$300,000 Income Tax Reward (Peymon Mottahedeh)

[peymon]

Has any one here tried to collect Freedom Law School's $300,000 Income Tax Reward that is found here yet?

https:// livefreenow.org/eye-opening-education/300000-income-tax-reward/
No spamming Peymon - mod-ND
restored with broken linky dink - mod-ND

[wserra]

$300K? Feh. For years I've had an offer with a reward an order of magnitude greater than yours: I offer $3M to anyone who can prove that the sun rises in the east. The only qualification that I put on that offer is, verbatim, the same one you do on yours: I review and evaluate each claim personally and adjudicate them. Guess how many people have won? That obviously proves that the sun doesn't really rise in the east.

Y'know, Payme Peymon, a bet doesn't make the law, regardless of the merit of its adjudicator. Not surprisingly, since there have been so many judges in the history of the U.S., some of them have gone so far off the deep end that they have written opinions that border on the pornographic. But you can point to no current authority, case, administrative or statutory, that agrees with your nonsense - that no law requires someone with "private earnings" (whatever that is) to pay income tax, that requiring the filing of a tax return violates the Fifth Amendment, or that the Sixteenth Amendment was not "lawfully added" to the Constitution. (Do you mean "ratified"?)

Go ahead, bubbe, prove me wrong.

[The Observer]

And if the founder of Freedom Law School is correct about his theory of income taxes not being legal, he certainly seemed incapable of using his knowledge to get rid of the notice of federal tax lien when it recorded against him for his unpaid income taxes.

Physician, heal thyself.

[NYGman]

Unless the prize offers a real framework for judging success, it is not a real contest. There is a similar $1M bounty by the Flat earth loonies, that will never be claimed, despite the obvious fact the world is frekin' round (Well not exactly round, but close enough and absolutely not flat).

There is one of these challenges that has the requisite framework to allow a fair challenge, and that was the One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge offered by the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF). It was a one million dollars challenge to anyone who could demonstrate a supernatural or paranormal ability under agreed-upon scientific testing criteria. A version of the challenge was first issued in 1964 and ended in 2015 without anyone succeeding. Several accepted the challenge, but as expected, none won. However, as supernatural or paranormal abilities doesn't exist, it was never going to result in a payout.

Have to add, James Randi is a legend!

[Cpt Banjo]

Have to add, James Randi is a legend!

A wonderful documentary film about Randi was released in 2015, entitled An Honest Liar. He is not to be confused with dishonest liars, such as those who peddle bogus claims about the income tax.

[peymon]

And if the founder of Freedom Law School is correct about his theory of income taxes not being legal, he certainly seemed incapable of using his knowledge to get rid of the notice of federal tax lien when it recorded against him for his unpaid income taxes.

Physician, heal thyself.

The is no tax lien on me. Who lied and deceived you? That is a bunch of baseless, false hearsay. The OPPOSITE IS TRUE!

IRS filed a bunch of bogus tax liens, pages and pages of it, for over 10 years of taxes, totaling almost $700,000 on me in 2009. After a 2 year battle with the IRS, the IRS appeals Office declared ALL of the taxes to be illegal, a Tax Court judge signed on it,.ZEROING ALL of them.

Then the IRS sent me documents, proving that IRS has REMOVED ALL of the tax liens. See Freedom Law School Victory #3 on this page for DOCUMENTED PROOF here: https://livefreenow.org/victories-testi ... victories/

[Pottapaug1938]

Peymon's challenge is as phony as a $3 bill.

Challenges of this kind always depend on proving a matter to the satisfaction of the issuer of the challenge. It then becomes an easy matter for the issuer to claim that he is not satisfied -- he will dismiss the proof, demand more proof, explain it away, and more. The offer is a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing (thank you, Shakespeare).

[peymon]

Have to add, James Randi is a legend!

A wonderful documentary film about Randi was released in 2015, entitled An Honest Liar. He is not to be confused with dishonest liars, such as those who peddle bogus claims about the income tax.

Cpt Banjo,
Is that how you argue law? By just making baseless conclusions? By making ad hominem attacks? See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad%20hominem and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

If I am wrong, please show me. I will humbly appreciate your correcting me with law, facts and logic.

[AndyK]

Just a brief excerpt from the Tax Court's decision upholding the IRS' notices of deficiency and taxes due:

"In reaching our holdings, we have considered all arguments made by the
Mottahedehs and find them without merit."

