No, because a VAT tax goes directly against the purchases of earning a living and thus by modern theory would break the 14th Amendment right to property. Neither excises nor tariffs go against earning a living, but the income tax (an excise) has been interpreted in such way that defacto it cramps earning a living for millions of people. As Ron Paul says, repeal the income tax and replace it with nothing. But replacing it with tariffs is an okay compromise due to optics.
Irwin Schiff, not his son Peter. He didn't help much.
That's somewhat close to what he should do! Not because contributions are unconstitutional but because their definition as constitutional is loaded with demonstrable deceptive intent.
u/ConspiracyLinks is likely absolutely right. Russo ran for president as a Libertarian. However, his film only exposed about 80% of the scheme and also included up to 40% of useful but less direct information. He tried, and was permitted to roll with what he had, but one reason for the permission may have been he didn't have it all. The film was largely released to art houses rather than to mainstream theaters.
Here, Ashland, I'll share what I know. I saw a video of Russo describing his conversation with David Rockefeller in which he turned down that devil. The video is probably well-scrubbed by now so Godspeed if you find it. I promise you that Russo described his words to Rockefeller as follows: "I told him: as a Chr-- as a person of faith I couldn't do that." It's my belief that Russo was about to call himself a Christian but then remembered that he would be heard by his fellow Jews as well and wasn't ready to say the whole word and remembered his chosen euphemism in time. The fact is that Russo was well-heeled for many years as a rising Hollywood star and then he was invited to the inner circle and turned it down and had to suffer the consequences. And somewhere along the line he seems to have chosen the example of the man that turned down the illegal transfer of all the kingdoms of the world at once.
Staying out of jail 15 years is not an unlocked achievement in this field, I've stayed out of jail 20 years now after joining the game. Neither liberty nor good reviews prove that response letters work, only remedy proves that. The IRS doesn't enforce against everyone whom it considers lawless. If a reviewer shows that the IRS has not only gone silent on its claims but also acknowledged the reviewer's claims then it might have a bit of credibility, but even then cases are usually individual and require much filtering due to the high mania level that produces so many counterfeits. Be safe and be moral: pay the legally required taxes on your income, don't argue against the law or against Scotus. (There's an exception, namely if you sincerely believe the Constitution and Scotus are wrong, but that's a very high bar and nobody I've seen has reached it except maybe the Confederacy.)
Please see what I wrote about NRAs. Also, it would help you if you answered my question instead of focusing on zip codes. The several states are "foreign" in one sense and "domestic" in another, and PR, VI, AS and other territories are "domestic" in many senses too, so unless legal context is specified the claim is void for vagueness. Focus on this: what is an example of an information return that is typically received this time of year alleging that income was paid in certain categories in the prior year? There are many good answers. Whichever one(s) you pick, it's easy to find the law that specifies what should be reported on that form, trace the definitions inherent in that law, and determine whether the reporting is correct. But just because it's easy doesn't mean that people want to do it when they can rely on what other people have told them instead of researching for themselves. You're a researcher of some experience, so I don't know why you wouldn't answer my simple question or continue to propose other avenues without providing sources. I'm attracted to this forum because it's high-effort.
TD 2313, despite that unique interpretation that floats over its head, gives no benefit to the claim that NRA status helps anyone. It appears on p. 53-55 of Treasury Decisions volume 18 (1916) and says, "The normal tax shall be withheld at the source from income accrued to nonresident aliens ... as in the case of citizens and resident aliens." It never says Brushaber was an NRA, it says that pursuant to the (very sweeping) Brushaber decision it should be noted, if anyone asks, that NRAs pay taxes the same as residents and citizens.
