Index | Parent Index | Build Freedom: Archive


by Frederick Mann
© Copyright 1993 Build Freedom Holdings, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Among the countries of the world, the U.S.A. is unique in that its national government was established as a servant of the people. The U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights place severe limits on the powers of the federal government. The IRS (and other federal "alphabet vampires") arrogantly, brazenly, and criminally violate the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. They get away with this is because most individuals are too ignorant, brainwashed, and terrified to stand up for their rights.

The American Revolution which brought about the greatest civilization on earth was based on a complete break from the British feudal system. In the feudal system, the King was sovereign and effectively owned everything. The King's subjects could have feudal title to land, provided they paid tribute to the King. All that changed with the American Revolution. Individuals became sovereigns who had allodial title to their land. "Allodial" effectively means not subject to tax and can't be taken away. During the past two centuries, America has been gradually reverting back to the feudal system. The time has come for Americans to wake up and reclaim their birthright.

To reclaim your birthright you need two things: the determination to do so, and knowledge. Knowledge builds confidence. Confidence gives you power. One of the most important byproducts of knowledge is self-confidence. Knowledge and confidence combined is a mighty and invisible power that can enable you to do the seemingly impossible. But, knowledge is only valuable if you qualify yourself for its use, if you understand it, and then if you actually follow through and apply it.

The basic purpose of this report is to introduce you to a few tax abatement services. There are many organizations that provide such services. Before using their services you should check them out carefully. You should also carefully consider the strategy suggested in Report #16D: The Most Powerful Income Protection Ammo. You should read some or all of the books mentioned in Report #TL16A: The Best Kept Secrets of the IRS. You may also want to study the two books by Otto Skinner: The Best Kept Secret - "Taxpayer" v. Nontaxpayer and If You are The Defendant; obtainable from Mr. Skinner at PO Box 6609, San Pedro, CA 90734.

Suppose your income is $40,000 a year and you pay one quarter of that in federal and state income taxes, that is, $10,000 - or $833 per month. Suppose that through investing a certain amount of money in buying books and materials, and a certain period of time studying this information, you can save yourself $833 per month. So the question becomes: "How much time and money are you willing to invest in order to earn an extra $833 per month?"

You also need to consider the risk involved. You need to realize that just by being involved with the IRS, you take a risk. Many people have lost a great deal of money and property just by being involved with the IRS and believing that they were obeying the law. Someone has just sent me a copy of a letter from the Department of Health & Human Services:

"Your Social Security benefit check for November 1993 in the amount of $419.00 has been surrendered to the Internal Revenue Service. This action is in compliance with a Notice of Levy issued by the Internal Revenue Service of the Treasury Department under section 6331, Internal Revenue Code of 1954.

If you wish additional information or have any questions about this action, please contact the local office of the Internal Revenue Service."

On the letter the victim wrote: "I do not owe IRS anything and need help to get these funds returned. I'm an unemployed senior citizen, married 46 years, fathered & reared 6 daughters, 4 sons and our 20th grandchild just born July 9th, 1993 - & it's Christmas time (isn't that nice?) after 50 years of laboring."

Many IRS agents have quotas to fill. Internally the IRS also operates on terror. Agents who don't meet their quotas are terrorized to up their production. So who do they routinely pounce on? Those least able to defend themselves. Toeing their line does not reduce your risk. And if you become dependent on government - then you're really at risk.

You also need to consider the risk of cutting your ties with the IRS. In my opinion, this risk is unlikely to exceed the risk of remaining involved with the IRS - particularly if you organize your affairs so there's nothing for them to seize. You also need to consider the time and money it might cost you to reorganize your affairs so you own no or few assets the IRS can seize.

If you utilize a tax abatement service you may have to pay them anything from a few hundred dollars up to several thousand. Some charge as much as eight to ten thousand! And if you use such a service, I would highly recommend that you still educate yourself. If the shit hits the fan you need to be able to defend yourself.

You also need to consider the morality of financing the IRS. Then there are the practical implications of people generally supporting the tyrant, and what would happen when a critical mass withdraws support. Do you want to be part of the critical mass?

There is also the issue of self-respect and self-esteem. What does it do to your self-respect and self-esteem to surrender part of your labor to the tyrant? How does it make you feel when you fill out the tyrant's forms? How does it make you feel when you realize that by paying the tyrant you finance tryanny, or even the destruction of civilization?

