THE IRS - IS ORGANIZED CRIME
Do you owe any real tax on taxable income?
Any one may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one’s taxes.
Judge Learned Hand in “Helvering v. Gregory” a 1934 tax case.
To begin the GURU says:
IF YOU ARE A “TAXPAYER” and
IF YOU HAVE TAXABLE “INCOME”, then
YOU ARE SUBJECT TO THE INCOME TAX.
Section l(a) of the Internal Revenue Code says: “There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of-… [a tax of varying percentages]”
Of course, this does raise the question of exactly what is “taxable income”…
“… ‘income’, as used in the statute should be given a meaning so as not to include everything that comes in”. United States Supreme Court, So. Pacific v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330,(1918)
“Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. The inclusion of one is the exclusion of another. The certain designation of one person is an absolute exclusion of all others…. This doctrine decrees that where law expressly describes [a] particular situation to which it shall apply, an irrefutable inference must be drawn that what is omitted or excluded was intended to be omitted or excluded.” Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th edition.
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. §§ 301‑315 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.
What the Guru will show you in this section is that specific Constitutional limitations on the federal government’s power to tax DOES shape related law, and have generated a coherent Supreme Court doctrine which clearly and soundly answers the question of what is “taxable income”. Both the statutes and the doctrine acknowledge the exemption of the vast majority of private-sector money from that taxing power’s reach.
However, you will also learn about a complex combination of lawyer craft, routine bureaucratic incoherence, and not-so-casual- corruption by virtue of which many people are led to inadvertently allow, and even participate in, the illegal transformation of their un-taxable earnings into “taxable income”. Such people are tricked into voluntarily and utterly unnecessarily enabling the diversion of wealth from their own hands, to never be seen again.
But the same analysis also reveals that, as written, these laws don’t apply to most of the money of most private citizens. Indeed, the two things are interdependent- the former couldn’t be true unless the latter was also true. Also whenever you are dealing with the IRS you should avoid drinking any alcohol. It can make you shoot at tax collectors…… and miss.
Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) contains no provisions creating a specific liability for taxes imposed by subtitle A. Aside from the statutes which apply only to federal government employees, pursuant to the Public Salary Tax Act, the only other statutes that create a specific liability for federal income taxes are those itemized in the definition of “Withholding agent” at IRC section 7701(a)(16). For example, see IRC section 1461. A separate liability statute for “employment” taxes imposed by subtitle C is found at IRC section 3403.
After a worker authorizes a payroll officer to withhold taxes, typically by completing Form W‑4, the payroll officer then becomes a withholding agent who is legally and specifically liable for payment of all taxes withheld from that worker’s paycheck. Until such time as those taxes are paid in full into the Treasury of the United States, the withholding agent is the only party who is legally liable for those taxes, not the worker. See IRC section 7809 (“Treasury of the United States”).
If the worker opts instead to complete a Withholding Exemption Certificate, consistent with IRC section 3402(n), the payroll officer is not thereby authorized to withhold any federal income taxes. In this latter situation, there is absolutely no liability for the worker or for the payroll officer; in other words, there is no liability PERIOD, specifically because there is no withholding agent.
The sixteenth amendment to the constitution puts no limit on governmental confiscation. The government can, under the law, take everything the citizen earns, even to the extent of depriving him of all above mere subsistence, which it must allow him in order that he may continue to produce something to be confiscated. Whichever way you examine the 16th amendment, you come up with the fact that it gives the government a prior lien on all the property produced by its subjects.
In short, when this amendment became part of the Constitution, in 1913, the absolute private right of property in the United States was terminated. That, of course, is the essence of socialism. Whatever else socialism is, or is claimed to be, its first tenet is the denial of private property. All brands of socialism, and there are many, are agreed that property rights must be vested in the political establishment. None of the schemes that are identified with this ideology, such as the nationalization of industry, or socialized medicine, or the abolition of free choice, or the planned economy, can become operative if the individual’s claim to his property is recognized by the government. It is for that reason that all socialists, beginning with Karl Marx, have advocated income taxation, the heavier the better.So then, when the Sixteenth Amendment became part of the Constitution, the American political order, which rested on the axiom of inalienable rights, underwent a major operation. The great debate in the Constitutional Convention of 1789 was over the question as to whether this country should have a republican or democratic form of government; the question was finally resolved in 1913, when the door was opened for the introduction of the socialistic forum.
