Saturday, August 13, 2005

This is a sad day for liberty minded individuals.

A friend sent me this:

-------------------------------------------------
Dave,
Just a note to thank you for enlightening me to the "BEAST" that lives among us. I'm truly sorry for us all! Words can't express how heavy my heart feels as I'm sure yours does also.
-------------------------------------------------
I’m sure this pain is felt across the country.

This loss would be far easier to accept if they had proven Larken wrong, but that isn’t the case. Oh, I’m sure the government will proudly proclaim they have proven Larken’s 861 arguments wrong, but we all know that just isn’t the case and the transcripts will bear that out.

Most troubling is the governments ability to prevail without presenting any substance.

To win, they had prove 3 elements

1. That Larken had a requirement to file.
2. That Larken did not file.
3. That he did so willfully.

Due to the court imposed restrictions, convoluted rules of evidence and repeated objections from the government’s attorneys, Larken was never really able to address the requirement to file issue.

He wasn’t able to enter his taxable income report into evidence, nor his “Theft By Deception” video. He was also denied the opportunity to walk the jury through his research findings and his conclusions of law. Thus, Larken was never truly able to effectively present the 861 evidence. As a result, the government was able to avoid those six pesky questions once again.

This failure of the government to provide answers only serves to exacerbate the problem for those that understand the argument.

In the end, the judge explained the law according to HIS interpretation. As I recall, he told the Jury that Larken was mistaken and that his income was indeed taxable. And the jury was reminded that they are to accept the law without question as dictated by the judge.

When will we ever be rid of this erroneous notion that only judges can understand and explain the law? After all, if they were any good at it, we wouldn’t need appeals courts dedicated to fixing their mistakes.

The second element that he “did not file” was stipulated by Larken.

The third element involved willfulness. I believe the governments case toward this element was extremely weak, and I have no idea how this jury came up with their conclusions and verdict relating to willfulness. I only attended Friday’s hearing, so I can not comment to the entire week, but I can say it was clear from Larken’s closing arguments and supporting evidence that he was knowledgeable about the applicable laws and passionate in his beliefs. I watched the jury closely during the closing arguments and I held hopes that at least some of them would see through the trial’s façade and that they would raise questions during jury deliberations. That wasn’t the case.

Given the speed of this verdict, we can only conclude that these people didn’t review a single page of evidence. The only logical conclusion that can be drawn is that these folks wanted a quick verdict so that they could end their week long obligation to the court.

In the final analysis, this jury was pathetic. Some of them were far more concern about their preparations for tonight’s date, then they were for the freedom of this man they saw before them.

We all know hind sight is 20/20. In the final analysis, jury selection was a large factor in this loss. I think Larken was confident that he would win with any jury of twelve, and that may have been true if he was able to introduce the evidence he needed. However, that wasn’t the case. The limits imposed upon him required a thinking jury which he clearly did not have. As noted in Sherry Jackson audio message from 8/12/05 at 5:48 pm, some of these jurors apparently had more concern for their dating plans for Friday night then they had for the man they convicted minutes earlier. This jury had no idea as to the ramifications of their decisions. Some of them probably don’t even read newspapers.

More time spent screening jurors might have brought us to a different outcome, but it is too late now and we’ll never really know.

Most troubling is that the realization that government can win a conviction by simply insulting a defendant in front of twelve citizens. From what I gather, that was the governments tactic in this case. If you can portray him as an anarchist and point to any emails or letters wherein the defendant expressed dissatisfaction with the government, you can persuade a dumbed down American jury to convict him. There is no need for evidence.

I’m deeply disturbed by the assertions of the government’s attorneys and the judge that only the judge can interpret the law. That is complete hogwash, and we must somehow bring an end to this mentality. As citizens, we are all responsible for complying with the law. Yet, according to them, we can’t possibly comprehend it. Yet they will convict us for failing to comply with their cryptic law that only they can comprehend. What an insult to our intelligence. What has this nation come to?

The government has plenty of revenue streams it can tax to fund its constitutional operations. Apparently, they aren’t content with that. Instead, they contrive an income tax permitting them to probe into everybody’s business. How sad.

Now, the question is where do we go from here.

First, I would appeal to Larken to consider the judges advice. The judge suggested that if Larken submit returns for the years in question and negotiate payments for what is owed, he would take all of that into consideration at the sentencing hearing. Contrarily, he also stated he would take the absence of such an agreement into consideration as well.

I believe Larken can be of far more value to his family and the tax honesty movement on the outside. I for one won’t think any less of him if he took whatever steps were necessary to reduce his sentence. I hope he realizes that. Using his bat analogy, it may be time to give them five as an answer.

Whatever he and Tessa decide they deserve our support.

We need to find a peaceful solution to the problems confronting this nation. We need Larken on the outside working to help us achieve that solution.

I would also remind everyone that there are more trials ahead.

Tessa Rose is rescheduled.
Arthur Farnsworth 8/29/05 in Philadelphia

We need to remain vigilant.

We'll post more as time permits.

31 Old Comments:

David,

Judges DO decide questions of law. That's their role in the court. Juries do not have the expertise to decide for themselves what the law says. Juries decide questions of FACT -- who is telling the truth?

The only three relevant facts in this case were:

A) Did he have enough income to require him to file?
B) Did he fail to file?
C) Was his failure to file willful?

Larken stipulated A & B, so the only thing for the jury to decide was C - did he do it willfully. I think it's pretty obvious he failed to file willfully. Don't impune the jury for being able to see in 90 minutes what to the rest of us is plain as day.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/13/2005 11:02 AM  

I hope that Tessa and Farnsworth can retain competent and EXPERIENCED trial counsel; otherwise they likely face the same fate as Larken's--a mauling at the hands of the federal leviathan. Let's stop being naive: the feds cannot afford to have their phoney source of revenue and imposed peonage revealed to the world in open court.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/13/2005 11:29 AM  

Dear David, If anyone thinks this corrupt coward in a black dress will ameliorate any sentence handed out because Larken now files fraudulently "required" 1040's and agrees to pay whatever amount is due; I have any number of unused, but "frivolous" tax arguements I am willing to sell for big dollars: if you are interested please contact me at your earliest convenience. All kidding aside, it is my opinion that any information provided by Larken and Tessa at this point on any government form provided under penalty of perjury will be used against them in a subsequent criminal charge and trial for tax evasion. Respectfully submitted, Joseph Sugarman, design@dream-home.com

By Anonymous Joseph Sugarman, at 8/13/2005 11:32 AM  

Anonymous 12:02, you are wrong.

The Declaration of Independence states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness"

The CONSENT of the governed. That would be those who must follow the LAW.

Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution says, "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

The reality that the arrogant servants working in the 10 mile square seat of the federal government have forgotten that as servants "THEY" do not have the power, "WE" do.

Powers granted are powers that can be REVOKED by The consent of the governed.

It has been said that the press is the "fourth estate". This is incorrect. WE are the fourth estate whenever WE sit on a jury.

When we sit on the jury, we have the power to consent or to not consent to the LAW. If we consent to the law, then we will address judgement of the guilt or innocence of the accused.

The corruptness of the legal system is evident in the court cases where judgements have been made stating that the judges DO NOT have to inform the jury that THEY are the fourth estate. See http://www.fija.org/index.html

Willfulness crimes have three parts.
1. There must be a clear duty.
2. The accused must clearly understand the duty.
3. The accused must then must fail to perform the duty.

Remove any single element and there is no willfulness crime.

