Joseph Stack and the IRS Building

Recently a desperate American fed up with the tyranny of the IRS flew his private airplane into the Austin-based IRS building killing himself on a patriotic suicide mission. His name was Joseph Stack. The federal propagandists are salivating over this incident because they see this as a great benefit and an opportunity to push their agendas forward. They can use this for several purposes. The neoconservatives and their co-conspirators on the Left will use this to argue the case for federal surveillance of all American citizens. They will tie this man in to the Tea Party (even without proof) which doesn't have an honest footing since the moment it was co-opted by the people who promote the FairTax and the Flat Tax. The neoconservative Republican candidates who have attached themselves to the Tea Party movement to make themselves look more honest than they are to Americans fed up with the Rep. Party are going to use this incident to draw in votes. Of course, what I'm saying is not very surprising, and there's nothing new under the sun.

The mainstream media propagandists (example here) are labelling him as a terrorist. This is quite ironic from the standpoint of patriotic Americans who see his target, the Internal Revenue Service, as an outfit which conducts terrorism. Ed & Elaine Brown, anyone?

Larken Rose wrote of the incident:

Earlier today, a victim of the largest extortion racket in the world struck back, giving up his life in the process. The control freaks, and their propagandists who pretend to be "reporters," will no doubt spend the next few weeks demonizing the man, or painting him as crazy.

To those who rely on the mainstream media for their source of information and knowledge, Joseph Stack will be another Lee bin Laden McVeigh, the crazy lone wolf. And, in fact, he may very well be another front man for a much larger operation that used him as someone to take the fall and the blame.

Alex Jones is already speculating the involvement of federal agents in a conspiracy to discredit and smear the growing national protest over the Leninist IRS. And its certainly possible. The Hegelian dailectic has been found to be very useful our Washington parasites.

Ed and Elaine Brown: Victims of Tyranny

This article was written 16 days ago by "STAFF AND WIRE REPORT". This piece appears in UnionLeader.

It's a biased article and I will not be reposting all of it. I'll just be pasting a few of my favorite selections from the article that I will challenge.

Tax evaders Ed and Elaine Brown were convicted Thursday of amassing weapons, explosives and booby traps and plotting to kill federal agents during a nine-month standoff in 2007 at their fort-like home in Plainfield.

Really? Because I thought they were convicted for "evading" taxes. Ed and Elaine Brown had the right to fear their government. After all, this was the same government who in the 90s murdered the family members of Randy Weaver and performed a Jewish holocaust-style execution on David Koresh and his branch Davidian congregation.

The couple, who do not recognize the federal government's authority to tax its citizens, held hands and looked straight ahead as the verdict was read. They refused to stand when the jury and judge left the courtroom.

A fine piece of biased reporting. The federal government does not have any taxing authority that it can levy on private citizens of the 50 states of the union. This is INDISPUTABLE FACT no matter how much government and its hired propagandists want us to think. The federal government only has jurisdiction over itself and what it creates. Unless you have a federally-connected job, you do not owe a federal income tax. This is also what the FairTaxers don't understand. For a more full-bodied explanation of what I'm talking about consult Peter Eric Hendrickson, author of the book Cracking the Code: The Fascinating Truth About Taxation in America.

For an understanding of our court system, read The Rape of Justice by Eustace Mullins. Here's a hint: our courtrooms are nothing but Freemasonic lodges where Talmudic law reigns supreme by black-robed deities who enforce oriental despotism upon a Free People.

Ed and Elaine Brown are sovereign citizens who are being terrorized by communist thugs because they didn't follow the argued proper legal protocol of filing with the IRS, the private collection agency of America's Third Central Bank, the Federal Reserve System.

During the standoff, the Browns welcomed a parade of anti-tax, anti-government sympathizers, four of whom have been convicted of helping them stockpile weapons and sent to prison. One visitor was Randy Weaver, whose wife and son were killed along with a deputy U.S. marshal at a 1992 shootout in Ruby Ridge, Idaho.

Sigh. It is not anti-tax, anti-government to oppose that ruthless extortion racket, the Internal Revenue Service. It is, however, traitorous to even suggest that such an organization should exist in this country.

Loni Horiuchi was the madman psychopath who lead both the Ruby Ridge incident and the one down in Waco, Texas that involved the Branch Davidians. In either case, no one has been charged with these crimes.

