It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


ed brown media conspiracy

page: 3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 03:00 PM
thank you orwells ghost, it is funny your not american, thats says alot too.

here is more for the mix

it will be difficult to settle this argument on
a message board when the supreme court,
u.s. attorneys, and the united states government
are not able to address or settle the issue.

however, there is a very good read at irwin
schiff's site with regard to the lack of evidence
showing (from the United States v. Hill):

"123 U.S. 681, 8 S. Ct.308, 31 L. Ed. 275 (1887) "The term 'revenue law'
when used in connection with the jurisdiction of the courts of the United
States, means...a law which is directly traceable to the power
granted to Congress by 8, Art. I of the Constitution, 'to lay and
collect taxes duties, imposts and excises.'"

The Constitution confers Congress the power to "lay and collect
taxes" in three clauses. Clauses 2 and 4 of Article 1. Sections 2 and 9
confer power on Congress to impose direct taxes. While Section 8,
Clause 1 of Article 1 mentions the "taxes" authorized in Sections 2
and 9, it goes to confer power on Congress to impose indirect taxes,
identified in that clause as "duties, imposts and excises." However, the
Constitution provides that all direct taxes must be imposed pursuant to the
rule of apportionment, while indirect taxes must be imposed pursuant to the
rule of geographic uniformity. In the bedrock decision, Brushaber v. Union
Pacific RR, 240 U.S.1, which established the character and legality of the
16th Amendment, the Supreme Court repeatedly emphasized that:

"In the matter of taxation, the Constitution recognizes these two great
classes of direct and indirect taxes and lays down two rules by which
their imposition must be governed namely: The rule of apportionment as to
direct taxes and the rule of uniformity as to duties, imposts and excises."

The Court went on to point out that these provisions were not altered or
amended by the 16th Amendment because, it held that there cannot be a
federal tax "lying intermediate between these two great classes and embraced
by neither"; therefor, any such proposition:

If acceded to, would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another. that is, they would result in bringing the provisions of the Amendment exempting
a direct tax from apportionment into irreconcilable conflict with the general
requirement that all direct taxes be apportioned. Moreover, the tax authorized by
the Amendment, being direct, would not come under the rule of uniformity applicable under the Constitution to other than direct taxes, and this it would
come to pass that the result of the Amendment would be to authorize a particular
direct tax not subject either to apportionment or to the rule of uniformity...This
result...would create radical and destructive changes in our constitutional system
and multiply confusion.

And further, the Supreme Court held:

The contention that the Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax
although it is relieved from apportionment and is necessarily therefor not subject
to the rule of uniformity as such a rule only applies to taxes which are not direct,
thus destroying the two great classifications which have been recognized and
enforced from the beginning, is also wholly without foundation.

Defendants allege that the income tax is at issue is imposed neither as an
apportioned direct tax, nor as a geographically, uniform "duty, impost or excise,"
in accordance with the above holdings in Brushaber. Therefore, it is the position
of defendants that the Federal income tax as contained in Title 26 as that Title
is referred to in the indictment at issue, as well as the income tax referred to in
the counts involving 18 U.S.C 371, is not "directly traceable to the powers
granted to Congress by Art. 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, 'to lay and collect
taxes, duties, imposts and excises.'" Therefore, this Court cannot have subject
matter jurisdiction in connection with an alleged income "tax," as referred to in
these counts, sinc

posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 01:34 AM

Originally posted by omega1
yes, this is a huge media cover-up.

I see that the death of Anna Nicole Smith made every news channel.

[edit on 12-2-2007 by In nothing we trust]

posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 02:11 AM

Originally posted by In nothing we trust

Originally posted by omega1
yes, this is a huge media cover-up.

I see that the death of Anna Nicole Smith made every news channel.


Divert and deflect, gotta love these so called news stations.

[edit on 12-2-2007 by Orwells Ghost]

posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 02:17 AM

Originally posted by timedrifter
but these laws are very unclear and maybe even can be considered incomplete and very open to misinterpretation. would you agree with that?

No. The law is pretty clear, you have to pay income taxes.

orwell's ghost
By all appearance and investigations, the 16th amendment was never properly ratified and thus is unconstitutional

Thats simply wrong. It was ratified and it is valid.

The Federal governemnt owes YOU money and Ed Brown is a patriot

He's just some guy that wants more money.

Isn't freedom from tyranny of government one of the reasons America was born?

Having to pay an income tax isnt' tyranny.

posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 06:23 AM
I think it's time for you to get the facts NYGDaN---- as seen here

Article V of the U.S. Constitution specifies the ratification process, and requires 3/4 of the States to ratify any amendment proposed by Congress. There were 48 States in the American Union in 1913, meaning that affirmative action of 36 states was required for ratification. In February, 1913, Secretary of State Philander Knox issued a proclamation claiming that 38 states had ratified the amendment.

In 1984, William J. Benson began a research project, never before performed, to investigate the process of ratification of the 16th Amendment. After traveling to the capitols of the New England states, and reviewing the journals of the state legislative bodies, he saw that many states had not ratified the Amendment. Continuing his research at the National Archives in Washington, DC, Bill Benson discovered his Golden Key. This damning piece of evidence is a 16 page memorandum from the Solicitor of the Department of State, whose duty is the provision of legal opinions for the use of the Secretary of State. In this memorandum sent to the Secretary of State, the Solicitor of the Department of State lists the many errors he found in the ratification process!

