Fascism for the Children

Why pay illegal Income Tax in USA Based on What, for whom, in what jurisdiction ?

a collection of articles compiled by Ted Elden

If you want to see the source of any article, book, tax form, etc. just search google for a quoted string of the text.

Like a finger print, a quoted string or "thought print often finds the unique document" on the internet in seconds.

Red phrase is an example of a quoted string.

The Premise – Bill Benson

The authority of the federal government to collect its income tax depends upon the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the federal income tax amendment, which was allegedly ratified in 1913. After a year of extensive research, Bill Benson discovered that the 16th Amendment was not ratified by the required 3/4 of the states, but nevertheless Secretary of State Philander Knox fraudulently announced ratification.

Text of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America:

"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."

Theft by Deception - Deciphering the Federal Income Tax http://www.theft-by-deception.com/

Theft by Deception is a thoroughly documented presentation of how and why certain representations of the Fedearl Government spun a statutory and regulatory web of deception that created the myth of a compulsory federal income tax.” T. Croghan, Attorney, Former Federal Prosecutor U.S. Dept. of Justice.

For decades, millions of Americans have given the federal government a large percentage of their hard-earned money, without ever questioning their “Tax Bill” [The actual written law that imposes the tax].

From the begining, due to the strict constitutional limits on their power, Congress imposed a very limited income tax, applicable only to those engaged in foreign and international commerce. That tax was then, and continues to be, grossly misrepresented to the American public so successfully that today it is “common knowledge” that the income of most Americans is subject to the tax, even though the entire history of written law proves otherwise.

The product of years of exhaustive research and development, Theft By Deception clearly shows how the current Federal Income Tax law and its legislative history never intended to tax the average American’s domestically earned income.

Combining 3-D animations with a methodical, step-by-step approach, Theft By Deception will unravel the complicated tax law to reveal the very limited nature of the federal income tax. The evidence paints a clear picture that agents of the United States government orchestrated, executed, and then attempted to cover up the most monumental financial fraud in history.

- - - -

Freedom Above Fortune.com

Joe Banister fight his ongoing battle to expose the truth about the IRS and the federal income tax. On the day Joe resigned from the IRS, he committed himself to raising awareness about the dirty little secrets the IRS keeps from the American people, even if it caused him personal and professional hardship. Joe has endured the personal hardships of quitting a high-paying job and devoting his time to the efforts of the tax honesty movement. Now the IRS is determined to cause him some professional hardships as well. However, the ultimate hardship will be borne by all of us because Joe's representation of clients in IRS matters has helped to further expose how the IRS gets away with their illicit practices. Joe has met face to face with IRS agents all over the country in his capacity as a client representative. Let's be clear - Joe is the first IRS Criminal Investigation Special Agent ever to blow the whistle against the IRS in this manner. The IRS has always been able to foster the myth that only anti-government whackos believe the IRS is acting illicitly. Having a former IRS special agent confront current IRS agents with evidence of illicit activity causes current IRS agents to take a second look at agency policies and procedures - something the IRS can not afford to let happen. So, the agency is now trying to lock Joe out - permanently!

You’ll notice that the name of this organization is Freedom Above Fortune.com, not Freedom Without Fortune or Freedom Instead of Fortune. Rather, Freedom Above Fortune is an organization dedicated to the concept that no amount of real or perceived economic prosperity or fortune is worth trading for your freedom. This is not to say that pursuing economic prosperity, in and of itself, is bad. Rather, it is to say that those who are willing to sell their freedom and their children’s freedom for a few pieces of silver, as Judas did when he betrayed Jesus Christ, are shortsighted and foolish. If you are willing to sell your freedom for short term financial security, real or perceived, the willingness to sell your very soul can’t be far behind.

Freedom Above Fortune was founded by Joseph R. (Joe) Banister, a former IRS Criminal Investigation Division Special Agent who learned of serious constitutional questions relating to the federal income tax and the federal banking and monetary systems. Mr. Banister’s expertise in the fields of accounting, finance, taxation, and law enforcement enabled him to not only understand these issues but realize that he could play a role in bringing the issues into the public arena for analysis and debate.

- - - -

John Turner John is an Enrolled Agent (E.A.) who spent 10 years as an IRS Collection Division Revenue Officer.Ê He has his own incredible story... LINK

Sherry P. Jackson

Sherry is a Certified Public Accountant and former Revenue Agent with the Examination Division of the Internal Revenue Service... BIO RESUME

Nick Jesson Learn about Nick Jesson's fight against the California Franchise Tax Board LINK

Ken Evans Learn more about Ken Evans' federal refund lawsuit. LINK

Donald E. Iiams, Jr. Learn about the brilliant idea that one man created after having his life devastated by the IRS. LINK

- - - -

THE POWER TO DESTROY

Protesters to march around IRS building Demonstration comes on heels of Senate hearing on tax 'scams'

By Julie Foster February 6, 2000 The law that never was

Geoff Metcalf's interview answers question, 'Is 16th Amendment legal?'

April 15, 1999 Exposing the IRS fraud

April 14, 1999 IRS special agent is right, says CPA

'We need to take next step'

April 1999 Former IRS agent goes over the wall after learning the real truth on income taxes.

March 26, 1999 IRS special agent challenges system

Agency illegitimate, tax law non-existent, he says

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." -Samuel Adams

- - - - -

American Free Press

Famed IRS Whistleblower Gets Tax Fraud Acquittal

Jury Says Banister Guilty Of No Crime By Peymon Mottahedeh

The Internal Revenue Service’s efforts to silence one of its most formidable critics backfired when a jury acquitted Joe Banister, a former IRS criminal investigation division special agent and fraud expert.

On June 23, in Sacramento, Calif., a unanimous jury of 12 found Banister not guilty of three counts of assisting in preparation of false tax returns and one count of conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government.

Had the IRS been successful in convincing the jury that Banister was guilty, he would have faced going to prison for up to 14 years.

Since 1999, Banister had been trying to get the government to answer the questions that he and scores of other Americans have been raising about the legality and imposition of the federal income tax on the average working citizen.

While an IRS agent, Banister wrote a detailed 95-page report on this issue and presented it to his IRS superiors for an answer. He went to Washington to meet with the president, heads of Congress and the IRS. He also appeared on C-Span2 and in nationwide newspaper advertisements telling of his questions.

