I've seen many anons here on GA asking how to to stop paying income tax (in the USA). There are many approaches. I'll briefly share a few ideas, however the linked video is by a guy using a method that I'm hearing through the grapevine that many are finding success with. I highly encourage everybody here to give it a listen and decide if you feel up to the task.
The video is 1hour, 20 minutes from SGT Report last night. And the tl;dr is this: Constitutional law trumps tax law. And nowhere in the Constitution does it say that a man/woman's labor/capital are taxable. The word "income" was meant to apply to capital gains. You'd never hear such a thing from a brainwashed "agent of the state", but nonetheless, this is the case. Listen and learn:
https://odysee.com/@sgtreport:7/brian:3
And this is effectively who (the uber-wealthy) and what (capital gains) was supposed to be taxed with the pseudo-passage of the 16th amendment. It was sold to the states as a "wealth tax", not a "wage tax". Also, many today say that the 16th amendment never had two-thirds of the states ratify it. It's a bone of contention to this day. Supporters can't prove enough states ratified it, and opposers can't prove that they didn't. Par for the course. It should be a simple process but I digest (shout out to Brent Terhune!)... :)
Notwithstanding this, less than 5% of Americans were paying "income taxes" prior to WWII when the passage of the "Victory Tax" was implemented to assist with the war effort in 1942. Everybody above the poverty line paid a flat 10% of their wages to support the war. And after the war ended, Congress didn't end the "Victory Tax" statute (not a LAW) and people just kept right on paying it without questioning it. Then in 1953 "Income tax" became formalized in the Code of Federal Regulations and here we are. Perfectly boiled frogs - 40 years, the "2 generation" shift to ignorance magic trick masterfully executed yet again.
As to approaches people are taking, there are many. The majority require that you do a decent amount of research so you know what you're doing. One thing is for certain, as the man in the video points out, the IRS isn't going to make it easy for you and they'll use any number of methods to deceive you in order to suck you back into their fold. As such, research and studying are an absolute necessity IMHO.
Approach #1 - (from the video) - "Wages/Capital" are not "income", as strictly defined by the Constitution and all the LEGALESE statute deception designed to confuse you. For those who have their paychecks garnished, it is highly recommended that you raise the number of dependents so as to not have to fight for a refund. And it's none of your employer/HR-manager's business if they ask. They aren't getting paid one red cent to act as agents for the tax collectors.
Approach #2 - You're not a "taxpayer" - you're a man or a woman. Nor are you a "Resident" - you're a man or a woman. Nor are you a "Citizen" - you're a man or a woman. See the trick? It is YOU that are making a CLAIM of being a 'taxpayer" (which is a fictional LEGAL entity), not them. And you VOLUNTARILY make the claim. Nobody forced you into doing it. So a number of people are simply denying that they are what's known as a "Taxpayer" and asking the IRS to PROVE THEIR CLAIM that you are. All of this done IN WRITING I might add. Not in a conversation. You must communicate IN WRITING at all times. Never agree to a conversation. Results I've heard for using this method is that after several back and forth mailings, the IRS stops bothering these people. There are no more attempts to collect. The same guy in this video covers this topic on his website.
Approach #3 - You don't "RESIDE" in the "DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA". This is yet another deception that I'm not going to explain in any detail here. But suffice it to say, the group running the "FEDERAL (not American) GOVERNMENT" has deceptively turned the land of the 50 independent states into being part of their FEDERAL DISTRICT (of Columbia) through the cunning use of State abbreviations (AL, CA, NY, etc.) and zip codes. Once again, these are LEGAL (fictional) CORPORATE entities and "regions". They aren't REAL!!! California is a geographical description. The "STATE OF CALIFORNIA" is a corporation doing international business. And "CA" is a fictional designation given to a "Virtual District" that exists within the "FEDERAL JURISDICTION" exclusively on paper. Peymon Mottahedeh is the guy who runs this site called "Freedom Law School" -> https://livefreenow.org/ --- and uses this method. I can't vouch for the guy and I don't know anybody who has used his services. He did do a few interviews on the Stew Peters show and advertised there for a couple months. Is he legit? I don't know. Based on a cursory review of his website, it appears he's charging a tidy sum of money for his services. However, he does offer a $1,000,000 guarantee that if his method doesn't work, he'll pay up to that amount in back taxes and penalties. And he openly says he hasn't paid taxes in nearly 30 years. Caveat emptor.
Approach #4 - Another guy named Karl Lentz has been telling his listeners for years that it's all even simpler than this. This is a guy who remarkably figured out the whole "Legal vs Lawful" sham on his own after his kids were taken away from him by CPS several decades ago. He uses what I call the "King/Sovereign" approach, which is fundamentally correct but not advisable if you don't realize who YOU are (and are NOT) and who THEY are - which requires dedicated research and comprehension. But in a nutshell, he says that no MAN or WOMAN at the IRS will ever PUT IN WRITING and add their SIGNATURE to a piece of paper CLAIMING you owe them money. He says he's dealt with the IRS many times and each time he has asked this simple question: "If there is a MAN or WOMAN at the IRS that CLAIMS I owe them money, please have them put in writing with their full name, title and signature at the bottom of an official IRS document and I will then honor my duty and obligation to that MAN or WOMAN if in fact I do owe them money." He never hears back other than agents begging him to "come on in for a discussion", which he always refuses.