Because of the reiterations and amendments of the law, a series of complicated judicial rulings, and the passage of time and memories, the details of tax law and the principles upon which it is based have come to be widely misunderstood. These opportunities have been seized upon, by those government agents paid to maximize revenue flow, to successfully construct an elaborate and deceptive tax scheme in today’s Internal Revenue Code. This scheme capitalizes on widespread ignorance of general legal doctrine and rules of statutory construction. It relies upon the concealment of the underlying actual-law-in-force behind the misleading words of the code, which is legally no more than ‘evidence of the law’, and not the real law itself.
You probably have heard it said that Federal Judges will tell defendants and counsel in IRS Section 7203 — Willful Failure To File criminal trials that… “the Constitution does not apply here.”
That statement shocks most people up a wall — but it is an accurate and correct statement. The Judge will never tell you why, though. Of all of the different Judges that I know who have blurted out that statement, none of the criminal defendants have ever pressed the Judge for an explanation as to why the Constitution does not apply.
The reason why the Constitution does not apply is because the Judge is merely enforcing private agreements that the defendant signed with the Secretary of the Treasury. The Judge is not a fifth column commie pinko. The agreement the Judge has in front of him is not the defendant’s 1040 or the defendant’s W-2/4; those are merely declarations of facts and no profit or gain is experienced by them. The real reason is as follows:
When new Federal Judges are hired (nominated by the President and later confirmed by the Senate after hearings by the Senate Judiciary Committee — They are given a “Bench Book” to take with them, giving the new Judge guidance on handling problems as they arise on the bench.
They are taught how to manage “Tax Protester” trials — violations of Title 26. Federal Judges have been instructed that the Supreme Court ruled in 1896 in a case called Davis vs. Elmira Savings, 161 U.S. 275 that banks are instrumentality’s of the Congress. In other words, the interstate system of banks is the private property of the King.
The principle that applies to your relationship with the King (the King being the United States corporation — the Constitution being essentially a renamed enactment of English Common Law as it was at that time, with only additional restrainments being placed on the King) is the principle that private agreements will always overrule the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Thus, specific agreements governing individual circumstances will always overrule broad general clauses found in the Constitution. Or expressed in other words, it is irrational to allow someone to enter into a private agreement with someone, and then allow him to take a clause out of the Constitution — off point and out of context — and allow him to take that clause and use it to weasel, twist and squirm his way out of the agreement, all while retaining the financial gain the agreement gave him in the first place. This is irrational, and judges won’t allow it.
This means that any profit or gain anyone experienced by a bank/thrift and loan/employee credit union — any regulated financial institution carries with it — as an operation of law — the identical same full force and effect as if the King himself created the gain. So as an operation of law, anyone who has a depository relationship, or a credit relationship, with a bank, such as checking, savings, CD’s, credit cards, car loans, real estate mortgages, etc., are experiencing profit and gain created by the King — so says the Supreme Court.
When you opened and maintain bank accounts (because you accept and need to cash various checks as payment), you are very much in an EQUITY LAW RELATIONSHIP with the King.
In the words of Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter: “Equity is brutal, but we are merely enforcing agreements.”
So what actually happens during these Willful Failure to File trials is that:
1. The Intelligence Division of the IRS surveys the local banks in the vicinity of the tax protester, and obtains copies of the protester’s signature card and financial transactions statements from the bank.
2. At the time the U.S. Attorney requests the Judge to sign the summons to compel you into court, the Judge has been presented with your bank account information.
So now during the prosecution the Federal Judge is sitting up there on the bench with your agreement with the King in front of him while the tax protester argues:
“Well, Judge, the Fourth Amendment says…”
“Judge, the Fifth Amendment says I don’t gotta…”
Meanwhile, the Judge is ignoring all of the Constitutionally related arguments and denying all motions.
Are you beginning to see why the Judge is prone to experience frustration and blurt out “the Constitution does not apply here!”?
