“In an August, 1993, speech to Lawyers and Accountants (members of the National Association of Enrolled Agents), Peggy Richardson, the then IRS Commissioner, asserted that she needed their help to achieve greater "voluntary compliance" from taxpayers, because annual collections were dropping. She said that the IRS was NOT collecting at least "$70 billion in additional revenues each year." She further stated that at least 1 out of 5 "taxpayers" were now REFUSING to comply, and that the "tax revolt" is growing. In addition, she claimed that "The compliance level from corporations in the service industries fell from 69 percent to 48 percent between 1980 and 1987." [emphasis added]

Notice she called it a "revolt". However, citizens striving for rights and that laws be applied properly are not revolting - they are simply trying to correct wrongful interpretation or misapplication of laws. If any organization has 'revolted', it is the US Government in its actions against the Constitution and, hence, the people of this nation.

Let us begin with this Supreme Court ruling, Miller v. U.S. 230 F 486 at 489, which stated: “The claim and exercise of a constitution right cannot be converted into a crime.”

And, then, this ruling which SHOULD WIN EVERY CITIZEN'S CASE AGAINST THE IRS. “Doubt relative to statutory construction should be resolved in favor of the individual, not the government.” Greyhound Corp. v. United States, 495 F2d 863

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

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

Most people do not know but if any law is not understood the same by two people, then it is null and void for vagueness. The Supreme Court in Spreckles Sugar Refining Co. v. McClain, 192 US 397 (at page 416) stated that a: "...citizen is exempt from taxation, unless the same is imposed by clear and unequivocal language."

How clear is the Internal Revenue Code? The Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Ballard, 535 F2d 400 (1940 at page 404), concluded that "The general term 'income' is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code."

In Merchant's Loan and Trust Company v. Smietanka, 255 US 509 (1921 at pages 518, 519), the Supreme Court stated: "There would seem to be no room to doubt that the word [income] must be given the same meaning in all of the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act and that what that meaning is has now become definately settled by decisions of the court.

The definition of income was clearly given in 1918 in the supreme court decision of Doyle vs. Mitchell, 247 U.S. 179, 330: "Whatever difficulty there may be about a precise and scientific definition of 'income' it imports, as used here [in the Internal Revenue Code] ... the idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activities... We must reject in this case...the broad contention submited in behalf of the Government that all receipts, everything that comes in are income within the proper definition of the term 'gross income'."

In complete agreement with this are these statements taken from Stapler v. United States, 21 F. Supp 737 at 739: "Income means gains/profit from property severed from capitol, however invested or employed. Income is not a wage or compensation for any type of labor."

Then, from Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. R., 240 U.S. 1, 36 S. Ct. 236, 60 L. Ed. 493, at page 16, it was stated: "Concluding that the classification of direct was adopted for the purpose of rendering it impossible to burden by taxation accumulations of property, real or personal, except subject to the regulation of apportionment..."

That is not all that was stated in the Brushaber case (decided January 24, 1916 and never overturned to date), however. Note: The below is copied and pasted directly from the decision. I use government sites, along with the help of many experts, to verify what I state, not IRS publications meant to mislead and misinform). Read it carefully as it is your income also being affected by misinterpretations and/or misapplications of the law. I have emphasized conclusions.

"The various propositions are so intermingled as to cause it to be difficult to classify them. We are of opinion, however, that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes. And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it, as follows:

(a) The Amendment authorizes only a particular character of direct tax without apportionment, and therefore if a tax is levied under its assumed authority which does not partake of the characteristics exacted by the Amendment, it is outside of the Amendment, and is void as a direct tax in the general constitutional sense because not apportioned.

(b) As the Amendment authorizes a tax only upon incomes 'from whatever source derived,' the exclusion from taxation of some income of designated persons and classes is NOT authorized, and hence the constitutionality of the law must be tested by the general provisions of the Constitution as to taxation, and thus again the tax is void for want of apportionment.