The 4 states listed below are among the 38 states that Philander Knox claimed ratification from.

The Kentucky Senate voted upon the resolution, but rejected it by a vote of 9 in favor and 22 opposed.
The Oklahoma Senate amended the language of the 16th Amendment to have a precisely opposite meaning.
The California legislative assembly never recorded any vote upon any proposal to adopt the amendment proposed by Congress.
The State of Minnesota sent nothing to the Secretary of State in Washington.

[edit on 12-2-2007 by airtrax007]

[edit on 12-2-2007 by airtrax007]

posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 06:28 AM
"After serving time in federal prison for not paying his United States income taxes, Bill Benson still does not pay income taxes and yet our federal government chooses not to arrest him. Why? Because now he can use this book, which he has written : 'THE LAW THAT NEVER WAS' in his defense. To this day, Bill Benson proclaims, just as loudly, that he will not pay an unjust and corrupt federal income tax."

posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 11:43 AM
Nygdan, just because you say something does not make it true. Can you at least offer some sort of basis for your claim other than "It's true. You have to pay income taxes, thats the way it is." How do you know for sure the 16th was ratified? Were you there? What evidence do you have to back this up. Can you at least provide a link that disproves the ones I provided and the court precedents set in the various cases mentioned therin?

posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 05:09 PM

Originally posted by airtrax007
I think it's time for you to get the facts NYGDaN

Airtrax, I am familiar with the claims that some states didn't actully ratify the ammendment.

First off, the ammendment clarified the position on income tax, it didn't create, out of nothing, an income tax. It explicitly states the case for the income tax, but income taxes existed prior to it.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 grants the federal government its power to impose taxes:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises
And Article I, Section 9, Clause 4:
No Capitation, or other direct Tax, shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration

Thus Ammendment 16 to clarify the issue. They are not direct taxes that must be levied in proportion to the census, they are indirect taxes that must be levied uniformally.
the Sixteenth Amendment, by its wording, restricted income taxes to the category of indirect taxes. This means Congress can never, by a general statute, constitutionally impose a direct tax on the people of the several States. Direct taxes must be imposed on the several States according to the rule of apportionment
In 1984, William J. Benson began a research project

Bill Benson was arrested and jailed for not paying his taxes. This damning piece of evidence is a 16 page memorandum from the Solicitor of the Department of State, whose duty is the provision of legal opinions for the use of the Secretary of State. In this memorandum sent to the Secretary of State, the Solicitor of the Department of State lists the many errors he found in the ratification process!

And notice that he never said that the ratifications were invalid. He checked it, found problems, but didn't find any problems that meant it wasn't ratified.
The 4 states listed below are among the 38 states that Philander Knox claimed ratification from.,00.html
The Sixteenth Amendment was ratified by forty states, including Ohio, and issued by proclamation in 1913.

40 States. Not 38. With 42 states overall ratifying the ammendment.,00.html
the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the income tax laws enacted subsequent to ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R

Especially relevant:,00.html
Miller v. United States
"We find it hard to understand why the long and unbroken line of cases upholding the constitutionality of the Sixteenth Amendment generally, Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company . . . and those specifically rejecting the argument advanced in The Law That Never Was, have not persuaded Miller and his compatriots to seek a more effective forum for airing their attack on the federal income tax structure."

This explicitly deals with the very 'research' that you cited and utterly rejects it.,00.html
United States v. Stahl
"the Secretary of State's certification under authority of Congress that the Sixteenth Amendment has been ratified by the requisite number of states and has become part of the Constitution is conclusive upon the courts," t,00.html
Knoblauch v. Commissioner
The court rejected the contention that the Sixteenth Amendment was not constitutionally adopted as "totally without merit" and imposed monetary sanctions against Knoblauch based on the frivolousness of his appeal. "Every court that has considered this argument has rejected it," the court observed,00.html
United States v. Foster
The court affirmed Foster's conviction for tax evasion, failing to file a return, and filing a false W-4 statement, rejecting his claim that the Sixteenth Amendment was never properly ratified.

So, to summarize, it was first claimed that there were no income tax laws at all. It was shown that there are. It was then claimed that there was no proper ratification, it was shown that there were. Its also been claimed that the courts ignore these tax protest arguments, they explicitly dealt with them.

Its a fact of law, the government can levy the income tax.

orwell's ghost
, just because you say something does not make it true.

And just because Bill Benson says something hardly means its true either.

How do you know for sure the 16th was ratified? Were you there?

I wasn't there for the signing of the declaration of independence, but that hardly makes me a Britisher.

Can you at least provide a link that disproves the ones I provided and the court precedents set in the various cases mentioned therin?

See above.

[edit on 12-2-2007 by Nygdan]

posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 05:34 PM
Thanks for the response Nygdan, I'll have a look at the links you posted when I have a bit of time.

posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 07:09 PM
no matter how many links you throw up, you still havent put up anything that is crystal clear that even a child would understand and that is the level of clarity the law itself should be, easy for anyone to understand, but this is not the case at all is it, I guess we gotta keep the stupid people at a controllable level huh?

this thread was initially about pointing out how the media covers things up, such as the key phrases of ed browns own defense, which is as far as I can tell, the law has not clearly been presented to him and it ended up being a war of ego in the court room, such as the ego flying here in this thread and trying to redirect the focus which I fell into myself but I am back on track now.

