of political information. For those interested in the lists I moderate or subscribe to and actively contribute to, email me privately and I'll send you a description of them which includes how to easily subscribe and unsubscribe.

As for starting riots...? They usually start themselves when enough people are cornered. I've been in a couple (very long ago in Western Europe during the summer of 1981) and generally they are a response by adolescent and young adult males to an excess of overbearing and violent authority. Class conflict often plays a central role.

The source of poverty? Well, a class society based on economic power and exploitation might have something to do with it. Long standing marginalization and exclusion due to that system of class economic exploitation sustains poverty.

Some resign themselves to "the poor are always with us". Some look for the root causes and try to find fundamental systemic (i.e. radical) solutions. Some just try and help however they can. Some do all of the above depending on their specific circumstances at different times.

I find the idea that people are poor because they are excessively taxed and fined a not very persuasive explanation. I'm not saying it doesn't happen and hasn't happened to you and people you know. But as the main cause of poverty?

We do live in an irrational system in which one who has money is given more for having it (investment/profit) and if one lacks money one is charged more money for not having it.

(example: undocumented immigrants being targetted for driving without a license, when they are legally unable to get a drivers license. Great [terrible] picture in the PD the other day of two cops waiving paper in the face of a busted "uninvited guest" worker.)


As for having watched the film, since you ask, no I haven't taken the time to watch it. I have to decide where to place my time and energy (as do we all) and as a close observer of the world scene for about thirty-five years, as well as having been a student of history and political theory, I've made the decision to place my attention elsewhere.

Nothing in this thread has shown me that there is something there that I haven't already read about in the news years ago. If you recall there was a right-wing movement in the eighties that questioned the constitutional legitimacy of the income tax and other government demands which was popular among some militia, Patriot and fringe of the neo-fascist/White supremacist scene here in the U.S. I particularly recall some cases in states like Montana, Idaho and Utah. I just don't see this issue as a useful way to go about trying to make positive social and political change. As has been said, it's a legally settled issue.

Being poor enough to not pay taxes may work for you, and I've been there many times over the years. But after a while the student lifestyle grows wearying and I've tried to earn enough money to get by without living in a constant state of economic crisis. I haven't gotten there yet. But the times I have, I've had to pay income tax. The uses my money is put to generally sicken me. But I don't reject the need to contribute my share to the social good. And I do what I can to influence the spending choices my government makes, although generally that has proven relatively futile. (See "class system" references above!)

If you want to investigate another real, but little known, historical, political, legal scandal having to do with sneaking illegitimate laws into our system, check out the history of "corporate personhood". The following websites are good sources:

https://www.poclad.org/index.cfm

https://www.iiipublishing.com/alliance.htm

[don]

Hey Elaine

Not to sidetrack the tax issue, but you made a bold if not inflammatory statement

joyfulliving wrote:

Did you know that the County Permit Department is going around Sonoma County and requiring property owners to either tear down their homes or rebuild unless they meet 2006 standards which are EXTENSIVE?
and I responded 4 days ago directly questioning your statement. You have not responded to my post, and I feel you have a responsibility to the community to do so. So I ask you once again to respond. (just scroll down through the posts in this thread to find my original post.)
Thanks
don

[sharingwisdom]

Miles: With all the writing that you have put forth on this subject, as that takes quite a bit of time, I wonder if you might have taken that time to either watch the hour and a half movie or check the websites. There are tax cases that have been won against the government. I have some of them in a file plus there are cases stated in the movie.

I do understand how all of us can be leary of new perspectives involving old standards in the government particularly on taxation. It would be such a big awakening to find that 'our' government has been completely falsifying information that goes deeper than taxation as well. But the IRS was set up as a bully agency to scare the people. Back in the 80's there was a book called "Secrets of the Temple: How the Federal reserve runs the country" by Willam Greider. The Federal Reserve isn't even part of the government. I ask if you would be open to exploring the possibility that our government was set up by 1871 to serve itself and not the people. Our country is a corporation not a republic. And we are owned property, not sovereign citizens.

Like Elaine, I am going to refrain from further discussion on this topic as resources are available as well as the man that Elaine has courageously decided to sponsor. Below is a link with a portion of that article referring to my statement about our country as a corporation. In planting seeds, Judy

https://www.worldnewsstand.net/06/Ed_Lewis/61.htm

The date is February 21, 1871 and the Forty-First Congress is in session. I refer you to the Acts of the Forty-First Congress, Section 34, Session III, chapters 61 and 62. On this date in the history of our nation, Congress passed an Act titled: An Act To Provide A Government for the <st1:state><st1:place>District of Columbia</st1:place></st1:state>. This is also known as the 'Act of 1871.' What does this mean? Well, it means that Congress, under no constitutional authority to do so, created a separate form of government for the District of Columbia, which is a ten mile square parcel of land. <o:p></o:p>In essence, this Act formed the corporation known as THE UNITED STATES. Note the capitalization, because it is important. This corporation, owned by foreign interests, moved right in and shoved the original 'organic' version of the Constitution into a dusty corner. With the 'Act of 1871,' our constitution was defaced in the sense that the title was block-capitalized and the word 'for' was changed to the word 'of' in the title. The original Constitution drafted by the Founding Fathers, was written in this manner: <o:p></o:p>

<o:p></o:p>The altered version reads: 'THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.' It is the corporate constitution. It is NOT the same document you might think it is. The corporate constitution operates in an economic capacity and has been used to fool the People into thinking it is the same parchment that governs the Republic. It absolutely is not.



"And second question: What are you MAD about Miles? What should I think about your "handle-title"?"

I adopted the "nom de keyboard" "Mad" Miles a about two years ago after referring to myself as a mad forwarder of political emails on this list. (or was it the previous yahoogroup? Can't exactly recall.) Someone replied to me and called me Mad Miles and I thought it covered a lot of territory. Am I Angry? Crazy? Enthusiastic? All of the above?

Note the Mad is in quotes, indicating irony. I'm still a daily "mad forwarder" of political information. For those interested in the lists I moderate or subscribe to and actively contribute to, email me privately and I'll send you a description of them which includes how to easily subscribe and unsubscribe.

As for starting riots...? They usually start themselves when enough people are cornered. I've been in a couple (very long ago in Western Europe during the summer of 1981) and generally they are a response by adolescent and young adult males to an excess of overbearing and violent authority. Class conflict often plays a central role.

The source of poverty? Well, a class society based on economic power and exploitation might have something to do with it. Long standing marginalization and exclusion due to that system of class economic exploitation sustains poverty.

Some resign themselves to "the poor are always with us". Some look for the root causes and try to find fundamental systemic (i.e. radical) solutions. Some just try and help however they can. Some do all of the above depending on their specific circumstances at different times.

I find the idea that people are poor because they are excessively taxed and fined a not very persuasive explanation. I'm not saying it doesn't happen and hasn't happened to you and people you know. But as the main cause of poverty?

We do live in an irrational system in which one who has money is given more for having it (investment/profit) and if one lacks money one is charged more money for not having it.

(example: undocumented immigrants being targetted for driving without a license, when they are legally unable to get a drivers license. Great [terrible] picture in the PD the other day of two cops waiving paper in the face of a busted "uninvited guest" worker.)


As for having watched the film, since you ask, no I haven't taken the time to watch it. I have to decide where to place my time and energy (as do we all) and as a close observer of the world scene for about thirty-five years, as well as having been a student of history and political theory, I've made the decision to place my attention elsewhere.

