So What Legitimate Ways Can Someone Be Excluded From Taxes?

[The Observer]

[When I was born, I had no cognitive abilities, whatsoever.

And from what we can see of your posts and reasoning, that hasn't changed.

But when we are born, we do not have a serial number and the words "PROPERTY OF THE UNITED STATES" branded on our backsides.

Are you sure about that? Did you check carefully for invisible ink and laser tatoos under the first layer of skin? Us Illuminati are pretty sneaky, remember.

No: We are born free and sovereign.

Really? Please explain why sovereign Ed Brown is in prison then.

So when a child reaches the age of reasoning, and is able to make his own decisions, why would anyone, being fully informed on the subject, want to be a Unites States citizen?

Good question - why are you still here then? Can't bear to pull yourself away from this horrible excuse for a country? Or are you afraid your government checks might not find their way to Albania?

Furthermore, no one can be forced to be a United States citizen, because the Thirteenth Amendment prohibits involuntary servitude.

So were people in the United States forced to be citizens before the 13th amendment was passed?

That is why it is clearly stated in the Fourteenth Amendment that you have to be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"; it is a voluntary condition.

Please - I have already accepted your claim about lacking cognitive abilities; you don't have to prove it again.

Does any one man have the authority to command any other man what to do? No. Of course not. So governments, which are nothing more than a creation in the minds of men, have no more authority than those men that created it. The United States government is only an artificial creation of men that does not exist in nature. It has no authority over anyone who does not agree to be subject to that artificial entity.

So why did the founding fathers create our government? For laughs? Or were they just killing time until something better came along to do? And why did it not occur to them at the time to the put the words of the 13th amendment into the constitution instead of it having to appear 70+ years later?

This was clearly recognized and is why they created the Thirteenth Amendment

Banning the enslaving of 3+million blacks at the same time was just coincidence? Or maybe you believe it was an unintended consequence?

t. The Fourteenth Amendment provides for the government to classify those over whom they are going to have authority. It is voluntary. It MUST be voluntary.

Okay, I will bite. Can you describe the specific process the goverment goes through to classify a person as being under their authority. And how does a person voluntarily become subject to that authority?

[Gregg]

So when a child reaches the age of reasoning, and is able to make his own decisions, why would anyone, being fully informed on the subject, want to be a Unites States citizen?

Well, myself, I kind of like knowing that I can if I so choose, make ignorant and basically stupid comments about the government in public and as long as that's all I do they won't slap me in prison for it. I'm partial to being protected by a military power that ensures I don't sleep in fear of being invaded by Canadians at any given moment. I like it that they'll bring mail to me right up to the gate of my well armed bunker complex without charging me a dime for it (I do have to pay to send stuff out, but it's cheap). I like the air traffic control system, even with it's flaws. There are a whole lot of reasons anyone, being fully informed on the subject, would want to be a United States Citizen and in fact for those that ARE NOT born here, there's a pretty long line of people trying to get in to begin a 7-10 year process of becoming one, during which time they're perfectly willing to pay their taxes on top of it all!

Your problem is you're too self centered to see why you'd want to be one and won't admit to yourself the hundreds of reasons each day you should be grateful to be a United States Citizen. No, you'll take all the benefits, but you don't want to pay your taxes. You'd be surprised how many people here may agree with you about the amount of taxes taken or the programs they fund or any number of things about them we don't like, we're all just unselfish enough to realize that the way to change those things we don't like isn't to sit in a corner and pout, but to make positive contributions to the political system to build a consensus of opinion we can all agree on and influence our elected leaders to adopt them.

If you really don't want to be a US Citizen, you're grown up now, get the heck out. I hear they don't have income tax in Somalia and North Korea, granted it's hard to get Starbucks there though.
Your way may be more instantly gratifying, in the same way most toddlers respond to and our way is cumbersome, not immediately effective, not going to please everyone on every point and will involve a lot of work and compromise, but at least it works and very few of the more reasonable people are going to have to lose their homes, jobs and go to prison.
Most tax protesters really just need to grow up and realize that crying and holding their breath doesn't work so well after kindergarten. I miss nap time and cookies, too, deal with it.

[Gregg]

But I don't claim to be any of the above. I'm not a citizen, I am not a resident, I am not a nonresident alien; I am just one man who happened to be born on this land but doesn't claim any affiliation to any government. I just go about life doing my own thing.

