You could make the case in court while on trial for tax evasion that the income tax in unconstitutional, but the jury will still find you guilty and court would still sentence you to prison.
Further, good luck ever getting SCOTUS to ever take a case on this, or getting the backing to spend at least $100,000 plus in legal fees.
Yes, though it's true that Lowell Becraft used this argument successfully and this may allude correctly to that event, there is zero chance this is a real CIR memo, as it has no authentication and is not written from an IRS POV but from that of a Becraft sympathizer. Becraft's work was of the best quality but like others he rarely received remedy.
Individuals using the nonratification argument only succeed in spite of the argument. There is no "many" getting off not guilty; there is mostly just Gaylon "Whitey" Harrell (featured in A:FFTF) who was ruled not guilty because the jury decided his belief was sincere, not because they believed as he did.
The Supremes have already weighed in that the tax is Constitutional because in the nature of an excise, and they've even ruled that to say too much more would be "precarious" to collections. This means it's not theft under the Constitution because technically evitable and noticed and voluntary. It is left to all sovereign citizens to deign how to deal with the expensive machinery attempting to trick them into paying more than they might necessarily owe. Hundreds of millions are required to decide for themselves the definition of "income" because the government refuses.
Hello Agent Smith. Many have gone off Not Guilty per Jury Trials by using this as evidence and other things too that we don't have to pay taxes. Taxation is theft. Is theft legal?
Many have gone off Not Guilty per Jury Trials by using this as evidence and other things too that we don't have to pay taxes.
OK, then there should be detailed step-by-step 100% working howtos around. What exact preconditions necessary, what exact documents, witnesses, arguments, code articles numbers you need, how exactly properly apply all that in the court so judge could not arbitrary dismiss your stuff, how to answer to any questions prosecutor and judge could ask and so on.
Not fucking youtube videos, not fucking forum posts about somebody somwhere once upon a time, but straight detailed step-by-step instructions written in human language without juridical yddish.
I'm not an US citizen, but it will be very interesting for me to study basic principles and strategy of fast and guaranteed winning such cases in courts with judges and prosecutors whose salary depends on taxes I don't want to pay.
Taxation is theft. Is theft legal?
Anything that was legislated by legal authorities is legal. Theft, eating babies, fucking frogs, not fulfilling pre-election promises, usury, whatever shit those who write and pass the laws want to be legal.
You should never mix justice with enfocement of honest and morally apropriate ways of doing things and resolving disputes accepted by your people. Former is based only on what some not close to you people in power made in laws for people like you, latter is based on moral principles shared by people you live among. In courts you meet with justice, unfortunately.
Not being a US citizen by birth or naturalization makes a big difference, as you don't have automatic access to the sovereignty rights under the law for those who continue the population that created the governments by their sovereign citizenships.
Citizens have the right to pursue happiness (to work for pay) without interference. Noncitizens have their entry and stay regulated by the government already, so there is an immediate nexus to all money transferred that doesn't apply to the citizen. I haven't been asked recently to look into the laws for noncitizens to review arguments that noncitizens do not earn income, so I apologize for not having any quick takes for you there.
You are right that there should be step-by-step instructions, but since the ones who write (mammoth) step-by-step instructions are the IRS itself, which benefits from obfuscation, and the sovereign citizens are not similarly incentivized to publish but are in fact incentivized to be cautious in speech, the documentation you seek is hard to come by. There exist books that come close, but I'm not prepared to recommend one that applies to your case, and of course there are many more books that mislead or that are controlled oppo. But if you're interested in learning more about the tax fraud in this country, ask away. There would not be any fast or guaranteed path now because it would become commonplace if confirmed by courts; but recent years have allowed other surprising fast or near-guaranteed paths to materialize on other important fronts of sovereign expression, so there's always hope. Rather, we sovereign citizens have the responsibility to blaze our own pioneer paths, and those who succeed will be followed, even by noncitizens who take the additional steps of naturalization so as to share equally and responsibly in our sovereign status. Patient sovereigns decide justice ultimately.
Not being a US citizen by birth or naturalization makes a big difference
I meant I have Russian citizenship, not US one. :) I just trying that concepts on my reality. Things are pretty same really, just with some local specific.
F.e. there was no any procedure of dismissing USSR citizenship for citizens. Formally, I'm a dual citizen of USSR and Russian Federation. So, theoretically I could just use my USSR citizenship to get out RF one. And since USSR is formally exist in form of Transnistria (the only region that never declared exit or whatever from USSR, so become an only and single USSR member and formally represent USSR today), my USSR citizenship is still valid and should be formally accepted by all other states. And since RF declared itself a successor on USSR obligations, includng before USSR citizens, this effectively force it to admit my USSR citizenship and rights. So I don't even need to somehow declare myself sovereign or whatever to do same juridical mumbo-jumbo. :)
sovereign citizens are not similarly incentivized to publish but are in fact incentivized to be cautious in speech, the documentation you seek is hard to come by
I think there is a reason for that. Person who dug so deep in jurisprudence have to understand, that if everybody began use their concepts, then authorities inevitably will change the laws to close all that holes. So it is in his interest to not share that information. :)
The issue about widespread knowledge leading to changed laws is better appreciated in the money issue. When people realize federal reserve notes are fiat there is a very hard landing to return to some kind of gold standard. The means of resolving such a landing are negotiated by power brokers who then propose a transition they can all accept, each for self-interest reasons for different spheres of power. We see this negotiation happening, with many dirty tricks included, in the news daily. It's my belief the tax issue will be resolved similarly as part of the money issue. Either the voluntary tax will remain and knowledge will become wider spread about evitability, or something else will be proposed and possibly mandated, in which case sovereigns will individually need to determine whether to accept it or whether to practice peaceful civil disobedience. But evidence currently favors the first option.
