0 votes

IRS: Failure To File, let's address something shall we? Do we have a major labor dispute?

I've got a question: Maybe some of my legal friends here can help me out.

Do We Have A Major Labor Dispute Here?

The IRS comes after you for "Failure To File", but they sure do seem to leave out one important little bit of info: Who is actually liable for the tax?

Well, lets put on our reading glasses and take a look shall we?

If we go to USC Title 26 ss 6331 and read Section A, we get this:

Excerpt: " Levy may be made upon the accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee, or elected official, of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia, by serving a notice of levy on the employer (as defined in section 3401(d)) of such officer, employee, or elected official."

Source: http://www.law.cornell.ed...

Yeah, they seem to conveniently leave out Section A, but sure are quick to point out Section B (wink).

Are YOU an officer, employee, or elected official, of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia?

If you're not, and they are charging you a tax on your income, don't we have labor dispute here? Um, I haven't received my government check yet, have you? I mean it says right there in their very own code, that they may Levy wages of officers, employees, etc. of the United States, the District of Columbia, etc. which is fine IF you're an officer, employee, etc. of that Corp/Territory.

But what about those of us who are not? Are they just presuming we are? And if so, should we at least rebut those presumptions? I mean I'm not real smart, just a dumb ol hill-billy and all, but these are things that should be asked, wouldn't you agree?

Now lets ask another question: Why are they bringing YOU into US District Court in a case labeled UNITED STATES vs JOHN DOE, when on Feb, 21st. 1871 they passed the "District of Columbia Organic Act" ultimately dissolving the United States and is now the seat of government and not the USofA?

Should they be bringing you into the district court of the United States instead of the United States District Court? (spelling and capitalization do mean something, as well as the order of the words).

Again, I'm just asking questions here. Let's continue ...

The District of Columbia is a Territory and has jurisdiction over a territory (not a state) and the last time I checked, the state of (place state here) was not a TERRITORY. I'm not the one saying the District of Columbia is a Territory, THE CONGRESS says it.

So why isn't the District of Columbia bringing these charges against you instead? Could it be because legally they can't? Could it be because you're not domiciled in that Territory and they have no jurisdiction over you? Could it be because they're assuming you don't know this and are just hoodwinking you into believing you are liable for the tax, and that the United States has the jurisdiction to address you in this matter?

Does the United States, UNITED STATES even have jurisdiction in this deal?

I mean subject matter jurisdiction does matter, doesn't it?

**Scratches Head**

Things that make you go Hmmmmmmm :/

Just a thought: They tricked us into believing Federal Reserve Notes were real money, which they are not. So if it's not real money, but only a "promise to pay me some real money at some time in the future", then beside the fact that I'm not a government employee as listed above as the only one's liable for the tax, how can they (a.)charge me a tax on income I've never received, and (b.)presume I'm a government employee that's actually liable for the tax? (c.) presume I'm domiciled in the Territory known as the District of Columbia? (d.)somehow have forgotten to send me my government check on the 1st and 15th, since they've been taking money out of my non-gov't check since the time I turned 18?(e.) possibly rebut all the claims made here...


Now another question:

Didn't the US file for Bankruptcy in 1933? If so, It's not YOU that doesn't have the money folks, it's THEM! Didn't they pass HJR-192 stating all public debt is now prepaid as a remedy for stealing your gold? That gold was your REAL money; they just replaced it with paper, and we bought it, hook line and sinker?

I guess I'm not real smart, maybe I should just go back to sleep like everyone else and forget it.

You have never been paid one red cent for any labor you've ever provided, it's a pipe dream.

If we don't hang together, we will surely hang separately.

Again, this is not in any way shape or form legal advice; only my opinions and questions. Do your own research!

Any of you legal beagle's or IRS agents out there that can offer me some help in this matter, feel free to jump right in and correct my assumption THAT this is all fraud, flat on it's face. Just post your comments in the comment section below so it's on the record :)

What's that you say? I can't bring up the bankruptcy and DoC Organic Act of 1871 in court? Ummm, can I object? I think this may be obstruction of justice; I think maybe someone is violating Title 18 (1503, 1621, 1346 and others).

And just in case this is being brought into this court as a criminal case under Title 50 "The Trading With the Enemy Act" ........ I come in peace :)

Edit: I forgot to give special Thank You to Rod Class who's taught me a lot this information via his radio shows on talkshoe.com


Just go listen to the last two shows on 4-10-2012 by scrolling down the page and finding the archives.

Is it possible we've making this whole IRS issue a lot harder than it needs to be?

Forget the IRS code/statutes, etc. and just address the main issue of the 1933 Bankruptcy; the fact there is no money; the fact you're trying to extort a tax out me, yet YOU the IRS/Gov have never paid me one red cent as being the employee you're assuming I am, and therefor, I think we have a MAJOR LABOR DISPUTE on our hands.

Everyone's trying to fight the codes and figure out some way around this and that; dig up some loop hole here and there, why not just go straight to the ROOT of the whole damn problem as soon as they approach you and never step a foot in a courtroom?

