Disqus censored me :-(

I love Disqus, but I left a comment on their post about 973 Disqus commenters and they removed it.  Thankfully, it's still in my profile, so I figured I'd post it here because I like the idea so much:

AI has gotten very good at finding "similar input" and I would like to see Disqus provide commenters with a way to "Fit your comment into 25 words or less for our AI matcher to see if we can 'automagically' strengthen your input with that of others, and lead you all to others who have similar input." It would be helpful all around to see automation recognize and point out to a publisher (and their audience) when they do something especially good or bad.
For example, for this comment, I'd write "Use comment similarity to highlight shared sentiment and connect those who share it."
I believe that some sites do not show comments by default, but require the user to click to view them. I think this is a dirty trick used by publishers who realize that comments destroy the power of their propaganda. It would be nice to see some research into whether there is any correlation between showing comments by default and reader satisfaction with various aspects of what a publisher does.
For this second part of my comment, my 25-words-or-less version is: "Research correlation between reader satisfaction and requiring a click to see comments."

Since they removed it from the article, I copied it and sent it to Automattic, the makers of wordpress plugins IntenseDebate and Akismet among others.

EFF's out-of-date Secure Messaging Scorecard

This is an open letter to the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Dear EFF,

At https://www.eff.org/node/82654 you wrote "you should not use this scorecard to evaluate the security of any of the listed tools, as many of them have been changed since the scorecard was last updated" but you also wrote "Updates will be made if the listees or others inform us of changes or inaccuracies."

I suppose this has been happening ("the listees or others inform us of changes or inaccuracies") and you have not stood by your promise to make updates accordingly.  This seems to me to be one example of "security vulnerabilities ONLY in EFF software or systems," and so I am reporting it here.  There are people relying on the information at https://www.eff.org/node/82654 to maintain their messaging apps in a secure fashion, and EFF has apparently dropped the ball.

Is this because we didn't donate enough?  Can you send me a list of the "changes or inaccuracies" that have been reported by listees or others and give me a chance to raise the money it would take to incorporate those changes and inaccuracies into the page there?

Thank you for your work.  I am committed to helping excellent organizations such as yours follow through on their promises.

My Ten-Day Water Fast

Yes, I fasted for 10 days.  "What will-power!" someone said.  Thanks!  There is a thing called "orthorexia" about which Timberline Knolls says:

An orthorexic may avoid numerous foods, including those made with:

• Artificial colors, flavors or preservatives
• Pesticides or genetic modification
• Fat, sugar or salt
• Animal or dairy products
• Other ingredients considered to be unhealthy

Well, yeah, what intelligent person wouldn't?  I suppose the modern way is to pathologize everything that is different.  Despite this silly main "symptom" of orthorexia, the fact is that it is hard to eat healthy, and my ken was to eat a lot less, so I welcomed my friend's suggestion to follow his fruitarian diet.  And now that I read a little more about orthorexia, I'm not worried about it.
About three weeks into eating only fruit (and a little bit of veggies, but not much), I had a blood test because I have essential thrombocythemia, a disease in which the megakaryoctyes that make platelets make too many of them.  Do I have a normal number of over-productive cells or too many normal cells?  I think the latter, because my oncologist (yes, ET is a mild form of cancer) confirmed his suspected diagnosis with a blood smear from the marrow in my hip.  In the smear, I think he told me, he found more megakaryocytes than there should be.
After he punched a hole in the back of my pelvis, I drove home with a bandaid on my butt.  On the way I got a ticket for not stopping fully at a red light when I was turning right.  At the court appearance, they asked me to sign something and I stupidly agreed.  Don't cooperate with people who demand that you sign things.  Scream instead that you're being coerced.  Sorry for the diversion.  I think it's here for a reason, but I can't find it yet.  Maybe someday.
I actually have been getting a blood test about once a month for almost two years to make sure my platelet count doesn't go too high.  Dr. Yeh gave me a prescription for hydroxyurea, also known as "Hu". Hu is the same molecule as urea - yes the stuff in our pee - except that Hu has an OH- ion where urea has a H+ ion.  It's a carbon bond.  They can pull that kind of crap, the little buggers.
The first test before I started eating only fruit showed my platelet count at 553. It was about a week later that I stopped eating animal products and most veggies - so fruit only. About two weeks later I had another test and the number was 503.  I concluded that meat contributes to me having too many platelets. Two weeks after that, I had another test and the number was 419!  On that same day, I scrambled myself four eggs and some cheese in an omelet to celebrate. I ate half of it for breakfast.  Then I went to see Dr. Yeh because I was considering doing a water-only fast.
My fruitarian friend gave me a book called Fasting and Eating for Health by Dr. Joel Fuhrman.  Clearly, it inspired me.  Dr. Fuhrman wrote in that book about what the body does when it doesn't have to spend any energy on digestion.  One of those things is to metabolize extra cells that are not needed.  I thought maybe whatever biological calculation had evolved might recognize my extra megakaryocytes as such edible extras.
I told Dr. Yeh about the book and that it recommended a 14-day fast under the supervision of a doctor - for people with chronic medical problems like diabetes, arthritis, obesity, high blood pressure, etc.Dr. Yeh said 14 days was too long and even ten was too long.  I pointed out that Dr. Fuhrman suggested that fasting patients taper off all their medications, but Dr. Yeh told me to keep taking hydroxyurea. We agreed that I'd stay on the Hu and fast for five days and then get another blood test to see how I'm doing.  He'd then have the chance to call me and convince me to break my fast.
When I got home, I ate the last half of my omelet and finished my raw milk, and stopped eating.
Five days later, I got another blood test and found that five days of consuming nothing but water reversed the trend in my platelet count.  It was back up to 476. My best guess is that since the body begins getting rid of toxins (like Hu) when you stop giving it food to digest, the Hu was having less and less effect on my bone marrow.  I have not yet discussed this with Dr. Yeh, and I think my next test is in a week or two.
My blood tests measure lots of things, and since I started taking Hu, many of them have been a little lower than normal (White blood cell count, red blood cell count, hemoglobin, etc.).  All those levels improved after five days of consuming only water. I patiently waited for a call from Dr. Yeh to see if I should break my fast.  The nurse called instead and said my platelet count looked fine.  I asked her if she knew I was fasting and she didn't.  We discussed the book and she thanked me for the information.  I asked her to let Dr. Yeh know that I'd be consuming only water for another five days.
I broke my fast with a bit of watermelon about 8 hours early.  I also had a little blueberry cream custard at a voluntaryist meetup, and mostly fruit after that.
I had a plan to eat meat and everything else I want only on Tuesdays because that is the day of my weekly dinner with some friends.  The rest of the time, my plan was to eat just fruit.  Then I had a dream.  I went to bed late, so in the morning I was sleeping in, and that usually gives me some dreams.
I met someone for a business deal outside my house.  That was peculiar because I usually meet people for business in more public places.  He came in a truck and had his son with him.  He suggested that we go to the bank because he needed to get some cash there, so I walked to the passenger side and got in.  He set the vehicle moving, but was no longer in it.  I was kind of alarmed and curious, so I looked over at the driver's seat to confirm that it was empty and there was his son, driving.
The son drove us straight where the road turned left, right up onto someone's porch and nearly hit their front door before finally turning.  I woke up from the adrenaline rush. I was prepared for another dream-crash and tried to go back to sleep so I could dream lucidly.  It worked!
My dream picked up where it had left off, and we were now driving up the hill that came after that left turn.  It leads to a T intersection.  I braced myself for more bad driving and looked forward to the exciting crash in my dream.  He was headed for a shrubbery across the street, and once again, wasn't going to turn in time.  Though I was prepared, the adrenaline rush woke me up.  Perhaps it was also an epiphany of sorts that helped awaken me.  Someone, I deduced, had taken me too far, and my brain said that twice.  In a row.
During the previous few days, I had spoken with two friends who were both fruitarians, though perhaps not very strictly.  Fuhrman's book pointed out that the human body is capable of making everything it needs without eating anything but fruit.  He still recommended grains and legumes and one other thing I can't remember.  A third friend pointed out that while the body can make all that other stuff, it doesn't have to; we can just eat animal products that already contain it.
A fourth friend related to me that one of her friends had done a long-term fast and it aged him in a way from which he never fully recovered.  I very strongly believe that the dream was my body telling me to eat more than just fruit, and I've listened.  I've been meditating for ten minutes a day for a few months, and my body and I have had some interesting discussions about trusting each other.
I stopped eating bread a few months before I started this whole fruitarian thing, and that made me lose about ten pounds. Before my fast, I lost another five while eating only fruit, and then ten more during the fast.  I'm gaining it back slowly, on purpose.  I am a bit too thin now, but, thanks to mild orthorexia, I will expand myself in healthy ways.

There are two main theories that I'm testing regarding essential thrombocythemia.  One is that it is precipitated by gluten.  The other is that it is precipitated by something commonly found in meat.  I lean toward the second, and perhaps, after my next blood test, I'll start eating bread again.  I do kind of miss it, but that want gets weaker all the time.

It was my friend Mike who inspired me to read the book, and also to create this post.  Thanks Mike!  You may have helped me cure my disease.

Update! 

I finally had a blood test today (5/31/17) - my first after the fast.  My platelet count was 476 on May 2nd. My 10-day fast ended on 5/7. My prescription is for 5.5 grams of Hu each week, but for at least the last two weeks, I've been taking only 4.5. My platelet count is 387 today.  Can words convey my joy?

If and when I have established a new dosage and stable platelet count, I might to another 10 day fast to see if the effect of that is more generally a permanent reduction in platelet production (I'd assume through metabolization of the extra megakaryocytes).  I am excited.  I'm tired too, as I expected to be, because Hu suppresses the normal functioning of bone marrow activity ("myelosuppressant" is what that's called) and (apparently) I've been taking more than I need to.

A Story I want to Write.

In 2162, humans have evolved a little bit and become capable of very powerful self-defense.  The capability can also be used offensively, but that is extremely dangerous because the tech that enables it contains traces of the identity of the person who used it.

The capability is to drain someone of the motivation to live by looking at them and concentrating and ultimately being able to stop their heart without them caring.  The tech that enables this is everywhere (cellular technology, perhaps by 2162, cellular will leverage brainwaves), so the person who wishes to drain another of the motivation to live doesn't even need a cell phone as long as someone in the vicinity has one.

In the spirit of Edward Bellamy's "Looking Backward" and Beth Cody's repeat of the idea, my story would contain a person from our time who for whatever reason (cryogenics?) is around in 2162.  He has questions and finds answers, and those answers are from me, for my audience, as a possible future I see.