So I don't think that constitutes evasion or anything because I have no effective connection to the United States.

Okay, let me ask you a question? If you've never left the United States except in the nominal case of going to a sovereign Indian reservation, and you're not a Native American (Indian, whatever) I'm curious as to what country you claim to be a citizen of?

Not that I believe a word you say, you kind of last me when you claimed to make 90-100K a year playing poker and carrying around chips in bundles of less than $10,000 to avoid filling out one form (the one that banks use and casinos don't, BTW) Anyhow, barring other evidence I've yet to see I'm considering pretty much everything you have said to be utter BS. But you cannot logically have ever left the United States for more than a short trip, unless you have a passport, and to get a passport you have to assert definitively that you are a US Citizen, ergo, you ain't never left the US, I doubt you get out of the trailer park that often, so I just want to know where you claim to be a citizen? I really hope you pick someplace with some kind of mandatory military service and really crappy dictator government, so I can alert the Colonel in charge of the Junta that you're eligible to start training just as soon as we can get your sorry ass on a boat out of here.

[The Operative]

The Fourteenth Amendment clearly separates the two conditions and makes that distinction, Famspear. You must meet BOTH conditions to be a citizen.

So that is precisely what I am saying.

When I was born, I had no cognitive abilities, whatsoever. Neither did any of you, nor anyone in the history of the world. Newborn babies cannot decide things for themselves. But when we are born, we do not have a serial number and the words "PROPERTY OF THE UNITED STATES" branded on our backsides.

Being a citizen doesn't mean you are property.

No: We are born free and sovereign.

Wrong. A person is born as an individual, but is subject to the rules and requirements of the society into which they were born.

So when a child reaches the age of reasoning, and is able to make his own decisions, why would anyone, being fully informed on the subject, want to be a Unites States citizen?

Does not matter if they want to or not, they are United States citizens by birth UNLESS they are born in the U.S. as a child of a foreign dignitary or are born to a parent(s) who are being held as enemies of the U.S. In either of those exceptions, the child becomes the citizen of the foreign country of their parents.

Furthermore, no one can be forced to be a United States citizen, because the Thirteenth Amendment prohibits involuntary servitude. That is why it is clearly stated in the Fourteenth Amendment that you have to be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"; it is a voluntary condition.

Involuntary servitude and being a citizen are two different things. Slavery was abolished by the 13th amendment, but former slaves did not have U.S. citizenship even though they were born here because of the ruling of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scot case(Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)). Under common law, free persons born within a State or nation were citizens thereof. In the Dred Scott Case , however, Chief Justice Taney, writing for the Court, ruled that this rule did not apply to freed slaves. The Court held that United States citizenship was enjoyed by only white persons born in the United States as descendants of ‘‘persons, who were at the time of the adoption of the Constitution recognized as citizens in the several States and [who] became also citizens of this new political body,’’ the United States of America, and those who, having been ‘‘born outside the dominions of the United States,’’ had migrated thereto and been naturalized therein. Freed slaves fell into neither of these categories. Even children born to negro parents after those parents had been freed were not eligible to be citizens under the current laws.

Congress corrected this by enacting the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Section 1 of that act stated,

That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign
power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United
States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous
condition of slavery or involuntary servitude . . . shall have the same right[s] . . .

Of course, Congress was not willing to let the guarantee of citizenship to certain classes of individuals to just a law which is why they had it included in the Constitution as the 14th amendment.

Let's look at it this way:

Does any one man have the authority to command any other man what to do? No. Of course not. So governments, which are nothing more than a creation in the minds of men, have no more authority than those men that created it. The United States government is only an artificial creation of men that does not exist in nature. It has no authority over anyone who does not agree to be subject to that artificial entity.

This was clearly recognized and is why they created the Thirteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment provides for the government to classify those over whom they are going to have authority. It is voluntary. It MUST be voluntary.

So if they cannot show how I volunteered into their jurisdiction, they have no authority to tax me.