The following article is to introduce you to a particular tax abatement service. It is reprinted with permission from the AntiShyster, PO Box 540786, Dallas, TX 75354-0786, or call (214) 559-7957 - annual subscription $25.


by Louis E. De Broux, Jr.

Congress claims it can't balance the budget because Americans aren't paying enough taxes. But between 1980 and 1991, tax revenues increased by an average of 8% per year. However, during that time, Congress increased spending by 11% per year. In fact, while total tax receipts have doubled since 1980, federal spending has almost tripled - growing at nearly three times the rate of inflation. Government's fiscal irresponsibility has caused the national debt to grow so large that some people predict that by 1995, the national debt payment alone will consume 100% of the income tax collected, leaving no money to pay for government programs or "benefits."

Ironically, our continuing willingness to be "taxpayers" may be helping to make America a third world country AND the world 's all- time champion DEBTOR! It may be that the only way to stop government spending - and thereby save ourselves and this nation - may be to stop paying taxes.

If this idea sounds absurd, bear in mind that approximately 113 million individual tax returns were filed in 1991, but in the Spring of 1993, the IRS admitted that 10 million people aren't filing - that's about 8% (one person in twelve) of the total population the IRS believes "should" file.

Moreover, in October, 1993, the IRS admitted that 914,000 fewer people filed income tax returns in 1992 than in 1991 - that's a nine percent increase in non-filers in a single year. And those are the numbers the IRS admits in public. Some people believe the real number of non-filers may range between 20 and 30 million (between 15% and 20% of those of us who "should" file), and the real number of "new" non-filers may be two or three million per year. It appears that for whatever reason - patriotic, economic, or just plain perverse - the number of non-filers is growing too rapidly for the IRS to handle and so rapidly that our entire income tax system may be within a very few years of collapse.

The following article is an "info-mercial" of sorts that outlines some of the theory behind one strategy for freeing yourself from the Social Security Administration, the IRS, and income taxes. The author sells a package of documents which he believes can sever your relationships and obligations to the "system." I've seen Mr. De Broux's package and it is impressive but also so large and detailed that I am incapable of judging its merit. So don't interpret this introduction as an outright endorsement of Mr. De Broux's product - as usual, I am merely presenting a cautious "consideration" of a strategy and source that I suspect may be solid.

For more information, Mr. De Broux's prices, address, telephone number, etc. appear at the end of this article.

In the past several years, I've uncovered astounding information concerning the true nature of the IRS scam that has unlawfully bled so many American Citizens of their hard-earned wealth and given it to those who would create a "New World Order." In general, my research has focused on the factors used by the IRS and Courts to determine whether a "person" is a "taxpayer." If this focus seems esoteric, bear in mind that definitions are not only crucial to understanding the law, they can make an enormous difference in your life. [You may wish to ask an attorney "at Law" to confirm, this information as I am not licensed by any state as an Attorney or Accountant to advise you. If (s)he gives you advice contrary to the information you find here, I suggest you ask for it in writing, including all cases cites and statutes on which (s)he relies to rebut the position stated here. The attorney's written statement may be used as basis for a suit for damages if you find out later that (s)he has improperly advised you.]

For example, few people realize that merely paying a tax does NOT make an individual a "taxpayer" in the legal sense of the word. Even fewer realize that the Courts recognize a complete class of peop1e known as "non-taxpayers":

"Under the circumstances here recited it is obvious the appellees are not taxpayers in the strict sense of the word, and therefore they do not come within the orbit of the income tax laws here involved." Stuart v. Chinese Chamber of Commerce of Phoenix, 168 F 2d 712.

That suggests that one of the parties in the Stuart case does not fall under the authority of the income tax laws and therefore does not have to pay taxes. Why? Because:

"The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to non- taxpayers. The latter are without their scope." Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F 236, DC Montana (1922).

Or, more clearly stated:
"The revenue laws .... relate to taxpayers and not to non- taxpayers. With them [i.e, non-taxpayers] congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of the revenue laws." First National Bank Emlenton Pa. v. U.S., 161 F. Supp. 847 (DC WD Pa 3 Cir 1958). [Bracketed comment added

"In common usage, the term "persons" does not include the sovereign, and statutes employing it will ordinarily not be construed to do so." U.S. v. United Mine Workers, 330 US 258; 91 L. Ed 884; 67 S.Ct. 677.