Some issues addressed in my story will be:

1. Why isn't everyone dead, since it so easy to kill someone?
2. Wouldn't psychopaths have a field day and ruin everything?

This fiction writing exercise will be part of a long term effort on my part to supplement Beth's book with an alternative view that concentrates more on telling a story rather than explaining things, as hers does.  I wanted to write it down so I don't forget to do it.  Your encouragement and ideas are welcome!

Most of the Words

... we hear and read until we're about 20 - 25 years old are manipulative.  The system through which we get the most words was designed between 1800 and 1910 by the leaders of the country of Prussia, most of which turned into Germany in 1947 (yes, after WWII!!).  The idea was to get children to believe that teachers know stuff and if the children simply believe it, then they will be successful.  I think you're reading or listening to this because you also recognize that blind faith is dangerous.  So thanks!

Is it any wonder that so many people nowadays don't bother listening to or reading stuff to learn things?  It is a sad state of affairs that this strategy of the Prussian ruling class developed over 200 years ago is now hampering us so viciously.  I think that with your help and the cooperation of others, there are a lot of things we can improve together.

I think many people consider things not to be too horrible. I hope you join me in seeing the vast potential of humanity which I think they might be ignoring. I noticed it near the turn of the century when I recognized the potential of the connectedness that the Internet offers us.  That realization inspired me to create litmocracy.com.  It continues inspiring me, and inspired me to share an idea I created a few months ago on Kickstarter. Seven people gave me $500 to implement that idea.

This blog post was inspired by my brother, Lee, who read enough of the voluntaryist website and my description of efforts on my idea to get where I'm coming from. He suggested that my goals may be furthered by writing editorials.  We discussed this and he proposed that I write comments on facebook and other social media.  I explained that I do that all the time already, but his point is useful and, as you're reading or hearing right now, inspiring.

Thanks, Bro!

The idea I created a few months ago is a documentary that explains that the United States tax law, as it is written, is being violated on a regular basis by the government agency responsible for implementing it, the IRS.  It will ultimately be a documentary about me and others like me who learned about the law, interpreted it for ourselves, and in many cases requested guidance about it from the IRS.  We only got misdirection and deceit, and concluded that our understanding that we didn't actually owe the tax was correct.  Many of us have been financially harmed by the viciousness with which the agency defends what appears to be fraud.  But there is hope.  That is why the documentary is being made.

It's something I invented as part of a program that teaches leadership through experiential learning, mostly about relating to other human beings.  Through the Kickstarter project, those seven people inspired me to create a movement I call Cooperative Humanity's Ongoing Social Efforts. At that link, you'll find the bigger thing that is really what my life is all about: replacing the strategy of fear and punishment with one based on respect and cooperation.

I invite you to help me get us out of the messes in which we find ourselves today.  Thanks to everyone who will help each other and everyone else regain our appreciation for the words of others, whether spoken or written.  If you accept my invitation and want me to know, feel free to leave a comment, and thanks again!

A letter to whoever processes a U.S. tax return

Hi!

Our Constitution was written to prevent our government from growing too big by limiting the ways in which it can collect revenue.  There are basically only two ways that only a government can do because if anyone else does it, it amounts to extortion.  The two ways are "direct" and "indirect."

Indirect Taxes If it's possible for a citizen to avoid a tax by avoiding the kind of thing that incurs liability, then it is an indirect tax.

Direct Taxes
If citizens can only avoid a tax by not earning any money, or it's altogether impossible to avoid it, then the tax is called a "direct tax."

In 1916, the Supreme Court (Chief Justice White, in fact) wrote in the Brushaber vs Union Pacific Railroad, about an "erroneous assumption."  The assumption was that the 16th amendment authorized a tax which, though direct, was not apportioned.  He went on to point out that if that assumption were true, the 16th amendment and some other parts of the Constitution would be in conflict.  "Apportioned" means that the amount collected from each state of the union is proportional to its population.  Obviously, the income tax is not apportioned, so Chief Justice White's Supreme Court decision means that it isn't direct either.

In 1989, Larry Becraft was fined $2500 for pointing out, just as Chief Justice White had back in 1916, that the income tax has to be indirect.  He was arguing a case in the Ninth Circuit Appellate Court.  The appellate court called his argument frivolous.

Now, the decision is yours, and you can pick either side as correct - the 9th circuit, or the Supreme Court.  If you go with the 9th circuit, you're removing the safeguard written into the Constitution that prevents the government from getting too big.  As an IRS employee, you might like that idea, but as a human being, I think you're better than that.

If you decide to stick with the framers, Chief Justice White, and the Supreme Court that ruled on the 16th Amendment back in 1916, then you'll accept my sworn testimony here on this piece of paper (note the jurat at the bottom, which, if this is printed out, should have my signature under it) that I did, in fact, earn some money while avoiding the kind of thing that incurs liability.

You may have information from the people who paid me that suggests that I did incur liability, but that is because they don't understand these things that I'm writing to you.  I've tried to explain, but they ignore my arguments because they don't have time to do legal research, and they are not well-educated enough to know about "the two great classes of taxation" described in the Constitution.

An Error, or Some Mischeif

I am not including the normal form 4852 which has been used by many others to show IRS employees such as yourself that what they earned was not taxable.  The reason I'm not using it is that your work has been set up with a systemic error.  The error comes about because on your irs website (at https://www.irs.gov/irm/part25/irm_25-025-010r-cont01.html) there is a list of positions described as "frivolous" which is not accurate.  The accurate list is also on your website (at https://www.irs.gov/irb/2010-17_IRB/ar13.html) but I believe your search will turn up the inaccurate list first.

On the inaccurate list is "argument 44," which is a description of how a form 4852 will look for a person such as myself who has not engaged in activities that incur tax liability.  It's not really a position or an argument at all.  For those who do actually engage in taxable activities and submit a form like that without any explanation, they are committing perjury, not simply forwarding a frivolous argument.  Those who do not engage in taxable activity can be harmed by you simply doing your job without being aware of this internal error.

 The form 4852, for someone in my position, would indicate that I have zero gross income because the term "income" refers to proceeds from activities that incur tax liability, and I haven't done any of those activities.  It is not clear whether the error is intentional or a mistake. The dire financial shape of our federal government almost (but not quite, in my opinion) justifies it if it's intentional.  However, the financial problems of our federal government are neither your concern nor mine.  We should be honest with each other.  Can you do that for me?

If you need a form 4852 to override the information returns from the payers who claimed that I incurred tax liability, please let me know by replying to this letter or contacting me by telephone.

Thank you for your service!

Awesome People Interview Me

I recently discovered that I underestimate the value of my voice.  The discovery came from two sources, Landmark Worldwide, which used to be Erhard Seminars Training, and Future Money Trends which interviewed me a few times and inspired others to interview me.  I would like to maintain a list of these interviews, so I'm making this post.  Please enjoy!

Future Money Trends 11/18/15

Crush The Street 2/18/16

Future Money Trends 9/19/16
Crush The Street 1/4/17
Relentless Wealth Podcast 1/31/17

BitcoinMeister 3/10/17

Wealth Research Group 3/29/17
Crush The Street (with Tone Vays and Trace Mayer) 4/19/17
Declare Your Independence 4/29/17 (scroll to Hour 3)
Declare Your Independence 1/25/18 (on Vimeo)
Declare Yout Independence 8/9/19 (scroll to Hour 3)
58 Dave Scotese talks the benefits of Bitcoin 8/3/2020

Crypto & Consciousness Q&A 1/1/2021
Voluntaryist 233 6/23/2021
Talks with Freedom Fighters 4/28/2023

I have also been enticed into writing by my friend Ernest Dempsey who asks me questions.  Here is a collection of such written correspondence (it will grow over time):
Rage Against Monument Destruction

As you may have noticed, I like having my brain picked, especially in public, so if you have questions, feel free to reply here.  If you ask a question in the comments on Youtube, I might not get around to answering you because the volume of comments on YT often makes finding the questions difficult.

Simple Questions for an Introductory Video

We try to achieve cooperation, sharing, organization, and all that good stuff - the stuff of which joy and prosperity are made! - but we use a strategy of making rules and then hurting people for breaking them.  The strategy is counterproductive.  The tax situation in the United States is a great example of this on many levels.  You can help raise awareness of the problem...

Make a video of yourself asking these questions and comment on this post with a link to it.  Maybe we'll use it in our documentary!

• Can you earn a living without having to pay the U.S. federal government?
• Are there rules that apply only to those with who the federal government has an entirely voluntary relationship?
• Are any of those rules called laws?
• Is there anyone not in such a voluntary relationship who thinks they must follow those rules?
• If people make money from a voluntary relationship with an institution, does it make sense for the institution to get a cut?
• What is the legal definition of "income"? (Hold up your finger quotes!)
• What happened to that senate hearing where the government was going to answer a bunch of important questions about the income tax back in 2001?
• Did the Supreme Court use the term "erroneous assumption" (hold up your finger quotes!) to describe a particular understanding of the 16th amendment?
• What happens when an appellate court decision contradicts a Supreme Court decision?
• What protects people from kangaroo courts?
• Is the difference between direct and indirect taxes important?
• What does "apportioned" mean? (Finger quotes!)
• What does "excise" mean?
• Is the income tax really an excise tax?
• Is it possible that the tax law is confusing on purpose?
• Could an agency of the government deceive citizens into paying more taxes than they legally owe?
• Could the people in government want more money than the Constitution allows them to demand?
• Should a citizen decide how much of his or her own money goes to the government?
• Shouldn't you be more obligated to give the government a cut if they helped you earn what you earned?

Be a Part of the Premier SOME Documentary

The first CHOSE (Cooperative Humanity's Ongoing Social Efforts) documentary will consist of regular folks like you asking some of the following questions.  If other questions come to mind, feel free to ask them in the video you send us. Once you've made a video, even one that is only a few seconds long, you can post it to the CHOSE Facebook page, or email a link to it to my dscotese email account at gmail.

Creating a video in which you say "This is for Dave Scotese's C-H-O-S-E documentary," is the only way I will be able to use it.  In stating that*, you represent that:

• You authorize Dave Scotese and any editor working on a documentary film to edit and use in any way your name, likeness, image, voice and participation in and performance on film, tape or otherwise for use in any documentary that is created as part of the CHOSE Documentaries (the "Recordings").
• You agree that the CHOSE documentaries may be edited and otherwise altered at the sole discretion of Dave Scotese and any editor or consultant working with him, and used in whole or in part for any and all broadcasting, non-broadcasting, audio/visual, and/or exhibition purposes in any manner or media, in perpetuity, throughout the world.
• Dave Scotese may use and authorize others to use all or parts of the Recordings. Dave Scotese and his successors and assigns shall own all right, title and interest, including copyright, in and to the Recordings, to be used and disposed of without limitation as Dave Scotese shall in his sole discretion determine.

