Income Tax is Voluntary! (But they'll jail you anyway)

[Satori]

It's your business, but I would not be so quick to state that publicly. The statute of limitations does not run on "non-filers." One reason for most people to file a federal tax return (and perhaps a state return depending on where you live), even if you declare no taxable income, is to start the statute of limitations.

Good luck to you, not in just this area, but in all of your life's endeavors.

[turiya]

Posted by Satori (here)
It's your business, but I would not be so quick to state that publicly. The statute of limitations does not run on "non-filers." One reason for most people to file a federal tax return (and perhaps a state return depending on where you live), even if you declare no taxable income, is to start the statute of limitations.

Good luck to you, not in just this area, but in all of your life's endeavors.

I only meant to have it up for you.... now gone.

The brainwashing goes deep, as most all individuals have been led to believe that they are a so-called 'taxpayer' as that term is defined in the Internal Revenue Code. As stated by the United States courts in its ruling:

The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax
assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers and
not to nontaxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No
procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers, and no attempt is
made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due
course of law. With them Congress does not assume to
deal, and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of
the revenue laws.
Economy Plumbing and Heating v. United States, 470 F.2d 585, at 589 (Ct.Cl. 1972) (Emphasis added.)

Note 3 of this case reads as follows:

3. The term "taxpayer" in this opinion is used in the strict
or narrow sense contemplated by the Internal Revenue
Code and means a person who pays, overpays, or is subject to pay his own personal income tax. (See Section 7701(a)(14) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.) A "nontaxpayer" is a person who does not possess the foregoing requisites of a taxpayer.
Economy, supra, fn. 3, at 590. (Emphasis added.)

Do you possess the requisiites of a "taxpayer"? Wouldn't that depend upon the subject of the tax? Is it people, property or activities?

Internal Revenue Code section 7701(a)(14), to which the Economy Court referred, reads as follows:

Sec. 7701. Definitions.

(a)
When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly
expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent
thereof--

(14) Taxpayer. The term "taxpayer" means any person
subject to any internal revenue tax.
26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(14). (Emphasis added.)

The term "taxpayer" is also defined in section 1313(b) of the Code as follows:

Sec. 1313. Definitions.

(b) Taxpayer.

Notwithstanding section 7701(a)(14), the term "taxpayer"
means any person subject to a tax under the applicable revenue law.
26 U.S.C. 1313(b). (Emphasis added.)

In other words, if one is not engaged in an activity that is described within the Internal Revenue Code (under a statute number) in which one derives an 'income' from, then one is not subject to, or liable for the tax that would be imposed for doing so. If one is not deriving an income from a revenue taxable activity, then one is not a so-called "taxpayer", as that term is defined within the IRC.

Granted, the courts are corrupt, the same with the judges & the rest of the system of justice - i.e. "Just Us."

Siigning up for a Social Security Number, this provides what is called prima facie evidence that one is a so-called "taxpayer". So then, obviously one has to be quite wary of leaving a "paper trail" as to how one makes their living.

This is not a path that I would personally recommend to the average 'Joe' or 'Jill'.
I've only lived it because I am pretty adamant person who doesn't make for a good & cooperative slave.

Best regards to you, Satori.
(Btw, I like your name - I know what it means -
I had my first satori many years ago.)

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by turiya (here)
That to me tells me all that I need to know about you.

Just one question for you... when was the last time you filed an income tax form?
Thank you for your last reply. Have a nice day.

This is just (at this time anyway) my personal opinion, not a justification for moderation ... but the (what seems to me to be) sarcasm implicit in your last line of my quote, and the (what seems to me to be) covert rudeness in your first two lines of my quote, are (in my view) unwelcome here, uncalled for, and without foundation.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by turiya (here)
In other words, if one is not engaged in an activity that is described within the Internal Revenue Code (under a statute number) in which one derives an 'income' from, then one is not subject to, or liable for the tax that would be imposed for doing so. If one is not deriving an income from a revenue taxable activity, then one is not a so-called "taxpayer", as that term is defined within the IRC.