In one media interview, Ed Brown, 66, said: "The chief should know, along with the U.S. marshals, along with the local county sheriff -- especially the county sheriff, local police and local state police -- if they come in here to do us in, they kill my wife, myself or both or try to arrest us, I said the chief of police in this town, the sheriff, the sheriff himself will die. This is war now, folks."

I like how the media interview they refer to isn't cited. So how do I know this statement was ever made? I haven't been following the Browns story too closely as I should have been. I know that Peter Hendrickson has made some statements about the Browns not following through with the proper protocol of filing. And if he did say these things, why should he not have said these things? He suspected that the government would kill him so he had to defend his right to live.

The two were arrested in October 2007 -- no shots fired -- by U.S. marshals pretending to be supporters who pounced on the couple while sharing pizza with them on their front porch.

Nice. Entrapment. The Browns should prosecute.

During the trial, Ed Brown testified the weapons were for self-defense, saying he believed the government planned to kill him and his wife. He said he didn't start building the bombs until after federal agents made a failed attempt to arrest him. Prosecutors said many weapons were there already. He also said the property was booby trapped to scare intruders, not harm them.

Counted among the charges against the Browns were many counts of conspiracy. What about the conspiracy the Federal Government, in concert with the Federal Reserve and the IRS, is engaged in against the private sector sovereign citizens of the several states? It must be nice to be able to stand behind the law.

What I enjoy most are the comments posted below the article. Reading these comments, you get a sense of how dumbed-down Americans have become and how willing they are to believe their media outlets as if the journalists who write for them are the disciples of Christ.

I'm not going to pollute my post with their utter nonsese but please do read them for a light laugh if your pity for them doesn't keep you from enjoying their ignorance. As for some of the posters.... couldn't we just execute them for treason?

Peter Eric Hendrickson on Tax Reform

The Willingness Of Some People To Trade Liberty For Convenience Is Without Limit

An astonishing number of Americans continue to call for the enactment of a "national sales tax" (such as the so-called 'Fair Tax'). These poor folks have let themselves be suborned into thus endorsing the notion that the federal government has a legitimate claim on an unlimited portion of every American's personal property-- enforceable by one means or another-- in exchange for nothing more than being spared getting a headache filling out a bunch of tax forms each year (or going to the trouble to learn the truth about the law).

Understand, the sole "benefit" pitched by boosters of this shell-game "reform" is that the individual paperwork burden would diminish. Everyone would still have just as much of their property taken. What this is really all about is distracting Americans from consideration of the real issue-- that is, who actually has a lawful claim to all that money-- by dangling a minor symptomatic relief in front of them. It is with these folks in mind that I offer the following comments...

Regarding Tax "Reform"

"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances."
-R. W. Emerson

Now that the current income tax structure has been deciphered and revealed to be benign in 'Cracking the Code- The Fascinating Truth About Taxation In America', it falls to all of us to actively and strenuously resist any attempt by the tax beneficiary crowd to replace that structure-- which they are coming to recognize as fatally compromised, for their purposes-- with an alternative, such as a national sales tax or value-added tax. Such alternatives-- all of which would seek to maintain spending at or near current levels-- would quickly be riddled with exceptions, special-interest pay-offs and so forth; as well as the subsidies and associated means-testing necessary to forestall what would otherwise be an intolerable burden for the poor. They would quickly become indistinguishable from the current regime in complexity, bureaucracy, and injustice. More importantly, depending upon how such an alternative was instituted, we might never be rid of it.

After all, a broad-based federal sales tax or VAT-- which would be functionally involuntary in nature (thus, direct), and would lack any effective connection between the federal government and the object of the tax as well-- is just as much prohibited by Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution as is the general tax on receipts that most Americans misunderstand the income tax to be, and thus would be unconstitutional without an amendment. However, with the income tax having been broadly misunderstood-- and thus obnoxiously misapplied-- for so long that many Americans have reached an, "Anything but this!" attitude, there is every danger that the general public could take the position that if a Constitutional amendment would rid us of that current regime, then so be it.

Should that happen, not only would we abandon an existing statutory structure which, as actually written, is dramatically better than even the wildest promises made by those who tout "reform", but the evils we suffer under today-- by virtue of mere ignorance, something easily remedied-- will become evils we suffer from tomorrow with no remedy available at all. Thus, calls for such reforms really amount to efforts to better secure the benefits enjoyed by clients of the state under the current mis-administration of the existing law.

Some will argue that, since the income tax-- if administered as actually provided for in the law-- can't bring in nearly as much revenue as is delivered to government under the current reign of misunderstanding, a replacement such as one of those touted by the "reformers" is unavoidable, whatever its faults. This is simply not true.