Have you studied Rod's IRS case with David Buess? This has been going on for 3 years. The IRS has changed paperwork headings; tried to move it to another jurisdiction; tried to switch Judges; tried to make this case GO AWAY, and Rod just keeps dragging them back into court. Now he's taking it to the Supreme Court; of course they won't hear it, but at least that proves his defense works. It's simple what's he's addressing in the court papers, and they don't want to deal with him anymore.

Wonder Why?

Go here and read Rod's IRS and NC Traffic Case, as well as get yourself a nice copy of the "Secret IRS Agent Handbook" where it says right on the front cover, that "The income tax is 100% voluntary" and "This book is NOT to be shared with anyone outside the agency" (I'm paraphrasing those quotes, but that's the gist of it) ... http://rayservers.com/blog

Rod (and neither should you) is not arguing whether or not the income tax is Constitutional, legal, etc. he's arguing "procedure"; they aren't following their own procedures, and this case will show you how to call them out on it.

God Bless you Rod, and all other's who've went before him and are currently in the fight to get this foreign corp out of our hair. One day soon, may those in prison be set free, because most of them seem to have committed no crime.

In Liberty.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

UPDATE: Everyone needs to read through the comments below.

Once you watch Dean Clifford's seminars, you will come to understand how they are "presuming" you owe taxes by "presuming" you were operating in the capacity of a gov't agent and operating thru the "title" on the birth certificate, which is the "legal fiction" name when you made the money they claim you owe taxes on.

************* READ THE COMMENTS BELOW THIS *******************

There is some very good information in the comments below that will help you understand the government is "presuming" you're operating thru the "title" on the birth certificate; the "legal fiction" name.

If you don't rebut that presumption, they'll assume you made the money they claim you owe in taxes while operating in the capacity of an government agent thru that "title", the "legal fiction".

They "split the title" on the original Record of Live Birth, and sent you another "title" to be known or recognized thru, and that "title" is the "legal fiction" name, and it does not matter if it's in all caps or not; it's not the "name" they are going after, it's the "title".

Please read all the comments below and watch Dean Clifford's videos, when this finally sinks in, you'll have a "holy crap, that's what their doing" moment.


UPDATE: I can't edit my original post, but wanted to add:

Perhaps instead of jumping through all these hoops and fighting the IRS with so called "frivolous" and "ridiculous" arguments as they call them, perhaps we should take a simpler approach?

When they say you owe, if you do owe according to their guidelines and USC Title 26 ss 6331:Section A, as listed in the original post, then by all my all means, do the right thing and pay the taxes owed.

But for those of us who are NOT qualified in USC Title 26 ss 6331:Section A, perhaps a simple "rebuttal" of their "presumptions" is the key?

If they claim you owe the tax, and you believe otherwise, maybe you should ask them to prove up their claim instead?

I mean wouldn't they have proof on file that at the time you made whatever money they say you owe taxes on, that you were actually "employed" as a government agent/employee?

Were you performing a gov't task; running gov't errands; operating in the capacity as a gov't agent, etc. at the time you made those funds?

Is running down and filing a 1040 just admitting under penalty of perjury that you made all that money that year operating as a government agent/employee?

I wonder if rebutting the so called "presumption" affidavit style through Registered Mail might help set the record straight on who "IS" and who "ISN'T" a government employee liable for the tax in their own code?

Surely if the so called "tax protesters" were really liable for the income tax, the government/IRS would have some type of proof of employment, right?

Maybe a few receipts proving you made that money while performing government duties?

Is our own ignorance and willingness to do the "Patriotic" thing what's actually destroying us?

And if they do absolutely insist that you are liable for that tax and you are a government employee as outlined in the USC above, and you've never received a gov't check from them, do we have a labor dispute to settle here?

I mean no one can force you to work for free right?

If they claim you owe the tax, then surely they have some sort of receipt or proof of payment, showing they DID pay you to perform gov't functions at the time you received that payment, right?

I wonder if "presumptions" of employment by gov't is something we should start "rebutting"?

Each his own, not legal advise, just food for thought.

Peace and God Bless.

Unfortunately it's NOT that

Unfortunately it's NOT that simple. 6331(a) allows for the levy of:

    "Levy may be made upon the accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee, or elected official, of the United States..."

By having the Social Security number, you ARE an officer, employee, or elected official of the US, also known as "federal Personnel". It is situations like this that te Govt. thrives on...presumption, and implication. For example, "citrus fruits includes oranges, lemons, and limes" is an apple a "citrus fruit"? NO, but a tangerine is, and so is a grapefruit, because they "are in the same general class".

See USC Title 26, 7701 for the meaning of including:

    (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.

USC Title 5, 552(a)

    (13) the term “Federal personnel” means officers and employees of the Government of the United States, members of the uniformed services (including members of the Reserve Components), individuals entitled to receive immediate or deferred retirement benefits under any retirement program of the Government of the United States (including survivor benefits).

Here we see that Officers, employees, individuals entitled to Social Security, and members of the uniformed service are all in the same category. This is because Social Security is a PRIVILEGE, not mandatory, and shows status as a UNITED STATES person.