Sadly, most who claim to have the silver bullet, and then publish it step-by-step and make more money selling a system than otherwise, get prosecuted and debunked because they didn't have it. I said there were exceptions. If you have what appears to be the whole truth because all mysteries about the law are explained without equivocation, it is definitely in your interest to share because your conscience is clear. The Swamp Rangers have not currently found it to be in our interests to share details of these laws as an org because the org's goals are different; but as an individual my conscience directs me to answer most specifics when I can give credible, competent info that doesn't interfere with the org. IRL I am much more free about it.
I can't verify fact or fiction on this, but this guy claims to have an exact list and detailed instructions of which forms to file and how to deal with local authorities after your license is de-registered and your only ID is your passport. The detailed info and step-by-step process is not divulged on the site though - one apparently signs up for the free course through email.
Interesting link, thank you. At least dude have some links to exact code articles and stuff. But still too many narrow places, so it is more the question of luck, than something solid.
One thing I didn't get really, is why a book named "Black's Law Dictionary" used as an argument for bureaucrats? As far as I found, this is just a dictionary of juridical terms, without any signs of official acceptance. It is not some legislated, voted, signed official dictionary, just some lawyer or juridical scholar tried to systematize words often used in laws and other judridical stuff. Or I missing something and this book is recognized by courts as official document, so definitions in it have power of law and have to be accepted by courts undoubtfully?
The tax scheme is not based on uniform commercial code as your link suggests; it has operated independently and defeated all UCC arguments, as Becraft noted long ago IIRC.
Filing a bunch of UCC papers merely mucks up a record but doesn't accomplish the testimony necessary to overcome mistaken presumptions of income. The site's going two years is no indicator of eventual success in actual goals. Find people who have been doing it for a lifetime. Herein I answered all the essential tax-related questions in one sentence, and this can be backed up with specifics from IRS instructions as I said. There are thousands hacking at the branches of evil without any effect.
Herein I answered all the essential tax-related questions in one sentence
I read through your response quite intently and I'm unable to identify which sentence was supposed to achieve this. Are you by any chance a person that has been doing this a lifetime? And you mentioned IRS instructions, but I don't see those either. I'll be honest. I'm very confused about all this, and it seems fishy.
I've been "doing it" (analyzing the law) for over 20 years, but that's obviously not part of the Swamp Rangers.
IRS instructions are on their website. Anyone analytical will note that the IRS instructions and website and the associated regs and laws are themselves very fishy. The fact that there's a constant unrestrained movement deriding the IRS as fishy, for a thousand invalid reasons and maybe a couple legit ones, indicates that the law is sufficiently vague to merit judicial notice. I realized this fishiness, without any help from any false argument, when I was still a minor; so you could say I've been doing it for a lifetime; but my primary questions were answered only after sufficient research.
If confused, step one is always to know and ask the Lord. Based on how he guides, ask away. Consider whether Americans legally ceded their sovereignty or whether they didn't and must act on the sovereignty bequeathed to them by taking responsibility. If Americans never made themselves slaves of the state, they must do due diligence to reclaim their heritage. It's not easy, and it takes a lifetime of small victories to get where you desire to go in your sovereignty, but it's much easier than at most any other time or place in history, as long as you don't fall for the state's lies that it "entitles" you rather than you controlling it.
I came here to spread truth, and so this truth is one that I direct people to among many. Due to prior agreements, I'm not at liberty to set up a teaching seminar here. Yet. But if you want a homework assignment, find a form from a third party that you may have received in a January (that's an "information return") and find the box(es) that indicate that an amount of money was paid in a certain category (that's testimony). Then begin your research into whether that third party had its testimony accurate, and means of correcting inaccuracies. I believe that one can relentlessly pursue truth until any question is answered, so the submission of honest confusion will always reward the patient.
Thank you so much for your patient explanation. I know I can be a little retarded from time to time because I'm sometimes easily thrown off by trivialities. I'm quite confused as to the exact nature of the voluntary taxation system as well as my relationship with said system, so I greatly appreciate any and every thing that you can tell me.
It is interesting phenomena, really. All that unratified laws, sovereign citizens, maritime laws and so on. Being pretty interesting all this things are absolutely impractical.
OK, taking OP as example in the best case you would spent your life in courts proving each time you don't have to pay taxes. And may be you even win all cases, but what's the point if your life will be ruined?
Also, studing all that stuff, I never found any simple and straightforward howtos. In the best case it is a number of questionable juridical conclusions useless for any regular human being. No any clear recipes. Only some rumors that somewhere, somebody, using, say, sovereign citizen arguing, after few years in courts won the case against speed fine.
And even with such howto - I'm not interested in possibility to spent a huge amount of time and win some case against cops stopped me on highway. I'm interested in a way when cops do not stop me at all.
Also, I don't see any problems for state to close any juridical hole if many people began to exploit it. In OP case, I don't think US gov will not be able to quickly find 14 states to properly ratify that 16 amendment if they will feel some danger from that juridical hole. Or just order to ignore it in courts.
Weird thing, really. Practically useless, but kind of creates illusion that TPTB could be defeated in their own cours.
WTF?
Whenever you receive a third-party information return indicating that you received money in a category of "income", and you do not believe the money received was "income", do not file the information return since you believe it to be erroneous, but instead file the appropriate correcting form indicating the actual believed amount of "income" received.
Every tax accountant should agree with the above sentence such as it is. To explain much further would be giving you specific tax advice, which people don't generally give for free. For those lurkers looking for the word to the wise, that sentence suffices, as the rest is in the 1040 instructions.
So you send a form that states your believed "income" is 0.
Then, some people appear on your porch with some ridiculous demands, stating they are from IRS.
What's next? Shoot them? Tell them GTFO? Show them some paper? Explain that all that money you get is not an "income", but what exactly?
