Peymon explains it pretty clearly here in 26 minutes...answers all the "deep" questions, arising from fearful programming.....which is what prevents 95% of people from taking back their power and benefiting from their own hard-earned money.
In short, you only need to pay "income taxes" if you live in the geographical boundaries of the District of Columbia and/or are employed by the Federal government. That's the "law" (rules written by the rule-makers) and what the Founding Fathers originally intended, and has always been true to this very day.
Just sharing my experience. I'm sure you're aware that there are many voices sharing tax information and some of them are indeed shills. That's why the only test can be the law as read by your conscience, not any man's words including mine. People are free to follow bad advice that distracts from the real scheme at work by highlighting a subset of the scheme and blowing it out of proportion to create an easily destroyed strawman that many people think is the real scheme. For instance, he shouldn't say "DC" alone when every other possession is treated the same way; PR and VI earnings are taxable, for instance. If you'd like to know more about the actual application of the law to private workers in the several states, I'm happy to answer.
Well sure, "the several states" include the US territories. I wrote a highly simplified text "teaser" to get people to the video. Peymon explains that clearly in his FREE videos and guidance.
I agree with your "conscience" statement too. 99% of Westerners are submerged in fear and adversarial energies....plenty of that on this board. I used to explain the entire "income tax" thing to people that took 20-30 minutes. At the end I'd explain, "be aware, the IRS will never send you a letter or call you letting you know you're 'off the hook'"....hahaha. And that stops probably 90% of the people in their tracks. I now START with that in conversation.
I next tell people that if you are fearful and or treat the fictional entity known as "IRS" as an ADVERSARY, you shouldn't bother trying this. Next to nobody understands that we create our own reality. These energies, when strongly and frequently felt, will indeed "manifest" negative and difficult events.
Peymon's process includes sending three 150-page packets to your Congressman and state Senators which clearly and explicitly demonstrate that "there is no LAW"".....AND NEVER HAS BEEN requiring men and women, living on the land and soil of the 50 geographical boundary zones known as "states". These packets politely invite our {NON}-Re-Presentatives to respond explaining how and why they think you are wrong, and/or point us to the "law" that says otherwise.
Tens of thousands of these packets have gone out and not a one [NON]-Re-Presentative has rebutted the assertion. And only a tiny few have even bothered responding at all, basically saying "they're looking into it and you better keep paying until you hear otherwise".
If our [NON]-Re-Presentatives, the very people who are supposed to KNOW THE LAW are unable to rebut the assertion, that should be all you need to know. They're literally "in on it".... blackmailed, compromised, or complicit.
I don't know where you got that strange comment about "people saying" this, that, or the other about Peymon. Everybody out there has 'haters" and he readily admits he has noisy detractors. He also readily admits that the few clients of his that did get into legal trouble and/or go to prison were people he tried to help who unwittingly SIGNED THE 1040 and sought his help after the fact. That simple act is your admission that you've given the cabal "standing" over you, the "taxpayer / non-filer / resident / citizen.
Trust me, I've studied this topic deeply for over 5 years. Peymon has it right. There are other tacks that you can take of course, but his is the simplest and most battle-tested.
But I appreciate the offer. Cheers
What'd I tell ya?
First, via my usual method on behalf of lurkers, let me state the corrections from my POV having studied it since my teens.
No, usually people use "the several states" to distinguish the 50 states that delegate power to the federal government from those possessions that in some laws are also called "States". What a "State" is depends on the legislative scope and cannot be simplified into one definition.
No, the IRS is not a fictional entity, it has the powers of the presidentially appointed Commissioner of Internal Revenue since the 1860s IIRC. That's a second strawman that gets people in real trouble even though the chain of custody is in fact a bit murky.
No, it's false that there is no law. Off top of my head, I believe it's 26 USC 61 that taxes gross income. If you're a man or woman living on land and soil in one of the 50 zones (the ones that empower the feds), that law and its related sections requires you to pay taxes on a portion of your gross income. But you didn't finish the sentence, maybe you could have completed it accurately; it just started so irrelevantly that it's likely to go in the wrong direction.