I agree with this, and find it to be uncontroversial. The IRS does not expect or require, in my understanding, tax filings from people who have no taxable income (income from taxable activities.)

I filed no income tax report for last year, and my sister, whose affairs I handle, has filed no income tax report for many decades ... in both cases because there was no taxable income. Simple .

Of course, if, like Al Capone, one has such taxable income, but attempts to hide that income from the IRS, then they might bring down the Wrath of Khan on you if they discover that hidden income stream.

[genevieve]

Here's an interesting document that makes clear the income tax is voluntary.


Peace Love Joy & Harmony,
genevieve

[Satori]

Posted by genevieve (here)
Here's an interesting document that makes clear the income tax is voluntary.


Peace Love Joy & Harmony,
genevieve

Yes, it is "voluntary." But that is another legal fiction. There is really nothing voluntary about it. It is by compulsion of law and fear of adverse consequences that most people file a state and/or federal income tax return. Plus, we have been trained to think we must file a tax return. Indeed, if one fails to file an income tax return when a return was required according to law, rules and regulations, then one is subject to liability for the tax due, if any, plus interest and penalty on any unpaid tax. Criminal sanctions may apply too.

There are many people who do not have enough earned income to be required by law to file a return. If no tax return is required then of course there is no need to file one. But it is a minority of people who are employed and/or who have "income" fall into this category.

I am by no means a supporter of the tax on our incomes. But, I'm not going to kid myself either about the meaning of the applicable laws, rules, and regulations and the potential consequences of being a "non-filer" if a "voluntary" income tax return is due. I know people who have gone down that road, as well as some other roads in the monetary and fiscal tax world, only to regret it. Fear is one of the major "voluntary" compliance tools for the IRS and US Treasury.

[TrumanCash]

The 13th Amendment to the Constitution declared that "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

The Social Security Administration website openly states that it is "voluntary".

Form letters from the SSA state that the IRS has jurisdiction over the SSA (and that of course would include the Social Security number).

The SSA letters reveal that they do not have franking privileges pursuant to the US Constitution and the SSA is not even located in Washington, DC, so it is not a constitutional entity per se--just a corporation created by a Congress that has no constitutional authority to do so.

Disguised as a "dead beat dad's) law, Title 42, Section 666, paragraph "13" of the United States Code (USC) requires that as a condition to receiving federal funds States must establish procedures requiring that the social security number (SSN) of any applicant for a professional license, driver's license, recreational license, occupational license, or marriage license be recorded on the application.

This SSN requirement occurred in 1996 when Title 42, Section 666, paragraph 13 was amended by Section 317 of the "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996" (Public Law 104-193). The intent was to make this uniform throughout all the States and this applies to everyone, not just "dead beat dads".

Social Security cards used to state that they cannot be used for identification. They no longer state this and now it seems that's all that they are used for, making it nearly impossible for people to live without it.

Therefore, it seems that the tacit implication is that if you "volunteer" for a Social Security number, it cannot qualify as "involuntary servitude" under the 13th Amendment.

But the Bar Association, et al, no longer follows the US Constitution (except when it benefits them or the government).

So the question remains--How does one "unvolunteer" from the Social Security number when it must be challenged in the corrupt Bar Association court system?

[genevieve]

The main takeaway for me in the Revocation of Election regarding the income tax being voluntary is that you are not a U.S. citizen if you don't reside in Washington, D.C. or territories held by the U.S. or if you aren't employed by the federal government.

If neither of those applies to you, you are not subject to income tax--unless you voluntarily fill out the IRS's forms, which we all do because we've been snookered to think we're U.S. citizens.

When we register to vote, we check the box "U.S. citizen" and so identify ourselves as such (most of us are mistaken) and then we DO have to pay taxes.