I told you, I worked at the IRS, I walked around asking for the laws directly from revenue agents, this is no lie, I still have not seen something clear and up front, everything is riddled and open to different interpretations including the posts you throw up, those are Q&A, where is the actual law to back up these so called codes, and codes for who, usually when something is coded you have to have knowledge to decode it, wouldnt you agree?

but who cares, it has been said here the ed brown story is not news worthy, I beg to differ and it is plain to see the blockers actions, and the media is just part of the blockers and controllers out there, some seem to be so loyal too, all this debate does is promote seperatism. the united is clearly divided, and who was it that said "divide and conquer", it still works today on an internal level for the USA in my opinion.

[edit on 12-2-2007 by timedrifter]

posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 11:26 PM
Nygdan, I've recently become aware of the Ed Brown issue and decided to do research on income tax law.

So far not only have I found no such law, but I've discovered that the Supreme Court, IRS, Department of Justice and the federal government have been petitioned for this and related legislature and have not been able to provide this information, or a law in clear terms that states that every U.S. citizen is required by law to pay income tax on "private, individual, personal" earned wages, or face fines and imprisonment.

I admit I'm at a total loss. I've also been frustrated to learn that proper due process has not been granted to many defendants in these cases, who are fighting for their rights against federal court judges who refuse to discuss or provide the laws, but blindly administer their own brand of justice.

Nygdan, you said that,

I am familiar with the claims that some states didn't actully ratify the ammendment.

These claims are well-founded, and the Supreme Court, IRS, and our government have not been able to provide proof to the contrary.

Not that this matters; as you said, the 16th Amendment did not add a new tax. The 16th Amendment did not create any new power to tax outside of what was allowed by our Constitution.

You also said,

Thus Ammendment 16 to clarify the issue. They are not direct taxes that must be levied in proportion to the census, they are indirect taxes that must be levied uniformally.

Direct taxes, which is a tax on one's property (not activities), is to be shared (apportioned) by the states as indicated in the Constitution. The 16th Amendment was also to take the income tax out of consideration as a direct tax in keeping with our Constitution. You agreed with this.

You also said,

Bill Benson was arrested and jailed for not paying his taxes.

And many others have been arrested as well. But whether or not these convictions were just and lawful or not is up for debate.

There are several factors to take into consideration when dealing with tax law. The first is that the federal government and its agents (IRS) are (albeit unlawfully) protecting their self interests.

There is a vast difference between what the law says and how the system works. It has been said that the system has been hijacked from The People and it now functions for four primary purposes (SOURCE)::

1. Government control of persons and property.
2. The receipt of revenue, either by lawful action or extortionate conduct.
3. The protection of the system that provides for points 1 and 2.
4. The protection of persons who facilitate points 1, 2, and 3.

To this end, with regard to income tax law (and law in general) great pains are taken not to clarify the laws for lay people, but to accomplish the exact opposite.

While laws make use of "words", which are plain language that one can check the definition of in the dictionary, they more frequently make use of what are called "terms", which seem to change according to the context in which they're used.

One needs to be clear on the use of the term "income tax". However, before one needs to be concerned with what constitutes income tax, we first need to locate "who" it is that is "liable" for paying an income tax.

This specific information has not been provided by the IRS, or the Department of Justice attorneys in response to simple requests for this information. A defendant has the right to be presented with the law that he is charged with breaking.

There are so many items that have not been addressed that the only conclusion one can come to after even preliminary research is that there exists no law that states every U.S. "private, individual person" must by law pay an income tax on earned wages or face fines and imprisonment for breaking this non-existent law.

Not only has a reward been offered for this law, but defendants in income tax evasion cases and social action groups have petitioned the United States government and IRS for this documentation and have not received it.

Therefore I know that you cannot show it to me here on this message board.

To claim that the 16th Amendment is a law compelling the above actions is by your own admission a misunderstanding. Many claim that is was not properly ratified. However, proof to the contrary has not been provided by the U.S. government or Congress to clear up this issue once and for all. Why?

You say yourself that income tax law existed before the introduction of the 16th Amendment in 1913.

My question to you now is where is the law that states that every U.S. "private, individual person" must by law pay an income tax on their earned wages or face fines and imprisonment for failing to do so?

If you can provide a law that specifically states the above, I can assure you we will have a lot more to talk about.


posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 09:38 AM
i am currently reading a ruling by the suprem court concerning taxation.

i am having trouble understanding a paticular term used within.

the term "appointment"
as in:
"the rule of appointment as to direct taxes...."
"....the requirements of appointment as to one of the great classes...."

can someone please clarifiy this for me.
because, from what im reading (frank r brushaner vs. union pacific railroad co.) it seems the US sep. court rules in favor of direct taxs.


posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 10:05 AM

Originally posted by OnTheDeck

My question to you now is where is the law that states that every U.S. "private, individual person" must by law pay an income tax on their earned wages or face fines and imprisonment for failing to do so?

If you can provide a law that specifically states the above, I can assure you we will have a lot more to talk about.

ok, here goes......

16th Amendment
In 1895, in the Supreme Court case of Pollock v Farmer's Loan and Trust (157 U.S. 429), the Court disallowed a federal tax on income from real property. The tax was designed to be an indirect tax, which would mean that states need not contribute portions of a whole relative to its census figures. The Court, however, ruled that the tax was a direct tax and subject to apportionment. This was the last in a series of conflicting court decisions dating back to the Civil War. Between 1895 and 1909, when the amendment was passed by Congress, the Court began to back down on its position, as it became clear not only to accountants but to everyone that the solvency of the nation was in jeopardy. In a series of cases, the definition of "direct tax" was modified, bent, twisted, and coaxed to allow more taxation efforts that approached an income tax.