(c) As the right to tax 'incomes from whatever source derived' for which the Amendment provides must be considered as exacting intrinsic uniformity, therefore NO TAX comes under the authority of the Amendment not conforming to such standard, and hence all the provisions of the assailed statute must once more be tested solely under the general and pre-existing provisions of the Constitution, causing the statute again to be void in the absence of apportionment."

There are many other decisions but all arrive at the same ruling, that the 16th Amendment did not give the power to Congress to tax citizen’s earnings directly (also the decision in Stanton vs. Baltic Mining). THE CONSTITUTION PROHIBITS IT!! (Read Article I, Section 9, Clause 4).

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

Here are statements, along with the previous statement, that should be given as orders to every judge before any trial begins. In Busse v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 479 F2d 1143, , the court determined that: "Courts have no power to rewrite legislative enactments to give effect to their ideas of policy and fitness or the desirability of symmetry in statutes."

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

In this same vein, Blatt Co. v. United States, 59 S. Ct. 472,the court concluded that "Treasury regulations can add nothing to income as defined by Congress."

Consider this which I thought was a given. It seems it has had to have been ruled on or, at least, important to be a a decision. From Marbury v. Madison, 5th US (2 Cranch) 137, 180. we find this: "All laws, rules and practices which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Interesting that it had to be part of a decision, to say the least.

The case, Evans v. Gore, 253 U.S. 245, seems to have the utmost importance in determining just (as in justice) decisions concerning direct tax laid on individuals of the 50 States. You decide. "The 16th Amendment does not justify the taxation of persons or things previously immune. It was intended only to remove all occasions for any apportionment of income taxes among the states. It does not authorize a tax on a salary."(My emphasis)

I have read in many sources in which "good faith" is a consideration. Actually, most of the writings were directed to a person setting up a defense of acting in "good faith". For any who do rely on this as part of their defense, in United States v. Bishop, 412 U.S. 346, 361, it is stated that: "The requirement of an offence committed willfully is not met, therefore, if a taxpayer has relied in good faith upon a prior decision of this court."

In addition to this conclusion is this one from Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192: If the defendent had a subjective good faith belief, no matter how unreasonable, that he was not required to file a tax return, the government cannot establish that the defendent acted willfully."

We each have the right to work. It is not a privilege granted by government. With the right to work, comes the right to fairly and equitably trade our labor, our most important property, for an equal right of earnings.

In United States v. Kaiser, 80 S. Ct. 1264, , the conclusion was: "A personal right that is not transferable or assignable is also not taxable."

The result is zero gain or loss; thus, no income as defined by Congress. Plus, from this ruling, your right to work is not transferable or assignable - it is YOUR right and only yours.

It is important to recognize there are jurisdictional issues that must be addressed. We have federal jurisdiction and state jurisdiction. Federal is clearly defined as applying to the District of Columbia by the Constitution of the united States of America. It also has jurisdiction in the possessions and in states in which portions are 'federal property', such as forts and other military installations.

In New Orleans v. United States, 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 662 (1836), , statements concerning federal jurisdiction were made. "Special provision is made in the Constitution for the cession of jurisdiction from the states over places where the federal government shall establish forts or other military works. And it is only in these places, or in territories of the United States, where it can exercise a general jurisdiction."

Clearly, it can be seen that once a portion of state property is given up to the federal government for its use in establishing a military or other installation, the state gives up its jurisdiction over that property and the federal government assumes it.

Also, from U.S. v. Spelar, 338 U.S. 217 at 222, we find this: "There is a canon of legislative construction which teaches Congress that, unless a contrary intent appears [legislation] is meant to apply only within territorial jurisdiction of the United States." Note: Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution establishes basic federal (US Government) jurisdiction.

Also, with a very minute amount of reasoning, it is also clear that it is only on those federal properties and in territories of the United Sates that the federal government has jurisdiction. The union of 50 States is neither owned by, nor are territories of the federal government, and are not under its jurisdiction.

There is also this case which gives further proof of the limited jurisdiction of the federal government. In Pollard v. Hagan, 44 U.S.C. 212, 221, 223, , the court stated that: "The United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in Alabama or any of the new states which were formed ... The United States has no constitutional capacity to exercise municipal jurisdiction, sovereignty or eminent domain, within the limits of a state or elsewhere, except in the cases in which it is expressly granted..."