One can also follow the unsuccessful up through the appeals ladder if they wish.

Peymon didn't pay taxes.

He lost in every court.

Finis.

[peymon]

Peymon's challenge is as phony as a $3 bill.

Challenges of this kind always depend on proving a matter to the satisfaction of the issuer of the challenge. It then becomes an easy matter for the issuer to claim that he is not satisfied -- he will dismiss the proof, demand more proof, explain it away, and more. The offer is a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing (thank you, Shakespeare).

Pottapaug1938,
Since you can not refute anything I say with facts, law or logic, you resort to Ad hominem attacks on me. Don't know what Ad hominem means? Look it up here: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad%20hominem or here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

If I am wrong, I would sincerely appreciate you correcting me. I got to where I am by being open-minded to learning, and open to being corrected. Your kindness to take a little of your valuable time to enlighten me with your wisdom of law and logic to correct me will be welcomed.

Meanwhile, you may wish to view how this Law Professor at the Prestigious George Washington University of law, who used to be a DOJ Appellate lawyer 4 years ago tried to claim the $300,000 Income Tax Reward and FAILED. I refuted everything he said with hyperlinks to direct sources of law AND gave him a 2nd chance to make a claim, but he failed to do so. See the $300,000 Income Tax Reward here https://livefreenow.org/eye-opening-edu ... ax-reward/ and then scroll down a little to
"Income Tax Fighting Match
Freedom Law School v. DEEP STATE Law Professor" with picture of me and Professor Siegel

[Duke2Earl]

There is really only one pertinent fact....hundreds of folks have tried to claim that they were not subject to the income tax on their income. This has been going on for over 100 years now....and no one....repeat NO ONE has won that argument in court. Game, set and match.

[peymon]

Just a brief excerpt from the Tax Court's decision upholding the IRS' notices of deficiency and taxes due:

"In reaching our holdings, we have considered all arguments made by the
Mottahedehs and find them without merit."

One can also follow the unsuccessful up through the appeals ladder if they wish.

Peymon didn't pay taxes.

He lost in every court.

Finis.

Dear Andy K (unknown Retired federal bureaucrat from Maryland), as you can see, I do my homework on who and what topic I am dealing with. If you would have searched a little deeper, you would have seen that the case you refer to case is still on appeal, therefore not over yet. Cases get reversed on appeal all the time.

In 2009 IRS filed about $700,000 of bogus, illegal, baseless tax liens on me for over 10 years of taxes! 1) The agent and his manager after our meeting ruled against me, 2) The IRS Appeals officer ruled against me, 3) The IRS lawyer on appeal sent the case back to IRS Appeals to give a proper hearing that I was wrongfully denied, 4) The new IRS Appeal Officer ZEROED OUT ALL OF THE ILLEGAL IRS TAX LIENS, 5) The Tax Court Judge singed off on it and 6) IRS sent me Withdrawal of tax lien notices to me, COMPLETELY REMOVING ALL OF THE IRS TAX LIENS THAT HAD ILLEGALLY BEEN FILED AGAINST ME. See the documentation here at Victory #3: https://livefreenow.org/victories-testi ... victories/

You say that : I "lost in every court." Now that you have proof that your conclusion was in error, are you willing to take back your erroneous statement?

Have you ever heard of the concept called "innocent until PROVEN GUILTY? I happen to value that principle a lot. Do you?

May be you can apply that to me and what I say? Can you put your prejudices aside and look at what I say with an open and fair mind, like our jurors and judges are supposed to do?

[NYGman]

Ok, if you are willing to escrow the 300k with a neutral party, and agree to have an independent judge of facts/laws/analysis review both arguments for and against, and you agree to be bound by their determination, without appeal, then I would do this. But the adjudicator has to be a legal scholar, with a doctoroal (S.J.D) or an active or retired Federal judge in good standing preferably an adjudicator with an understanding of tax, and experience in the field of US Federal taxation. Balls in your court.

[peymon]

Dear NYGman Tax Law Expert,

It is fashionable, for people to hide behind the skirt of political lawyers in a black robe on a high bench that they like to refer to as "your honor" as if thee judges are GODS, PERFECT AND INFALLIBLE that whatever they say is Gospel. I am sorry to tell you that they are not.

"Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in which the Court held that the US Constitution was not meant to include American citizenship for black people, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and so the rights and privileges that the Constitution confers upon American citizens could not apply to them." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scot ... ord#Legacy

These GODs of yours claimed that a black man is like an animal, to be owned till death as mere personal property. It took decades, for the US Supreme Court and Society to overturn that CRIMINAL, POLITICAL, LAWLESS, ILLEGAL US SUPREME COURT DECISION!

An it happened because people like me, had the courage to challenge these black robed men that many people treat them as Gods. Would YOU support such an effort? Would YOU have the balls to try to correct the crooked judges?

The same thing is going on with respect to the Federal Income Tax. If you can show I am wrong, I will humbly appreciate you correcting me!

[Mod deletes repetition. - WS]

My response are all hyperlinked to the sources of law.Can you do better than him?

[peymon]

Mod deletes post that is nothing more than repetition of earlier post. - WS

[peymon]

Peymon's challenge is as phony as a $3 bill.

Challenges of this kind always depend on proving a matter to the satisfaction of the issuer of the challenge. It then becomes an easy matter for the issuer to claim that he is not satisfied -- he will dismiss the proof, demand more proof, explain it away, and more. The offer is a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing (thank you, Shakespeare).

Dear Pottapaug1938 Wood Instructor,

You can not refute me with law, fact or logic, so you resort to Ad Hominem attacks instead. See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad%20hominem and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

[Mod deletes repetition. - WS]

Do you believe in innocent till PROVEN GUILTY? I like that American concept. Do you?

Can you keep an open, fair mind in checking out the above page and your response to me?

[peymon]

Mod deletes post that is nothing more than repetition of earlier post. - WS

[peymon]

$300K? Feh. For years I've had an offer with a reward an order of magnitude greater than yours: I offer $3M to anyone who can prove that the sun rises in the east. The only qualification that I put on that offer is, verbatim, the same one you do on yours: I review and evaluate each claim personally and adjudicate them. Guess how many people have won? That obviously proves that the sun doesn't really rise in the east.

Y'know, Payme Peymon, a bet doesn't make the law, regardless of the merit of its adjudicator. Not surprisingly, since there have been so many judges in the history of the U.S., some of them have gone so far off the deep end that they have written opinions that border on the pornographic. But you can point to no current authority, case, administrative or statutory, that agrees with your nonsense - that no law requires someone with "private earnings" (whatever that is) to pay income tax, that requiring the filing of a tax return violates the Fifth Amendment, or that the Sixteenth Amendment was not "lawfully added" to the Constitution. (Do you mean "ratified"?)

Go ahead, bubbe, prove me wrong.

Dear wserra,
You want me to prove you wrong? I will do that. If you can prove me wrong, I would sincerely and humbly appreciate yoi correcting me:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

United States and States are defined in the Internal Revenue Code to mean ONLY Washington D.C.

By Peymon Mottahedeh, February 2, 2020

Thanks to the availability of the official laws being searchable online, as published by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the US House of Representatives (government lawyers), found at https://uscode.house.gov/browse/prelim@ ... ion=prelim, and the ease of finding US Supreme Court cases online, I have been able to build on all the good work/research of ALL OF YOU and others before us such as Schiff, Conklin (who I believe passed away recently), Porth, Holland, Christenson, Kotmire, Drexler, Clarkson, Skinner, Daily, Kellems, …

We no longer have to say just “No law requires us to file and pay income tax”. We can definitely say “here is the limited group of people to whom the income tax applies, but to the rest of us it does not apply.”

Please review this legal essay. It will be the basis of one of the Petitions to Congress to stop the IRS, DOJ and many federal judges who are knowingly and deliberately defying the laws written by Congress and therefore should be impeached by Congress and, upon conviction by US Senate, removed from Office.

Two heads are better than one, and ten heads together are even better. Your input and suggestions are warmly welcomed and sought.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

PART 1 – Income tax applies ONLY to Citizens and Residents of D.C., and the federally-connected income of anyone outside of D.C.

The IRS tells everyone that the requirement to pay income tax is found in 26 USC §1, which in relevant part states:
“There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of-
(a) (1) every married individual… who makes a single return jointly with his spouse [also an individual]…
(2) every surviving spouse [an individual]…
(b) every head of household (as defined in section 2(b) [to be an individual])…
(c) every individual… who is not a married individual
(d) every married individual… who does not make a single return jointly with his spouse…
… a tax determined in accordance with the following table[s].”
See https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req ... umpTo=true.

