RE: John McAfee Indicted for Tax Evasion 10-28-2020, 06:14 PM
#11
You may believe this to be true, but I do not think that is the case. From my own research in just an hour, and I admit I already knew where to look because I researched this in college, I have some information to share with you and emplore you to do your own research. As I see it, income tax is based on volunteer conditions. Im not just talking out of my ass, there are actual cases that won at the supreme court and nothing has changed... The people believe they have to pay taxes, but most of them do not. Certain kinds of tax MUST be paid, and are 100% enforced. However those taxes do not apply to the common man or woman and their earnings or income.
"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S. since the days of Andrew Jackson."
Franklin D. Roosevelt, U.S. President,
in a letter written Nov. 21, 1933 to Colonel E. Mandell House.
The IRS is not a governing agency. It can only operate under the authority of the US Treasure Dept as currently defined by US law.
I suggest you research:
"Lloyd L. Long v IRS" - acquitted, recently, of all "Willful Failure to File" tax charges lodged against him by the Internal Revenue Service for the years 1989 and 1990.
"Brushaber v Union Pacific Railroad" - wherein it was the unanimous decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that the Sixteenth Amendment (to the Constitution) did not give congress any new power to tax any new subjects; it merely tried to simplify the way in which the tax was imposed. The ruling also showed that the income tax was, in fact, an excise tax on corporate privileges and privileged occupations.
"Flint v Stone Tracy Co." - wherein an excise tax was defined as being a tax laid upon the manufacture, sale and consumption of commodities within the country; upon licenses to pursue certain occupations; and upon corporate privileges.
"Simins v Arehns" - wherein the court ruled that the income tax was neither a property tax nor a tax upon occupations of common right, but was an excise tax.
"Redfield v Fisher" - In this instance, the court ruled that an individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing, but that the individual's right to live and own property was a natural right upon which an excise cannot be imposed. Defense also pointed to several studies done by the Congressional Research Service showing the INCOME TAX is an EXCISE.
"Jack Cole v Commissioner" - CITIZENS ARE ENTITLED BY RIGHT TO INCOME OR EARNINGS AND THAT RIGHT COULD NOT BE TAXED AS A PRIVILEGE.
"Corn v Fort" - in which the court ruled that individuals have a right to combine their activities as partnerships; and that this is a natural right, independent and antecedent of government.
Income tax applies ONLY to non- resident aliens, and U.S. citizens living abroad in a country where a tax treaty exists with the United States (Internal Revenue Code Sections 1441-1443).
NOWHERE IN THE ENTIRE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE (some 9,722 separate Sections, as of 1992!) WAS ANYONE ACTUALLY MADE LIABLE FOR THE INCOME TAX.
Income tax relied upon "VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE," and a quote from the head of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division of the IRS which, in essence, showed that the income tax is 100% voluntary, as opposed to the alcohol tax, which is 100% enforced.
""
The Internal Revenue Service is not an agency of the United States government. It is true that not only can it NOT be found in Title 31, but it is nowhere to be found in the entirety of Title 5 U.S.C.
Congress THOUGHT it created it but it didn't. Just look at the 1100 manual and it tells you so. Congress only created the Commissioner's Office. He then hired the private collection agency people and used them as the tax collectors. In fact, I defy you to find any IRS employee listed as an Employee of the United States Government with a United States Employee Identification number that has been hired by any District Director in the country. Now I suggest you look at 27 Code of Federal Regulations Section 250.11 and therein you will find the definition of "Revenue agent." That definition reads "Any duly authorized Commonwealth Internal Revenue Agent of the Department of the Treasury of Puerto Rico."
I now refer you to the "Secretary" described in 26 U.S.C. 6301. Does it not state, "The Secretary shall collect the taxes imposed by the internal revenue laws?" Yes it does. Now Congress mandated this by 68A Stat 775 and you cannot disagree. Does not 26 U.S.C. state that this "Secretary" may make a return based on the information he has if a person does not make a return? Yes it does. Does not 26 U.S.C. 6001, 6011 and 6012 refer to this "Secretary?" Yes it does.
Now, if the Revenue agent decides to prosecute, he approaches the Attorney General and this "Secretary" as noted in 26 USC 7401 to prosecute upon concurrence between both the Attorney General and this "Secretary," is this not correct? Yes it is and all the above is undisputable. Is it now contrary to any rational man that this "Secretary" can only be one person and not many.
Now, I direct your attention to 27 CFR 250.11 again for the definition of "Secretary" as found in all the above. The defining term for "Secretary" is, "The Secretary of the Treasury of Puerto Rico." That man is Manual Diaz Saldana. Those revenue agents operating in all the states are not United States employees. The Statute mandated to be at the end of each regulation by 1 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is 68A State 775 (26 USC 6301).