If there is no clear duty, it is impossible to fail to do such duty.

As these trials are orchestrated, there does not need to be a clear duty. There does not need to be any duty. The jury only has to believe that some duty exists. This totally removes the lack of existence of such duty as a defense against willfulness.

Thus, if the jury believes that the duty is to; turn around three times; click one's heels together twice; while chanting "The Government is omnipotent"; at the first stroke of Noon, Monday through Friday, Holidays excepted; Then the failure of the accused to do such duty is a willfulness crime in the minds of the jury.

Now, where would the jury get such a ridiculous notion? From a corrupt judge that sits on the throne in his little kingdom and decrees, "I will decide the question of law. The accused has a legal duty to turn around three times; click one's heels together twice; while chanting "The Government is omnipotent"; at the first stroke of Noon, Monday through Friday, Holidays excepted."

In other words, the actual duty under law does NOT NEED TO EXIST to be found guilty.

Although my example was created for some comic absurdity to illustrate the point, the logic is correct. Now consider a situation where the judge is just as wrong, only the law as expressed by the judge in the jury instuctions is not ludicrous so the jury has no reason to suspect they are being lied to by the judge. The judge could lie to the jury with impunity, regardless of whether the lie was a lie of contemplated malice, or judicial ignorance.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman., at 8/13/2005 11:49 AM  

"Larken was never truly able to effectively present the 861 evidence. As a result, the government was able to avoid those six pesky questions once again.

This failure of the government to provide answers only serves to exacerbate the problem for those that understand the argument."

BINGO.

I think this verdict will further polarize everyone. Those of us who are paying attention and have IQs over room temp will view it exactly as you do, while the liars and the mentally weak will take the tack of the next commenter after you:

"Don't impune the jury for being able to see in 90 minutes what to the rest of us is plain as day."

("impugn")

That anonymous coward is also dead wrong about juries and judges, as a visit to FIJA.org establishes.

I agree with your whole post, Dave, although I'm not as willing as you are to see Larken say "5"... yet.

To the poster who recommended Tessa get competent and experienced counsel... what about Larry Becraft? My dad and I were discussing this last night; how was it that Becraft wasn't able to smooth out some of the problems Larken had in the trial, such as fumbling the 2 key witnesses? IMO that may have done him in right there, as it would have given the jury the impression that the defense was not very well prepared. If I'm on that jury, I'm going to think "hmmm... if he can't handle getting testimony from his key witnesses, can he really unravel the income tax?" Given that they never saw his documentation in any extensive degree, I'd have to say that may have been the deciding factor. *We* know Larken is a methodical and capable researcher and thinker, but did *they* know that?

By Blogger Jamie, at 8/13/2005 12:07 PM  

It is obvious you can not use the law to defend yourself. Are not United States Supreme Court Decisions the greatest final views of the law and as such the final decision.

Show me anywhere in the Income Tax Code where this decision of the court appears:

1)Stranton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 Wages are not income within the meaning of the income tax amendment to the Constitution, or any other provision of the Constitution.

2)The United States Supreme Court ruled in 1920 Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 206 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 who’s limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised.

3)In Stratton’s Indep v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399(1913) Doyle v. Mitchell, 247 U.S. 179(1920) South Pacific v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330(1918)Merchants/s Loan V. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509(1921) The United States Supreme Court defined the term income for the purposes of all income tax legislation as: The gain derived from capital, from labor or from both combined, provided it include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets. The court went further to define income to mean the following: “Whatever difficulty there may be about a precise scientific definition of “income,” it imports, as used here, something entirely distinct from principal or capital either as a subject of taxation or as a measure of the tax; conveying rather the idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activities.

Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Co., 247 U.S. 179,185,38 S.Ct.467 (1918)

Can anyone show me where any of these decisions are in the index of the internal revenue codebook?
In the income tax section of the codebook?

The deliberate absents of these rulings by the high court in the taxing laws of this nation are only proof of the frauds of the system.

How many of you are aware that the IRS is not a part of the Treasury Department? A friend sent me this:

1. Is the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) an organization within the U.S. Department of the Treasury?

Answer: No. The IRS is not an organization within the United States Department of the Treasury. The U.S. Department of the Treasury was organized by statutes now codified in Title 31 of the United States Code, abbreviated “31 U.S.C.” The only mention of the IRS anywhere in 31 U.S.C. §§ 301‑310 is an authorization for the President to appoint an Assistant General Counsel in the U.S. Department of the Treasury to be the Chief Counsel for the IRS. See 31 U.S.C. 301(f)(2).

At footnote 23 in the case of Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281 (1979), the U.S. Supreme Court admitted that no organic Act for the IRS could be found, after they searched for such an Act all the way back to the Civil War, which ended in the year 1865 A.D. The Guarantee Clause in the U.S. Constitution guarantees the Rule of Law to all Americans (we are to be governed by Law and not by arbitrary bureaucrats). See Article IV, Section 4. Since there was no organic Act creating it, IRS is not a lawful organization. for more information regarding the frauds of the IRS visit this web site:
http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm
This will tell you of all the corruption and bribes given to government officials.
This judge needs to be disbared for his actions in this case.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/13/2005 12:16 PM  

In spite of all that has been posted, the decision was a just one. The 861 is a fawed argument pushed by those that manipulate the readings of the code sections and the regulations. In this regard they purposely ignore all Supreme Court decisions pertaining to the different types of regulations or that otherwise they disagree with. The very technical aspects of the federal legal system also do the argument in. From an earlier case:

Through linguistic gymnastics, Kaetz contorts the relevant sections of the Internal Revenue Code and the Treasury Regulations to deduce that he does not have taxable income for the years 1991-1997. He premises his argument, inter alia, on the belief that United States citizens only earn taxable 'gross income' when living and working outside the United States, and that the 'Foreign Earned Income Form 2555 is the only form required to be filed[ ] by U.S. Citizens.' Appellant's Brief at 16-17, 18. He concludes his intricate deductive argument quite bluntly: 'Goodbye Income Taxes on Citizens with domestic income.' Id. at 18. The problem with his deduction is that it is based on false premises. Income earned in the United States, including salary, is taxable, see I.R.C. section 63, and 'Gross Income' can be quantified." Kaetz v. Internal Revenue Service, 225 F.3d 649, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 17068, 2000-2 U.S. Tax Cas. Par. 50,544, 85 A.F.T.R.2d 2183, KTC 2000-312, Docket #99-3346 (3d Cir. 6/7/2000), (unpublished opinion), aff'g 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8309, 99-1 U.S. Tax Cas. Par. 50,505, 83 A.F.T.R.2d 2536 (M.D.Pa. 1999).

I only pray that others who believed in this argument will thoroughly investigate it, if they know how and see for themselves how the pushers of this false argument have misled them.

That will be the good of the outcome - to save others. Larkin also stated that he had received "wages" and had "income" not taking care that these terms have specific meanings in the tax laws. In reality he most likely received no "wages" and very little "income" save that of interest made on bank accounts, etc.

Larkin helped defeat himself.

By Blogger Ron, at 8/13/2005 12:57 PM  

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

By Blogger Marc Stevens, at 8/13/2005 1:02 PM  

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

By Blogger Marc Stevens, at 8/13/2005 1:03 PM  

While I am sorry to see Larken convicted, I am not surprised considering the way he handled the case, or lack thereof.

Larken brought an issue of law, right or wrong, he brought an issue of law. He also felt it was necessary to teach 12 people his view of the law. Just as the Simtanken (?) case, there are complaints he could not get his evidence in.