If I understand correctly eventually you will be forced to appear in court with tax evasion charge. Then what? You show judge this screenshot, and charge is dropped?
To explain much further would be giving you specific tax advice, which people don't generally give for free.
So here we go. You have to pay somebody to get answers that will allow you to not pay tax. Then what the fucking difference if you have to pay in any case? Why not just pay fucking tax and avoid all that haemorrhoids?
First, I apologize for sounding like I'm referring you to paying anyone, as my intent was to redirect discussion to (a) your own labor and study resources and (b) network resources you trust. The issue is complex enough that the government admits several hours are needed to understand the law and answer conscientiously; so the sovereign should be prepared to spend a few more hours than that if there are red flags indicating uncertainties in aspects of the law.
If the sovereign citizen decides that paying the (expletive) tax is better than risk of emerods, well, the citizen is free that way too. I'm talking to those who want to take on the responsibility of sovereignty.
People on your porch are handled no differently based on different stinking badges. Sovereigns know how to handle professional appointments, and unprofessional ones. One should generally prepare one's own "arguments" rather than rely on canned packages; rely on the law and the facts instead.
What you're asking more directly is how to deal with correspondence and calls asking for more information. They are handled by continuing to give the same information you've given, without variance or hasty contradiction, proving your beliefs are sincere because they haven't changed. (Note, every fiery standoff attributed to tax disagreement arose because of collateral issues, not because of someone unambiguously and consistently testifying the same beliefs and facts.) The IRS can threaten fees but they do not have the power to assess them without complex process and a history of resistance such as nonfiling; if your study of the law indicates a sincere belief that the fees are mistaken, they are handled similarly to other corrections of error, by stating the facts and law that apply to the alleged fees. I am not aware of anyone being charged with evasion for filing conscientiously. The risk of being charged falsely with something else is not much different from the risk of getting charged falsely for upsetting some public servant nowadays, so establishing sincere understanding of the tax laws and belief as to their application to the facts is essential and sufficient defense before God and man.
Not all money received is income, and not all income is federal-nexus income. If you believe money received is not income, you say so and explain your reasons; income need not be zero, it is to be calculated according to the law. Good reasons for your belief about the definition of income have been proposed here before, and I've agreed with good reasons and (as here) debunked bad reasons. Sovereigns are prepared to do the mildest legwork to convince themselves from multiple witnesses, to avoid reliance on other individuals or compounded danger to any one person.
What you describe demand a very high level of knowing laws. If you are into all that pile of papers and learned juridical argo, you have very good chances to become a lawyer and just compensate all possible taxes with money you coud earn for a lawyer services.
If your unwillingness to pay taxes is not based on money, but you just don't want to pay anything to the state for ideological reasons, then things will eat all your time. Say, you buy a car, and as a sovereign citizen don't need license plates and driver license. Each meeting with road police will cost you months of your life to dismiss all charges. So, you need some source of money for living, buying car and all that stuff. But if you have such endless source of free money, then you are definitely not an ordinary person with a job and all that stuff. Probably, you could exist in such state, but does such existence in permanent juridical battles really worth it? Your activity will produce salaries for many people who will pay additional taxes. And it is qestionable, if that amount of additional tax will be lower than the tax you had to pay. Eventually state could receive even more taxes than if you just paid yours, which is obviously contradicts your goal. You will create jobs and so taxes instead of minimizing them.
Really, I don't see any point to prefer such weird way of living over, say, going guerilla capitalism with just hiding your income from any possible surveillance. Yes, you will not be able to buy, say, latest car from dealer, but do you really need it?
And last but not least thing, that rises moral question - there is some services that even worst state provide for citizens, like roads, water, rescue in disaster and so on. Not most expensive things, of course, but they are not free, and people, who keep them, deserve salary for their job. Basically all that things are paid with taxes. And there is no way (AFAIK) to pay for that things directly. Just no any mechanism exist for that. Will it be honest thing for sovereign citizen to use all that things for free?
Yep, individuals make their own decisions about things like licenses too, unrelated question; each decision is to be made on one's own conscience. My conscience chooses the hills I fight on.
Your argument that tax avoidance may create greater net taxes is the broken window fallacy debunked by Frederic Bastiat.
Hard libertarians reject government mandates for roads, water, and rescue on the grounds they should be opt-out and there are private ways to do everything better than publicly; that too is a conscience issue.
So, overall, the person who realizes the duties of sovereignty does indeed face all these questions, and decides them each sovereignly.
Most of the individual states however have brought legislation to require collection of income tax (for the state) at the state level. Many benefits require a Federal tax return to acquire. It is illegal to file a fraudulent return and that most definitely will land you in prison. Federal deductions are taken out of your check and the only way to get any of it back is by filing a federal return. Good luck buying a house, getting a stimulus check, student loan or any other government backed program. You simply will not qualify and submitting fraudulent documents will get you a one way ticket to prison. I don't advise anyone ever try such a thing unless they don't mind owning nothing and don't mind living on the streets. Spreading this type of information can put a target on your back and may even be considered giving legal advice (if you don't have a license to practice law). I've known people who have done it and it's extremely hard to get back into the system. What's possible and what's wise are 2 different things.
LOL.
Democrats decide what outcome they want then rig it from top to bottom. They'll ship the case to DC where they control everything including jurors.
It is however illegal to file a fraudulent tax return. You MIGHT get away with skirting around the edges, but a lot of benefits disappear also playing that game. Be very very careful playing that game or you will find yourself homeless and destitute at best. Most likely scenario is prison. Also, the Affordable Care Act installed new requirements. There's quite a bit to this story and YouTube is not the place to get legal advice, so be very very careful. Even most illegal immigrants use an I-9 and pay taxes, technically it can't be used for work, but how the government turns a blind eye and what's legal are 2 different things. This is unwise at best to be spreading this type of incomplete information.
