Login
  • Username:

    Password:
  • Remember my login on this computer
  • Register
Users online
  • Users: 1 Guest
  • 1 User Browsing This Page.
    Users: 1 Guest

  • Most Users Ever Online Is On June 12, 2008 @ 11:50 pm

Feds lock up another good Libertarian

Income taxes, we all hate them and love to see them abolished. One thing is for sure about Libertarians…we want at least lower taxes and anyone is advocates the opposite simply isn’t a libertarian. However, there are a brave few souls who will defy paying income taxes and risk getting caught by the government. We all have our own battles we can win but many of us will not go this radical in our ongoing fight against what is wrong!

My friend and fellow Libertarian,Arthur Farnsworth was sentenced to 27 months in federal minimum security prison yesterday on tax evasion. I’ve known Arthur since 1996, when I moved to Bucks County,PA and joined the local libertarian group there. He was always unwaivering about his positions and true to his beliefs.

I just hope that his time in prison doesn’t break him his spirits down. I hope he has his unwavering beliefs about the income tax after he is released. We need more people who are willing to fight for whats right no matter what.

Print This Post Print This Post
3,790 views
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading ... Loading ...

61 Responses to “Feds lock up another good Libertarian”

  1. Susan Hogarth Says:

    Poor guy. He has my sympathies :-(

  2. zrated Says:

    if i were in hos position, it would be hard for me, when i got out of prison, to resist setting certain buildings on fire and shooting at certain vehicles from overpasses. the sad thing is that i’m too afraid to stand up for him in any meaningful way. those who have the courage to stand up against evil will do so with very little material support from anyone else. fighting evil is, unfortunately, a solitary endeavor.

  3. matt Says:

    I’ve decided that active tax resistance isn’t for me, but hats off to this guy!

  4. Mr. X Says:

    I have unwavering beliefs about leprechauns in my pants, but I would hope that I can be convinced otherwise in the face of evidence.

    Farnsworth and others like him are not defiant tax resisters (people who engage in civil disobedience of a law they know applies to them but feel is unjust), but slimy tax cheats (people who come up with bullshit arguments about why the law doesn’t mean what it says and encourage others to follow their lead into prison).

    There’s no edge in joining the paytriots in their insane delusions. Just ask Irwin Schiff. or Doug Kenline. or Gene Chapman.

    Or Arthur Farnsworth.

  5. matt Says:

    New comments by Rudy Guliani promising that, as President, he would ignore a congressional cutoff of funds for war.

    Pardon me, sir, your fascist is showing.

    http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/04/03/giuliani/index.html?source=email

  6. Susan Hogarth Says:

    I just read the judge’s comments: what a patronizing sonofabitch.

    Mr. X: How do you differentiate between tax resistors and ‘tax cheats’? For someone to be a cheat, wouldn’t the income tax have to be morally valid?

  7. IanC Says:

    It is a law that is on the books that was ratified by the republic’s legal processes. People attempt to reinterpret things, or use semantics to justify personal positions.

    The way to differentiate is simple. Do they say, “Yes I’m a criminal; I must dissent!” or do they say, “This law ain’t really law!”

    The former is a noble, principled stand and an honest action showing self-ownership in a modern society. The latter is either delusion or simple deceitfulness.

    Please note that, as I don’t know Arthur, I cannot comment.

  8. Mr. X Says:

    Mr. X: How do you differentiate between tax resistors and ‘tax cheats’? For someone to be a cheat, wouldn’t the income tax have to be morally valid?

    No. Cheating is trying to break the rules without getting caught. Resistance is refusal to obey the rules based on a principled stand, e.g. war tax resisters.

    Also, morally valid and legal are not the same thing. If you think a law is immoral, you’re free to disobey it, but there will be consequences.

  9. Old Guard Says:

    Sheldon Richman, a respected libertarian writer, trashes these kind of tax resisters, in an article in the FFF latest issue.

  10. Susan Hogarth Says:

    I commend people who take an open stand against taxes and pay the price for their stand.

    I ALSO commend people who ‘cheat’ (I use that word completely ironically) by trying to keep some of their own money, but who also want to stay out of jail and live their lives. I applaud them when they’re successful, and empathize with them when they fail.

    I suspect that if we were all slaves (as opposed to just tax-slaves), some of you would be trashing the slaves who ’shirked’ their work. That attitude is unbecoming of a libertarian, I think. Leave ‘all must suffer equally’ for the socialists.

  11. Chris Moore Says:

    I ALSO commend people who ‘cheat’ (I use that word completely ironically) by trying to keep some of their own money, but who also want to stay out of jail and live their lives. I applaud them when they’re successful, and empathize with them when they fail.

    I have no problem with people who cheat on their taxes. If they get away with it, then good for them. What I do have a problem with is people who con others into buying their book about how they don’t have to pay income tax. Or conning someone into buying their “system” for tax avoidance, which always leads to the poor schmuck going to jail. Those people are perpetrating a fraud and should receive the same respect given to a common criminal.

    Aurthur Farnsworth? I don’t know who he is, so like Ian I will not comment specifically on him.

  12. Chris Moore Says:

    I suspect that if we were all slaves (as opposed to just tax-slaves), some of you would be trashing the slaves who ’shirked’ their work.

    A more accurate analogy would be that if we were all slaves, I would be trashing the slaves who sell other slaves “systems” for avoiding their work without receiving beatings, when the system sellers know damn well that following their system leads to only one outcome: more beatings for the person they just ripped off.

    The slave holders are disgusting, reprehensible people. And so are the con artist slaves.