If you'd like to learn if you are a "taxpayer" or a "non-taxpayer," you should:
"Keep(ing) in mind the well settled rule that the citizen is exempt from taxation unless the same is imposed by clear and unequivocal language, and that where the construction of a tax law is doubtful, the doubt is to be resolved in favor of those upon whom the tax is sought to be laid." Spreckles Sugar Refining Co. v. McClain, 192 US 397, 416, 24 S.Ct. 383 (1904).

Anyone who's read the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) can tell you that IRC language is hardly "clear and unequivocal." So where do we find the "clear and unequivocal language" that makes us "taxpayers?"

At birth the natural individual is a "sovereign," receiving all Rights inalienable from his Creator/God. However, over time his status as a "sovereign" (who does not pay taxes) mysteriously changes to that of "taxpayer". How does that status change? Through contracts with the government in which the individual "sovereign" voluntarily (and unwittingly) accepts the status of "taxpayer."

The essentials of a contract, according to Blacks Law Dictionary (5th), are (1) Competent parties, (2) subject matter, (3) a legal consideration, (4) mutuality of agreement, and (5) mutuality of obligation.

According to Black's definition of "competent" a (person) may be said to be "competent" if he or she UNDERSTANDS: (1) the general nature and extent of his property, (2) his relationship to the people named in the (contract), (3) what a (contract) is, and (4) the transaction of simple business affairs. Also, if you do not freely enter the contract and accept its supposed benefits, there cannot reasonably be claimed to be a "mutuality of agreement."

As you read the following material, ask yourself if you were legally "competent" when you entered your contracts with government, and if you entered those contracts "freely." If you did not, there is a legal and moral basis for voiding those contracts and regaining your status as "sovereign."

My research indicates there are three principal "contracts," any one of which can change one's status from "sovereign" to "taxpayer." There may be other similar contracts of which I am unaware, but you should know of these three: 1) Social Security (SSN) and/or Taxpayer Identification (TIN) Numbers; 2) the 1040 income tax return form; and 3) the W-4 withholding certificate/form.

Declaration Against Interest
Unfortunately, like most living creatures, man is an opportunist. That is, we are generally no more able to resist the lure of a "free lunch" than a rodent can resist the lure of free cheese stuck to the trigger mechanism of a mousetrap. Relying on the public's desire for "free" benefits and privileges, our government "servants" have built a better "mantrap" which they bait with "benefits." Of course, unlike the cheese/mousetrap contraption that kills mice, the benefit/tax mantrap enslaves men.

If you don't do something to disclaim the "bait" (the Social Security contract), it is assumed with certainty that you accept it and you are therefore trapped/enslaved into paying taxes. Surely one who realizes how little that system will ever profit him wouldn't stay in it if he had good sense and a way out. But before you act, you must decide whether you wish to seek government "benefits" associated with the "taxpayer" status, or totally reject the taxpayer status and any real or imagined benefits which attach.

The Social Security Administration has told me that once in, you cannot withdraw from their program. If it's true we can't withdraw, then I believe the only way to break free is through the use of a "Declaration against interest" described on page 367, Black's Law, above and further in Federal Rules of Evidence, rule 804(b)(3) as "Statement against interest."

This declaration/statement is roughly equivalent to those classified newspaper "notices" where one person (usually a husband or wife) disclaims responsibility for the debts of the other.

I have developed such a declaration/statement which I call an "Administrative Demand/Administrative Law Brief" ("AD/ALB") and can sell to others. The AD/ALB documentation runs from 42 to 44 pages. The package is set up so you only have to remove it from the pre-addressed envelopes, sign the documents in eight places, have one page notarized, slip it back into the pre-addressed envelopes, take it to the post office and mail it.

However, the AD/ALB is NOT a "silver bullet." No such instrument exists as far as I know. Just as if you carried a .4 5 calibre side-arm to protect yourself from thugs but failed to learn how to load, cock, aim, and fire it, its mere appearance might intimidate the average crook, but one who discovers your ignorance of the weapon's use and true power may assault you in spite of it. Likewise, the AD/ALB is only as effective as your knowledge and understanding of its contents and your confidence that law will prevail if you hold to the correct position. It is a TOOL designed to prove, if necessary, your legal position and claim on your right to be sovereign over your labor and property.