Let's look at section 2 of the 13th amendment.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Congress can only enforce laws within its jurisdiction. By your reasoning, a "sovereign" person is not under the jurisdiction of the U.S. government. Therefore, one "sovereign" person could actually force another "sovereign" into servitude. However, since you ARE subject to the jurisdiction of U.S. government, and so is everyone else in the United States (with very few exceptions), and you were born here, you are a United States citizen. Besides, tax laws, as well as many other laws, apply to RESIDENTS too. As was pointed out earlier in this thread, if you are physically present inside the United States for more than a certain length of time each year, you are a resident.

[Gregg]

Does not matter if they want to or not, they are United States citizens by birth UNLESS they are born in the U.S. as a child of a foreign dignitary or are born to a parent(s) who are being held as enemies of the U.S. In either of those exceptions, the child becomes the citizen of the foreign country of their parents.

I'm almost certain that a child of a diplomatic representative is at least eligible to claim US Citizenship, I seem to recall one of the early Gitmo guests was such a person and later either sued to be recognized as a citizen or was so by a court somewhere....does this ring a bell with anyone else or am I just having another flashback?

[Famspear]

The Fourteenth Amendment clearly separates the two conditions and makes that distinction, Famspear. You must meet BOTH conditions to be a citizen.

So that is precisely what I am saying.

Yes, but you pretty much said that before. And I'm telling you that under the law, if you were born in the United States you are a citizen of the United States AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof, regardless of whether you like it or not or agree with it or not.

When I was born, I had no cognitive abilities, whatsoever. Neither did any of you, nor anyone in the history of the world. Newborn babies cannot decide things for themselves. But when we are born, we do not have a serial number and the words "PROPERTY OF THE UNITED STATES" branded on our backsides. No: We are born free and sovereign.

You were born free. You were not born "sovereign" in the sense in which I think you mean. You as an individual are not legally "sovereign" under U.S. law. You yourself as an individual, for example, cannot make legally binding treaties with foreign countries. You yourself as an individual cannot legally set up your own government, just to govern you, with your own little rules and your own little court system.

There is a saying in the United States that "the people" are "sovereign." To the extent that this is true, it's important to recognize that you yourself are not "the people". I am not the people either. The "people" is a plural concept. You and I as individuals are not "the people," you and I as individuals are not "sovereign," you and I as individuals are not recognized by any law of any country as having the legal power to declare war, to make peace, to contract alliances with foreign countries, to enter treaties with foreign countries, or to make our own internal laws for ourselves.

. . . . why would anyone, being fully informed on the subject, want to be a Unites [sic] States citizen?

Who cares? You are a citizen by law, whether you like it or not.

Furthermore, no one can be forced to be a United States citizen, because the Thirteenth Amendment prohibits involuntary servitude.

No, that's Baloney #1.

You are either making this up as you go along, or you are reading too much crap. The Thirteenth Amendment prohibition against involuntary servitude does not change the legal point that under the Fourteenth Amendment, a person born here is generally a citizen. And if you want to legally renounce your citizenship, you can do so (it's a bit difficult to do, but it can be done). I believe the process has already been explained.

That is why it is clearly stated in the Fourteenth Amendment that you have to be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"; it is a voluntary condition.

No, that's Baloney #2.

Nothing in the Fourteenth Amendment says that being "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is a "voluntary condition" or involves a "voluntary condition" or that you are not subject to the jurisdiction unless you "volunteer" to be subject to the jurisdiction. How old are you, anyway? Did you sleep through that ninth grade civics/government class?

Let's look at it this way:

Does any one man have the authority to command any other man what to do? No. Of course not.

No, let's not look at it that way. Let's look at it this way: Lots of men have the legal authority to command other men what to do. That's the way life works. Whatever problems you had with your parents, your Authority Figures, you cannot escape the fact that everyone in the United States of America (even the President, a member of Congress, or a federal judge) is legally answerable to someone else.

So governments, which are nothing more than a creation in the minds of men, have no more authority than those men that created it.

Bingo!

The United States government is only an artificial creation of men that does not exist in nature.

Correct, basically!

It [the U.S. government] has no authority over anyone who does not agree to be subject to that artificial entity.

No, that's Baloney #3.

This was clearly recognized and is why they created the Thirteenth Amendment.

No, that's Baloney #4.

The Fourteenth Amendment provides for the government to classify those over whom they are going to have authority. It is voluntary. It MUST be voluntary.

No, that's Baloney #5.

So if they cannot show how I volunteered into their jurisdiction, they have no authority to tax me.

No, that's Baloney #6.