I understand what you're saying, but ...

What they are doing is "presuming" us into employment by sending us a copy of the Certificate of Live Birth; it's like your very own Gov't ID badge, and we are adopting that "name" on the b/c as our own, not every really knowing who WE ARE.

When you send in the 1040 you are telling them that "all the money you've made that year", was made while "performing/operating in an official gov't capacity as the "name" on the ss card or b/certificate.

There are 2 sides of this: On the left, there's the "real you", your first name (ie: Johnnie), that's it, and/or the surname. This is the Constitutional side, still in full force and effect if you know how to stay on that side; the natural/civil side. This side they can NOT tax your income on, unless you let them "presume" otherwise.

Then there's the "presumed" gov't owned/employee'd side that's unknowingly adopted the "name" they sent you on the copy of the b/c, which is JOHN P. DOE or John P. Doe (doesn't matter) which falls under the statutes/rules/regulations/taxes, etc. of the corp side aka UNITED STATES, and on that side you are the beneficiary of the Trust agreement (birth certificate), but quickly get bumped to the Trustee position by contracting with the court, or not rebutting their presumptions that is you, and you made that money operating in the capacity of a gov't employee, officer, etc.

This is so simple once you figure out what's actually going on. We still have our "Constitutional Rights" as Kings on OUR land; they have no control over your life if you know WHO you really are.

They can't tax the "real" you, but they can do any thing they damn well please to the other "YOU", and they are operating 100% off of "presumptions" that you are one of their employees.

Everyone in this country needs to watch this seminar, it's very revealing as to what's actually happening.

Part 1 ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2pMJyIikCk&feature=relmfu
Part 2 ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvKu2UNHQpA&feature=fvwrel
Part 3 ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xLzKRdsNLU&feature=related

Here's the gist of it: The Queen has figured out a way to "presume" everyone back into captivity/control/taxable, etc. by this little program of sending out birth certificates (splitting the title) and we've unknowingly adopted that "name" and are running around town as full time foreign gov't employees with no right to b*tch or complain about taxes, especially if you're enjoying the employment benefits "they" are providing.

Or, you can rebut their "presumptions" that you are one of "theirs", and ask them to prove you were making your money while operating as one of "their" employees.

When you send in that 1040 every year, you're just flat a$$ coming out and admitting all that money you made that year, you made as one of "their" gov't employees.

We are living in the Land of "Presumptions", that's it; that's where all their power lies, in "presumptions".

They can not tax/imprison, etc (not legally anyway) the "real" you, who is still protected by the God given, Constitutional rights side of the equation, if they do, you've got retribution coming $$$.

although you may be correct,

although you may be correct, to lead both lives is dangerous, because it is difficult if not impossible to separate the "Human" from the "PERSON", especially when the courts refuse to recognize the difference. Furthermore the human is the signer and agent for the person and in some cases is responsible for the actions of the person.

Lastly, there is a maxim that any beneficiary has obligations.

Cal Civil Code 1589

A voluntary acceptance of the benefit of a transaction is equivalent to a consent to all the obligations arising from it, so far as the facts are known, or ought to be known, to the person accepting.

Food for thought:

Isn't extorting money out of us to pay off a debt owed to us a violation of our human rights? And if they're claiming you owe some tax as the man, can't you simply instruct the trustees/employees to discharge the debt since you are the beneficiary?

We are now (when you reach legal age) no longer playing the "name" game with respect to the trust/b-certificate solely in a Trust Law venue; it is now a "corporate law" venue, and we must look at it through a different glass.

Now we are shareholders of the corporate/legal fiction name, and the gov't is our employee(s), and their job is to provide you and I with the maximum amount of return possible, because we are the investors that keep their Corp UNITED STATES running; and as shareholders, we can appoint directors to the "legal fiction" name, which can be ourselves (the beneficiaries/investors).

The birth certificate is the only document we have that has their signature/stamp on it that proves they (the gov't) have an obligation to us; this is a good thing, you may need to operate in that capacity at some point.

Even with the social security card/scam and the use of definitions they've made for their own employees (person, etc), I would think they'd have to provide some sort of payroll record proving you were acting in "that" capacity as a public servant/employee/trustee, etc.at the time you made the money they claim you owe.

Just because we have the card, doesn't mean we were acting in that capacity at the time we made the money they claim we owe. If a policeman shows you his badge at a restaurant, does that mean he's on the job (receiving pay) at the time he showed you the badge?

The bottom line is: We are the shareholders/beneficiaries of the corporate-legal fiction name on the birth certificate, and the gov't is the employee/trustee; how can the employee of a corporation extort taxes out of an investor/shareholder of that corporation?

Here's Dean's video on "How can you prove you're not/was performing a function of Gov't at the time you made money, etc."


I've got a few thoughts, but still working on it. What say you?

except what was mandatory?

except what was mandatory? NOTHING! the birth certificate, social security, and other licenses are not mandatory. They dont issue you a number, YOU APPLY, thereby consenting to their terms. The IRS deals with contract law, until you star committing fraud or perjury, THEN it becomes criminal.