Within 4-6 years of one's becoming a nonfiler and ignoring accumulating information returns, the IRS is empowered step by step to make assumptions (don't let it) that put you on the hook for their largest estimates plus all fees. Since you voluntarily refused to address the information accumulated, the law is that you volunteered for them to file for you. If you know of exceptions in the long run, great, they may exist, but the IRS also algorithmically decides who to go after to attempt to collect from. Contract theory will not help you because the law allows them to assume social contracts in cases such as described.
Everyone should assess what taxes they owe and report and pay them voluntarily, including those many who owe zero tax. To encourage nonfiling on an unproven theory such as contract is to fall into the prearranged trap of the info returns that has destroyed lives like that of Joe Lewis. It's true that filing has its own risks, notably that the IRS may decline to believe that you believe your own testimony, but sincere belief and pursuit of truth is its own defense and will get you past all the traps. Abrogation of one's noblesse oblige as a sovereign will not get you past traps set for those sovereigns.
If you have an income at or below poverty level, they may leave you alone for not filling. But once you have any meaningful income, they will come for you. Typically mentally ill and drug addicts that fall into that category and they don't want to be stuck with the attorney's fees for someone who could never pay.
Extended sovereignty responsibilities are not for the impoverished, they must find ways of freedom from poverty, which is a benevolence question for other sovereigns. They are not for the ill or addicted, who are in the same category.
The sovereign earning money has a responsibility in this country to research the nature of income and to declare, when there is testimony of income, whether the testimony is accurate or not. If you're earning money but not federal-nexus income, they can't come for you; they can only pretend you're earning federal-nexus income and hope you deign to consent, or if you're especially annoying to them they can use illegal force, which is another separable question.
Frenchmen in Paris earn money, but it's not federal-nexus income for the US; they must follow their own laws. Since some money earned is not federal-nexus income, we have a responsibility in following our own laws to determine what money is and isn't. It's never been in the government's financial interest to help us sovereigns make this determination.
Can anyone get a hold of the defense narrative and sources used by the defense attorney? His name is Lowell Becraft, of Huntsville Alabama. This needs to be assembled and distributed to as many people as possible. I am assuming that this means all personal and business taxes between 1913 and 1985, and later, if it was never ratified 'properly'.
Great link, fren, but USA Today implies a mistake itself: actually, Lowell and Larry is the same Becraft, and this copy of the memo has no misspelling "Bercraft".
The data on the 16th amendment was collected by Bill Benson, who found material irregularities in every state's ratification of the 16th amendment, but the courts' position is that these irregularities are like many others that do not detract from the intent of the law and legislators. So, what Becraft calls a dead issue.
From what I've seen, one can legally change their status from citizen to non-citizen national by filing the appropriate documents. I still need to read through the tax codes though, because I'm not sure if being non-citizen national doesn't have additional clauses appended. But it really does seem like this completely removed the onus of income tax.
However, in the process of becoming a non-citizen national, one loses the ability to participate in elections. If one feels the elections don't matter, there may be no downside to doing this. Of course, one would also think the plantation owners are devious enough to stage multiple events of voter fraud and election theft to keep the appearance that the popular vote matters.
I've wondered if you would lose your right to buy a firearm. I believe the questionnaire ask if you're a US citizen. Filing that from with a falsehood is what hemmed up Hunter Biden. Be very careful treading that ground
That is an excellent point, and it may not stop there. I need to look at the exact wording of the constitution and amendments to see if non-citizen nationals can even claim constitutional rights, and if they can, are there any breaks on new strictures that can be introduced for non-citizens.
This is definitely not the sort of change one should leap at without looking well.
Even non citizens have to get a tax ID number. It's how illegals pay taxes to bolster their citizenship application and prove they've been in the states for x years and paying into the system and not mooching off it.
Not the right path at all. u/Jalapeno_gringo, it's appropriate to look up the definition of "U.S. citizen" for the purposes of the form that requests it, but this is not the nexus by which an information return declares money to be "income"; see my other comments. Those who are waving the "noncitizen" flag are muddying the waters, typically self-deceived, and have no evidence or provable victories. It's true that being a sovereign citizen, one who authorized the state government that authorized the federal government, has certain noblesse oblige associated, but declaring oneself a noncitizen is flat abrogation of both the privilege and the responsibility.
You could make the case in court while on trial for tax evasion that the income tax in unconstitutional, but the jury will still find you guilty and court would still sentence you to prison.
Further, good luck ever getting SCOTUS to ever take a case on this, or getting the backing to spend at least $100,000 plus in legal fees.
Yes, though it's true that Lowell Becraft used this argument successfully and this may allude correctly to that event, there is zero chance this is a real CIR memo, as it has no authentication and is not written from an IRS POV but from that of a Becraft sympathizer. Becraft's work was of the best quality but like others he rarely received remedy.
Individuals using the nonratification argument only succeed in spite of the argument. There is no "many" getting off not guilty; there is mostly just Gaylon "Whitey" Harrell (featured in A:FFTF) who was ruled not guilty because the jury decided his belief was sincere, not because they believed as he did.
The Supremes have already weighed in that the tax is Constitutional because in the nature of an excise, and they've even ruled that to say too much more would be "precarious" to collections. This means it's not theft under the Constitution because technically evitable and noticed and voluntary. It is left to all sovereign citizens to deign how to deal with the expensive machinery attempting to trick them into paying more than they might necessarily owe. Hundreds of millions are required to decide for themselves the definition of "income" because the government refuses.
u/LightBringerFlex
^^ u/the-new-style ^^ u/ImBillCurtis
Hello Agent Smith. Many have gone off Not Guilty per Jury Trials by using this as evidence and other things too that we don't have to pay taxes. Taxation is theft. Is theft legal?