The IRS also tells everyone that the requirement to file an income tax return is found in 26 USC § 6012(a), which in relevant part states: “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 …” https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req ... on:prelim)

However, the IRC does not clearly tell us who the “individual” that these 2 key section speak of. I remember at Sherry Jackson’s trial, the prosecutor opened up an Internal Revenue Code book and pointed Section 1 to Sherry, and all Sherry could do was say “I am not an individual.” No one has been able to give me a satisfactory answer as to who an income tax-liable “individual” is until very recently.

First, allow me to quote to 2 key US Supreme Court cases:
Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151, 153 (1917), which held: “In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes, it is the established rule not to extend their provisions by implication beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out. In case of doubt, they are construed most strongly against the government and in favor of the citizen.” https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/245/151/

And Meese v. Keene, 481 U.S. 465, 484 (1987) (thanks to Dave Champion for this key court case): “It is axiomatic [obvious, self-evident] that the statutory definition of the term excludes unstated meanings of that term. As judges, it is our duty to construe legislation as it is written, not as it might be read by a layman, or as it might be understood by someone who has not even read it.”

Now we must go the specific definitions that Congress used to define the objects of the Income Tax in 26 USC § 7701(a), found at https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req ... ction:7701, which begins by stating: “(a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof-…“

Now we go to 26 USC § 7701(a)(9) which defines the term “United States” as: “The term "United States" when used in a geographical sense [the ONLY sense that matters, is determining the geographic application of the term] includes only the States and the District of Columbia.

When we go to 26 USC § 7701(a)(10) the term State is defined as: “The term "State" shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.” [Yes, we need the proper construction to carry out the provisions of this title!]

It is clear per Meese v. Keene that Title 26 applies only to DC except in those instances (chapters or subchapters) in which Congress defines ‘United States” in a different way. For example, in the definitions applying only to Subchapter A—Tax on Petroleum, 26 USC § 4612(a)(4)(A) says “the term "United States" means the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, any possession of the United States, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.

The inclusion of all 50 States plus DC and a bunch of US territories makes it abundantly clear that Congress deliberately chose to apply the Internal Revenue Code, including 26 USC § 6012(a) only to the District of Columbia. I will tell you later why they did this.

Because of the above specific definition, from now on, whenever in the Title 26 we see the term “United States” or “State” it will be replaced with “District of Columbia, unless a different definition for that particular chapter or subchapter of Title 26 has been provided.

Let’s get back to some more definitions. 26 USC § 7701(a)(30) defines the term “United Sates person” as: “The term "United States person" means-
(A) a citizen or resident of the United States [which we have determined is only the District of Columbia], (B) a domestic partnership, (C) a domestic corporation, (D) any estate … (E) any trust if…” Now we know that a “US person”, for the purposes of the Internal Revenue Code, is actually a DC person.

26 USC § 7701(b)(1)(B)- Defines the term Nonresident alien as: “An individual is a nonresident alien if such individual is neither a citizen of the United States [District of Columbia] nor a resident of the United States [District of Columbia] (within the meaning of subparagraph (A)).” Interestingly, the definition of United States here specifically refers to the definition of United States as previously pointed out in 26 USC § 7701(a)(9).

With this understanding that Title 26 applies only to the District of Columbia (unless specifically defined otherwise for a specific chapter or sub-chapter), when we now turn to the Code of Federal Regulations, we will see that the secretary of Treasury’s interpretation of the law is completely consistent with the above reading of the law.

26 CFR § 1.1-1, which implements 26 USC § 1 in subsection (a) https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?S ... 1&rgn=div8 states: “(a) General rule. (1) Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States [District of Columbia] and, to the extent provided by section 871(b) or 877(b), on the income of a nonresident alien individual.”

26 CFR § 1.1-1(b) clearly defines for us “Citizens or residents of the United States liable to tax” as: “In general, all citizens of the United States [District of Columbia], wherever resident, and all resident alien individuals are liable to the income taxes imposed by the Code whether the income is received from sources within or without the United States [District of Columbia].” Wow. That makes quite clear who is required to pay Income Tax.

26 CFR § 1.1-1(c) specifically defines “Citizen” for us as: “Who is a citizen. Every person born or naturalized in the United States [District of Columbia] and subject to its jurisdiction [NOT the 50 states] is a citizen.” There you have it folks. The Income Tax applies to those who are born or naturalized in D.C. for income they may have anywhere in the universe. Notice also the use of the term subject to “it’s” jurisdiction; singular, referring to Washington D.C., not the collective of 50 states.