Further, I will not always be available to assist you at the times you may desire. Anyone who "guarantees" you they will, is clearly lying. Though I am highly regarded for my craft, if you become dependent on me or any individual or group, you are only trading one task-master for another. The AD/ALB will stake your claim to personal sovereignty and build a very efficient wall against those who try to invade it. But ultimately, the reward and responsibility for your freedom rests solely on you!

If you are interested in having an AD/ALB crafted to regain your personal freedom, the investment is $137.50 [One hundred thirty-seven dollars, fifty cents in pre-1965 silver coin (lawful money)]; or 125 Troy ounces .999 silver; or 1.5 Troy ounces .999 gold; or 500 Federal Reserve Account Unit Dollars [FRAUDS]. To include your spouse, add an additional forty percent (40%) (i.e., 200 F.R.A.U.D.'s) and twenty percent (20%) for each minor child who has been assigned a socialist insecurity number. Payment should be in specie (gold or silver), F.R.A.U.D.'s or U.S. Postal Money Orders with the "payee" left blank. I have no means of clearing checks or credit cards.

The AD/ALB takes approximately ten days to craft and will come to you complete with all certifications, return receipts, and packaged addressed to the ten governmental officers necessary to effect your withdrawal from "the system."

LOUIS E. DE BROUX, JR., C.L.A.S.P. Citizen's Legal Assistance & Strategy Program), 6595 Roswell Road - Suite 800, Atlanta, Georgia state 30328; (404) 250-7243.


Most tax abatement services work on the basis that packages of documentation are prepared for you. You mail the packages to ten or more government officials around the country. A disadvantage of this approach is that you effectively announce to ten or more government agencies that you are no longer their obedient slave. This may induce them to put you on their hit list and at some time to come after you.

Another approach is to simply quietly disappear as far as the IRS is concerned - and to organize your affairs so there's nothing for them to seize. A further approach is described in Report #TL16D: The Most Powerful Income Protection Ammo.

If you are considering using a tax abatement service I suggest you check out the following:

If you need advice on how to persuade your employer to stop illegally withholding money for the IRS from your paycheck, contact the above organizations, and/or study the books mentioned in Report #TL16A: The Best Kept Secrets of the IRS, particularly The Federal Zone and The Federal Mafia, and or contact the people listed below.

If you are in need of a tax attorney who understands the issues raised in the Build Freedom tax reports, I recommend:

Before sending materials prepared by a tax abatement organization to government officials, satisfy yourself that the organization is not an FBI sting operation. Also realize that such organizations may be infiltrated by FBI or IRS undercover agents. Caveat emptor!

Organize your affairs so the assets you control are difficult to find. Use a P.O. Box or a maildrop address. Don't set yourself up as a sitting duck

Legal Background to Tax Abatement Services

1. Income Tax Voluntary
IRS literature often uses the terms "self-assessment" and "voluntary compliance." The reason for this is that senior IRS personnel know that the law does not require most Americans to file income tax returns. The income tax does not apply to most Americans unless they voluntarily enter into a contract with the IRS. By filling out, signing, and filing an income tax return you voluntarily enter into a contract with the IRS. Tax Abatement Services claim that they get you out of these contracts.

Section 6013(g)4 of the Internal Revenue Code says you have the right of "termination of election." You "elected" to enter into a contract with the IRS. You can terminate that "election" whenever you wish.

2. The Internal Revenue Code is not Law
There is a distinction between "positive law" and "prima facie law." Positive law is law. Prima facie law appears to be law, but isn't. The Internal Revenue Code consists of administrative rules, not law. If you examine the title page of the United States Code, you will find that some "titles" are preceded by an asterisk (*), and some not. The legend states. "* This title has been enacted as positive law." There is no asterisk in front of Title 26 (Internal Revenue Code) because Title 26 is not law.

The Internal Revenue Code couldn't be enacted into positive law, because it would violate the U.S. Constitution which prohibits direct taxes on individuals. This is one reason why the IRS resorts to deception and terror-tactics to brainwash people that they have to pay income taxes.

3. Cheek v. U.S. (No. 89-658; 1991 U.S. Lexis 348; 1991 WL 422 [U.S.])
This Supreme Court case represents a major turning point for those seeking to defend their rights against the IRS. Prior to this case, many courts applied the so-called "Cooley rule," which was effectively used to prevent people from entering evidence for their own defence in tax cases. Typically, prosecutors would file preliminary ("in limine") motions prohibiting defendants from entering evidence to defend themselves. Thus most tax prosecutions occurred in farcical kangaroo courts where the defendants were not allowed to defend themselves!