But in fact, most of us are simply American Nationals, having been born on the land of one of the nation states--each state being its own sovereign nation.

And although there have been lots of underhanded shenanigans over the years, American Nationals are still recognized and are not subject to income taxes (and a whole lot of other B.S.) as long as they don't volunteer by self-identifying as a U.S. citizen.

Peace Love Joy & Harmony,
genevieve

[turiya]

Posted by turiya (here)

The brainwashing goes deep, as most all individuals have been led to believe that they are a so-called 'taxpayer' as that term is defined in the Internal Revenue Code. As stated by the United States courts in its ruling:

The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax
assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers and
not to nontaxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No
procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers, and no attempt is
made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due
course of law. With them Congress does not assume to
deal, and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of
the revenue laws.
Economy Plumbing and Heating v. United States, 470 F.2d 585, at 589 (Ct.Cl. 1972) (Emphasis added.)

Note 3 of this case reads as follows:

3. The term "taxpayer" in this opinion is used in the strict
or narrow sense contemplated by the Internal Revenue
Code and means a person who pays, overpays, or is subject to pay his own personal income tax. (See Section 7701(a)(14) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.) A "nontaxpayer" is a person who does not possess the foregoing requisites of a taxpayer.
Economy, supra, fn. 3, at 590. (Emphasis added.)

Do you possess the requisiites of a "taxpayer"? Wouldn't that depend upon the subject of the tax? Is it people, property or activities?

Internal Revenue Code section 7701(a)(14), to which the Economy Court referred, reads as follows:

Sec. 7701. Definitions.

(a)
When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly
expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent
thereof--

(14) Taxpayer. The term "taxpayer" means any person
subject to any internal revenue tax.
26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(14). (Emphasis added.)

The term "taxpayer" is also defined in section 1313(b) of the Code as follows:

Sec. 1313. Definitions.

(b) Taxpayer.

Notwithstanding section 7701(a)(14), the term "taxpayer"
means any person subject to a tax under the applicable revenue law.
26 U.S.C. 1313(b). (Emphasis added.)

In other words, if one is not engaged in an activity that is described within the Internal Revenue Code (under a statute number) in which one derives an 'income' from, then one is not subject to, or liable for the tax that would be imposed for doing so. If one is not deriving an income from a revenue taxable activity, then one is not a so-called "taxpayer", as that term is defined within the IRC.

Of course, if, like Al Capone, one has such taxable income, but attempts to hide that income from the IRS, then they might bring down the Wrath of Khan on you if they discover that hidden income stream.

Capone was receiving so-called "taxable income" for being in the business as a distiller or importer of distilled spirits. Which is a revenue taxable activity described within the Internal Revenue Code under a numbered statute (as are ALL revenue taxable activities). Being the crook he was, he thought he was above the purview of the Internal Revenue Service - How WRONG he was on that note.

The Internal Revenue Code is clear in showing which persons are liable for a tax. For example, 26 U.S..C. 5703(a)(1) states:

The manufacturer or importer of tobacco products shall be
liable for the taxes imposed by section 5701.
26 U.S.C. 5703(a)(1). (Emphasis added.)

Another example is what brought Capone to be arrested & convicted...

26 U.S. Code § 5005 - Persons liable for tax

(a) General

The distiller or importer of distilled spirits
shall be liable for the taxes imposed thereon
by section 5001(a)(1).
26 U.S.C. 5005(a)(Emphasis added.)

One can also view the notion that the Income Tax is voluntary from this viewpoint:

One has a choice as to whether to be engaged in a revenue taxable activity, or not. According to the revenue laws, No one is being forced into making their living - wages, salary, income, remuneration, payment, etc. - by being engaged in a revenue taxable activiity, or event. Those activities are listed by statute number, as is shown (above) with the distiller of distilled spirits.