Nothing in this thread has shown me that there is something there that I haven't already read about in the news years ago. If you recall there was a right-wing movement in the eighties that questioned the constitutional legitimacy of the income tax and other government demands which was popular among some militia, Patriot and fringe of the neo-fascist/White supremacist scene here in the U.S. I particularly recall some cases in states like Montana, Idaho and Utah. I just don't see this issue as a useful way to go about trying to make positive social and political change. As has been said, it's a legally settled issue.

Being poor enough to not pay taxes may work for you, and I've been there many times over the years. But after a while the student lifestyle grows wearying and I've tried to earn enough money to get by without living in a constant state of economic crisis. I haven't gotten there yet. But the times I have, I've had to pay income tax. The uses my money is put to generally sicken me. But I don't reject the need to contribute my share to the social good. And I do what I can to influence the spending choices my government makes, although generally that has proven relatively futile. (See "class system" references above!)

If you want to investigate another real, but little known, historical, political, legal scandal having to do with sneaking illegitimate laws into our system, check out the history of "corporate personhood". The following websites are good sources:

https://www.poclad.org/index.cfm

https://www.iiipublishing.com/alliance.htm

[joyfulliving]

Yes I have proof but I do not feel that I have to publicly air the delicate situation ALL of these people are in. Afterall, the county is walking on air when they approach homes and demand that they bring ALL THINGS up to 2006 standards. I have MANY people who come to me to talk about their situation with the county--MANY. No joke. I did not answer because I feel I have been given a rather unusual position to hear their situations. I cannot talk about their situations any more than a doctor could discuss a patients health factors with a public posting site.
I know of one place which "takes the cake" in my opinion and I won't give any other specifics other than to say that the county came in a very short time ago and posted the whole property and all the properties around it with someone's name that did not even own the property demanding in someone else's name that all of the properties had to meet 2006 standards within 30 days with costly permits OR else with costly county permits demolish the properties not even belonging to this person within 30 days. How would you like your name posted on property that numerous other people own and be told that you have 30 days to do the above or else basically your name is mud. How could I give you specifics without exposing these people and their properties. There are about 8 people's properties in this case alone that are being harrassed. I could go on and on and on. I don't make these claims without there being a basis for my statements. And I don't feel I need to justify my statement either. This isn't a "prove to me" match. I wouldn't make these statements lightly. Those who know me know that I don't just make statements without having proof especially in this case. WAY TOO MANY PEOPLE have told me this same story for it to be a fib. Elaine


Hey Elaine

Not to sidetrack the tax issue, but you made a bold if not inflammatory statement

joyfulliving wrote:





Did you know that the County Permit Department is going around Sonoma County and requiring property owners to either tear down their homes or rebuild unless they meet 2006 standards which are EXTENSIVE?


and I responded 4 days ago directly questioning your statement. You have not responded to my post, and I feel you have a responsibility to the community to do so. So I ask you once again to respond. (just scroll down through the posts in this thread to find my original post.)
Thanks
don

[joyfulliving]

By the way Don, you are being rather demanding about when I respond to you. My fiance Jim has had a series of heart attacks this last week and a heart surgery and is in the hospital again by way of the emergency room today and is headed tomorrow into a second heart surgery. Don't make quick judgements on people unless you know that they are avoiding you. I am taking care of a life and death situation as I should be right now and it is FAR more important than answering in a quick time period. Itis late at night and I should be at the hospital---already but I am taking the time to relate to you in this regard. I find WACCO replies to be really attacking when all I am trying to do is help the community. If you don't want to hear the messenger then don't listen. No one is making you believe me. It is your choice to drink the water which would set you free or stay thirsty. You don't have to read my posts. If you don't agree fine, but don't thrash me either. WACCO is supposed to be people respectfully communicating. I just made an offer and asked a question "Are you being fined and taxed illegally?" I am again not going to answer everyone's questions. Walter will do a much better job at getting to the history, etc of your questions. Please respect this. Elaine--Off to the hospital and the man who is the love of my life.


Yes I have proof but I do not feel that I have to publicly air the delicate situation ALL of these people are in. Afterall, the county is walking on air when they approach homes and demand that they bring ALL THINGS up to 2006 standards. I have MANY people who come to me to talk about their situation with the county--MANY. No joke. I did not answer because I feel I have been given a rather unusual position to hear their situations. I cannot talk about their situations any more than a doctor could discuss a patients health factors with a public posting site.
I know of one place which "takes the cake" in my opinion and I won't give any other specifics other than to say that the county came in a very short time ago and posted the whole property and all the properties around it with someone's name that did not even own the property demanding in someone else's name that all of the properties had to meet 2006 standards within 30 days with costly permits OR else with costly county permits demolish the properties not even belonging to this person within 30 days. How would you like your name posted on property that numerous other people own and be told that you have 30 days to do the above or else basically your name is mud. How could I give you specifics without exposing these people and their properties. There are about 8 people's properties in this case alone that are being harrassed. I could go on and on and on. I don't make these claims without there being a basis for my statements. And I don't feel I need to justify my statement either. This isn't a "prove to me" match. I wouldn't make these statements lightly. Those who know me know that I don't just make statements without having proof especially in this case. WAY TOO MANY PEOPLE have told me this same story for it to be a fib. Elaine

[phooph]

Here's a Forbes magazine interview with NYTimes tax reporter David Kay Johnston on how the tax system treats the rich vs the middle class and the poor.

https://www.forbes.com/2004/02/12/0212chat_transcript_print.html

Also, you are correct about amending the Constituion. An amendment must be ratified by three quarters of the states as well as by votes of two thirds of the congress. The 16th Amendment was not ratified by three quarters of the states. Since it was needed to fund the Federal Reserve Banking System, created the same year, it was enacted anyway.

The Supreme Court has yet to hear a case on the fundamental legality of the 16th Amendment.

Ruth


Sorry, but I see this argument - that the 16th Amendment was passed illegally - as a desparate stretch. Virtually all of the questions regarding taxation are well settled in case law. Just ask all the people currently residing in jails around the country who have tried this approach to avoiding taxes.
Courts at all levels, including the Supreme Court, have settled the question of the 16th Amendment.
One side of any argument can be very persuasive. We've all had the experience of watching married friends break up. You listen to the wife and are convinced the husband is a complete jerk. Then you hear the husband's story and suddenly we see a second side. Eventually we put together the complete picture.
And since when does Congress have the exclusive right to amend the Constitution? Don't three quarters of the state legislatures have to approve after Congress acts?
Not only are average Americans being taxed as a result of the 16th Amendment. So are millionares, billionares, zillionares and the richest corporations in America. Think they'd put up with it if they saw a way out?

[petermargolies]

Sorry, but your "information" is factually incorrect. Congress passed the 16th
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution on July 12, 1909. It was ratdified by the required three quarters of the states on Feb. 3, 1913. This information can easily be varified by Googling "history of 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution."
These factual errors are an important component of this type of argument and underscores the need for all of us to do a little independent research and varification. There are many people sitting in federal prisons who bought into this argument that the feds don't have the right to tax our incomes.

Here's a Forbes magazine interview with NYTimes tax reporter David Kay Johnston on how the tax system treats the rich vs the middle class and the poor.

https://www.forbes.com/2004/02/12/0212chat_transcript_print.html

Also, you are correct about amending the Constituion. An amendment must be ratified by three quarters of the states as well as by votes of two thirds of the congress. The 16th Amendment was not ratified by three quarters of the states. Since it was needed to fund the Federal Reserve Banking System, created the same year, it was enacted anyway.