Again, the only way to solve the problem is to read the original texts. If you have income, pay the tax, if you don't, don't. If an information return alleges that you have income when you didn't, the ordinary means of correcting that allegation should be used, using the definitions for classes of income as found in the law. Nothing to do with NRA status, gold, bankers, reparations, corporations per se, or any of the other imaginative interpretations not based on law. It does have to do with federal nexus, but unless the federal nexus is specifically defined and all classes of nexus enumerated, sweeping statements about nexus are usually wrong. The nature of the multilayered scheme makes it so because each layer has different terms.
"employer" and "employee" refer to a relationship with the federal government
Yes, basically, but in different ways in each of Chapters 21-24 (make a mental note of the topics of those four chapters as I stated, for future reference). Thank you for noticing! Yet because of the differences, it's dangerous to generalize, and that's why, unless you see the whole unfolded, it's easy to make statements that contain enough indirect error to be ruled as frivolous by administrative judges. E.g., it's not only government workers and workers in DC. When people try to make such summary statements the trap is right there. Only relying upon the words of the law directly is sufficient.
The Fed, the fiat, the banks are also other aspects of other schemes, but do not affect the operation of the tax code.
If I never enter a contract how can I be liable? And no law can compel a person to perform an act against their will or enter into a contract unwillingly.
Great question. The answer is that if you are paid by another person, that's an oral contract, and if the other person conveys testimony to the IRS in the form of a tax return stating that the money paid was a category of income then that's the testimony they like to run with. The law provides you recourse if the payor's testimony was mistaken, namely to submit the corrected record (filing is not a liability-creating contract per se, it's a self-assessment and a testimony). The law also provides that after enough time, a couple years, if there is no self-assessment the IRS is empowered to address the testimony it received by assessing you on your behalf, because you abrogated that right by neither affirming nor correcting the testimony they received about you. If you continue inaction the law does eventually permit your property, or you, to be seized, regardless of the fact that your conscience was honored by the system (you were never compelled to act against your conscience, you were just jailed). That's the nature of the beast: it's designed to make everyone feel they are stuck paying just like everyone else.
But we also observe that if you're rich enough you can have people research the law and find ways to pay less than everyone else. That's because it's still an excise, meaning it's avoidable. We are also told repeatedly by the Supremes that the right to labor for pay is a basic property right that cannot be infringed by an excise, which much be on avoidable activity. But they don't want to tell us the resolution of these things. Not filing is not the resolution because it's an abrogation of duty, an "easy out", and a very high risk to you as it goes on year after year. The resolution is to structure and report your affairs in compliance with all law such that the excise for which you are liable is an acceptable amount and within your rights and duties. Because of the Constitutional right to labor for pay, this path is always available to the American.
Since you've researched, do you know what an information return is? Maybe you've received one this year, a copy of one that was sent by the payor to the IRS, stating that you received money last year that fell in certain categories defined by certain form boxes (usually more than one available) according to the definitions in the code? If you know you haven't, great! If you don't know, or if you know you have, then I'd look into where those boxes get their definitions. If you want to know more, pick one of the most common information return forms and we'll look at it in more detail.
There are at least four different definitions of employer in the tax code, in Chapters 21-24, pertaining to Social Security, Railroad Retirement, withholding, and Medicaid; those were enacted at different times for different reasons and so they have different definitions. Employer often includes private companies. You'll need to learn the code to be more specific. I can answer questions but it helps if you do a little research to join in. What else do you want to know?
I don't usually downvote u/ashlanddog, but when I do it's because Ashland made an unhelpful statement (in this case one on which I already answered the OP in detail).
Anybody could copy the IRS typing format and put Egger's name on it in the 80s, getting the US Attorney's name (Roger Duncan) incorrect; nor would Egger have written such tripe, which could only have been thought to be effective by those who believe they found the silver bullet by rejecting the supreme law and the Supreme Court. The true byzantine labyrinth is quite deeper than the deceptive 16th, but it must remain legally accessible to the common man via the statutes and code. That's why I tell everyone to read the law and apply it scrupulously.