I have said for years that is a huge mistake. I concentrate on attacking EVERY SINGLE LEGAL OPINION used against me by asking for facts. Doing this, I have impeached every witness (and had prosecutors withdraw charges or have judges dismiss for a failure to prosecute). While I have never had a jury (I wouldn't want one) if the witnesses are impeached there is nothing to send to the jury.

There is no need to bring evidence when the us attorney hasn't brought any evidence to the table.

By Blogger Marc Stevens, at 8/13/2005 1:06 PM  

""The 861 is a fawed argument pushed by those that manipulate the readings of the code sections and the regulations.""

If it is so FAWED how come the Federal Government will not permit it to see the light of day in any Federal Courtroom.

It appears that the 'manipulation and readings' are done by the Federal Gov't. As in "other courts have have decided it is 'frivolous' and therefore it is"

The game is up..

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/13/2005 1:18 PM  

We are supposed to believe the Judge knows what the IRS code says ?!?!
He could not even remember which Constitutional amendment brought about the "Income tax" or what year it passed.
The code and regs are thousands of pages long --
He probably never even read section 61 or 861 ( much less the regs ).
Probably NEVER has heard any other income tax cases.
BUT, we are to trust him to interpret the law and give instruction to the jury on what it says.
WHAT A TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/13/2005 4:02 PM  

In any federal criminal trial, the judges ALL represent the plaintiff, the so-called "United States". Each attorney in the room also represents the plaintiff.

Get it? The system itself is the problem and as long as one does not question the RATIONAL of the game it will APPEAR as if justice has been done.

By Blogger Marc Stevens, at 8/13/2005 5:16 PM  

It is indeed a sad day for this nation of fools. I have always said that the people I fear most are those who sit on a jury making critical decisions affecting innocent lives.

Most are totally uneducated and woefully inept in economics, history, government and law.

They no absolutely nothing, are spoon fed pablum from corrupt judges and make assinine decisions based on chicanery istead of the rule of law.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/13/2005 8:56 PM  

"Most are totally uneducated and woefully inept in economics, history, government and law."

Well said! The most fitting description of tax protestors EVER.

When was the last time you met somebody who was a truly successful businessman who was also a tax protestor? Otherwise stated, when did the pool cleaners, tire changers, medical transcribers and firewood haulers get the monopoly on wisdom?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/13/2005 9:38 PM  

Well let's see, mr. cowardly anonymous silly person. Presuming you meant tax FRAUD protester when you said "tax protester", I can name you a few who are definitely "truly successful businessmen":

- Dick Simkanin (Arrow Plastics)
- Al Thompson (Cencal Aviation)
- Rick Stanley (Stanley Fasteners)
- Joe Banister (CPA)
- Sherry Jackson (CPA)
- and of course the aforementioned medical transcriptionist, who was doing just fine for himself and his family prior to learning the truth. (Yes, even a lowly transcriptionist can be a successful businessman, mr. BIGOTED anonymous cowardly silly person.) And there are plenty more, not that you actually care.

Any more stupid questions?

Shilling for statism rots your brains. Fighting for liberty rots your wallet. CHOOSE ONE!

By Blogger Jamie, at 8/14/2005 12:41 AM  

today is a sad day for those who want to believe in something that is good honorable and will sustain the truth which we all seek. it is my understanding that the judicial system as it is today hides and tells not the truth
but makes it up as they deem thier will. lawlessness that can be dictated by one is against all our messages that our forfathers worned us about.i

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/14/2005 2:15 AM  

A sad day indeed for Larken and all Americans.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/14/2005 8:33 AM  

Fools. Larry Becraft is a Government Plant. Can you come up with any other explanation as to why he sat so stoicly in the courtroom. Why he didn't object more often?

He's a Fed.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/14/2005 8:42 AM  

When was the last time a tire changer, a gas station owner, a dentist or any businessman ever was able to answer one single question about tax law? They all use a CPA and no two CPA's can agree on tax code. The answer is few business people have ever cracked open a book or have studied the tax code or understand the history of the tax code. In fact most peoploe have no clue what money is and who owns it. Most people have never taken the time to study much of anything yet you champion them as wise for just doing what they are told without question.

Therefore your argument that these businessmen are somehow brilliant for not challenging the code is specious. Actually I find your comment inane.

Furthermore, a "tax protestor" is an individual or business who definately owes a relevant tax but does not want to pay it. A "tax victim" is millions of us patriotic Americans who do not owe a tax but are forced to pay it by use of force. That is criminal extortion.

Just the fact that you are in this forum opining that we are tax protestors invalidates any argument you put forth in this arena. Most of us have had the unpleasant experience of dealing with the IRS which is not a US Government agency by the way and have discovered much about the Federal Reserve bank and its collection arm knoswn as the IRS. Most of us have spent years doing research on this IRS monster and to have you come in here to label us tax protesters demonstrates you are not a student of the tax code or the banking system.

But go ahead keep insulting us. That's what people like you do.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/14/2005 9:13 AM  

The IRS says they never LOSE! Now for the truth. They lose many of the cases they try but are never or rarely publicized. Furthermore, there is much US Supreme Court precendence which is ignored by the IRS and corrupt judges. Many innocent people sit in federal prison camps wrongfully accused and convicted for daring to ask questions to which the government refuses to answer or denies remedy.
These people are the example to force us all into "COMPLIANCE."

Nice communist term. Karl marx would be proud. He said among many things this in particualr regarting taxes.

Impose a heavy progressive income tax.

The fundamental difference in the beliefs between socialism and Marxism is that Marxists believe that we are powerless to shape the course of history, whereas the Utopian belief is that it is within our power to make a perfect society.


Joe Banister:

He Challenged The Income Tax
And Withholding Laws -- And He Won

Former IRS CID Special Agent Joseph Banister Acquitted of Tax Fraud And Conspiracy

Government Unable To Prove U.S. Law
Requires Income Tax Withholding or Filing

Hard Evidence That Form 1040
Has NO Legal Basis In Law

IRS Withdraws Criminal Allegation,
William Lear, Tax Convict Walks Free. IRS doesn't want to answer legitimate questions in a court of law.

If IRS has delegation of authority and true jurisdiction, why do they run from furnishing answers to these questions? It should be very easy to show all us taxpayers when we ask them for these items of proof. The never do and they can't.


Whitey Harrell v. State of Illinois
Found NOT GUILTY for willful failure. Government fails to prove its case.

IRS v.s Kuglin
IRS LOSES BIG: US v. Kuglin
August 8, 2003 By Carl F. Worden

Forget the war in Iraq, Afghanistan and our excellent adventure in Liberia. Forget about Kobe, Arnold, Arriana, Scott and Laci. (California Grayout Davis recall, for my news challanged Kansas relatives) The biggest news of the entire week is that on August 8, 2003, the IRS was unable to convince a jury in Memphis, Tennessee that the Federal Tax Code requires the citizens to pay individual income taxes. I kid you not.

I watched as many Sunday news programs as I could possibly stand, and I didn’t hear a single mention of the IRS’ debacle in Memphis. If you ever had doubts about the mainstream media being controlled by the federal government, doubt no more.

For those not already aware, FedEx Pilot Vernice Kuglin began studying the IRS Code some years ago, and was simply unable to find anywhere in the code that she was required to pay federal income taxes.

And here’s the most remarkable part: Back in 1995, Kuglin wrote letters in good faith to the IRS, asking them to show her where the Tax Code requires individual citizens to pay federal income taxes. Incredibly, the IRS never answered a single one of her letters!