Check this out for yourself, if you go back to your bank and ask the manager to show you your signature card again, in small print you will see these words:
“The undersigned hereby agrees to abide by all of the Rules of this Bank,” and there is your signed civil contract that binds you to the bank and the federal government.
Have you ever asked to see a copy of the bank rules? If you have, you will read and find out that you agreed to abide by all of the administrative rulings of the Secretary of the Treasury, among many other things.
What is really happening in these Willful Failure to File prosecutions is that the Judge and court is operating on the penal clause to a civil contract. And since you have agreed to be bound by Title 26, what difference does it make whether or not Title 26 was ever enacted by the Congress? A contract does not have to be enacted by Congress — in whole or in part — in order to make it enforceable.
As for the actual taxation itself, what happens is that the King creates a “juristic personality” with your name spelled out in all CAPITAL LETTERS at the time you opened your bank account. And it is that juristic personality (its income and assets) that the King’s Agents are “excising” through the court back to the King. But in any event, the taxing power of the Congress attaches by contract or use of the King’s property. The Congress does not have the jurisdiction to use the police powers to directly raise revenue.
That is the proper way (the ideal Alice in Wonderland way actually) to collect taxes, and that is the procedure by which Federal Judges are enforcing the law — not by ruling over gestapo Star Chambers as many patriots wrongly believe.
I have some reservations on the modus operandi of Federal Judges when the Supreme Court mentions over and over again that:
“Justice must satisfy the appearance of justice.” [Offutt vs. U.S., 348 U.S. 11] and that when a man is thoroughly convinced that he is on the right side of an issue — a man like Irwin Schiff — that justice has not satisfied the appearance of justice unless the criminal defendant is aware that he did wrong. And on these tax protester trials, that requires a sentencing hearing lecture by the judge to the defendant on why and where the defendant did err.
I am not going to spend any more time on this subject just right now — other than you should be cognizant by this point in this lesson that you are on the wrong side of the issue — and that the King’s Agents are not working a great evil by going around the countryside asking people to stop defiling themselves by dishonoring their own signed contract agreements with the King.
If the 16th Amendment were somehow repealed tomorrow morning at 9:00am — it would not change a single thing (other than the IRS would have to start giving people a true and correct presentation of the law to justify the taxes). The IRS and the excise tax on juristic persons would continue on as usual.
As it pertains to the proposed restraining order the King’s Agents are trying to get against you and your alter ego, please get a copy of the Complaint filed by U.S. Attorney Charles Magnuson dated January 31, 1984 — and turn to page 9. Examine the last five words in paragraph “b”: “..under the Court’s equity powers.”
Thus the petition by the United States for a restraining order against you is legitimate to the extent that you are in written contractual equity with the King.
When you trace back the genealogy of your signature on your bank card, you will find that you agreed to be bound by Title 26, and under Section 7202 you agreed not to disseminate any fraudulent tax advice. And the concept that Federal Reserve Notes are not taxable instruments of commerce — for any reason — when the person has a written agreement with the King saying that FRN’s are taxable — this concept is in fact fraudulent.
I would encourage you to prove me wrong.
You can prove me wrong by asking the Judge:
“Please identify the instrument I signed, Judge, which creates an attachment of equity jurisdiction between the United States and me.”
The Federal Judge probably is not going to want to disclose what document it is that you executed which created the attachment of equity jurisdiction. They have been asked not to let the cat out of the bag. The IRS handles this “bank account = equity relationship” on a military style “need-to-know” only type basis.
You can file a Mandamus in the Circuit Court of Appeals or petition for a Subpoena Duces Tecum returnable against the U.S. Attorney to compel discovery of what it is that you signed that created the contract and attachment of equity jurisdiction that the King’s Agents are now acting under in trying to get a restraining order against you. This type of equity jurisdiction always attaches by written consent.
If this restraining order has already been granted by now — then get rid of your bank accounts and file a petition for reversal — your arguments being then that you are not in an equity relationship with the King anymore. The First Amendment would apply then, but it does not apply to you now since you are in an equity relationship with the King — and private contract agreements overrule the Bill of Rights.
Everything you sign is a Contract, including your relationship with your wife, your children, and your neighbors. The following link contains numerous sources/case law for verification and expansion of the above lesson.
To better understand contracts, read George Mercier’s “Invisible Contracts”