Finally, with the ratification of the 16th Amendment, any doubt was removed. The text of the Amendment makes it clear that though the categories of direct and indirect taxation still exist, any determination that income tax is a direct tax will be irrelevant, because taxes on incomes, from salary or from real estate, are explicitly to be treated as indirect. The Congress passed the Amendment on July 12, 1909, and it was ratified on February 3, 1913 (1,302 days).

Amendment XVI: Income taxes
The Sixteenth Amendment was proposed on July 12, 1909, and ratified on February 3, 1913.

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.

income tax
A tax levied on net personal or business income.

i think the above shows the power of the government to levi taxes on "personal income"

now, as to the question of the power to put people in jail who dont pay, i dont know.


posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 06:43 PM
Hi, JSR!

OK, this is what I've found.

First, you're making references to the 16th Amendment, which was not properly ratified. This fact has not (and apparently cannot) be disputed by the United States government, or any authority under our government, because the elements necessary to properly ratify the 16th Amendment were not present.

This is a fact which was proven and documented by Bill Benson and M.J. Beckman, who traveled to every state that was a part of the Union back in 1913, and researched the voting records and other pertinent data from each of the state legislature's historical archives.

Their research is contained within a two-volume set entitled, "The Law That Never Was". The inescapable conclusion of their research is that the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified. SOURCE

It's not important for our purposes, however, as to whether or not the 16th Amendment was properly ratified or not, because the 16th Amendment does not create any new items, nor does it place any item in conflict with the Constitution (i.e., create a “direct tax” on income earned from employment by “private, individual, natural” persons).

The 16th Amendment simply added the protection of making the income tax forever an excise tax that would not have to be apportioned. According to the court, the Amendment was to take the income tax out of consideration as a direct tax in keeping with our Constitution.

The 16th Amendment has been used as a smoke screen by the IRS to pull the wool over the eyes of those ignorant to the contents of our Constitution, and those without an intimate understanding of the rule of law in this country.

You’ve made emphasis in the following passage,

“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.”

In my previous post, I made mention of our government’s use in legal documents of “words”, the definitions of which can be discovered in any public dictionary (esp. at the time the specific word(s) was used), and “terms”, like “person”, “income” and “taxpayer”, which do not have a more forthright, common usage, and in legal articles, the definitions of which must be specified within the context of the codes, sections and subsections that contain them.

With regard to use of the term “income” I have found the following regarding what has been called “Constitutional Income”:

Section 61(a) of the Internal Revenue Code defines "gross income" as "all income" from whatever source derived, but does not define "income." [See 26 U.S.C. º 61(a)] In Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920), the United States Supreme Court held that Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude what "income" is, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised. [See Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920)] 4. The definition of income as it appears in Section 61(a) is based upon the 16th Amendment and that the word is used in its constitutional sense. House Report No. 1337; Senate Report No. 1622; U.S. Code Cong. and Admin. News, 83rd Congress, 2nd Session, pages 4155 and 4802, respectively, 1954.


You also find a definition for the “common” phrase “income tax” in the free dictionary. Unfortunately, if “terms” were as easily interpreted there would be no use for specific, contextual definitions of terms in legal documents such as our Constitution, and any dictionary definition would hold true in all accounts. This is not the case, and it was not at the time our Constitution, or the 16th Amendment were created.

I submit that the government, courts, and the IRS have manipulated and intimidated people into believing they are, every “individual, private, and natural” one of us, bound by law to pay income tax on wages earned through employment, or be fined and imprisoned for breaking a non-existent income tax law.

The 16th Amendment did not create an income tax, and the “income tax” that existed prior to this article has a definition(s) had meanings and connotations other than the above.

The Internal Revenue Service is a private corporation that works in collusion with the United States government to collect “voluntary” income taxes from what it terms “taxpayers”, whom it has duped through complex documents, sophistry, intimidation, and legal maneuvering that is unethical, dishonest and often unlawful.

The Internal Revenue Code is not law. The IRC is based on deceptive and carefully structured wording that leads people to believe that there is a law compelling “private, individual, natural” persons to pay income taxes on their income earned from employment.

The guidelines and “rules” included in the IRC are explicitly said to apply to “taxpayers” and “taxable income”. One has to be very careful when reading these documents, and not just assume that one falls under this category. This is where the deception lies.

The terminology used in the Internal Revenue Code is deliberately misleading. The average American who reads words such as “citizen”, “taxpayer”, “state”, etc. in the tax code without fully understanding the true legal definitions, will fail to see that in fact, they are excluded, and are not subject to the income tax laws of the U.S.



[edit on 13-2-2007 by OnTheDeck]

[edit on 13-2-2007 by OnTheDeck]

[edit on 13-2-2007 by OnTheDeck]

[edit on 13-2-2007 by OnTheDeck]

posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 06:47 PM
When defendants in income tax cases attempt to defend their position by arguing the law, the courts in collusion with the IRS often deny the defendants their right to due process; to present and argue their case in a court of law. This is unconstitutional.

The Fifth Amendment prohibits the government from compelling an American to be a witness against himself.