Now, find a court case where someone made the baloney arguments you are making, and the court ruled in favor of those baloney arguments. This is your big chance.

[Gregg]

So if they cannot show how I volunteered into their jurisdiction, they have no authority to tax me.

Every drive on a federally funded road?
Got any money in a federally insured bank?

Think along these lines and you'll find a few ways you "volunteered into their jurisdiction"

[Famspear]

This deals with federal income taxes. Some (but not all) of it relates to the "sovereign" argument (adapted from "another place" on the internet):

Some tax protesters argue that they should be immune from federal income taxation because they are sovereign individuals or "natural individuals," or on the ground that they have not requested a privilege or benefit from the government. These kinds of arguments have been ruled without merit. For example, in the case of Lovell v. United States the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit stated:

----Plaintiffs argue first that they are exempt from federal taxation because they are "natural individuals" who have not "requested, obtained or exercised any, privilege from an agency of government." This is not a basis for an exemption from federal income tax. [citation omitted] All individuals, natural or unnatural, must pay federal income tax on their wages, regardless of whether they received any "privileges" from the government. Plaintiffs also contend that the Constitution prohibits imposition of a direct tax without apportionment. They are wrong; it does not. U. S. Const. amend. XVI [. . . .]. 755 F.2d 517, 85-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9208 (7th Cir. 1984).

The Court of Appeals in Lovell affirmed a U.S. District Court order upholding a frivolous return penalty under 26 USC 6702(a). Similarly, in United States v. Sloan, the taxpayer's contention -- that he is "not a citizen of the United States, but rather, that he is a freeborn, natural individual, a citizen of the State of Indiana, and a 'master' -- not 'servant -- of his government" -- was ruled to be not a legal ground for the argument that the taxpayer was not subject to the federal tax laws; the tax evasion conviction was upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. 939 F.2d 499, 91-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,388 (7th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1060, 112 S. Ct. 940 (1992). Similarly, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit stated, in Powers v. Commissioner: "Powers [the taxpayer] contends that either he is immune from the tax laws, or he is a 'slave' to the federal government. This false choice is a creature of Powers' tax protester ideology, not the laws of this Republic." Powers v. Commissioner, 2008-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,116 (3d Cir. 2007) (per curiam), footnote 1.

The argument that an individual who received Form W-2 wages or other compensation is not subject to federal income tax because the individual has "neither requested, obtained, nor exercised any privilege from an agency of government" was ruled frivolous by the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Sullivan v. United States, 788 F.2d 813, 86-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9343 (1st Cir. 1986), and again in Kelly v. United States, 789 F.2d 94, 86-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9388 (1st Cir. 1986). The argument that an individual who received Form W-2 wages is not subject to federal income tax unless the tax is imposed in connection with "government granted privileges" was ruled frivolous by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68, 86-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9401 (7th Cir. 1986). The argument that an individual who received Form W-2 wages is not subject to federal income tax unless the taxpayer enjoys a "grant of privilege or franchise" was ruled frivolous by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in May v. Commissioner, 752 F.2d 1301, 85-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9156 (8th Cir. 1985). The argument that an individual who received Form W-2 wages is not subject to federal income tax unless the taxpayer has obtained a "privilege from a governmental agency" was ruled frivolous by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Olson v. United States, 760 F.2d 1003, 85-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9401 (9th Cir. 1985), and by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in Prout v. United States, 31 Fed Appx. 624, 2002-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,304 (10th Cir. 2002) (not for public.). Regarding the taxability of income in connection with events or activities not involving a government privilege or franchise, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Rutkin v. United States that the receipt of money obtained by extortion is taxable as income to the wrongdoer. Rutkin v. United States, 343 U.S. 130 (1952). The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in James v. United States that the receipt of money obtained through embezzlement is taxable as income to the wrongdoer, even though the wrongdoer is required to return the money to its owner. James v. United States, 366 U.S. 213 (1961).

The argument that a person's income is not taxed when the person rejects or renounces United States citizenship because the person claims to be a citizen exclusively of a state, and variations of this argument, have been officially identified as legally frivolous federal tax return positions for purposes of the $5,000 frivolous tax return penalty imposed under Internal Revenue Code section 6702(a). 26 USC 6702, as amended by section 407 of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-432, 120 Stat. 2922 (Dec. 20, 2006). See Notice 2008-14, I.R.B. 2008-4 (Jan. 14, 2008), Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Department of the Treasury (superseding Notice 2007-30).

