Ultimately the People themselves are to blame for the ills they suffer at the hands of government. And they don't want to change it apparently.

As one friend of mine said when we were discussing the undeclared Iraq 'war'…”The people are responsible for this…they not only allowed it to happen…they cheered it on.” Well…not all of them…though enough of them did. But I had never heard anyone call the people so clearly to account before.

My extended circle has its fill of PhDs, MDs, JDs and they actually get most of their 'information' from The New York Times. (They scoff at Fox News). And they actually have heated discussions and come to firm conclusions about why Barry O'Bama would be a better president than Hillbilly Clinton or the other way round. And they go into great detail to show why their conclusions are unassailable…with raised voices and fingers stabbing the air when they notice your eyes have glazed over.

When you point out there's no difference between the two, that both favor partial birth murder, both are committed to the agenda of AIPAC, which means the Middle East will stay in a state of turmoil, both will say anything to get elected, that Hillbilly can't tell whether someone's shooting at her or not…and she would control the black box with the nuclear codes in it to shoot back, that the nominees must follow the agenda, not of the People, but of those who gave them 250 million dollars to win the nomination, etc. etc. etc., they stare at you and decide that you're voting for that 'jerk' that 'idiot' that 'dangerous' McNuggett. Then you have to explain that he's a combination of the other two…but on speed.

These supposedly highly intelligent people abandon rationality in all of its forms and pin their blind hopes for America on proven liars. They seem to have a heartfelt and genuine, if unstated, belief that politicians are sovereign. When Nancy Pelosi said “impeachment is off the table” before she even took up her new job, the People acquiesced in silence…as good subjects ought to.

So, that being the case, if you can't appeal to reason, what can you appeal to in order to get the people to do what they should do?…which is to control their servants with strict discipline.

So…I'll mail out the message…and try and take inspiration from your faith.

Which is what I value about this site; the great and unwavering faith it has in the People…and the effort it has put forth to help them up from slavery.

Okay enough. Let me get the email out.

The last post is over a year ago. But I just received a request for returns (1040s). I usually start with the envelope and don't even address the contents. I agree to address their presumptions on condition that they verify who they are, by what authority they write from their location (since Internal Revenue Service is listed in Dun and Bradstreet as a private company with a single location in the District of Columbia). I ask these conditional questions among others to prevent fraud. Because…

The words “United States” never appear in the return address or in their letters. It is just Department of Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, and then some place in one of the states as the address. I cite the Supreme Court case that advises the public to verify the identity and the extent of authority of anyone purporting to represent the government…and the cases which say that IRS communications cannot be relied on for accuracy or truthfulness and one does so “at their peril”.

Then I ask them to affirm or swear before a notary, in compliance with 26USC Sec. 6065, who they are, that the Department of Treasury is the United States Treasury Department, that the Internal Revenue Service is actually a government agency within the United States Treasury Department, etc. When they have verified all of the things needed to prevent fraud, I assure them I will then address the numerous presumptions and erroneous conclusions in the letterhead-less letter they sent without the seal of The US Treasury Department (that could have been written by anyone).

Then I mail it certified mail and they never respond. So we never get to the presumptions in their letter because by their silence (noticed to them in a follow up letter after 30 days) they have admitted they could not comply with the conditions in the response letter and I now consider their original letter fraudulent and lacking any legal mandate or foundation.

I think if you ignore them they can presume you acquiesce to their presumptions and conclusions. And that shifts the burden of proof to you to show that you are immune from their jurisdiction. I'd rather keep agreeing to comply with them after, and only after, they meet certain conditions that prove they are not racketeers promoting a fraudulent scam. The burden of proof remains on them to verify their authenticity and authority and the Supreme Court says it's the individual person's responsibility to make sure they do. They never do. But they can't make a “case” that I'm ignoring them and failing to fulfill a “known legal duty.”

So, I guess I'm saying…respond to them citing each of the presumptions they invite you to make due to the lack of information on their envelope and ask for clarification.

Mail it certified mail and then get on with your real life.

The 861 argument is seductive…as it is meant to be. It was something neat and clean…and appealing in its apparent simplicity…that people could relate to.

And at the height of all the hoopla involving Schiff…Rose…Bell and The Red Hen…who were going to show the executive and judicial branches a thing or two…it seemed that there might be something in the 861 position that hung the government on its own petard…or was some kind of deadly silver bullet.