As she studied the facts, laws and related documents more, Kuglin became convinced that, regardless of the IRS’ failure to respond one way or the other, she was exempt from paying federal income taxes. So, Kuglin filled out W-4 forms showing 99 exemptions, and turned them in to her employer. Doing that meant Kuglin got to take home almost all of her paycheck each payday, instead of what was left after the feds ravaged it.

The IRS went after Kuglin for six counts of tax evasion on $920,000.00 income, and for filing “false” W-4 forms, charges that could have put the 58 year-old Kuglin in federal prison for up to 30 years and cost her 1.5 million in fines.

Apparently, things didn’t go quite the slam-dunk way federal prosecutor Joe Murphy thought they would. My money says the IRS wishes they had never gone after Kuglin at all. In fact, after the jury returned not guilty verdicts on all counts, Murphy is reported to have demanded that the judge order Kuglin to file her forms, pay her taxes and “obey the law”. The judge reportedly replied, “Sir, I don’t work for the IRS.”

Now pinch yourself and review this astonishing turn of events: A highly trained and educated federal prosecutor in Memphis was unable to convince 12 American citizens that Vernice Kuglin was required to pay federal income taxes. He was clearly unable to produce a single section of the Tax Code to that end, and the jury was unanimous in clearing Kuglin of all charges against her. If the foregoing was not so, Kuglin would have been convicted.
Jurors tend not to be very sympathetic with tax scofflaws, since each one of them is also a taxpayer and they understandably feel resentment towards anyone not paying “their fair share”. So in order for this federal jury to completely vindicate Kuglin, the government’s failure to prove their case against her had to have been clear and unequivocal!

I haven’t read the trial transcript yet, but I must assume the federal prosecutor at least tried to twist some vague and ambiguous section of the Tax Code to make it look like it applied to Kuglin. I don’t know that, but I’ll bet he tried. What else could he use to prosecute her with?

Thanks to the IRS’ arrogance and stupidity, and Kuglin’s refusal to plead to lesser charges, Kuglin accomplished what Bob Schultz and the other “tax protesters” had been denied all along: To force the IRS into a public debate and to answer the question of whether or not the Tax Code requires an individual to pay personal income taxes. Kuglin and her two attorneys, Larry Becraft and Robert Bernhoft, have unequivocally forced the IRS to show its hand, and 12 judges hearing that debate ruled the answer to be “NO”.

I think it’s time for everyone reading this to send a very polite letter to the IRS, telling them they read about the case in Memphis, and is it true that there is no section in the U.S. Tax Code that requires an individual citizen to pay federal income taxes?

Don’t be threatening in any way, or announce that you plan to stop paying federal income taxes. This request is for your personal edification, and you just simply want to know the truth.

Like Kuglin, you probably won’t get an answer back, but just to prove you sent the letter and that they received it, be certain to send the letter via certified U.S. Mail, with a return receipt requested. When you get that receipt back, staple it to a copy of the letter you sent the IRS, and put it somewhere real secure, like a personal safe or bank deposit box.

I don’t have to explain why, now do I?



Court Rules Federal Reserve is Privately Owned
Case Reveals Fed's Status as a Private Institution

Below are excerpts from a court case proving the Federal Reserve system's status. As you will see, the court ruled that the Federal Reserve Banks are "independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations", and there is not sufficient "federal government control over 'detailed physical performance' and 'day to day operation'" of the Federal Reserve Bank for it to be considered a federal agency:
Lewis v. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (1982)
John L. Lewis, Plaintiff/Appellant,
v. United States of America, Defendant/Appellee.
No. 80-5905
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 2, 1982.
Decided April 19, 1982.
As Amended June 24, 1982. STOP. I didn't furnish the story because it would take up too many pages. Look it up!


IRS Agent Confesses...
No Authority to Assess!

IRS AGENT CONFESSES: NO AUTHORITY TO ASSESS Yes -- the truth can leak out even in the biased courtrooms of America -- but when IRS employees are involved, such honesty comes as quite a shock! Sometimes these revelations occur suddenly or unexpectedly during cross examination. The official may be caught off guard just long enough to spill the beans or perhaps the official may not realize the implications of his own testimony. Whatever the reason, the truth is revealed. In this particular case the facts were accidentally exposed by an IRS employee who had been called upon to answer a few simple questions.

It is doubtful that this IRS employee fully understood the ultimate impact of his statements. IRS personnel sometimes suffer from a comprehension-gap concerning the application of the law. If they do not understand the structure of the Code, they can not possibly understand the limitations of the law which they are attempting to enforce. That being the case, any given IRS employee may fall prey to the presumption that other legal provisions exist to account for actions which they do not understand. Ignorance and apathy play an important part in perpetuating the problem. For the most part, IRS employees simply do what they are told and never question the direction of superiors.

To these employees, the requirement of the law is irrelevant. Therefore, the authority for their activity rarely figures into the equation. They just assume that their actions are legal. Ask any IRS agent to outline the limitations of his legal authority to sign a summons and you won't get a correct answer. Ask him what provision within subtitle F (Administration and Procedure) permits the issuance of a summons and the agent will not know. Ask for the delegation order to sign a summons and the answer you will hear is... "I'm just doing what I was told." It is true that individual IRS employees may not fully understand the limitations of the law, but their superiors do understand, and the courts and legal professionals have an obligation to ensure that the limitations of the law are properly enforced. Excuses like "I didn't know" or "I'm just following orders" are not acceptable.

That defense didn't work at Nuremburg, and it is doubtful that it will work when IRS employees are eventually prosecuted for violating the rights of the victims they have plundered. Given the increasing number of what the IRS calls "nonfilers," it is only a matter of time before this illegal enforcement activity is exposed for everyone to see.

YOU CAN'T HIDE THE TRUTH

People are discovering this scheme because the truth is leaking out. You can't hide the truth. You may succeed in covering it up for a short period of time, but sooner or latter the truth will prevail. The disclosure of IRS fraud is inevitable. At this very moment it is happening throughout the country. The IRS is fully aware of the impending demise of their scam. Five years ago Fred Goldberg, the Commissioner of the IRS, admitted that there were 6 million non-filers. Last month, Shirley Peterson (the present commissioner) admitted that the number of non-filers had increased to 10 million. That's a substantial increase - - almost double what it was 5 years ago. High ranking IRS officials cannot help but be worried. With each leak, more and more people learn and react to the knowledge that their government is intentionally misapplying the law.

In the case of United States of America v. William R. Lloyd those facts again leaked out. The defendant was on trial for tax evasion and the circumstances (authority/procedure) to assess became the topic of examination. Before he knew it, Special Agent Gary Makovski let the cat out of the bag and actually admitted that "If no information or a return is filed, the Internal Revenue Service cannot assess you..." To understand why the testimony is so significant, it is well worth reviewing the constitutional restriction on the power to tax, the actual application of the income tax laws, and the authority to assess those who are the subject of the law.

NOT SO COMMON KNOWLEDGE

The general public is unaware that the Internal Revenue Code is limited in application. It cannot (per constitutional restriction)... does not... and never has been... applied against the United States citizen who is living and working within the 50 states of the union. That individual is neither the subject nor the object of the tax -- and neither is his income.

The application of the tax is limited to and imposed upon certain occupations and/or activities. Taxable activities presently include the manufacture of certain commodities like alcohol, tobacco, or firearms. An example of a privileged occupation might be the practice of law. But, it is the privilege associated with the governments permission to engage in the activity that is the subject of the tax - not the individual -- nor the income -- and even then the income is only the "measure" of the tax.