Knowing what the nature of the so-called "income" - an indirect tax in the nature of an excise tax on the happening of an event or activity - this is also paramount in having an understanding that the "income" tax is voluntary. Otherwise, a mistaken notion can lead to an extreme hardship as experienced by many that have not understood the nature of the "income" tax - a tax on activities, not on the income per se. Understand that it is the income that is derived from a particular activity which is used to measure how much tax one is required to pay. Again, this is why the tax is named the "income tax". This is because it is the amount of income that is derived from the revenue taxable activity that is used as a measure to determine how much tax one is subject to pay.

Why Some People Go to Jail
"The Biggest Tax Loophole of All" by Otto Skinner, Chapter 7

Flawed Argument #7. The individual claims that the tax is voluntary. Therefore, he is not required to file tax returns. The individual includes at least one more flawed argument to supposedly support his reasoning.
This flawed argument stems from the Flora Case cited earlier, which stated that our system of taxation is based on voluntary assessment and payment. This may seem like splitting hairs, but it is the "self-assessment" and not the tax that is voluntary. The prima facie evidence supplied by the individual indicates that the individual independently and voluntarily determined that he was subject to or liable for a revenue tax. An essential characteristic of a tax is that it is not a voluntary payment, but an enforced contribution. Unless rebutted, this prima facie evidence will be successfully used by a government prosecutor to supposedly "prove" that the individual "recognized" his obligation to file.

Prima Facie Evidence means evidence on its face. This type of evidence need to be countered with a rebuttment. If it isn't, it will stand as being factual. So, its very, very key for when the IRS agency comes a-calling, it is vital to rebut any presumption as to whether you are a "taxpayer". This can be done administratively by a simple letter back to them with questions that place the burden of proof back onto the IRS accusers.

Disclaimer: Be sure to seek the proper legal counsel to
get the appropriate legal advice involving such matters.

Best regards...

[Michelle Marie]

Posted by Peace of Mind (here)
This may be true for those that give them that power. In my case...I haven’t failed and don’t plan on it either…no matter what others make real in their paradigm.

Income tax is illegal, plain and simple. I never was one to succumb to injustices. If more people removed their fear we will all be better off. If they kill me because I stood up for what is right, my death will be an honorable one. I’m sure my next life will be a much more rewarding one simply because I choose to live it that way. We are all here to do specific jobs, learn and move on. We are not here to be slaves. Recognize this, live life this way and the universe will work with you. If you keep thinking of ways to empower these evil entities...they will use your thoughts (along with your emotional fear) and manifest that reality for you.

I'm not afraid of them, nor do I think about them in a threatening manner. I have no problem combating this corrupt system because it is FACT that our society has only prospered because of a few brave people were willing to stand up to the oppressors. If only we were all like this…just imagine that!

If you’re afraid to die than you are obviously afraid to live.

Peace

You are a true Light Warrior.

I love your NO FEAR approach. Many people take this stand - more than we are aware of.

This will create change.

MM

[turiya]

Still not in jail, or in prison... here's another interview with Winston Shrout... Starts off w/ questions, then gets back into talking about commerce @ 58.00...

The GoldFish Report No. 130 - Country Roads w/
Winston Shrout: DNA Repair & Fiscal Time

(Published on Sep 15, 2017)

[turiya]

Thomas Paine1774 of TruePundit.com attempts to explain the unconstitutional basis for the so-called "income" tax... True, the present way the tax is being 'misapplied' is 'fraudulent', which the Deep State does use to their benefit... Unfortunately, Thomas, like most, fails to understand precisely what kind of tax it is - hint: its NOT a direct tax on income! The IRC was written by bankers using deceptive banker language - they are the Masters of Deception, imo... click on the image to read the entire article...

