The tree of liberty, now withered and near death, is in great need of watering by the husbandmen of the house of freedom. A cry has gone out into our land. Who among you willing to place your sacred honor upon the alter of liberty?

“In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility–I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with and other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it—and the glow from that fire can truly light the world”.
President John F. Kennedy, Inaugural Address 1961

Edward Abbey
“A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.”

J. Edgar Hoover
“No matter how paranoid or conspiracy-minded you are, what the government is actually doing is worse than you imagine.”

President Harry Truman
“I don’t give ‘em hell. I just tell the truth on them; it makes them feel like they’re in Hell!”

The Bankruptcy of The United States
United States Congressional Record, March 17, 1993 Vol. 33, page H-1303
Speaker-Rep. James Traficant, Jr. (Ohio) addressing the House:
“Mr. Speaker, we are here now in chapter 11.. Members of Congress are official trustees presiding over the greatest reorganization of any Bankrupt entity in world history, the U.S. Government. We are setting forth hopefully, a blueprint for our future. There are some who say it is a coroner’s report that will lead to our demise. It is an established fact that the United States Federal Government has been dissolved by the Emergency Banking Act, March 9, 1933, 48 Stat. 1, Public Law
89-719; declared by President Roosevelt, being bankrupt and insolvent. H.J.R. 192, 73rd Congress m
session June 5, 1933 – Joint Resolution To Suspend The Gold Standard and Abrogate The Gold Clause dissolved the Sovereign Authority of the United States and the official capacities of all United States Governmental Offices, Officers, and Departments and is further evidence that the United States Federal Government exists today in name only…”

Congressman Louis T. McFadden.
Congressman McFadden on the Federal Reserve Corporation
Remarks in Congress, 1934
The Federal Reserve-A Corrupt Institution

“Mr. Chairman, we have in this Country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks, hereinafter called the Fed. The Fed has cheated the Government of these United States and the people of the United States out of enough money to pay the Nation’s debt. The depredations and iniquities of the Fed has cost enough money to pay the National debt several times over….”

Robert H. Hemphill,
Credit Manager of the Federal Reserve Bank, Atlanta Georgia
“We are completely dependent on the commercial banks. Someone has to barrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash or credit. If the banks create ample synthetic money, we are prosperous; if not, we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent money system. When one gets a complete grasp of the picture, the tragic absurdity of our hopeless position is almost incredible, but there it is. It is the most important subject intelligent persons can investigate and reflect upon. It is so important that our present civilization may collapse unless it becomes widely
understood and the defects remedied soon.”

Congressman Ron Paul
“If we stuck to the Constitution as written, we would have: no federal meddling in our schools; no Federal Reserve; no U.S. membership in the UN; no gun control; and no foreign aid. We would have no welfare for big corporations, or the “poor”; no American troops in 100 foreign countries; no NAFTA, GAT, or “fast-track”; no arrogant federal judges usurping states rights; no attacks on private property; no income tax. We could get rid of most of the agencies, and most of the
budget. The government would be small, frugal, and limited.”

President Ronald Reagan, May 1983, Williamsburg, VA
“Our federal tax system is, in short, utterly impossible, utterly unjust and completely counterproductive [it] reeks with injustice and is fundamentally un-American… it has earned a rebellion and it’s time we rebelled.”

The Sixteenth Amendment, lawfully passed or not, really has no bearing upon whether or not the money received by a man or women engaged in an occupation of common right is subject to a direct tax. The authors of the 16th Amendment never intended it to affect the property of that class of American (See the Congressional record for legislative intent in the passing of the 16th Amendment).

The IRS/DOJ, along with a compliant judiciary, have used public ignorance of history to convince people that what was once not allowed by the Constitution was now allowable due to the passage of the 16th Amendment. We now know they were spreading a falsehood, (LIES), and they continue to lie up to the present.