The income tax laws were never applied against citizens themselves, or their occupations in general, because Congress was never granted the power to levy a "direct" tax against the citizen. The power to levy a direct tax is limited to the taxing of state governments only, and according to the supreme Court, the 16th amendment merely clarified a power that Congress had "from the beginning" to levy an "indirect" tax (in the form of an excise) on income without apportionment; but this is not the same as, nor did it allow for, a "direct" tax on the property or person of the U. S. citizen unless apportioned among the states according to the formula directed to be taken in Article 1 Sec. 2 Cl. 3.

All such "direct" taxes must still be apportioned by the census of enumeration and billed to the state governments respectively. Yes, the federal government may tax "income," but it cannot tax the person or property of a citizen without violating the rule of apportionment concerning direct taxes. If it did, it would by virtue of its application, create a direct tax in violation of Article 1 Section 9 Clause 4, and Article 1 Section 2 Clause 3 of the Constitution. This is why there is no statutory liability for a citizen living and working within the 50 states to pay a federal tax on income. And that is why the tax is 100% constitutional.

THE 16th AMENDMENT

The 16th amendment does tend to confuse the average person. Most people do not understand the difference between "direct" taxation and "indirect" taxation. They assume that a "tax on income" is neither. In fact, some law schools actually teach that the income tax is (in their own words) a "bastard" tax that falls somewhere between direct and indirect. That is incorrect. No doubt the contention arises and results from a naive belief that the government would not allow the intentional misapplication of the tax laws, (when in fact it propagates it) and that there must be some other explanation -- but, it has probably never occurred to those who are of this opinion, that the taxes and the resulting social programs effectively buy the public vote, and strengthen the political establishment that benefits from the misapplication.

Such opinions exist because people are unaware of supreme Court decisions confirming that the tax on income is an "indirect" tax in the form of an excise, rather than a "bastard" tax that is neither direct nor indirect. It is NOT some "unique" tax, that is "direct," and yet not subject to the rule of apportionment. It is indirect, and by virtue of this status, it cannot be subject to the rule of apportionment just as the language of the 16th amendment reads.

It is therefore not applicable against a citizen living and working in the United States of America (50 States). Congress has by statute identified the taxable party and/or entity. The IRS has provided by regulations the procedure by which the U.S. (50 States) citizen claims his/her exemption from withholding -- the presentation of a statement of citizenship to the employer who retains the original copy and forwards the duplicate to the IRS Philadelphia PA with an accompanying letter of transmittal. Congress has directed that those who are liable for a tax on income are subject to withholding; has created a withholding agent; and, imposed liability for any tax on same. The withholding agent must withhold tax from anyone coming under the provisions of IRC Code sections 1441, 1442, 1443, and has imposed liability on the withholding agent per section 1461.

Congress has in IRC 1461 also indemnified the withholding agent from claims asserted by those identified in IRC section 1441, 1442, and 1443 for obeying the appropriate statutes. Nevertheless, the citizen is under the protection of the Constitution and Congress has been obedient to the Constitution by not enacting a liability statute against a citizen living and working in the United States of America (50 States).

The IRS inputs phony entries to its computers in a blatant attempt to defraud U.S. citizens. Congress acquiesces in this criminal activity by ignoring the pleas of the citizens that improper actions of the IRS be controlled. Congressman forward to their constituents copies of IRS responses to Congressional inquiries and members of Congress drop the issue by telling their constituents that "the IRS has responded (see enclosed)," but the "see enclosed" they mention is a copy of the IRS response to the inquiring member of Congress. The constituent is then advised that if their elected official "may be of service to them in the future" that the elected official should be contacted without hesitation.

This "drop issue" letter is designed to convey to their constituents the idea that the IRS response is to be assumed to be correct. This is the heart of the scam. If Congress wanted to exercise control of the IRS and keep them obedient to the Constitution a different posture would be adopted.

Most politicians are unaware of the limited application of the tax laws anyway, and most legal professionals woefully uneducated in such matters; but even assuming that they were educated, the income tax serves the political purpose of funding programs that buy the public vote, and there is no reason (other than morality) for them to rock the ship of state.

The political machine thus ignores, if not encourages, (by default) the routine misapplication and illegal enforcement of the tax laws. That is a fact of life -- and that is why our struggle has been long and difficult; but considering the increase in the number of so-called "nonfilers," that struggle may soon be over, and we may yet see the tables turned on the illegal activities of an increasingly globalist minded government.

SEE NO EVIL -- SPEAK NO EVIL -- HEAR NO EVIL

So who is to blame? Are just a few select officials responsible, or is the average IRS employee also to blame and if so, to what degree? Do the agents themselves know what they are doing, or is their training and function within the service sufficiently limited to allow for an acceptable misunderstanding as to their actual authority? Perhaps the truth lies somewhere in between. The instant case may shed some light and help us answer this question.

The fact is, some agents are aware of the limited application of the law and some are not -- possibly some suspect but go along with policy for the sake of expediency, not caring about their moral or legal obligations as long as they do what they are told and get a pay check at the end of the week. If some agents know and some don't, it is just as certain that this education was not included in their training. Those who know, probably figured it out on their own, or were made privy to such information by a friend or associate who was higher up within the IRS.

If the employee were so inclined, he could put it all together and figure out what is happening. Unfortunately, most have neither the character or the where-with-all to do this, and the hierarchy within the IRS is certainly not going to train its personnel in the knowledge that would defeat the political objectives of those who appoint them to office.

Indeed, to ensure their very existence and preserve their employment these IRS officials must "encourage voluntary compliance." Were there an honest concerted effort to inform the various agents of the limited application of the law, the IRS could not expect them to ignorantly misapply its provisions and they might be out of a job. Instead, the IRS fosters an atmosphere where their agents operate in the dark. The agents have a "duty" to know, but end up making incorrect assumptions, or they leap to conclusions because of their incomplete education. With this in mind we will examine agent Makovski's testimony to determine the extent of his actual knowledge and the significance of his testimony.

EVASION OF WHAT?

Mr. Lloyd was on trial for alleged violations of section 7201 (evasion of taxes). To evade a tax, one must first have a "known duty" to file a return and pay a tax. Second, and more important as far as evasion is concerned, there must be an outstanding "bill" or "assessment" that is due and owing. In the case of someone who has not filed, there must be a "presumed valid assessment" executed with proper authority by IRS personnel, followed by a tax "bill" which must be sent to the taxpayer, (notifying the taxpayer of the liability) otherwise, there is nothing to evade.

Now for the facts... Mr. Lloyd did NOT file a return.

Moreover, he had NOT received a "bill" or "assessment," presumed valid or otherwise. As a United States citizen who was not involved in one of the activities previously mentioned we can make several presumptions about his alleged liability or lack thereof, and the authority for the IRS to assess a tax against him; all of which are relevant for demonstrating the wrongful prosecution instituted by the IRS, and determining agent Makovski's knowledge and intent.

TO ASSESS OR NOT TO ASSESS

Given the above facts, and knowing that Lloyd was not required to file, (and did not) there would be no authority or procedure which would allow the IRS to assess a tax.

Reprinted below is section 6201. This section is the assessment authority found within subtitle F, and it reveals something which may not have occurred to those IRS agents who simply "do what they are told." Notice that when no return is filed, the authority to assess is limited to assessments involving stamp taxes. What on earth is this statute referring to? Could it be the stamps we see on a bottle of alcohol or a pack of cigarettes? When a manufacturer of alcohol or tobacco products wishes to sell his goods, he must purchase stamps to pay the tax associated with his taxable activity, and then place the stamps on the products he sells.