TAX FRAUD ALLEGATIONS ARE A MECHANISM OF DEEP STATE COMMUNIST CONTROL


TAX FRAUD ALLEGATIONS ARE A MECHANISM OF DEEP STATE COMMUNIST CONTROL
When the U.S. income tax law passed in 1913 like a thief in the night, literally, when 90% of the U.S. Congress and Senate were home for the Christmas Holidays, few people in America knew exactly what this meant.
As part of the Federal Reserve Act, which brought us our sprawling Central Bank that many early U.S. Presidents such as Andrew Jackson fought against, including wars, the Sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1913.
It states: “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.”
A few decades prior around 1894, the income tax was in fact declared unconstitutional by Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution which states: “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.” [Side note: 'direct' tax - today's so-called "income tax" is an indirect tax - like an EXCISE! - there is plenty of room for debate on this...]
In 1894, Congress passed the Wilson-Gorman Tariff, which created an income tax of 2% on income of over $4,000.
Charles Pollock contested that the tax was unconstitutional under Article 1, Section 9.

3:00 AM - 24 Aug 2018

[turiya]

Posted by Peace of Mind (here)
...Income tax is illegal, plain and simple.

Simple answer: If the first step toward understanding something is a missed step, then every subsequent step taken after that will also be a misstep, which will lead you further & further away from the reality of what you want to understand.

Its the Jekyll Island central bankers - Masters of Deception - that wrote the IRC - Internal Revenue Code - using banker language. The so-called "income tax" is NOT a direct tax on income per se. It is an indirect tax, as in the form of an EXCISE!

Understanding the tax laws & the words that are used within the IRC is not somethng to overlook.

Examples:

1) What is the Rule of Apportionment? And what kind of tax does it specifically pertain to?
2) The Rule of Uniformity? And what kind of tax does it specifically pertain to?

This is the first step. If its overlooked, then you will never understand the nature of the so-called 'income' tax.

After looking at the chart above, then take a look at your federal income tax tables...

If the so-called 'income' tax is a 'direct' tax (on income as property), then shouldn't the tax tables be different for each State? That's what apportionment means - apportioned according to the population of each State. On the contrary, the same tax tables are distributed to every State, following the Rule of Uniformity! Which is the Constitutional requirement for 'indirect' taxes.

Also consider this, if everyone was subject to & liable for the so-called 'income' tax - i.e. a 'direct' tax on income - then why is not the revenue tax a subject that is taught in the public school system? The answer is obvious - Everyone is not necessary subject to & liable for this revenue tax. (See what the Economy case states in Post #62)

[shaberon]

Posted by genevieve (here)
The main takeaway for me in the Revocation of Election regarding the income tax being voluntary is that you are not a U.S. citizen if you don't reside in Washington, D.C. or territories held by the U.S. or if you aren't employed by the federal government.

If neither of those applies to you, you are not subject to income tax--unless you voluntarily fill out the IRS's forms, which we all do because we've been snookered to think we're U.S. citizens.

When we register to vote, we check the box "U.S. citizen" and so identify ourselves as such (most of us are mistaken) and then we DO have to pay taxes.

But in fact, most of us are simply American Nationals, having been born on the land of one of the nation states--each state being its own sovereign nation.

And although there have been lots of underhanded shenanigans over the years, American Nationals are still recognized and are not subject to income taxes (and a whole lot of other B.S.) as long as they don't volunteer by self-identifying as a U.S. citizen.

Peace Love Joy & Harmony,
genevieve

Nationals are not subject to statutes, but are subject to code. Most of the things you would object to are statutes.

But, we're not...we have fried National-ism at every step, including having the S. S. #, any interest-bearing account, licenses, insurance, real estate, any government benefit, voting, all of those kinds of things are your consent to be a citizen. And a citizen of a foreign power: the federal government is a foreign agency except in its courts, military bases, etc., it is basically a foreigner wherever you live.

The income tax itself is not apportioned, it is indirect. I'm not sure that helps get out of it.