Well, to begin with:

The birth certificate was brought on by fraud by having the unknowing mother sign using her maiden name to give them legal authority to take ownership of the child by "splitting the title" and sending back a copy that you adopted as your identity from an early age, and used that birth certificate to get you into other adhesion contracts like the drivers license, and use that birth certificate "legal fiction" name as a form of identity to punish/control you with by way of trickery and deceit, and therefor use their statutory laws that are only meant for "them" to control you with.

Do you see anything wrong with that?

Did anyone tell you the sinister plan (fraud) was meant to enslave you and you had a choice to not file the certificate? Did anyone tell us in school that we really didn't have to have a drivers license, and if you did get one, you may be seen as an acting foreign gov't agent when you present it to an officer?

Did they tell you up front and honestly that the SS card was another fraud to entrap you when you signed for it?

It may not have been mandatory, but it sure as hell wasn't packaged that way, and the law marches forward on intent.

What was their "intent" when presenting you/educating you with the facts of signing into these contracts?

The intent was "slavery".

You can't get a drivers license without a birth certificate; you can't get a ss card without it, you can't do anything without admitting you're that "legal fiction" name on that document which binds you by contract to their slave racket.

I agree 100%, and yes, I see

I agree 100%, and yes, I see EVERYTHING wrong with that, BUT, that only makes these contracts VOIDABLE, NOT void!!!

Thinking they are automatically void is what lands a lot of people in trouble:

    We have long recognized that contracts obtained by fraud are not absolutely void, but are “voidable at the election of the parties affected by the fraud” and “binding until properly avoided.” Urner v. Sollenberger, 89 Md. 316, 332, 334, 43 A. 810, 811-12 (1899); see also Iseli v. Clapp, 254 Md. 664, 669-72, 255 A.2d 315, 318-19 (1969) (holding that a foreclosure rescue scam victim’s deed was voidable, but not as against innocent third parties); Hoffman v. Seth, 207 Md. 234, 239, 114 A.2d 58, 60 (1955) (stating that an agreement or conveyance procured by a false representation of a material fact is voidable, but not void); Wicklein v. Kidd, 149 Md. 412, 424-25, 131 A. 780, 784-85 (1926)

see also,


Americans MUST void the contracts that they have made!


Why would you void them?

If you've watched the video series "Both Sides of the Story" by Dean Clifford, and his other videos,


You'll see he's saying all you have to do is collapse the trust by sending back the birth certificate, drivers license, etc. which would be returning the equitable title, but why would you want to do that? They cannot prove you were operating "thru that title" and acting in the capacity of a gov't agent when you made the money, or got pulled over, unless they can provide a pay record proving you were operating as a gov't agent. That's where your affidavit comes in handy.

Example: You're saying I owe taxes on the statutory side? Well, I was never working as a gov't agent; or in that capacity; or thru that tile, when I made the money you claim I owe taxes on. And unless you can provide me with a payment history you have on file for me (this is just one point, there are others)within 10 days, then I simply can't agree with your "presumptions". Can they do that? No! unless you were operating in that capacity and they have pay records to prove it.

You may someday decide you want a government job, and if so, you can start operating "thru that title", the "legal fiction" name on the birth certificate; drivers license; ss card, etc.

They are creating "titles" and "presuming" you are operating in the capacity of an gov't agent "thru that title", and will continue to "presume" that until you rebut the "presumptions".

Then we have the matter of an hourly rate: If they want to employee you, then they can either agree or disagree with your terms; which could be $50,000.00 per hour if that's what you feel you're worth.

The burden of proof isn't on us to prove we were not operating in the capacity of; or thru that title, etc. If they are making a "presumption", then fine; now we can "rebut" that "presumption" via affidavit, and if they can't rebut your affidavit point by point, where do they have a leg to stand on?

Sam's Club can "claim" you owe them money in union fees all they want because you have a Sam's Club card in your pocket; they can make the "presumption" you're one of their employees all day long. But, for it to have any force or effect, they're going to have to provide you with proof of employment; pay stubs/records, etc. which would be their proof that you were actually operating in the capacity of an employee.

Not sure If I'm getting this point across correctly, but am trying. Folks need to go watch Dean Clifford's seminars, and you will come to understand the "titles" they are presuming you're operating thru on the statutory side, but they need to prove up their claim by showing records of employment.

We don't need to jump through hoops filling out all this BS Patriot paperwork and undoing contracts like we've all been doing for years; all we have to do is "rebut" their "presumption" we were operating thru that "title" at the time of the arrest or ticket; or at the time we made the money they claim you owe in taxes.

If you're a government employee and receiving a government check, then by all means, pay your taxes; they have the "proof" of employment and the "proof" of payment to back up their claims.

We've all been digging through code; statutes; rules; regs, etc. trying to find a loop hole or a way to void or undo these contracts, and all we really ever had to do was rebut the "presumption" we were operating in that capacity at the time. Their statutory rules, regulations, laws, statutes, etc. only apply to them on the statutory or legal fiction side, but they've tricked everyone into believing they also apply to us by "presuming" we are operating in the capacity of; and presuming we are operating thru that "title", and if you don't rebut the presumption, they'll just keep on presuming.