Read 'em and weep.

[Nikki]

Why are you all attempting to use logic and facts against the theories and arguments of a close-minded, cut-and-paste, tax evader.

Just think of all the poor electrons spent on this topic that could have been put to far bettter use.

[Gregg]

Why are you all attempting to use logic and facts against the theories and arguments of a close-minded, cut-and-paste, tax evader.

Just think of all the poor electrons spent on this topic that could have been put to far bettter use.

Actually, we are diverting these electrons from vibrators in use at Oral Roberts University administrative offices, so no great loss.

[Famspear]

Why are you all attempting to use logic and facts against the theories and arguments of a close-minded, cut-and-paste, tax evader.

Just think of all the poor electrons spent on this topic that could have been put to far bettter use.

It's what we live for.

All that real life stuff about working and making money and paying bills and raising kids and helping to make the world a better place is just a side line activity.

[Brian Rookard]

snip

Where ya' been Brian?

Oh, I've been quite busy since getting my p-number here in Michigan. I'm doing consumer bankruptcy with a friend from school who graduated a couple years ahead of me. We're doing quite well, and we're doing really good work for our clients.

Work ... and my three year old son are keeping me quite busy!

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=8 ... =631483894
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=8 ... =631483894
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=8 ... =631483894
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=8 ... =631483894

And thanks for asking Demo!

[jaydee]

This deals with federal income taxes. Some (but not all) of it relates to the "sovereign" argument (adapted from "another place" on the internet):

If I was in court, and you were the prosecutor, and I brought up at the very start that I was challenging the political jurisdiction of the court, how could you prove that I was a United States citizen, thus allowing you to proceed?

[Famspear]

This deals with federal income taxes. Some (but not all) of it relates to the "sovereign" argument (adapted from "another place" on the internet):

If I was in court, and you were the prosecutor, and I brought up at the very start that I was challenging the political jurisdiction of the court, how could you prove that I was a United States citizen, thus allowing you to proceed?

There is no such thing as "political jurisdiction" in the sense in which I believe you are thinking. There is, inter alia, a legal concept called subject matter jurisdiction. That might be what you're thinking of. If you, as a defendant in a U.S. federal criminal trial were to "challenge the political jurisdiction of the court," I as the prosecutor for starters would probably just roll my eyes and think to myself "great, another wacko." The judge would probably have a strong urge to do the same but, because judges have a much more finely developed sense of judicial temperament than I do, would probably restrain himself/herself and would keep a straight face.

If you are charged with, say, a tax crime under the Internal Revenue Code and you are in a United States District Court, then the court has subject matter jurisdiction. Your "lack of political jurisdiction" argument will be thrown out.

Next question.

EDIT: Oh, and in case you didn't catch the drift: I believe that the question of whether or not you as a defendant are a citizen of the United States is pretty much immaterial to the question of whether the United States District Court has subject matter jurisdiction with respect to the case for your criminal prosecution under the U.S. internal revenue laws.

[The Operative]

This deals with federal income taxes. Some (but not all) of it relates to the "sovereign" argument (adapted from "another place" on the internet):

If I was in court, and you were the prosecutor, and I brought up at the very start that I was challenging the political jurisdiction of the court, how could you prove that I was a United States citizen, thus allowing you to proceed?

Your argument has been tried before and it has failed every time. See below.

Also basic to Mr. Sloan's "freedom from income tax theory" is his contention that he is not a citizen of the United States, but rather, that he is a freeborn, natural individual, a citizen of the State of Indiana, and a "master"--not "servant"--of his government. As a result, he claims that he is not subject to the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States. This strange argument has been previously rejected as well. "All individuals, natural or unnatural, must pay federal income tax on their wages," regardless of whether they requested, obtained or exercised any privilege from the federal government. Lovell, 755 F.2d at 519; cf. Studley, 783 F.2d at 937 (Studley's argument that "she is not a 'taxpayer' because she is an absolute, freeborn and natural individual ... is frivolous. An individual is a 'person' under the Internal Revenue Code."). Moreover, the tax code imposes a "direct nonapportioned [income] tax upon United States citizens throughout the nation, not just in federal enclaves," such as postal offices and Indian reservations. United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir.1990), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 2022, 114 L.Ed.2d 108 (1991) (citing Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 12-19, 36 S.Ct. 236, 239-42, 60 L.Ed. 493 (1916)). Mr. Sloan's proposition that he is not subject to the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States is simply wrong.
- United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499, 501 (7th Cir. 1991), cert. den. 112 S.Ct. 940 (1992).