Rather than answering Banister’s report, the IRS encouraged Banister to resign, which he did. At every turn, the federal government refused to answer Banister’s questions. IRS and the Department of Justice decided to “answer” Banister by charging him with four tax-related charges in November 2004.

IRS claimed that a major part of these “crimes” was Banister’s speech in October 2000 at Cencal Aviation Products in Northern California. This speech was videotaped and reported on by David Cay Johnston of The New York Times.

At this two-hour meeting, Banister presented a case for the questionable nature of the way the federal income was imposed on ordinary Americans and the suspicious behavior of the government in refusing to answer these questions.

During closing statements in the trial, Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert Twiss argued to the jury that Banister used false means to “wipe out” taxes that were allegedly owed by Cencal owner Al Thompson, and that to Banister, “it was all about the money, the money.”

However, an April 2001 email between a Department of Justice lawyer named DiLeonardo, who had worked with Banister while Banister was working at the IRS, and Ron Semino, the chief of the Western Division of the Department of Justice’s Tax Division, showed that the government viewed Banister to be the most visible personality in what many people today call “the tax honesty movement.”

After Banister was indicted, IRS Commissioner Mark Everson stated: “Joe Banister, a former IRS agent, knew exactly what he was doing. Tax professionals and employers who break the law will be held accountable.”

Apparently the jury agreed with Everson that Banister knew exactly what he was doing. However, they saw no crime in what Banister was doing.

Two of the jurors, who spoke with AFP right after the trial, related the thinking that led to their decision. They said the false tax return charges were “non-starters with the jury.” The jury saw that the IRS might have disagreed with the position of Banister on the tax returns. However, the tax returns contained no false information.

The jurors said they were surprised when the testimony part of the case ended, since they had yet to see or hear any evidence of a crime.

They said the evidence showed that Banister was honest, straightforward, credible, believed in what he was doing and was trying to follow the law.

They also believed that Banister was honestly trying to get answers, but the government consistently refused to answer his questions and address his concerns.

The government presented enough evidence to acquit Banister, they said. The jurors said they saw nothing deceitful or dishonest on Banister’s part.

And, finally, they said the government simply presented no evidence of any crimes committed by Banister. After a few hours of deliberations, the jury took a vote, and six or seven of them were ready to acquit Banister of all charges. Other jurors still had doubts. But after the jury saw Banister’s video a second time, the remaining doubts as to Banister’s innocence were removed.

This defeat at the hands of one of the most visible figures in the anti-income tax movement dealt a serious blow to the IRS’s image of invincibility. It demonstrated that even in the 21st century, there are Davids, like Banister, who can beat the IRS Goliath.

The question remains: If Banister is correct in his belief that the IRS consistently misapplies the law, who is going to hold the IRS, and officials like Everson, accountable?

(Issue #28, July 14, 2005)

- - - - -

LAW OF THE LAND
Tax activist wins in federal court
Ex-IRS agent says Congress has no power to collect levy on income

Posted: June 23, 2005
6:30 p.m. Eastern © 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

Joseph Banister

A former IRS agent who believes citizens are not required to pay federal income taxes was acquitted today on charges he attempted to defraud the government.

Joseph Banister, a certified public accountant in San Jose, Calif., had been telling his clients they don't need to file federal income tax returns because the 16th Amendment, which gives Congress "power to lay and collect taxes on incomes," was never properly ratified.

A leading figure in the "tax honesty" movement, Banister was taken into custody Nov. 19 by IRS agents and released on $25,000 bond after pleading not guilty.

A jury in the U.S. District Court in Sacramento found him not guilty on a charge of conspiracy to defraud the government and on all three counts of aiding and assisting the filing of false tax returns for a client.

Banister's attorney, Robert Bernhoft, told WorldNetDaily the result has no direct bearing on the legitimacy of the 16th Amendment, but he insisted the implications are bigger than the issue of taxes.

"The outcome shows that average, law-abiding, hard-working citizens are not going to criminalize speech -- they're not going to send a man to prison for asking the federal government serious questions about a serious subject," he said.

Last fall, IRS spokesman Anthony Burke insisted Banister's arguments against the federal income tax already had been thoroughly vetted.

"Many constitutional or legal arguments have been tried in the courts, and without fail, they have been held to be without merit," he told WND.

Banister's website offers a defense of his views, including an 85-page report titled "Investigating The Federal Income Tax: A Preliminary Report."

The federal indictment accused Banister and co-defendant Walter A. Thompson, of Redding, Calif., of conspiring to defraud the United States of approximately $259,669 in income and employment taxes. In a separate trial, Thompson was acquitted of conspiracy and found guilty on charges unrelated to Banister.

If Banister had been convicted of all counts, he could have been sentenced to 14 years in prison and a fine of $1 million.

Banister left public practice as a CPA in 1993 to become an armed, criminal investigator in the IRS Criminal Investigation Division. But he says he resigned after six years because he was "unable to resolve conflicts" between the way the IRS administered the federal income tax and his oath of office.

As WorldNetDaily reported in March 2004, Banister claimed the IRS was illegally using "enforcers" to monitor his political activities and build its case against him. The IRS filed a complaint March 19, 2003, and began what he calls the agency's "mission to silence and discredit me."

In 1996, while working for the IRS, Banister says his view of tax law was jolted when he heard radio talk host Geoff Metcalf interview activist Devvy Kidd on KSFO in San Francisco.

After receiving information from Kidd, Banister used his spare time over two-and-a-half years to compile a report for his superiors, telling them that if they cannot find anything wrong with his analysis, he would have to resign.

Banister said his superiors refused to respond to his report and told him they would facilitate his resignation.

Related stories:

No answers from government, no taxes

- - - - - -

THE POWER TO DESTROY
Activist: 'Stop paying federal income taxes'
Civil action urged to pressure government to respond to grievances

In a revolutionary call to arms of sorts, a constitutional activist urges all American employees, retirees and self-employed individuals to stop paying federal income taxes and to help spread the word: "no answers, no taxes."

"It has become necessary for the people of America to drastically change their relationship with their servant federal government by retaining and holding onto all money they would otherwise have given to the federal government," declares Bob Schulz, founder of the constitutional education organization We The People.

