So What Legitimate Ways Can Someone Be Excluded From Taxes?

[wserra]

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

Citation? After all, my Aunt Tillie raises prize-winning tomatoes in her garden in the Sea of Tranquillity.

[Nikki]

...
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.
...

And so begins the baseless, anecdotal, unsupported justification for a failed argument.

This one is easy to refute since NO ONE IS EVER BROUGHT INTO FEDERAL TAX COURT

If JD had bothered to check simple facts, he would have learned that the taxpayer (or tax evader) is the one that starts the Federal Tax Court process by filinf a petition challenging the Commissioner's action. No one, except a subpoenaed witness is ever brought into Tax Court.

Thank you very much. Next player please.

[The Operative]

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.

THINGS I DIDN'T KNOW UNTIL I SAW THEM ON THE INTERNET!

Nobody ever really landed on the moon - it was a giant hoax. What you saw on TV was filmed in Utah.

Elvis is still alive, and performing marriage ceremonies in Las Vegas.

The Zeta Reticulans from Planet X will be here soon and they want to serve us. They have a book, "How to serve humans" that has not been translated yet.

wserra's aunt grows prize-winning tomatoes.

The NESARA law will be revealed to the public any day now and everyone will be billionaires.

Earth is surrounded by invisible flying saucers.

I can be free from income taxes if I claim the court does not have political jurisdiction over me.

I have to go now. I need to respond to this email from Nigeria where some poor relative of a dead diplomat wants to transfer $50 million into my bank account.

[LPC]

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"

Please don't feed the paranoid delusions.

A person who is within the borders of a state of the United States is subject to the laws of the United States. Period.

Please don't encourage the weak-minded to think differently.

[LPC]

The government does not need to prove you are a citizen in order to maintain a tax case (civil or criminal) against you,

It's fun to shoot down the "I am not a citizen" nonsense, but we need to remember that not only is the citizenship argument nonsense, but it's irrelevant nonsense because there is nothing in the Constitution or statutes of the United States that limits the application of the tax laws, or most other laws in general, to citizens.

If it were otherwise, foreign tourists and illegal aliens could go on crime sprees and the government could do nothing except deport them, and foreign corporations could default on contractual obligations with impunity.

JayDee (who is obviously not a real J.D.) admits to gaining money at Foxwoods in Connecticut, and to deliberately evading both casino reporting requirements and his own tax filing requirements. The best argument he has is that he has not yet been caught.

[LPC]

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.

For a Supreme Court case upholding this principle, see United States v.Alvarez-Machain, 504 U.S. 655 (1992), in which the court upheld the criminal prosecution of a citizen of Mexico who was literally kidnapped from his home in Mexico by agents of the federal government and taken by force into the United States.

[RyanMcC]

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.

I wondered where he got that from, it was from (surprise!) Sui-Juris, from a post by Thom1776:

The turning point in Eric's life came in 1970 when he was in federal tax court facing the IRS. He had been running his own furniture business in California for many years, but never filed with the IRS nor paid a penny to them.

Now, the IRS felt that he owed them some money, LOTS of money. So they graciously prepared a return for Eric claiming that he owed them $240,000. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, that's about $1,350,000 today.

Eric walked into that court alone. The prosecutor opened: "It is the responsibility of United States citizens to pay taxes, salute the flag, blah, blah, blah..."

Eric jumped up and said: "I OBJECT!"

Judge: "What are you objecting to? He hasn't said anything yet."

Eric: "Well he said U.S. citizens have all these obligations. What does he have in his file to put me in that class?"

Judge: "Are you renouncing your citizenship?"

Eric: "How can I renounce that which I never applied for?"

And the two went back and forth a few more times, with the judge finally saying that the court would notify him.

It has been 38 years and the court has yet to notify him.

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/success-s ... ctory.html

[wserra]

Plus, of course, the part you didn't quote:

After listening to him for a few weeks, it was clear to me that this man is a genius. Having an IQ of 165 myself, I feel confident that I can recognize true genius when I see it.

A few weeks ago, I was going through his WTPRN archives, and in one of them, he mentions that his IQ is 186. So there you have it; not only IS this man the genius that I recognized him to be, but BY FAR.