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F ... -3154.html

[Nikki]

This deals with federal income taxes. Some (but not all) of it relates to the "sovereign" argument (adapted from "another place" on the internet):

If I was in court, and you were the prosecutor, and I brought up at the very start that I was challenging the political jurisdiction of the court, how could you prove that I was a United States citizen, thus allowing you to proceed?

JD:

It seems that while I was typing this, two others already replied. That doesn't matter, because they both used words with more that two syllables and probably lost you. So, let me take you back to your high school Civics 1 class (which you either slept through or dropped out before completing it):

In general, courts don't have "political jurisdiction." They have geographic (personal) and subject matter jurisdiction.

I'll try to explain these concepts in small words so as to not go over your head.

Personal jurisdiction happens because an act is done in the geographic area over which the court has authority. For example, If you assault someone in Lake Woebegon, you have committed a crime within the geographic area assigned to the Lake Woebegon Municipal Court. It doesn't matter if you are a citizen of Lake Woebegon, a temporary resident, a homeless person of no fixed address, or a tourist from Bora Bora -- since the crime was committed within the boundaries of Lake Woebogon, the municipal cours has personal jurisdiction. That means it has jurisdiction over the person.

Subject matter jurisdiction refers to the types of cases which a court is permitted to try. The laws which established the Lake Woebegon Municipal Court specified what cases the court is permitted to review. For example, that court is not permitted to hear cases regarding patent infringement because they are federal matters and the court has not been granted the authority to hear them.

So, as Prosecutor, I don't need to prove that you are a United States citizen. All I need to prove is that the court has been granted the authority to try cases of the matter involved and that you committed the crime within the assigned geographic jurisdiction of the court.

[jaydee]

Your argument has been tried before and it has failed every time. See below.

Also basic to Mr. Sloan's "freedom from income tax theory" is his contention that he is not a citizen of the United States, but rather, that he is a freeborn, natural individual, a citizen of the State of Indiana, and a "master"--not "servant"--of his government. As a result, he claims that he is not subject to the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States. This strange argument has been previously rejected as well. "All individuals, natural or unnatural, must pay federal income tax on their wages," regardless of whether they requested, obtained or exercised any privilege from the federal government. Lovell, 755 F.2d at 519; cf. Studley, 783 F.2d at 937 (Studley's argument that "she is not a 'taxpayer' because she is an absolute, freeborn and natural individual ... is frivolous. An individual is a 'person' under the Internal Revenue Code."). Moreover, the tax code imposes a "direct nonapportioned [income] tax upon United States citizens throughout the nation, not just in federal enclaves," such as postal offices and Indian reservations. United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir.1990), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 2022, 114 L.Ed.2d 108 (1991) (citing Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 12-19, 36 S.Ct. 236, 239-42, 60 L.Ed. 493 (1916)). Mr. Sloan's proposition that he is not subject to the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States is simply wrong.
- United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499, 501 (7th Cir. 1991), cert. den. 112 S.Ct. 940 (1992).

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F ... -3154.html

Sorry, but that is not my "argument".

In 1970, a man who owned and operated a furniture manufacturing company in Southern California was brought into federal tax court for not paying what the IRS estimated to be about $240,000. In today's numbers, that is approximately $1,350,000. He never filed nor paid any income tax in his life.

He walked out five minutes after the whole thing started, and the IRS has, to this day, never gotten one cent from him.

Why? Because they couldn't prove he was a citizen.

Do you think the IRS would just let $1,350,000 walk away like that if they really had a legitimate claim to it, or are they only bluffing? They ARE bluffing. If you know EXACTLY what to say in court, which is, in essence, calling their bluff, you can do what this gentleman did; walk out of court and not give the IRS a single penny.

You like to show all these cases where people have lost in court and then say: "See? It doesn't work." Well, whatever they said in court obviously DIDN'T work. That just goes to show that they said the WRONG things.