If there are many then it should be no problem for you to list a few.
I've heard about them off and on for decades. Just go look it up on youtube you lazy bum.
I would have to go on YouTube and look them up which you can do yourself but are too lazy so you think by asking me, I will do it for you.
Nice try Agent Smith. Now get your lazy ass on YouTube and run a search.
Ah, so no then.
Those are your words. Not mine.
OK, then there should be detailed step-by-step 100% working howtos around. What exact preconditions necessary, what exact documents, witnesses, arguments, code articles numbers you need, how exactly properly apply all that in the court so judge could not arbitrary dismiss your stuff, how to answer to any questions prosecutor and judge could ask and so on.
Not fucking youtube videos, not fucking forum posts about somebody somwhere once upon a time, but straight detailed step-by-step instructions written in human language without juridical yddish.
I'm not an US citizen, but it will be very interesting for me to study basic principles and strategy of fast and guaranteed winning such cases in courts with judges and prosecutors whose salary depends on taxes I don't want to pay.
Anything that was legislated by legal authorities is legal. Theft, eating babies, fucking frogs, not fulfilling pre-election promises, usury, whatever shit those who write and pass the laws want to be legal.
You should never mix justice with enfocement of honest and morally apropriate ways of doing things and resolving disputes accepted by your people. Former is based only on what some not close to you people in power made in laws for people like you, latter is based on moral principles shared by people you live among. In courts you meet with justice, unfortunately.
frog fucking you say? sign me up.
Not being a US citizen by birth or naturalization makes a big difference, as you don't have automatic access to the sovereignty rights under the law for those who continue the population that created the governments by their sovereign citizenships.
Citizens have the right to pursue happiness (to work for pay) without interference. Noncitizens have their entry and stay regulated by the government already, so there is an immediate nexus to all money transferred that doesn't apply to the citizen. I haven't been asked recently to look into the laws for noncitizens to review arguments that noncitizens do not earn income, so I apologize for not having any quick takes for you there.
You are right that there should be step-by-step instructions, but since the ones who write (mammoth) step-by-step instructions are the IRS itself, which benefits from obfuscation, and the sovereign citizens are not similarly incentivized to publish but are in fact incentivized to be cautious in speech, the documentation you seek is hard to come by. There exist books that come close, but I'm not prepared to recommend one that applies to your case, and of course there are many more books that mislead or that are controlled oppo. But if you're interested in learning more about the tax fraud in this country, ask away. There would not be any fast or guaranteed path now because it would become commonplace if confirmed by courts; but recent years have allowed other surprising fast or near-guaranteed paths to materialize on other important fronts of sovereign expression, so there's always hope. Rather, we sovereign citizens have the responsibility to blaze our own pioneer paths, and those who succeed will be followed, even by noncitizens who take the additional steps of naturalization so as to share equally and responsibly in our sovereign status. Patient sovereigns decide justice ultimately.
I meant I have Russian citizenship, not US one. :) I just trying that concepts on my reality. Things are pretty same really, just with some local specific.
F.e. there was no any procedure of dismissing USSR citizenship for citizens. Formally, I'm a dual citizen of USSR and Russian Federation. So, theoretically I could just use my USSR citizenship to get out RF one. And since USSR is formally exist in form of Transnistria (the only region that never declared exit or whatever from USSR, so become an only and single USSR member and formally represent USSR today), my USSR citizenship is still valid and should be formally accepted by all other states. And since RF declared itself a successor on USSR obligations, includng before USSR citizens, this effectively force it to admit my USSR citizenship and rights. So I don't even need to somehow declare myself sovereign or whatever to do same juridical mumbo-jumbo. :)
I think there is a reason for that. Person who dug so deep in jurisprudence have to understand, that if everybody began use their concepts, then authorities inevitably will change the laws to close all that holes. So it is in his interest to not share that information. :)
Thank you so much for the Transnistria data!
The issue about widespread knowledge leading to changed laws is better appreciated in the money issue. When people realize federal reserve notes are fiat there is a very hard landing to return to some kind of gold standard. The means of resolving such a landing are negotiated by power brokers who then propose a transition they can all accept, each for self-interest reasons for different spheres of power. We see this negotiation happening, with many dirty tricks included, in the news daily. It's my belief the tax issue will be resolved similarly as part of the money issue. Either the voluntary tax will remain and knowledge will become wider spread about evitability, or something else will be proposed and possibly mandated, in which case sovereigns will individually need to determine whether to accept it or whether to practice peaceful civil disobedience. But evidence currently favors the first option.
Sadly, most who claim to have the silver bullet, and then publish it step-by-step and make more money selling a system than otherwise, get prosecuted and debunked because they didn't have it. I said there were exceptions. If you have what appears to be the whole truth because all mysteries about the law are explained without equivocation, it is definitely in your interest to share because your conscience is clear. The Swamp Rangers have not currently found it to be in our interests to share details of these laws as an org because the org's goals are different; but as an individual my conscience directs me to answer most specifics when I can give credible, competent info that doesn't interfere with the org. IRL I am much more free about it.
https://www.onestupidfuck.com
I can't verify fact or fiction on this, but this guy claims to have an exact list and detailed instructions of which forms to file and how to deal with local authorities after your license is de-registered and your only ID is your passport. The detailed info and step-by-step process is not divulged on the site though - one apparently signs up for the free course through email.
Again, I cannot verify this isn't bonkers.
Interesting link, thank you. At least dude have some links to exact code articles and stuff. But still too many narrow places, so it is more the question of luck, than something solid.
One thing I didn't get really, is why a book named "Black's Law Dictionary" used as an argument for bureaucrats? As far as I found, this is just a dictionary of juridical terms, without any signs of official acceptance. It is not some legislated, voted, signed official dictionary, just some lawyer or juridical scholar tried to systematize words often used in laws and other judridical stuff. Or I missing something and this book is recognized by courts as official document, so definitions in it have power of law and have to be accepted by courts undoubtfully?