Schulz maintains mass civil action is necessary because the government steadfastly refuses to respond to the people's repeated "petitions for redress of grievances regarding substantive abuses and seizures of our constitutionally protected rights."

As WorldNetDaily has reported, the "grievances" for which Schulz seeks redress from the federal government regard the legality of the income tax, civil-liberties abuses of the USA Patriot Act and the seizure of power under the War Powers Act and the Federal Reserve.

In November, We The People, or WTP, sponsored a rally on the National Mall called "Freedom Drive 2002," at which it invited government officials to respond to its petitions – endorsed by approximately 14,000 citizens and hand-delivered to President Bush and all 535 members of Congress.

The invitations were ignored.

Schulz quotes the Founding Fathers in an act of the Continental Congress in 1774 in asserting that the right of redress of grievances before taxes is deeply embedded in U.S. law.

"If money is wanted by rulers who have in any manner oppressed the people, [the people] may retain [their money] until their grievances are redressed, and thus peaceably procure relief, without trusting to despised petitions or disturbing the public tranquility," he said.

WTP estimates at least 300,000 citizens, or one-tenth of one percent of the total population will be participating in the revolution by April 15.

To assist those heeding the call to action, WTP said it will soon make available free instructions and forms for employers, employees, retirees and the self-employed to use, as well as the services of a nonprofit legal-defense organization.

We The People Legal Defense Association, or WTP-LDA, expects to represent members of its "congress" at every stage of the process, including in negotiations with tax officials, representation in court proceedings and Internal Revenue Service administrative hearings.

Technical assistance for resistance

Schulz outlined his call to arms in a live, streaming Web-based broadcast called "The Liberty Hour," on Jan. 7.

But as WorldNetDaily reported, the broadcast got knocked off the Net after three minutes by unforeseen "technical problems."

WTP describes its Internet provider, which prefers not to be named, as a nationally prominent Internet streaming firm with significant telecommunications expertise and the commercial-grade bandwidth capacity to easily handle more than the 120,000 viewers that attempted to watch the broadcast.

WTP's Internet provider reported everything on his end to be working properly and immediately began working with his provider, Time Warner Cable, to investigate the problem. In addition, he made temporary arrangements to download the file of the broadcast and stream it on-demand using a different protocol that was limited to 1,500 simultaneous viewers.

Still, unexplained and continual "technical problems" with Time Warner Cable persisted. In the interest of protecting his own business, which was also suffering from the bandwidth interference, WTP's provider reluctantly removed the broadcast file from his server. As soon as he did so, his full bandwidth capability was restored.

Although a Time Warner Cable spokesman stressed to WorldNetDaily that his company does not "throttle or block individual websites or portals of any content," Schulz remains suspicious.

"The reaction to our broadcast is indicative of the fear and crisis our truths are slowly beginning to infect in the institutions of our foes," he concluded. "It is time to regroup, reorganize and understand the power of the camera and the keyboard."

To that end, WTP plans to implement a "multi-tiered series of tactics" to thwart any further attempts to "censor" the broadcasts. It calls on friends and supporters who own personal computers and websites to join together to form a network of broadcast outlets to distribute the on-demand, archived version of the weekly broadcasts.

WTP also seeks to recruit individuals who have dedicated servers (with at least a T-1 Internet connection) to handle the streaming broadcasts using a telecommunications strategy akin to "daisy-chaining," which is similar to how some public radio stations utilize "repeater" transmitters in rural areas.

WTP expects this would spread the transmission of its broadcast's digital packets across multiple geographic areas and across multiple ISP providers.

"The more personal computers and websites that are part of our network of broadcast outlets the greater the number of people who will be able to view and download the broadcast and lower the risk of anyone being able to shut us down again," Schulz explained, estimating that this new broadcast network will be in place within two to three weeks.

Those interested in participating in WTP's transmission infrastructure are urged to contact Schulz.

- - - - - -

THE POWER TO DESTROY
'Truth-in-taxation' forum ends in D.C.
Hearing put forth 'almost 500 … legal assertions' challenging system

A host of witnesses who offered testimony under oath during congressional-style hearings at a "Truth-in-Taxation" forum in Washington, D.C., say the event went off without a hitch and was generally a success.

Bob Schulz, head of the We The People Foundation, which helped sponsor the event, said the forum – held Wednesday and Thursday at the Washington Marriott Hotel – "brought to public attention" allegations that the government has "intentionally and systematically conspired to deprive the American People of our Constitutional rights. …"

Over the course of the forum, Schulz said that "almost 500 detailed legal assertions and supporting evidence were put forth publicly challenging the legal foundations of the tax system." He also reported that "the legislative (taxing) jurisdiction of the U.S. within the 50 states" was challenged, and alleged "record tampering and fraudulently deceptive training practices for IRS agents" were revealed.

Tax law researchers, ex-IRS agents and officials, as well as practicing attorneys were called to answer a series of questions and assertions made by Schulz and other panel members.

"The evidence was wholly compelling and disturbing," Schulz said in his statement.

The event was originally scheduled for Sept. 24-25, 2001, but was canceled in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Also, officials from the IRS and the Justice Department reneged on earlier pledges to participate, as did Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md., who initially agreed to chair the forum.

In a letter sent to Bartlett last November, the Justice Department said neither it nor the Internal Revenue Service would participate in the forum – reversing a July 20 pledge by Assistant Attorney General Dan Bryant to participate in the congressional-style hearings.

In canceling his participation, Bartlett told Schulz in a Jan. 20 letter he was "dismayed" by a public-relations campaign sponsored by We The People Foundation that encouraged taxpayers to "wait to file" their tax returns until after the forum.

"I am quite dismayed by Operation 'Wait to File until the Trial,'" Bartlett said, accusing Schulz and his group of advocating "non-payment" of taxes.

"The information that you are currently disseminating concerning the Feb. 27 and 28 forum is misleading. I will not be a party to advocating the non-payment of federal income taxes," Bartlett said.

The IRS, Justice Department and various federal officials and lawmakers have all said the 16th Amendment, which authorizes an income tax, was lawfully ratified by states in 1913, though Schulz and other "tax honesty" advocates disagree.