  13. Andy Says:

    “Farnsworth and others like him are not defiant tax resisters (people who engage in civil disobedience of a law they know applies to them but feel is unjust), but slimy tax cheats (people who come up with bullshit arguments about why the law doesn’t mean what it says and encourage others to follow their lead into prison).”

    “Slimy tax cheat”?!?!?! WTF? This implies that the tax system has some kind of legitimacy. The REAL cheats are the government! There is NO legitimate, legal, or moral reason to pay taxes other than the fact that the government can stick a gun to your head and force you to pay. I support ANYONE who doesn’t pay taxes for any reason.

    I didn’t know that there were this many statist in the Libertarian Party.

  14. Susan Hogarth Says:

    Chris: I see your point - indeed I think there were slaves who sold ‘protective’ (voodoo) amulets, and that is indeed reprehensible (though covered by ‘caveat emptor’). But others here have referred to actual ‘tax cheats’, and I, like Andy, am surprised at the amount and variety of statism within the libertarian movement (and Party).

  15. unrepentant_archcapitalist Says:

    The good news is that if Mr. Farnsworth simply puts on his tin-foil hat, hides in the closet and closes his eyes, the feds will not be able to find him.

  16. unrepentant_archcapitalist Says:

    Libertarians should focus on lowering taxes and reducing spending. This conspiracy lunacy makes you all look like Doug Chapmans.

  17. Andy Says:

    “Libertarians should focus on lowering taxes and reducing spending. This conspiracy lunacy makes you all look like Doug Chapmans.”

    Attacking the legality and morality of the system works to destroy people’s faith in government. Once you expose that the “emporer has no clothes” people become more likely to support the Libertarian Party.

  18. Chris Moore Says:

    Selling a book about how the 16th amendment was not properly ratified? Fine. You can believe that if you like. You can even not file income tax returns in protest. Go for it.

    However, selling a system where you suggest that by following it, the buyer will avoid any consequences … that is a con.

  19. Andy Says:

    “Selling a book about how the 16th amendment was not properly ratified? Fine. You can believe that if you like. You can even not file income tax returns in protest. Go for it.

    However, selling a system where you suggest that by following it, the buyer will avoid any consequences … that is a con.”

    First off, nobody is forced to buy the system. Secondly, I think that everyone knows that there is still a risk in going to jail because the government can ignore anything that you have to say - even if it is blatantly obvious that you are correct - and put you in jail anyway. In fact, the government can even put you in jail for trying to comply with the laws or what they say the laws are. When you are going against a corrupt government there is no fool proof system. You can increase your odds of winning or not being “caught” but there is no gaurentee of either not happening.

  20. TitaniumGirl Says:

    I’m with Susan on this one - Susan, I do not believe that you could be any cooler! Rock on sister!

  21. Chris Moore Says:

    First off, nobody is forced to buy the system.

    No, they are conned into buying it by criminals perpetrating a fraud.

  22. Andy Says:

    “No, they are conned into buying it by criminals perpetrating a fraud.”

    The government is the criminal that is perpetrating a fraud.

  23. ElfNinos Mom Says:

    I don’t feel particularly sorry for him, since he brought his present circumstances upon himself. However, I do feel for his loved ones, since they did nothing to deserve the sorrow they are undoubtedly feeling right now.

  24. Chris Moore Says:

    The government is the criminal that is perpetrating a fraud.

    Actually, the government very clearly states that if you don’t do what they say concerning filing and paying taxes, then you will go to jail. They do not try to deceive you in this regard. The government is perpetrating an outright theft, not a fraud. There is a different.

    If a man comes up to me and says that he will show me how I can go about not paying my taxes, and that by following his plan I can not be prosecuted for tax evasion, then he is lying. If he exchanges his plan for money, then he is perpetrating a fraud.

  25. pauliecannoli Says:

    from radgeek.com:

    Regulatory language

    Here’s a little something that I noticed the other day while preparing the annual paperwork for the tribute that the State exacts from me. Check out the cover of this year’s Michigan state income tax booklet. I’ve highlighted the portion that caught my eye.

    Here's the 2006 Michigan 1040 booklet, reading: Individual Income Tax Forms and Instructions. Make it easy on yourself …

    Now besides tax-collecting, what other line of work would you associate with that particular phrase?

    Here are three mobsters standing together, in a scene from the Sopranos.
  26. Robert Mayer Says:

    Yeah, make it easy on yourself… bend over and apply a generous amount of lubricant so Uncle Sam won’t have to get rough with you.

    And ditto to what Susan said!

  27. Mr. X Says:

    “Slimy tax cheat”?!?!?! WTF? This implies that the tax system has some kind of legitimacy. The REAL cheats are the government! There is NO legitimate, legal, or moral reason to pay taxes other than the fact that the government can stick a gun to your head and force you to pay. I support ANYONE who doesn’t pay taxes for any reason.

    Actually, there is a legal reason to pay taxes. Various provisions of Title 26 of the U.S. Code, passed by a duly elected Congress and signed by a duly elected President is the legal reason to pay taxes.

    Taxes may be immoral and you may feel that the government is doing evil things with the money. However, when a legitimately elected representative government passes a law, the rule of law requires one to obey the law or face the consequences. Slimy tax cheats want to do both.

    I didn’t know that there were this many statist in the Libertarian Party.

    You sir, are a master debater.

  28. Mr. X Says:

    Attacking the legality and morality of the system works to destroy people’s faith in government. Once you expose that the “emporer has no clothes” people become more likely to support the Libertarian Party.

    Do you know how our legal system works?