Hmm, didn't you just invoke Finder as to the stupidity of posting the same OP, and now you invoke as to the stupidity of downvoting against OP? Very sus fren. Add: No wait, maybe you mean the downvoter of you rather than Ashland, and maybe you mean your "it's prolly real" to be sarcasm? Fine, I'll downgrade my assessment of you, from you being wrong, to you just being unable to convey sarcasm accurately.
Well, you're close, but liability isn't the magic word you need. If you earned income, such as from an employer, and are law-abiding, you would lawfully pay the appropriate tax on that income because it's a Constitutional excise. That would seem to be called liability. If you don't have an employer and are not paid income, that would not generate a liability. Because income tax is in the nature of an excise, there must be a way to earn a living without having an employer that generates income for you. But the government considers itself under no responsibility or incentive to tell you how to do so as long as they believe they've formally left the option to you as possible.
The right suggestion is the fact that "income" is not defined by statute or code. In fact Scotus has observed that to define income strictly would likely be "precarious" to the current system.
Obviously foreign money that changes hands between foreigners with no American nexus whatsoever cannot be "income" because Congress has no power to tax it. Therefore it's safe to say that Congress can only tax money transfers where someone alleges federal nexus. The trick is to determine how that allegation is made. It's reasonable to start by looking at the information returns that fly so wildly this season, because they are relied on by both the IRS and the self-assessors to be accurate statements of income. If you submit an information return to the IRS it is presumed you agree it is correct. Since virtually all whom the IRS has collected from have had information returns submitted on their behalf, it's reasonable that the information return alleges federal nexus. Do you see where this is going?
It's not necessary to rescind the SS number, but if you can do so (or become Amish and get a legacy exception) all the better. The connection to the SS number, like the NRA argument, is not the nexus involved.
Yes, if a W-2 or 1099 series information return is incorrect, it should be corrected by accurate testimony. I'm not arguing income vs. compensation; according to 26 USC 61, income includes compensation for services. Therefore it's essential to read the law to determine if information returns are correct, and it's one's responsibility to ensure that everything one reports to the IRS is correct according to the law. Any tax preparer can tell you the procedures for correcting an information return that a payor refuses to correct, although they may not agree with the reasoning that leads one to ask the question; the standard procedures are the remedy prescribed by law for correcting such reporting errors and should be followed. Since the IRS is designed to take advantage of any error and to assume the worst as to amounts due, without any incentive to help the filer produce correct testimony or demonstrate the situation to be less than the worst, I tell everyone to learn the law and apply it scrupulously.
$6 for a 35-page booklet is usually called "paytriotism". It won't do to charge "subversion of both law and Constitution", "lack of statutory subjectivity", and "the federal government (I.R.S. & D.O.J.) has ignored, misapplied, and misused the provisions of the statutes". It wrongly holds that the income tax is a direct tax, but the Supremes decide what is a direct tax under objective decisions and they said, no, the income tax is in the nature of an excise.
The fact that out of hundreds of millions of filers, a few have claimed income tax is direct tax and gotten refunds, is insufficient. The only recourse is knowing the law (and applicable case law) and following it to the letter, not claiming that the law and Scotus are wrong. The IRS intends, usually successfully, to prosecute those who make frivolous arguments, which include this direct tax argument, and they usually come back after a few years with enforcement. Therefore one must take refuge in the law rather than fight it, and must learn why the principles of the law and Constitution are still upheld even as mismanagement and deception allow much tax money to be paid voluntarily by those who do not take the step of learning the law on their rights to avoid excise taxes.
Fact: Hendrickson did go to jail for some time on tax-related charges, and he would certainly say to be prepared for the worst as you pursue the truth of the law.