- - - - - -

THE POWER TO DESTROY
Tax group urges Americans: 'Wait to file'
System 'goes on trial' next month during two-day hearing

A noted "tax honesty" organization is urging Americans to hold off filing their 2001 income tax returns until after it hosts a tax information hearing in Washington, D.C., next month.

"The very legality of the U.S. income tax system goes on trial Feb. 27 at a congressionally sponsored public hearing on Capitol Hill," said a statement by the We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education.

The two-day hearing, originally scheduled for Sept. 24-25, was postponed until next month in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

At the hearing, the group, in its statement, said it expects "to prove conclusively that the IRS does not have the legal authority to force employers to withhold taxes from the paychecks of their employees, or to force most Americans to file a return or pay the income tax."

"If the research is confirmed publicly, most Americans may be entitled to a refund of 100 percent of the income tax paid or withheld in 2001," the statement continued.

In an effort to alert taxpayers, the group is sending out 300,000 letters and is running a newspaper ad campaign. Its "Wait to File Until the Trial" campaign is currently underway, according to officials with the group.

Public accountants, tax attorneys, independent business owners, lawmakers, news editors and the Libertarian Party hierarchy are among those targeted by the group's awareness campaign.

The group is also planning live online coverage of the event, accessible at its website.

"The IRS and Department of Justice will officially and publicly answer detailed legal allegations directly challenging the jurisdiction of the IRS and the unlawful enforcement and administration of U.S. income tax laws," We The People President Robert Schulz said.

Some lawmakers who back Schulz' plan will attend the hearings.

"Our country has labored under a federal income tax system that is inconsistent with the liberty of a free people," said Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md., in a letter of support sent to Schulz last year.

"Quite simply, the government of a free people should not tax the labor of its citizens, and it is imperative that the federal tax system not be repugnant (contrary) to the Constitution and its laws," said Bartlett, who helped make the hearings a reality.

- - - - - -

THE POWER TO DESTROY
Tax activists refute IRS claims
Former revenue chief: 'We're confiscating property now. That's socialism'

Posted: August 22, 2001
Editor's note: Brought about by the successful hunger strike of tax activist Bob Schulz, an historic meeting between the federal government and leaders of the "tax honesty movement" will take place in Washington, D.C., on Sept. 25 and 26. WorldNetDaily will be there to cover the proceedings.

Leading up to this high-profile confrontation over the legality of the income tax, the following is the second in a series of reports discussing an internal document from the Internal Revenue Service's own website. The document is intended to guide the agency's employees in how to deal with what the IRS calls "frivolous tax arguments." Part 1, "IRS bashes 'frivolous tax arguments," was published in Tuesday's WorldNetDaily.

Tax experts, including one who spent a year researching whether enough states properly ratified the 16th Amendment – which authorizes Congress to collect income taxes -- are as insistent as ever that Americans are not mandated to pay Uncle Sam a portion of what they earn every year.

"I've read all of the cases the IRS mentions" in its 25-page document entitled "The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments," said Bill Benson, author of "The Law That Never Was," a book many believe debunks the government's claim that the income tax is legal and that the IRS is a properly authorized government agency.

Very simply, he says there is no actual law authorizing an income tax.

"They must have a law in order to have any of this [the income tax] to apply," Benson told WND. "They must have a law from its inception, and they don't have that."

A former criminal investigator for the Illinois Department of Revenue for nearly a decade, Benson said he has "17,000 certified and notarized documents showing that the 16th Amendment is an absolute, complete and total fraud."

When asked where he got the documents, Benson said they came from "the 48 continental United States," gathered during his one-year research effort in 1984 aimed at verifying whether or not the income tax amendment had been properly ratified.

But even activists within the "tax-honesty movement" grasp the reality of the mission they seek to accomplish: namely, to force an admission from the federal government that their arguments are correct. For Uncle Sam to admit his mistake could open the government up to unfair taxation recovery lawsuits that would make even the landmark tobacco litigation lawsuit – settled for hundreds of billions of dollars – pale in comparison.

"I have made it a personal stand not to argue the code with people. As far as I’m concerned, that is nothing more than willfully walking into quicksand," said Devvy Kidd, another noted tax activist. "You can't win the argument."

In the IRS document cited by Benson, there are lots of references to court cases and IRS code. But the problem, as WND's "TalkNetDaily" radio host and staff writer Geoff Metcalf points out, is getting the federal government to cite the legal chapter and verse of the law that requires mandatory payment of income taxes.

"I have often noted that if in fact we are compelled by law to pay income tax and the 16th Amendment was in fact properly and legally ratified (and it wasn't), then the government should be able to conclude their response in less than five minutes by merely stating, stanza and verse, where the law is, and how it applies: 'See here? Page such and such, paragraph such and such, subparagraph such and such. Now shut up and go home,'" said Metcalf.

One of the most compelling arguments of income tax opponents is the claim that the 16th Amendment was never even properly ratified, although understandably the IRS refutes that.

"This argument is based on the premise that all federal income tax laws are unconstitutional because the Sixteenth Amendment was not officially ratified, or because the State of Ohio was not properly a state at the time of ratification," says the IRS document. "This argument survived over time because proponents mistakenly believe that the courts have refused to address this issue."

However, the IRS says the amendment was properly ratified by "forty states, including Ohio, and issued by proclamation in 1913. Shortly thereafter, two other states also ratified the [A]mendment."

"There were enough states … even without Ohio to complete" the required three-fourths of the states to ratify the amendment, said the IRS document. "Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the income tax laws enacted subsequent" to the ratification of the amendment.

In his research, however, Benson found that only four states ratified the amendment "without changing the wording." He maintains that, constitutionally, states cannot change words or punctuation when voting to accept or reject a constitutional amendment.

"The only thing the states can do is accept or reject the wording (of an amendment) as is," Benson told WND. "The legislatures of each state cannot change any of it. Otherwise, we'd have 48 different versions of the law."

"What is stated [in the IRS document] is a bald-faced lie," Kidd said.

"Since it was never ratified and we can prove it wasn’t, then apportionment is still in effect and again, everything else is moot," she said. The government's "progressive, unapportioned tax is, and always has been, unlawful."