I imagine it will not be too much longer before a critical mass of Americans know what we are writing about, much to the detriment to government employees (and H&R Block). I would not want to be an employee of the IRS when that critical mass reaches the boiling point. I see necks stretched from lamp posts up and down Pennsylvania Avenue.

26 USC 5005 Persons liable for tax.
(a) General.
The distiller or importer of distilled spirits shall be liable for the taxes imposed by section 5001(a)(1)

26 USC 5703 Liability for tax and method of payment.
(a) Liability for tax.
(1) Original liability.
The manufacturer or importer of tobacco products and cigarette papers and tubes shall be liable for the taxes imposed by section 5701.

26 USC 4401 Imposition of tax.
(c) Persons liable for tax
Each person who is engaging in the business of accepting wagers shall be liable for and pay the tax under this subchapter on all wagers placed with him.

Congressman John E. Ensign–
“I cannot point to a specific place in the law where it says you must pay income taxes.”

Congressman Dan Burton—
“You are correct in your assertion that the word “liability” or terminology “liability for income taxes” is not contained in any Section of the Internal Revenue Code”

Alexander Hamilton
“If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government.” Federalist Papers 28

Aaron Russo: “Is there a law that requires people to file a 1040?”
Congressman Ron Paul: “Not explicitly, but it’s certainly implied.”
Aaron Russo: “Well implied by force; but is there a law?”
Congressman Ron Paul: “I cannot cite a law, no, I cannot….you know if they think it’s a law and they have all the guns; you know it’s an authoritarian approach.” {Taken from the movie “America: Freedom to Fascism”}

Sir Winston Churchill
“Most people, sometime in their lives, stumble across the truth. Most jump up, brush themselves off, and hurry on about their business as if nothing had happened.”

Henry Kissinger
“The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.”

Dwight E. Avis
Head of ATF
IRS House Ways and Means Subcommittee Hearings 1953
“Let me point this out now. Your income tax is 100 percent voluntary and your liquor tax is 100 percent enforced tax. Now the situation is as different as day and night. Consequently, your same rules just will not apply… ”

T. Coleman Andrews
Commissioner of IRS
“Maybe we ought to see that every person who gets a tax return receives a copy of the Communist Manifesto with it so he can see what’s happening to him.”
U.S. News & World Report May 25, 1956

Jack Cole Co. v. MacFarland
337 S.W. 2d. 453, 455-456 (Tenn. 1960)
“Since the Right to receive income or earnings is a Right belonging to every person, this right cannot be taxed as a privilege.”

Daniel J. Mitchell
Economist
“Compare this (40% to 75% total local, State and Federal tax rate) to the plight of medieval serfs. They only had to give the lord of the manor a third of their output and they were considered slaves. So what does that make us?”

Henry Bellmon Senator (1969)
“In a recent conversation with an official at the Internal Revenue Service, I was amazed when he told me that ‘If the taxpayers of this country ever discover that the IRS operates on 90% bluff the entire system will collapse.’”

Irwin Schiff…. “Organized crime in America begins with the Federal Government. The Federal Government has been literally extorting income tax money from the American public, also running the worlds biggest counterfeit ring because all US Coin and Currency is counterfeit. The Constitution requires it to be gold and silver. Social Security is a chain letter, there are no trust funds even though they claim there are trust funds. And of course the IRS runs the worlds biggest fence. All articles seized by the IRS are stolen from the People because they weren’t required to pay income taxes so it’s all stolen. Then they sell it and it’s all stolen so the federal Government runs the worlds biggest fence.”

President Ronald Reagan, May 1983, Williamsburg, VA
“Our federal tax system is, in short, utterly impossible, utterly unjust and completely counterproductive [it] reeks with injustice and is fundamentally un-American… it has earned a rebellion and it’s time we rebelled.”

What often happens when a defendant is acquitted of the charge of willful failure to file, the IRS/DOJ go after them in a civil proceding. Whether that will happen in this case I do not know.