The Cheek decision changed that. Among other things it found:
(a) Defendants may enter evidence in their defense.
(b) Defendants can provide a "good faith" defense: if they sincerely believed (no matter how irrational the belief) that they didn't have to file and pay income tax, then they can't be guilty of a crime.

4. Ramon and Dolores Portillo v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. (932 F.2d 1128 [5th Cir., 1991])
The Cheek case was a severs blow to the IRS in criminal cases. The U.S. Court of Appeals of the Fifth Circuit likewise dealt a severe blow to the IRS in civil cases. The court effectively found that in the case of an IRS assessment of tax deficiency, the burden of proof shifts to the IRS. In other words, they have to prove that you owe them money.

5. The 16th Amendment
People commonly believe that the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, supposedly ratified in 1913, grants the power under which the IRS operates. This belief is false on two counts:
(a) The 16th Amendment was never ratified. (For the compelling evidence, get the book The Law That Never Was from Common Sense Press, PO Box 1544, Billings, MT 59103.)
(b) The 16th Amendment, even if ratified, is just a smokescreen that doesn't grant any new taxing powers to Congress. The Supreme Court found in 1916 in the case Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co.; 240 U.S. 1, that the 16th Amendment didn't extend the taxing powers of Congress.

6. Federal Jurisdiction
Two clauses in the Constitution define federal jurisdiction:
(a) Article I, Section 8, Clause 17: "The Congress shall have the power to exercise exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the Government of the United States; and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, and other needful nuildings... "

(b) Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2: "The Congress shall have the power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States... "

I've got news for you, folks: The territorial and legislative jurisdiction of the U.S. Congress extends to the ten square miles of Washington DC, military installations where States have explicitly ceded authority to the federal government, and U.S. Territories such as Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands. In accordance, IRS income taxes apply (if they apply at all) to people who live and/or work in these areas, or who work for the federal government. The IRS has no income tax jurisdiction in the 50 States. The issue of federal jurisdiction is covered in more detail in Report #TL8: U.S. Federal Jurisdiction.

7. Employer Withholding
The term "employee," as defined in Section 3401(c) of the Internal Revenue Code, is "an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any or more of the foregoing. The term "employee" also includes an officer of a [federal?] corporation." Very few workers are "employees" according to this definition.

It is illegal for an employer to deduct anything from a worker's wages or salary, without express instruction from the worker (except for workers who are "employees" as defined above).

8. Who is a "Person Required?"
The definition of the term "person" in Section 6049(d) of the Internal Revenue Code, illustrates the absurdity under which the IRS operates: "The term "person" includes any governmental unit and any agency or instrumentality thereof and any international organization and any agency or instrumentality thereof."

Section 7203 of the Internal Revenue Code starts with the words, "Any person required under this title to pay any estimated tax or tax, or required by this title or by regulations made under authority thereof to make a return, keep any records, or supply any information... " So who is a "person required?" This article appeared in the August 1991 issue of The Connector:

"Patriot, Tom Hauert - charged with five counts of 7203 willful failure to file returns in March 1990 - put the prosecuting U.S. Attorney on the spot in Federal District Court, Chicago. Ill. At a hearing before the court on October 1st, 1990, Tom stated that he did not understand the charges. Tom read from the Internal Revenue Code the first three words of Section 7203, "Any person required." Then he asked, "How is it established in this section that I am one of those persons required?" The judge read and reread that section, and finally admitted that he understood that Tom was asking for the statute that creates the determination of who is required. The judge said, "Mr. Prosecutor, you can provide a copy of that statute, can't you?" At that point the prosecuting attorney started stammering and stuttering, and said he wasn't familiar with that part of the Code, and the judge told him to find someone to help find it. Well, it's now May 1991... and the government has not provided the information. For ten years Tom wrote many letters to the IRS, asking what statute made him liable? Neither the IRS, nor the government attorney has ever told him or shown him the statute that made/makes him liable. Coul` it be there is none? That's correct, there isn't any statute that makes a citizen within the fifty states liable. That's why Congress said, "Our tax system is based on voluntary self-assessment." So don't gripe about high taxes if you voluntarily assess yourself."

The issue of "are you liable?" is covered in detail in Report #TL16D: The Most Powerful Income Protection Ammo.