Did you ever take the time to examine the stamps on a pack of cigarettes or a bottle of alcohol? These are the stamps that this statute is referring to. They are required for those products whose manufacture is the subject of the excise. If they fail to pay the stamp tax associated with the activity, then 6201(a)(2) provides the authority for the IRS to assess a tax. If the bill remains unpaid, then it could be construed as evasion for which the penalty in section 7201 might apply. Lloyd was not involved in such activity.

The remaining provision for assessment authority (section 6201(a)(1)) pertains only to those individuals who have filed returns. The information on that return is subject to assessment by virtue of the fact that the return was signed under penalty of perjury by the taxpayer who filed it, testifying to the fact that a liability, and a requirement to file exists; and that the information on the return is true and correct. If it is not correct, the authority under this section allows for a correction to be made based on the information that is given on the return. Under no circumstances (except stamps) may the IRS assess a tax without a return being filed by the taxpayer himself.

Therefore, there was no authority to assess Lloyd. Courts have held that an unsigned substitute return such as those typically filed by the IRS when a 1040 return has not been filed "...is no return at all." (Vaira v. C.I.R., 444 F.2d, citing Dixon v. Commissioner, 28 T.C. 388); and that, "Since the 'returns' prepared by the IRS contained no information from which a tax could be determined, they were not returns" (U.S. v. Verkuilen, 82-2 U.S.T.C., Schiff v. Commissioner, U.S.T.C. 1984 223).

If a return is not filed, the IRS's only recourse is to move for an indictment against the individual who is presumably required to file. To do so they must cite the section of the law allegedly requiring that person to file. Reference may of course be made to the penalty associated with having a "known duty to file" and willfully not filing the return, but even then such penalty is applicable only if a person actually believes he has a requirement to file and chooses to shirk that duty. Lloyd had not filed a return and there was no other provision for assessing a tax against him.

THE CAT SLIPS OUT OF THE BAG

Since there was no assessment, Lloyd had never received a "bill" to evade, so naturally the question arose as to the assessment circumstances. To the right is the text of the transcript of the agents testimony. When Makovski was asked under what circumstances an assessment was made he explained "two ways." He did not say that it was limited to just 2 ways, but it wasn't necessary for him to elucidate. The law itself provides only 2 ways, and agent Makovski's reference to two circumstances would seem to indicate that he had personal knowledge of the 2 provisions in law. He said...

"First of all, whenever you file a return yourself" (emphasis on 'yourself') "and it is sent to the service center..." an assessment is made. He then added "If no information or return is filed, the Internal Revenue Service cannot assess you anything." To which section under 6201 was he referring? Was it subsection (a)(1) or subsection (a)(2), and did it suddenly occur to Makovski that there was no authority or did he know or suspect all along? He obviously knew enough to answer the question! He knew that Lloyd had not filed a return. He investigated Lloyd so he knew that Lloyd was not involved in an activity that required the purchase of stamps. He knew that there was no assessment.

What's more, he knew that Lloyd was on trial for allegedly "evading" an "assessment" that did not, and could not, by law exist. Therefore he had to know his investigation was a fraud. If there was no authority to assess Lloyd then how could Makovski investigate an "evasion" of an "assessment" that could not possibly exist.

If a return had been filed, then the story would be different. The authority to assess under section (a)(1) would have allowed for an "assessment" that could conceivably be "evaded," but Makovski knew that Lloyd had not filed a return for the years in question. He certainly knew from his own criminal investigation that Lloyd was not involved in an occupation involving a stamp tax. So what was he investigating? If no return was filed, and the authority is limited to stamp taxes, then in Makovski's own words "the IRS cannot assess you." Agent Makovski not only knew the law, but he (accidentally?) told the truth.

THE HUNDRED YARD DASH

We were informed by attendees of the trial that after Makovski's admission the U.S. attorney put her head in her hands. The jury must have understood the implication of the testimony because it took even less time for the jury to acquit Lloyd than it did to pick the jury from the jury pool; and, Lloyd received a standing ovation from those in the courtroom as the U.S. Attorney slithered out with the Judge to avoid talking with the media.

This case is just one example of the coming deluge of opposition to IRS fraud. The public will no longer accept this flagrant disregard for the law. What will the government do? Find out in the next issue of the Reasonable Action where we will look at why the income tax is obsolete and review the dangers of proposed alternative forms of taxation. [END]

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/14/2005 10:21 AM  

Anonymous 11:21 said:

The remaining provision for assessment authority (section 6201(a)(1)) pertains only to those individuals who have filed returns.

Under no circumstances (except stamps) may the IRS assess a tax without a return being filed by the taxpayer himself.

While the rest of what you posted is good, you are wrong on this one point.

Sec. 6201. Assessment authority
(a) Authority of Secretary
... Such authority shall extend to and include the following:
(1) Taxes shown on return
The Secretary shall assess all taxes determined by the taxpayer or by the Secretary as to which returns or lists are made under this title.

Sec. 301.6201-1 Assessment authority.
(a) In general. ...
The authority of the district director and the director of the regional service center to make assessments includes the following:
(1) Taxes shown on return. The district director or the director of the regional service center shall assess all taxes determined by the taxpayer or by the district director or the director of the regional service center and disclosed on a return or list.

Sec. 6020. Returns prepared for or executed by Secretary
(b) Execution of return by Secretary
(1) Authority of Secretary to execute return If any person fails to make any return required by any internal revenue law or regulation made thereunder at the time prescribed therefor, or makes, willfully or otherwise, a false or fraudulent return, the Secretary shall make such return from his own knowledge and from such information as he can obtain through testimony or otherwise.

Sec. 301.6020-1 Returns prepared or executed by district directors or other internal revenue officers.
(b) Execution of returns--(1) In general. If any person required by any internal revenue law or by the regulations prescribed thereunder to make a return (other than a declaration of estimated tax required under section 6015 or 6016) fails to make such return at the time prescribed therefor, or makes, willfully or otherwise, a false or fraudulent return, the district director or other authorized internal revenue officer or employee shall make such return from his own knowledge and from such information as he can obtain through testimony or otherwise.

However, The training materials of John Turner, former IRS Agent as found on the internet, and the Delegation of Authority as found in the online Internal Revenue Manual (IRM) show that there is no authority delegated for anyone in the IRS to "make" a 1040 return.

The online Internal Revenue Manual (IRM) in section 5.1.11.6.10, paragraph 1 states, “The following returns may be prepared, signed and assessed under the authority of IRC 6020(b):

A. Form 940, Employer’s Annual Federal Unemployment Tax Return
B. Form 941, Employer’s Quarterly Federal Tax Return
C. Form 943, Employer’s Annual Tax Return for Agricultural Employees
D. Form 720, Quarterly Federal Excise Tax Return
E. Form 2290, Heavy Vehicle Use Tax Return
F. Form CT-1, Employer’s Annual Railroad Retirement Tax Return
G. Form 1065, U.S. Return of Partnership Income.”