Rather than dicker over IRS codes, legal impressions and court cases, Kidd and other "tax-honesty" proponents believe the key to discovering the legality of income tax lies in proving these contentions:

That the IRS is not an authorized agency of the government and has no authority to conduct business;
That the government's jurisdiction is not valid;
The fraudulent ratification of the 16th Amendment unlawfully wiped out the apportionment clause of the Constitution;
That an individual is, without question, forced to involuntarily surrender his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination by filing any income tax form under penalty of perjury.

Another area of concern, Kidd says, is that the courts themselves can’t even decide, in a universal manner, what constitutes an income tax or what the income tax really is -- direct or excise.

"That’s a fact and it creates what is known as a problem [IRS] document," she said.

Even former IRS commissioners have questioned the legitimacy of the very agency they serve.

"… We're confiscating property now. … That's socialism. It's written into the Communist Manifesto. Maybe we ought to see that every person who gets a tax return receives a copy of the Communist Manifesto with it so he can see what's happening to him," lamented T. Coleman Andrews, the Democratic commissioner of the IRS during the first 33 months of the Republican administration of President Dwight Eisenhower.

But the one fact dogging nearly every tax honesty advocate is this: Regardless of the actual legitimacy of their arguments, the courts, Congress and most of the American public don't see it their way.

The IRS can point to dozens of rules, regulations and court cases -- many decided by the U.S. Supreme Court -- backing the agency's position that it has a right to tax all of the income earned by American workers.

Also, even critics of the agency acknowledge that it must collect the amount of money Congress approves in the federal budget every year. And once passed, Congress expects the Treasury Department to fill the nation's coffers.

Finally, most states have agreements with the IRS to provide the agency with information. Under these agreements, individual states and the IRS notify each other about taxpayers that failed to file returns. The only state that does not have such an agreement is Nevada.

Nevertheless, tax activists say the September meeting in Washington, D.C., will once and for all provide them with an opportunity to address their concerns face-to-face with government and, hopefully, IRS representatives.

"We intend to prove our points at the hearings next month," Kidd said.

Related offers:

"The law that never was," a 2-volume set explaining how the 16th Amendment was never ratified, by Bill Benson.

- - - - - - -

THE POWER TO DESTROY
IRS special agent challenges system
Agency illegitimate, tax law non-existent, he says

Joe Banister

Joe Banister, on the job with IRS

"The Internal Revenue Service is everything the so-called tax protesters said it was; non-responsive, unable to withstand scrutiny, tyrannical, and oblivious to the rule of law and the U.S. Constitution."

That's how Joseph Banister -- a certified public accountant who, until last month, was an investigator and gunslinger for the Criminal Investigation Division of the IRS -- now regards his former employer. His conclusion is based in part on a personal two-year investigation into the agency's history and purpose -- an investigation he began somewhat reluctantly, never expecting he'd reach the conclusion he did.

His research led him to question its very legality and constitutionality. Deeply disturbed by his discoveries, he summarized these in a report which, in February, he sent to his supervisors, and asked them to respond to three allegations:

That the filing of federal income tax returns is voluntary and the filing of federal income tax returns is not required;
That the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was never ratified;
That income taxes are not used to pay for daily government operations, but to pay the interest on the national debt.

"All the time I was doing my research, I looked for snags -- looked for things that would prove that everything I was reading and finding out was wrong," Banister told WorldNetDaily. "I had taken this job thinking I'd be wearing the white hat, and I slowly found out I was not wearing the white hat. So something had to change."

The change came quickly last month, when the IRS accepted Banister's offer of resignation rather than respond to the questions raised. He is believed to be the first IRS-CID special agent who -- having determined to his satisfaction that certain allegations about the income tax were true -- confronted the hierarchy at the IRS about his findings.

He has paid dearly for this.

"It's the end of my dream of a career in law enforcement," he said, recalling in a telephone interview the series of events that propelled him from the ranks of armed federal agents to the camp of those reviled by the government as tax protesters. The action also cost him his $80,000 a year job.

Banister, 36, had dreamed that dream for a long time. In 1986, he graduated with a degree in business administration from San Jose State University in the San Francisco Bay area, and for the next three years worked for KPMG Peat Marwick as a senior tax specialist and staff auditor.

A gentle, soft-spoken man -- who chooses his words carefully -- he would seem ideally suited to a job dealing with numbers and accounting. Just the kind of job he had, but it wasn't enough.

"I wanted to get into law enforcement, but had recently (in 1990) gotten my certified public accountant certificate," he explained. "I wondered if there wasn't some way a CPA could wear a uniform, gun and a badge."

A skilled marksman -- Banister has been a member of the National Rifle Association and Gun Owners of America since 1991 and 1992, respectively -- he began exploring the federal law enforcement agencies for employment opportunities.

In 1991 he applied for a position at both the FBI and IRS-CID, "in case the FBI job didn't work out." Due to a hiring freeze, the FBI kept him at "in a holding pattern" for two years. So when in August 1993, the IRS-CID phoned and asked if he were still interested in working for them, Banister said yes. Although his heart was set on the FBI, working for the IRS as a special agent had definite advantages. He could work in his hometown of San Jose, and not have to move around the country -- as working for the FBI might have required. This was something his wife and sons greatly appreciated. "We'll treat you just as we do every taxpayer -- no special favors," he was promised.

And the IRS was as good as its word.

As part of his background check, Banister's financial affairs were closely audited. Told he owed $4,000, he fought the charge and won -- and even received a $1,000 refund. Despite this small skirmish with the auditors, he was hired anyway, and in December 1993 embarked on his new career as "an accountant with a badge and a gun," as IRS-CID special agents are called.

"The most important day of my career was probably the first day, when I swore an oath to God to support and defend the Constitution of the United States," Banister recalled. "I have always taken that oath very seriously."

The newly sworn-in agent enjoyed the changes of pace his work demanded. As one of the 3,000 IRS-CID officers nationwide, Banister was authorized to execute and serve search and arrest warrants, to make arrests without warrant, to carry firearms, and seize property subject to forfeiture. He was eventually advanced to the position of asset forfeiture coordinator and Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force coordinator for the Central California District.

He was a firearms instructor for his fellow agents.