Here is a list of the questions you can ask in the video you send us.  Feel free to ask all of them, just one, or a few that interest you the most:

1. What is income anyway?
2. How many income tax laws have been passed?
3. When was the first income tax law passed?
4. How many income tax laws have been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court?
5. Does the U.S. Constitution distinguish between taxes that can be avoided and taxes that cannot be avoided?
6. Can the income tax be avoided?
7. In Brushaber versus the Union Pacific Railroad Company case in 1916, the Supreme Court used the words "erroneous assumption."  What was the assumption they declared as erroneous?
8. Does the U.S. Constitution allow the federal government to collect information about citizens, and if so, how?
9. Do the people control the government or is it the other way around?
10. If people who pay income tax spent that money themselves, would the economy improve?
11. Is there a difference between the fifty states of the union and the United States?
12. Is anyone living in any of the fifty union states above the law?
13. Are there people who believe they are above the law?
14. Is there any evidence that the IRS has deceived people into paying taxes they do not owe?
15. How much of the income tax collected goes toward paying interest to the Federal Reserve Bank?
16. What effect does the definition in United States Code Title 26 of "Trade or Business" have on the law?
17. Is the income tax an excise tax on certain activities and privileges?
18. Are there activities one can do to earn money without incurring any income tax liability and if so, what are they?
19. Is an information return like a W2 or a 1099 incontrovertible evidence of a tax liability?
20. If an information return incorrectly represents my earnings as "taxable income," what can I do to clear up the record?

An earlier post in this blog contains many other questions that are written as commands to admit.  This is how legal questions are posed, with the expectation that the respondent will either admit or deny each one.  If you would like to turn any of them into an honest question as you would ask it, feel free to add that to your video too.  What we're really looking for is an expression of genuine interest in maintaining the financial health of our federal government in a way that reflects the support of the people. This is an interest we believe was shared by the founders of our nation.

*We may still need to ask you to sign a release so that we can use your video, so stay in touch!

The Social Order Maintenance Enterprise Documentaries

The first documentary was designed in the "Self Expression and Leadership Program of Landmark Worldwide by me, Dave Scotese, as a participant in the program.
Please note that this post is being kept for historical purposes.  Newer posts in this blog reflect how the project has changed from this original conception.

The documentary is currently collecting videos of people who are interested in one or more of the questions listed by the We The People Foundation.  In these videos, folks explain their interest in the questions they would most like to see answered and what they found out if and when they sought answers.  These videos are being stitched together to paint a picture of a desperate situation for which the best remedy is greater awareness.

You are invited to check out the questions and the story behind them.  If you choose to make a video, I thank you!  Please reply with a comment to let me know about it.  Hopefully, this project generates more videos than I can handle and some of those who read this will be interested in helping to identify the best ones.

The most important piece of this project right now is determining what the budget should be so that I can start another Kickstarter project. 

I am creating a project on Kickstarter that is intended to pay for the people who will identify interested experts required to create this documentary.  The full amount raised will most likely not all be needed to find a good team, so anything leftover will be rolled into the project that will attempt to raise the budget once it has been set.

If you know someone with expertise that may be used in the creation and/or marketing of a documentary, some of the money raised in the initial project will be available to you.  Expertise that I don't have includes: budget creation, story editing, video editing, crowdfunding, marketing, and I'm sure lots of other stuff.

This is my promise to provide $10 worth of Bitcoin or otherwise pay you $10 (mail cash, Paypal, whatever) if I find value in your suggestion of someone who is interested in this project and capable of filling a role that I need filled.  I'd want myself or another partner to review their work and have a way to contact them, so if you can get me that info, please proceed.  A comment on this blog post will alert me if you have no other way to contact me.

A Documentary I'd Like to Make

A friend of mine recently explained to me how legislation, enforcement, and courts work.  Here's a brief summary:

A law is created for some reason.  For example, maybe there is a walkway between two places and you can go north or south.  The walkway is wide and has been marked with two sides (east and west) so that you can walk on either side to go between the two places.  For whatever reason, there is a law that says that if you use the west side, you will be fined $1000.

A man is charged with violating that law.  He goes to court.  In court, a video is played showing the man walking on the east side (not the side mentioned in the law).  The judge decides that he has to pay the fine.

Clearly, the judge has erred.

The man appeals the decision in the appellate court and the appellate court upholds the decision.  Clearly, something is amiss here.

The appeals process continues up to the Supreme Court, and that court declines to hear the case, which means the decision of the highest appellate court under the Supreme Court stands, and the man has to pay $1000.

My friend explained that this "problem is often remedied by the legislators who simply update the law to reflect what the judges have decided."  In other words, the legislators propose an idea for controlling society in a certain way, and the judges who get the opportunity to adjust the rule against someone who may have resisted the control act as though the rule is as they want it to be, thus taking the job of legislating away from the legislators.

Federal judges are not elected, but appointed by the president.

Any creative mind can imagine the problems this situation can create.  My documentary would follow some of those problems so that the climax of the story is the realization that the only good solution is widespread exposure of all the hidden agendas at play, and the denouement will be a few major strategies for learning about those agendas and inviting others to accelerate the process.

The "Tax Honesty Movement" is one example.  The "War on Drugs" is another example.  The movie "Holes" is a good fictional example, though one in which the corruption did not go nearly as far up the chain as it does in real life.

Trading Bitcoin Under Attack from U.S. Federal Government

The following PDFs are in the public record in a case in which there is a "Motion for Summary Judgement" to be heard hopefully sometime after its previously scheduled date which I've removed so no one scanning this post gets the wrong idea and shows up when there's no hearing.  A similar motion was previously denied without prejudice by Judge Dale Fischer and the hearing was canceled, so be aware that this hearing may also be canceled.  If it is not, all parties interested in trading bitcoin are recommended to consider attending.

1. The renewed Motion for Summary Judgement.
2. My Statement of Genuine Disputes.
3. The government's Reply to my Statement.

 

The Tax Honesty Movement has these questions

The following list of requests for admission from the federal government is currently (as of 1/21/2017) at http://www.givemeliberty.org/bartlettresponse/draftquestions01-22-02.html .  Archive.org ("the Wayback Machine") is not allowed to archive it because of the robots.txt file there.  I found no request not to copy the questions, and it took me a long time to find them, so I'm adding them to my blog so that I can have the Wayback machine archive it from my blog.

 LIABILITY
1. Admit that the Internal Revenue Code is found at Title 26 of the United States Code.
2. Admit that Title 26 of the United States Code is broken down into Subtitles.
3. Admit that income taxes are set forth in Subtitle A of Title 26.
4. Admit that Subtitle A contains Sections 1 through 1564.
5. Admit that estate and gift taxes are set forth in Subtitle B of Title 26.
6. Admit that Subtitle B contains Sections 2001 through 2663.
7. Admit that employment taxes are set forth in Subtitle C of Title 26.
8. Admit that Subtitle C contains Sections 3101 through 3510.
9. Admit that miscellaneous excise taxes are set forth in Subtitle D of Title 26.
10. Admit that Subtitle D contains Sections 4041 through 4999.
11. Admit that alcohol, tobacco, and certain other excise taxes are set forth in Subtitle E of Title 26.
12. Admit that Subtitle E contains Sections 5001 through 5872.
13. Admit that procedures and administration to be followed with respect to the different taxes addressed in Subtitles A through E are set forth in Subtitle F of Title 26.
14. Admit that Subtitle F contains Sections 6001 through 7872.
15. Admit that Congress enacted the Privacy Act at 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(3).
16. Admit that when the Internal Revenue Service requests information from an individual, the Privacy Act requires the IRS to inform each individual whom it asks to supply information, on the form which it uses to collect the information or on a separate form that can be retained by the individual --
(a) the authority which authorizes the solicitation of the information and
whether disclosure of such information is mandatory or voluntary;
(b) the principal purpose or purposes for which the information is intended to be used;
(c) the routine uses which may be made of the information, as published
pursuant to paragraph (4)(D) of this subsection; and
(d) the effects on him, if any, of not providing all or any part of the requested information.
17. Admit that Congress enacted the Paperwork Reduction Act at 44 U.S.C. § 3504(c)(3)(C).
18. Admit that the Paperwork Reduction Act requires the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to include with any information requests, a statement to inform the person receiving the request why the information is being collected, how it is to be used, and whether responses to the request are voluntary, required to obtain a benefit, or mandatory.
19. Admit that the Internal Revenue Service complies with the Privacy Act and Paperwork Reduction Act by setting out the required statements on the IRS Form 1040 Instruction Booklet.
20. Admit that the Privacy Act and Paperwork Reduction Act statements
which the Internal Revenue Service currently uses with respect to the federal income tax state that: "Our legal right to ask for information is Internal Revenue Code Sections 6001, 6011, 6012(a) and their regulations. They say that you must file a return or statement with us for any tax you are liable for. Your response is mandatory under these sections."
21. Admit that Internal Revenue Code Section 6001 states: "Every person liable for any tax imposed by this title, or for the collection thereof, shall keep such records, render such statements, make such returns, and comply with such rules and regulations as the Secretary may from time to time prescribe. Whenever in the judgment of the Secretary it is necessary, he may require any person, by notice served upon such person or by regulations, to make such returns, render such statements, or keep such records as the Secretary deems sufficient to show whether or not such person is liable for tax under this title. The only records which an employer shall be required to keep under this section in connection with charged tips shall be charge receipts, records necessary to comply with Section 6053(c) and copies of statements furnished by employees under Section 6053(a)."
22. Admit that Internal Revenue Code Section 6011 states: "(a) General
Rule. When required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary any person made liable for any tax imposed by this title, or for the collection thereof, shall make a return or statement according to the forms and regulations prescribed by the Secretary. Every person required to make a return or statement shall include therein the information required by such forms or regulations . . .(f) Income, estate and gift taxes. For requirement that returns of income, estate, and gift taxes be made whether or not there is tax liability, see subparts B and C."
23. Admit that subparts B and C referred to at Internal Revenue Code Section 6011(f) contain Internal Revenue Code Sections 6012 through 6017a.
24. Admit that Congress displayed its knowledge of how to make someone
"liable for" a tax at 26 U.S.C. § 5005, which states that: "(a) The distiller or importer of distilled spirits shall be liable for the taxes imposed thereon by section 5001(a)(1)."
25. Admit that Congress displayed its knowledge of how to make someone
liable for a tax at 26 U.S.C. § 5703, which states that: "(a)(1) The manufacturer or importer of tobacco products and cigarette papers and tubes shall be liable for the taxes imposed therein by section 5701."
26. Admit that the persons made liable at Internal Revenue Code Sections 5005 and 5703, for the taxes imposed at Internal Revenue Code Sections 5001(a)(1) and 5701, respectively, are the persons described at Sections 6001 and 6011 required to make returns and keep records.

