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...

http://www.supremelaw.org...

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

http://www.talkshoe.com/t...

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.

Say What?

Since you don't want to pay taxes you shouldn't be allow to drive on roads that taxes pay for, or if your house starts to burn down I guess you just get to watch it burn. Insurance company to pay for it you say? Well if everyone is so entitled I would assume the insurance companies would require you to pay taxes so you could get fire protection. See this whole "I'm not paying taxes" initiative just leads to far more complications for yourself if this is really the path we're headed.

This whole notion of not wanting to pay taxes is a classic example of the greed generation. You expect everything to be handed to you on a platter. What ever happened to hard work?

The most happiest people I know are the ones who bust their butts to benefit society through laboring (building things like the roads you drive on), and then come home to their families. Getting things for free, only makes you more greedy, and less giving. Meaning an already more pathetic class of "not paying taxes" animals drives America even farther into the ground.

Oh and if Ron Paul is elected President, his salary should be $0 because of course you guys won't be paying any taxes to pay him.....

Tell me how much of my Federal income tax goes to each of those.

Hell tell me how much for just one of those.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

What is Income? Does it really matter?

If you're not a government employee; you aren't receiving a bi-weekly paycheck on the 1st and the 15th; you aren't getting any personal benefits, like dental, health, eye, home, car, insurance, etc; and they are wanting you to pay and income tax, because they are assuming you're a government employee, then I've got one question:

Where the hell is my government paycheck? I mean I'm supposed to be an employee of that organisation right? They sure are presuming I am anyway, and if that's their presumption, then okay, that's great!

I'm a government employee, where is my F******ing Money?

No one can force you to work for free, not even your own government.

Well, apparently I've been working for FREE, and I didn't know it. Because if you're presuming I owe that tax; then you MUST be presuming I'm a government employee.

It says it RIGHT THERE IN THEIR OWN CODE who is liable, and they aren't following procedure, or the their own code, and they sure as hell aren't paying me my government check, which is the ONLY way in hell I could ever possibly be liable for that income tax!

Well sure it matters

"It says it RIGHT THERE IN THEIR OWN CODE who is liable, and they aren't following procedure, or the their own code"

That's my point exactly. Income as defined in the tax codes AND the courts "exonerates" the average American from ever having had to pay or future duty to pay taxes.

If you'll watch that video it makes my case perfectly but you won't most likely because that's how people are.. They have blinders on and refuse to remove them because it's uncomfortable for them to learn for one reason or another.

The difference between you and me is, I'm smart enough not to outright dismiss something just because I think it's stupid or the lawdogs have said no you can't do that.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

Its a power game

its not the law they follow, but if you don't pay taxes, you better be able to fight off and destroy an army of pigs lining up armed ready to take you off somewhere. But State and Local taxes are tracked much more than Federal and i heard of people getting away with avoiding federal but state and local are tracked very well.

Ummmm, if you're not liable for a Federal Income Tax,

then you're not liable for a state income tax either. Maybe someone has that info they can post; I remember reading/seeing that somewhere.

The state corp get's it's authority from the Fed Corp US, if the BIG Corp can't tax you, then how can the little/lower sub corp tax you?

Again: No one is saying the income tax is illegal.

state taxes

Most state 'statutes' make some statement in the form of "Anyone who MUST file a 'federal income tax return, MUST file a state return'. State filing then is based on 'liability' for 'federal taxes'.

That said, I would like to provide you with the key to the entire deal.

What is used to 'identify' taxpayers? A social security number.

If a man participates in an 'entitlement program', I.E. 'welfare' he is considered a "Government employee".
Employee to whom government is paying disability compensation held “employee” of government, disqualified as juror. UNITED STATES v. GRIFFITH et aI., 2F.2d 925 (1924)

Disability,unemployment,child support,welfare,medicaid,etc, are ALL contained in 42 U.S.C. Chapter 7-Social Security

Social Security IS a welfare program. You are nearly ALL on it.

the fact that workers contribute to the Social Security program's funding through a dedicated payroll tax establishes a unique connection between those tax payments and future benefits. More so than general federal income taxes can be said to establish "rights" to certain government services. This is often expressed in the idea that Social Security benefits are "an earned right." This is true enough in a moral and political sense. But like all federal entitlement programs, Congress can change the rules regarding eligibility--and it has done so many times over the years.
http://www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html

There you go. Even though there is NO requirement for a man in the 50 states of America to get a "social security welfare program number", we have ALL been taught that we MUST have one. This of course is not true, unless you think the government has the authority to FORCE you to participate in welfare? But because you DO and that makes you 'eligible' for 'immediate benefits', you ARE considered a "government employee", which makes you 'liable' under the "public salary act of 1939", to which the "income tax code of 1939" is attached, taxing 'federal employees'. We can be sure of this by reading 26 U.S.C 7851(f) which tells us that the 1986 code does not go into effect until the day AFTER its enactment. To date it is NOT enacted, so the above section informs us that until it IS, the code of 1939 is in effect. And that is in fact exactly what is happening. The '54 code says it makes no 'substantial changes', but is merely 'revisions and additions' to the '39 code. The '86 code says the same thing. Hope that helps you understand how you are a 'federal employee', and did not even know it. See 42 U.S.C. 1301 (a) 'State' and paragraph (8)(c). If in (a) 'everyone knows that the term "United States" includes the '50 states of the Union', why does Congress specifically include them in (8)(c)? Further more see 20 CFR 422.104 for requires of eligibility. You MUST be a U.S. citizen. Do you know the difference between a "U.S. citizen" and an "American citizen"? Congress does. http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/22C23.txt The Congress finds that -
"(1) United States citizens living abroad should be provided
fair and equitable treatment by the United States Government with
regard to taxation, citizenship of progeny, veterans' benefits,
voting rights, Social Security benefits, and other obligations,
rights, and benefits; and
"(2) United States statutes and regulations should be designed
so as not to create competitive disadvantage for individual
American citizens living abroad or working in international
markets." U.S.citizen = naturalized 'citizen of the United States........American citizen = native born citizen of America.

