Confiscation to Supplant Inflation?

Location of Cyprus (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I wrote this article last Friday.  Events are moving so fast and unpredictably in Cyprus–first left, then right, then up, then down–that whatever you write may be compromised in just hours or days.  

Therefore, some of the article I penned on Friday is not necessarily accurate this Monday.  Nevertheless, there is a valid point to this article: there is now evidence that the governments of Cyprus and the EU are now sufficiently desperate to resort to open confiscation of bank accounts and pension funds to keep their fiat-money, Ponzi-scheme afloat.   The first implication is that it may no longer be safe to store all of your savings in a conventional bank account in Europe.

The big question is How soon will the US emulate the European example?  I’ve heard reports that Obama is in the process of dramatically increasing the number of IRS agents.  If the reports are true, you can bet that one of the new IRS agents’ primary tasks will be to discover the bank accounts of delinquent taxpayers and confiscate whatever currency they can find therein.

Confiscation from bank accounts may be on the verge of at least supplanting inflation as gov-co’s favorite means of robbing the public.

Here’s the original article:

 

Terrorism By Government

Anti-United States Internal Revenue Service symbol. Commonly used by tax protesters and tax reform advocates in the United States. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Don’t watch this video if you’re planning to go to sleep anytime soon.  It’s infuriating and likely to make you too mad to sleep.

The people in this video routinely refer to these raids as “paramilitary-style”.  They’re right.  But more precisely, what we’re really seeing is evidence of Terrorism conducted by government.   The government doesn’t fight terrorism; it should be prominently featured on its own list of terrorist organizations.

The sonsofbitches conducting these raids don’t belong in the free world.  In their hearts, they are nothing but Nazi thugs.  Every goddamn IRS agent who participated in this terrorist raid should be charged with “making terrorist threats” and jailed.  Every goddamn IRS agent, government official or judge who approves of these unconstitutional, terrorist tactics should be tried for treason and, if found guilty, hanged.

video

00:21:48

 

An “Infant” is a “Decedent”?

“Infant”, seconds after birth. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I received the following info by email from Colleen.  I haven’t verified any of the info, but if the info is valid, it could be (as Colleen says) BIG.

“Well, someone FINALLY did it. They found in the IRS manual the “proof” of when we “claimed” life. I write this in past tense sense when we got a social security number (a lot of us when we applied for a drivers license) is when we were NOT CONSIDERED decedents. Here’s the wordage…

“IRS manual 21.7.13.3.2.2 – An infant is the decedent of an estate or grantor, owner or trustor of a trust, guardianship, receivership or custodianship that has yet to receive an SSN.”

 

Affirmative Defense = Confession

Dick Simkanin

“Sem” is one of the people who comment regularly on this blog.

Today, he posted a comment that read in part,

 

“One “poster” in particular knows from experience that when a person enters the courtroom half-cocked, that person will experience the real meaning of the double edged sword.

“First of all a plaintiff must respond to Affirmative Defenses. Secondly, the only acceptable way to do so is with Opposing Points and Authorities. Thirdly, it is the very points of Law (precedence) that is being argued:

“For instance:

“McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), was an early substantive ruling by the United States Supreme Court regarding the burdens and nature of proof in proving a Title VII case and the order in which plaintiffs and defendants present proof. It was the seminal case in the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. (Read closely…BURDEN-SHIFTING FRAMEWORK).”

 

I’m not sure that I clearly understood Sem’s comment.  Initially, I thought he was advocating “affirmative defenses”.   In retrospect, I suspect he wasn’t advocating so much as attempting to explain something about the burden-shifting nature of “affirmative defenses”.

Whatever his intended meaning, I started to pen a brief comment in response. But my comment grew so large, that I decided to post it as the following article:

 

A Second Question for the IRS

Questions? (Photo credit: Valerie Everett)

Folks confronting the IRS routinely ask, even demand to know, “What law makes me liable?“

So far as I know, the IRS never answers.  We can’t seem to find out whichever specific “law” makes us all liable to pay income taxes.

Insofar as that “special law” remains unspecified and seemingly unknown, it’s reasonable to suppose that may be no law that makes the vast majority of American liable to pay income taxes.  After all, if there were such a law, why would the IRS persistently refuse to disclose it?  Why not just name the section of the Title 26 that makes all the people liable and stop all this foolishness about “show me the law”?

If there is no law that makes us liable to pay income taxes, does it follow that virtually all IRS collections are unlawful?

