But I am still requesting answers from Ichesson, Fiddo, BOBT whom I still have yet to hear. Suddenly they have disappeared!? :huh:

I would definitely love to hear ESPECIALLY from Ichesson who actually start this post that has deception in the post.

Please respond…

Sonik Speed

Respectfully I dissent. He is doing more harm than good – much like idiots like Al Thompson.

To Health,

Sonik Speed

http://losthorizons.com/

His several years of research into the tax code as lucidly explained in his book reveal that:

1. Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code is an indirect excise tax upon privileges.

2. The “privilege” is a “trade or business”, which is defined in 26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(26) as “the functions of a public office”.

3. Those who are not engaged in a “trade or business” and who have no income from the District of Columbia coming under 26 USC 871(a) can have no “gross income” or “taxable income”.

4. Because Subtitle A describes an excise tax on privileges, and holding a “public office” is an avoidable activity, then all taxes based upon the activity are avoidable.

5. The government and the IRS have done their best over the years to disguise the true nature of Subtitle A of the I.R.C. as an indirect excise tax using “words of art” and the word “includes”.

6. The rules of statutory construction clearly reveal that words defined in law replace the ordinary meanings of words with a specialized meaning. Since “trade or business” is defined as “the functions of a public office” and not expanded elsewhere in the code to add any other thing, then it is limited to this activity ONLY.

7. Those who are not engaged in a “trade or business” and who are being compelled by their private employer to deduct and withhold can, according to Pete, file a 1040 return with a zero amount for earnings, attach amended W-2 and 1099 forms, and many have gotten ALL withholding back, including Social Security, Medicare, FICA, etc.

8. Those who intend to use Pete's approach should be very familiar with the “includes” argument, because it is the only defense the government has been able to come up with so far to ward off his approach. It is also a WEAK defense that is easily defeated.

Some places on Family Guardian where you can find more information about this approach include:

1. Article entitled “The 'trade or business' scam”:

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Arti…usinessScam.htm

2. Great IRS Hoax, sections 5.6.13 through 5.6.13.11 entitled “The 'trade or business' scam”:

http://famguardian.org/Publications/GreatI…reatIRSHoax.htm

3. Great IRS Hoax, section 5.6.12 entitled “You don't have any taxable sources of income”:

http://famguardian.org/Publications/GreatI…reatIRSHoax.htm

4. Income Tax Freedom Forms and Instructions, Cites by Topic: “trade or business”: http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByT…eOrBusiness.htm

5. IRS Deposition Questions Section 9: Ambiguity of law. Shows what “includes” really means:

http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Forms/Di…ection%2009.htm

We have purchased and read Pete's book, and we think it is terrific. For himself, Pete files a form 1040 with zero in order to get the refund. He attaches 4852's and amended 1099 forms to the return to zero out false income reports, because he rightly concludes that the only earnings that can be reported on a W-2 or a 1099 are income “effectively connected with a trade or business”. He has been doing this for 2001 through 2003 and each time, has gotten EVERYTHING back from the IRS, including Social Security, FITW, FICA, etc. This is a the best track record we have seen so far, so his techniques do deserve a hard look. He also has sample refund checks from the IRS posted on his website showing several people who have gotten refunds from using his techniques. We have also spoken with him on the phone about his techniques to learn more. Out of respect and fairness to Pete, we also wish to carefully emphasize the following aspects of his political approach, which we believe will keep the government off his back:

1. He doesn't help people directly to prepare returns or stop withholding.

2. His book doesn't describe how to prepare returns.

3. He doesn't advocate the filing or nonfiling of returns.

Instead, he simply posts a journal of his efforts on the web for all to read and emulate if they choose. Many people have emulated what he has done and gotten all their money back as well. This is exactly the same approach we take on this website. We post a journal of our efforts on this FREE SPEECH website at:

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Case…risH/Chrish.htm

We believe Pete's techniques are good for the most part, but we have only one MAJOR problem with them which we would like to explain. On this website, we point out that the IRS Published Products Catalog, Document 7130, identifies the IRS form 1040 as being for use by “citizens” and “residents” of the “United States”. You can view this publication below for yourself:

http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Forms/IRS/IRSDoc7130.pdf

We already know based on research elsewhere on this website that people born in states of the Union are “nonresident aliens” and “nationals”, but not “citizens” or “residents”. See:

1. You're not a “citizen” under the Internal Revenue Code: http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Citi…zenUnderIRC.htm

2. You're not a “resident” under the Internal Revenue Code:

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Citi…ip/Resident.htm

3. Why you are a “national” or a “state national” and not a “U.S. citizen”:

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt…hyANational.pdf

Therefore, filing the 1040 form creates a false presumption that one maintains a domicile in the District of Columbia and is either an alien living in the District of Columbia or a “citizen” living abroad and coming under an income tax treaty with a foreign country. This could have the affect of subjecting them to the jurisdiction of the corrupted federal courts. We believe this is a BIG mistake. The only approach that will keep people out of this kind of trouble is to instead file the 1040NR form and fill it out the same way….

Stephen

I told the passport application lady this, and she asked what those errors were… I told her that the main errors were relating to my citizenship status, that I needed to correct my passport application to indicate that I was an American National, as I am not a “U.S. citizen”. I explained that on my previous application I had selected the “U.S. citizen” option re my citizenship because the correct option was not available and I did not realize the legal implications this carried.

The passport lady told me that my passport would still read the same, and that there would be no difference in appearance on my new passport. I told here that I was aware of this fact, and explained once again that the purpose was to update the application, for legal reasons. She took that attitude that she did not want to process the application, but I pressed her, making it clear that I knew my rights and would not leave.