So, if they cannot prove in court, at that very moment, that you are a citizen, then they cannot proceed because they lack political jurisdiction.

It's sad that they have indoctrinated so many people in this country into believing that they are "automatically" United States citizens.

[Doktor Avalanche]

Any more anecdotal evidence you'd like to share with us today?

[Famspear]

Sorry, but that is not my "argument".

In 1970, a man who owned and operated a furniture manufacturing company in Southern California was brought into federal tax court for not paying what the IRS estimated to be about $240,000. In today's numbers, that is approximately $1,350,000. He never filed nor paid any income tax in his life.

He walked out five minutes after the whole thing started, and the IRS has, to this day, never gotten one cent from him.

Why? Because they couldn't prove he was a citizen.

No, that is incorrect. No defendant in a civil or criminal tax case has ever "walked out five minutes after the whole thing started" because "they" (the government) couldn't "prove he was a citizen." The government does not need to prove you are a citizen in order to maintain a tax case (civil or criminal) against you, and no federal judge has ever or will ever throw a case out merely "five minutes after the whole thing starts" because some half-witted defendant starts demanding that somebody prove he or she is a "citizen."

And since you haven't provided a citation to a case, we have to assume that you don't know what you're talking about.

Do you think the IRS would just let $1,350,000 walk away like that if they really had a legitimate claim to it, or are they only bluffing? They ARE bluffing. If you know EXACTLY what to say in court, which is, in essence, calling their bluff, you can do what this gentleman did; walk out of court and not give the IRS a single penny.

No, that's incorrect. See above.

You like to show all these cases where people have lost in court and then say: "See? It doesn't work." Well, whatever they said in court obviously DIDN'T work. That just goes to show that they said the WRONG things.

No, that is a common tax protester refrain: "We know it didn't work all those other times because they just didn't say the right words, but we know that it will work if you just say it this way in your case."

No, sorry.

So, if they cannot prove in court, at that very moment, that you are a citizen, then they cannot proceed because they lack political jurisdiction.

No. Again, there is no such thing as "political jurisdiction" of a U.S. federal court in the sense in which you are referring, and there is no need for the government to "prove" you are a citizen in these tax cases in order for the court to conclude that the court has your imaginary "political jurisdiction." There is a legal concept called subject matter jurisdiction and, as already explained, it has nothing to do with whether a defendant in a criminal tax case is a "citizen." See earlier explanations in this thread.

It's sad that they have indoctrinated so many people in this country into believing that they are "automatically" United States citizens.

No, what happened was that the states ratified the Fourteenth Amendment a long time ago and that, under the Amendment, if you are born within in the United States and you are not covered by diplomatic immunity, etc., etc., you are a U.S. citizen by operation of law. And yes, in that sense it is indeed "automatic". And no, it's not "sad."

What is sad is your lack of knowledge of how our legal system works and, based on your comments here, your delusional beliefs about your imaginary concept of "political jurisdiction."

[wserra]

If I was in court, and you were the prosecutor, and I brought up at the very start that I was challenging the political jurisdiction of the court, how could you prove that I was a United States citizen, thus allowing you to proceed?

Strange you should ask. I've actually been "in court" nearly every day over a career of 32 years. Some of that time was spent prosecuting. Were I doing so, and you were to challenge "the political jurisdiction of the court", I would point out the following:

(1) There is no such thing as "political jurisdiction". There are two types of jurisdiction, subject matter and personal. Both of them are pretty easily resolved in criminal cases. If you're in front of the court, the court has personal jurisdiction over you. There are no special appearances in criminal cases. You can be kidnapped and dragged before the court - it won't matter.

Subject matter jurisdiction in criminal cases is generally only an issue in federal court. I have actually raised it, in the context of the facts of particular Hobbs Act (robbery/extortion) prosecutions not implicating the Commerce Clause. I doubt this is what you had in mind, though.

(2) If it necessary to prove that you were a citizen, a birth certificate suffices 99% of the time. (The only exception might be if your parents were here as diplomats.) But it is generally not necessary, as everyone - citizens and non-citizens - are responsible for crimes they commit in the U.S. The only reason I can think of offhand for such necessity is the element of a treason-like crime of owing allegiance to the U.S. Even then - a tiny percentage of all cases - it is not a matter of jurisdiction, but of proof of an element.