We have several instances of sovruns/tax deniers trying this stunt out and winding up in court only to find it was all claptrap. Our latest example was the case of the movie actor Terrence Howard who went full Frikintardistan. He went down in flames as expected, with no sign that his revocation did anything other than just sit in the case file.
Anyway, I thought we could delve into this "revocation" to see exactly what the proponents of this scam are basing their claims on. I have only edited the original comment by inserting paragraph breaks and only submitting the paragraphs that deal with the revocation nonsense. All other syntax, spelling, and grammar remain untouched:
The 21 trillion that is "missing" only means that the HUD and DOD audits could find no authorization or evidence that the money was actually spent. The issue is really whether the accounting has been doctored for the purpose of trying to convince Congress to increase future funding. But hey, why let a few facts ruin an opportunity to scare the marks?There's a old axiom. to know, and to not act, is to not care. read this information in its entirety and do not get upset with what you read here. this is learning purposes only. I See people pouring their grievances about government, yet not doing anything about it. Understand that 21 trillion is "missing" from the D.O.D and H.U.D. the audit is available to read or news articles such as Forbes have wrote about this. Why is no politician talks about this? why are we paying taxes just to be stolen. 21 trillion cannot be mistakenly placed.
With the scammers, it always pays to call their bluffs when they start citing legislation, regulations, codes or court rulings. In almost every instance you will find that they either made up, misinterpreted or twisted what these citations actually said or intended - or that the citation is totally irrelevant. In this instance if you look up Title 26, Section 7806 you will find that the quoted phrases do not appear whatsoever. S7806 is purposed for clarifying that cross-references and indexes themselve in Title 26 publications do not have any legality and cannot be used as law.If you do not agree with the blatant corruption and feel powerless you can do this. the tax code is title 26. Title 26-7806 (construction of title) says the "IRS has no legal power" and nothing is "legislatively drafted" the whole code is fake (color of law) congress knew this and knew taxes are unconstitutional (they have to be direct or indirect) IRS is not. So Congress and had to make a legal way for anyone to opt out of paying federal income tax. You have to file your "revocation of election" anyone can do this. google this topic and read the affidavit or google (26-CFC 15.1-2) The video below has instructions on how to do this.
And what about the actual "revocation?" If you look at the section that is referenced (26 S 15 1-2) you will discover it deals with taxpayers being allowed to revoke mining deductions claimed on a filed return. Reading further, the section also requires that the taxpayer must file amended return(s) affected by this revocation and reflecting the adusted amount due to the revocation. You will also see references to S615(e) and S617 which cover the allowance of deductions for mining expense and how to claim them. But nothing again that says that you will never have to pay tax again.
S3002 does have that quoted phrase, but the scammer just misinterprets the law to get the result he needs to mislead. Nothing in that section deals with oaths of office or upholding of the laws. It is again a section giving clarifying definitions of terms that suceeding sections will be using )(in addition to "courts", it also covers "debt", "debtor", "earnings", "person" and "judgment." I am guessing that the scammer wants to pretend that since the US Tax Court is excluded, this somehow means that you won't have to worry about being under its jurisdiction. Even if this was somehow improbably correct, the problem is when the US government decides to proceed against you civilly and/or criminal you are still under the jurisdiction of the US District Court - which wasn't excluded.Title 28 U.S code 3002 (2) says "courts mean any court created by congress EXCLUDING the United states tax court. judges are breaking their oath of office when they uphold false laws. You need to call them out on this or they presume their jurisdiction over you. its called tacit presumption.
The only nearly correct thing that this paragraph has is the fact that the recovation is sent to the "commision" of the IRS. I presume that he meant the Commissioner, but the exact place to file the return in the current section of 615 refers to the return being filed with the director of the service center, where the taxpayer's 1040 was filed. If there was an older version of this statute, perhaps the regional office was correct at that time. But all that tells us is the scammer is using an outdated IRC. In any event, there is nothing in that section that declares that the "commission" has to honor the "revocation". Like any other claim or amended return, it is subject to review, audit and approval before the revocation will be accepted. And it won't result in the filer receiving exemption from the income tax.The revocation of election is sent to the IRS regional office. (No judges involved) the commission of internal revenue must honor your revocation, it's a LAW. this really does work, its just not talked about. if you are sick of occulted government activities and stealing, then be brave, cut them off from the money "tit."
At this point, the scammer's post went off on a tangent as he started writing about your strawman, your conversion into a corporation, the existence of a bond in your name, how the US is really just a corporation,and the uppercase/lowercase nonsense. Nothing that we haven't seen before, but it is evident that the author was trying to throw as many cowpies against the wall to see what would stick and lure some marks to his website and/or Youtube videos.
But I wanted to drill down on this revocation nonsense to see exactly what form and laws they are twisting to make some fraudulent bucks. Our past example of court cases where a phony revocation of claim was involved (Wesley Snipes was another one who did this) the taxpayers submitted printed nonsense of multiple pages that the courts didn't bother detailing the contents. This is the first example that I am aware of where a scammer has tried to link to an IRC section to make it look like he was telling the truth.