Then, from Caha v. United States, 152 US 211, "The laws of Congress in respect to those matters (outside of Constitutionally delegated powers) do not extend into the territorial limits of the States, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government."

The cases in which jurisdiction is granted has been covered above. United States jurisdiction is only over the District of Columbia, the territories, and federal property. That is all.

This is an important distinction that must be made by people interested in their rights and that government be limited as intended by the Constitution. Understand first that there is the United States, which is usually taken as meaning the seat of the central government (including in the dreaded tax Code, Section 7701 (a)(9)), defining United States for Tax Imposed.

There is also the United States taken as meaning the union of the 50 States, or the United States of America. You will find several places in the Constitution in which the distinction is maintained, including in 31 USC, Section 3124, which is concerned with Federal Reserve Notes and use of in determining tax (actually tax exemption for all practical purposes). Before reading this section, read 18 USC, Section 8, which defines obligation.

There is also the United States meaning the whole of the US Government AND the union of the 50 States but this is only in common, more or less, use described as 'everyday'. In other words, it doesn't seem to be often used in this manner in statutes and the like.

Now, not to be confusing, but there may be a fourth United States, which is made up of "shadow" states along with the District of Columbia and the island possessions. The shadow states, by the way, are designated by the abbreviations pushed by the Post Office, such as MO for Missouri, AZ for Arizona, and so on. This is the federal government trying to sneak tax jurisdiction in.

The importance of this must be understood as jurisdiction is extremely important to the preservation and firm establishment of rights. In any section of law, the jurisdiction must be known. State statutes cannot apply to federal entities nor may federal statutes apply to States.

Therefore, in the tax code, there has to be a definition as to what United States a section applies to in order to establish jurisdiction. In Hagans v. Lavine, 415 US 533, it is stated that: "The law requires proof of jurisdiction to appear on the record of the administrative agency and all administrative proccedings".

And, in City Street Improv. Co. v. Pearson, 181 C. 640, 185 P. (1962); and O'Neil v. Dept. of Professional & Vocational Standards, 7 CA2d 393, 46 P2d 234, the conclusion was: Jurisdiction is essential to give validity to the determinations of administrative agencies and where jurisdictional requirements are not satisfied, the action of the agency is a nullity."

The IRS is not even an agency of this country, meaning of the united States of America. See 31 USC, Chapter 3, page 7 which lists all agencies of the Treasury Department. Betty H. Richardson, United States Attorney for the Seventh Judicial District of Idaho, stated this in regards to a dispute between the IRS, T-Bow Company Trust (for Diversidied Metal Products, Inc., and Steve Morgan (alleged the company owed him money) (Case#CV93-4117): "DENIES that the Internal Revenue Service is an agency of the United States Government ..." (my emphasis) And well she did since the Code clearly states it by the IRS not being listed.

Then, also in support, in United States v. Lopez, No. 93-1260, 115 S. Ct. 1624, 131 L. Ed. 2d 626), this was stated: "Indeed, on the crucial point, the majority and Justice Breyer agree in principle: "The Federal government has nothing approaching a police power." (Police power indicating federal jurisdiction.) Makes you wonder what the devil is going on with federal armed agents busting into people's homes and businesses, doesn't it, especially since it is also out of the feds' jurisdiction with the exception of 'contraband' (with contraband being alcohol, firearms, or tobacco is imported without having had the necessary excise tax or duty paid on it)?

And, in Curley v. United States, 791 F. Supp. 52, "Failure to adhere to agency regulations may amount to denial of due process: if regulations are required by Constitution or statute." We might look at this another way. Anytime a non-agency's (the IRS, for exaumple) regulations are used, it is a matter of denial of due process if 'due-process' means doing what is required. In other words, without a proper regulation from a proper agency with jurisdictional power, there isn't any process requiring a person to do anything. Therefore, any act against him is not a matter of 'due process' and, thus, has denied the person due process.