The Supreme Court has yet to hear a case on the fundamental legality of the 16th Amendment.

Ruth

[sharingwisdom]

Perhaps you might want to research further. I have, and found that there is way more than what the first page of Google gives link to. Check
https://www.givemeliberty.org/features/taxes/19990709_xcdfr_is_income.htm
and you'll read evidence that strongly suggests that the 16th Amendment, was not approved properly as required by the Constitution and was fraudulently ratified.


Sorry, but your "information" is factually incorrect. Congress passed the 16th
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution on July 12, 1909. It was ratdified by the required three quarters of the states on Feb. 3, 1913. This information can easily be varified by Googling "history of 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution."
These factual errors are an important component of this type of argument and underscores the need for all of us to do a little independent research and varification. There are many people sitting in federal prisons who bought into this argument that the feds don't have the right to tax our incomes.

[petermargolies]

Don't know why I keep getting sucked into these frivilous arguments. I checked the website you noted. This person claims to have read hundreds, no make that thousands of documents that "proves" the 16th amendment was never properly ratified (although he says Congress passed this amendment in 1913, when actually congress passed it in 1909 - just a small error, but it speaks to the quality of his research). Were this the case, he or any of the other people who landed in prison for not paying their taxes because of this argument would have prevailed.
This is all well settled case law. It's a done deal, but as long as people are willing to buy into this guy's argument, he will continue to make it, continue to run his seminars, write his books and do more time in prison.
Go ahead and respond, I'll give you the last word on this, although the actual "last word" was handed down by the courts many years ago. This discussion continues because Lincoln was right, you can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time. You just can't fool all of the people all of the time.



Perhaps you might want to research further. I have, and found that there is way more than what the first page of Google gives link to. Check
https://www.givemeliberty.org/features/taxes/19990709_xcdfr_is_income.htm
and you'll read evidence that strongly suggests that the 16th Amendment, was not approved properly as required by the Constitution and was fraudulently ratified.

[phooph]

First, I hope that Peter took the time to read the Forbes article.

Second I want to reintroduce a topic that was briefly mentioned without explanation in a previous post, and that is the topic of the corporate branch of the US government. In order to put in place a central banking system, which is illigal under the Constitution, it was necessary to create a corporate entity for that banking system to rest on, so the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA corporate entity was born. You can look at a simplified comparison at this website: https://www.gemworld.com/USAvsUS.htm

Some of this information may seem rather esoteric to those unfamiliar with the origins of international banking and its connection to quasi religious secret societies, a fascinating topic all on its own.

With tax cases the most succsessful challenges have come from those who addressed jurisdiction issues. The corporate entity has no jurisdiction over nationals of the United States of America. If that jusidiction is not challenged by the defendant in a tax case it goes forward as if it did, which is an oversimplification of a rather complex subject.

Ruth



Perhaps you might want to research further. I have, and found that there is way more than what the first page of Google gives link to. Check
https://www.givemeliberty.org/features/taxes/19990709_xcdfr_is_income.htm
and you'll read evidence that strongly suggests that the 16th Amendment, was not approved properly as required by the Constitution and was fraudulently ratified.

[phooph]

Being familiar with Mr. Benson's work, I should point out that documents he read were in state and federal government archives. If the requisite number of states did not ratify the amendment, the fact that the Congress passed it is moot. Both passage AND ratification are required. However, this issue is still a weak one on which to base tax cases as has been proven in court challenges. When something has been a defacto law for so long its length of existance gives it some legal weight. The better issue is - who do those laws apply to?

Ruth


Don't know why I keep getting sucked into these frivilous arguments. I checked the website you noted. This person claims to have read hundreds, no make that thousands of documents that "proves" the 16th amendment was never properly ratified (although he says Congress passed this amendment in 1913, when actually congress passed it in 1909 - just a small error, but it speaks to the quality of his research). Were this the case, he or any of the other people who landed in prison for not paying their taxes because of this argument would have prevailed.
This is all well settled case law. It's a done deal, but as long as people are willing to buy into this guy's argument, he will continue to make it, continue to run his seminars, write his books and do more time in prison.
Go ahead and respond, I'll give you the last word on this, although the actual "last word" was handed down by the courts many years ago. This discussion continues because Lincoln was right, you can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time. You just can't fool all of the people all of the time.

[Barry]

Hi there Constitutional Scholars,

I want to let you know that I passed and ratified a decision to move this thread to the WaccoTalk category.

Carry on!

[taxfreeguy]

You might want to read this, Peter!





Hard Evidence That Form 1040
Has NO Legal Basis In Law

IRS Withdraws Criminal Allegation,
Tax Convict Walks Free

Although the People's war against the income tax fraud and IRS abuse has been lengthy and daunting and has left many freedom fighters across our nation battered and bankrupt, there are continuing signs that the tide of tyranny may finally be meeting effective resistance.

On April 12^th 2005, William Wallace Lear of Muskegon Michigan appeared in federal District Court in Grand Rapids to face IRS charges claiming Lear had violated the terms of his probation. William Lear had served one year in a federal detention facility in <st1:State w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Minnesota</st1:place></st1:State> following his conviction in 2002 for Willful Failure to File income tax returns (a misdemeanor). His probation began in March, 2004.

The basis for the probation violation hearing was an IRS claim that Lear failed to abide by the strict terms of his probation which included the requirement that he file all his delinquent tax returns and pay all back taxes and penalties owed.

Just as the hearing before Judge Gordon Quist began, the DOJ attorneys moved to dismiss the IRS's probation violation claim against Lear that would have sent him back to prison.

Although Lear had filed his missing returns signing them “under duress” (which IRS does not allow) and failed to pay the taxes owing on those returns, Judge Quist signed an order, completely releasing Lear from federal custody. As of April 12th, Lear has been a free man.

An important question remains: Why? Why would the IRS and DOJ walk away from a golden opportunity to make headlines and send a convicted tax protester back to prison?

Before answering the question, let’s review some of the key developments leading up to the April 12, 2005 probation violation hearing.

After serving his 1-year sentence and after his return to his home in <st1:State w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Michigan</st1:place></st1:State> to fulfill his probation, Bill Lear and his wife Rose “dug back in” and continued to review the extensive body of legal research that had originally caused Bill Lear not to file.

During the summer of 2004, they constructed a “Challenge of Authority” document relying on legal material from various sources including comprehensive research posted by WTP in May 2004 (https://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Update04-May-10.htm) and that has since been sent repeatedly by the Foundation (and others) to various officials of the U.S. government, including the President's current Advisory Panel on Federal Tax reform (https://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Update2005-02-12.htm).

This research conclusively documents that IRS has no legal authority to impose taxes on the wages and salaries of ordinary Americans. Particularly damaging in the challenge was recently archived documentation from the government itself clearly showing that IRS Form 1040 is a “proposed” information collection form and that there is no legal authority cited for its use.

On October 4, 2004, during a meeting in the offices of their Congressional Representative Peter Hoekstra, the Lears formally served their Challenge of Authority on three IRS agents and engaged in a significant discussion about the limits of their authority. The IRS agents refused to respond to the Challenge of Authority simply stating that it is not the “practice” of IRS to respond to such requests.

What the agents did not know, however, was that two weeks earlier, on September 24th, the Lears had filed the same document as a formal public legal record in their local county courthouse at office of the Registrar of Deeds.

On February 28, 2005, after additional contacts with IRS officials in which Bill Lear repeatedly asked the IRS to provide specific legal guidance to him so he could know which tax form the law required him to fill out, and thereby comply with the terms of his probation, the Lears again confronted the IRS agents in a meeting in Rep. Hoekstra's office.