But, I was saved from becoming a disciple because I remembered a book published by a psychologist titled…

If You Meet The Bhudda On The Road Kill Him.

Essentially the theme was that wisdom had to come from your own organization…and reorganization…of your relationship to others and to the world. Not from someone's expertise.

You can learn 'content' from others…like the 861 position…but what you do with that learning…whether you accept it…modify it…adapt it…or reject it…has to come from your own rational thought.

And I remember thinking while studying the above named gurus…that they all made serious presumptions…and it is those very presumptions that become the petard on which the presumer is hung. (BTW I haven't got the slightest idea what a petard is…but it probably would be excluded under the Geneva Conventions as an instrument of torture).

First…they all presumed they were rock solid right…not only in their understanding of the 'law' but…they were right in how to respond to it. When the pitcher has only one pitch and the batter knows what kind of pitch is coming his way…he can plan to hit it out of the ball park. And so it happened in each case.

Second…they all presumed that their 'rightness' would compel the courts to genuflect before their superiority. Didn't happen.

Presumption…it seems…is the father of the pride that goes before the fall. It blindsides a person and makes them immune to helpful influence.

The gurus not only presumed they were right in their position…but they presumed their mere understanding was sufficient. But that is the weakest presumption of all.

Anyone who watches sports avidly knows exactly how to execute a cross court backhand shot…a triple axel on the ice…a low and accurate fast ball…how to ski a slalom course most efficiently…and so forth. Or…after reading Aristotle…you may know all of the necessary elements to produce an excellent novel or drama.

But…merely knowing something is not enough to apply that knowledge. If we had to put down the potato chips and get up from the couch and put our knowledge into action…actually throw the low and deadly fast ball…or write a blockbuster classic novel…most could not do it.

Knowledge is absolutely necessary (Hosea says that the people perish for want of it)…but it is not sufficient unless you know how to apply it. The gurus give knowledge (both sound and unsound) but ignore traps that will ensnare them (like thinking they are in courts of law)

The 861 adherents presume that because their activities are not listed in that section…they simply are immune from federal income taxation. (They are but not for that reason.)

But that is not only a presumption…but an incomplete one! The unspoken half of that presumption is that if their activities or entities were listed…they would be liable.

The most important thing I've gotten from this site is to beware of the mile wide chasm of presumption…to be ruthless with myself in discerning my own presumptions. And I am thankful for that…and thankful for the mandate not to make any assumptions about the content of the site…but to check everything out.

Enough said.

It's easier to deal with the skeptics I think by simply saying…the 16th amendment is obviously a Constitutional excise tax (even though on what and on whom is left to one's imagination — which has no legal effect).

As far as one can tell by adhering to the actual language…the 16th Amendment can only refer to an indirect tax when it tells the reader emphatically…twice in fact…that the tax is not, cannot be, a direct tax as defined in the Constitution because…it is laid (1) “without apportionment” and then again (2) it is laid “without regard to any census or enumeration”.

It's simply a contradiction to say that it is a direct tax, as defined in the Constitution, when the author's of the Amendment assert…unequivocally…that it has none of the required elements that define a Constitutional direct tax.

The Amendment's authors did not give a new definition to 'direct' tax. They were only at pains to say that the tax has none of the defining elements of a Constitutional direct tax. And since 'direct' taxation is not redefined…the only alternative for Congress then is an indirect tax.

(The author's of the Amendment were equally at pains not to say what exactly is taxed [income is not defined] and who exactly is to be taxed [presumably those with 'income'…whatever that is]).

If the skeptics claim the 16th Amendment proposes a Constitutional direct tax on property, they simply and irrationally disagree with the plain language of the Amendment.

If in their immunity to the words on the page they still claim it is a direct tax…where is the new definition of direct taxation specified (as the Constitutional definition is clearly excluded in the language of the Amendment itself)? And, if this new definition of direct taxation exists somewhere, who authorized it, and what are the defining rules for its application?

This is kind of a sidebar to the discussion but I think it's relevant to questions of educating oneself and proceeding successfully in issues that affect individual sovereignty in tax matters.