Citizen and Democracy are certainly two big lies...the U. S. is not a democracy, and you wouldn't be a citizen if you weren't tricked into it. You would really need to rescind the citizenship instead of protesting taxes based on the possibility. Once a citizen, you're not getting out of it without some fairly substantial un-making, and until then, you are still subject to all the tyranny the system has to offer. Drop it and you can do whatever you want, besides theft and violence.

[Satori]

But, how many of us on Spaceship Earth who are not already living in a State of Nature would willingly return to the State of Nature, simply to avoid tax on "income"?

And, those of us who do decide to live in a State of Nature would likely not be subject to the anti-Constitutional federal tax on income because, for one thing, those living in a State of Nature in the USA would not earn enough income to be subject to said tax. This is one reason why governments oppose any movements and efforts by any significant numbers of people to return to the State of Nature--not that it takes much effort in the modern-day world to successfully quell such movements. Such a movement, if successful, would sound the death knell for centralized big government. Centralized government gives such movements perjorative names or terms like anarchy, or conspiracy theory, and drums any such notions out of the minds of people through public and private indoctrination, called education.

Yes, ours is a Republic, if we can keep it. But, our Republic employs democratic processes. All too often that is the cause of much discord. The two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner thing. Majority rule and consensus politics is not all that it's pitched to be.

There is much misunderstanding and misinformation (both often well-intentioned) and, unfortunately, intentional disinformation on the subject of citizenship, the Fourteenth Amnd, the scope and legality of the federal income tax, sovereignty, gold fringed flag and so on...

Tread very carefully in this area. There are many pitfalls for the unwary.

[turiya]

Posted by genevieve (here)
The main takeaway for me in the Revocation of Election regarding the income tax being voluntary is that you are not a U.S. citizen if you don't reside in Washington, D.C. or territories held by the U.S. or if you aren't employed by the federal government.

If neither of those applies to you, you are not subject to income tax--unless you voluntarily fill out the IRS's forms, which we all do because we've been snookered to think we're U.S. citizens.

When we register to vote, we check the box "U.S. citizen" and so identify ourselves as such (most of us are mistaken) and then we DO have to pay taxes.

But in fact, most of us are simply American Nationals, having been born on the land of one of the nation states--each state being its own sovereign nation.

And although there have been lots of underhanded shenanigans over the years, American Nationals are still recognized and are not subject to income taxes (and a whole lot of other B.S.) as long as they don't volunteer by self-identifying as a U.S. citizen.

Peace Love Joy & Harmony,
genevieve

Again, as stated in Post #69, the argument that one is not subject to the "income" tax because it is voluntary tax is a fraudulent argument. 'Voluntary' within this context means that it is the assessment that is voluntary (see above).

It also is 'voluntary' because... since the "income" tax is an unapportioned indirect tax for being engaged in a certain 'revenue taxable' activity that one voluntarily engages in. Not all activities are taxable for revenue purposes. One can choose to engage in an activity that is NOT taxable for revenue purposes. One is not forced to engage in any activity. One has a choice in the matter. Thus, one makes a voluntary decision as to whether they will engage in an activity that is taxable for revenue purposes, or not. Hence, one volunteers to make oneself subject to / liable for the revenue tax, or not.

But of course, just about 99% of the American population has been brainwashed into believing that they are a 'taxpayer' (as that term is defined within the Internal Revenue Code (IRC)), and that everyone else must be a taxpayer as well. So, one still needs to do their own due dilligence (work for themselves, and watch the paper trail that one leaves behind), as the mulitiude of employers, independent contractor payers, as well as accountants, attorney & tax consultants within this country will have you fill out & sign paperwork that pertains to a worker that is for "taxpayers" & then forwards that paperwork (W-4 & 1099 forms) on to the IRS. This is all the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) needs to use as prima facie evidence (evidence on its surface) that shows you are, indeed, a 'taxpayer' (as that term is defined within the IRC).

So, know it well... your employer/payer is culpable (whether aware of it, or not) in providing the paperwork that fraudulently shows that you are subject to / liable for a so-called federal "income" tax.