At that meeting, and after a heated discussion with IRS agents, confronting them with government documents and evidence clearly showing Form 1040 has no authority in law, IRS ended the discussion by telling Lear that the law required him to use “Form 1040” to file his returns.

Frustrated and agitated with the exchange, IRS Agent J. McWilliams stated that Lear “wasn't cooperating with the IRS”, and that Lear was “going back to prison.”

On March 2, just days before Lear's probation was due to expire, IRS filed a probation violation complaint with the federal probation office. Lear was promptly served Notice of the hearing that could send him back to prison.

On March 4, the Lears filed a Habeas Corpus regarding the original conviction.

On March 9, Lear filed a pleading answering the alleged violation (https://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Lear/ProbViolationLearResp.PDF) of probation.

On March 10, Lear also decided to “hedge his bet” and filed the delinquent tax returns, but signed the tax forms “under duress.”

On March 14, 2005 - Lear appeared before Magistrate Joseph G. Scoville who found cause for the violation and sent the case to Judge Quist for a formal hearing.

It should be noted that IRS routinely rejects tax returns signed “under duress” due to the obvious due process implications related to the use of force, threat of force, or other intimidation to coerce an individual to swear to a statement made under “penalties of perjury.” It should be further noted that although required by the terms of his probation, Lear did not make any payment toward the alleged taxes or penalties due for the returns he was convicted for willfully failing to file.

Finally, on March 21^st, the Lears filed a Motion to Quash (https://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Lear/Motion2Quash.PDF) the Release Revocation Hearing. Contained within this motion was the formal “Challenge of Authority (https://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Lear/ChallengeOfAuthority-9-04.PDF)” document that had been previously recorded in their local county courthouse as a legal public record.

On April 12, Lear and his wife Rose appeared in court for Bill's probation violation hearing.

Instead of publicly confronting the merits of the alleged probation violation and asking the court to send a “recalcitrant tax convict” back to prison, attorneys for the DOJ and IRS withdrew their complaint alleging the probation violation.

WHY?

Because under Rule 902 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, a court cannot deny the admissibility of relevant evidence consisting of certified copies of public legal records as they are presumed to be self-authenticating and valid as evidence.

Here is the text of Rule 902, sub-paragraph (4):

Extrinsic evidence of authenticity as a condition precedent to admissibility is not required with respect to the following:

(4). Certified copies of public records. A copy of an official record or report or entry therein, or of a document authorized by law to be recorded or filed and actually recorded or filed in a public office, including data compilations in any form, certified as correct by the custodian or other person authorized to make the certification.

In other words, in facing a public criminal hearing where the contents of Lear's “Challenge of Authority” was, without argument, directly relevant to Lear's alleged violation, and knowing the District Court could not deny its admittance as evidence, the DOJ was faced with two unpleasant alternatives: either produce IRS witnesses to explain away government documentation clearly showing IRS Form 1040 is not a legally authorized form, or walk away from the probation violation hearing.

IRS walked.

Rather than take a potential headline-making opportunity to publicly chastise and send back to prison a convicted tax protester who had dared – even after conviction -- to continue questioning the legal authority of the government, the IRS and DOJ instead withdrew their criminal complaint, thereby avoiding having to confront – on the record – the damning evidence contained in Lear's formal Motion to Quash (https://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Lear/Motion2Quash.PDF) and its “Challenge of Authority” exhibit. (Note the legal argument regarding the lack of authority for Individual Form 1040 begins on page 4 of the Motion to Quash.)

By withdrawing the IRS complaint against Lear, DOJ avoided having to publicly attempt to rebut Lear's legal research and having to admit that the government could not cite any legal authority requiring the filing of a 1040 Individual tax return.

On April 25^th, despite the facts that Lear had filed defective returns signed “under duress” and also failed to pay the taxes and penalties owed for the returns he was convicted for failing to file, Judge Quist signed a formal order completely freeing Bill Lear from the terms of his probation.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on">Cincinnati</st1:City>, <st1:State w:st="on">Ohio</st1:State></st1:place> is currently considering whether to certify Lear's most recent Habeas Corpus motion to vacate his conviction. That motion is also based upon the new legal research contained in his “Challenge of Authority.”


The Hard Evidence That
Form 1040 Has No Legal Authority

In their “Challenge of Authority” document, the Lears provide hard documentary evidence that IRS Form 1040 has NO legal authority.

This evidence was presented by contrasting archived government documents that have been filed pursuant to the federal Administrative Procedures Act (APA) and Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA).

Under the PRA, each and every government form that is used to collect information from the general public under law must be linked to its authorizing statutes and implementing regulations and have a valid Office of Management and Budget “OMB” Form number. This requirement of law provides an orderly means to identify which statutes, regulations and forms are related.

As one item of evidence, the Lears produced a stamped copy of a 1987 Treasury Department document entitled, “Request for OMB Review” which is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The request was for IRS Form “1040-NR”, the tax form used by Non-Resident Aliens to report their “income”.

Several things about this document are noteworthy:

<!---->1. <!--[endif]-->The form used for the request is OMB Form “83”

<!---->2. <!--[endif]-->On line 5 of Form 83, the administrative requester is required to cite the statutes actually authorizing the collection of the information. The authorizing statutes are, in fact, cited.

<!---->3. <!--[endif]-->On line 27 of Form 83, the administrative requester is required to cite the regulations actually authorizing the collection of the information. The authorizing regulations are, in fact, cited.

Click Here to See the “OMB Form 83” Treasury request for IRS Form 1040-NR (https://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Lear/1987-OMB-1040-NR.PDF) for use by Non-Resident Aliens

Here's where it gets [i]very interesting:

The “Challenge of Authority” document also contains a similar Treasury PRA request from 1996, but this one is for the “regular” IRS Individual Form 1040 that millions of Americans file each year.

This Treasury administrative request is not made on OMB “Form 83” ---- but rather using an alternate OMB form, “83-1” titled, ”Paperwork Reduction Act Submission”.

Several very important differences between the OMB request forms need to be noted:

<!---->1. <!--[endif]-->OMB Form 83-1 does NOT require any specific citation of statutory authority.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->2. <!--[endif]-->OMB Form 83-1 does NOT require any specific citation of regulatory authority.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->3. <!--[endif]-->In the “Certification” box found on page 2 of Form 83-1, there are specific references to
both PRA Regulations “5 CFR 1320.9” and “5 CFR 1320.8(b)(3).”

<!--[if !supportLists]-->4. <!--[endif]-->The attachments to this OMB Form 83-1 request consist primarily of a list of Title 26 (Income Tax) regulations and statutes that are merely (quoting) “[i]associated” with IRS Form 1040.

Click here to see the Treasury request using OMB Form 83-1 for the IRS Individual “Form 1040” (https://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Lear/1996-OMB-Indiv1040.PDF)

Here's the punch line:

IRS Form 1040-NR (for Non-Resident Aliens) is certified as complying with the requirements of the PRA found at regulation 5 CFR 1320.8. In its request to the OMB for IRS Form “1040-NR”, the Department of Treasury (IRS) clearly cites both the statutory and regulatory authorities authorizing the use of the form to collect information and certifies its request as such.

Click Here to read the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) form disclosure requirements found at 5 CFR 1320.8 (https://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Lear/5CFR1320-8.htm).