The tax scheme is not based on uniform commercial code as your link suggests; it has operated independently and defeated all UCC arguments, as Becraft noted long ago IIRC.
Filing a bunch of UCC papers merely mucks up a record but doesn't accomplish the testimony necessary to overcome mistaken presumptions of income. The site's going two years is no indicator of eventual success in actual goals. Find people who have been doing it for a lifetime. Herein I answered all the essential tax-related questions in one sentence, and this can be backed up with specifics from IRS instructions as I said. There are thousands hacking at the branches of evil without any effect.
I read through your response quite intently and I'm unable to identify which sentence was supposed to achieve this. Are you by any chance a person that has been doing this a lifetime? And you mentioned IRS instructions, but I don't see those either. I'll be honest. I'm very confused about all this, and it seems fishy.
Sorry, here it is.
I've been "doing it" (analyzing the law) for over 20 years, but that's obviously not part of the Swamp Rangers.
IRS instructions are on their website. Anyone analytical will note that the IRS instructions and website and the associated regs and laws are themselves very fishy. The fact that there's a constant unrestrained movement deriding the IRS as fishy, for a thousand invalid reasons and maybe a couple legit ones, indicates that the law is sufficiently vague to merit judicial notice. I realized this fishiness, without any help from any false argument, when I was still a minor; so you could say I've been doing it for a lifetime; but my primary questions were answered only after sufficient research.
If confused, step one is always to know and ask the Lord. Based on how he guides, ask away. Consider whether Americans legally ceded their sovereignty or whether they didn't and must act on the sovereignty bequeathed to them by taking responsibility. If Americans never made themselves slaves of the state, they must do due diligence to reclaim their heritage. It's not easy, and it takes a lifetime of small victories to get where you desire to go in your sovereignty, but it's much easier than at most any other time or place in history, as long as you don't fall for the state's lies that it "entitles" you rather than you controlling it.
I came here to spread truth, and so this truth is one that I direct people to among many. Due to prior agreements, I'm not at liberty to set up a teaching seminar here. Yet. But if you want a homework assignment, find a form from a third party that you may have received in a January (that's an "information return") and find the box(es) that indicate that an amount of money was paid in a certain category (that's testimony). Then begin your research into whether that third party had its testimony accurate, and means of correcting inaccuracies. I believe that one can relentlessly pursue truth until any question is answered, so the submission of honest confusion will always reward the patient.
Thank you so much for your patient explanation. I know I can be a little retarded from time to time because I'm sometimes easily thrown off by trivialities. I'm quite confused as to the exact nature of the voluntary taxation system as well as my relationship with said system, so I greatly appreciate any and every thing that you can tell me.
Shoud I ask you to send me a PM to explain... What :) you are talking about?
Taxation is theft is a lolbitarian catch phrase that is meaningless in real life, albeit funny.
Even granted on its face that taxation is theft, it's still as unavoidable as death.
It is interesting phenomena, really. All that unratified laws, sovereign citizens, maritime laws and so on. Being pretty interesting all this things are absolutely impractical.
OK, taking OP as example in the best case you would spent your life in courts proving each time you don't have to pay taxes. And may be you even win all cases, but what's the point if your life will be ruined?
Also, studing all that stuff, I never found any simple and straightforward howtos. In the best case it is a number of questionable juridical conclusions useless for any regular human being. No any clear recipes. Only some rumors that somewhere, somebody, using, say, sovereign citizen arguing, after few years in courts won the case against speed fine.
And even with such howto - I'm not interested in possibility to spent a huge amount of time and win some case against cops stopped me on highway. I'm interested in a way when cops do not stop me at all.
Also, I don't see any problems for state to close any juridical hole if many people began to exploit it. In OP case, I don't think US gov will not be able to quickly find 14 states to properly ratify that 16 amendment if they will feel some danger from that juridical hole. Or just order to ignore it in courts.
Weird thing, really. Practically useless, but kind of creates illusion that TPTB could be defeated in their own cours. WTF?
How-to in one step, consolidated from years.
Whenever you receive a third-party information return indicating that you received money in a category of "income", and you do not believe the money received was "income", do not file the information return since you believe it to be erroneous, but instead file the appropriate correcting form indicating the actual believed amount of "income" received.
Every tax accountant should agree with the above sentence such as it is. To explain much further would be giving you specific tax advice, which people don't generally give for free. For those lurkers looking for the word to the wise, that sentence suffices, as the rest is in the 1040 instructions.
So you send a form that states your believed "income" is 0.
Then, some people appear on your porch with some ridiculous demands, stating they are from IRS.
What's next? Shoot them? Tell them GTFO? Show them some paper? Explain that all that money you get is not an "income", but what exactly?
If I understand correctly eventually you will be forced to appear in court with tax evasion charge. Then what? You show judge this screenshot, and charge is dropped?
So here we go. You have to pay somebody to get answers that will allow you to not pay tax. Then what the fucking difference if you have to pay in any case? Why not just pay fucking tax and avoid all that haemorrhoids?
Holy shit, that's just fucking ridiculous.
First, I apologize for sounding like I'm referring you to paying anyone, as my intent was to redirect discussion to (a) your own labor and study resources and (b) network resources you trust. The issue is complex enough that the government admits several hours are needed to understand the law and answer conscientiously; so the sovereign should be prepared to spend a few more hours than that if there are red flags indicating uncertainties in aspects of the law.
If the sovereign citizen decides that paying the (expletive) tax is better than risk of emerods, well, the citizen is free that way too. I'm talking to those who want to take on the responsibility of sovereignty.