The IRS currently uses the following: Non-Custodial Miranda warning:

"In connection with my investigation of your tax liability I would like to ask you some questions. However, first I advise you that under the fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States I cannot compel you to answer any questions or to submit any information. If such answers or information might tend to incriminate you in any way, I also advise you that anything which you say and any documents which you submit may be used against you in any criminal proceeding which may be undertaken. I advise you further that you may, if you wish, seek the assistance of an attorney before responding." (See IRS Handbook for Special Agents.)

The Privacy Act and Paperwork Reduction Act notices currently used by the IRS provides that the information provided in the preparation of a tax return can go to the Department of Justice who prosecutes criminal cases against the filers of tax returns. (See IRS Form 1040 and Instruction Booklet.)

The United States Attorneys’ Bulletin, April 1998 edition, contained an article written by Joan Bainbridge Safford, Deputy United States Attorney, Northern District of Illinois, entitled: "Follow That Lead! Obtaining and Using Tax Information in a Non-Tax Case," hereinafter "Follow that Lead!".

"Follow that Lead!" states the following:

"In any criminal case where financial gain is the prominent motive, tax returns and return information can provide some of the most significant leads, corroborative evidence, and cross-examination material obtainable from any source."

"Follow that Lead!" states the following;

"In even the most straightforward fraud case, the usefulness of tax returns should be apparent . . . the tax return information provides a statement under penalty of perjury which may either serve as circumstantial evidence of the target’ misrepresentation of his economic status or as helpful cross-examination material . . . Disclosure of tax returns may also provide critical leads and impeachment material."
The Disclosure, Privacy Act, and Paperwork Reduction Act Notice set out in the IRS Form 1040 Instruction Booklet states the following:

"[W]e may disclose your tax information to the Department of Justice, to enforce the tax

laws, both civil and criminal, and to cities, states, the District of Columbia, U.S.

Commonwealths or possessions, and certain foreign governments to carry out their tax

Tax returns are used by the IRS to develop civil and criminal cases against the filers of the tax returns. (See "Follow that Lead!")

Tax returns of a filer are used as evidence against the filer in both civil and criminal income tax cases. (See Annotations, Title 26, Sections 7201,7203)

The United States Supreme Court has held that a fifth amendment privilege exists against
requiring a person to admit or deny he has documents which th e government believes is related to the federal income tax. [See United States v. Doe, 465 U.S. 605 (1984)]

The Fifth Amendment provides an absolute defense to tax crimes. (See United States v. Heise, 709 F.2d 449, 450 (6th Cir. 1983); Garner v. United States , 424 U.S. 648, 662-63 (1976).)

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit took the position in U.S. v. Conklin, (1994), WL 504211, that the filing of an income tax return (Form 1040) is not compelled and, therefore, the principle that no one may be forced to waive their 5th Amendment rights in order to comply with a law is not applicable to federal income tax returns. (See U.S. v. Conklin, (1994), WL 504211)

The Supreme Court has held that if one wants to assert the Fifth Amendment to an issue pertaining to a federal income tax return, one must make that claim on the form itself. ( Sullivan v.United States, 274 U.S. 259 (1927).)

If one claims Fifth Amendment protection on an income tax form, that act can result in criminal prosecution for failure to file income tax returns, income tax evasion, or conspiracy to defraud. [See United States v. Waldeck , 909 F.2d 555, 561 (1st Cir. 1990)]


To avoid explicitly ruling that citizens are, in fact, protected by the 5th Amendment while filing tax returns, a federal Court of Appeals ruled, instead, that the 5th Amendment does not apply to tax returns because the 5th Amendment only applies to compelled testimony. Ergo, filing a tax return is not compelled, it is voluntary.


The IRS has been operating under a policy and philosophy that filing tax returns and being “liable” for taxes is “voluntary”. An Associated Press article details this.

"IRS failing to collect millions, report says
'92 audit level was half what it was in '81

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - The Internal Revenue Service failed to collect $127 billion in taxes from 1992. Yet audits that might have curbed the ever-growing tax gap were conducted at half the rate of 11 years earlier, a congressional report says.

"IRS major enforcement activities have not grown over the past decade," according to the General Accounting Office, the auditing arm of Congress.
From 1981 to 1992, the odds of getting audited fell from l-in-20 to l-in-33 for corporations and from l-in-56 to 1-in-110 for individuals.

Those numbers may be misleadingly optimistic, the congressional agency said.

"IRS classifies certain taxpayer contacts as audits, when in fact taxpayers' books and records were not examined," it said.

The $127 billion tax gap in 1992, the latest year available, was 67 percent larger than the $76 billion gap in 1981. If all of it had been collected, it would have cut the record $290 billion budget deficit of 1992 nearly in half.

The gap represented 18 percent of what taxpayers owed the government. IRS Commissioner Margaret Milner Richardson has vowed to reduce that to 10 percent by the year 2000.

Frank Keith, a spokesman for the IRS, said the compliance rate should start improving noticeably in several years as the IRS brings more-modern computer equipment on line and completes research that should better identify taxpayers who are most likely to pay less than they owe.

But the report notes that Congress has been funding stepped-up enforcement efforts since the late 1980s, with poor results.

"Enforcement staffing has been declining since 1988 and is about what is was in 1987. Because of overall budget shortfalls, IRS has reallocated funds from compliance initiatives to non-enforcement efforts, such as returns processing," the report says.

The compliance and enforcement staff declined from 57,470 in 1988 to 51,305 in 1992.

The report recommends that the IRS more strongly focus its compliance efforts on areas most likely to bear fruit, such as small companies and sole proprietorships, without waiting for the results of research.