    If you want to attack a law in court, you bring a case. You argue, the other side argues, and in the end the judge or jury (depending on the trial type) decides the outcome. That decision is precedent for that court when it sees future cases that present similar disputes and for any lower courts.

    If you want to try to present the same argument again, you have to show why the facts are different enough from the precedential case to justify the court not applying the previous ruling to the case at hand. If you can’t do this, the later case will be decided consistently with the first.

    The binding decisions of courts in the jurisdiction is the law. You may disagree with the law, but denying that it is the law is the most childish form of crazy talk and does nothing to make people “more likely to support the Libertarian Party.”

  29. Kent McManigal Says:

    “Actually, there is a legal reason to pay taxes. Various provisions of Title 26 of the U.S. Code, passed by a duly elected Congress and signed by a duly elected President is the legal reason to pay taxes.”

    Only if you explicitly consented to play the game by “their” rules. I did not.

  30. Mr. X Says:

    Only if you explicitly consented to play the game by “their” rules. I did not.

    If you’re suggesting a Spoonerian rejection of the social contract entirely, I think I follow you. If you’re suggesting something like (a) not using zip codes, (b) refusing to appear in a court with a fringed flag, (c) or some other super special combination of behavior or words that keeps you out of the system, good luck with that.

    Also, with regard to “their” rules, aren’t you seeking the Presidential nomination so you can run for “their” office by “their” rules?

  31. Chris Moore Says:

    Only if you explicitly consented to play the game by “their” rules. I did not.

    You did not consent, Kent. Your refusal to tell the government to go to hell even at the point of a gun is a principled stand, and I can respect that. However, you are well aware that if the Soprano Fami … uhh … government catches you, then they will throw you in jail. If you resist, then they will shoot you.

    So if you told me that by doing what you are doing, the government is incapable of roughing me up (whether by some tax haven, special legal argument, etc.), then you would be lying. As far as I know, you have never made such a claim.

    I think you believe the 16th amendment was never ratified (a statement that I disagree with). However, it is your right to believe that and tell other people what you believe. You can even charge them to hear (or read) your belief. What would be wrong is selling your belief as a sure-fire way to win any tax case brought against someone. That argument has never been held up in court. That doesn’t make it wrong in principle, but it does make it wrong in law.

  32. Chris Moore Says:

    “Your refusal to tell” should read “Your insistence on telling”. Sorry.

  33. Jake Porter Says:

    There is no law that requires me to use a seat belt while driving.

    Rusty Shackleford: I do not recognize the authority of a court that hangs the gold-fringed flag. A flag with gilded edges is the flag of an admirality court. An admirality court signifies a naval court-martial. I cannot be court-martialled twice. That is all.

  34. unrepentant_archcapitalist Says:

    The fact of that matter is that all of these “tax-resisters” are really just whiny anti-capitalists who think that World Jewry is out to get them.

    Fact: You can be anything you want to be in this country.

    Fact: This is the best country in the world.

    Fact: Tax-resisters are losers.

    Get rich and stop whining. I thought this was a capitalist party? That’s why I signed up. Then I learned. Which is why I will not be renewing my membership.

  35. Andy Says:

    How Can I Live Without Filing Taxes?
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2181362300314325689&hl=en

  36. Andy Says:

    “Fact: Tax-resisters are losers.”

    People who do not resist taxes or at least do not even complain about taxes are BOOT LICKING SHEEP. What happened to the spirit of revolution?

  37. Andy Says:

    “Actually, there is a legal reason to pay taxes. Various provisions of Title 26 of the U.S. Code, passed by a duly elected Congress and signed by a duly elected President is the legal reason to pay taxes.”

    First of all, Title 26 was written AFTER various Supreme Court rulings that stated that individuals who work within the 50 states are not liable for income tax. Check out the clip of Aaron Russo interviewing a former IRS commissioner below.

    Second of all, just because the government SAYS something it does not mean that everyone is obligated to comply with it. In Nazi Germany their government said that they should round up certain people and stick them in concentration camps even though these people hadn’t done anything wrong. Going by this “logic” one can justify any injustice by saying, “Well, the governmnet put it on paper and told me that I had to do it.”

    Aaron Russo vs. Sheldon Cohen
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nX-03Sf1wDo

    “If you want to attack a law in court, you bring a case. You argue, the other side argues, and in the end the judge or jury (depending on the trial type) decides the outcome. That decision is precedent for that court when it sees future cases that present similar disputes and for any lower courts.”

    Aaron Russo brings this up in the video I posted above. He brings up several Supreme Court decisions and then former IRS commissioner and current tax attorney Sheldon Cohen responds by saying that the IRS code was written after these decisions and then he stops the interview shortly after this and storms off.

  38. Andy Says:

    Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust Co. (1898)
    Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust Co. (1898)
    In 1894 Congress passed a law that tried to expand the application of the income duty to include the taxation of the interest and dividends on the deposits at U.S. banks. This was challenged immediately, and was settled by the Supreme Court in:
    Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust Co., 157 US 429 (1895) (Entire text of ruling)

    This decision states that it is UNconstitutional to impose the income tax on the interest from deposits (and the dividends from stocks) of U.S citizens in U.S. banks, because that would be a Direct Tax WITHOUT APPORTIONMENT, which Congress is not authorized, to enact, and is in fact, prohibited from doing in the Constitution.