"I loved my job," he said. "I was able to do very complicated financial analyses, yet every three months I'd go out and do my shotgun and handgun qualification. I had to do a variety of things and handle a number of situations from helping serve the most scary search warrant to sitting in court and testifying about a 10-year, $10 million financial analysis."

Banister knew the reputation the IRS had earned; that the very name, IRS, inspired fear in people. But, he was not troubled by that and hoped to change public perception.

"I wasn't personally responsible for the IRS reputation," he explained. "I thought in my small way I'd make a difference. I knew it was an unpopular tax, but what tax isn't unpopular? I figured that if it had to be administered it should be administered by people who didn't let the power go to their heads and behave like idiots. If that happened, if the officers knew they were to serve the people, then everything would be OK.

"As corny as it sounds, that's what I believed," he said.

If it hadn't been for a particular talk radio host, Banister might still be a special agent. He liked the work, which included opportunities to listen to talk radio. One of his favorite talk show hosts is Geoff Metcalf, a popular conservative West Coast talk show host and WorldNetDaily columnist.

As he tells it: "In December 1996, I was driving around in my government car and listening to Geoff Metcalf, whom I really like. He had a woman named Devvy Kidd as a guest, and I'd never heard of her -- but she was saying all this stuff about how the income tax was voluntary and the 16th Amendment was never ratified. If she hadn't been on Metcalf's show, I'd have dismissed her as one of those kooky tax protesters we'd been warned about. But being on Metcalf's show lent real credibility. I figured he wouldn't have someone on unless she had something valuable to say."

Kidd, a writer and activist, had recently moved with her husband to California from Colorado. She and constitutional attorney Larry Becraft of Huntsville, Alabama, have founded the Wallace Institute, named after Scottish freedom fighter, William "Braveheart" Wallace.

Curious, but skeptical, Banister sent for Kidd's two booklets -- "Why a Bankrupt America" and "Blind Loyalty" -- and began studying. Looking back, he describes himself as "so uninformed. I didn't know the underlying issues."

"There was so much. There was information about the Federal Reserve System and quotes from Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tx.). It was overwhelming," he said.

Despite a heavy workload and family commitments, he persisted.

"I'm not only a criminal investigator, I'm basically curious. I don't take anybody's word for things. And this research took me a long time. I was working 50 hours a week to support a wife and kids. It took a while to find the time to do it, but I kept at it."

Banister contacted Kidd and the other writers she listed in her books. There was William Benson, who with Red Beckman had co-authored "The Law that Never Was," which convinced Banister that the 16th Amendment had never been ratified.

He phoned Bill Conklin. "He's the guy that says filing income tax returns is voluntary," Banister explained, impressed particularly by fact that Conklin has offered a $50,000 reward to anyone who can prove him wrong -- "and it's still waiting for someone to collect it."

For background on the Federal Reserve System Banister turned to "The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve," by G. Edward Griffin, published by American Media.

In addition, he turned to the statute books themselves and examined the court cases, to see if all these claims and charges he was hearing about for the first time were true. His conclusions:

"The court cases checked out, just as I had been told they would," he said. "The cases can be read in any law library, they haven't been overruled. To this day I haven't been able to find any untruths about what Devvy Kidd has said about the Federal Reserve and the income tax. Everything she said has checked out."

Small wonder Banister found himself asking himself more and more -- "My gosh, what am I part of?"

In early February, Banister submitted his findings -- which he had compiled in a report -- to his superiors at the IRS, asking that they pass along his allegations to those high in the IRS so that they could respond to the three allegations. This was done. Banister learned his report and the allegations were circulated at the highest levels -- including the legal department.

As promised at the beginning of his career, the IRS responded to the once-eager special agent as they do to any taxpayer who asks embarrassing questions about the constitutionality of the income tax and the 16th Amendment. On Feb. 17, Banister was called into his supervisor's office, and assured his report had been reviewed "by the highest levels of the IRS." Then he was handed a memo dated that day, presenting the typical non-response:

"The Internal Revenue Service will not be responding to your request and will provide you with the necessary paperwork to tender your resignation," his supervisor wrote. "You will be placed on administrative leave effective upon receipt of this memorandum for a period of seven calendar days to consider what actions you wish to take."

Banister says he was "astonished" and "confused," at the response -- or rather "the lack of it." After all, he had worked for the agency five years. He believed his allegations were serious enough to warrant a response. Even a personal plea to Commissioner Charles Rossotti himself, wasn't enough. His career as a special agent was so much dust.

Banister reports no retaliatory actions have been taken. He has not been followed; his phone appears to be untapped.

He is working to have his CPA license reinstated so he can return to the private sector, but he hopes his action will inspire both members of the public and his fellow agents to take some kind of action -- perhaps to demand a thorough review and examination by Congress; something that's never been done.

Says Banister: "I never intended to write a report, but I needed to tell more than one person what I had found. I can't tell people not to file, but I figure if people learn that their tax dollars are going simply to pay interest on a debt and doesn't go to run the government, if they know they have certain rights -- they'll do something.

"So I'm not advocating anything. I'm just trying to tell people the truth. People get mad if their auto mechanic overcharges them by 50 bucks. If they find out the whole darn income tax system is a big fraud, I'm hoping they'll get mad enough to do something about it."

There has been speculation circulated on the Internet that Banister is a "plant" -- an agent provocateur -- sent by the IRS to infiltrate the ranks of the tax protest movement.

Those questioned by WorldNetDaily dispute these charges.

"No way," says Kidd. "I've talked to him, and he didn't just jump in -- I had to really work to convince him. Besides, he's not advocating anything. He's not saying not to file, he's not saying not to pay taxes. He's not doing any of that. He's a really decent guy who loves his family and his country."

Bill Benson, co-author of the "Law that Never Was," agrees.

"I've spent hours and hours talking to Joe," Benson says. "We talked many times on the phone over the course of a year; it wasn't just one casual conversation. If he were a fraud, somewhere in the course of a year I'd have detected something.

"As Joe has discovered -- and will come forward to testify -- there is no law in the Internal Revenue Code that requires anyone to file a 1040 form or pay an income tax. He's done a great service for the people in this country."

Steve Hempfling, director of the Free Enterprise Society, a citizens group based in Fresno, California, also vouches for Banister's authenticity.