Referring back to Title 26, we see clearly that everyone else beside DC citizens and residents is considered nonresident aliens, and are only liable to the extent they have income connected to the federal government:
26 USC 7701(b)(1)(B) defines nonresident alien as “an individual [who] is neither a citizen nor a resident of the United States [District of Columbia]…
26 USC 871(b) https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req ... ion=prelim imposes a graduated rate of tax on nonresident alien individuals “engaged in trade or business within the United States [District of Columbia]…”, but only on “taxable income which is effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the United States [District of Columbia].
26 USC 7701(a)(26) “The term "trade or business" includes the performance of the functions of a public office.”

Pulling this all together, we can simplify the meaning of the Secretary’s introduction to individual income taxes in 26 CFR 1.1-1 like this: “The Code imposes, with certain exceptions and deductions and qualifications, an income tax on the income, from whatever source, of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the District of Columbia, and also on the income of anyone else that is effectively connected with the performance of the functions of a public office in the District of Columbia [like a foreign worker who works at a US Embassy in a foreign country].”

A nifty scam indeed was successfully imposed on the unsuspecting American People.


PART 2- WHY AND HOW THIS SCAM WAS CREATED IN THIS WAY

As you all know well, the US Constitution is one of the few government Constitutions in the world that has some specific limitations on its taxing powers; namely the requirement of uniformity of excise taxes and apportionment of direct taxes. The Pollack case told US Government it can not tax the fruits (profits) of Real Estate.

The 16th Amendment was proposed to rectify this “problem”, but since the Brushaber case and it’s progeny clearly stated that the 16th Amendment did not give US Government any new taxing powers the Federal Government could not impose an income tax on ordinary Americans. When that traitor, liar, Communist, Bankster’s-agent Franklin Roosevelt was installed as President, his handlers told him two things he must do:
1. Get the USA off the Gold standard so that bankers’ money creation and lending would no longer be limited by the amount of Gold in circulation. Roosevelt did so by an illegal executive order 6102 https://www.usmoneyreserve.com/blog/did ... d-in-1933/ because “people in the know” said that is what he should do.
2. Institute a Federal Income Tax, which was later admitted by Federal Reserve Board Chairman Beardsley Ruml was designed primarily to redistribute wealth and income, and to subsidize [favored] or penalize [unfavored] industries and stabilize the value of the Federal Reserve Notes that will now be greatly expanded through credit, by not having been tied to amount of gold in circulation and bank reserves. http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/RUMLTAXES.html

The gold confiscation was done with raw power and outlaw thuggery. For the taxation scheme, deception and propaganda were the main tools used against the American People to impose the income tax.
Wikipedia correctly summarizes Downes v. Bidwell case https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/182/244/: “Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901), was a case in which the US Supreme Court decided whether US territories were subject to the provisions and protections of the US Constitution. This issue is sometimes stated as whether the Constitution follows the flag. The resulting decision narrowly held that the Constitution did not necessarily apply to territories. Instead, the US Congress had jurisdiction to create law within territories in certain circumstances, particularly in those dealing with revenue, which would not be allowed by the Constitution for proper states within the Union.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downes_v._Bidwell.)

The opinion of justice Gray in syllabus states: “So long as Congress has not incorporated the territory into the United States, neither military occupation nor cession by treaty makes the conquered territory domestic territory in the sense of the revenue laws… If Congress is not ready to construct a complete government for the conquered territory, it may establish a temporary government, which is not subject to all the restrictions of the Constitution.”

The minority in this 5-4 decision issued this stern warning in their dissent statement: “The idea prevails with some, indeed it has expression in arguments at the bar, that we have in this country substantially two national governments; one to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to.... I take leave to say that, if the principles thus announced should ever receive the sanction of a majority of this court, a radical and mischievous change in our system will result. We will, in that event, pass from the era of constitutional liberty guarded and protected by a written constitution into an era of legislative absolutism.... It will be an evil day for American Liberty if the theory of a government outside the Supreme Law of the Land finds lodgment in our Constitutional Jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violation of the principles of the Constitution.”

Since the Brushaber case and its progeny would not allow unapportioned taxation of American’s income, the whole issue was avoided by writing the tax code as applicable to District of Columbia people (and businesses) and federal office-related activities, as shown above.