People on your porch are handled no differently based on different stinking badges. Sovereigns know how to handle professional appointments, and unprofessional ones. One should generally prepare one's own "arguments" rather than rely on canned packages; rely on the law and the facts instead.
What you're asking more directly is how to deal with correspondence and calls asking for more information. They are handled by continuing to give the same information you've given, without variance or hasty contradiction, proving your beliefs are sincere because they haven't changed. (Note, every fiery standoff attributed to tax disagreement arose because of collateral issues, not because of someone unambiguously and consistently testifying the same beliefs and facts.) The IRS can threaten fees but they do not have the power to assess them without complex process and a history of resistance such as nonfiling; if your study of the law indicates a sincere belief that the fees are mistaken, they are handled similarly to other corrections of error, by stating the facts and law that apply to the alleged fees. I am not aware of anyone being charged with evasion for filing conscientiously. The risk of being charged falsely with something else is not much different from the risk of getting charged falsely for upsetting some public servant nowadays, so establishing sincere understanding of the tax laws and belief as to their application to the facts is essential and sufficient defense before God and man.
Not all money received is income, and not all income is federal-nexus income. If you believe money received is not income, you say so and explain your reasons; income need not be zero, it is to be calculated according to the law. Good reasons for your belief about the definition of income have been proposed here before, and I've agreed with good reasons and (as here) debunked bad reasons. Sovereigns are prepared to do the mildest legwork to convince themselves from multiple witnesses, to avoid reliance on other individuals or compounded danger to any one person.
What you describe demand a very high level of knowing laws. If you are into all that pile of papers and learned juridical argo, you have very good chances to become a lawyer and just compensate all possible taxes with money you coud earn for a lawyer services.
If your unwillingness to pay taxes is not based on money, but you just don't want to pay anything to the state for ideological reasons, then things will eat all your time. Say, you buy a car, and as a sovereign citizen don't need license plates and driver license. Each meeting with road police will cost you months of your life to dismiss all charges. So, you need some source of money for living, buying car and all that stuff. But if you have such endless source of free money, then you are definitely not an ordinary person with a job and all that stuff. Probably, you could exist in such state, but does such existence in permanent juridical battles really worth it? Your activity will produce salaries for many people who will pay additional taxes. And it is qestionable, if that amount of additional tax will be lower than the tax you had to pay. Eventually state could receive even more taxes than if you just paid yours, which is obviously contradicts your goal. You will create jobs and so taxes instead of minimizing them.
Really, I don't see any point to prefer such weird way of living over, say, going guerilla capitalism with just hiding your income from any possible surveillance. Yes, you will not be able to buy, say, latest car from dealer, but do you really need it?
And last but not least thing, that rises moral question - there is some services that even worst state provide for citizens, like roads, water, rescue in disaster and so on. Not most expensive things, of course, but they are not free, and people, who keep them, deserve salary for their job. Basically all that things are paid with taxes. And there is no way (AFAIK) to pay for that things directly. Just no any mechanism exist for that. Will it be honest thing for sovereign citizen to use all that things for free?
Yep, individuals make their own decisions about things like licenses too, unrelated question; each decision is to be made on one's own conscience. My conscience chooses the hills I fight on.
Your argument that tax avoidance may create greater net taxes is the broken window fallacy debunked by Frederic Bastiat.
Hard libertarians reject government mandates for roads, water, and rescue on the grounds they should be opt-out and there are private ways to do everything better than publicly; that too is a conscience issue.
So, overall, the person who realizes the duties of sovereignty does indeed face all these questions, and decides them each sovereignly.
Most of the individual states however have brought legislation to require collection of income tax (for the state) at the state level. Many benefits require a Federal tax return to acquire. It is illegal to file a fraudulent return and that most definitely will land you in prison. Federal deductions are taken out of your check and the only way to get any of it back is by filing a federal return. Good luck buying a house, getting a stimulus check, student loan or any other government backed program. You simply will not qualify and submitting fraudulent documents will get you a one way ticket to prison. I don't advise anyone ever try such a thing unless they don't mind owning nothing and don't mind living on the streets. Spreading this type of information can put a target on your back and may even be considered giving legal advice (if you don't have a license to practice law). I've known people who have done it and it's extremely hard to get back into the system. What's possible and what's wise are 2 different things.
Courts don’t exist. Enjoy prison.
Happy Monday Agent Smith.
Piss off, idiot. Learn how to read or don’t reply.
LightBringerFag says the line every time he gets called out for his bullshit.
He obviously doesn't think much of Trump either...
"Very easily" - sure, if the courts were legitimate.
Jury decides guilt, not the Court.
Courts of judges decide appeals, not juries, which is where every case of import ends up.
LOL. Democrats decide what outcome they want then rig it from top to bottom. They'll ship the case to DC where they control everything including jurors.
Quote one court case where someone argued this, won, and now doesn't have to pay income tax.
I fucking dare you.
It is however illegal to file a fraudulent tax return. You MIGHT get away with skirting around the edges, but a lot of benefits disappear also playing that game. Be very very careful playing that game or you will find yourself homeless and destitute at best. Most likely scenario is prison. Also, the Affordable Care Act installed new requirements. There's quite a bit to this story and YouTube is not the place to get legal advice, so be very very careful. Even most illegal immigrants use an I-9 and pay taxes, technically it can't be used for work, but how the government turns a blind eye and what's legal are 2 different things. This is unwise at best to be spreading this type of incomplete information.
They key is don't file a 1040 at all and then you aren't bound to paying money by contract.
Yes, but it has consequences. Look below to my comment to the crazy Russian. I've seen it work, but be prepared to not have much of a future
All the People I know who did it have a great future and have been saving tons of money.