It's just my observation, not a criticism, that many talented people in the trenches do not educate themselves sufficiently on the nature and jurisdiction of the courts as to what they can hear and can't hear…and also have an overdrawn picture of the role of a defendant in a tax trial. They seem to make their jobs harder when they go to court.

Courageous people have done excellent and helpful work to benefit others. And some of them have ultimately undermined themselves because they did not go far enough. It is one thing to have a well developed legal position and another to defend it successfully…which, in court, means not defending it at all. A defendant only has to shoot holes in the prosecutor's case…not make a case of his or her own.

I'm thinking particularly of Larken Rose who dared the DOJ to indict him…then he pointed out that his video tape on the law would be “Exhibit A.” Ultimately he was indicted…and convicted of the charges against him. The judge would not allow his video admitted as evidence. As judges do…the judge told the jury that he would give them the law then they decide the facts. Then too part of Larken's 'evidence' was Constitutional in nature. But…

Federal statute has removed from the federal district courts jurisdiction over Constitutional challenges related to federal income taxation.

What this seems to mean in a practical sense is that by arguing the Constitution in a federal income tax matter…the accused has not put any facts before the court which the court could adjudicate…but the prosecutor is not going to say that for the accused.

It would seem then, that the prosecutor must win by default as no legal defense was mounted. Larken and others do not seem to realize that they are in admirality courts but instead think they are in law courts. More importantly they seem to think they must prove something when all they have to do is disprove the prosecutor's presumptions.

In like manner, a baptist church in Indianapolis a few years ago stopped withholding taxes from their payroll after deciding that they were not agents of the state but agents of God. Their property was seized after they lost in federal court on that argument. The federal court cannot rule on a religious issue such as who is and who is not an agent of God. Again the accused put no facts in front of the court on which it could rule. And the prosecution's presumptions were never rebutted and its case was the only issue before the court.

Then there's the more recent successful withholding case of dismantling a prosecutor's presumption. An employer did not withhold because the amounts were lower than the IRS required for reporting purposes. He paid his employees in one ounce gold coins, each with a face value of $50 (which of course the employee could trade for significantly more federal reserve notes). The prosecutor asserted, but could not prove, that a gold coin was worth more than its face value of $50, which is the coin's monetary value in commerce determined by the sole authority of Congress. The employer disproved the prosecutor's presumption that the executive branch could decide that a gold coin's value was hundreds of dollars…and not $50 as Congress made factual by stamping that amount on the coin. The jury examined the coins. Slam dunk…the employer won…exonerated on more than 150 counts of failure to withhold. An unflawed argument directed right at the heart of the prosecutor's presumption about a coin's legal value.

Irwin Schiff, brave man that he is, goes into court and demands that the judge show him the law that says he has to pay federal income taxes. It is not the job or the function of the court to do so. It simply is not a defense and so the presumptions stand and the prosecutor wins by default.

Thurston Bell went into a federal admirality court with a beautifully constructed Constitutional-I'll-tell-you-the-law defense…and lost.

The only effective defense in a criminal trial is breaking down the prosecutor's case. One juror in OJ Simpson's criminal trial put it well…”I think he's guilty…the prosecutor just didn't prove it.”

Others take huge portions of the burden of proof on themselves, and remove it from the prosecutor where it belongs, when they argue that the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified. And, of course, they never prove it because they cannot produce the keepers of the records of the states that ratified or did not ratify the amendment.

All such cases try and make a case when the only job of a defendant is to reduce the prosecutor's case to ashes. Instead of making the prosecutor prove his case…they take over and make a case of their own, for which they bear the burden of proof, when they only have to defend against the prosecutor's case which is rarely proved.

The cases that appear to win the most handily are those that show the gov. did not do something it was supposed to do when it was asked to do it (e.g.,The Fed Ex pilot who won because the IRS never answered any of her questions. The prosecutor could not prove willfulness with that damaging rejoinder from the defense.).

That's the key it seems. In tax trials the defendant must do the same thing…keep it simple…show that the prosecutor's case is nothing but presumptions and not proof (“the taxpayer”, “required to file”, “an ounce of gold is worth $800”, etc.) . Instead it seems that most who lose go into court to expound the law…and, right as they may be, they get whacked. It seems to me that the only unflawed arguments in court are those which take the prosecutor's presumptions head on and demolish them.