Please, people, no more links to Sooey. I almost choked to death on my bagel at that one.

[Famspear]

After listening to him for a few weeks, it was clear to me that this man is a genius. Having an IQ of 165 myself, I feel confident that I can recognize true genius when I see it.

After reading this mess, it was clear to me that both of these rubes (oops, I mean these two "geniuses") probably cannot distinguish between a sugar bowl and a cow pattie.

[Imalawman]

Plus, of course, the part you didn't quote:

After listening to him for a few weeks, it was clear to me that this man is a genius. Having an IQ of 165 myself, I feel confident that I can recognize true genius when I see it.

A few weeks ago, I was going through his WTPRN archives, and in one of them, he mentions that his IQ is 186. So there you have it; not only IS this man the genius that I recognized him to be, but BY FAR.

Please, people, no more links to Sooey. I almost choked to death on my bagel at that one.

A brand new apple laptop ruined by spewing coffee. Damn it.

I wonder if people like Jaydee have ever considered reading a textbook on general income taxation. It probably wouldn't matter.

JD - I actually was a government attorney litigating civil tax cases. Several people tried the "sovereign argument". Most of the time it never went to trial because I had a summary judgment granted. Other times it was a 25 min. hearing and within 2 months those sovereign citizens were getting their wages garnished. Now, how about those success stories? I never lost a tax protestor case no matter what the theory. Bottom line - you're an idiot and you will lose.

[jaydee]

I wondered where he got that from, it was from (surprise!) Sui-Juris, from a post by Thom1776: http://www.suijuris.net/forum/success-s ... ctory.html

Yes, this is where I got this.

Eric Whoru, (Eric Williams in 1970), is the man who walked out of tax court.

You can talk to him yourself on a conference call he conducts on Talkshoe.com.

You can ask him anything you want about his case and he can tell you exactly what happened in tax court that day.

Apparently, Thom1776 did the same thing in criminal court for DWI and walked out. So, DWI must not be very serious to them if political jurisdiction is challenged and the judge lets the accused walk out.

I guess the judges know something that no one else knows, not even the prosecutors, and when confronted with this, they must acquiesce.

This is the link to talk to Eric Whoru:
http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/ta ... 767&cmd=tc

I don't think any one here can demonstrate to Eric Whoru how he is wrong or that he just got "lucky" that day in court.

[LPC]

Eric Whoru, (Eric Williams in 1970), is the man who walked out of tax court.

You can talk to him yourself on a conference call he conducts on Talkshoe.com.

I don't think you quite get it yet. We don't accept unsubstantiated accounts of court "victories" for the same reason that physicists don't accept unverified accounts of cold fusion reactors or perpetual motion machines.

In science, it doesn't count unless you can document what happened and another scientist can produce the same result. And the same thing is true in law. It doesn't count unless you can document what happened and another lawyer can produce the same result in another courtroom before another judge.

You're telling us that we can talk to a delusional liar and he will repeat his lies. That's not real useful and not very convincing.

[Famspear]

I wondered where he got that from, it was from (surprise!) Sui-Juris, from a post by Thom1776: http://www.suijuris.net/forum/success-s ... ctory.html

Yes, this is where I got this.

Eric Whoru, (Eric Williams in 1970), is the man who walked out of tax court.

You can talk to him yourself on a conference call he conducts on Talkshoe.com.

You can ask him anything you want about his case and he can tell you exactly what happened in tax court that day.

No, he cannot tell us exactly what happened in court that day. He is delusional. So are you.

Apparently, Thom1776 did the same thing in criminal court for DWI and walked out.

No, he didn't.

So, DWI must not be very serious to them if political jurisdiction is challenged and the judge lets the accused walk out.

OK, let's review. There is no such thing as "political jurisdiction" in the sense in which you are using the term. No judge is going to throw out a federal tax case, or a DWI case, or any other case, because a dimwit raises a frivolous argument based on a non-existent pseudo-legal doctrine.

I guess the judges know something that no one else knows, not even the prosecutors, and when confronted with this, they must acquiesce.

Well, you guess wrong. See earlier explanations.