Simply doing a better job of matching financial information, such as forms on partnership income, to taxpayers' returns should yield large results, it says.

The report also urges the IRS to revamp procedures to emphasize early telephone contact with delinquent taxpayers rather using the mail. And it said that if the IRS did a better job of answering its phones, taxpayers would be less likely to pay too little."



[edit on 13-2-2007 by OnTheDeck]

[edit on 13-2-2007 by OnTheDeck]

posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 06:55 PM
If it were a law that every “individual, private, natural” person “must” pay an income tax on their income earned from employment, then this law would have been presented in court and set precedent. But it has not.

Instead, the IRS has created a very complex and very misleading manual called the Internal Revenue Code, which was designed to be the next best thing to a law; and that is to create a document so labyrinthine, complicated, and carefully constructed as to convince anyone who reads it that they are bound by law to adhere to its dictates.

But if you are careful in discerning the text contained in the Internal Revenue Code, you will plainly see that we are not. There is no law. And the IRS, Justice Department, Supreme Court, and the United States government have not been able to provide a law stating so.

1. The word "includes" is defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(c) as follows:

TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 79 > Sec. 7701. Sec. 7701. – Definitions (c) Includes and including The terms ''includes'' and ''including'' when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.

2. The word "includes" is defined by the Treasury in the Federal Register as follows:

Treasury Definition 3980, Vol. 29, January-December, 1927, pgs. 64 and 65 defines the words includes and including as: "(1) To comprise, comprehend, or embrace…(2) To enclose within; contain; confine…But granting that the word ‘including’ is a term of enlargement, it is clear that it only performs that office by introducing the specific elements constituting the enlargement. It thus, and thus only, enlarges the otherwise more limited, preceding general language…The word ‘including’ is obviously used in the sense of its synonyms, comprising; comprehending; embracing."

3. The definition of the word "includes" found in Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 763 is as follows:

"Include. (Lat. Inclaudere, to shut in. keep within.) To confine within, hold as an inclosure. Take in, attain, shut up, contain, inclose, comprise, comprehend, embrace, involve. Term may, according to context, express an enlargement and have the meaning of and or in addition to, or merely specify a particular thing already included within general words theretofore used. "Including" within statute is interpreted as a word of enlargement or of illustrative application as well as a word of limitation. Premier Products Co. v. Cameron, 240 Or. 123, 400 P.2d 227, 228."

4. If the meaning of the word "includes" as used in the Internal Revenue Code is "and" or "in addition to" as described above, then the code cannot define or confine the precise meaning of the following words that use "include" in their definition: § "State" found in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(10) and 4 U.S.C. §110 § "United States" found in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) § "employee" found in 26 U.S.C. §3401(c ) and 26 CFR §31.3401(c )-1 § "person" found in 26 CFR 301.6671-1 (which governs who is liable for penalties under Internal Revenue Code)

5. If the meaning of "includes" as used in the definitions above is "and" or "in addition to", then the code cannot define any of the words described, based on the definition of the word "definition" found in Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 423:

definition: (Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 423) A description of a thing by its properties; an explanation of the meaning of a word or term. The process of stating the exact meaning of a word by means of other words . Such a description of the thing defined, including all essential elements and excluding all nonessential, as to distinguish it from all other things and classes."

6. Absent concrete definitions of the above critical words identified in question 417, the meaning of the words becomes ambiguous, unclear, and subjective.

7. When the interpretation of a statute or regulation is unclear or ambiguous, then the by the rules of statutory construction, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the taxpayer as indicated in the cite from the Supreme Court below:

"In view of other settled rules of statutory construction, which teach that a law is presumed, in the absence of clear expression to the contrary, to operate prospectively; that, if doubt exists as to the construction of a taxing statute, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the taxpayer..." Hassett v. Welch., 303 US 303, pp. 314 - 315, 82 L Ed 858. (1938) (emphasis added)

8. In the majority of cases, doubts about the interpretation of the tax code are resolved in favor of the taxpayer by any federal court as required by the Supreme Court above.

9. An ambiguous meaning for a word violates the requirement for due process of law by preventing a person of average intelligence from being able to clearly understand what the law requires and does not require of him, thus making it impossible at worst or very difficult at best to know if he is following the law.


When defendants in these cases cite the law, they are silenced and overruled; their due process revoked and their constitutional rights violated.

Now, it should be noted that although there is no law that states that every “individual, private, natural” person “must” pay an income tax on their income earned from employment, that anyone who “voluntary” enters a “contract” with the IRS through a very limited number of ways (including filling out and signing tax related documents), then those individuals enter a contract as a “taxpayer” and must honor the conditions of that contract. This is a different story entirely, and does not involve what would properly, constitutionally be called a “Capitation Tax” (or more common “income tax” law).

One has to be careful when reading the IRC. Reading cautions such as, “Failure to file a tax return could subject the noncomplying individual to criminal penalties, including fines and imprisonment, as well as civil penalties…”.

Items such as these can be read with the understanding that one is breaking a law by not filing, but the entire section and related sections and codes must be read and understood. When one does this in a discerning manner, there should be nothing that is left unclear (as much as that is what the IRS would like).

Without the “force and effect” of law, all the IRS has left is simple deception and legerdemain. Unfortunately, they also have the support of kangaroo courts, who blindly dispense justice at the expense of our constitutional rights and respect for the rule of law.