I now direct your attention to the House of Representatives, 39th Congress, 2nd Session, Ex. Doc. 99, titled Salary Tax Upon Clerks to Postmasters, LETTER from THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY dated Feb. 20, 1867, referred to the House Ways and Means committee and ordered to be printed. I am now going to prove that the IRS agents are not now nor were they ever employees of the United States. You can obtain the document faster than the man on the street. The postmaster wanted to know why postal clerks had to pay income taxes and why the IRS clerks did not have to. The "clerks" are today called "revenue agents." I quote part of the response that is not taken out of context concerning the IRS employees. Why should I, because it is verifiable by anyone.
"No money is advanced by the United States for the payment of such salaries, nor do the assessors perform the duties of disbursing agents of the United States in paying their clerks. The entire amount allowed is paid directly to the assessor, and he is not accountable to the United States for its payment to his clerks, for the reason he has paid them in advance, out of his own funds, and this is reimbursement to him of such amount as the department decides to be reasonable. No salary tax is therefore collected, or required by the Treasury Department to be accounted for, or paid, on account of payments to assessors' clerks, as the United States pays no such clerks nor has them in its employ or service, and they do not come within the provisions of existing laws imposing such a tax." This was signed by H. McCULLOCH Secretary of the Treasury.
Then to clarify it he included Section 165 which states that the only people to pay income taxes are, and I quote ". . persons in the civil, military, naval, or other employment service of the United States, including senators and representatives and delegates in Congress,. . . "
Since the postal clerks are paid by the United States and the IRS agents were not, those revenue agents were just like me and the millions that do not work or contract with the United States. Therefore they were not subject to the income tax. And so it is today, and that explains why the private collection agency agents cannot be sued under 26 USC 7214 because they are not employee's of the United States. Today they are based out of and under the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury of Puerto Rico, strictly to collect alcohol, tobacco, and firearms taxable activities.
The identity of the Secretary is not found in title 26 U.S.C.. The only reference to the identity of the Secretary of the Treasury is in 27 C.F.R. at section 250.11 (definitions) which specifically states: "Secretary means Secretary of the Treasury of Puerto Rico".
Departamento De Hacienda
Secretary of the Treasury
Manuel Diaz Saldana
P.O. Box 4515
San Juan, Puerto Rico, 00902
1-787-721-2020
He's the head honcho. Also, you are usually dealing with an agent with a title of "Revenue Agent." The only definition of revenue agent is in 27 C.F.R.section 250.11 and is defined as: "Revenue Agent means any duly authorized Commonwealth Internal Revenue Agent of the Department of the Treasury of Puerto Rico."
""
Ironic though for my situation, the Fed Gov pays me, every month and its tax free. I do not pay income taxes, as I am not required to. xD Capital gains tax, may be different story, so McCafee may be in trouble having a US Citizenship of some kind... or being he used USD $ to get his crypto earnings... They make this shit so complicated and intimidating because they know most people CANT sit down for more than ten minutes with a meditated thought let alone fight the Gov...
Learn to change your thinking, and your reality changes. Why do you think people like Trump, do not pay taxes, or pay much taxes? Why does McCafee have to pay when Trump can dodge millions in taxes? Why Westly Snipes had to pay millions in taxes? Because some people understand how the law is written, and that there is a difference in how its interpretted or enforced.
Information is power, cause knowing is half the battle.
"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S. since the days of Andrew Jackson."
Franklin D. Roosevelt, U.S. President,
in a letter written Nov. 21, 1933 to Colonel E. Mandell House.
The IRS is not a governing agency. It can only operate under the authority of the US Treasure Dept as currently defined by US law.
I suggest you research:
"Lloyd L. Long v IRS" - acquitted, recently, of all "Willful Failure to File" tax charges lodged against him by the Internal Revenue Service for the years 1989 and 1990.
"Brushaber v Union Pacific Railroad" - wherein it was the unanimous decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that the Sixteenth Amendment (to the Constitution) did not give congress any new power to tax any new subjects; it merely tried to simplify the way in which the tax was imposed. The ruling also showed that the income tax was, in fact, an excise tax on corporate privileges and privileged occupations.
"Flint v Stone Tracy Co." - wherein an excise tax was defined as being a tax laid upon the manufacture, sale and consumption of commodities within the country; upon licenses to pursue certain occupations; and upon corporate privileges.
"Simins v Arehns" - wherein the court ruled that the income tax was neither a property tax nor a tax upon occupations of common right, but was an excise tax.
"Redfield v Fisher" - In this instance, the court ruled that an individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing, but that the individual's right to live and own property was a natural right upon which an excise cannot be imposed. Defense also pointed to several studies done by the Congressional Research Service showing the INCOME TAX is an EXCISE.