I don't think any one here can demonstrate to Eric Whoru how he is wrong or that he just got "lucky" that day in court.

You don't think very clearly at all, do you? It might be correct to say that no one here can persuade "Eric Whoru" that he is wrong, etc., etc. Unfortunately for Eric, and for you, we're not here to persuade "Eric" that he is wrong. And we're not here to persuade you that Eric is wrong.

We are here to lay down the law. Literally.

[Nikki]

(1) Cover keyboard with impervious material

(2) Place all beverages at least two feet away from computer desk.

(3) Read Eric Williams Political Jurisdiction explanation.

(4) ROFLYAO


(Courtesy of Freedom School -- a wonderful collection of authentic sovereign gibberish)

[wserra]

You can talk to him yourself on a conference call he conducts on Talkshoe.com.

Why in the world would I want to do that? He sells this nonsense. I have no doubt at all that, if he thought it would get a caller to give him money, he would swear that he was the reincarnation of Hannibal, and that it was time for him to gather the elephants to cross the Alps.

I would like to see a transcript, certified accurate by the court reporter, of this wondrous proceeding. I won't hold my breath.

[LPC]

I found a court decision in which the lack of "political jurisdiction" was raised in an appeal from a Tax Court decision. It was our friend John Anthony, Malan, who was sanctioned $2,000 for his frivolous appeal.

[grixit]

And remember, always use the phrase "perp judge" when making your statements in court. That will let them know what's what.

[jaydee]

... If it necessary to prove that you were a citizen, a birth certificate suffices 99% of the time...

How would you prove anyone was a citizen with a birth certificate?

A birth certificate has got to be the most legally useless piece of paper ever made.

If you pulled a birth certificate out of your file and said: "See? This proves he's a citizen." I would say: "What material fact leads you to believe that that piece of paper pertains to me in any way? I've never seen that piece of paper before, I don't know where it came from and you have nothing to show that it does pertains to me."

And yes, it is VERY necessary to prove one who challenges political jurisdiction a citizen before proceeding.

If a birth certificate is the best you can do, then I'd be walking out of that court in about thirty seconds while you stood there with your ass in your hand.

[wserra]

How would you prove anyone was a citizen with a birth certificate?

A birth certificate has got to be the most legally useless piece of paper ever made.

Think so? Well, the Supreme Court doesn't appear to agree. "(A) birth certificate is required to prove U.S. citizenship by birth." Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd., __ US __, 128 S.Ct. 1610 (2008).

So, let's see. "jaydee" - "useless"; Supreme Court - "proves citizenship". "jaydee" - "useless"; Supreme Court - "proves citizenship". Doesn't seem like a proposition from Wittgenstein.

Of course, for your purposes, it makes no difference whether you're a citizen or not, but I assume you'll get to that.

If you pulled a birth certificate out of your file and said: "See? This proves he's a citizen." I would say: "What material fact leads you to believe that that piece of paper pertains to me in any way? I've never seen that piece of paper before, I don't know where it came from and you have nothing to show that it does pertains to me."

Other, of course, than the certification, which is enough to get it admitted in any court in the country. It certainly is enough to raise a presumption of your citizenship, which you would then have to rebut by more than your usual "Nyah, nyah, nyah". If, of course, you actually are not a citizen, and have no papers which show that you're here legally, you're deportable. I doubt that productive folks would miss you.

Of course, for your purposes, it makes no difference whether you're a citizen or not, but I assume you'll get to that.

And yes, it is VERY necessary to prove one who challenges political jurisdiction a citizen before proceeding.

That's all? It's "VERY necessary" just because you say (or Eric WhoAmI says) so? It doesn't seem enough.

If a birth certificate is the best you can do, then I'd be walking out of that court in about thirty seconds while you stood there with your ass in your hand.

Another Internet Rambo. Why don't you come back when you have authority (other than you and Eric) for your nonsense? You can start with a certified transcript of Eric's great victory.

[.]

I doubt that productive folks would miss you.

Aw, c'mon. A few of us who would miss his comedic value for a couple of minutes if he was deported.

The real question is whether or not he can be deported while his pants are on fire.