“The IRS refers to the income tax as voluntary but prosecutes individuals who do not "volunteer" in violation of the law.” Bill Conklin

Some good research material at Conklin’s site as well.


Irwin Schiff indicates in one of his cases that the Justice Department did not provide the income tax law that Schiff allegedly had broken, but claimed that all of the statutes combined in essence “created” an income tax law that Schiff had broken and along with objections by the judge denying Schiff’s right to defend himself, landed him a conviction.


If there is the possibility that American citizens are having their possessions taken, fines levied to them, if they are unlawfully imprisoned, or their lives destroyed, and there is no legal justification for doing so, then it should outrage anyone aware of this, and conscience should dictate that these matters are at least looked into before they are dismissed outright on the presumption that our government, courts of law, and the assumed agents of our government are beyond reproach.

"No Answers, No Taxes!"

[edit on 13-2-2007 by OnTheDeck]


posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 06:29 PM
did you have to write a book to say i was wrong?

ill need time to go over this.
i will respond.


posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 08:25 PM
ok, i just dont have to time to do research.
i will have to bow out of this one.

although, i would like to add, it just seems very strange that you dont have to pay income taxes and yet, everybody still does.

as i said, i dont have the time to battle all the well researched web sites that have been posted.

so, i will have to say uncle.......sorry.

posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 07:39 AM
I didn't mean to write a book, but I didn't feel just saying I felt you were wrong was good enough. LOL

Also, I hadn't probed too much into this subject, and when I did, I was angry to see that people may have had their lives destroyed by a criminal seizure of property/money and/or incarceration. Wrong wrong wrong!!

This is unjust! Now, what I did find in my research was that although there was not a law, that each individual who essentially filled out a, I think, 1040 form, or proffered their Social Security number, or similar information to the IRS on certain forms, and then signed these forms, essentially entered into a contract with the IRS. This is different from a law.

The IRS is not a branch of the government. The IRS is a branch of the Federal Reserve and the Federal Reserve is a private organization. The Federal Reserve is not a branch of the government. In 1913, when the Reserve was created, it was made to look respectable by placing it under the control of a Board appointed by the President. It does not have the power to create laws, and does not have the force and effect of law to act as an agent of the Secretary of the Treasury (I believe), or to enforce the law.

Here are two links to begin reading on the reserve --
LINK 1 -- LINK 2.

Part of my problem is the labyrinthine nature of the Internal Revenue Code and laws in general. The Constitution of the United States, what I consider to be one of the most important documents in human history, was only one page.

Our forefathers understood the power of clear language. And it is clear to me that this language was to be understood by the common man; its audience was clear from the content and the form that that document took.

To me, the obvious purpose of the Internal Revenue Code is to confuse and mislead, rather than to inform. This is partly where the focus of our outrage should be placed; it should also be brought to bear against the government of the United States.

What's also frustrating is that our government and the IRS have already stated that there will be no accounting as to where our income taxes are spent. In fact, if you research you will find that our tax dollars are not going into schools and paying for law enforcement (laugh), but are being paid toward the budget deficit, which was created by the federal government's reckless spending. We're paying for our government to play.

This is how we have super military system, while our children suffer under substandard school systems. Our government's priorities are clear: through taxes and poor education they can keep their populace poor, controlled and in check, while they play and grab for more and more power...OK, that's an oversimplification, but the system's broke. No doubt.

Beyond that, it's a fact that U.S. citizens by nature ARE NOT LIABLE TO PAY INCOME TAX. To be liable, you must meet a certain number of criteria.

If you read the privacy notice I mention in a previous post (above) you will see that the IRS's Privacy Act disclosure.

This Privacy Act document, which the IRS is required to give (under 5 USC 552a 5(e)(1) of the act) to every "individual who is asked to supply information." This document is IRS Privacy Act Notice # 609:

"Our legal right to ask for information is Internal Revenue Code sections 6001, 6011, and 6012 and their regulations. They say that you must file a return or statement with us for any tax you are liable for." (Note: Sec. 6012 was added to the notice in 1984.)

Section 6001 states in pertinent part: "Every person liable for any tax imposed by this title. . . shall keep such records, render such statements, make such returns...."

Section 6011 states in pertinent part: "When required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary, any person made liable for any tax imposed by this title... shall a return or statement...."

Section 6012 states in pertinent part: "Returns with respect to income taxes under subtitle A shall be made the following: (1)(A) Every individual having for the taxable year gross income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount except that a return shall not be

These sections state that you must file a return in respect to income taxes if you are a "person liable" or a "person made liable" and you have for
the "taxable year" under subtitle A, gross income exceeding the exemption amount.


So take a trip through all of the code and see for yourself if you qualify (Hint: you can't just have a job and make money to qualify. Your labor cannot be taxed unless you meet specific criteria).

All of the intimidation and obfuscation perpetrated by the IRS may not be ethical, but for the most part it is legal. In fact, I was going to say that is, "until the IRS unjustly imprisons individuals not liable to pay income taxes", but it is the federal government that should be held to answer for enforcing laws that do not exist.

The IRS is doing its level best to mislead people into thinking they are liable for income taxes, but like any deceptive business practices, this sort of behavior is technically legal and allowed to continue.

I will continue to pay, because I don't want to go to jail, and I can't afford fines or litigation. I also know that I have signed information over to the IRS, and as much as they would like me to believe it is a law, I have just signed a contract, and for now I will continue to pay taxes.