9. Direct and Indirect Taxes
To fully understand whether or not an individual is "liable" for an income tax, we need to make a distinction between "direct" taxes and "indirect" taxes. Article I, Sections 2 and 9 of the U.S. Constitution authorize direct taxes, and Article I, Section 8 authorizes indirect taxes.

A direct tax is also called a head tax, poll tax, or capitation. It is a tax on an individual, for example, so many dollars per person per year. The principle of "apportionment," as stated in the Constitution, places the States as buffers between the individual and the federal government. A direct federal income tax would have to be collected by the state governments and handed over to the federal government.

An indirect tax is also called an excise tax. It is a tax on a thing (income), rather than on an individual. The 16th Amendment states, "The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without any regard to any census or enumeration." In fact, the 16th Amendment uses legal sophistry to circumvent the apportionment barrier. It effectively defines the income tax as an indirect tax, rather than a direct tax. The Supreme Court has found:

"... [T]he Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary [absolute] power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged and being placed in the category of direct taxation... ", Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 112.

When you as an end-consumer buy a book, the price you pay to the retailer includes sales tax. The retailer sends the tax you paid to the government. You pay the tax indirectly to the government. The retailer is liable for the tax. To qualify as an indirect tax, the person liable for the tax must be someone other than the ultimate consumer.

In the case of tax on distilled spirits, Internal Revenue Code Section 5005 makes the distiller or importer liable. In the case of wine, Section 5043 places liability on the proprietor of the bonded wine cellar or on the importer. For cigars and cigarettes, Section 5703 makes the manufacturer or importer liable. Section 2502(d) makes the donor (giver) of a gift liable for gift tax, not the receiver. Similarly, Section 2002 makes the executor of a will liable for estate tax, not the inheritor.

Because the income tax is an excise tax on a thing (income), and an indirect tax, by definition the ultimate receiver or consumer of the income cannot be liable for income tax on it. In other words, you cannot be liable for income tax on your income. I have a notarized statement from Scott Lewis Rendelman (enrolled to practice before IRS, enrollment number 28753), which states:

"In my extensive research of the Internal Revenue Code, I can say unequivocally and with absolute certainty that nowhere in the Internal Revenue Code is there a section where liability for income tax is established. And furthermore, by definition of an excise tax, if anyone could say for sure that he or she is not liable for the income tax, it is the "ultimate consumer," the person receiving the income."

10. Court Orders Required by Banks
For banks to summarily deduct funds from a customer's account and transfer such funds to the IRS is illegal. Section 6332(c) of the Internal Revenue Code says, "Any bank... shall surrender (subject to an attachment or execution under judicial process) any deposits... in such bank only after 21 days after service of levy.

"Judicial process" means that a court order is required before your funds can be touched. Furthermore, Section 6331(d) specifies that 30 day's notice has to be given before a levy can be made.

If any bank hands your money over to the IRS without a court order, you may wish to consider civil suit against the bank. You may also wish to consider applying the methods described in the Build Freedom Report Commercial Liens: A Most Potent Weapon.

11. IRS Extortion
Section 7214(a) of the Internal Revenue Code states, "Any officer or employee of the United States acting in connection with any revenue law of the United States - (1) who is guilty of any extortion or willful oppression under color of law... shall be dismissed from office or discharged from employment and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both. The court may in its discretion award out of the fine so imposed an amount, not in excess of one-half thereof, for the use of the informer, if any, who shall be ascertained by the judgment of the court. The court also shall render judgment against the said officer or employee for the amount of damages sustained in favor of the party injured, to be collected by execution."

12. Other Arguments
There are also other reasons why the IRS income tax is mostly (if not totally) illegally collected. The intent of the Constitution is that only gold and silver be money. The "federal reserve note" does not constitute money. The "federal reserve note" can be regarded as a "federal obligation." Such federal obligations are not taxable.

The legal meaning of the term "income" is what we commonly understand as profit. Wages or salaries don't constitute income.

There is a legal principle, "void for vagueness." The Internal Revenue Code is so complex that no judge, no prosecutor, no lawyer, no IRS agent, nor anybody else can understand it. Even if it were enacted into law, it would be void for vagueness.

Reports in this series:
#TL16 - #TL16A - #TL16B - #TL16C - #TL16D - #TL16E - #TL16F - #TL16G - #TL16H - #TL16I

Index | Parent Index | Build Freedom: Archive

Disclaimer - Copyright - Contact

Online: - -