Having spent 30 years in the organized freedom movement and especially that faction that abhors the fed income tax, I speak from experience. Often, people get involved with the tax issue and reach all sorts of conclusions, sometimes right, but many times wrong. I have also seen many people like yourself who study this issue and reach conclusions based on limited research. Thereafter, from this heady study experience, they loudly proclaim their findings, and anybody else who disagrees with them is wrong. Often, this degenerates into a “hate match” and vile, hateful words start flying. This movement has plenty of “know-it-all gurus” and too many are just plain nasty people. I have gotten extremely tired of this and avoid contact as much as possible with the nasty people.
I read your recent note where you take to task a man you do not know: Tom Cryer. I, however, know him far better than you and I am offended at your groundless allegations. I am more than confident that Tom has read far more cases than you and is more knowledgeable than you about both tax law specifically, and law, generally. He was a scholar in law school and is a legal scholar now.
Let me briefly address your tax argument. Basically, you contend that this tax is, constitutionally, an excise. The problem with this assertion is that the truth of the matter is that American courts are split over the fundamental question of the nature of this tax: direct, or an excise. I address this matter here with cites to lots more than 20 cases:
http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/UNCERTAIN.htmlI also disagree with your contention that the “first [nexis] is the government-granted privilege to do business as an artificial person such as a statutory trust, corporation or partnership.” This is nothing but groundless patriot mythology, as is your assertion that the feds (IRS) get jurisdiction over people thru their use of IRS forms like Form W4. However, I have no interest in getting into a shouting match with another guru.
It is obvious to me that your knowledge of the tax laws arises solely from reading cases, to the exclusion of study of the actual tax laws and regs themselves. Not only has Mr. Cryer read many more cases than you (as have I), we both have extensively studied the relevant laws and regs. Years ago, I converted all of the old tax acts to searchable text PDF images as well as doing the same for the old tax regs. You may find my work posted here:
I suggest that you download the materials posted here. Better yet, you can obtain more information by getting from Mr. Cryer’s organization, Truth Attack, a CD with this info and more on it.
I also suggest that you engage in a study of the entire US Statutes at Large. Years ago, I converted TIF images of the single pages of the Stats to PDF images; I then strung them together and created PDF files of each volume of the Stats. Then, I converted the final product to searchable text. Now for the first time, anybody can do text searches of the entire US Statutes at Large. A friend of mine, Jon Roland, has posted this work here:
I have spent countless hours compiling lots of legal research based on the Stats and believe you would benefit by doing the same.
Let me end this note with an observation. I have noticed that many people think that when they start studying the tax laws and discover something they did not know, they think, erroneously, that they are the first to discover what they just found. The truth of the matter is otherwise. Lawyers and students have poured over cases and laws for years; every case and law has been read by somebody else years ago, in fact many people have done so. Just because you read a case for the first time never means that nobody else has ever read it. Several years ago, tax patriots started talking about the 1939 IR Code and reaching conclusions. These people acted as if nobody had ever noted that there was a 1939 Code, even tho it was in effect for 15 years and used by millions of people. When I provided a PDF image of the entire 1939 Code (searchable I might add), I was castigated as a govt agent, which is utterly false. This is the reason that I view many in the movement as nasty people.
You owe Tom Cryer an apology.
and that is why they are friends. Because “Craigy Boy” is another one going off tangent with grounless allegations.