NOTE: A man/woman can operate thru several different "titles", for example: On Monday's and Wednesdays, you might be a manager at Star Bucks Coffee (that's one title), and on Tuesdays you're a roofer (that's another title), and on Thursday and Friday you're a dog groomer at your home business (that's another title).

They are just "presuming" you're operating thru the title they created for you (legal fiction name on birth certificate) as a government employee 365 days a year, get it?

Everyone really needs to watch his videos, it sure does simplify this mess, and explains it very well.

It's the "title"; that's where they are making the presumption. Understanding this "title" topic is very important. Our Inherent "title" is the name our parents gave us on the Record of Live Birth they sent to the gov't. The government "split the title" and created a trust and sent you back a Certificate of Live Birth, which created another "title"; a government employee title/license with the "legal fiction" name on it.

We left our Inherent "title" sitting on the back porch when we were children, and have been led to believe the "title" they created for us (the legal fiction)was our only "title".

Now another point: Why would anyone want to give up their birth certificate? That's your only proof of equitable title in the corporation known as the UNITED STATES. That corporation owes you and I, the people/natives of this land tax money for their use of our land. The taxes they are collecting from "their" employees, are to be paid to people of this land as a compensation to us for using up our natural resources, etc.

FOREIGNERS and FOREIGN Corporations pay taxes to the inhabitants or natives of the land. The Kings children pay no taxes. The foreigners are paying their own taxes to us, by extorting the money from us, by claiming we are one of them and operating through their "title" 24/7.

They are extorting tax money out of you and I to pay their own fees. That's like me stealing money out of your wallet and making the payments I owe you for the car you sold me with your own money.

Everyone really needs to watch Deans seminars, he really lays it out well, and when you finally "get it", it's one of those face palm moments.

Im not going to say you're

Im not going to say you're wrong, but I will tell you that I know 2 superior court judges, and one state supreme court judge and NONE of them would agree with you or know this.

I also know several attorneys, that would also not believe you or know what you are talking about...and almost every other attorney in the states would have no idea what you are saying, and these attorneys will someday be judges.

These attorneys and judges WILL agree that a notice of rescission of a document, or the voiding of a fraudulent contract is lawful and require proof from the moving party that my claim and affidavit isnt true. Judges and lawyers arent that experienced with "personhood" these days unfortunately, they think everyone is a person, and if a person has a social security number, then they are responsible for all actions associated with it.

Furthermore the litigation time is extensive. Easiest to rescind the SS number and never use it again.

None would agree or know this?

Okay, lets put it this way: Gov't/Corp.US didn't finalize the "legal fiction" or "agent in commerce", our signature did that.

Just because the gov't/corp.US is under the "presumption" that gives them jurisdiction over us, does it really?

Does jurisdiction follow money?

Well, if that's their "presumption", then surely they won't mind producing a contract we/you/us agreed to work for a certain dollar amount; or a payroll record showing we/you/us performed a function of government while making that money and they compensated we/you/us would they?

Isn't that one of the three fundamental principals of a contract?

1.Consent (would you have consented if you'd known the truth?)
2.Full Disclosure (did they tell you all they needed to?)
3.Valuable Consideration (Are we being paid for our services?)

Now, if we/you/us are performing a function of gov't/corp.US while making that money they claim we/you/us owe taxes on, then that means we must have been paid with "public money", right?

Are they operating on the "presumption" there is a contract already in place that fulfills the above 3 principals? How did applying for a SS card, create an infinite future contract/work relationship; and how does the mere possession of that card or bank account give them jurisdiction to tax any and all money that comes through there, or is made by us/you/we if we weren't performing a function of gov't/corp.US, and we haven't been paid for our time/labor?

Can they force us to work for free? Can they just "presume" us into a contract that has no valuable consideration on our behalf? Isn't that slavery?

Do they, or can they (corp.US/IRS) provide any proof or evidence stating we/I/you/us were "performing a function of government at the time we made that money?" Who's asking them to agree? We're asking them to prove up their claim is all. Just because we made money means nothing.

Hell yes I/you/we/us made money; it's our Inherent Right to do commerce and exist in society. Gov't cannot control all commerce; and a foreign corp. cannot control all commerce, can they?

If you work at McDonald's full time, is that acting as an agent of government? Hell, even if you live in the District of Columbia and work at McDonald's full time, does that mean you were performing as an agent of government at the time you made the money, just because you have an SS card in your pocket?

If that's the case, then couldn't McDonald's claim all gov't/corp.US employees who have an McDonald's ID badge in their pocket, owes McDonald's a tax on money their making while performing a function of gov't?

Unless I'm crazy, is there something on the ss card/bank account, etc. that states:

1. Now that you've applied for this card and opened a bank account, you're a trapped/doomed/taxed/slave to the foreign corp, no matter where you decide to work, even if it's at a coffee shop in NYC?

2. Now that you have possession of this card/birth cert/etc. every penny you make from this point on is considered money you made while employed by the federal gov't/corp.US, even if you work at a car wash?