27. Admit that Section 1461 is the only place in Subtitle A of the
Internal Revenue Code where Congress used the words: "liable for."
28. Admit that the person made liable by Congress at Section 1461 is a
withholding agent for nonresident aliens.
29. Admit that there is a canon of statutory construction, "expressio
unius est exclusio alterius", which means the express mention of one thing means the implied exclusion of another.
30. Admit that Congress could have, but did not, make anyone else other than the withholding agent referred to in Section 1461, "liable for" any income tax imposed in Subtitle A.
31. Admit that up until 1986, the statement required by the Privacy and Paperwork Reduction Acts set out in the IRS Form 1040 instruction booklet, mentioned only Internal Revenue Code Sections 6001 and 6011 as the authority to request information.
32. Admit that the United States Supreme Court has held in C.I.R. v. Acker, 361 U.S. 87, 89 (1959), and in U.S. v. Calamaro, 354 U.S. 351, 358-359 (1957), that a regulation that purports to create a legal requirement not imposed by Congress in the underlying statute is invalid.

---

JURISDICTION

33. Admit that at Section 7608(a) of the Internal Revenue Code, Congress set forth the authority of internal revenue officers with respect to enforcement of Subtitle E and other laws pertaining to liquor, tobacco, and firearms.
34. Admit that at Section 7608(b) of the Internal Revenue Code, Congress set forth the authority of internal revenue officers with respect to enforcement of laws relating to internal revenue other than Subtitle E.
35. Admit that the term "person" as that term is used in Internal Revenue Code Section 6001 and 6011 is defined at Section 7701(a)(1).
36. Admit that Internal Revenue Code Section 7701(a)(1) states: "The
term person shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation."
37. Admit that trusts, estates, partnerships, associations, companies and corporations do not have arms and legs, do not get married, do not eat, drink and sleep, and are not otherwise included in what one not trained in the law would recognize as a "person."
38. Admit that Internal Revenue Code Section 6012(a) states that: "(a)
General Rule. Returns with respect to income taxes under subtitle A shall be made by the following: (1)(A) Every individual having for the taxable year gross income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount or more . . . ."
39. Admit that Internal Revenue Code Section 1 imposes a tax on the taxable income of certain "persons," who are "individuals" and "estates and trusts." (See 26 U.S.C. § 1.)

40. Admit that the "individual" mentioned in Internal Revenue Code Section 6012 is the same individual as mentioned in Internal Revenue Code Section 1.
41. Admit that the "individual" mentioned by Congress in Internal Revenue Code Section 6012 and Internal Revenue Code Section 1 is not defined anywhere in the Internal Revenue Code.
42. Admit that 26 C.F.R. § 1.1-1 is the Treasury Regulation that corresponds to Internal Revenue Code Section 1.
43. Admit that at 26 C.F.R. § 1.1-1(a)(1), the individuals identified at Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code are those individuals who are either citizens of the United States, residents of the United States, or non-resident aliens.
44. Admit that the "residents" and "citizens" identified in 26 C.F.R. § 1.1- 1(a)(1) are mutually exclusive classes.
45. Admit that as used in 26 C.F.R. Sec. 1.1-1, the term "resident" means an alien.
46. Admit that 26 C.F.R. Section 1.1-1(c) states that: "Every person born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, is a citizen."
47. Admit that a person who is born or naturalized in the United States but not subject to its jurisdiction, is not a citizen within the meaning of 26 C.F.R. § 1.1-1.
48. Admit that on April 21, 1988, in the United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Evansville Division, in the case of United States v. James I. Hall, Case No. EV 87-20-CR, IRS Revenue Officer Patricia A. Schaffner, testified under penalties of perjury that the terms "subject to its jurisdiction" as used at 26 C.F.R. 1.1-1(c) meant being subject to the laws of the country, and that meant the "legislative jurisdiction" of the United States.
49. Admit that in the same case, Patricia A. Schaffner testified under oath the term "subject to its jurisdiction" could have no other meaning than the "legislative jurisdiction" of the United States.
50. Admit that when Patricia A. Schaffner was asked to tell the jury what facts made Mr. Hall subject to the "legislative jurisdiction" of the United States, the prosecutor, Assistant United States Attorney Larry Mackey objected, and the court sustained the objection.
51. Admit that the Internal Revenue Service is never required by the Federal courts to prove facts to establish whether one is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
52. Admit that the United States Department of Justice and United States Attorneys, and their assistants, always object when an alleged taxpayer demands the Government prove that they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and the federal courts always sustain those objections, which means that the federal courts routinely prohibit the introduction of potentially exculpatory evidence in tax crime trials.
52(a). The IRS keeps a system of financial records on federal judges, IRS Criminal Investigation Division Special Agents, and U.S. Attorneys, which records cannot be accessed by the subject(s) under the FOIA or Privacy Act.
53. Admit that unless specifically provided for in the United States Constitution, the federal government does not have legislative jurisdiction in the states.
54. Admit that on December 15, 1954, an interdepartmental committee was commissioned on the recommendation of the Attorney General of the United States, Herbert Brownell, Jr., and approved by President Eisenhower and his cabinet, named the Interdepartmental Committee for the Study of Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within the States, and charged with the duty of studying and reporting where the United States had legal authority to make someone subject to its jurisdiction. (Note: this report hereinafter referred to as "the Report.")
55. Admit that in June of 1957, the "Interdepartmental Committee for the Study of Jurisdiction over Federal Areas Within the States" issued "Part II" of its report entitled "Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within the States."
56. Admit that the Report makes the following statements:
a. "The Constitution gives express recognition to but one means of Federal acquisition of legislative jurisdiction -- by State consent under Article I, section 8, clause 17... Justice McLean suggested that the Constitution provided the sole mode for transfer of jurisdiction, and that if this mode is not pursued, no transfer of jurisdiction can take place."
b. "It scarcely needs to be said that unless there has been a transfer of jurisdiction (1) pursuant to clause 17 by a Federal acquisition of land with State consent, or (2) by cession from the State to the Federal Government, or unless the Federal Government has reserved jurisdiction upon the admission of the State, the Federal Government possesses no legislative jurisdiction over any area within a State, such jurisdiction being for exercise by the State, subject to non- interference by the State with Federal functions,"

c. "The Federal Government cannot, by unilateral action on its part, acquire legislative jurisdiction over any area within the exterior boundaries of a State,"
d. "On the other hand, while the Federal Government has power under various provisions of the Constitution to define, and prohibit as criminal, certain acts or omissions occurring anywhere in the United States, it has no power to punish for various other crimes, jurisdiction over which is retained by the States under our Federal-State system of government, unless such crime occurs on areas as to which legislative jurisdiction has been vested in the Federal Government."
57. Admit that the phrase "subject to their jurisdiction" as used in the Thirteenth Amendment means subject to both the jurisdiction of the several states of the union and the United States.
58. Admit that the "subject to its jurisdiction" component of the
definition of citizen set out at 26 C.F.R. Section 1.1-1(c) has a different meaning than the phrase "subject to their jurisdiction" as used in the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
59. Admit that a Treasury Regulation cannot create affirmative duties not otherwise imposed by Congress in the underlying statute. corresponding Internal Revenue Code section.
60. Admit that Congress defined a "taxpayer" at Section 7701(a)(14) of
the Internal Revenue Code, as any person subject to any Internal Revenue tax.
61. Admit that one who is not a citizen, resident, or non-resident alien, is not an individual subject to the tax imposed by Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code.
62. Admit that an individual who is not subject to the tax imposed by
Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code, is not an individual required to make a return under the Requirement of Internal Revenue Code Section 6012.

---

SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT/AMBIGUITY OF THE LAW

63. Admit these facts: the 27th Amendment was proposed by Congress on September 25, 1789. Some of the State legislatures ratified the proposal on these dates: Maryland, on December 19, 1789; North Carolina on December 22, 1789; South Carolina on January 19, 1790; Delaware on January 28, 1790; Vermont on November 3, 1791; and Virginia, on December 15, 1791. This number of States was not sufficient for ratification of this amendment. Then some 84 years later on May 6, 1873, Ohio ratified this amendment. Interest in this amendment was rekindled when on March 6, 1978, Wyoming ratified this amendment. After this, other States ratified the amendment: Colorado on April 22, 1984; South Dakota on February 1985; New Hampshire on March 7, 1985; Arizona on April 3, 1985; Tennessee on May 28, 1985; Oklahoma on July 10, 1985; New Mexico on February 14, 1986; Indiana on February 24, 1986; Utah on February 25, 1986; Arkansas on March 13, 1987; Montana on March 17, 1987; Connecticut on May 13, 1987; Wisconsin on July 15, 1987; Georgia on February 2, 1988; West Virginia on March 10, 1988; Louisiana on July 7, 1988; Iowa on February 9, 1989; Idaho on March 23, 1989; Nevada on April 26, 1989; Alaska on May 6, 1989; Oregon on May 19, 1989; Minnesota on May 22, 1989; Texas on May 25, 1989; Kansas on April 5, 1990; Florida on May 31, 1990; North Dakota on May 25, 1991; Alabama on May 5, 1992; Missouri on May 5, 1992; Michigan on May 7, 1992; and New Jersey on May 7, 1992.
64. Admit that in the case of Dillon v. Gloss, 256 U.S. 368, 374-375 (1921), the Supreme Court concluded:
We do not find anything in the article which suggests that an amendment once proposed is to be open to ratification for all time, or that ratification in some of the states may be separated from that in others by many years and yet be effective. We do find that which strongly suggests the contrary. First, proposal and ratification are not treated as unrelated acts, but as succeeding steps in a single endeavor, the natural inference being that they are not to be widely separated in time. Secondly, it is only when there is deemed to be a necessity therefor that amendments are to be proposed, the reasonable implication being that when proposed they are to be considered and disposed of presently. Thirdly, as ratification is but the expression of the approbation of the people and is to be effective when had in three- fourths of the states, there is a fair implication that it must be sufficiently contemporaneous in that number of states to reflect the will of the people in all sections at relatively the same period, which of course ratification scattered through a long series of years would not do. These considerations and the general purport and spirit of the article lead to the conclusion expressed by Judge Jameson 'that an alteration of the Constitution proposed to-day has relation to the sentiment and the felt needs of to-day, and that, if not ratified early while that sentiment may fairly be supposed to exist, it ought to be regarded as waived, and not again to be voted upon, unless a second time proposed by Congress.' That this is the better conclusion becomes even more manifest when what is comprehended in the other view is considered; for, according to it, four amendments proposed long ago-two in 1789, one in 1810 and one in 1861-are still pending and in a situation where their ratification in some of the states many years since by representatives of generations now largely forgotten may be effectively supplemented in enough more states to make three-fourths by representatives of the present or some future generation. To that view few would be able to subscribe, and in our opinion it is quite untenable. We conclude that the fair inference or implication from article 5 is that the ratification must be within some reasonable time after the proposal.