It is, however, important to understand the underlying issue of whether or not most of us receiving money for performing work in what is called “occupations of common right” are liable per the Constitution and the laws written to effect the will of Congress. The Cryer case did not “prove” this one way or the other. And, as you cover in your recent post, no court decision seems to have directly addressed this issue so as to settle it once and for all.

No court in this nation will ever voluntarily rule on the legality of forcing payment of taxes as tribute for working in an occupation of common right. The courts and judges therein will not allow the law to be discussed in detail, and the judges will go so far as to deny the defense their due-process rights during trial. A recent example of this was the prosecution of the Brown’s in New Hampshire.

The jury in Attorney Cryer’s trial read his Memordandum. I have read the Memorandum, and find it to be more than sufficient to settle the legal issue of whether or not Congress has caused laws to be written requiring the average man or woman to pay tribute from the money they receive working in occupations of common right. I challenge any attorney, judge, IRS official, etc. to debate the facts within the Memorandum. They never will because they are cowards of the first magnitude.

The ‘We The People’ foundation challenged Congress, and most recently the Supreme Court, to debate the points raised by Attorney Cryer, and they refused. Why? Because they know the truth. They also know that they would be forced to admit that the people of this nation have been forced to pay a direct tax on their labor, without any liability for that tax being imposed by by Congress.

You wrote that if they could, judges “would issue rulings that said explicitly “this ruling applies to this case specifically and no other”. Judges do issue rulings with written restrictions attached. The deciding judge will mark the transcript such that it is not to be quoted as “case law” in any other proceeding. This happens all the time.

You mention that you only give credence to court-issued documents, decisions, etc. The IRS is famous for quoting decisions reached by lower courts, but seldom if ever quote Supreme Court Decisions. The IRS’s handbook admits that lower court rulings are to be regarded as applicable ONLY to the case wherein the decision was reached. Lower court rulings are NOT to be used to support any IRS arguments against other cases. This rule, however, is regularly broken.

I suggest that anyone waiting to hear an honest and open debate within a court of law concerning these issues will wait in vain. The judges simply will not allow it to happen.The only forum where the issue is being debated in an honest, full, and open manner is on the internet. Reading Attorney Cryer’s Memorandum is a good place to start one’s education.

I cannot understand why any seeker of truth would insist upon that truth being forthcoming only from “authoritative” sources. We must forever be aware that those with vested interests, those with a great need to maintain the status quo and their own personal paradigm, will resist the truth, distort the truth, and finally prevent the truth from being heard entirely. Leland, his is the condition we are faced with today.

Understanding the history of taxation in America can and will take years of study. Most people cannot afford the investment in time and intellect that such an endeavor would require. That is why we have “specialists” and “experts”, they say, who’s job it is to tell us what the truth really is. Well, the specialists and experts have gone over to the dark side. They know who provides their bread and butter, and they are not about to antagonize their master. They are compromised and thus they cannot be trusted. It is up to each one of us to ascertain the truth. It is up to each one of us, if we care, to exert the effort required to understand what is really required of us per the law. The only alternative for the ignorant is to continue to sheepishly pay tribute to their government masters.

Is the property of a free man and woman taxable? The answer, throughout the history of our species, is No! – Not without his or her consent.

In the united States called “America”, the people gave their consent and recorded it as such in their ‘Constitution for the united States of America’. Art. 1, Sections 2, 8, & 9 of that document contain the taxing clauses, listing two, and only two, types of taxes which may be levied by the Federal Government for revenue. All taxes must fall within what has been termed the “two great taxing clauses” . They are “Direct Taxes” and “Indirect Taxes”.

Direct taxes are imposed upon the property of a man or woman, and are paid directly by the man or woman to the taxing authority. Indirect taxes, also called excise taxes, usually entail the use of a “middleman” for collection, as happens when you buy gasolene or alcohol. Excise taxes can also be imposed upon certain privileged activities.

The Constitution binds the Federal Government as far as the levying and collection of Direct taxes from the property of the citizens residing in one of the 50 States. The Constitution requires that Direct taxes be apportioned amoung the 50 States. That means the Federal Government must engage the governments of the 50 States to collect that revenue.