3. Does it say on the card or application for the card, that if you present this card as ID to open a bank account or get employment anywhere in America, that from this point on, you're now considered a full time Gov't/Corp.US employee?

Is this slavery? Is this even possible? Can a foreign corporation show up on American soil and "force" us to come to work for them? I mean they provided an ID card, but that ID card doesn't mean we've got to clock in at City Hall tomorrow does it?

I have an ID card in my pocket for the Library; does that mean I'm a Librarian, and receiving a weekly paycheck from the person who owns the Library? Does that mean even though I'm working at McDonald's, I now owe a tax to the Library because I've got their card in my pocket; or I used the Library card as a form of identification to get employed by McDonald's, or open a bank account?

Do I need to rescind my Library card, so there's no confusion, or would it be wiser for me to rebut the Libraries claim I owe them a tax from my job at McDonald's by asking them to prove I was performing an act as a Librarian at the time I made the money at McDonald's they claim I owe them a tax on? What if I decide at some point, I'd like to go to work for the Library and rescinded my card?

What if I use my Library card as identification to open a Block Buster Video account? Does that obligate me from that point forward to pay a tax to the Library every time I rent a movie?

When someone files an application for a social security card, is that now an employment agreement stating you'll show up at the Social Security Administration tomorrow at 8AM ready for work? No, because if it was a contract of employment and you didn't show up, they'd simply fire you, not throw you in prison. Is this a slave racket?

How about if someone uses a drivers license/birth certificate/social security card as a form of ID to open a checking or saving account; does that "automagically" create a tax obligation to the folks that created those ID's every time they make a dollar, even if when they made that dollar, they was working at the car wash?

If so, does that mean the foreign corp US owns the car wash? How can they "own and control" everything? I don't think they can, legally, can they?

If that's the case, then to hell with an 8 to 5 job, I think I'll just start my very own-home based business of "making ID cards" and passing them out; and now everyone in the country running around with one of the ID cards I created owes me a tax, even if they aren't working for me at the time they made that money I'm claiming they owe a tax on.

What the hell kind of magic-money-thieving card is that? You carry it around and open a bank account with it (because that's what the bank asked for), and all of a sudden any money you make while selling star fish on the sea side in Sunny California automagically has a tax on it, that's due to the corp.US?

And just because a bank asked you for a social security # to open up a checking account, does that mean all money running through that account is money made while working as a gov't/foreign corp/agent?

And does the papers you sign at a bank when opening a checking/savings account inform you that if you open this account using an SS#, that the only money you can deposit or withdraw from that account is a government check that proves you were operating/performing a function of government when you made that money?

And does the bank inform you, that if you have a job at Taco Bell, Wal-Mart, Coffee Shop, Car Wash, KFC, or selling hot dogs out of the back of your Station Wagon, that you cannot deposit funds from those organisations/activities into that account, because those are not government agencies; and it would be fraud to do so?

Surely the bank wouldn't engage in a fraud like that, would they? I mean couldn't they be held accountable too? Is it against the "LAW" to deposit money you made at 7-11 while not on the gov't clock into that bank account since you used an SS card to open it?

I know the bank only accepts Federal Reserve notes for deposit, but does that mean you must be employed by the Federal Reserve before you can deposit or withdraw funds from their bank?

Are they making the claim that everyone in this country is "performing an act of government" while working their 9 to 5 just because they have an SS card? If that's the case, Block Buster Video could make the same claim, could they not?

If we're all government employees, does that mean we can all have access to military equipment; the pentagon; the White House; start carrying a state police badge and pulling over our fellow government employees and writing them tickets; pepper spraying our co-workers; get a government vehicle with dark tinted windows and a CB Radio and laptop inside; $75K per/year salary; walk into any coffee shop and flash a government badge and say "let me see your records"?

I wonder if they'd admit they are our employers if we just walked up to the pentagon; showed the guy at the front desk an SS card and said I need to speak to Admiral Johnson immediately, I'm from the government, here's my ID.

If so, are they also accepting responsibility for any accident you may have during the day; any medical bills you may acquire; any fuel you put in your tank; any insurance on vehicles, etc. I mean all this is an expense that can be absorbed by our employer, right?

Is it safe to say, that so called "contract" or "SS Card" is only active if and when you're operating in that capacity as a gov't agent, or thru that "title" at the time you made that money?

Here's another thought: What if I'm a part time corp.US employee and have another job as a weed picker on Tuesday's and Thursday's; and I deposit the money I make at my weed picking job into that bank account; does that mean I'm a government/corp.US employed "weed picker"?

Is there even a gov't/corp.US job like that available?

This is just common sense once you get your head out of the code book and statutes, and come back down to earth and shake off the "government is my master" syndrome.

In Liberty and Beyond!

I forgot to answer your

I forgot to answer your question specifically:

    If you work at McDonald's full time, is that acting as an agent of government? Hell, even if you live in the District of Columbia and work at McDonald's full time, does that mean you were performing as an agent of government at the time you made the money, just because you have an SS card in your pocket?