"This (Banister's defection from the IRS) could be the most important event to hit the tax-protest movement in years, he says. "Because of his credibility this could start a major tidal wave for the IRS to deal with, if he hangs in there.

"I like him; I think he's sincere," Hempfling continued. "He's done what we've always asked the government officials to do: read our material and show us where we're wrong. He did what we asked. He actually looked it over and couldn't find anything wrong -- so he came over to our side."

- - - - - - -

According to the Department of Justice, aggressive tax avoidance plots are on the rise nationwide--and they're not limited to Posse Comitatus members and kooks living in Idaho shacks. Turns out there are many wealthy Americans who believe that income tax is voluntary or that the government does not have the right to tax citizens. Another popular tax evasion scheme--involving the claim that tax is only owed if income is derived from a foreign corporation--was cited by actor Wesley Snipes in a bizarre bid to secure an unwarranted $7.4 million tax refund, according to documents filed Tuesday (5/21) in federal court in Tampa, Florida. In support of a motion for a restraining order against outlaw tax preparer Douglas Rosile, government lawyers filed a copy of an amended 1997 tax return submitted last year by Snipes, a Rosile client. The amended return, which Justice Department lawyers called the "largest Rosile-prepared bogus refund claim that the IRS has detected," reduced Snipes's adjusted gross income from $19,238,192 to zero. As such, Snipes contended, he was entitled to a $7,360,755 refund. Attached to Snipes's amended return was an attachment--prepared by Rosile--explaining that the refund was warranted because the actor's income was supposedly "not from a taxable source." Snipes's amended return, signed by the actor on April 11, 2001, also included a slightly altered affirmation next to his signature noting that the return was filed "Under no penalties of perjury." It is unclear what, if any, sanctions have been brought (or are being considered) against Snipes for his role in this scam. (6 pages)

- - - - - - - - -

Bill Conklin specializes in the removal of IRS wage levies. He is a paralegal and tax consultant who has been on the front lines of the anti-IRS movement for over 25 years. He has 6 published wins against the IRS in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. His website, anti-irs.com, has been on the web since 1996. Updates have recently been made to this site. Please take some time to look around on my site. There is a lot of information.

Legal Assistant Today March/April 2001

There is an old saying about how the winner of a conflict is determined.

It’s not the size of the dog in the fight, it’s the size of the fight in the dog.

Bill Conklin has been battling the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on his own behalf for more than a quarter century. The former teacher-turned-tax-consultant and contract paralegal waged his first battle against the IRS in the mid-1970s and said he has never looked back.

Mr. Conklin wrote Why No One Is Required to File Tax Returns. Mr. Conklin's book proves that the IRS cannot legally require the filing of tax returns and that the courts and the government are misrepresenting the law.
The IRS refers to the income tax as voluntary but prosecutes individuals who do not "volunteer" in violation of the law.

Bill Conklin started fighting the IRS in 1979 and he has been whipping them ever since. He started his own freedom group in 1979 and started winning major victories against the IRS in 1981. His most recent book is: Why No One is Required to File Tax Returns.

In Bill's book you will learn that:

· There is no statute that makes a person liable or responsible to pay the income tax. Individuals only become liable to pay the income tax when they voluntarily file a tax return, or when the IRS follows its assessment procedures as outlined in the Internal Revenue Code.

If there were a statute which clearly and unequivocally required the filing of tax returns, such a statute would be unconstitutional under the present income tax system to the extent that it would require individuals to give the government information which could be used against them criminally.

The IRS, under our U.S. Constitution, cannot legally require information on 1040 returns from individuals. That is why the IRS continually refers to the income tax as "voluntary".

- - - - - - -

Syllogism - a sound reasoning
Learn about the Fifth Amendment.

· All individuals who file tax returns waive their Fifth Amendment Rights.

· The Government cannot require individuals to waive their Fifth Amendment Rights.

· Therefore, the Government cannot require individuals to file tax returns.

· If there were a statute which clearly and unequivocally required the filing of tax returns, such a statute would be unconstitutional under the present income tax system to the extent that it would require individuals to give the government information which could be used against them criminally.

Why No One is Required to File Tax Returns Free download aof Conklin’s book in MS Word Format:

http://www.anti-irs.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/why_no_one_conklins_revised_word_2003.doc

William Conklin. 3296 Raleigh St. , Denver, CO 80212

http://www.anti-irs.com/ Telephone: (303) 455-0837 Fax: (303) 480-1799

- - - - - -

What is Taxed.com

The Income Tax In A Nutshell

Is the Income Tax a scam? It appears so. Thanks to data mining, this can be shown in just 7 steps, by using only 7 sections from the United States Code and Code Of Federal Regulations, Title 26

Taxes, Too Complicated?

Unfortunately, for many people the tax law is just too difficult to comprehend. Primarily, this is due to the many thousands of pages involved.

News commentator Paul Harvey on January 22, 2007:

"Now for what it's worth, the 9th circuit panel in San Francisco has been reversed. The Internal Revenue Service, the IRS, has ruled that Valerie and Robert McKee owed the government $31,000 in unpaid taxes, until Valerie and Robert demonstrated in court that the tax law is so complex nobody can understand it. The court had to agree that the law was indeed so complex that nobody can understand it, and the court reversed itself, and the IRS gets the bill. The government also sought and got us...ha ha ha (laugh)... your government also tried to get a stipulation that this verdict would not be made public, but it just was... Paul Harvey, Good Day!!"
-- Hear this Paul Harvey sound clip and much more at HearLiberty.com

Case Information:
ROBERT C. MCKEE v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
No. 04-74846
IRS No. 4036-03

The tax law is not as complicated as some believe. Data-mining the tax code and rules with a computer makes it all crystal clear, and shows the whole thing is just a political scam.

Income tax, a scam? This is not perhaps the truth, is it?

Data mining willl show you what the IRS doesn't want you to know.

Step 1.

"There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual...a tax" - 26 USC Sec. 1

[If their link fails the first time, try again. Sometimes the GPO has problems.]

What is taxable income?

Step 2.

"In general...the term ``taxable income'' means gross income minus the deductions" - 26 USC Sec. 63

It says "In general". Where are the specifics?

What is gross income?

Step 3.

"Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source" - 26 USC Sec. 61

* The tax is still "imposed on the taxable income". Keep this "code" in mind.

It says "Except". So, what is "otherwise provided" in subtitle A, Income Taxes?

Step 4.

It begins here, "as otherwise provided"...

"Items of gross income, expenses, losses, and deductions, other than those specified in sections 861(a) and 862(a), shall be allocated or apportioned to sources within or without the United States, under regulations prescribed by the Secretary." - 26 USC Sec. 863

As directed, we must ["shall"] look in the "regulations prescribed by the Secretary" (CFR, Title 26).

What other "items of gross income" exist? What about deductions? Deductions are extremely scarce in USC 861(a) and 862(a). Where are the deductions?

How are tax regulations written? In Code. http://whatistaxed.com Since USC 861 corresponds to CFR 1.861, we could start by looking in 1.861. However, first examine CFR 1.61. It becomes apparent why CFR 1.61(a) is commonly shown by politicians, judges, and bureaucrats, because it says that all income is gross income, but it also says unless excluded. Now you'll see why the other half of this section, CFR 1.61(b), is never mentioned by these bureaucrats.

Step 5.

*Be sure to notice the numbering system used in regulations: USC 61 = 1.61 in the CFR.

"To the extent that another section of the Code or of the regulations thereunder, provides specific treatment for any item of income, such other provision shall apply notwithstanding section 61 and the regulations thereunder."
- 26 CFR Sec. 1.61-1(b)

Notwithstanding, meaning in spite of, what 1.61(a) says about "all income", paragraph (b) states if there is "another section" more specific, it shall apply.

What section of "the Code or of the regulations...shall apply notwithstanding section 61"?

Where is the "specific treatment for any item of income" implied to exist here?

Step 6.

Now the specifics begin, "as otherwise provided".

"how to determine taxable income" - 26 CFR Sec. 1.861-8(a)(1)
[the tax is imposed on the taxable income, not gross]

"This section provides specific guidance" - 26 CFR Sec. 1.861-8(a)(1)

"specific sources" - 26 CFR Sec. 1.861-8(a)(1)

"specific rules for allocation and apportionment of deductions" - 26 CFR Sec. 1.861-8(a)(5)(ii)

"gross income to which a specific deduction is definitely related" - 26 CFR Sec. 1.861-8(b)(1)

"exempt, excluded, or eliminated income. For guidance, see Sec. 1.861-8T(d)(2)." - 26 CFR Sec. 1.861-8(d)(2)

These are just a few of the results, there are many dozens. You could start by looking here.

We are told, "For guidance" with "exempt, excluded, or eliminated income", to "see Sec. 1.861-8T(d)(2)".

Question: What is taxed? Or, what is not "exempt, excluded, or eliminated"?

Step 7.

"Income that is not considered tax exempt. The following items are not considered to be exempt, eliminated, or excluded income and, thus, may have expenses, losses, or other deductions allocated and apportioned to them:"
- 26 CFR Sec. 1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii)

This is 'the list of taxable income.' It's a very short list, with only 4 items, but it's the only list of taxable income in the USC and CFR. You just saw in step 6 that data mining confirms Sec. 861 is the section with specifics. Now we see that 861-8T has the specific list. Everything in 'the list' is applicable only to foreign related incomes.

This is a brief summary of the list, "Income that is not...exempt", i.e. taxable:

A. "a foreign taxpayer... gross income (whether domestic or foreign source)"
[hence the law, "all income from whatever source"]

B. "gross income of a DISC or a FSC"
[domestic international sales or foreign sales corporation]

C. "gross income of a possessions corporations"
[possessions are places like Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, etc]

D. "Foreign earned income"
[the requirements for making this are greater than you think, data mine it's definition]

* Notice that domestic income, for US citizens, has been "excluded" from the list.
["unless excluded by law" - 26 CFR Sec. 1.61-1(a)].

Now you say "But, but, it doesn't say domestic income is excluded".

It doesn't have to, it's already a fact of statutory construction:

expressio unius est exclusio alterius: A principle in statutory construction: when one or more things of a class are expressly mentioned others of the same class are excluded.

"expressio unius est exclusio alterius" is known as a "well established, common-sense cannon of statutory construction."

So, the only portion in the 'list of taxable income' applicable to US citizens is line D. If you earn foreign income, this means you. However, most Americans do not have any "foreign earned income".

Thus, according to 'code', most Americans do not owe any federal income tax.

So, Congress, Secretary, IRS, Judges: If Sec. 861 is not correct, where is the law? What is the number for the statute, and regulation, requiring the income tax from US citizens? Thousands of people, including your own IRS agents, have asked you this, but you, and even the Commissioner, have ignored this question. What is the number? If there is an income tax for US citizens, produce the statute and regulation number.

"everyone who does evil hates the light, and doesn't come to the light, lest his works would be exposed. But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his works may be revealed..."
- John 3:20-21

Truly, the tax law is so simple a kid could figure it out. (If teenagers can hack into NASA, the Air Force, government computers, etc, etc, they can easily figure out the tax code.)

CNN: Teen charged with hacking into Air Force system
PBS: Interview: anonymous. Young hacker caught breaking into NASA's computers
Zdnet: Teen hacks 27 ISPs, gains root access
Cooltech: Another teen hacks NASA

Congress: Even one of your own, Congressmen Ron Paul (who happens to be running for president in 2008), knows the income tax, and the Federal Reserve, are a scam. You the Congress, the Secretary, and Judges, have created this mess; enforcing what is obviously a fraud.

The Code does not lie, but politicians, judges, and bureaucrats do.

Code is precise, always.

Frivolous you say? Judges, phfff... the conflict of interest involved with judges who are payed by the same system which prosecutes does not simply vanish at the bench. There is no justice from you. Just what should we expect a tax judge to rule, "Take my purpose away"? Only under color of law do you rule.

It matters not what you claim. As the saying goes, "there are only three things which cannot be hidden for long: the sun, the moon, and the truth." And, like them, the truth will always comes back around. Even after one million frivolous rulings you will not be able to avoid section 861, it is the Code. It will always return to your courts; Code cannot be hidden in the computer-age. And, now all Titles of Law, everywhere, are suspect of the darkest color - the color of law - and are candidates for a system of data mining.