Please specifically note that for the Treasury's request using alternative OMB Form 83-1 for IRS Individual Form 1040, the Treasury has formally certified the request under regulation 5 CFR 1320.9, which is explicitly reserved for “PROPOSED” government forms.

Printed just below is the title header for federal regulation “5 CFR 1320.9”:

[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 5, Volume 3]



[Revised as of January 1, 2005]</pre>

From the <st1:metricconverter w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:metricconverter> Government Printing Office via GPO Access</pre>

[CITE: 5 CFR 1320.9]</pre>

<o:p> </o:p></pre>

[Page 155]</pre>

</pre>

TITLE 5--ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL</pre>

</pre>

CHAPTER III--OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET</pre>

</pre>

PART 1320_CONTROLLING PAPERWORK BURDENS ON THE PUBLIC--Table of Contents</pre>

</pre>

Sec. 1320.9 Agency certifications for proposed collections of information.</pre>

<o:p> </o:p></pre>

As part of the agency submission to OMB of a proposed collection</pre>

of information, the agency (through the head of the agency, </pre>

the Senior Official, or their designee) shall certify </pre>

and provide a record supporting such certification) </pre>

that the proposed collection of information [...]</pre>
In short, if IRS Individual Form 1040 [i]was actually authorized under U.S. law, the Department of Treasury would have submitted it for OMB certification using OMB “Form 83” which requires explicit citation of the Form's authorizing statutes and regulations.

Instead, the IRS used alternative OMB Form “83-1” -- which is designated ONLY for “proposed” government forms – and which does NOT require any formal citation of legal authority allowing its use.

Furthermore, even though an attachment (https://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Lear/OMB-Indiv1040-Attach.PDF) to the Treasury's request for IRS Form 1040 (on OMB Form 83-1) contains a lengthy list of statutes and regulations, and “Box 12” on the form is marked indicating the form is “mandatory”, a careful reading of the submission to OMB will make it clear that the Department of Treasury is ONLY certifying that:

<!---->1. <!--[endif]-->Form 1040 is a “proposed form” and that, IF authorized, it would meet the collection criteria established by regulation 5 CFR 1320.9, and

<!---->2. <!--[endif]-->That Form 1040 is only “[i]associated” with the statutes and regulations cited in the 1040 request, and

<!---->3. <!--[endif]-->If Form 1040 [i]were actually authorized by law, it would be “mandatory”.

As a final observation, it should be noted that both the 1987 Form 1040-NR request as well as the 1996 Form 1040 request were signed by the same IRS officials, one Garrick R. Shear, the IRS Reports Clearance Officer and one Lois K. Holland as/for the Departmental Reports Management Officer. Lear's pleadings contain additional OMB certifications, also signed by Shear & Holland.

In short, the Department of Treasury's clear and willful intent to use OMB Form 83-1 (rather than OMB Form 83) to legally certify IRS Individual Form 1040 as a valid government document, is compelling proof establishing that IRS Form 1040 is merely a PROPOSED tax form, and that there is [i]NO LEGAL AUTHORITY that authorizes its use.


A Nation of Law?

The documentation presented above is additional evidence weighing against our government, in favor of the People’s Petition for Redress of Grievances regarding a system of taxation that is without reasonable question, devoid of constitutional and statutory authority.

In this article we have shown once again, that the government simply refuses to answer legitimate questions regarding its authority to force People to pay a direct, un-apportioned tax on their labor --- questions that are based on compelling documentary evidence establishing that the government is abusing the People by violating its power to tax.

As the government continues its refusal to properly respond to the People’s Petitions for Redress (https://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/SignPetitions.htm), the Petition process has unfortunately reached the point where the People have been forced to begin retaining their money as the means to peacefully enforce their Right to secure proper Redress -- i.e., to obtain answers to the People’s legitimate questions regarding an array of substantive violations of the founding principles and abuses of the limited powers delegated to the government by those that created it to serve them.

Thus far, the government has improperly responded to the People by using the People’s First Amendment Right to Petition for Redress of Grievances as grounds for still further acts of abuse. The government continues to apply heavy-handed enforcement actions against the sovereign Petitioners who are exercising their Natural Rights and dominion over their servant government.

The actions of the U.S. government are wholly unacceptable for a free People. Under the circumstances, the People are morally, legally and Constitutionally justified in retaining their money until their grievances are redressed and their questions are answered. There is no other non-violent way for the People to hold their government accountable to the Constitution with its guarantee of Individual Rights.
The We The People Foundation is committed to peacefully securing freedom and reestablishing our founding principles -- no matter the cost. It is a sign of hope and the power of Righteousness that in the name of Liberty, a single, dedicated and determined Michigan family has taken just a few tidbits of the body of evidence this Foundation has made publicly available and has made a compelling case in a federal court that the DOJ and IRS chose to walk away from.

Ours is a Nation of Law. The People must not, and cannot, tolerate a government that ignores its own laws -- or the fundamental Rights of those it is intended to serve.

No Answers, NO Taxes.

We ask you again, to support the work of the Foundation and please consider a modest one-time or monthly donation (https://www.givemeliberty.org/donations/donate-join.htm) to help us continue our ongoing battles in the courts of law and public opinion against those that would seek to slow our progress or silence our voice as we demand Constitutional Order and reclaim Freedom.


Article related links:

Please note: the documents below are moderately sized, in Adobe .pdf format.
It is suggested you [i]RIGHT-Click on the links below in order to download the
document to your computer before opening it.


The Treasury's OMB request for Form 1040-NR (https://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Lear/1987-OMB-1040-NR.PDF) (for Non-Resident Aliens)

The Treasury's OMB request for Form 1040 (https://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Lear/1996-OMB-Indiv1040.PDF) - (for Individual Returns), and the Attachment (https://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Lear/OMB-Indiv1040-Attach.PDF)

The Motion to Quash (https://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Lear/Motion2Quash.PDF) the probation violation hearing

The Challenge of Authority (https://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Lear/ChallengeOfAuthority-9-04.PDF) exhibit
(Please note: does not contain all the original attachments)

Certificate of Service (https://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Lear/ChallengeServed10-4-04.PDF) for the Challenge

IRS's Probation Violation Complaint (https://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Lear/ProbViolation.PDF)

Lear's Probation Violation Response (https://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Lear/ProbViolationLearResp.PDF)

USDC Order (https://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Lear/OrderFreeingLear.PDF) Freeing Bill Lear


Please remember, the landmark Right-To-Petition lawsuit (https://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/InfoCenter.htm)
and operations of the WTP Foundation are funded solely by your generous support (https://www.givemeliberty.org/donations/donate-join.htm).

Obtain the Truth-in-Taxation Hearing Record (https://www.givemeliberty.org/store/default.htm)
14 Hours of Testimony by former IRS agents, constitutional attorneys and tax law researchers.
Hundreds of legal exhibits. Witness them expose the details of the income tax fraud under oath.
Go to the WTP e-store (https://www.givemeliberty.org/store/default.htm) to get your copy. On CD-ROMs or VHS tapes.

<o:p> </o:p>




To understand and know about illegal taxation, please take the time to watch Award-winning director (Trading Places and The Rose) Aaron Russo's documentary --America: From Freedom to Fascism: https://www.poodlecrap.com/Hateliars/HL_Video1.asp?Part=0
It's about 1.5 hours long but worth every minute. It played at selected movie theaters around the country last summer and now we can watch it on line.