If you work at McDonalds AND you give McDonalds a Social Security number, making mcdonalds your witholding agent, then YES you are acting as an agent of government. BECAUSE, they are borrowing a chunk of your money and in return they will (eventually) pay you social security retirement benefits.

IF you're in D.C., Congress could literally take 100% of your pay as a direct tax if they wanted to. WHY? because the direct tax clause of the Constitution DOES NOT APPLY in D.C. or other territories, AND congress has "absolute legislative jurisdiction" in D.C. "absolute" is not a word the courts use often.

“It is clear that Congress, as a legislative body, exercise two species of legislative power: the one, limited as to its objects, but extending all over the Union: the other, an absolute, exclusive legislative power over the District of Columbia. The preliminary inquiry in the case now before the Court, is, by virtue of which of these authorities was the law in question passed?”
[Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, 6 Wheat. 265; 5 L.Ed. 257 (1821)]

EVERY TIME you use that S.S. number (or any other federal device) you are acting as Federal Personnel, and thereby part of the Government, and you know what the Constitution says about government:

Article 1, Section 8 clause 14 states:

[The Congress shall have Power To] make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

Congress has the Power to

Congress has the Power to make all rules for Government. THEY can tell marines that they have no freedom of speech, the most fundamental right.

THEREFORE, when you become a "citizen of the UNITED STATES" rather than a State Citizen you become a U.S. PERSON:

"A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government ..."
Kitchens v. Steele, 112 F.Supp 383

Then The SS card confirms it, then the Selective Service card, drivers license, marriage license etc. These are all CONFIRMATION contracts.

And why can they tell the Marine he/she have no freedom of

speech, and the Marine has to abide by that? Because the Marine is getting "PAID" for his services/employment. There's "valuable consideration" there.

Just because you're a "citizen of the UNITED STATES" does that give them legal authority to tax your income, even if you're not getting a weekly check from the UNITED STATES?

Can they "force" you into a labor contract where you receive no pay?

My Block Buster rental card "confirms" I have an account, does that mean they can tax my gov't/corp.US paycheck, just because I have a movie rental card in my pocket? Sure, if I don't rebut their "presumption".

Now, if Block Buster does charge me a tax because their under the "presumption" I'm an employee, and I do not rebut that "presumption", doesn't that mean we're in "agreement"?

So if the gov't/corp.US tells an employer he/she has to take $60.00 out of John Doe's check on Friday, and the employer doesn't rebut it; John Doe doesn't rebut it; does the gov't/corp.US have a "contract"?

Yes they do, and that's the mistake people are making: They are not rebutting the IRS's "presumption" that they are employees of the gov't/corp.US, and when you do not rebut that "presumption", it's called "agreement", and agreement of two parties is LAW.

I can write all the BS codes; statutes; rules I want for my own corporation; even a rule that says "anyone living in Texas" is considered an employ of my corporation. And lets say I start mailing every one in Texas a bill on the 1st and 15th claiming they owe me corporate union fees because I've "presumed" they are my employees.

If they don't rebut my "presumption", do I now have an enforceable contract?

1. Consent
2. Full Disclosure
3. Valuable Consideration

Am I paying them anything for their services, or just under the "presumption" they owe me something because they never rebutted my claim?

If they're dumb enough to send me $30.00 on the 1st and 15th and never rebut my presumption, then I guess that's "agreement" of two parties :)

The Consent is obvious in the

The Consent is obvious in the form of signatures, and the lack of a court hearing to void the contract

Full disclosure is debatable, all of the info is available. Do you read the entire code surrounding lotto tickets before you buy one? Do you read all of the codes and definitions before you buy a car or house? YOU have the responsibility of due diligence.

The consideration is abundant. Wellfare, food stamps, unemployment, social security benefits. Whether you have received these or not is not important, because a promise is consideration.
for example:

Langer v. Superior Steel Corp., 105 Pa. Super. 579, 161 A. 571 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1932).

THIS is why I suggest that one establishes fraud in the courts to remove the burden of these presumptions. Under your philosophy, you can keep the number, use it when you want, play your game of sovereign, then when you get sick of it, or if you get ill, reap the benefits of the democracy.

Under my philosophy, you reject all possible associations. I had to recind all money ever paid to SS, and declare that I would never request any benefits from the US INC.


Status of citizenship of United States is privilege, and Congress is free to attach any preconditions to its attainment that it deems fit and proper. > In re Thanner, D.C.Colo.1966, 253 F.Supp. 283. See, also, > Boyd v. Nebraska, Neb.1892, 12 S.Ct. 375, 143 U.S. 162, 36 L.Ed. 103; > Application of Bernasconi, D.C.Cal.1953, 113 F.Supp. 71; > In re Martinez, D.C.Pa.1947, 73 F.Supp. 101; > U.S. v. Morelli, D.C.Cal.1943, 55 F.Supp. 181; In re De Mayo, D.C.Mo.1938, 26 F.Supp. 696; > State v. Boyd, 1892, 51 N.W. 602, 31 Neb. 682.

What contract? ... Had to update this thread, it's been awhile

and new information has come about:


There is no contract, and unless they have an employment contract; proof of pay for your supposed employment, it's just a pipe dream on their behalf.