In 1937 the Social Security tax was imposed on the American People by using Downes, supra using the same deception scam that later on was used for the regular Income tax; applying the tax ONLY to D.C. and other territories of the United States https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req ... umpTo=true, wherein 26 USC § 3121(e) states: “For purposes of this chapter-
(1) State- The term "State" includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.
(2) United States- The term "United States" when used in a geographical sense includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.”

Since before mid 1930’s the Federal Government had very little jurisdiction over Americans’ lives, very few federal litigation took place and very few lawyers practiced Federal law or had federal law books in their practices’ law libraries. There was no Internet and extremely few law libraries, and those law libraries that did exist were nearly always used only by lawyers and judges.

No one paid attention to the extremely hidden definitions in 26 USC § 3121. The scam worked. No one noticed that the Social Security Act applied only to “Washington D.C., Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.”, The tax rate at that time was extremely low (only 1%) https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/taxRates.html, and propaganda was blasted on the American People, highlighting only the few Americans who at that time received money from this Socialist system. See

That’s enough about the Social Security scam. It takes longer to explain the legislative deception and definition scam of the Social Security Tax, uses an even more deceptive and complex definitions for terms such as Wages, Employee and Employer that are extremely limited in their jurisdiction and application.

PART 3 WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT NOW

Now that the puzzle of the Income Tax has been solved, I plan to start nationwide Redress of Grievance petitions based on the above research. As you all know, the IRS and DOJ management, along with the trial and appellate Federal courts have engaged in the practice of deliberately mis-enforcing the Federal Income Tax, despite its very limited application; upholding the validity of the income tax application on Americans despite clear US Supreme Court decisions, statutory and regulatory language that shows otherwise.

The people who can stop this misapplication of the law is Congress of the United States of America. Congress has the authority and power to initiate Congressional hearings, subpoena IRS, DOJ Management and Federal Judges and demand answers why they are openly and deliberately misapplying the Income Tax to Americans in the 50 states, to those who have no connections to D.C..

The House can and should impeach these public servants, so that after conviction by Senate they could be removed from public office for not having faithfully executing the tax laws of the United States. Congress should remove ALL of those in executive and judicial branch employees who have knowingly subverted Federal laws by applying the income tax laws to people of the 50 states that do not owe the income tax.

This process will ideally lead to a huge clean up of the executive and judicial branches. The new people in Executive and Judicial branches shall apply the income tax laws to those in D.C. or D.C. connected activities or persons as provide by law. This process is a most fundamental right of the people; to exercise our rights of free speech, association, assembly and press to ask Congress for redress of our grievance for misapplication of the income tax to the Americans in the 50 states.

The English had their Petition of Rights of 1628 https://www.britannica.com/topic/Petiti ... historyand the Grand Remonstrance in 1641 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Remonstrance that led to the English Bill of Rights of 1689 https://teachingamericanhistory.org/res ... ots-chart/.

America’s Founding Fathers also petitioned the King before resorting to a violent revolution to restore their freedom and rights https://www.history.com/this-day-in-his ... grievances . We need to do the same now.

Needles to say, this process will protect the Petitioners from criminal prosecution for failure to file tax charges, since neither the DOJ lawyer, not the judge would dare prosecute because all of this “reliance on the law as written” material, especially when done in a completely 1st Amendment way, is admissible in the court and will educate the jury about how the jurors have been ripped off while they will acquit the defendant of a “non-crime”
Please review the above legal citations carefully, if you see any faults in it, please let me know. If you see the above legal citations and analysis to be correct, then I would like to ask you to join me in this historic process.

Yours in freedom and justice,
Peymon Mottahedeh, President
Freedom Law School
www.LiveFreeNow.org (813)444-4800

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Below is a follow up email I sent in response to some concerns about definition of Washington D.C.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Someone pointed out to me that definitions in 26 USC Section 7701 are not conclusive because it is qualified by the statement: “where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof—" and then the definitions follow.

The answer is in the language you quote from definition of includes an including that state: “The terms “includes” and “including” when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined." Which means something otherwise included in that definition is in there. That does NOT mean add whatever else that someone thins ought to be there or imply more in the definition than that which is in the defining words.

Remember that Gould v. Gould strongly rejects taxation by implication. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/245/151/

If, it were otherwise, we could not define anything and the very specific definitions in various chapters subchapters or parts of the IRC become completely useless. You know that Messe v. Keene language that states: “It is axiomatic [obvious, self-evident] that the statutory definition of the term excludes unstated meanings of that term” [which was he holding of the case] is important when you see many examples of specific definitions of the term “United State” and “State” in multiple chapters or subchapters of the IRC.