    Excerpts from the decision:

    “…Ordinarily, all taxes paid primarily by persons who can shift the burden upon someone else, or who are under no legal compulsion to pay them, are considered indirect taxes; but a tax upon property holders in respect of their estates, whether real or personal, or of the income yielded by such estates, and the payment of which cannot be avoided, are direct taxes…”

    and;

    “…Subsequently, in 1869, …. The question arose whether the law which imposes such a tax upon them was constitutional. The opinion of the Attorney General thereon was requested by the Secretary of the Treasury. The Attorney General, in reply, gave an elaborate opinion advising the Secretary of the Treasury that no income tax could be lawfully assessed and collected upon the salaries of those officers who were in office at the time the statute imposing the tax was passed, holding on this subject the views expressed by Chief Justice Taney. His opinion is published in Volume XIII of the Opinioin of the Attorney General, at page 161. I am informed that it has been followed ever since without question by the department supervising or directing the collection of the public revenue…”

    and;

    …A tax upon one’s whole income is a tax upon the annual receipts from his whole property, and as such falls witin the same class as a tax upon that property, and is a direct tax, in the meaning of the Constitution….

    and;

    …We have unanimously held in this case that, so far as this law operates on the receipts from municipal bonds , it cannot be sustained, because it is a tax on the powers of the States, and on their instrumentalities to borrow money, and consequently repugnant to the Constitution. …it follows that, if the revenue from municipal bonds cannot be taxed because the source cannot be, the same rule applies to revenue from any other source not subject to the tax; and the lack of power to levy any but an apportioned tax on real and personal property equally exists as to the revenue therefrom.
    Admitting that this act taxes the income of property irrespective of its source, still we cannot doubt that such a tax is necessarily a direct tax in the meaning of the Constitution.
    In England, we do not understand that an income tax has ever been regarded as other than a diect tax. In Dowell’s History of Taxation and Taxes in England, given, and an income tax is invariably classified as a direct tax..

    and, even in dissent:

    …that personal property, contracts, obligations, and the like, have never been regarded by Congress as proper subjects of direct tax. The United States Constitution provides Congress the power to lay and collect taxes directly only as long as it is apportioned with regard to the census or enumeration.”

  39. Andy Says:

    Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co. (1916)

    Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co. (1916)
    Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co. (1916)
    Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 US 1 (1916) (Entire text of ruling)
    The Brushaber decision determined that since the provisions of Article I of the Constitution were not repealed, they are still in full force and effect. Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, and Article I, Section 9, Clause 4, both specify that Direct taxes must be apportioned (to the state governments for collection). The Court ruled that:

    “Income has been taken to mean the same thing as used in the Corporation Excise tax of 19099 (36 Stat. 112). The worker does not receive a profit or gain from his/her labors–merely an equal exchange of funds for services.”

    “the command of the amendment that all income taxes shall not be subject to the rule of apportionment by a consideration of the source from which the taxed income may be derived forbids the application to such taxes of the rule applied in the Pollock case by which alone such taxes were removed from the great class of excises, duties, and imposts subject to the rule of uniformity and were placed under the other or direct class.”

    and:

    Moreover, in addition, the conclusion reached in the Pollock case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class of direct taxes on property, but, on the contrary, recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such unless and until it was concluded that to enforce it would amount to accomplishing the result which the requirement as to apportionment of direct taxation was adopted to prevent, in which case the duty would arise to disregard form and consider substance alone,…”

    Since the income tax is “without apportionment” by virtue of the wording of the 16th Amendment, it cannot be a direct tax, because direct taxes MUST still be apportioned. So, the income tax, after the 16th Amendment, is still an indirect tax.

    According to the Supreme Court, the 16th Amendment does nothing in the way of creating a new taxing power or authority to tax (directly) It (the 16th Amendment) merely moves the Income Tax out of the Indirect classification of duties (imposed on foreign imports and federal employees as we have seen), and moves it into the still Indirect classification of excises (imposed on privileges and commodities and foreigners and foreign activities and federal employees).

    but it is still an Indirect tax, not a Direct tax without apportionment, as deceptively and fraudulently claimed by the I.R.S.

    The Brushaber decision concludes by referring the reader, for the definition of excise taxes, to the Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. (1911) decision, handed down five years earlier. So, the Court knew what it was doing !

    but, there is an even bigger story about Brushaber to tell. You see if you look this case up and read it, you will see that the Supreme Court tells Frank Brushaber (an American citizen) that the tax IS Constitutional (as an indirect excise) and that he (Brushaber) has to pay it (the income tax). The IRS relies on, and cites this Court ruling as absolute proof that the income tax IS CONSTITUTIONAL. AND THEY ARE RIGHT. HOWEVER, Frank Brushaber, a citizen, filed this law suit on behalf of his foreign principals, from whom he was required to deduct and withhold income tax as their (the foreigners’) U.S. (Withholding) Agent.

    Frank got told to pay the tax on the income of foreigners, not his own income. If you don’t believe me, please check the (entire text of the ruling) and be sure to note carefully in the first sentence of the first paragraph where it says:

    the appellant filed his bill to enjoin the corporation from complying with the income tax provisions of the tariff act of October 3, 1913″

    You do know what TARIFFS are, don’t you ? And Treasury Decision 2313 clearly shows the orders resultant within the IRS as a result of this Supreme Court decision.

    This is a case about the taxation of foreigners, who have NO rights and enjoy a government granted privilege in being allowed access to the American markets to earn money. It is not a case related to the taxation of a citizen’s own income earned by right.

    It is a fundamental fraud to misrepresent this case as applicable or related to the issue of taxation of citizens, as the IRS has done for over 60 years !!!

    According to the Supreme Court in 1916, even after the 16th Amendment:

    INCOME TAX IS STILL A FOREIGN TAX !