Most people, and especially the IRS, DOJ, judges, and H&R Block, like to believe that the 16th Amendment to the Constitution relieved the Federal Government of that burden. However, that is simply not true. The Supreme Court said in Staton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916) “The provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation”.
Other Supreme Court rulings have reiterated this fact.

We have witnessed numerous IRS officials, judges in federal court, university professors, and editors of newspapers insist that the 16th Amendment changed the Constitution such that a man or woman’s labor in an occupation of common right was now directly taxable by the Federal Government. Anyone supporting this contention is either profoundly ignorant or a liar.’
(I so wish before I die that I read in a newspaper an editorial opinion that includes calling some government official or judge a liar.)

Attorney Tom Cryer was acquitted. Why was he acquited? The jury listened as the defense challenged the IRS/DOJ to produce the law that Attorney Cryer had broken. They could not. How much clearer can that be? Why the need for judicial comment upon the obvious?

Leland, I take exception to your characterizing the scholarship of the tax honesty movement as so much “ballyhoo”. Your refusal to read Attorney Cryer’s Memorandum, coupled with your insistance that only court rulings contain legitimate facts and truths concerning the law, do not reflect well upon the character of your intellect. I urge you to reconsider the postion you have taken. As an editor you owe it to your readers to present the facts in this debate.

Newspaper editors must have the “stones” to present the material in an unbiased manner and let the reader draw their own conclusions. As an institution, the newspaper industry has shown itself to be firmly in the grasp of the government when it comes to presenting the facts. I cannot ever remember reading an article where the paper has presented evidence of a judge trampling the due-process rights of a defendant. That same paper will, however, highlight the “learned” decision of that same judge when he punishes an innocent man or woman.

In conclusion I must again impress upon all men and woman to take the time and expend the effort to learn the truth for themselves. That is the only manner in which this beast can be subdued and liberty returned to our land. The courts and their judges are bought and paid for. Look not to them for the answers.

If Mr. Cryer was indeed found “not guilty”, what was the basis for the verdict? If it was as stated above, that the IRS/DOJ didn’t prove that Mr. Cryer knew that he had to pay tax but wilfully failed to, then it doesn’t seem as if Mr. Cryer has a leg to stand on, so to speak – the case wasn’t about whether or not “income” was what Mr. Cryer or the IRS claimed it is, or who owes who what, but it was purely about whether or not Mr. Cryer was guilty of wilfully failing to pay tax he knew he was liable for. As such, the underlying issues about income and such as posed by Mr. McCoy above weren’t addressed and still remain open. As far as I’ve been able to determine, Mr. Cryer is still legally liable to pay the $73,000 in taxes the IRS says he’s liable for, and he’s still liable for failing to file income tax returns – the court didn’t say anything at all about that. If I’m wrong, would someone please point me to the relevant court documents?

Despite all the ballyhoo on both sides of the issue, no one’s been able to point to a *specific* case ruling on the issues at hand, just cases touching on inference and speculation about what the case really meant. So, Mr. Cryer’s “victory” really means nothing at all in regards to the underlying questions.

That’s unfortunate – it would really be nice if a Federal court judge had the stones to say, “hey, tax protesters, IRS, come get some – lay it all out, and we’ll rule on all of this stuff, once and for all, clearly and unambiguously ruling on each and every point that both sides present, and put this issue to rest.” But I guess that’s wishful thinking – I get irritated at case after case decided on by the USSC that says that either “you didn’t bring it up, so even though it’s relevant, we’re not addressing it” or “we’re just not going to address that issue”. The Justices that decided fundamental issues at law – Marbury vs. Madison, Miranda vs. Arizona, Escobedo vs. Illinois – are long gone, it seems, in favor of judges that issue rulings drawn as narrowly as possible. It seems if they could, judges would issue rulings that said explicitly “this ruling applies to this case specifically and no other”. The state of jurisprudence in this country is very sad.