Even if current levels of spending are deemed desirable or necessary, the Constitution has always provided perfectly adequate methods by which the money can be raised. There is no limit to the size of a lawful apportioned direct tax-- and such a tax can be sought as often as circumstances require. A revenue tariff is also available, and capable of bringing in very large amounts indefinitely. These are the methods provided for by the founders, and they are quite sufficient. They also happen to be far more accountable and politically rigorous than the open spigot of money into the federal coffers that the mis-administered income tax has become, and thus far less desirable to the political class.

In fact, one of the most pernicious political-accountability-evasion aspects of the mis-administered "income" tax enjoyed by the state under the current regime-- the concealment of the true tax burden by means of the "withholding" system-- would be exacerbated enormously by a national sales tax, or VAT. "Withholding" arranges things so that most Americans never really perceive the total amount being extracted from them by the state. Instead, most quickly become unconscious of the degree by which their earnings are incrementally diminished over the course of each year (precisely as was intended by the system's designers), and actually celebrate the return of a pittance each spring in the form of a "refund". Under a sales or VAT tax, the amount extracted is broken into vastly smaller incremental hemorrhages guaranteed to quickly slip under the radar screen and remain there.

One of the awkward realities of life is that the freedom of the people, and the convenience of the state, are generally mutually exclusive. We can provide for only one or the other. I know which one I choose, and with no second thoughts at all, even if inconveniencing the state should occasionally prove to inconvenience me as well. I have the benefit of the trenchant words of Thomas Jefferson to help me keep things in perspective: "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."

I hope that everyone will join me in vigorously oppose all efforts at "tax reform", and instead, dedicate themselves to the support of simple, lawful taxation, as provided for in the Constitution.
Peter E. Hendrickson

Cracking the Code Film - Peter Eric Hendrickson

I wanted to make a post before people start to wonder if I will ever post again.

I want to share with you, the reader of this blog, some information that the Internal Revenue Service does not want you to know. Why? Because the people working for the government have benefitted from the IRS convincing people something that isn't true.

I don't want this post to be construed as legal advice (as in, "here's what you should do to solve the problem."). This blog is for educational purposes only.

Tainted Lunch Meat : Alternative currency

I came across this over at The Consumerist . It's an article about the guy who created the Liberty Dollar. It's an alternative currency that was in direct competition with the US Dollar. It's also apparently illegal to mint and market competitive currencies in the US. Bernard von NotHaus runs or ran this enterprise had his offices raided a year ago. No one has been arrested or charged with anything, but all of the precious metal currency was confiscated along with computers and records. All around interesting read and some money quotes from some big economic talking heads. Bullion with a Mission give it a look, well worth the time.

Cracking the Code: The Fascinating Truth About Taxation in America

All credit goes to Peter Eric Hendrickson. Everything that follows henceforth is not of my prose.



For the 64 years of its existence, the U. S. Internal Revenue Code has been ridiculed, feared and despised by virtually everyone. And why not? As presented by the Internal Revenue Service, the code appears illogical, inconsistent and incomprehensible. As presented, the code defies practically the entire Bill of Rights– requiring citizens to testify against themselves, allowing searches and seizures without warrants, levying fines and penalties without trials and imposing a tax on the basic right to earn a living. As presented, the IRC would appear to turn everything we all thought we had learned in grade school English and Civics on its head.

Is it possible that we all just misunderstood those simple lessons? Maybe. But researcher, analyst and scholar Peter E. Hendrickson believes that after Cracking the Code, you’ll agree that what has been misunderstood is the 3,413,780 word monstrosity itself– and how, and to whom, it applies.

Hendrickson delves deep into the history, statutes and case law behind the Code to reveal its startling and liberating secrets; and unless you live in a cave, you need to know what he’s uncovered.

Once you’ve finished “Cracking the Code”, the tax laws will never mean the same thing to you, or your bank account, again!

What You Will Learn in 'Cracking the Code':

• That the vast majority of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) is not the law itself, but is only evidence -- a representation -- of the actual statues in force, and like in the game of post-office, the real language has beena bit garbled in transmission.
• That "income", "wages", "self-employment income", "employee", "employer" and "trade or business" -- as these and certain other terms are used within, and in regard to, the tax law -- have narrow legal meanings exclusive involving, applying to, certain privileged activities, such as holding or administering a government office, or working in one.
• That altough the tax statutes make perfectly clear that, for instnace, language describing the obligations of "employees" -- and the taxes to which "employees" are subject -- only apply to a small minority of American workers, the distinction is artfully concealed int he IRC representation of the law, and is never forthrightly acknowledged in any IRS publication (although it is obliquely acknowledged whenever necessary for the avoidance of legal jeopardy).
• That an elaborate system has been created which causes some people to whom the tax laws do not otherwise apply (maybe including you) to inadvertently declare themselves to be among the poersons to whom those laws do apply.