If we were to ignore to ignore these definitions, we are plainly ignoring the Congress’s express definitions and intent. Here is a few of the VERY SPECIFIC definitions of the terms United States and State in various parts of the IRC:
1) Earlier I quoted 26 USC § 3121(e) states https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req ... umpTo=true : “For purposes of this chapter-
(1) State- The term "State" includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.
(2) United States- The term "United States" when used in a geographical sense includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.”
2) I also quoted for you 26 USC § 4612(a)(4)(A) https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req ... on:prelim) says “the term "United States" means the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, any possession of the United States, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.
3) Here is more: 26 USC Section 993(g) https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req ... on:prelim) states: “For purposes of this part, the term "United States" includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the possessions of the United States.”
4) One more: 26 USC Section 3306(J)(1) and (2) state: “For purposes of this chapter-
(1) State
The term "State" includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.
(2) United States
The term "United States" when used in a geographical sense includes the States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.
5) And here is the final nail in the coffin that these specific definitions mean ONLY what they say and exclude unstated things that otherwise a layman may assume that term means: 26 USC Section 6103(b)(5)(A)(i) ( a very extreme sub-sub-sub-sub section definition which I got it from Dave Champion’s book. Thanks Dave.) https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req ... on:prelim) that states:
“The term "State" means-
(i) any of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,

In 26 USC Section 6103(b)(5)(A)(i) the term State includes the 50 states and a few US Territories, such as Guam that are NOT states in the normal definition of the term “State”.

In 26 USC § 4612(a)(4)(A) “United States” includes the 50 states, but also the “Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands”, which clearly NOT a “state” in any ordinary definition of that term and - NONE of the other definitions include “Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands” in definition of “United States.” Is that accident or intent?

ALL of these sections have VERY SPECIFIC and VERY DIFFERENT definitions of the terms ”United States” and “State”. If we were to add ANYTHING beyond these very specific definitions, we have simply violated the precise intent of Congress and plain holding of Meese v. Keene that ruled: “It is axiomatic [obvious, self-evident] that the statutory definition of the term excludes unstated meanings of that term.”

If we were to ignore these VERY SPECIFIC DEFINITIONS, and imply that they include all 50 states and all us territories, we would be deliberately and knowingly ignoring the very specific Congressional intent!

No one has that legal authority to ignore thee very specific definitions that Congress has made of defining the terms United States and State, even if he (or his group of men) is a BAR approved man on a high bench with a black robe that people refer as “your honor!”

That man or men’s “honor” is not based on the position of trust that he has been “honored” with, but his honor in faithfully honoring the explicit definitions and intent of the lawmaker. A criminal is a criminal, whether he violates the law on a street corner or from a high bench in black robe. Judges are human and can be criminals too!

Remember the case of Dredd Scott v. Sanford https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford where the “honorable” group of men on high benches ruled according to Wikipedia’s summary that:
“Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in which the Court held that the US Constitution was not meant to include American citizenship for black people, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and so the rights and privileges that the Constitution confers upon American citizens could not apply to them.”

Americans, like me derided and strongly opposed Dred Scott decision as a political hack job, a criminal enterprise, a violation of a most basic right of a human being to be treated as an animal, instead of a man. Right?

However, some people defended the “holy Judges of the US Supreme Court.” It took many decades for Americans, like me to be proven right in the course of history.

If anyone that would defend these unelected judges in their enforcing their criminal violation version of their ILLEGAL/CRIMINAL LAWMKING, that person is guilty of the same crimes!

So when in 26 USC § 7701(a)(9) and (10) United States and State are defined as Washington D.C. we MUST accept that fact.

Conclusion:
Federal Income Tax applies ONLY to Washington D.C. residents, citizens and income connected/derived from Washington D.C. (The last part will be detailed in other essays)

[peymon]

Dear notorial dissent,

Why did I get a spam warning? I am not a spammer. Why was I labeled as such from the get go? Why prejudging?

Are we not all entitled to the presumption of innocent until PROVEN GUILTY?

Are my post and replies gong to get censored? Or will they be allowed in a free intellectual, civil debate and conversation?

[LaVidaRoja]

When I feel like reading pages of entertaining gibberish, I'll pull out Dr. Seuss