[taxfreeguy]

In order to pay your taxes, you want to pay with money, right? What do you suppose money is? Does anybody know? Here are some definitions based on court cases:

101. Legal tender notes are not good as lawful money of the <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">U.S.</st1:country-region></st1:place>. See: Rains v. State, 226 S.W. 189. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
102. Checks, drafts, money orders, and bank notes are not lawful money of the <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">U.S.</st1:country-region></st1:place>. See: State v. Nealan, 43 Ore 158. <o:p></o:p><o:p></o:p>

13. Money does not embrace notes (promises to pay money). See: Lane v. <o:p></o:p>

Railey; <st1:country-region w:st="on">U.S.</st1:country-region> v. Wells; Devenny v. Devenny; State v. Hoke; <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Hamilton</st1:city></st1:place> v. State; etc.. (Since a Federal Reserve Note is not even a note [a promise to pay], money cannot embrace a Federal Reserve note.) <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
17. Negotiable note must be promise to pay money. See: Roads v. Webb, 91 Me 410. (Federal Reserve Notes are not money.) <o:p></o:p><o:p></o:p>

19. The only substances ever declared as money within the <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">U.S.</st1:country-region></st1:place> were gold and silver, in coin form, with copper/nickel serving in token capacity only. See: 12 USCA 152 re. "lawful money" and Coinage Act of <st1:date month="4" day="2" year="1792" w:st="on">April 2, 1792</st1:date>, at Sections 11, 16, & 20; re. copper/nickel tokens, see Sec. 9, and 31 USCA <o:p></o:p><o:p></o:p>

91. The issuance of Federal Reserve notes is not an attempt by the <o:p></o:p>

government to coin money, it is a pledge of the government to pay dollars. <o:p></o:p>

See: <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">U.S.</st1:country-region></st1:place> v. Ballard, 14 Wall 457. <o:p></o:p><o:p></o:p><o:p></o:p>

<st1:metricconverter productid="23. A" w:st="on">23. A</st1:metricconverter> promissory note is defined as an unconditional promise to pay a sum <o:p></o:p>

certain in dollars. See: Regulation A, Sec. 4 (1005) (a) Federal Reserve <o:p></o:p>

Act. (Dollars = money, not Federal Reserve notes.) <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
38. "Federal Reserve notes are valueless." See: Internal Revenue Code at <o:p></o:p>

section 1.1001-1 (4657) C.C.H.. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>

70. "The giving of a note for a debt is not payment." See: Van Stone v. Stillwell, 142 <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">U.S.</st1:country-region></st1:place> 128. (Are payments made via a Fed NOTE? See #93) <o:p> </o:p>

93. Giving of a note does not constitute payment. See: Echart v. <o:p></o:p>

Commissioners C.C.A., <st1:metricconverter productid="42 F" w:st="on">42 F</st1:metricconverter>.2d 158, 283 US 140; Noland v. <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:state w:st="on">Maryland</st1:state></st1:place> Casualty <o:p></o:p>

Co., D.C. <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:state w:st="on">Md.</st1:state></st1:place> <st1:metricconverter productid="38 F" w:st="on">38 F</st1:metricconverter>.Supp. 497. (See #70) <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>

94. When a decree provides for the payment of money, that term imports <o:p></o:p>

constitutional currency. See: Shackleford v. Cunningham, 41 <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:state w:st="on">Ala</st1:state></st1:place> 203; West <o:p></o:p>

Oliver Co. v. Bail & Crommelin, 12 <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:state w:st="on">Ala</st1:state></st1:place> 340. (Constitutional money is not <o:p></o:p>

notes or checks.) <o:p></o:p>

<o:p> </o:p>
<st1:metricconverter productid="77. In" w:st="on">77. In</st1:metricconverter> order to constitute a loan, there must be a contract whereby one <o:p></o:p>

party transfers to the other a sum of money. See: <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">U.S.</st1:country-region></st1:place> v. Neifert White, <st1:metricconverter productid="247 F" w:st="on">247 F</st1:metricconverter>.Supp. 878. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p>

95. For judgments payable in US funds. See: Shaw Savill Albion & Co. v. The Frederickburg, <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">C.A.</st1:country-region></st1:place> N.Y. <st1:metricconverter productid="189 F" w:st="on">189 F</st1:metricconverter>.2d 952. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p>

97. Money is property. Federal Reserve notes are liabilities, not assets. Cash, according to the book. See: "The Federal Reserve Bank; Its Purposes and Functions," is coin. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p>

My next question is, HOW CAN YOU PAY YOUR TAXES WITH FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES?


I've heard the somewhat tortured logic that results in declarations of illegal taxation. I also wonder if this friend of a friend has suggestions about how else government at its many levels is to be funded?
I don't like the way tax dollars are wasted any more than anyone else and I think that's where the focus should be. More accountablility, more compassion and more positive results are certainly called for. But to fight the constitionality of taxes is like telling your child that you're cutting off his allowance because all he does with it is buy candy.
We need to insure that both our children and our government officials learn to spend the money we give them with a higher degree of responsibility.
Pete

[taxfreeguy]

I totally agree with you, Barry, if you do not have an interest in this subject. Then, my next question to you is, why are you wasting your time here and taking up valuable computer space and people's time with your non-contributory remarks?


Elaine,

While I respect your personal experience, and regret any personal prosection you have undergone, I find myself compelled to reply to the tone of your post, if not the specific content. (the conent is worthy of reply, and if I can find the time, I would welcome engaging in a discussion at length). First off, can you please refrain from posting in such large, bold text? It reads to me as if you are shouting at the top of your lungs, and while I understand the passion you bring to the table, I personally would be more receptive to your ideas if they were spoken in a moderate voice (font size). [I have down-sized it now. sorry I missed it - Barry]

I am uninformed yet curious regarding the illegal taxation issues, I have dipped my big toe in the water of knowledge that surrounds this topic, and would appreciate learning from someone actually swimming in that pond. I am also very curious about how you propose to restructure the exisiting system to continue to provide services and support to the community, it's peacekeepers, firefighters, teachers, welfare programs, and all the other myriad of expesive things it takes to keep our society running. Even though we probably agree on the redirection of available funds, and the amount of good the money would do spent on social issues as opposed to military for example, the revenue base still exists because of taxation, would you change that?

Your use of emotional triggers to belabor your point smacks of the same type of fear mongering the court of King George likes to bandy about, loosing the details in the overwhelming emotional response. I am very interested in the specific details on how to prevent the erosion of our constitutional and merely human rights, but I don't confuse those inalianable rights with taxation, imho that's a separate issue, even though it is addressed in the constitution.

Finally, here are some links to available constitutional law, your statement regarding it not being availble to the common person is just incorrect, unless you classify the common person as someone unable to read.

Respectfully,

Royce

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_law

https://patriotpetitions.us/intro.asp?id=6

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/Constitutional_law

https://www.hg.org/conlaw.html

[taxfreeguy]

Peter, please define the word "income" from the irs manual. I demand strict proof to see what it is. Put up or shut up with your silly arguments!!


The 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says, "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Could that be any clearer?

[taxfreeguy]

Don, if this statement is inflammatory, please put your statements under the penalties of perjury, wet-ink-signed to really prove what you are saying is true. Otherwise, you are full of BS.