Posted by shaberon (here)
The income tax itself is not apportioned, it is indirect. I'm not sure that helps get out of it.

Granted, the courts, judges & attorney are quite crooked. They all make their money off of the defendant. One has to basically understand the tactics that are being employed so as to entrap the average 'Joe-six pack'. Understand how to shift what is called the "burden of proof" onto the other side. This can be done administratively, without a need to spend time in a courtroom.

As a U.S. citizen, one automatically is 'presumed' to be guilty, unless the presumption is rebutted. If you do not respond to the letter, then eventually a subpoena (an invitation to court) will be sent to you. One must repsond, otherwise a request for your presence in court will be forthcoming.

For example, upon receiving a letter from the IRS, within this letter is contained a presumption... that presumption is that you are a 'taxpayer'. And, you will be a 'taxpayer' as long as you don't rebut this presumption. A simple way of doing this would be to respond to the letter. In your response, simple say something like the following:

"I would gladly pay the amount that is stated within the letter that was received, but only if you can show me how I have made myself liable for &/or subject to the tax. So, if you can please show me how I've made myself liable for the tax? Will await for your reply. Thank you."

The above is the basis for why Sherry Jackson made her video. It is an attempt to educate the people.

IRS fraud!! No Law requiring Americans
to pay Income Taxes on their Labor!
(Jul 6, 2013)

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=AdStd8w35XQ

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=s1UT2Ms5E2k

[turiya]

Posted by Satori (here)
Tread very carefully in this area. There are many pitfalls for the unwary.

Satori

Meet Winston Shrout - still not in jail or prison....

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=GY2JBQqjRpE

[turiya]

Posted by shaberon (here)
Nationals are not subject to statutes, but are subject to code. Most of the things you would object to are statutes.

shaberon

I do believe Codes & Statutes are the same. U.S. citizens are subject to both. Sovereigns are subject to neither. For example, there are very few are sovereigns that would be exempt from military tribunals. See Winston Shrout video...

Winston Shrout is the 'to-go-to-guy' that is the expert on Admiralty Law, imo.

GoldFish Report #261 Excerpt:
U.S. Citizens Subject to Both Codes & Statutes
(August 28, 2018)

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=0qMhjzWfz6Q

[genevieve]

Anna von Reitz is a very good source of information in general, and
specifically with regard to clarifying and asserting one's status as an
American State National (as distinguished from a U.S. citizen). Her
posts can be found here:

http://annavonreitz.com/
-- Her site with all her articles, no comments

http://www.paulstramer.net/
-- With comments/dialogue, few responses from Anna--by viewers mostly

https://www.facebook.com/avonreitz?fref=ts
-- With comments/dialogue, some responses to viewers by Anna

https://mainerepublicemailreport.com/
-- No comments

I believe it's important to clarify one's status, and not just in relation to income taxes. "They" think you're a member in their club, so you've got to let them know otherwise.

Peace Love Joy & Harmony,
genevieve

[Satori]

Posted by turiya (here)

Posted by Satori (here)
Tread very carefully in this area. There are many pitfalls for the unwary.

Satori

Meet Winston Shrout - still not in jail or prison....

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=GY2JBQqjRpE

Thank you. I think you or someone else introduced him to us a while back. I bid him well.

If you read and understand my post, nothing therein is inconsistent with Mr. Shrout's apparent success. I did not watch the video and I am not familiar with any details of his claims, so that's all I can say. All I know from your post is that he is not in jail or prison. That is good.

The point of my post is to caution against believing everything one hears, reads or sees on this subject (and all others), and to be very careful with how you go about challenging tax authorities. They are not invincible and they can be beat, but that is the vast exception, not the rule.

I am not attempting to urge people to role over and take it, to the contrary. The income tax is the bane of our economic existence. I simply urge proceeding with great preparation and study.