The online Internal Revenue Manual (IRM) in section 5.18.2.3 (02-01-2004) states in paragraph 2, “The following BMF [Business Master File] returns with corresponding Master File Tax (MFT) codes are the returns usually prepared under the provisions of IRC 6020(b):

TAX RETURN-RETURN TITLE-RETURN MFT
Form 720 Quarterly Federal Excise Tax Return 03
Form 940 Employer's Annual Federal Unemployment Tax Return 10
Form 941 Employer's Quarterly Federal Tax Return 01
Form 943 Employer's Annual Return for Agricultural Employees 11
Form 1065 U.S. Partnership Return of Income 06
Form 2290 Federal Use Tax Return on Highway Motor Vehicles 60”

By Anonymous dalereastman, at 8/14/2005 7:21 PM  

As is the custom here, I will refer to the penultimate poster as Anonymous Coward. Dale Eastman has corrected him concerning IRS's assessment authority, but left much of AC's nonsense unaddressed.

Joe Banister did not challenge the income tax laws. His defense was based entirely on his assertion that he WAS NOT challenging the validity of the IRC, but only assisting Al Thompson in completing the proper paperwork.

Bill Lear was convicted. He might have served his time by now, and "walked free", but not because the charges were dropped. If AC is referring to some other incident, perhaps he could supply details.

Even AC should have been able to figure out that Harrell v Illinois was not a federal tax case.

Kuglin and her attorney conceded that she was required to file tax returns and pay taxes, as she is, in fact, doing. She initially contested the liabilities and lost. The only issue at her trial was whether she hid money or lied to the government. The jury apparently decided that lying on a W-4 is not the same as lying to the government.

The rest of AC's post is just a cut and paste of the same tired tax protestor nonsense that has been refuted too many times to count.

Steve in Houston

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/14/2005 9:48 PM  

As is the custom here, I will refer to the penultimate poster as Anonymous Coward. Dale Eastman has corrected him concerning IRS's assessment authority, but left much of AC's nonsense unaddressed.

You must have me confused with somebody on your side of the fence.

I am now going to withdraw my correction to post an exerpt of what I have just written.

What you call nonsense, I left unaddressed because he is CORRECT... You are not.
http://home.sprintmail.com/~dalereastman/

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 8/15/2005 12:34 AM  

"Fools. Larry Becraft is a Government Plant. Can you come up with any other explanation as to why he sat so stoicly in the courtroom. Why he didn't object more often?

He's a Fed."

That's a rumor which has been floated before. I'm very interested in hearing from Larken on that front; I share your curiosity about the way the trial went, but... unless you have more to add, anon, I'll put more weight on Larken's comments than yours. (Also, I know others who know Larry, and none believe that.)

Steve (the IRS agent?) from Houston said:

"Kuglin and her attorney conceded that she was required to file tax returns and pay taxes,"

Challenge.

(FWIW, her attorney was Larry Becraft, same as Larken.)

"The rest of AC's post is just a cut and paste of the same tired tax protestor nonsense that has been refuted too many times to count."

That comment is just a cut and paste of the same tired tax fraud apologist nonsense that has been refuted too many times to count. (At least you leave out the prison sex suggestions; thanks for that, anyway.)

By Blogger Jamie, at 8/15/2005 12:42 AM  

The triple x's are place holders for numbering these statements of fact in the document I am currently writing.

xxx. Treasury regulation 26 CFR 301.6203-1 states, “The assessment shall be made by an assessment officer signing the summary record of assessment. The summary record, through supporting records, shall provide identification of the taxpayer, the character of the liability assessed, the taxable period, if applicable, and the amount of the assessment.

xxx. Treasury regulation 26 CFR 301.6203-1 states, “The amount of the assessment shall, in the case of tax shown on a return by the taxpayer, be the amount so shown, and in all other cases the amount of the assessment shall be the amount shown on the supporting list or record.

xxx. The “amount shown on the supporting list or record” can only be assessed if the amount (of liability) shown on the supporting list or record is a liability the Secretary (and by delegation, his delegate) is “Authorized” to assess. Conversely, If the Secretary or his delegate is NOT authorized to assess a certain liability, then such assessment is unlawful.

It should be noted that section 6203 addresses a broad range of tax liabilities because there are various types of taxes on various ‘things’ taxed.

xxx. If the liability recorded “in accordance with rules or regulations prescribed by the Secretary” is not a lawfully determined liability then the assessment is an unlawful assessment and is void ab initio.

xxx. If the “taxpayer” does not make a return, there can be NO assessment of “tax shown on a return by the taxpayer”.

xxx. IRC section 6201(a) labeled Authority of Secretary states in the first sentence, “The Secretary is authorized and required to make the inquiries, determinations, and assessments of all taxes (including interest, additional amounts, additions to the tax, and assessable penalties) imposed by this title, or accruing under any former internal revenue law, which have not been duly paid by stamp at the time and in the manner provided by law.”

xxx. “The Secretary is authorized and required to make the” “inquiries” “of all taxes imposed by this title which have not been duly paid by stamp at the time and in the manner provided by law.

xxx. “The Secretary is authorized and required to make the” “determinations” “of all taxes imposed by this title which have not been duly paid by stamp at the time and in the manner provided by law.

xxx. “The Secretary is authorized and required to make the” “assessments” “of all taxes imposed by this title which have not been duly paid by stamp at the time and in the manner provided by law.

xxx. IRC section 6201(a) labeled Authority of Secretary states in the second sentence, “Such authority shall extend to and include the following”; 6201(a)(1) “Taxes shown on return”; 6201(a)(2) “Unpaid taxes payable by stamp”.

xxx. “The Secretary is authorized and required to make the inquiries of all Unpaid taxes payable by stamp”.

xxx. “The Secretary is authorized and required to make the determinations of all Unpaid taxes payable by stamp”.

xxx. “The Secretary is authorized and required to make the assessments of all Unpaid taxes payable by stamp”.

xxx. “The Secretary is authorized and required to make the inquiries of all Taxes shown on return”.

xxx. “The Secretary is authorized and required to make the determinations of all Taxes shown on return”.

xxx. “The Secretary is authorized and required to make the assessments of all Taxes shown on return”.

xxx. IRC section 6201(a)(2)(A) states, “Unpaid taxes payable by stamp”; “Omitted stamps Whenever any article upon which a tax is required to be paid by means of a stamp is sold or removed for sale or use by the manufacturer thereof or whenever any transaction or act upon which a tax is required to be paid by means of a stamp occurs without the use of the proper stamp, it shall be the duty of the Secretary, upon such information as he can obtain, to estimate the amount of tax which has been omitted to be paid and to make assessment therefor upon the person or persons the Secretary determines to be liable for such tax.

xxx. IRC section 6201(a)(2)(A) gives authority to the Secretary to assess any tax due and payable by STAMP.

xxx. IRC section 6201(a)(2)(A) does NOT give authority to the Secretary to assess subtitle A income taxes.

xxx. IRC section 6201(a)(2)(A) requires the Secretary to obtain “such information as he can obtain” about the amount of unpaid STAMP tax.

xxx. IRC section 6201(a)(1) states, “Taxes shown on return The Secretary shall assess all taxes determined by the taxpayer or by the Secretary as to which returns or lists are made under this title.

xxx. If the “taxpayer” does not make a return, there can be NO “taxes determined by the taxpayer” to be assessed.

xxx. If the Secretary is NOT authorized to make a return for a taxpayer, there can be NO “taxes determined by the Secretary” “shown on return” to be assessed.

xxx. The quoted sentence of IRC section 6201(a)(1) does NOT give authority to the Secretary to “upon such information as he can obtain” to obtain such information in regard to “income” taxes.

xxx. IRC section 6201(a)(1) does NOT authorize the Secretary to prepare any return or list.