    (now it is an EXCISE tax (no longer a duty), imposed on the privileged income of foreigners in America, and on the privileged income of citizens - earned in FOREIGN countries under tax treaties)

  40. Andy Says:

    Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. (1916)
    Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. (1916)
    Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 US 103 (1916) (Entire text of ruling)
    “…by the previous ruling, it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of INDIRECT taxation to which it inherently belonged..” (emphasis added)

    ===============================================

    NOTE WHERE IT SAYS “ENTIRE TEXT OF RULING”: THIS WAS A LINK THAT DID NOT POST HERE. IF YOU WANT TO GET TO THE LINK THIS IS POSTED AT WWW.TAX-FREEDOM.COM.

  41. Andy Says:

    Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. (1911)
    Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 US 107 (1911) (Entire text of ruling)
    .”Excises are taxes laid upon:

    the manufacture, sale or consumption of commodities within the country,
    upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, and upon
    corporate privileges;
    .. the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of the privilege and if business is not done in the manner described no tax is payable…it is the privilege which is the subject of the tax and not the mere buying, selling or handling of goods.

    Only those enjoying government granted privileges are subject to the INCOME tax according to the Supreme Court !

    These rulings have never been overturned !

    AS A CITIZEN, YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO WORK.

    RIGHTS CANNOT BE TAXED, ONLY PRIVILEGES !

    UNDER THE LETTER OF THE LAW CITIZENS ARE STILL FREE, IF THEY WANT TO BE !

  42. Andy Says:

    Other Supreme Court Decisions

    “The income tax system is a self-reporting and self-assessing one. It is based upon voluntary assessment and payment not distraint”
    Flora v. United States, 362 U.S. 145 176

    “Doubt relative to statutory construction should be resolved in favor of the individual, not the government”
    Greyhound Corp. v. United States, 495 F2d 863

    “The legal right of an individual to decrease or altogether avoid his/her taxes by means which the law permits cannot be doubted”
    Gregory v. Helvering, 293 U.S. 465

    “Congress cannot by any definition (of income in this case) it may adopt, conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully expressed.”
    Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189

    “In construing federal revenue statute, Supreme Court gives no weight to Treasury regulation which attempts to add to statute something which is not there.” United States v. Calamaro, 354 U.S. 351 (1957), 1 L. Ed. 2d 1394, 77 S. Ct. 1138 (1957)

    “Treasury regulations can add nothing to income as defined by Congress”
    Blatt Co. v. United States, 59 S. Ct. 472

    “The extension of tax by implication is not favored”
    Reinecke v. Gardner, 277 U.S. 239

    “All laws, rules and practices which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void”
    Marbury v. Madison, 5th US (2 Cranch) 137, 180

    “It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the Constitutional rights of the citizen and against any stealthy encroachments thereon”
    Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 635

    “The 16th Amendment does not justify the taxation of persons or things previously immune. It was intended only to remove all occasions for any apportionment of income taxes among the states. It does not authorize a tax on a salary”
    Evans V. Gore, 253 U.S. 245

    “In numerous cases where the IRS has sought enforcement of its summons pursuant to statute, courts have held that a taxpayer may refuse production of personal books and records by assertion of his privilege against self-incrimination.”
    Hill v. Philpott, 445 F2d 144, 146

    “To penalize the failure to give a statement which is self-incriminatory, is beyond the power of Congress”
    United States v. Lombardo, 228 F. 980,981

    “The requirement of an offence committed willfully is not met, therefore, if a taxpayer has relied in good faith upon a prior decision of this court”
    United States v Bishop, 412 U.S. 346, 361

    “A personal right that is not transferable or assignable is also not taxable. Damages for alienation of affections, defamation of personal character do not constitute income”
    United States v. Kaiser, 80 S.Ct. 1264

    “Income means gains/profit from property severed from capitol, however invested or employed. Income is not a wage or compensation fro any type of labor”
    Stapler v. United States, 21 F.Supp 737 at 739

    “Tax on income derived from property was the equivalent of a direct tax on the income-producing property itself and must be apportioned in accordance with provisions of Article I of the Constitution”
    Home Mutual Insurance Co v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 639 F2d 333

    “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them”
    Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491

    “Because Federal courts are limited in jurisdiction, the presumption is that it is without jurisdiction unless the contrary affirmatively appears.”
    Grace v. American Central Insurance Co., 109 U.S. 278

    “Courts have no power to rewrite legislative enactments to give effect to their ideas of policy and fitness or the desirability of symmetry in statutes.”
    Busse v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 479 F2d 1143

    “The Fifth Amendment applies alike to criminal and civil proceedings”
    McCarthy v. Arndstein, 266 U.S. 34

  43. Andy Says:

    $10,000 Guarantee Contest
    We will pay $10,000.00 to any person who can prove the following statements of fact to be false !!
    We have conclusive legal proof that the following facts are correct. That is why we can say - American citizens and permanent resident aliens, living and working within the States of the Union ARE NOT SUBJECT to the filing of an IRS Form 1040 and ARE NOT LIABLE for the payment of a tax on domestic “income” !

    FOR YEARS the IRS has ruled the American people in a manner equal only to the Soviet KGB. FEAR and BLUFF and deception have been the IRS’s major weapons. Americans have been lead to believe that they “owe” an income tax on their earnings; that it is their “patriotic duty to pay it”, and that there is no alternative to the IRS’s abuse. Nothing could be further from the TRUTH.