Sec. 1731. Protection to naturalized citizens abroad

-STATUTE-
All .....naturalized citizens of the United States......while in foreign
countries are entitled to and shall receive from this Government
the same protection of persons and property which is accorded to
........native-born citizens.......Peace

Read other comments above.

Just because you have a SS card, that doesn't automagically mean you're a taxpayer, which would mean you're a gov't employee. Of course that's the presumption, unless you rebut it.

They key question here is: At the time you made the money they say you owe taxes on, were you "performing a function of government"?.

If someone has an SS card and works at Chi-Chi's Pizza, does that qualify as performing a function of gov't?

Where's the contract showing valuable consideration on your behalf? Don't you deserve to get paid if they're "presuming" you're a gov't employee who's liable for the tax?

That SS card is your foreign corp.US "ID" card, that certifies you to work for the foreign corp. Whether you use it or not is another thing, and just because you have it (it's their card) doesn't mean you'r performing a function of foreign corp.US, unless of course they can provide some payroll records coming from the "public coffers" as proof of employment.

They created the "title" and are presuming you're operating in that capacity, or thru that title; maybe you are and maybe you're not, but if you're not getting a pay check from them, does that ring a bell?

I have a Block Buster card too; does that mean I'm an employee that's on their payroll 24/7?

Read the comments above, lots more to this.

-

-

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

What is the difference between the IRS and the Mafia?

One of them doesn't pretend they are legitimate.(clue: It ain't the IRS)

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

Q: what is the difference between IRS & mafia ?

A: size

A patriot must always be prepared to defend his country from his government.

The operative word is duty to make a return

Subtitle A of Title 26 contains all the sections of the federal law dealing with the tax imposed on persons filing U.S. Individual Income Tax Returns. The amount of tax these persons pay depends on the at of taxable income reported and the status claimed: single, married etc. This subtitle does not impose a duty to make a return of the income earned because to do so would cause the tax to be unconstitutional as a direct tax imposed without apportionment. The 1894 Federal Income imposed such a duty to make a return of taxable income and it was declared unconstitutional in the famous Income Tax Cases, Pollock v. Farmer's Loan and Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1895) and Pollock v. Farmer's Loan and Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601 (1895). Look up the 1894 tax law, so you find the duty to make a return in Section 29 and you can search for the duty in the 1913 Federal Income Tax law enacted shortly after the announcement of the successful ratification of the 16th Amendment. These facts are confirmed by the enactment of Section 3707 of the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, which will be found hidden in plain sight in the Notes to Section 6651 of Title 26.

Not sure the point

you're trying to get across?

I think the operative word is LABOR DISPUTE, no?

No need to look up other tax codes/case law, they are assuming you're a gov't employee; that you owe gov't employee taxes, yet, they've never sent you your government check on the 1st and 15th.

If you're saying I'm a government employee, then you owe me some big time money; not only in taxes I've paid out, but checks I've yet to receive.

And, the pain and suffering you've caused me with your presumptions. I've sure missed a lot of work fighting something that should have never happened; a mix up that assumed I was an employee of the District of Columbia.

Are they sure they want to label us ALL as government employees?

That could be a pretty expensive work force. They can't pay the bills they have now.

The Best & Most Informative Tax Video Ever!

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

Theft By Deception -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWqf96GqMiI

That video is frustrating and annoying

It continually repeats itself for no apparent reason other than to put off the point its trying to make. I have managed to get through 30 minutes of it and just had to quit watching it. I might try again later. It should assert the point, then show you why the point is valid then they would only need to explain it once and you could just rewatch it if you needed to or if you forgot the reason.

The missing section

If you ever have the chance to see what they print on the back of every Notice of Levy, you'll find that Section A is conveniently left out. Yes, it starts with B and an 'employer' who gets one is not typically inclined to listen if you tell them what it doesn't say that would let any reasonable person understand you can't be subject to levy under that section if you aren't one of those special legal classes of people.

Even if you were one of those groups of people, a Notice of Levy is NOT the same as having an actual Levy Order from a judge to enforce by serving notice to the 'employer', which Order they NEVER obtain or present.

The recipient of those notices also doesn't know that they almost certainly aren't an 'employer' as defined in the code, but again good luck getting them to think about that for one second as their lawyers tell them to roll over and do whatever any official looking form tells them to do without question or any consideration. Can you say Conversion?

i absolutely love these types

i absolutely love these types of threads :D unfortunately all my taxes are already withdrawn before i ever see a penny of it. of which isnt real money anyway.

but since you made the point... if were not actually earning one red cent for our lifes labor, doesnt that mean they technically arent taking any money in taxation either?