No, IRS has no duty to accept your invitation to respond because the packets do nothing to absolve you of the legal duty as I just hinted. They don't constitute testimony about income (like tax returns do), they have no effect except maybe for reliance defense which comes so much later in the cycle that it's silly to send a packet written by someone else. Also, their failure to rebut, or their stalling you, is just biding time until they're legally permitted to assess and seize (and paytriots don't advise you of that longterm risk in their cash-now sales).
No, signing the 1040 and asking for help after the fact isn't an admission of standing. It's an assessment and can be corrected with a correcting assessment (aka form 1040X). If people disagree with their 1040 testimony and Peymon isn't telling them to file 1040X, he doesn't understand the scheme. Believing that 1040 signature creates a "standing" argument is again a strawman: the signature is merely a testimony that money was exchanged that met certain statutory categories. There's no magic in the words taxpayer, resident, citizen (or even nonfiler) that creates power over you: if you're not any of these and yet you earned "income" (which is a form of magic word per SCOTUS, it being what's taxed), the income is taxable after a point.
Creating your own reality is useful generally, but tangential here. The scheme doesn't rely on what reality anyone believes, it relies on ministerial testimony of taxable activity, because that narrow category is actionable in court without awakening people to the nature of the scheme and without any defense based on "reliance" upon a believed reality.
Now then:
Since I care about you and those listening, and have been giving the same above advice on Scored for 5 years when asked, without variation, let's try to take an opportunity to understand each other from each other's POV.
If you (as I do) routinely explain the entire scheme in 20 minutes, could you take a moment to tell us what the first few boxes of a W-2 mean as defined by statute, keeping their differences in mind, please? If you're able to talk about such a simple topic with legal accuracy, or if you're interested in comparing two views on such a topic, we can proceed without needing 150 pages of reliance defense.
Obviously the IRS has had trillions with which to create strawman arguments, have people believe and popularize them, and then scare everyone away from understanding the real scheme because the strawmen get burned up. Therefore it's essential to read the law that we delegated our Congressional public servants to write (and the related code) and to insist on its exact application. The only way to overcome false testimony is with true testimony.
"No, the IRS is not a fictional entity, it has the powers of the presidentially appointed Commissioner of Internal Revenue since the 1860s IIRC." -> Of course it is. Did "MAN" invent it? Then it's a FICTION. All corporations (orating corpses) and "government agencies" are FICTIONAL ENTITIES. They have no basis in true reality. Thus, they are fictional. McDonald's is a fictional entity. The DE FACTO "Federal Government" is a fictional entity.
"No, it's false that there is no law." -> You don't understand what a "LAW" is. The LEGAL SYSTEM is not "THE LAW". It's a fictional game invented by the cabal (freemasons).
"Creating your own reality is useful generally, but tangential here. The scheme doesn't rely on what reality anyone believes," -> You couldn't be more mistaken.
"If you (as I do) routinely explain the entire scheme in 20 minutes, could you take a moment to tell us what the first few boxes of a W-2 mean as defined by statute, keeping their differences in mind, please? " -> Do you BELIEVE that "statues" (RULES written by our unelected RULERS) is actually a LAW? Are you suffering under that delusion?
Are you sure a "statute" applies to "Men and women"? Can you find me one? I'll wait ( a long time).
You haven't SEEN THROUGH the deception yet my friend. Here's a simple litmus test you can apply. If FREE WILL --- which is the second universal, and an ACTUAL LAW, is being violated, you are dealing with a man/woman acting in VIOLATION of UNIVERSAL LAW. It's the Golden Rule.
The DE FACTO FEDERAL REGIME - in power due to force, threat and violence EXCLUSIVELY - and all its unlawful, fictional subsidiaries are in the business of violating free will - nonstop. They usurped our DE JURE American Interstate Cooperative Service Bureau in 1865 and asserted themselves.