xxx. Nothing in the first two sentences of IRC section 6201(a) labeled Authority of Secretary gives the Secretary authority to inquire about, determine, or assess any taxes other than “taxes which have not been duly paid by stamp”, “unpaid taxes payable by stamp”, and “taxes shown on return.”

xxx. IRC section 6201(a) is limited by the words, “which have not been duly paid by stamp at the time and in the manner provided by law”.

xxx. Treasury Regulation 301.6201-1(a) labeled “Assessment authority” states, “The district director is authorized and required to make all inquiries necessary to the determination and assessment of all taxes imposed by the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 or any prior internal revenue law. The district director is further authorized and required, and the director of the regional service center is authorized, to make the determinations and the assessments of such taxes.

xxx. The authority delegated by the Secretary in Treasury Regulation 301.6201-1(a) can NOT be greater than the authority delegated to the Secretary in IRC section 6201(a) which is limited by the words, “which have not been duly paid by stamp at the time and in the manner provided by law.

xxx. Treasury Regulation 301.6201-1(a) states, “The authority of the district director and the director of the regional service center to make assessments includes the following: (2) Unpaid taxes payable by stamp.
(i) If without the use of the proper stamp: (a) Any article upon which a tax is required to be paid by means of a stamp is sold or removed for sale or use by the manufacturer thereof, or (b) Any transaction or act upon which a tax is required to be paid by means of a stamp occurs; The district director, upon such information as he can obtain, must estimate the amount of the tax which has not been paid and the district director or the director of the regional service center must make assessment therefor upon the person the district director determines to be liable for the tax. However, the district director or the director of the regional service center may not assess any tax which is payable by stamp unless the taxpayer fails to pay such tax at the time and in the manner provided by law or regulations.


xx The quoted sentences of Treasury Regulation 301.6201-1(a)(2) give authority to the district director or the director of the regional service center to assess any tax due and payable by stamp.

xxx. The quoted sentences of Treasury Regulation 301.6201-1(a)(2) do NOT give authority to the district director or the director of the regional service center to assess subtitle A income taxes.

xxx. The phrase “upon such information as he can obtain” in Treasury Regulation 301.6201-1(a)(2) gives authority to the district director to obtain such information as he can obtain in regard to taxes required to be paid by stamp.

xxx. The phrase “upon such information as he can obtain” in Treasury Regulation 301.6201-1(a)(2) does NOT give authority to the district director to obtain such information as he can obtain in regard to “income” taxes.

xxx. Treasury Regulation 301.6201-1(a) states, “The authority of the district director and the director of the regional service center to make assessments includes the following: (1) Taxes shown on return. The district director or the director of the regional service center shall assess all taxes determined by the taxpayer or by the district director or the director of the regional service center and disclosed on a return or list.

xxx. The district director and the director of the regional service center are authorized to assess all taxes “disclosed on a return or list”.

xxx. Treasury Regulation 301.6201-1(a)(1) does NOT authorize the district director or the director of the regional service center to fill out any returns or lists.

xxx. If the district director and the director of the regional service center is NOT authorized to make a return for a taxpayer, the assessment of such taxes shown on such return is NOT a lawful assessment and is void ab initio..

xxx. The phrase “upon such information as he can obtain” is NOT in Treasury Regulation 301.6201-1(a)(1), Thus Treasury Regulation 301.6201-1(a)(1) does NOT give authority to the district director to obtain such information as he can obtain in regard to “income” taxes.

By Anonymous dale eastman, at 8/15/2005 1:29 AM  

http://www.fija.org/torf.pdf
'nuff said.
Now get it out there!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/17/2005 1:35 AM  

A concerned American:

After reading many of these comments, what becomes apparent is the ugliness and unfortunate self-absorption of our nation... and those that govern it.

From one post to the next, this forum seems to be more of a (forgive the expression) pissing contest and a "me right, you wrong" blog.

What strikes me and concerns me as a father and a husband is that there is no relief in sight. Those individuals that show up to counter Larken’s (or posters’) arguments about the law aren't remotely concerned about the sense that the law DOES NOT MAKE. I'm not saying this from an interpretation standpoint, but rather a HUMANE standpoint. Our elected officials, on average, make more money annually than probably 70%-80% of the people that are taxed to pay their wages. Their pensions are rock solid; their healthcare is probably second to none. When my mom retires and is receiving $1200 a month (which is taxable), she will have to work part-time (which is taxable) and probably obtain a reverse mortgage (which is tragic) so that she can not end up on the streets.

I could use many choice words to express my anger that it is more important to people to be right than it is to be well. We are a nation and we are only as safe as the least of us.

What is repugnant is that despite the adversity most people face on a daily basis, the effort by our elected officials has deviated so far from the best interests of the governed that the disparity between the haves (corporations, the filthy rich, and those that represent them-- the federal gov’t) and the have-nots (the working men and women of this nation) is testing the boundaries of the revolution level… quite frankly, I don’t think they are working for us-- they’re laughing at us.

If we’re going to make America what it needs to be, then we will have to make a difference collectively-- WE. It is evident that the Larken Rose’s and Joe Bannister’s have great support, but so few of us are acting. That would include me: a father of three with a spouse who fears the IRS, like the rest of us that lack the resources to do battle with “Uncle Sam’s” bottomless pockets. What I think we should all do is take the example of Joe Bannister to the extent that he did not violate the ‘law’-- he filed his tax returns, while actively questioning these laws. To some, this may appear to be hypocrisy, but much like Larken Rose, Americans like Joe won’t do us any good in prison.

The Price of Freedom is continued vigilance. Those that think they are free are working Monday-Friday from eight to five and the vigilant few, like Larken and Joe are being carted away by the goons of our elected government--the elite few that have given the power to determine just what freedom is.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/22/2005 7:00 PM  

A concerned American at 8:00 PM wrote:

After reading many of these comments, what becomes apparent is the ugliness and unfortunate self-absorption of our nation... and those that govern it.

I appreciate your post and all of the points you have raised.

Over time I hope the goal of this site becomes clear. We simply hope to expose what is right or wrong with our justice system and its treatment of defendants. This site is for people like you that care about all that is good and decent in this nation.

My hope is that people with some semblance of reasoning skills won't be distracted by those that would prefer to deflect us from our efforts to examine our justice system and to recognize it for what it is.

Thus far, comments from dissenters have only served to exemplify all that is wrong with our nation.

By Blogger David Jahn, at 8/23/2005 6:40 AM  

If we’re going to make America what it needs to be, then we will have to make a difference collectively-- WE. It is evident that the Larken Rose’s and Joe Bannister’s have great support, but so few of us are acting. That would include me: a father of three with a spouse who fears the IRS, like the rest of us that lack the resources to do battle with “Uncle Sam’s” bottomless pockets. What I think we should all do is take the example of Joe Bannister to the extent that he did not violate the ‘law’-- he filed his tax returns, while actively questioning these laws. To some, this may appear to be hypocrisy, but much like Larken Rose, Americans like Joe won’t do us any good in prison.

Huge portions of the Bible were written from prisons. "The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it." How are the non-resisters ever going to see it, if not through bad things happening to good people who are resisting it?

That said, I'm not eager to be incarcerated, nor to cause any other innocent people to be. I just have a different viewpoint about it if/when it does happen.

By Blogger Jamie, at 8/24/2005 9:29 PM  

There are worse costs to pay in fighting an evil tyrannical power than free room and board in bequeathed one year increments.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 8/24/2005 9:59 PM