Not necessarily.

 

If This Doesn’t Piss Americans Off, Nothing Will

More Fine illegal-alien Voters for Obama (Photo credit: Richard Loyal French)

Phenomenal.  The IRS is sending $4 billion per year in refunds to illegal aliens. These refunds are based on fraudulent claims by the illegals for child credit on approximately 4 million children living in Mexico.  Some individual refunds exceed $10,000 per year.  The IRS knows the claims are false, but refuses to stop issuing the refunds to illegal aliens.

The IRS, of course, blames Congress.  I don’t doubt that both Congress and the IRS are responsible

In either case, the government has created an incentive for illegal aliens to invade this country.  The same government that may jail you for failure to pay income tax, is knowingly paying illegal aliens for making fraudulent claims for income tax credits.

 

IRS Not Registered to Do Business in North Carolina & Texas

Image via Wikipedia

I believe the income tax laws are absolutely constitutional within the US “territories” subject to the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Congress under Article 4.3.2 of The Constitution of the United States.

I believe the income tax laws are generally unconstitutional when applied within the borders of the States of the Union (there may be some exceptions for particular occupations performed within the States of the Union).

I know that “The State of Texas”  (“The State”) is the proper name for the State of the Union in which I am domiciled.

I strongly suspect that “STATE OF TEXAS,” “TEXAS” and “TX” signify a territorial, administrative district of the United States that is not a State of the Union, but is, instead, subject to the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Congress as per Article 4.3.2 of The Constitution of the United States.

If I’m right, you and I are obligated to pay “federal” income taxes if we live in an “administrative territory” (like TX, NC, NY, CA, etc.), but we may be generally not obligated to pay “federal” income taxes if we live within States of the Union (like “The State of Texas,” “The State of North Carolina,” etc.).

 

No IRS Authority to make Substitute For Return for missing 1040′s?

Image via Wikipedia

I’ve known Michael Ellis since the early 1990s.  He came to our Citizens For Legal Reform meetings and  volunteered to lead the opening prayer.  I saw almost immediately that whenever Michael led the opening prayer, our meetings were somehow much improved.  There was more energy, more goodwill–the room and audience seemed to glow a little more when Michael prayed.  By the time Michael had finished leading a prayer at his third meeting, I was convinced that Michael had an unusual “connection” with the Good LORD.  So I “drafted” him to play a much bigger role in the CFLR meetings and even hired him to help me publish my AntiShyster News Magazine.

After about 18 months, Michael went off to other work.  Since then, we talk to each other every few years.  He always seems to be doing well.  I still think the Good LORD’s hand is on him.

Last week, Michael sent me an email with an attached copy of a letter he’d sent to the IRS.  Apparently, the IRS alleges that Michael has failed to file a 1040 Income Tax Return for one or more years.  Lacking a 1040 from Michael, the IRS therefore proceeded to prepare a Substitute For Return (“SFR”) to replace the missing 1040 and create grounds for further legal process against Michael.  

 

Internal Revenue Districts

Image via Wikipedia

Bob Conlon was my guest on my radio show last night (Tuesday, November 1st).  He’s drafted a very interesting document dealing with the legal requirement that the IRS operate in relation to “Internal Revenue Districts” and the possibility that such “Districts” no longer exist.

If his research is correct, he may have discovered a very strong basis for arguing that the “IRS” has no authority to collect income taxes from individual men and women.

As I understand it, Bob asserts two premises:

1) The Internal Revenue Districts are required by law as a necessary element for the existence of any lawful authority to collect income taxes.  I haven’t researched this issue, but I believe this first premise is true.

2) In recent years, the Internal Revenue Districts have been abolished.  Bob is intelligent and diligent and I presume his second presume is also true–but I haven’t done enough reading to verify.

If both premises are true, then Bob’s conclusion (that the modern IRS is acting without authority and therefore criminally) may also be true.  If so, Bob may have discovered and published a powerful argument that may stop most IRS collection procedures.  If either premise is false, his conclusion also fails.

 

Enumeration vs. Census

Image via Wikipedia

In response to my article “Birth Certificates for Slaves?,” one of my readers posted a lengthy comment about the 16th Amendment and income taxes.  I started to write a brief reply but, as usual, the more you look the more you see, so my “brief reply grew into the following article:

Article 1.2.3 of The Constitution of the United States declares in part,

“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; . . . .”