65. Admit that the date of September 25, 1789, when the 27th Amendment was first proposed, is "widely separated in time" from the date of March 6, 1978, when Wyoming ratified this amendment.
66. Admit that pursuant to the United States Constitution, Congress is authorized to impose two different types of taxes: direct taxes and indirect taxes.

67. Admit that the constitutionality of the 1894 income tax act was in question in the case of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, aff. reh., 158 U.S. 601 (1895), and that in this case, the Supreme Court found that Congress could tax real and personal property only by means of an apportioned, direct tax. Finding that the income from real and personal property was part of the property itself, the Court concluded in this case that a federal income tax could tax such income only by means of an apportioned tax. Further finding that as this particular tax was not apportioned, it was unconstitutional.
68. Admit that for Congress to tax today real or personal property, the tax would have to be apportioned.
69. Admit that for Congress to tax income from real and personal property without the authority of the 16th Amendment, such taxes would have to be apportioned.
70. Admit that in 1913, the following law, Revised Statutes § 205, was in effect:
"Sec. 205. Whenever official notice is received at the Department of State that any amendment proposed to the Constitution of the United States has been adopted, according to the provisions of the Constitution, the Secretary of State shall forthwith cause the amendment to be published in the newspapers authorized to promulgate the laws, with his certificate, specifying the States by which the same may have been adopted, and that the same has become valid, to all intents and purposes, as a part of the Constitution of the United States."

71. Admit that Revised Statutes § 205 provided that "official notice" of a State's ratification of an amendment must be received at the State Department.

72. Admit that on or about July 31, 1909, Senate Joint Resolution 40 proposing the ratification of the 16th Amendment was deposited with the Department of State and the same was published at 36 Stat. 184, and that this resolution read as follows:
SIXTY-FIRST CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA AT THE FIRST SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday, the fifteenth day of March, one thousand nine hundred and nine.
JOINT RESOLUTION.
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which, when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states, shall be valid to all intents and purposes as a part of the Constitution:
"Article XVI. 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."
J.C. CANNON,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
J.S. SHERMAN,
Vice-President of the United States, and
President of the Senate.


73. Admit that on July 27, 1909, the same Congress adopted Senate Concurrent Resolution 6, which read as follows:
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That the President of the United States be requested to transmit forthwith to the executives of the several States of the United States copies of the article of amendment proposed by Congress to the State legislatures to amend the Constitution of the United States, passed July twelfth, nineteen hundred and nine, respecting the power of Congress to lay and collect taxes on incomes, to the end that the said States may proceed to act upon the said article of amendment; and that he request the executive of each State that may ratify said amendment to transmit to the Secretary of State a certified copy of such ratification.
Attest: Charles G. Bennett
Secretary of the Senate
A. McDowell
Clerk of the House of
Representatives
74. Admit that not only did this resolution request that certified copies of favorable State ratification resolutions be sent to Washington, D.C., the States were expressly informed to do so by Secretary of State Philander Knox, who sent the following "form" letter to the governors of the 48 States then in the Union:
"Sir:
"I have the honor to enclose a certified copy of a Resolution of Congress, entitled 'Joint Resolution Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of the United States,' with the request that you cause the same to be submitted to the Legislature of your State for such action as may be had, and that a certified copy of such action be communicated to the Secretary of State, as required by Section 205, Revised Statutes of the United States. (See overleaf.)
An acknowledgment of the receipt of this communication is requested.
I have the honor to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
P. C. Knox"


75. Admit the following facts:
a. When California provided uncertified copies of its resolution to Secretary of State Philander Knox, Knox wrote the following to California Secretary of State Frank Jordan: "I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 27th ultimo, transmitting a copy of the Joint Resolution of the California Legislature ratifying the proposed Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and in reply thereto I have to request that you furnish a certified copy of the Resolution under the seal of the State, which is necessary in order to carry out the provisions of Section 205 of the Revised Statutes of the United States".
b. When Wyoming Governor Joseph Carey telegraphed Philander Knox news that the Wyoming legislature had ratified the 16th Amendment on February 3, 1913, Philander Knox telegraphed in return as follows: "Replying to your telegram of 3rd you are requested to furnish a certified copy of Wyoming's ratification of Income Tax Amendment so there may be no question as to the compliance with Section 205 of Revised Statutes."


76. Admit that on February 15, 1913, a State department attorney, J. Rueben Clarke, informed Secretary of State Philander Knox, in reference to the State of Minnesota, "the secretary of the Governor merely informed the Department that the state legislature had ratified the proposed amendment."
77. Admit that, in the official records deposited in the Archives of the United States, there is no certified copy of the resolution of the Minnesota legislature ratifying the 16th Amendment.
78. Admit that in the documents possessed by the Archives of the United States, there are no certified copies of the resolutions ratifying the 16th Amendment by California and Kentucky.
79. Admit that Mr. John Ashcroft is currently the Attorney General of the United States.
80. Admit that when Mr. Ashcroft was Governor of Missouri, the Missouri Supreme Court rendered the following decision in a case involving Mr. Ashcroft, that case being Ashcroft v. Blunt, 696 S.W.2d 329 (Mo. banc 1985), where the Missouri Supreme Court held:
The senate and the house must agree on the exact text of any bill before they may send it to the governor. There may not be the slightest variance. The exact bill passed by the houses must be presented to and signed by the governor before it may become law (laying aside as not presently material alternative procedure by which a bill may become law without the governor's signature.) The governor has no authority to sign into law a bill which varies in any respect from the bill passed by the houses.
81. Admit that during hearings regarding the ratification of the 16th Amendment in Massachusetts, Mr. Robert Luce made the following statement to the Massachusetts Committee on Federal Relations: "Question by the committee: Are we able to change it? Mr. Luce: No, you must either accept or reject it."
82. Admit that on February 11, 1910, Kentucky Governor Augustus Willson wrote a letter to the Kentucky House of Representatives wherein he stated as follows:
This resolution was adopted without jurisdiction of the joint resolution of the Congress of the United States which had not been transmitted to and was not before the General Assembly, and in this resolution the words 'on incomes' were left out of the resolution of the Congress, and if transmitted in this form would be void and would subject the Commonwealth to unpleasant comment and for these reasons and because a later resolution correcting the omission is reported to have passed both Houses, this resolution is returned to the House of Representatives without my approval.
83. Admit that no State may change the wording of an amendment proposed by Congress.
84. Admit that on February 15, 1913, J. Reuben Clarke, an attorney employed by the Department of State, drafted a memorandum to Secretary Knox wherein the following statements were made: "The resolutions passed by twenty-two states contain errors only of capitalization or punctuation, while those of eleven states contain errors in the wording" (page 7). "Furthermore, under the provisions of the Constitution a legislature is not authorized to alter in any way the amendment proposed by Congress, the function of the legislature consisting merely in the right to approve or disapprove the proposed amendment."
85. Admit that the Sixteenth Amendment reads as follows:
"Article XVI. 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."
86. Admit that the Sixteenth Amendment does not read as follows:
"Article 16: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and from any census or enumeration."

87. Admit that the Sixteenth Amendment does not read as follows:
"Article XVI. 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 census enumeration."
88. Admit that the Sixteenth Amendment does not read as follows:
"Article XVI. 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 renumeration."
89. Admit that the Sixteenth Amendment does not read as follows:
"Article XVI. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
90. Admit that the Sixteenth Amendment does not read as follows:
"The Congress shall have power to levy and collect taxes on income from whatever sources derived without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration, which amendment was approved on the ---- day of July, 1909."
91. Admit that the Sixteenth Amendment does not read as follows:
"Article XVI. 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 of enumeration."
92. Admit that the Sixteenth Amendment does not read as follows:
"Article XVI. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, with-out apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census of enumeration:"
93. Admit that the Sixteenth Amendment does not read as follows:
"Article XVI. The congress shall have power to levy and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration, and did submit the same to the legislatures of the several states for ratification;"

94. Admit that state officials who prepare and send "official notice" of ratification of constitutional amendments to federal officials in Washington, D.C., do not have any authority to change the wording of the ratification resolution actually adopted by the State legislature.
95. Admit that the "income" tax at subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code cannot be lawfully and constitutionally collected if the 16th Amendment is not a valid amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
96. Admit that the income taxes imposed by Subtitle A are not
apportioned, so if the 16th Amendment was not ratified, the taxes imposed by Subtitle A are not constitutional under Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust, 158 U.S. 601 (1895).
97. Admit that in 1913, Congress passed the following income tax act:
A. Subdivision 1. That there shall be levied, assessed, collected and paid annually upon the entire net income arising or accruing from all sources in the preceding calendar year to every citizen of the United States, whether residing at home or abroad, and to every person residing in the United States, though not a citizen thereof, a tax of 1 per centum . . . and a like tax shall be assessed, levied, collected, and paid annually upon the entire net income from all property owned and of every business, trade, or profession carried on in the United States by persons residing elsewhere.
98. Admit that Mr. Brushaber challenged this income tax as being unconstitutional. (See Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1915).)
99. Admit that in the Brushaber decision, the United States Supreme Court held that the tax on income was an excise tax.
100. Admit that in the Brushaber decision, the United States Supreme Court held that the purpose of the 16th Amendment was to prevent the income tax from being taken out of the class of excise taxes where it rightly belonged.

