It’s always the same old thing with the detax con artists. The favorite trick in their bag is the "challenge the jurisdiction of the court" ploy .
Years ago this ploy was expressed as the "this is an Admiralty Court ‘cause of the fringe on the flag' scam. A few of the detax con-artists made money selling that line to the gullible among us, who ended up in trouble for it.
Next it was the "feds don’t have jurisdiction outside D.C." fraud. A few tax protester fools still buy that line.
Then it was the "the law doesn’t allow taxing of wages" rip-off. A bunch of the tax protestors got a room without a view for that’n.
Now it’s the "change your domicile to a common law jurisdiction" swindle.
When are the tax protestors going to learn that a few of their so called intellectual leaders are playing them for fools. They get sold a bill of goods telling them that they can avoid taxes, regulations etc. just by using these methods. If the methods fails they are told by their gurus that they didn’t do it right. If they didn’t do it right then they really should rely on the detax experts who, for a price, will see to it they get the secret code they need to break the back of the IRS
The poor fools who swallow this line of BS end up getting taken for the cost of de-taxing kits, tax avoidance seminars, "tax law" classes, books, tapes and other materials which will do them no good. All of the law applicable to a "failure to file" case will be set forth in the jury instructions.
Judge to Jury: "You are not to consider this evidence as containing any law that you are to apply in reaching your verdicts, because all of the law applicable to this case is set forth in these instructions."
Sometimes the price paid for these materials is an unpleasant run in with the law.
The US Constitution. is the supreme law of the land and trumps all the silly common law tricks just outlined.
There is no common law court which can change the jurisdiction afforded the federal government by the Constitution. In fact there are no legal common law courts, I know of today. There are few courts thought up by the "sovereignty boys" which pretend to be real courts. Pretending to be real courts like this can get one a "room without a view".
Blackstones Commentaries are not the law of the land, no matter how much the detax con artists wish they were. The 16th amendment and the tax code clearly state that income may be taxed. That's the law.
The arguments presented by "Richard Fuselier of Common Law Court USA" are a simple repeat of the detax con-artist's notion that some secret code of the law, which only they have knowledge of, will overrule the Constitution.
This is absurd.
Tax protestors don't lose these cases because they "they lack the legal knowledge of how to prosecute [them]." They lose because these arguments are always laughed out of court.
The detax crowd challenges the federal court’s subject matter jurisdiction over them in regard to tax matters, based on this unproven premise that the court's only possible basis of jurisdiction over them is admiralty jurisdiction and that admiralty jurisdiction is lacking unless they "agree" to it. The fact is that under 18 U.S.C. s 3231 federal district courts have exclusive jurisdiction over "all offenses against the laws of the United States." These offenses include the tax crimes defined in Title 26 of the United States Code. Thus the federal courts unquestionably have subject matter jurisdiction over tax offenses.
The "detax con-artist's" contention is also predicated upon a fundamental misreading of the Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution. The "detaxer" wrongly leads his dupes to believe that this clause limits the jurisdiction of the federal government to the District of Columbia. The fact is that the clause in question sets the District as the seat of national government and removes it from the authority of the states.
The "detax con-artist" foists his false argument upon the gullible by the use of a debate trick is which he presumes the truth of his premise and avoids debating it with anyone by heaping insults upon anyone who challenges his presumption. In this way many shysters have found a willing audience among the sovereignty community who will not question their premises. When challenged upon his premise and the misreading of the Constitution that underpins it, the "detax con-artist" can only respond by saying that his interpretation is correct because it is his.
A careful reading of the Federalist Papers Number 32 (among others) and the case law regarding the subject (United States v. Drefke and United States v. Sato) shows that the "detaxer's" contention was not the intent of the framers and has never been ruled so by the courts
The "detax con-artist" claims that that through our years of study of the U.S. Constitution and the IRS Code, he has come to understand that 'voluntary compliance' to the tax code is without obligation or mandatory requirement. He claims he has no tax liability or requirement to file a 1040 return.
This assertion that the payment of income taxes is voluntary is foolish. Any gullible citizen who buys this line pushed by the "detax con-artist" is liable to criminal prosecution.
It is without question that the payment of income taxes is not voluntary. United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255, 1256 (8th Cir.1993) (per curiam); Wilcox v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 848 F.2d 1007, 1008 (9th Cir.1988).
The "detax con-artist's" claim that the filing of an income tax return is voluntary is also foolish. Title 26, United States Code, Section 6012(a)(1)(A), "requires that every individual who earns a threshold level of income must file a tax return." Failure to file an income tax return subjects an individual to criminal penalty. Id. (citing 26 U.S.C. s 7203).