They can 'presume' all they like, but can the 'prove' a binding contract with valuable consideration exists? A contract with full disclosure and intentions, and is an Obligation attached to your already Inherent Birth Rights, really "valuable consideration" or nothing more than a breach of Trust?

The Certificate of Live Birth as a means of Identity is what they are using as their "presumption card"; that is the head of the snake as you'll see from the link(s)above.

they must be nervous enough about Section A to put out this

new publication http://www.dailypaul.com/225599/new-irs-pub-on-why-taxes-are...

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know Peace." - Jimi Hendrix

When Has The Truth Ever Been Complicated?

I've read THOUSANDS of cases, web links, arguments, etc. that are full of Supreme Court Cases, State Cases, codes, rules, regulations.

Some times they win, but most of the time they lose, because they are not arguing procedure; they are arguing about whether or not they are liable for the tax.

Did the IRS follow their OWN written procedures in collecting, or trying to collect the tax?

Rod isn't arguing about the Constitutionality of the tax; whether it's legal or not, etc.

Of course the tax is legal and Constitutional FOR GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, and if they are labeling you as a government employee by saying you're liable, then great!

Now that you're a government employee, then where the hell is YOUR paycheck? You mean I'm a paying-card carrying member of your organisation; paying my fees and taxes every year, but I'm not getting my government check?

We have a serious labor dispute to address here, wouldn't you say?

I mean NO ONE can force you to work for free, right?

I don't think being employed by you guys is such a great deal anymore, I'm sure not reaping any of the benefits of a bi-weekly paycheck, dental insurance, health insurance, auto insurance, yearly bonuses, holidays off, membership at the country club, etc. and you're saying I have to pay you an income tax?

Am I missing something here?

That's a strange employment agreement, if I must say so myself.

This whole LOGIC thing is way over my head :)

RP a president that would PARDON all wage earners from filing.

Now that is powerful.


And he would be doing what was constitutionally

proper as usual.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

wow. such a simple argument....

Has anyone ever used this one? Or better yet has anyone just called the IRS and asked point blank this question?

YOU-- "According to USC Title 26 ss 6331--Section A am I legally responsible for filing a tax return ?"

In that section it mentions that only "a Levy may be made upon the accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee, or elected official, of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia, by serving a notice of levy on the employer (as defined in section 3401(d)) of such officer, employee, or elected official."

I am not an employer, officer or elected official, of the United States or the District of Columbia or any of its agencies, nor am I a resident of the District of Columbia, nor have I ever been. Thus according to his part of the US code, I am not responsible for paying or filing taxes, is that correct?

IRS-- um... can i put you on hold while I get a supervisor?
....hold time (long) music....

USC Title 26 ss 6331 and read Section A, we get this:

Excerpt: " Levy may be made upon the accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee, or elected official, of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia, by serving a notice of levy on the employer (as defined in section 3401(d)) of such officer, employee, or elected official."


These people have created this monstrosity of an IRC booklet, to keep you busy chasing your tail and not addressing the REAL facts of the situation listed in the main post.

If you're too busy digging through codes, statutes, court cases, etc. to look that ROOT problem, then it works out great for them :)

People are so clouded with all this crap all over the internet, that they just can't imagine it being this simple.

Remember that old acronym K.I.S.S?

Keep It Simple Stupid, because it really is.

tax for just gov employees..

why would that be practical.. just curious .. I have never read the statute but something is missing....So go find a tax attorney and sue ????????? since no person has yet to do so and won points to there is a huge question .. why ?



Taft suggested to tax the "Incomes" of the National Government, and other privileged activity, BECAUSE a tax on the non privileged money earned from Americans is unconstitutional

Oh no, not another "I don't owe taxes" thread. :)

Anyone who has checked into this with modest amounts of time could tell you that the average person isn't supposed to be taxed.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

Oh no, not another member who did NOT read

the article in it's ENTIRETY before commenting.

Does the argument that everyone's been using for 20 years, the average person is not liable for the income tax seem to be worth arguing?

How's that one working out for those sitting in prison?

But what about the argument: The IRS isn't following procedure; there is no money because of the 1933 Bankruptcy; the IRS is assuming your a government employee within the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia, but you've never received your government check?

No one's disputing the income tax is legal; of course it is FOR GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, but if I'm a GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE and you haven't been sending my GOVERNMENT CHECK on the 1st and the 15th of every month, then ...


Go READ the above write up in it's ENTIRETY, then see if you don't have an Ahaaaa! moment.


It works for those that understand

that the IRS and the courts that refuse to adhere to the tax laws constitutionally put forth and also understand that those courts and IRS agents will do what they do best. Force you at gunpoint to pay.

Those that understand all of that are the ones that don't wind up in court to begin with. (IF you know what I mean)

But could you explain to me what income has been defined as constitutionally?

Learn something:
Submitted by Tuskeegee on Wed, 04/11/2012 - 19:34. Permalink

I watched this video and was blown away by it! Why we don't owe taxes!

Theft By Deception -

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.