Within 4-6 years of one's becoming a nonfiler and ignoring accumulating information returns, the IRS is empowered step by step to make assumptions (don't let it) that put you on the hook for their largest estimates plus all fees. Since you voluntarily refused to address the information accumulated, the law is that you volunteered for them to file for you. If you know of exceptions in the long run, great, they may exist, but the IRS also algorithmically decides who to go after to attempt to collect from. Contract theory will not help you because the law allows them to assume social contracts in cases such as described.
Everyone should assess what taxes they owe and report and pay them voluntarily, including those many who owe zero tax. To encourage nonfiling on an unproven theory such as contract is to fall into the prearranged trap of the info returns that has destroyed lives like that of Joe Lewis. It's true that filing has its own risks, notably that the IRS may decline to believe that you believe your own testimony, but sincere belief and pursuit of truth is its own defense and will get you past all the traps. Abrogation of one's noblesse oblige as a sovereign will not get you past traps set for those sovereigns.
If you have an income at or below poverty level, they may leave you alone for not filling. But once you have any meaningful income, they will come for you. Typically mentally ill and drug addicts that fall into that category and they don't want to be stuck with the attorney's fees for someone who could never pay.
Extended sovereignty responsibilities are not for the impoverished, they must find ways of freedom from poverty, which is a benevolence question for other sovereigns. They are not for the ill or addicted, who are in the same category.
The sovereign earning money has a responsibility in this country to research the nature of income and to declare, when there is testimony of income, whether the testimony is accurate or not. If you're earning money but not federal-nexus income, they can't come for you; they can only pretend you're earning federal-nexus income and hope you deign to consent, or if you're especially annoying to them they can use illegal force, which is another separable question.
Frenchmen in Paris earn money, but it's not federal-nexus income for the US; they must follow their own laws. Since some money earned is not federal-nexus income, we have a responsibility in following our own laws to determine what money is and isn't. It's never been in the government's financial interest to help us sovereigns make this determination.
You consent to your slavery.
Almost all power is consented to.
Can you provide a link to the document?
Additional information to your post:
“ROTHSCHILD OWNED & CONTROLLED BANKS: The FED and the IRS”🤬😤😡, see post/thread/ink comments https://greatawakening.win/p/17shvo09sv/
About the Income Tax and the idea that it was supposedly "temporary" -- not true, but it is actually WORSE than that (this is a dig into the income tax that you have never seen before) 🐸 TAX THE FROG 🐸 https://greatawakening.win/p/17t1k8Zymy/about-the-income-tax-and-the-ide/
Can anyone get a hold of the defense narrative and sources used by the defense attorney? His name is Lowell Becraft, of Huntsville Alabama. This needs to be assembled and distributed to as many people as possible. I am assuming that this means all personal and business taxes between 1913 and 1985, and later, if it was never ratified 'properly'.
Great link, fren, but USA Today implies a mistake itself: actually, Lowell and Larry is the same Becraft, and this copy of the memo has no misspelling "Bercraft".
The data on the 16th amendment was collected by Bill Benson, who found material irregularities in every state's ratification of the 16th amendment, but the courts' position is that these irregularities are like many others that do not detract from the intent of the law and legislators. So, what Becraft calls a dead issue.
Businesses may be a different matter
This is old news. The attorney just used the evidence that has always existed to push it.
There are many books about this. One pretty good book is: Fruit from a poisonous vine.
Another is Great American Adventure by Judge Dale.
The system is run by criminals. They do not care about "laws".
The best thing to do is use Monero instead of their fake currencies.
Monero is private and anonymous so scumbags do not even know you have any money to steal.
https://moneromeans.money
They control monero too but pretend not to.
Any evidence of this?
I can send any amount of money to anyone in the world using Monero, and be private about it. How exactly are they controlling Monero?
It’s self evident. Use common sense and think about how easy it is to steal your money or prevent you from accessing it.
It is almost impossible without shutting down the whole world system.
Monero is extremely durable and resilient. Give up your pride and dive in to freedom.
With Monero you are free to transact with anyone in the world, even in communist hellholes. It is unstoppable digital cash.
Well the solar flares will shut down the world electric grid soon enough.
OK, you keep believing the same people who told you to take a magical injection or you will die a horrible death.
I will continue living my life as normal and moving money around privately.
The People who own the magical injection also own monero.
From what I've seen, one can legally change their status from citizen to non-citizen national by filing the appropriate documents. I still need to read through the tax codes though, because I'm not sure if being non-citizen national doesn't have additional clauses appended. But it really does seem like this completely removed the onus of income tax.
However, in the process of becoming a non-citizen national, one loses the ability to participate in elections. If one feels the elections don't matter, there may be no downside to doing this. Of course, one would also think the plantation owners are devious enough to stage multiple events of voter fraud and election theft to keep the appearance that the popular vote matters.
I've wondered if you would lose your right to buy a firearm. I believe the questionnaire ask if you're a US citizen. Filing that from with a falsehood is what hemmed up Hunter Biden. Be very careful treading that ground
That is an excellent point, and it may not stop there. I need to look at the exact wording of the constitution and amendments to see if non-citizen nationals can even claim constitutional rights, and if they can, are there any breaks on new strictures that can be introduced for non-citizens.
This is definitely not the sort of change one should leap at without looking well.
I don't think I would take that leap at all.
Even non citizens have to get a tax ID number. It's how illegals pay taxes to bolster their citizenship application and prove they've been in the states for x years and paying into the system and not mooching off it.
Not the right path at all. u/Jalapeno_gringo, it's appropriate to look up the definition of "U.S. citizen" for the purposes of the form that requests it, but this is not the nexus by which an information return declares money to be "income"; see my other comments. Those who are waving the "noncitizen" flag are muddying the waters, typically self-deceived, and have no evidence or provable victories. It's true that being a sovereign citizen, one who authorized the state government that authorized the federal government, has certain noblesse oblige associated, but declaring oneself a noncitizen is flat abrogation of both the privilege and the responsibility.