"The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers. The latter are without their scope." United States Court of Claims, Economy Plumbing and Heating v. United States, 470 F.2nd 585, at 589 (1972)

From the Forward:

It was not until the late 1990's, when the Internal Revenue Code was digitized (and thus made searchable) that it became possible to decipher its deliberately confusing and misleading construction. Only then could complete searches be doen of all 3,413,780 or so words (not counting regulations!) for every incidence of "liable", "imposed", "income", "employee", and dozens of other key or misleading terms -- checking every reference, exception, definition and sources. Only then could it be established that, as written, the laws behind the code and the taxes that they impose technically comply with the Constitution, just as all the judges have said over the years.

But the same analysis also reveals that, as written, these laws don't apply to most of the receipts of most private citizens. Indeed, the two things are interdependent -- the former couldn't be true unless the latter was also true.

What you will learn as you read this book is that specific Constitutional limitations on the federal government’s power to tax do shape related law, and have generated a coherent Supreme Court doctrine which clearly and soundly answers the question of what is taxable "income”. Both the statutes and the doctrine acknowledge the exemption of the vast majority of private-sector receipts from that taxing power’s reach.

However, you will also learn about a complex combination of craft, routine bureaucratic incoherence, and casual-- and not-so-casual-- corruption by virtue of which many people are led to inadvertently allow, and even participate in, the legal transformation of their untaxable earnings into taxable "income”. Such people are tricked into voluntarily and utterly unnecessarily enabling the diversion of a river of wealth from their own hands, usually never to be seen again.

Thanks to an unhappy coincidence of reiterations and amendments of the law, a series of complicated judicial rulings, and the passage of time and memories, the details of American tax law-- and the principles upon which it is based-- have come to be widely misunderstood. The opportunities presented by that reality have been seized upon, by those paid to maximize revenue flow to the government, to successfully construct an elaborate and deceptive tax scheme rooted in today’s Internal Revenue Code.

This scheme capitalizes on widespread public ignorance of general legal doctrine and rules of statutory construction. It practices a careful gauging of extraction levels to the tolerance limits of key demographic segments. It relies upon the concealment of the underlying actual-law-in-force behind the misleading words of the code, which is legally no more than ‘evidence of the law’, and not the law itself.

Fundamental to the scheme is designing that code to be so dauntingly and profoundly confusing as to force the vast majority of those against whom it’s directed to abandon even a pretense of personal comprehension. These targets are thus compelled to surrender their decision-making to the code’s administrative bureaucracy or a professional class of fixers and go-betweens-- the members of either of which are dependent on the scheme for their own earnings.

Unsurprisingly, both assure any who ask that of course private-sector receipts are taxed under the law. If pressed, these experts will trot out carefully selected, out-of-context and ambiguous fragments of law calculated to convincingly suggest that what they claim must be in the law, somewhere. But somehow, they never manage to demonstrate exactly where. ‘Cracking the Code’ is going to provide that missing context, unravel the tangle of deceit and confusion, and make clear that not only is it not in there anywhere, what is in there is just the opposite.

http://www.losthorizons.com/

Tainted Lunch Meat : Taxes and how not to pay them

First, I meant to make that last post from this account, but I was screwing around with the ads and forgot to log out, my apologies. Secondly, I just read an article from the Washington Post that I came across on HuffPo that details how some banks, the same ones we just bailed out, are looking to swindle taxpayers out of just over $100 billion. Classy. Apparently the Treasury inserted five sentences that swept away a 20+ year old tax policy. This change may have been illegal to boot. Seems to be arguments on both sides of that. Regardless of it's legality, it seems like a shitty thing to do to the people who just tried to save your ass. Some banks have already taken advantage of the new policy, and saved themselves from having to pay taxes on their mergers with other banks, due to the losses on the books of the purchased banks. If the taxpayers weren't paying through the nose on these bail outs, and quite possibly financing these mergers, I could possibly be OK with the tax policy change. But under the circumstances, fuck 'em. Figure out how to make them pay what they owe, if we financed the mergers, give us our cut.