Yes I have proof but I do not feel that I have to publicly air the delicate situation ALL of these people are in. Afterall, the county is walking on air when they approach homes and demand that they bring ALL THINGS up to 2006 standards. I have MANY people who come to me to talk about their situation with the county--MANY. No joke. I did not answer because I feel I have been given a rather unusual position to hear their situations. I cannot talk about their situations any more than a doctor could discuss a patients health factors with a public posting site.
I know of one place which "takes the cake" in my opinion and I won't give any other specifics other than to say that the county came in a very short time ago and posted the whole property and all the properties around it with someone's name that did not even own the property demanding in someone else's name that all of the properties had to meet 2006 standards within 30 days with costly permits OR else with costly county permits demolish the properties not even belonging to this person within 30 days. How would you like your name posted on property that numerous other people own and be told that you have 30 days to do the above or else basically your name is mud. How could I give you specifics without exposing these people and their properties. There are about 8 people's properties in this case alone that are being harrassed. I could go on and on and on. I don't make these claims without there being a basis for my statements. And I don't feel I need to justify my statement either. This isn't a "prove to me" match. I wouldn't make these statements lightly. Those who know me know that I don't just make statements without having proof especially in this case. WAY TOO MANY PEOPLE have told me this same story for it to be a fib. Elaine

[taxfreeguy]

Peter, if you're so smart and want to make a really big point with me, prove that the 16th amendment was really ratified with original documention. It shouldn't be too hard, Right? I demand strict proof.


Here's a Forbes magazine interview with NYTimes tax reporter David Kay Johnston on how the tax system treats the rich vs the middle class and the poor.

https://www.forbes.com/2004/02/12/0212chat_transcript_print.html

Also, you are correct about amending the Constituion. An amendment must be ratified by three quarters of the states as well as by votes of two thirds of the congress. The 16th Amendment was not ratified by three quarters of the states. Since it was needed to fund the Federal Reserve Banking System, created the same year, it was enacted anyway.

The Supreme Court has yet to hear a case on the fundamental legality of the 16th Amendment.

Ruth

[elli5571]

Elaine,
We are sending you and Jim prayers and blessings (and the kids are too!)and I want you to know that I know Jim is going to be A-O-K!!!!!
I am sorry for those who feel the need to attack , I for one choose my battles and generally they are not with those simply offering advice!
You are a courageous woman who I look up to and am Thankful to have you as part of My Family!
God bless you both and prayers for a speedy recovery are sent daily!
with love,
Elli & Family

[taxfreeguy]

Here's another good reason to "pay your taxes":
https://www.tomflocco.com/fs/SenClintonGrenada.htm


I've heard the somewhat tortured logic that results in declarations of illegal taxation. I also wonder if this friend of a friend has suggestions about how else government at its many levels is to be funded?
I don't like the way tax dollars are wasted any more than anyone else and I think that's where the focus should be. More accountablility, more compassion and more positive results are certainly called for. But to fight the constitionality of taxes is like telling your child that you're cutting off his allowance because all he does with it is buy candy.
We need to insure that both our children and our government officials learn to spend the money we give them with a higher degree of responsibility.
Pete

[Juggledude]

I totally agree with you, Barry, if you do not have an interest in this subject. Then, my next question to you is, why are you wasting your time here and taking up valuable computer space and people's time with your non-contributory remarks?

Let me start off by echoing Elli & Family's gracious sentiments to Elaine and their well wishes for Jim in this trying time. I am a 5 year bypass survivor, and as such, offer my love and support to you and Jim through this ordeal. Please let me know if there's anything I can do for you.

Walter, I wish I could respond to yesterday's flurry of postings with a hearty "Well Met!", especially after the build up you have received on this forum. However, though I am impressed with the quantity of information you have amassed on this subject, I find your approach, specifically in the three posts that were clearly your own pen as opposed to regurgitated WTP info, to be disrespectful, accusatory, inflammatory, and downright confusing!

For example, in the post I have quoted above, you are quoting me, Royce, yet specifically address someone else, Barry. Huh ? You go on to state "if you do not have an interest in this subject" when very clearly, in not one but two places I explicitly express interest in the subject, with my words "I am uninformed yet curious regarding the illegal taxation issues..." and "I am very interested in the specific..." Huh ?

You then go on to pronounce judgment upon both my actions and my words. My actions by claiming that I am "wasting my time", my words by labeling them as "non-contributory remarks" A further judgment is stated regarding the value of computer space, though this is so specious and absurd I'll jet let it lie. I put forth to you that my time is mine to act in as I see fit, and obviously, if I see fit to post to Elaine, or to you, it is because I chose to do so. My motivation in my initial reply to Elaine and in this reply to you, is to contribute to the community, by providing a voice of reasonable temperament primarily, and reasonable judgment secondarily on this topic.

In your reply to Peter, you start out moving with grace, politely requesting a clarification of a term. You then have the temerity to "demand" something, an absurd action in it's own right. Who are you to demand anything of a fellow human? Who is the IRS to "demand" we use form 1040? At least they have precedent, you are out on a shaky limb here, utilizing the same tactics that you are rallying against! Your next sentence in that post is just downright rude. Using a schoolyard taunt like "put up or shut up" will get you just about as far in an adult conversation as it would in a courtroom appealing taxation legislation. Likewise with your ungracious attempt to dismiss a dissenting opinion by labeling it "silly".

You move further into disrespect in my eyes by continuing with your reply to Don (again misquoting, it was not this post that he claimed was inflammatory, though at least you got the right subject). You demonstrate a curious lack of logical consistency, presenting your statements and making your arguments in an electronic format, yet demanding that Don hold forth in a different medium entirely, not to mention the absurd notion that if something is written and "wet-signed" it is somehow magically proven to be true? I would be very interested in a discussion of the ideas themselves, regardless of their method of conveyance, would you be willing to do that, and refrain from the inflammatory and derogatory (bull)shit slinging you have apparently chosen to engage in?

In your final response to Peter, you start out derogatory and digress into demanding. This strikes me as invective, again blowing smoke across the points made, as opposed to addressing them. Oh, and you misquoted again? You are replying to Peter, apparently to his posts regarding the ratification of the 16th amendment, yet you have quoted Ruth (phooph, great name Ruth!)? It is this self evident inability to keep your replies, facts, and quotes straight that leads me to the belief that the apparently consistent rhetoric you have posted on the tax issue was probably plagiarized from the WTP site or lifted in it's entirety from some other source.

To speak directly to that information, ( and without doing some fact checking, I find it either highly suspicious or comically auspicious that our freedom fighting hero, William Wallace Lear, shares a moniker with the woad wearing blue faced hero Braveheart! ) I'd like to put forth an alternative assumption, based on the facts as they were presented. The IRS dismissed the probation violation not out of some weak kneed moment of fear, but because Mr. Lear had in fact complied with their demands, by filing his tax returns after all! The subject of duress would be a matter of a different court proceeding, and does not seem to be mentioned on the record, merely suggested by the author of this fanciful tale. Likewise the suggested support of his resistance in that though he had filed, he had not paid. I, and probably tens of millions of Americans regularly file taxes without payment, making separately arrangements by which to relieve our obligations to our society, especially in times of financial hardship. I can imagine that Mr. Lear was not particularly solvent at this time, having just spent a year in prison, where the going wage is pretty poor, by my humble understanding.