The notion that the federal income tax is contractual or consensual in nature is utterly without foundation. Despite the "detax con-artist's" claims to the contrary, the argument has been repeatedly rejected by the courts. I cite Newman v. Schiff, 778 F.2d 460, 467 (8th Cir.1985); United States v. Drefke, 707 F.2d 978, 981 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, sub nom., Jameson v. United States, 464 U.S. 942, 104 S.Ct. 359, 78 L.Ed.2d 321 (1983).
Case law is well established that individuals must pay federal income tax on their wages regardless of whether they avail themselves of governmental benefits or privileges. See Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68, 70 (7th Cir.1986); Lovell v. United States, 755 F.2d 517, 519 (7th Cir.1984).
The "detax con-artist" argues that taxes are obligations which can only be incurred voluntarily when individuals contract with the government for services and that those who choose to enter such contracts do so by signing 1040 and W-4 forms. By refusing to sign those forms, the "detax con-artist" argues that he is immune from the Internal Revenue Service's jurisdiction as a "nontaxpayer."
This is an imaginative argument, but totally without merit. 26 U.S.C. s 1 imposes upon "every" individual a certain rate of income tax depending upon their amount of taxable income. 26 U.S.C. s 6012 states that unmarried individuals having a gross income in excess of $4,300, and married individuals entitled to make joint returns having a gross income in excess of $5,400 "shall" file tax returns for the taxable year.
26 U.S.C. s 6151 states that when a tax return is required to be filed, the person so required "shall" pay such taxes to the internal revenue officer with whom the return is filed at the fixed time and place. The sections of the Internal Revenue Code imposed a duty on the "tax protestor" to file tax returns and pay the appropriate rate of income tax, a duty which he chooses to ignore.
The Potomac Institute-It's not about guns...It's about citizenship
Idiot Legal Arguments, by Bernard J. Sussman, JD, MLS, CP"
CRIMINAL TAX MANUAL, JURY INSTRUCTIONS
Crossing the Line, A special report produced by Pioneer Newspapers Inc.
QUATLOOS- This site educates you about common scams, frauds, and financial traps.
The Tax Prophet-Tax & Trust Scam Bulletin Board
Debunking Federal Reserve Conspiracy Theories by Edward Flaherty, Ph.D.
Perspectives on Federal Reserve Independence—A Changing Structure for Changing Times
THE TAX PROTESTER FAQ, Created by Daniel B. Evans
FX Micheloud Monetary History-Bimetallism - The Crime of 1873 - Canada's Playing Card Money
U.S. Supreme Court, LEGAL TENDER CASES, 110 U.S. 421 (1884)[FindLaw]
Tax History Museum by the Tax History Project
PDD-25 forcefully states that the President will never relinquish command of US forces
The United States controls 371,743 IMF votes which equals 17.40 per cent world total votes.
Titles of Nobility and the so-called "Missing Thirteenth Amendment"
Selling Freedom & Patriots for Profit
The Pilot Connection-"Freedom of Speech or Intent to Defraud"?
Was the 16th Amendment Properly ratified?
The United States is one State under international law
Who were "We the People"?
The second amendment and gun control
Under the United States Constitution:
A person must first be a United States citizen before becoming a State citizen (resident). A person can be a US citizen without being a State citizen (resident). State citizenship requires US citizenship. Under the Articles of Confederation there were State citizens but no US citizens.
STATE CITIZENSHIP by Frederick Van Dyne (1913)
THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS IN THE SEVERAL STATES by W. J. Meyers (1902)
2. HOW AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP MAY BE ACQUIRED
3. THE OBLIGATION AND DUTIES OF THE CITIZEN TO THE NATION AND THE STATES
4. THE RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES, AND IMMUNITEES OF THE CITIZEN
5. PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES UNDER THE WAR AMENDMENTS
UNITED STATES v. WONG KIM ARK-Decided March 28, 1898
AnalogX POW! for Windows 95/98/NT; POW! will automatically close popup advertisements
Crucial Technology - The Memory Experts
Devvy Kidd, Bill Conklin and 5th amendment fakery. .
Otto Skinner's Frivolous IRS Arguments
THE COMMON LAW COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS EXPOSED!
William "Bill" Cooper & John Lear The Fraud, The hoax and the Fight
BEHOLD A STALE HORSE and THE HOUR OF THE CRIME: by UFO Magazine
THE MAJESTIC 12 FBI INQUIRY:
This file relates to an FBI inquiry into the possible unauthorized disclosure of classified information when a document marked Top Secret was made public. This investigation was closed after it was learned that the document was completely bogus.(PDF file)
How the Detax Con-Artists are Wrong Message Board
How the Detax Con-Artists are Wrong Conspiracy Message Board