101. Admit that in the Brushaber decision, the United States Supreme Court discarded the notion that a direct tax could be relieved from apportionment, because to so hold would destroy the two great classifications of taxes.
102. Admit that the Union Pacific Railroad was a United States Corporation located in the Utah Territory.
103. Admit that the privilege of operating as a corporation can be taxed as an excise.
104. Admit that in Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 205-206 (1920), the United States Supreme Court held a tax on income was a direct tax, but could be imposed without apportionment because the 16th Amendment gave Congress the 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.
105. Admit that the United States Supreme Court stated in Eisner:
a. The Sixteenth Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the Amendment was adopted. In Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601, under the Act of August 27, 1894, c. 349, section 27, 28 Stat. 509, 553, it was held that taxes upon rents and profits of real property were in effect direct taxes upon the property from which such income arose, imposed by reason of ownership; and that Congress could not impose such taxes without apportioning them among the States according to population, as required by Art. 1, section 2, c1.3, and section 9, cl.4, of the original Constitution.
b. Afterwards, and evidently in recognition of the limitation upon the taxing power of Congress thus determined, the Sixteenth Amendment was adopted, in words lucidly expressing the object to be accomplished: "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." As repeatedly held, this did not extend the taxing power to new subjects, but merely removed the necessity which otherwise might exist for an apportionment among the States of taxes laid on income.
c. A proper regard for its genesis, as well as its very clear language, requires also that this Amendment shall not be extended by loose construction, so as to repeal or modify, except as applied to income, those provisions of the Constitution that require an apportionment according to population for direct taxes upon property, real and personal. This limitation still has an appropriate and important function, and is not to be over ridden by Congress or disregarded by the courts.
d. In order, therefore, that the clauses cited from Article I of the Constitution may have proper force and effect, save only as modified by the Amendment, and that the latter also may have proper effect, it becomes essential to distinguish between what is and what is not "income" as the term is there used; and to apply the distinction, as cases arise, according to truth and substance, without regard to form. Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised.
106. Admit that Judges in the Courts of Appeal for the Second Circuit take the position that the income tax is an indirect tax.
107. Admit that Judges in the Courts of Appeal for the Fifth Circuit take the position that the income tax is a direct tax.
108. (Note: Question to be provided later)
109. Admit that when Supreme Court Justices, Judges of the Courts of Appeals, and Presidents of the United States are unable to determine what a law is, that law is ambiguous.
110. Admit that when a law is ambiguous, it is unconstitutional and cannot be enforced.
111. Admit that in 1894, the United States Constitution recognized two classes of taxes, direct taxes and indirect taxes.
112. Admit that in 1894, the United States Constitution, at Art. 1, Sec. 2, Clause 3 and Art. 1, Sec. 9, Clause 4, required apportionment of all direct taxes.
113. Admit that in 1894, the United States Constitution, at Art. 1, Sec. 8, Clause 1, required all indirect taxes to be uniform.
114. Admit that in 1894, no one doubted that an excise tax was an indirect tax as opposed to a direct tax.
115. Admit that in 1894 Congress passed the following income tax act:
Sec. 27. That from and after the first day of January, eighteen hundred and ninety-five, and until the first day of January, nineteen hundred, there shall be assessed, levied, collected, and paid annually upon the gains, profits, and income received in the preceding calendar year by every citizen of the United States, whether residing at home or abroad, and every person residing therein, whether said gains, profits, or income be derived from any kind of property rents, interest, dividends, or salaries, or from any profession, trade, employment, or vocation carried on in the United States or elsewhere, or from any other source whatever, a tax of two per centum on the amount so derived over and above four thousand dollars, and a like tax shall be levied, collected, and paid annually upon the gains, profits, and income from all property owned and of every business, trade, or profession carried on in the United States. And the tax herein provided for shall be assessed, by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and collected, and paid upon the gains, profits and income for the year ending the thirty-first day of December next preceding the time for levying, collecting, and paying said Tax.
116. Admit that Mr. Pollock, a citizen of the State of Massachusetts, challenged the 1894 income tax on the grounds that the tax imposed was a direct tax that was not apportioned.
117. Admit that the majority of the justices of the United States Supreme Court found that the 1894 tax at Sec. 27 was a direct tax.
118. Admit that the minority of the justices of the United States Supreme Court in the Pollock case believed the 1894 tax at Sec. 27 was an indirect tax.
119. Admit that the United States Supreme Court held the 1894 income tax was unconstitutional as being in violation of the apportionment requirements for direct taxes.

120. Admit that in 1909, President Taft called a special session of Congress for the purpose of amending the apportionment requirement of income taxes.
121. Admit that during the congressional debate on the income tax amendment, it was stated that the income tax would not touch one hair of a working man's head.

---

RIGHT TO LABOR

122. Admit that it was the intent of Congress to require "individuals" to make income tax returns based upon receipt of more than a threshold amount of gross income even if the individual ends up not "liable for" a tax on that gross income.
123. Admit that the "gross income" mentioned in Section 6012 of the Internal Revenue Code is the "gross income" as set forth at Section 61(a) of the Internal Revenue Code.
124. Admit that Section 61(a) of the Internal Revenue Code defines "gross income" as "all income" from whatever source derived, but does not define "income."
125. Admit that in Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920), the United States Supreme Court held that Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude what "income" is, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised.
126. Admit that the definition of income as it appears in Section 61(a) is based upon the 16th Amendment and that the word is used in its constitutional sense.
127. Admit that the United States Supreme Court has defined the term income for purposes of all income tax legislation as: The gain derived from capital, from labor or from both combined, provided it include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets.
128. Admit that in the absence of gain, there is no "income."
129. Admit that there is a difference between gross receipts and gross income.
130. Admit that the United States Supreme Court recognizes that one's labor constitutes property.
131. Admit that the United States Supreme Court stated in Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746, 757 (concurring opinion of Justice Fields) (1883), that:
It has been well said that, "The property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable.

132. Admit that the United States Supreme Court recognizes that contracts of employment constitute property.

133. Admit that the United States Supreme Court stated in Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1, 14 (1914) that:
The principle is fundamental and vital. Included in the right of personal liberty and the right of private property-partaking of the nature of each-is the right to make contracts for the acquisition of property. Chief among such contracts is that of personal employment, by which labor and other services are exchanged for money or other forms of property.

134. Admit that the United States Supreme Court recognizes that a contract for labor is a contract for the sale of property.
135. Admit that the United States Supreme Court has stated in Adair v. United States, 208 U.S. 161, 172 (1908) that:
In our opinion that section, in the particular mentioned, is an invasion of the personal liberty, as well as of the right of property, guaranteed by that Amendment (5th Amendment). Such liberty and right embraces the right to make contracts for the purchase of the labor of others and equally the right to make contracts for the sale of one's own labor.

136. Admit that Congress recognizes at Section 64 of the Internal Revenue Code that "ordinary income" is a gain from the sale or exchange of property.
137. Admit that Internal Revenue Code Sections 1001, 1011 and 1012 provide the method Congress has set forth for determining the gain derived from the sale of property.
138. Admit that Section 1001(a) states that: "The gain from the sale or other disposition of property shall be the excess of the amount realized therefrom over the adjusted basis provided in section 1011 for determining gain . . . ."
139. Admit that Section 1001(b) states that: "The amount realized from the sale or other disposition of property shall be the sum of any money received plus the fair market value of the property (other than money) received."

140. Admit that Section 1011 states that: "The adjusted basis for determining the gain or loss from the sale or other disposition of property, whenever acquired, shall be the basis (determined under section 1012...), adjusted as provided in section 1016."
141. Admit that Section 1012 states that: "The basis of property shall be the cost of such property . . . ."
142. Admit that the cost of property purchased under contract is its fair market value as evidenced by the contract itself, provided neither the buyer nor sell were acting under compulsion in entering into the contract, and both were fully aware of all the facts regarding the contract.
143. Admit that in the case of the sale of labor, none of the provisions of Section 1016 of the Internal Revenue Code are applicable.
144. Admit that when an employer pays the employee the amount agreed upon by their contract, there is no excess amount realized over the adjusted basis, and thus no gain under Section 1001 of the Internal Revenue Code.
145. Admit that if one has no gain, one would have no income.
146. Admit that if one has no income, one would have no "gross income."
147. Admit that in the absence of "gross income," one would not be required to make a return under Section 6012 of the Internal Revenue Code. (See 26 U.S.C. § 6012.)
148. Admit that Section 6017 of the Internal Revenue Code requires individuals, other than nonresident alien individuals, to make a return if they have net earnings from self-employment of $400 or more.
149. Admit that the term "net earnings from self-employment" is defined at Section 1402(a) of the Internal Revenue Code as follows:
"The term 'net earnings from self-employment' means the gross income derived by an individual from any trade or business carried on by such individual . . . ."


150. Admit that in the absence of "gross income," one would not have more than $400 of "net earnings from self-employment."
151. Admit that the "taxable income" upon which the income tax is imposed in Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code is defined at Section 63 of the Internal Revenue Code.
152. Admit that the term "taxable income" is defined differently for those who itemize deductions and those who don't itemize deductions.
153. Admit that for those who do itemize deductions, the term "taxable income" means "gross income" minus the deductions allowed by Chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code, other than the standard deduction.
154. Admit that for those who do not itemize deductions, the term "taxable income" means "adjusted gross income" minus the standard deduction and the deduction or personal exemptions provided in section 151 of the Internal Revenue Code.
155. Admit that for individuals, the term "adjusted gross income" means gross income minus certain deductions.
156. Admit that in the absence of "gross income" an individual would have no "adjusted gross income" and no "taxable income."
157. Admit that in the absence of taxable income, no tax is imposed under Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code.
158. Admit that employment taxes are contained in Subtitle C of the Internal Revenue Code.
159. Admit that the taxes imposed in Subtitle C of the Internal Revenue Code are different than the taxes imposed in Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code.
160. Admit that The Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) tax contained in Subtitle C at Section 3101 of the Internal Revenue Code is imposed on the individual's "income."