    FEAR can only prevail when victims are ignorant of the facts. The Bible teaches us that God’s people perish for lack of knowledge. Therefore, consider the following:

    1) Our Founding Fathers created a constitutional REPUBLIC as our form of government. The Constitution gives the federal/national government LIMITED powers. All powers not delegated to the United States, are reserved to the States respectively or to the People. The Union was created to be the servant of the People! The United States Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land. (Article VI, Clause 2)

    2) The Constitution gives the Congress the power to lay and collect taxes to pay the debts of the government, provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States, subject to the following rules, pertaining to the only two classifications of taxes permitted by the Constitution: Direct Taxes, which are subject to the rule of apportionment (to the states for collection), and Indirect Taxes - imposts, duties and excises, subject to the rule of uniformity.

    3) The government is NOT ALLOWED, by either one of the two classifications, TO TAX DIRECTLY citizens or permanent resident aliens of the United States, in the United States. The intent of the founders was to keep the government the servant of the People, and to prevent it from becoming the master. (Article I, Section2, Clause 3)

    4) The census is taken every ten years to determine the number of representatives to be allotted to each state and the amount of a direct tax that may be apportioned to each state determined by the percentage its number of representatives bears to the total membership in the House of Representatives. (Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 and Article I, Section 9, Clause 4)

    5) It was established in the Constitutional convention of 1787 that the Supreme Court of the United States would have the power of “judicial review”, i.e., the power to declare laws passed by the United States Congress to be null and void if such a law or laws were in violation of the Constitution, to be determined from the original intent as found in Madison’s Notes recorded during the Convention, the Federalist Papers, and the ratifying conventions found in Elliott’s Debates.

    6) Due to the characteristics of the second classification of taxation authorized in the Constitution, the Supreme Court called it an Indirect Tax, and it is divided into three distinct categories of taxes: IMPOSTS, DUTIES and EXCISES. These taxes were intended to provide for the operating expense of the government of the United States.

    7) Duties and Imposts are taxes laid by the government on things imported into the country from abroad, and are paid at the ports of entry.
    8) The Supreme Court says that “EXCISES are:… taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale and consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations and upon corporate privileges” (See Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. 220 US 107 (1911))

    9) In 1862, Congress pased an Act (law) to create an “Income Duty” to help pay for the war between the states. A duty is an indirect tax which the federal government cannot impose on citizens or residents of a state having sources of income within a State of the Union.

    10) Congress passed an Act in 1894 to impose a tax on the incomes of citizens and resident aliens of the United States. The constitutionality of the Act was challenged in 1895 and the Supreme Court said the law was UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT WAS A DIRECT TAX THAT WAS NOT APPORTIONED as the Constitution required. (See Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan & Trust Co., 157 US 429 (1895))

    11) In 1909 Congress passed the 16th Amendment to the Constitution that was allegedly ratified by 3/4 of the states; it is known as the “Income Tax Amendment”.

    12) Some officials within the IRS, along with professors, politicians, teachers and some judges have said, and are saying, that the 16th Amendment changed the Constitution to allow a direct tax without apportionment.

    13) The above persons are NOT EMPOWERED to interpret the meaning of the United States Constitution! As stated above (Fact 5), this power is granted by the Constitution to the Supreme Court, but is limited to original intent. The supreme Court is NOT EMPOWERED to function as a “social engineer”, to amend or alter the Constitution as they have been doing. A change or “amendment” can only be lawfully done according to the provisions of Article V of that document.

    14) The U.S. Supreme Court said in 1916 that the 16th Amendment DID NOT change the Constitution because of the fact that Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, and Article I, Section 9, Clause 4, were not repealed or altered; the U.S. Constitution cannot conflict with itself. The Court also said that the 16th Amendment MERELY PREVENTED THE INCOME DUTY FROM BEING TAKEN OUT OF THE CATEGORY OF INDIRECT TAXATION. (Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. CO. 240 US 1 (pg. 16) (1916))

    15) After the Supreme Court decision, the office of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue issued Treasury Decision 2313, ([Order] dated March 21, 1916; Vol 18 January-December, 1916, page 53). It states in part:”….it is hereby held that income accruing to nonresident aliens in the form of interest from the bonds and dividends on the stock of domestic corporations is subject to the income tax imposed by the Act of October 3, 1913.”

  44. Andy Says:

    16) In another Supreme Court decision in 1916, the Court, in CLEAR LANGUAGE, settled the application of the 16th amendment: by the previous ruling (Brushaber) it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment CONFERRED NO NEW POWER OF TAXATION but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary (full) power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged….(Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 249 US 112 (1916))

    17) The United States Constitution gives the national government the exclusive authority to handle foreign affairs. Congress has the power to pass laws concerning the direct or indirect taxation of foreigners doing business in the Unites States of America. It has possessed this power from the beginning, needing no amendment (change) to the U.S. Constitution to authorize the exercise of it.

    18) The DIRECT classification of taxation was intended for use when unforesen expenses or emergencies arise. Congress, needing funds to meet the emergency, can borrow money on the credit of the United States (Article I, Section 8 Clause 2). The founding fathers intended that the budget of the United States be balanced and a deficit be paid off quickly and in an orderly fashion, through a DIRECT tax. The tax bill is given to the Senate of the Union. The bill is “apportioned” by the number of representatives of each State in Congress; therefore, each State is billed its apportioned share of the Direct tax equal to the number of votes its Representatives could employ to pass the tax. How the states raise the money to pay the bill is not a federal concern. (Article I, Section 2, Clause 3)

    19) In the Brushaber and Stanton cases, the Supreme Court said the 16th Amendment did not change income taxes to another classification. So, if the income tax is an indirect excise, then how is it applied and collected ? According to the Supreme Court: “Excises are taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale and consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations and upon corporate privileges; the requirement to pay such tax involves the exercise of the privilege and if business is not done in the manner described no tax is payable……it is the privilege which is the subject of the tax and not the mere buying, selling or handling of goods.”