The derivation is simple. All human problems can be boiled down to this simple rule. The population is constantly unhappy because they feel like their free will is being violated in one way or another. While this situation is completely "normal" all around the world, it's entirely UNNATURAL, and the controlling cabal, through it's complete dominance over all our mainstream institutions, would like nothing more than to keep it that way.
Why? Because they know humans operating in fear, worry, blame, condemnation, regret, resentment, vengeance, hatred, etc. quite literally cannot discern truth from falsehood. And as such, the masses only choice is to give their power away to those they think can protect them.
MASS IGNORANCE is the source of all suffering.
Now, apply the above FACTS to the FICTIONAL IRS and try to look at it from this higher level. Once you see it, you can't unsee it. The IRS is like the ultimate "violator of free will". The perfect "test bed" for you to see through the deception.
You are NOT a LEGAL FICTION....unless......you AGREE TO BE ONE and SAY SO. -> taxpayer, non-filer, U.S. Citizen, resident, person, driver, parent, guardian, etc. etc. These LEGAL FICTIONS are BOUND to FICTIONAL LEGAL statutes, codes, mandates, etc.
Unwind the fictions and the truth emerges effortlessly. Because truth is always simple, obvious and self-evident.
Good luck!
Well, you could play sovereign citizen and refuse to recognize agential entities and the word games called law and so forth, and create your own reality. That's beside the point of OP, because real sovereigns recognize noblesse oblige and they deign to deal with those backward, underinformed people who think they work for "governments" and enforce "laws" and so on, because it's better for sovereigns to have good relations with such poorly informed people, especially when they have lots of guns too. And that goes right back to understanding what they admit the law is to them.
I can converse on that level. Yet, on a more accurate level, Jesus Christ and I have a two-way covenant, called the Constitution for the United States of the year of our Lord 1787 as amended; and under that covenant I've authorized my state to authorize the federal government to authorize a "Congress" to promulgate American "statutes at large", and I deign to accept the process while reserving the right to take exceptions. The SAL and I are not at odds on this point, though, so I counsel people to be at peace and at one with the SAL as I am, which is not much different from the mainstream approach to law. Oh, and that's totally offtrack of OP.
Have you read 1 USC 8?
Correct, and totally offtrack. Income tax is "voluntary".
There were sketchy events that whole century, 1865 was mostly noted for the unseating of Confederate legislators, but these are historical shifts that do not exempt anyone from legal duties. (I already referred to PCD; if a person doesn't acknowledge the current government, he's free to fight it, but that's unwise given the firepower ratio and given that the law as written in the SAL is not your enemy.) So that's another strawman that gets people in trouble sooner or later. The person who thinks the whole government is illegitimate has bigger problems than petitioning that same government.
You make a valid point about fear but it doesn't apply because you return to the strawmen:
Agreeing to be a legal fiction doesn't make you a legal fiction, Abraham Lincoln said about dogs (one of the few things he got mostly right). All the words you cited are mistaken buzzwords that don't actually convey a nexus upon you like you imply they do. A couple of them relate to other nexuses but usually not ones you can use with "income" tax. However, it being an "income" tax you'd think the word "income" might be a buzzword, mightn't it?
So as a path forward I propose: (1) Let's agree that we're both sovereigns unswayed by fear (except fear of the LORD) and that any discussion we have on this point should start with that reality. (2) I further submit the proposition that as sovereigns we are free to deign to get along with those folks who play word games by playing the same game with them flawlessly (the king is free to go about as a peasant), and not arbitrarily but in sovereign recognition of what other sovereigns do via generally accepted principles (e.g. statutory construction). (3) I further submit that we agree that exchanging labor for pay is a natural right as such, and that taxes in the nature of excise are defined as not being able to reach natural rights as such; that might help you start to remove the strawmen (the loose-sounding statements that don't hold up to the scrutiny of generally accepted construction). If those are fair enough to start, you might then interact with the questions I asked of the person who simply requested the scheme be explained straightforwardly.