161. Admit that the rate of the tax set out at Section 3101 of the Internal Revenue Code is a percentage of the individual's wages.
162. Admit that the term "income" as used at Section 3101 of the Internal Revenue Code is the same income as used in Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code.
163. Admit that if one has no income, one is not subject to the tax imposed at Section 3101 of the Internal Revenue Code.
164. Admit that The Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) tax on employers contained in Subtitle C at Section 3111 of the Internal Revenue Code is an excise tax on employers with respect to their having employees.
165. Admit that at Section 3402 of the Internal Revenue Code, employers are directed to withhold from wages paid to employees, a tax determined in accordance with tables prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury.
166. Further admit that Congress does not identify the Section 3402 "tax determined" as either a direct tax, an indirect tax, and/or an "income" tax.
167. Admit that Congress made the employer liable for the Section 3402 tax at Section 3403 of the Internal Revenue Code.
168. Admit that at Section 3501 of the Internal Revenue Code, Congress directed the Secretary of the Treasury to collect the taxes imposed in Subtitle C and pay them into the Treasury of the United States as internal revenue collections.
169. Admit that Congress has not anywhere imposed the tax described at Section 3402 of the Internal Revenue Code.
170. Admit that at Section 31 of the Internal Revenue Code, the amount of the Section 3402 tax on wages is allowed as a credit against the income tax imposed in Subtitle A.
171. Admit that if one does not have any tax imposed at Subtitle A for any reason whatsoever, the law enacted by Congress at Section 3402(n) of the Internal Revenue Code constitutes an exemption of the tax described at Section 3402(a) of the Internal Revenue Code.
172. Admit that a typical American family works until noon of every working day just to pay its alleged tax obligations.
173. Admit that the typical American family pays more in taxes than they spend on food, clothing, and housing combined.
174. Admit that there are currently over 480 tax forms.
175. Admit that the federal tax code contains over 7 million words.
176. Admit that over 1/2 of Americans are paying some sort of tax professional to help them comply with alleged tax law requirements.
177. Admit that each year the Internal Revenue Service sends out approximately 8 billion pages of tax forms and instructions, generating enough paper to stretch 28 times around the Earth.
178. Admit that Americans spend approximately 5.4 billion labor hours and $200 billion dollars per year attempting to comply with alleged tax requirements - more time and money than it takes to produce every car, truck, and van each year in the United States.
179. Admit that in 1913, the average American family had to work only until January 30th before earning enough to pay all alleged tax obligations. (See Tax Facts.)
180. Admit that the average American family had to work all the way through May 12th in order to pay their alleged federal, state, and local tax bills for the year 2000.
181. Admit that economist Daniel J. Mitchell recently observed that: "[Medieval serfs] only had to give the lord of the manor a third of their output and they were considered slaves. So what does that make us?"
182. Admit that the average Wisconsin citizen had to work until May 9th this year to pay all alleged tax obligations.
183. Admit that Americans own less of their labor than feudal serfs.
184. Admit that the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states: "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. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
185. Admit that if Congress can constitutionally tax a man's labor at the rate of 1%, then Congress is free, subject only to legislative discretion, to tax that man's labor at the rate of 100%.
186. Admit that "peonage" is a condition of servitude compelling a man or woman to perform labor in order to pay off a debt.
187. Admit that "peonage" is a form of involuntary servitude prohibited by the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
188. Admit that the U.S. Congress abolished peonage in 1867.
189. Admit that holding or returning any person to a condition of peonage is a crime under 18 U.S.C. § 1581.
190. Admit that involuntary servitude means a condition of servitude in which the victim is forced to work for another by use or threat of physical restraint or injury, or by the use or threat of coercion through law or legal process.
191. Admit that if an American stops turning over the fruits of his or her labor to the federal government in the form of income tax payments, he suffers under the risk of possible criminal prosecution and incarceration.

---

PRA - APA - REGULATIONS

192. Admit that the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. § 3501, et seq., mandates that forms and regulations of federal agencies that require the provision of information must bear and display OMB control numbers.
193. Admit that 1 C.F.R. § 21.35 requires that OMB control numbers shall be placed parenthetically at the end of a regulation or displayed in a table or codified section.

194. Admit that the following tax regulations contain OMB control numbers at the end of these regulations:
26 C.F.R. §1.860-2
26 C.F.R. §1.860-4
26 C.F.R. §1.897-1
26 C.F.R. §1.901-2
26 C.F.R. §1.901-2A
26 C.F.R. §1.1256(h)-1T
26 C.F.R. §1.1256(h)-2T
26 C.F.R. §1.1256(h)-3T
26 C.F.R. §1.1445-7
26 C.F.R. §1.1461-1
26 C.F.R. §1.1461-2
26 C.F.R. §1.1462-1
26 C.F.R. §1.6046-1
26 C.F.R. §1.6050J-1T
26 C.F.R. §1.6151-1
26 C.F.R. §1.6152-1
26 C.F.R. §1.6154-4
26 C.F.R. §1.9200-2
26 C.F.R. §31.3401(a)(8)(A)-1
26 C.F.R. §31.3501(a)-1T
26 C.F.R. §301.6324A-1
26 C.F.R. §301.7477-1


195. Admit that 26 U.S.C. § 6012 does not specify where tax returns are to be filed.
196. Admit that 26 U.S.C. § 6091 governs the matter of where tax returns are to be filed.
197. Admit that by the plain language of §6091, regulations must be promulgated to implement this statute.

198. Admit that in 5 U.S.C. § 551, a "rule" is defined as:
"(4) a 'rule' means the whole or a part of an agency statement of general or p
articular applicability and future effect designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy or describing the organization, procedure, or practice requirements of an agency . . . ."
199. Admit that 5 U.S.C. §552 describes in particular detail various items which must be published by federal agencies in the Federal Register, as follows:
"(1) Each agency shall separately state and currently publish in the Federal Register for the guidance of the public--
(A) descriptions of its central and field organization and the established places at which, the employees (and in the case of a uniformed service, the
members) from whom, and the methods whereby, the public may obtain
information, make submittals or requests, or obtain decisions;
(B) statements of the general course and method by which its functions are channeled and determined, including the nature and requirements of all
formal and informal procedures available;
(C) rules of procedure, descriptions of forms available or the places at
which forms may be obtained, and instructions as to the scope and content of
all papers, reports, or examinations;
(D) substantive rules of general applicability adopted as authorized by
law, and statements of general policy or interpretations of general applicability
formulated and adopted by the agency; and
(E) each amendment, revision or repeal of the foregoing."

200. Admit that the Department of the Treasury as well as the IRS acknowledge the publication requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act in 31 C.F.R. § 1.3 and 26 C.F.R. § 601.702.
201. Admit that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue promulgated the Treasury Regulation set out at 26 C.F.R. § 602.101 to collect and display the control numbers assigned to collections of information in Internal Revenue Service regulations by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980.
202. Admit that the Internal Revenue Service intended that 26 C.F.R. § 602.101 comply with the requirements of OMB regulations implementing the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, for the display of control numbers assigned by OMB to collections of information in Internal Revenue Service regulations. (See 26 C.F.R. § 602.101.)
203. Admit that 26 C.F.R. § 602.101(c) displays a table (the "Table") which on the left side lists the CFR part or section where the information to be collected by the Internal Revenue Service is identified and described, and on the right side, lists the OMB control number assigned to the OMB-approved form to be used to collect the information so identified and described.
204. Admit that the Table displayed at 26 C.F.R. § 602.101 in the 1994 version of the Code of Federal Regulations lists 1.1-1 as a CFR part or section that identifies and describes information to be collected by the Internal Revenue Service.
205. Admit that 26 C.F.R. § 1.1-1 relates to the income tax imposed on individuals by 26 U.S.C. § 1.
206. Admit that the OMB control number assigned to the form to be used to collect the information identified and described at 26 C.F.R. § 1.1-1 is 1545-0067.
207. Admit that the OMB control number 1545-0067 is assigned to the IRS Form 2555.
208. Admit that the IRS Form 2555 is titled "Foreign Earned Income".
209. Admit that the IRS Form 2555 is used to collect information regarding foreign earned income.
210. Admit that the OMB control number assigned to the IRS Form 1040 Individual Income Tax Return is 1545-0074.
211. Admit that the Table set out at 26 C.F.R. § 602.101 has never displayed the OMB control number 1545-0074 as being assigned to the collection of individual income tax information identified and described by 26 C.F.R. § 1.1-1.
212. Admit that the OMB has not approved the IRS Form 1040 U.S. Individual Income Tax Return as the proper form on which to make the return of individual income tax information identified and described at 26 C.F.R. § 1.1-1.
213. Admit that the Table displayed at 26 C.F.R. § 602.101 in the 1995 version of the Code of Federal Regulations does not list 1.1-1 as a CFR part or section that identifies and describes information to be collected by the Internal Revenue Service.
214. Further admit that the Internal Revenue Service caused the entry for 1.1-1 to be deleted from 26 C.F.R. § 602.101, by publishing the deletion at 59 FR 27235, on May 26, 1994.
215. Further admit that the published deletion was accomplished under the supervision of Internal Revenue Service employee Cynthia E. Grigsby, Chief, Regulations Unit, Assistant Chief Counsel (Corporate).
216. Admit that the Internal Revenue Service tracks every working American through a computer-based records system.
217. Admit that Treasury System of Records 24.030 is titled as follows: "Individual Master File (IMF); Returns and Information Processing. D:D:R--Treasury/IRS".
218. Admit that the Individual Master File relates to: "Taxpayers who file federal individual income tax returns (i.e., forms 1040, 1040A) and power of attorney notifications for individuals."
219. Admit that the Privacy Act codified at 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(5) states that: "Each agency that maintains a system of records shall- . . . . maintain all records which are used by the agency in making any determinations about any individual with such accuracy, relevance, timeliness, and completeness as is reasonably necessary to assure fairness to the individual in the determination . . ."
220. Admit that the Privacy Act codified at 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(6) states that: "Each agency that maintains a system of records shall- . . . . prior to disseminating any record about an individual to any person other than an agency, unless the dissemination is made pursuant to subsection (b)(2) of this section, make reasonable efforts to assure that such records are accurate, complete, timely, and relevant for agency purposes . . ."
221. Admit that the Internal Revenue Service is subject to the Privacy Act requirements codified at 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(5) and (6), which requirements are set out in relevant part at 219-20, above.
222. Admit that the Individual Master File computer records use various codes to represent agency actions, determinations, and transactions regarding taxpayers.
223. Admit that Document 6209 is the IRS reference guide which describes the meaning of most of the codes used on the Individual Master File record.
224. Admit that the Law Enforcement Manual 3(27)(68)0 is the underpinning authority for the Document 6209.
225. Admit that the taxpayer's IMF account number is the taxpayer's social security number.
226. Admit that all returns and transactions processed on the Individual Master File must contain the taxpayer's correct social security number.
227. Admit that an account freeze is placed on an Individual Master File record to indicate that the social security number on the record is invalid.
228. Admit that no transactions can be posted to an Individual Master File entity module which is identified by an invalid social security number.
229. Admit that a "VAL-1" code posted on an Individual Master File record means an invalid social security number freeze has been released.
230. Admit that the "VAL-1" invalid social security number freeze release indicator is effective only during the calendar year to which it has been posted.
231. Admit that the "VAL-1" invalid social security number freeze release indicator allows the Internal Revenue Service to post transactions to an Individual Master File record which has been frozen because the social security number on that IMF record is invalid.