    QUESTION: If all RIGHTS come from God (citizens of the States retained all RIGHTS except those surrendered as enumerated in the Constitution) and PRIVILEGES are granted by government after application for privilege is made by the Citizen,, then what is the privilege that the income tax is pplied against ?

    ANSWER: As established in the Constitution, the federal government cannot directly tax a citizen living within the States of the Union. Citizens possess RIGHTS; these RIGHTS cannot be converted to privileges by the government. The only individuals who would not have these rights and be liable to regulation by government are NONRESIDENT ALIENS doing business and working within the United States or receiving domestic source profits from investment instruments in America, AND United States citizens working in a foreign country and taxable under TREATIES between the two governments.

    20) WITHHOLDING AGENTS withhold income taxes. The only section in the Internal Revenue Code that defines this authority is section 7701(a)(16).

    21) Withholding of money for income tax purposes, according to section 7701(a)(16), is only authorized under sections 1441 - Nonresident aliens, 1442 - Foreign Corporations, 1443 - Foreign Tax Exempt Organizations, and 1461- Withholding Agents’ Liability for Withheld Tax.

    22) Internal Revenue Manual Chapter 1100, Organization and Staffing, section 1132.75 states: “TheCriminal Investigative Division enforces the criminal statutes applicable to income, estate, gift, employment, and excise tax laws involving United States citizens RESIDING IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES and nonresident aliens subject to Federal income tax filing requirements…”(empphasis added)

    23) The implementation of IRS Tresury Regulation 26 CFR 1.1441-5 is explained in Publication 515 on page 2: “If an individual gives you a written statement, in duplicate, stating that he or she is a citizen or resident of the United States, and you do not know otherwise, you may accept this statement and are relieved of the duty of withholding tax.”

    24) The ONLY way a U.S. citizen or permanent resident alien , living and working in a State of the Union can have taxes deducted from their pay, is by voluntarily making an application (Form SS-5) to obtain a social security number, and then entering that number on an IRS Form W-4 - Employee’s Withholding Allowance Certificate, and signing it to permit witholding of “Employment Taxes”. That is why the IRS pressures children to apply for social security numbers at an early age, and why citizens are pressured to “get used” to using the number, and employers are pressured to obtain the voluntary execution of a Form W-4 immediately from all those being hired. However, no federal law or regulation REQUIRES workers to have a social security number, or to sign a W-4 to qualify for, obtain, or retain a job..

    25) Karl Marx wrote in his Communist Manifesto, ten planks needed to create a communist state. The second plank is:” A HEAVY PROGRESSIVE OR GRADUATED INCOME TAX”

    26) The attorney who successfully challenged the Income Tax Act of 1894, Joseph H. Choate, recognized the communist hand in the shadows. He told the United States Supreme Court: “The Act of Congress which we are impugning (challenging as false) before you is communistic in its purposes and tendencies, and is defended here upon principles as communistic, socialistic - what shall I call them - populistic as ever have been addressed to any political assembly in the world.”

    27) The Supreme Court agreed; and Justice Field wrote the Court’s opinion, concluding with these prophetic words: “Here I close my opinion. I could not say less in view of questions of such gravity that go down to the very foundations of the government. If the provisions of the Constitution can be set aside by an Act of Congress, where is the course of usurpation to end? The present assault upon capital is but the beginning. It will be but the stepping-stone to others, larger and more sweeping, till our political contests will become a war of the poor against the rich; a war growing in intensity and bitternes.”

    28) Internal Revenue Code Section 6654(e)(2)(C) states: ….no liability….if the individual was a citizen or resident alien of the United States throughout the preceding taxable year.

    The IRS contends the success of the self-assessment system depends upon VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE — EVIDENTLY SO !

    Save-A-Patriot Fellowship P.O. Box 91 Westminster, MD. 21158

  45. Andy Says:

    “The fact of that matter is that all of these ‘tax-resisters’ are really just whiny anti-capitalists who think that World Jewry is out to get them.”

    What a moron. You must be that idiot undercover_anarchist/globalist_elite.

    First of all, what in the HELL does being a tax-rsister have to do with being anti-capitalist? Unless of course you are refering to state capitalism and not free market capitalism. Income tax is communist, not free market.

    Second of all, why do you bring up Jews to imply that anyone who opposes the income tax also hates all Jews. This is completely absurd. Some of the biggest opponents of the income tax ARE or WERE Jews. Murray Rothbard was a Jew and he OPPOSED the income tax and the Federal Reserve. Irwin Shiff is a Jew and he opposes the income tax & Fed and is sitting in prison right now because of it. Aaron Russo is a Jew and he recently made a movie - “America: From Freedom To Fascism” ww.freedomtofascism.com - that exposes the IRS and Federal Reserve as GREAT BIG FRAUDS.

    Your playing of the “race/ethnic/religion card” is BULLSHIT. This is about whether or not people have the right to keep the money that they earn.

  46. Chris Moore Says:

    First of all, Title 26 was written AFTER various Supreme Court rulings that stated that individuals who work within the 50 states are not liable for income tax.

    How in the world would this strengthen your case?

  47. Andy Says:

    “How in the world would this strengthen your case?”

    Because it indicates that Title 26 is not in compliance with the Supreme Court rulings mentioned or the Constitution.

  48. Chris Moore Says:

    Because it indicates that Title 26 is not in compliance with the Supreme Court rulings mentioned or the Constitution.

    How could Supreme Court rulings handed down before the law even existed indicate anything about Title 26? What about Supreme Court rulings after the law went into effect?