In closing, it is with sincere respect for the members of our community that I say I hope Elaine has not been burdened too heavily by arranging and funding your visit. To play off the base emotional reactions and highly evolved sense of dignity of good people, speciously duping them into funding your travel, while regurgitating someone else's drivel and attacking dissenting opinion with childish invective, while avoiding real and meaningful discussion on the issues you claim to champion seems to be a bit of a scam. (Please note the emphasis placed utilizing the power of understatement)

- Royce

[petermargolies]

I hope somebody in this Wacco world of virtual reality can remember the exact quote about beleaving half of what you see, a quarter of what you hear and nothing that you read - and who said it.
Whatever the exact phrasing and regardless of who said it, this is a filter that all information taken from the "Blogosphere" ought to pass though. There are no checks and balances and a lot of unverified information available out there and I think it all needs to be read with a great deal of skeptisism. I'm not saying the information is false. What I am saying is that I would not consider information from this blog to be anything more than possibly an interesting lead.
We've all seen how the Bush-Chaney crowd, invent, alter or distort "facts" to fit their arguments. This technique is not limited to those making arguments from the right. Even lefties have been known to conjur up information to make theri case. That's why a lot of this sort of unsubstantiated data never makes it into the legitimate press.
But don't you think if there was verifiable information such as this about Hillary that the right would be beating it to death?

Here's another good reason to "pay your taxes":
https://www.tomflocco.com/fs/SenClintonGrenada.htm

[taxfreeguy]

For the record, I am not on the right, the the left or the middle, but I do stand for the Truth. Everything I refer to is a matter of public record. All you have to be able to do is read.


I hope somebody in this Wacco world of virtual reality can remember the exact quote about beleaving half of what you see, a quarter of what you hear and nothing that you read - and who said it.
Whatever the exact phrasing and regardless of who said it, this is a filter that all information taken from the "Blogosphere" ought to pass though. There are no checks and balances and a lot of unverified information available out there and I think it all needs to be read with a great deal of skeptisism. I'm not saying the information is false. What I am saying is that I would not consider information from this blog to be anything more than possibly an interesting lead.
We've all seen how the Bush-Chaney crowd, invent, alter or distort "facts" to fit their arguments. This technique is not limited to those making arguments from the right. Even lefties have been known to conjur up information to make theri case. That's why a lot of this sort of unsubstantiated data never makes it into the legitimate press.
But don't you think if there was verifiable information such as this about Hillary that the right would be beating it to death?

[petermargolies]

For the record, I am not on the right, the the left or the middle, but I do stand for the Truth. Everything I refer to is a matter of public record. All you have to be able to do is read.

We apprently do not agree on what the definition "public record" is. The public record, as I understand it, includes such things as approved minutes from a public meeting, police reports, death notices and other information available to the public through the official public records act. Access to the public record is a right granted to everyone and is one that is often contested by newspapers and other media types. These laws vary from state to state and are generally referred to as Sunshine Laws. I think you may be using a broader definition.

[taxfreeguy]

Court cases are also "public record". Did you ever hear of a "County Recorder"? If so, what is their function? Did you ever submit a statement to be filed "for public record"? If not, you might look these areas up and learn something about what public record is and/or what it is considered to be, both legally and lawfully. That is what I am referring to.


We apprently do not agree on what the definition "public record" is. The public record, as I understand it, includes such things as approved minutes from a public meeting, police reports, death notices and other information available to the public through the official public records act. Access to the public record is a right granted to everyone and is one that is often contested by newspapers and other media types. These laws vary from state to state and are generally referred to as Sunshine Laws. I think you may be using a broader definition.

[Juggledude]

Walter,

I notice that you have posted twice today, replying to posts of Peter's, yet remain curiously silent in responding to my post of this morning...

is there a reason for this?

Royce

[petermargolies]

Court cases are also "public record". Did you ever hear of a "County Recorder"? If so, what is their function? Did you ever submit a statement to be filed "for public record"? If not, you might look these areas up and learn something about what public record is and/or what it is considered to be, both legally and lawfully. That is what I am referring to.

When I defined the public record as I understood it, I said it includes such things as . . . and gave a few examples. Generally when a statement contains the words, "includes such things as," it is not meant to be an exhaustive list of all things that fall under the public record. Given a few minutes, I could add to your list as well. What I meant to do was to separate the public record from magazine articles, blogs, newspaper articles, etc. Such writings are not constrained by the rules governing minutes or those of courtroom testimony. As such, they carry more weight. When the vice president says we have found the weapons of mass distruction or when the secretary of defense says he knows exactly where they are, these are assertions that may or may not be correct. When these same statements are made under oath, those who state them as fact when they are merely assertions are subject to the laws of perjury.
But that is way beside the point. You referred us skeptics to a blog that was accusing Hillary Clinton of some shennanigans in Granada in '03. My point was that I did not consider this blog to be an unimpeachable source, to say nothing of the fact that it was a long way off the subject of whether or not our tax system is legal.

[joyfulliving]

This is from Elaine:
I am WAY TOO BUSY to go over and over and over semantics with everyone on here who wants to play with words, concepts, etc. What I wanted to say when I first posted on here is that Walter is here and if anyone wants to learn more about contract law then he is available or IF anyone has a tricky trying court or hearing situation he has a LOT more answers than ANY attorney in my experience. Last night he was AMAZING. In a couple of hours he got the whole group amazed at the knowledge and wisdom he has. This is his first time to Northern California and IF you want to listen and hear what he has to say we have rented a room at LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR in Graton-2999 Bowen and IF you want to be involved come and have ALL of your questions answered.Saturday from 10-4 and Sunday from 3-7. We are taking donations however and anyone who doesn't want to contribute financially in some way that is nourishing to the process and contribute by listening and absorbing the wealth of information he has to offer does need to come. I posted my first comment "Are you being fined and taxed illegally?" because we ALL ARE BEING taxed and fined illegally. I am GLAD that over 300 people have read this thread. It shows that it is a topic that needs to be explored. By all means, if you WANT TO GIVE YOUR MONEY AWAY for taxes, go ahead. I just wanted to open the door up to discussion. In terms of me paying for Walter to come here he is WORTH EVERY PENNY and on top of that HE IS SAVING MY "BUTT" IN a matter right now for which I am personally VERY grateful. Do you know of any attorneys or those who have wisdom such as Walter who would fly from Oklahoma and help out with education as MANY people as want to be helped out? Go figure! So in my opinion stuff your comments and come and listen because there is time in the conference to get your questions fully answered. AND the reason why Walter is not back on here answering every single comment is that he is incredibly in demand. I watch him ALL DAY LONG taking calls, helping people, and doing paperwork for them. So if you feel deprived or neglected, get over it. If there is a bridge for safety over a raging river-- and you need to get across it--either you can recognize the bridge or not recognize it. If you recognize it you can see it, talk about it, touch it, smell it, feel it, or step on it. But if you don't walk across it you can never get to the other side. So if you want to get to the other side, then come to the meeting! Thats all folks. Over and out. Elaine


When I defined the public record as I understood it, I said it includes such things as . . . and gave a few examples. Generally when a statement contains the words, "includes such things as," it is not meant to be an exhaustive list of all things that fall under the public record. Given a few minutes, I could add to your list as well. What I meant to do was to separate the public record from magazine articles, blogs, newspaper articles, etc. Such writings are not constrained by the rules governing minutes or those of courtroom testimony. As such, they carry more weight. When the vice president says we have found the weapons of mass distruction or when the secretary of defense says he knows exactly where they are, these are assertions that may or may not be correct. When these same statements are made under oath, those who state them as fact when they are merely assertions are subject to the laws of perjury.
But that is way beside the point. You referred us skeptics to a blog that was accusing Hillary Clinton of some shennanigans in Granada in '03. My point was that I did not consider this blog to be an unimpeachable source, to say nothing of the fact that it was a long way off the subject of whether or not our tax system is legal.

[Barry]

I thought you unsubscribed from this list? Are you still here?Elaine has unsubscribed. Her posts are still here, but they are no longer attached to her email account. She is not receiving any email from WaccoBB.net.