---

COURTS ARE CLOSED

232. Admit that 26 U.S.C. § 7203 imposes a penalty for the crime of willful failure to file a tax return.
233. Admit that Congress enacted 26 U.S.C. 7203 in August, 1954. (See 26 U.S.C. 7203, credits and historical notes.)
234. Admit that the United States Supreme Court in South Dakota v. Yankton Sioux Tribe, 522 U.S. 329 (1998) stated: "[w]e assume that Congress is aware of existing law when it passes legislation."
235. Admit that Congress enacted 44 U.S.C. § 3512 in 1980.
236. Admit that 44 U.S.C. § 3512 states that:
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that is subject to this subchapter if--
(1) the collection of information does not display a valid control
number assigned by the Director in accordance with this subchapter; or
(2) the agency fails to inform the person who is to respond to
the collection of information that such person is not required to
respond to the collection of information unless it displays a valid control number.
(b) The protection provided by this section may be raised in the form of a complete defense, bar, or otherwise at any time during the agency administrative process or judicial action applicable thereto.
237. Admit that United States Supreme Court Chief Judge Taney in 1863 protested the constitutionality of the income tax as applied to him.
238. Admit that United States District Court Judge Walter Evans, in 1919 protested the constitutionality of the income tax as applied to him.
239. Admit that United States Circuit Court Judge Joseph W. Woodrough in 1936 protested the constitutionality of the income tax as applied to him.
240. Admit that United States District Court Judge Terry J. Hatter and other federal court judges in the 1980s protested the constitutionality of taxes as applied to them.
241. Admit that even in criminal cases where a loss of freedom can be the result, American citizens who are not judges are precluded by the federal judiciary, and with the express approval and consent of the Department of Justice and U.S. Attorney, from arguing the constitutionality of the income tax as applied to them.
242. Admit that the Executive and Judicial branches of the federal government label Americans who challenge the legality of the federal income tax as "tax protesters."
243. Admit that United States Supreme Court Chief Judge Taney submitted his protest in a letter to the Secretary of the Treasury.
244. Admit that letters of protest written to the Secretary of the Treasury by American Citizens are used by the Executive branch of government, and accepted by the Judicial branch of government, as proof of income tax evasion and conspiracy against those who write the letters.
(NOTE: questions 245 - 254 do not exist at this time)
255. Admit that if an individual required to make a return under Section 6012(a) of the Internal Revenue Code fails to make the required return, the statutory procedure authorized by Congress for the determination of the amount of tax due is the "deficiency" procedure set forth at subchapter B of Chapter 63 of the Internal Revenue Code, commencing at Section 6211.
256. Admit that if an individual required to make a return under Section 6012(a) of the Internal Revenue Code fails to make the required return, Congress mandated at Section 6212 that the individual is required to be served a "notice of deficiency" setting forth the amount of tax imposed by Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code per Section 6211 of the Internal Revenue Code.
257. Admit that the tax imposed upon individuals required to make a return under Section 6012(a) of the Internal Revenue Code is imposed upon the individual's "taxable income."

258. Admit that the Section 6020(b) requirement for the Secretary to make the required Section 6012(a) return is to require the Secretary to compute the taxpayers taxable income so the correct amount of tax owed can be calculated.
259. Admit that when an individual required to make a return under Section 6012(a) of the Internal Revenue Code fails to make the required return, and the Internal Revenue Service issues a notice of deficiency, the amount of tax claimed as due by the Secretary is not based upon the taxable income, but is computed without regard to the requirements of Sections 62 and 63 of the Internal Revenue Code from which adjusted gross income and taxable income are computed from gross income.
260. Admit that the IRS attempts to obtain assessments of more tax than would otherwise be required by law as an unauthorized additional penalty on those who are required to, but do not, make federal income tax returns.
261. Admit that the word "shall" as contained in Section 6001 of the Internal Revenue Code imposes a mandatory duty on those to whom the statute applies to keep records, render statements, make returns and to comply with rules and regulations promulgated by the Secretary of the Treasury.
262. Admit that the word "shall" as contained in Section 6011 of the Internal Revenue Code imposes a mandatory duty on those to whom the statute applies to make a return or statement according to the forms and regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury.
263. Admit that the word "shall" as contained in Section 6012 of the Internal Revenue Code imposes a mandatory duty on those to whom the statute applies to make returns.
264. Admit that the word "shall" as contained in Section 6020(b) of the Internal Revenue Code imposes a mandatory duty on those to whom the statute applies to make returns.
265. Admit that Section 6020(b) of the Internal Revenue Code states:
If any person fails to make any return required by an internal revenue law or regulation made thereunder at the time prescribed therefor, or makes, willfully or otherwise, a false or fraudulent return, the Secretary shall make such return from his own knowledge and from such information as he can obtain through testimony or otherwise.
266. Admit that nowhere in the Internal Revenue Code has Congress indicated that the word "shall" as used in Section 6020(b) of the Internal Revenue Code has a different meaning than as used in Sections 6001, 60011 and/or 6012 of the Internal Revenue Code.
267. Admit that in the absence of a Congressionally declared distinction for a word used in the same Code (here the Internal Revenue Code), in the same subtitle (here Subtitle F), in the same Chapter (here Chapter 61) and in the same Subchapter (here subchapter A) to be given a different meaning, the same word is to be given the same meaning.
268. Admit that if an individual required to make a return under Section 6012(a) of the Internal Revenue Code fails to make the required return, the Secretary of the Treasury does not make the return mandated by Section 6020(b) of the Internal Revenue Code.
269. Admit that the IRS computer system, the IDRS (Integrated Data Retrieval Systems) was programmed to require a tax return to be filed in order to create a tax module for each taxable year.
270. Admit that if an individual required to make and file a return under Section 6012(a) fails to file such a return, that the Secretary creates a "dummy return" showing zero tax due and owing.
271. Admit that this "dummy return" sets forth no financial data from which the gross income, adjusted gross income or taxable income can be computed.
272. Admit that this "dummy return" is not signed.
273. Admit that a "dummy return" is physically created on the IRS Form 1040.
274. Admit that Congress has not authorized the Internal Revenue Code or Treasury Regulations that authorizes the creation of "dummy returns".
275. Admit that if an individual required to make a return under Section 6012(a) files a return that does not contain the financial information necessary to allow the IRS to compute gross income, adjusted gross income and/or taxable income, the IRS calls such a return a "zero return."
276. Admit that if an individual required to make a return under Section 6012(a) files a return that does not contain the financial information necessary to allow the IRS to compute gross income, adjusted gross income and/or taxable income, the IRS takes the position that no return has been filed.
277. Admit that if an individual required to make a return under Section 6012(a) files a return that does not contain the financial information necessary to allow the IRS to compute gross income, adjusted gross income and/or taxable income, the IRS takes the position that the return is "frivolous" and imposes a $500 penalty.
278. Admit that if an individual required to make a return under Section 6012(a) files a return that does not contain a signature made under penalty of perjury, the IRS takes the position that no return has been filed.
279. Admit that if an individual required to make a return under Section 6012(a) files a return that does not contain a signature under penalties of perjury, the IRS takes the position that the return is "frivolous" and imposes a $500 penalty.
280. Admit that an IMF record bearing the code "SFR 150" indicates that a fully paid IRS Form 1040a was filed.

---

FIFTH AMENDMENT

281. Admit that 26 U.S.C. § 6001 requires the keeping of records.
282. Admit that 26 U.S.C. § 7203 makes it a federal crime not to keep the records required under section 6001.
283. Admit that the records required under 26 U.S.C. § 6001 contain information that will appear on the tax returns pertaining to federal income taxes.
284. Admit that the Fifth Amendment prohibits the government from compelling an American to incriminate himself.
285. Admit that the IRS currently uses the following: Non-Custodial Miranda warning:
In connection with my investigation of your tax liability I would like to ask you some questions. However, first I advise you that under the fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States I cannot compel you to answer any questions or to submit any information. If such answers or information might tend to incriminate you in any way, I also advise you that anything which you say and any documents which you submit may be used against you in any criminal proceeding which may be undertaken. I advise you further that you may, if you wish, seek the assistance of an attorney before responding.
286. Admit that the Privacy Act and Paperwork Reduction Act notices currently used by the IRS provides that the information provided in the preparation of a tax return can go to the Department of Justice who prosecutes criminal cases against the filers of tax returns.
287a. Admit that the "United States Attorneys' Bulletin, April 1998 edition, contained an article written by Joan Bainbridge Safford, Deputy United States Attorney, Northern District of Illinois, entitled: "Follow That Lead! Obtaining and Using Tax Information in a Non-Tax Case," hereinafter "Follow that Lead!".
287b. Further admit that the article states the following:
In any criminal case where financial gain is the prominent motive, tax returns and return information can provide some of the most significant leads, corroborative evidence, and cross-examination material obtainable from any source.
287c. Further admit that the article states the following;
In even the most straightforward fraud case, the usefulness of tax returns should be apparent . . . . the tax return information provides a statement under penalty of perjury which may either serve as circumstantial evidence of the target's misrepresentation of his economic status or as helpful cross-examination material . . . . Disclosure of tax returns may also provide critical leads and impeachment material.


288. Admit that the Disclosure, Privacy Act, and Paperwork Reduction Act Notice set out in the IRS Form 1040 Instruction Booklet states the following:
[W]e may disclose your tax information to the Department of Justice, to enforce the tax laws, both civil and criminal, and to cities, states, the District of Columbia, U.S. Commonwealths or possessions, and certain foreign governments to carry out their tax laws.
289. Admit that tax returns are used by the IRS to develop civil and criminal cases against the filers of the tax returns.
290. Admit that tax returns of a filer are used as evidence against the filer in both civil and criminal income tax cases.
291. Admit that the United States Supreme Court has held that a fifth amendment privilege exists against requiring a person to admit or deny he has documents which the government believes is related to the federal income tax.
292. Admit that the Fifth Amendment provides an absolute defense to tax crimes.
293. Admit that the Supreme Court has held that if one wants to assert the Fifth Amendment to an issue pertaining to a federal income tax return, one must make that claim on the form itself.
294. Admit that if one claims Fifth Amendment protection on an income tax form, that act can result in criminal prosecution for failure to file income tax returns, income tax evasion, or conspiracy to defraud.
295a. Admit that the Paperwork Reduction Act Notice (the "Notice") set out in the IRS Form 730 instructions states that:
You must file Form 730 and pay the tax on wagers under section 4401(a) if you: Are in the business of accepting wagers, or Conduct a wagering pool or lottery.
295b. Further admit that the Notice states the following:
[C]ertain documents related to wagering taxes and information obtained through them that relates to wagering taxes may not be used against the taxpayer in any criminal proceeding. See section 4424 for more details.
296. Admit that in 1997, 5,335 tax audits resulted in criminal investigations of those tax filers. (Speculation: Tax Facts, etc., Ex. 099-104.)
297. Admit that Judge Learned Hand stated that:
Logically, indeed, he (the taxpayer) is boxed in a paradox for he must prove the criminatory character of what it is his privilege to suppress just because it is criminatory. The only practicable solution is to be content with the door's being set a little ajar, AND WHILE AT TIMES THIS NO DOUBT PARTIALLY DESTROYS THE PRIVILEGE,...nothing better is available.
298. Admit that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.
299. Admit that the American people do not have to tolerate an income tax system in which the federal government requires a citizen to give up any constitutional rights.