So she gets on the phone with a superior (I suppose the Dept. of State) and explained the situation quite accurately (she was actually listening!). After explaining, she listened for a little bit, and was obviously being told to process the application.

So she returned and stated that the passport would look the same as the last, did I still want to proceed? I said yes, I knew that, and still wanted to proceed.

She then proceeded to do her duty without further objections, and less than two weeks later I received my new passport & my old passport marked cancelled.

PS: The passport application did not bear an SSN anywhere… and not one remark was made by the passport lady regarding this…

Well, a friend of mine who is going through the process and has corrected his status to that of a Dejure National of his state just called me.

He got his own picture identification certified & apostilled by the SoS

He then sent it to the State Dept for a Fed apostille to travel overseas

They called him today & said a Fed Apostille was not necessary.

He said he was concerned because he is not a U.S. citizen and can't get a passport.

They said the State apostille is sufficient.

He then asked if it will do in lieu of a passport & they said yes.

They further complied with his request for a cover letter stating that his I.D. is sufficient in lieu of a passport to travel abroad.

The passport chips differ from those now commonly used for building entry or identifying the family dog. Those chips only provide one piece of information — a unique identification number — when pinged by a radio receiver.

The passport chips will hold much more data, from 64 kilobytes to eventually 514 kilobytes, as much as the first personal computers. They will hold the same information as a paper passport plus a digitized photo and face template for the still-unproven facial recognition software, which also is supposed to identify you from a distance, unnoticed.

The fact that passport data can be read unencrypted, with no physical contact, from up to 30 feet away, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, upsets privacy advocates for two reasons.

First, groups such as the ACLU note that information on your activities could be collected by government agencies (or commercial and marketing interests) without your knowledge…Second, many people are concerned that criminal or terrorist “data-skimmers” could set up chip readers to grab information from your passport and find out more about you, or “clone” your information and make fake passports, again without your knowledge.

A Philadelphia jury August 12 convicted section 861 proponent Larken Rose for not filing back taxes, bolstering the IRS's efforts to fight ongoing doubts about the validity of the code.

Former IRS agent turned anti-tax advocate Joseph R. Banister walked away from a similar tax fraud indictment earlier this summer (for coverage, see Doc 2005-13738 or 2005 TNT 121-1), a legal coup heralded by leaders of the so-called tax honesty movement as confirmation their controversial views are gaining ground.

Rose was charged with willfull failure to file after refusing to submit federal returns from 1998 through 2002. He has openly admitted to not filing federal or state taxes since 1997 and has actively invited goverment prosecution since at least 2001.

The conviction could land Rose in prison for up to five years (one year per count). He was placed under house arrest until his sentencing on November 15.

His wife and business partner, Tessa R. David, will face the same charges in a separate criminal proceeding tentatively set to begin as early as August 19.

Rose has for years raised questions as to whether specific foreign sourcing rules trump the broader income filing requirements. He maintains that the current system misconstrues gross and taxable income — a distinction which he claims places domestic earnings outside the reach of the existing income tax structure — and insists the Service has never adequately refuted his interpretation of 861 regulations.

The prosecution team split their time between establishing that Rose and David received enough income from their home-based medical transcription business during the years in question to warrant filing a return (IRS records project joint earnings of approximately $500, 000 across the five-year timeframe), and chronicling a half-dozen instances when IRS officials attempted to convince Rose about the limited scope of the 861 provision.

During the trial, various IRS agents testified that the 861 rules apply specifically to the calculation of foreign tax credits.

Assistant United States Attorney Floyd J. Miller introduced a string of IRS notices and other official correspondence amassed by Rose as proof he knew the 861 position was invalid, but noted that Rose chose not to file anyway. Miller also touted a number of adverse district and tax court rulings which Rose had been a party to as additonal justification that his 861 position was flawed.

“This is a case about a man who doesn't want to pay his fair share,” Miller argued, and lampooned the one-time groundskeeper for holding himself out as the “supreme interpreter of the internal revenue code.”

While acknowledging that the judiciary had considered aspects of his 861 position, Rose stressed that the recent decisions failed to counter his understanding of the underlying income statutes.

“I was told by the judges that domestic income is taxable. I was told by the law that it wasn't,” he stated, adding, “I want to be convinced by evidence, not an assertion.”

Posted on: 7/17/2005 7:54:00 AM – Columnist 

By Greg Szymanski

There was no fooling former Air Force and commercial pilot Russ Wittenberg the morning of 9/11. He knew it was an inside job from the get-go, knowing the ?big boys? were up to the same dirty tricks they played in the Kennedy assassination and Pearl Harbor.

The government may have fooled millions of Americans with its cockamamie official story, but the former fighter pilot who flew over 100 combat missions in Vietnam and who sat for 35 years in the cockpit for Pan Am and United, wasn?t one of them.

Now, almost four years later, Wittenberg is still shaking his head in disbelief more than ever, saying the country he loved and fought so bravely 40 years ago has fallen in the deep, dark and sinister hands of fascist leaders who are quickly turning America into a military state.

[…]Claiming the entire neo con scenario now playing out in America and around the world is based on the attempt to establish a one world government controlled by a select few, he said it?s difficult to figure out their true motives, adding he can only offer an educated guess based on what he?s studied and read.

?Power corrupts, money isn?t enough and these people want total control,? added Wittenberg. ?These elites actually think they are better than everybody else and basically want power and control over the diminishing resources by creating a one world government.