At a minimum, hopefully all who read this will at least come to a basic understanding that we have been deceived into WILLFULLY and VOLUNTARILY ACCEPTING these "Titles of Slavery" (as opposed to "Titles of Nobility"), as I call them -> Person, Citizen, Resident, Taxpayer, Tenant, Driver, and on and on and on. The list is endless. And nobody FORCED you to accept these titles. Granted, nobody explained any of this to you either. Such is the game we're playing. It is and always has been an information/education war.
And one major caveat. It should go without saying that there is no preventing brute thug force, and I realize this causes many to shy away from any attempts to do any of this. My best advice is to educate yourselves, more and more on these "legal vs lawful" topics, not just around taxes. Because it's ultimately an individual effort. I don't expect a white knight to ride in and fix everything for everybody all at once. It's just not going to happen this way as there are still many millions who unwittingly prefer to "be governed" rather than to become self-governing themselves.
This all goes well beyond taxes, although this is the topic that gets the most interest from most. Income, property, state/local, etc. The legal system is a "containment field" of sorts, so vast and all-encompassing as to be unseeable, that "matrix that is all around you blinding you from the truth Neo". And of course it has usurped our "lawful system" in the process.
At the end of the day, I encourage those who feel inspired to begin learning and researching these topics, as opposed to just diving right in and not paying your taxes, hoping it will all just work out for you. The guy in the video, Brian Swanson, runs this website: https://capitalvsincome.com and it's as good a place as any to start. You're going to need to understand all the tricks and deceptions that will be employed against you, and a sound understanding as well as knowing people out there that are doing the same thing as a strong support network. Suffice it to say the cabal won't just roll over, as Brian points out in the interview.
We're still in the early days of people catching on to this legal scam. The "Great Awakening" is under way and more and more are beginning to wonder why they are voluntarily funding a clearly insane and unelected bureaucracy.
I wish you all luck and happy to answer any relevant questions.
What Is Income?
Since the term “income” is not defined in the RTC or in the IRC, we are justified by the holding in Holmes v. McColgan supra to search for federal judicial pronouncements on this point. Fortunately for us, the federal courts have been unusually clear on the correct legal definition of “income”. Appendix “J” in “The Federal Zone” contains a short list of those definitions, which are repeated here as follows:
Income is NOT everything that “comes in”:
[Southern Pacific Co. v. John Z. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330]
............
Corporate profits are "income":
[Emanuel J. Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Co., 247 U.S. 179]
..............
Congress CANNOT change the Constitution:
[Mark Eisner v. Myrtle H. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189]
...........
Again, "income" is a gain, a profit:
[Mark Eisner v. Myrtle H. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189]
..............
The Supreme Court has REPEATEDLY ruled that compensation for professional services is not "income":
[Merchant's Loan & Trust v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509]
..................
"Income" has been legally and officially defined:
[Goodrich v. Edwards, 255 U.S. 527]
................
You do NOT obtain "income" by charging for services rendered:
[Edwards v. Keith, 231 F. 111 (2nd Cir.)]
...........
No gain, no income -- no income, no tax:
[Conner v. U.S., 303 F.Supp. 1187]
..............
"Income" means "gain" -- "gain" means "profit":
[Staples v. U.S., E.D. Penna., 21 F.Supp. 737]
................
Wages and profits are two DIFFERENT things:
[Oliver v. Halstead, 196 Va. 992; 86 S.E. 2d 858]
............
Payment for labor is NOT profit:
[Laureldale Cemetery Assoc. v. Matthews] [345 Pa. 239; 47 A. 2d 277, 280]
............
The meaning of "income" has been CONSISTENT in law:
............
Again, "income" has had the SAME MEANING in law:
[Burnet v. Harmel, 287 U.S. 103]
...................
"Income" is NOT the same as "gross receipts":
[Anderson Oldsmobile, Inc. v. Hofferbert, USDC Maryland] [102 F.Supp. 902]
............
Try to find a principle that is better settled:
[Alan Stang, Tax Scam, Mt. Sinai Press, POB 1220] [Alta Loma 91701, CALIF. 1988]
Great citations TRYNEIN. The evidence abounds, but so few are willing to take the chance just yet. I think it's safe to say we're still a little early on garnering any interest on this topic. But alas, we'll still keep sharing the evident truth and hope to win over a few converts at a time!
I agree
I Have more if you ever need it, just ask
=============
"Income has been taken to mean the same thing as used in the Corporation Excise Tax of 1909 (36 Stat. 112). The worker does not receive a profit or gain from his/her labors-merely an equal exchange of funds for services"
"The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the state; but the individuals' rights to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an excise cannot be imposed."
Redfield v. Fisher, 292 P. 813, 135 Or. 180, 294 P.461, 73 A.L.R. 721 (1931)
=========
“In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise— the words ‘person’ and ‘whoever’ include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals.”
U.S. Code › Title 1 › Chapter 1 › § 1
It's all good stuff and might indeed come in handy some day. I'll definitely save it. However, I myself prefer the Karl Lentz/Bill Thornton "King" approach when it comes to these matters. I haven't suffered through hundreds of hours of Karl;s "Talk Shoe" audios for nuthin! :)
Thanks again for adding your wisdom to this thread!
These court decisions are proof of the lies for those who are just waking up.
I absolutely would not suggest anyone try to take on the IRS until they understand real law and the real money vs the colourable law they use because of colourable money