It should be clear, however, that just because I am afraid of being incarcerated does not mean I doubt the law doesn't exist, or I feel my incarceration would be just. I just happen to know that when our government is concerned, the rule of law is trumped by the rule of Bush (and those in power who take umbrage at us citizens who beat them at their own game).

[edit on 19-2-2007 by OnTheDeck]

[edit on 19-2-2007 by OnTheDeck]

[edit on 19-2-2007 by OnTheDeck]

[edit on 19-2-2007 by OnTheDeck]

[edit on 19-2-2007 by OnTheDeck]

[edit on 19-2-2007 by OnTheDeck]

posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 09:15 AM
Look at the IRS website -- LINK. Is this a convoluted quagmire or what?! How the hell does a layperson navigate this f'ng site?! Also misleading is the website extension ".gov".

Be careful how you read information on the IRS site. Having a "myth vs facts" section is very misleading. Notice how carefully worded these items are, and which passages they pull from the IRC (Internal Revenue Code). These items are misleading without proper context, and this is where a lot of people become confused.

There are a lot of threats of incarceration and other punishments for individuals they refer to as "taxpayers" (Note that "taxpayer" is not synonymous with "citizen", "person", "American", or any other designation not specifically defined as a "taxpayer" in the Internal Revenue Code).

Our government, and the IRS do lie, mislead, and act unlawfully and unethically. If, as a conscientious citizen of the United States, or any other country, you don't recognize this sad truth, then you have a long way to go.

For example, with regard to our government's use of deception here are some pertinent passages:

Unfortunately, when the government lies, it's a lot harder to pin down the lie. The government pays very good money, to some very skilled lawyers, to formulate very well structured lies, so we need to be very sharp to catch their lies. Fortunately, all their lies (at least about the law) rely on just a few readily discernable methods of misleading you. The government does not tell you a direct lie to your face. That would be much too easy to catch. Instead the government relies on the deceptive use of "legal terms" that you don't understand the meaning of, nor are you even aware that the "words" you're reading are actually "legal terms" that have been defined by the government to mean something completely different than what you think they mean in plain English.

Additionally, the government uses "jurisdictional context" as a means of confusing the average American. The vast majority of Americans believe that when they read a publication written by a government agency, it has been written with the intention of clarifying matters for the Citizen. The reality is just the opposite. Let's look at an example to illustrate the point:

The Federal Food and Drug Act is only applicable in matters involving interstate or foreign commerce. In other words, if you make a cosmetic cream and sell it only within your state, the FDA has no jurisdiction to regulate your product. However, a hypothetical section of the Federal Food and Drug Act might state, "Every cosmetic product manufactured in the United States must be..."[blah, blah, blah]. However, because the context of the Act is that it applies only to interstate and foreign commerce, the legislative draftsmen who wrote the law intentionally left that part out when selecting the specific language to be used. If they had been forthright, the statute would read as, "Every cosmetic product manufactured in the United States, and shipped in interstate or foreign commerce, must be...".
[Editor's Note: Many statutes passed in the 1930s, 40s, and 50s included such forthright language, but during the 70's and 80's most of that language was amended out of the law. We must now refer to the text of the original statutes to find the true limits of the government's authority]

However, because the context of the entire Act is interstate and foreign commerce, those words are deemed unnecessary when constructing an individual statute within the Act. The problem arises when the government puts out an "informational" publication in which it states, "Under section 15000 of the Federal Food and Drug Act, the Federal Food and Drug Administration has regulatory authority over 'every cosmetic product manufactured in the United States'". Are they lying? It depends on your point of view. Do you believe that when the government communicates with its Citizens it is at liberty to intentionally leave out relevant and critical facts that alter the very foundations of the authority it is asserting? We don't believe that government has that right. We believe that when government leaves out relevant and critical facts of which the Citizen should rightly be informed, the government is lying by omission. The justification that the government is "merely citing the text of the statute" does not wash if the Citizen is being denied information that is relevant to the government's claim of authority; especially if such an omission would reasonably operate against the Citizen and his rights. The same "lying by omission" issue can be seen in the government's use of "legal terms" instead of regular words. If the government issues a publication to purportedly inform the public on a particular issue, and that publication addresses "buildings", but fails to tell you that they've defined "buildings" (in the law being discussed) as "…such free standing structures used for business purposes that exceed 200 feet in total height". Without that definition being provided to you, you might easily misconstrue the law to apply to your own home!


A further illustration of misleading language is the following:

"The IRS and Treasury have issued a notice warning taxpayers that if they file returns under the theory that U.S. citizens and residents aren't subject to tax on their wages and other income earned or derived within the United States, they may be subject to penalties."

Truth - This is an excellent example of IRS "word-smithing". First, note that the IRS has warned "taxpayers" (not the public generally). This is because the federal courts have ruled that Congress makes no tax laws that apply to nontaxpayers!

"The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law. With them [nontaxpayers] Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of the revenue laws". [emphasis added]
Economy Plumbing and Heating Co. v. US, 470 F. 2d 585 (1972)

In so far as the IRS statement applies exclusively to "taxpayers", it is correct because a "taxpayer" is defined in the IRC as "a person liable for any internal revenue tax". So, to claim to be a taxpayer, and then to claim that you're not liable for taxes that apply to taxpayers is silly. The true question that needs to be asked is, "Who is a taxpayer and who is not?" [See Federal Income Tax and State Income Tax to assist you in determining if you are a taxpayer.]


Lying liars and the lies they tell...

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4 >>

log in