    Besides, you hold a serious misconception about what an excise tax is. An excise tax is not just “imposed on the privileged income of foreigners in America, and on the privileged income of citizens - earned in FOREIGN countries under tax treaties”. You base this off of Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., however in that case the court never ruled that excise taxes consisted only of taxes on privileges to the exclusion of taxes on individuals. It certainly said nothing about excise taxes applying only to foreigners or foreign-earned privileged income. In fact, the issue of taxes imposed on individuals was never even presented to the court.

    An excise is:

    (A) any tax other than a property tax or capitation (i.e., an indirect tax, or excise, in the constitutional law sense), or (B) a tax that is simply called an excise in the language of the statute imposing that tax.

    Very simply, an excise tax is any indirect tax, which the Supreme Court has ruled over and over to be constitutional. There have been hundreds of income tax cases before the circuit courts and the Supreme Court since the passing of the 16th amendment and Title 26. And yet, the income tax is still around. Could that be because the courts have very clearly accepted it as constitutional?

  49. Andy Says:

    “How could Supreme Court rulings handed down before the law even existed indicate anything about Title 26? What about Supreme Court rulings after the law went into effect?”

    The law is based on the 16th amendment, but the Supreme Court already ruled that the 16th amendment was a foreign revenue tarriff.

    Congress can not come out with a “new law” which violates the Constitution as well as prior Supreme Court rulings. Therefore the “law” is null and void.

  50. Andy Says:

    Here’s a juror who was on a jury that got it right about the income tax.

    Aaron Russo interivews juror Marcy Brooks about the income tax fraud
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CcHgHeraZI

  51. Chris Moore Says:

    The law is based on the 16th amendment, but the Supreme Court already ruled that the 16th amendment was a foreign revenue tarriff.

    Wrong. The 16th amendment is very clear:

    The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

    Please show me where in the 16th amendment it says anything about foreign revenue.

    That the Supreme Court ruled foreign revenue to be taxable by virtue of the 16th does not mean that that is the only taxing power granted. I have determined that my dog is brown. That does not mean that I have determined that all dogs are brown. You are claiming that since the court ruled that the 16th applies to foreign-earned income, that that must be the only source of income. Unfortunately, you are wrong. It is clear: “from whatever source derived”.

    Also, please comment on my previous point about the definition of an excise tax.

  52. Andy Says:

    Former IRS agent Sherry Peel Jackson exposes the IRS as a FRAUD!

    Sherry Peel Jackson: Breaking the Invisible Shackles of the IRS
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1658315558785013776&q=sherry+jackson&hl=en

  53. Andy Says:

    “Please show me where in the 16th amendment it says anything about foreign revenue. ”

    The 16th amendment has to be APPLIED within the confines of the taxing clauses of the Constitution. Have you not read the Constitution? These clauses have never been repealed. The Supreme Court already ruled on this in the cases that I posted.

  54. Andy Says:

    Another former IRS agent who is working to expose the IRS as a FRAUD, Joe Banister.

    Joe resigned from the IRS after spending 2 years researching the claims of the “tax protest/honesty” movement. Joe wrote up a report about his findings (which can be found on his website) and he submitted his report to his supervisors at the IRS and he asked them if he would anwser some questions that he had about the income tax. His supervisors refused to anwser the questions and because of this Joe Banister resigned from the IRS.

    Visit Joe Banister’s website at www.freedomabovefortune.com.

    Alex Jones interviews Joe Banister Part 1
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3KMGK22gOs

  55. Andy Says:

    Alex Jones interviews Joe Banister Part 2
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFmeoGn0kwQ

  56. Andy Says:

    Alex Jones interviews Joe Banister Part 3
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bavy91QnRsc

  57. Andy Says:

    Another former IRS agent exposes the IRS as a FRAUD!

    Interview with former IRS agent John Turner
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-49805139185509916&q=john+turner+irs&hl=en

  58. Chris Moore Says:

    Please point to the specific case where the Supreme Court ruled that the 16th amendment applies only to foreign derived income. Also, please point to exactly where in the Constitution the taxing power of the congress is limited to only foreign derived income.

    Also, please comment on my previous point about the definition of an excise tax.

  59. Mr. X Says:

    Can we take Andy’s commenting privileges away? Spamming cut and paste bullshit is not discussion.

    Also, here’s a question: Which is more likely to convince a court? Aaron Russo interviewing paytriot true believers or citation to laws and court decisions that are less than 75 years old?

  60. pauliecannoli Says:

    Mr. X:

    I hope you are not serious, but just in case you are:

    Andy is welcome to express his views here, as are you.

    Thus far, we have only had to (to my knowledge) take down commercial spam, and I had to edit my real last name out of one of Dondero comments, since he knows he does not have my permission to publish it.

    It possible we may have to edit out other types of comments, such as for example death threats, copyrighted material that copyright owners contact us demanding removal, or child porn, but not anything which supports political arguments - even if you deem it bullshit.

    I use cut and paste a lot. Many people think my opinions are bullshit. Someone else probably thinks some of your opinions are bullshit.

    Neither copy and paste nor someone else thinking your views are bullshit are sufficient grounds for removing someone comments here.

    Of course, you are not under any obligation to read, much less respond to, anything Andy writes.

  61. Chris Moore Says:

    I’d still like for Andy to post on the following:

    Please point to the specific case where the Supreme Court ruled that the 16th amendment applies only to foreign derived income. Also, please point to exactly where in the Constitution the taxing power of the congress is limited to only foreign derived income.

    Also, please comment on my previous point about the definition of an excise tax.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.