Then, from United States v. DeWitt, 76 US 41 9 Wall 4, 19 L. Ed 593, we find a jurisdictional issue resolved in this manner: "...the commerce clause...has always been understood as limited by its terms; and as a virtual denial of any power to interfere with the internal trade and business of the separate states."

Hm, doesn't this mean you should be able to grow any plant or manufacture any firearm or make and sell any alcohol within your own state?

Of course, it does. Nowhere in the Constitution or the amendments has the federal government been given any form of jurisdiction over any citizens using, making, or marketing of any of the above. Its only jurisdiction is whether or not excise tax applies should one sell outside their resident state.

Thus, in Chapter 1, the definition that applies is 7701 (a)(9) and, then, for States, 7701 (a)(10). (9) defines the United States as the District of Columbia and (10) defines "State" as the District of Columbia. See, the word 'include' is inclusive in statute construction, not expansive. Thus, in the code, the words "include" or "includes" mean "restricted to what is identified." All that is included as a "State" is, therefore, the District of Columbia because that is all that is stated.

In United States v. Goldenberg, 168 U.S. 95, , the above is supported fully by: The primary and general rule of statutory construction is that the intent of the lawmaker is to be found in the language that he has used. He is presumed to know the meaning of the words and the rules of grammar."

One cannot stress the importance of understanding definitions are stated as to applicability. Remember, the Code is written so as to dupe people into falsely stating their non-taxable earnings are taxable income. One section is used heavily by ignorant bastards intent on stealing your money. It is Section 6103(b)(5)because it defines State: (5)STATE.-The term 'State' means - any of the 50 States, the District of Columbia ..."

However, this definition is preceded by: ("(B) DEFINITIONS.-For purposes of this section-" Thus, the definition applies only to this section which covers a very simple matter - from where persons made liable for income tax can file their documents. It has nothing whatsoever to do with establishing liability on any citizens of the 50 States.

Putting it simply, it only means a federal employee or corporation or other person made liable under "Tax Imposed" can file his proper tax forms from - let's say - Missouri. It does NOT state any Missourian is made liable to file.

The question is whether or not liberty and justice are being served in this once great land. I think not. The reason is the above is enough to clearly illustrate that any court ruling against a citizen of the 50 States with domestic earnings only in regards to federal (and state) income tax has made a ruling against the Constitution and the Supreme Court.

The fact is income tax as we know it is being applied to citizens illegally. Forget that crap about legal and illegal. False interpretations are used as are false requirements. That is a scam - a system of conning people into giving their money to a foreign bank and it is breaking the highest law of the land and that makes it criminal and illegal. Besides, 'illegal' means prohibited by law. Laying a tax without apportionment is prohited by the Supreme Law of the Land. That makes federal income tax applied to citizens of the 50 States illegal.

People are coerced into filing false documents through which they perjure themselves. That, also, is a con. If I were doing it, it would be illegal. Thus, so it is for the government.

Armed federal agents break into people's homes and businesses in violation of many amendments. They haven't any authority or jurisdiction but get away with it by threatening people with loaded firearms held at them, possibly pointed right at their heads. That is intimidation intended to cause 'voluntary compliance' into servitude to government in the form of working half their lives to pay taxes they are not liable for. That is illegal.

Personally, I believe 'justice' is only determined by what the federal government wants at any specific time. Of course, at this time, it wants by any valid interpretation, injustices against the American people. This shows up in actions such as Ruby Ridge, Waco, taking people's property for taxes they aren't liable for, and on.

Courts are afraid to rule against the federal government or get paid to do so if several sources are correct. Certainly, many millions of us saw it during NBC's special a few years ago (1996, I believe) concerning Louisiana law enforcement taking advantage of federal drug laws (unconstitutional, also).

It is quite clear in my mind the federal government has revolted against the Constitution of the united States of America and does anything but adhere to it. It has managed to deprive citizens of liberties and has rendered 'justice' a meaningless term in regards to a citizen in a 'tax court' situation. Or, in any situation in which it is "Citizen vs. United States (government)".

I guess when one gets right down to it, the federal government has destroyed much of liberty and thoroughly deprived the American people of justice when facing the greatest threat this Republic has to date faced - the US Government.