This too is not a permanent solution and can come back to bite people, because it is an insufficient argument. You may well be arguing that you are not a 26 USC 7701(b) resident alien because of the definitions of "United States" and "State" in that section. However, even if you were an NRA you would still be taxed on your income, so you need to determine whether your income is accurately reported by yourself and all information return preparers. Many (not all) are told they have accrued significant penalties such as $5,000 for frivolous filing, so you need to be prepared for that risk, even years later. It's frivolous to say merely "I'm an NRA therefore I can't have income", because it's still possible to have income. There's still time to learn the rest of the law and to ensure your record is complete and correct.
That is only a short-term solution, although it's certainly recommended in case the IRS disappears. However, if its successors persist you'll need to know the law and ensure that your nonfiling doesn't get you in trouble due to information returns reporting that you had income.
This is a phony document and cannot be relied on for anything, it's made the rounds many times and there was just another thread debunking it here. Don't fall prey to red herrings designed to distract people from the fraud caused by "voluntary self-assessment". Grok's analysis in the link is correct but incomplete, so I gave the necessary context. If you want your money back, correct your self-assessment. If you didn't self-assess, correct the assessment that your abdication permitted them to make. This requires knowing the law and understanding its application without getting trapped by any of the counterfeit protest movements that the IRS has already debunked. It's not easy but answers are available to the interested.
Grok is fun but doesn't yet recognize tomato juice or Gatorade. The reference is obviously to Gators and 'maters, meaning pizzagate and checkmate. See, I made that one up in 17 seconds.
So is it the Northwest Ordinance and the Organic Act?
I teach the Constitution for the USA. I haven't uncovered evidence the other two exist as constitutional documents rather than legal theories from subsidiary documents. You're dropping hints but unless you commit to a theory it can't be evaluated. But then I'm not the best evaluator because I'm rather biased myself.
Fair enough. What Grok won't tell you is that Becraft, bless his heart for all his hard work, is only arguing this line in service of the broader principle of questioning the tax on every ground that can be tried. He experimented wisely with many variations.
The upshot is that courts have turned down the idea that the 16th was not ratified, even though Bill Benson demonstrated that all 38 ratifying states had material errors in their process, often changing wording or misreporting nominally nonratifying results. The amendment was "deemed ratified" by Secretary Philander Knox, and that was good enough for most courts. That is, the material errors are judged not significant enough to upend the alleged will of the people for 100 years since.
However, it's true we've been defacto enslaved by a lie. The demonstrated will of the people, from the supreme law of the Constitution on down, is that direct taxation is restricted and thus income tax must remain indirect in the nature of an excise. All excises are avoidable, and the means of avoidance must not impinge on any general human rights, namely the right to property (pursuit of happiness) via exchange of labor for pay. The means of ensuring this right through proper self-assessment is now buried in 100 pages of legislative history and, in short, requires ensuring the IRS has correct testimony according to the definitions of the law about all transactions which have been reported to it as potentially generating (flowing to) taxable income. And getting the IRS to acknowledge that, which it is required to do and often does. I explain details to inquirers but have deliberately not done so in any organized post.
Google "BLT mice".
That appears to be an excellent review, all the parts and names I'm familiar with seem accurately stated. The included document does say "Soebarkah" on closeup. Great find!
Archive link: https://web.archive.org/web/20150822215236/https://theamericanreport.org/2015/08/19/clues-unlock-obama-id/
It'd be nice if it's going away, but the IRS is not related to the ratification of the 16th since the Commissioner of Internal Revenue was first appointed to collect the income tax signed by Lincoln in 1862. The Supremes bent over backwards to satisfy the Constitution and still allow the IRS to exist, and without understanding their reasoning you don't have the means to get your sovereign will done because sovereigns are aware of their own strength and that of others. Similarly the clerical errors in all 38 ratifications of the 16th were insufficient to be judged a material cause of rejection of that ratification and it's not likely that decision will be reversed.
You have every right to reject the IRS and its excises as to conscience, but good conscience will also compel you to accept the consequences of your choice, which currently include jail time for years. It's better to learn the law and how the scheme actually operates, and manage your affairs accordingly.