"Jack Cole v Commissioner" - CITIZENS ARE ENTITLED BY RIGHT TO INCOME OR EARNINGS AND THAT RIGHT COULD NOT BE TAXED AS A PRIVILEGE.
"Corn v Fort" - in which the court ruled that individuals have a right to combine their activities as partnerships; and that this is a natural right, independent and antecedent of government.
Income tax applies ONLY to non- resident aliens, and U.S. citizens living abroad in a country where a tax treaty exists with the United States (Internal Revenue Code Sections 1441-1443).
NOWHERE IN THE ENTIRE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE (some 9,722 separate Sections, as of 1992!) WAS ANYONE ACTUALLY MADE LIABLE FOR THE INCOME TAX.
Income tax relied upon "VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE," and a quote from the head of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division of the IRS which, in essence, showed that the income tax is 100% voluntary, as opposed to the alcohol tax, which is 100% enforced.
""
The Internal Revenue Service is not an agency of the United States government. It is true that not only can it NOT be found in Title 31, but it is nowhere to be found in the entirety of Title 5 U.S.C.
Congress THOUGHT it created it but it didn't. Just look at the 1100 manual and it tells you so. Congress only created the Commissioner's Office. He then hired the private collection agency people and used them as the tax collectors. In fact, I defy you to find any IRS employee listed as an Employee of the United States Government with a United States Employee Identification number that has been hired by any District Director in the country. Now I suggest you look at 27 Code of Federal Regulations Section 250.11 and therein you will find the definition of "Revenue agent." That definition reads "Any duly authorized Commonwealth Internal Revenue Agent of the Department of the Treasury of Puerto Rico."
I now refer you to the "Secretary" described in 26 U.S.C. 6301. Does it not state, "The Secretary shall collect the taxes imposed by the internal revenue laws?" Yes it does. Now Congress mandated this by 68A Stat 775 and you cannot disagree. Does not 26 U.S.C. state that this "Secretary" may make a return based on the information he has if a person does not make a return? Yes it does. Does not 26 U.S.C. 6001, 6011 and 6012 refer to this "Secretary?" Yes it does.
Now, if the Revenue agent decides to prosecute, he approaches the Attorney General and this "Secretary" as noted in 26 USC 7401 to prosecute upon concurrence between both the Attorney General and this "Secretary," is this not correct? Yes it is and all the above is undisputable. Is it now contrary to any rational man that this "Secretary" can only be one person and not many.
Now, I direct your attention to 27 CFR 250.11 again for the definition of "Secretary" as found in all the above. The defining term for "Secretary" is, "The Secretary of the Treasury of Puerto Rico." That man is Manual Diaz Saldana. Those revenue agents operating in all the states are not United States employees. The Statute mandated to be at the end of each regulation by 1 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is 68A State 775 (26 USC 6301).
I now direct your attention to the House of Representatives, 39th Congress, 2nd Session, Ex. Doc. 99, titled Salary Tax Upon Clerks to Postmasters, LETTER from THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY dated Feb. 20, 1867, referred to the House Ways and Means committee and ordered to be printed. I am now going to prove that the IRS agents are not now nor were they ever employees of the United States. You can obtain the document faster than the man on the street. The postmaster wanted to know why postal clerks had to pay income taxes and why the IRS clerks did not have to. The "clerks" are today called "revenue agents." I quote part of the response that is not taken out of context concerning the IRS employees. Why should I, because it is verifiable by anyone.
"No money is advanced by the United States for the payment of such salaries, nor do the assessors perform the duties of disbursing agents of the United States in paying their clerks. The entire amount allowed is paid directly to the assessor, and he is not accountable to the United States for its payment to his clerks, for the reason he has paid them in advance, out of his own funds, and this is reimbursement to him of such amount as the department decides to be reasonable. No salary tax is therefore collected, or required by the Treasury Department to be accounted for, or paid, on account of payments to assessors' clerks, as the United States pays no such clerks nor has them in its employ or service, and they do not come within the provisions of existing laws imposing such a tax." This was signed by H. McCULLOCH Secretary of the Treasury.
Then to clarify it he included Section 165 which states that the only people to pay income taxes are, and I quote ". . persons in the civil, military, naval, or other employment service of the United States, including senators and representatives and delegates in Congress,. . . "
Since the postal clerks are paid by the United States and the IRS agents were not, those revenue agents were just like me and the millions that do not work or contract with the United States. Therefore they were not subject to the income tax. And so it is today, and that explains why the private collection agency agents cannot be sued under 26 USC 7214 because they are not employee's of the United States. Today they are based out of and under the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury of Puerto Rico, strictly to collect alcohol, tobacco, and firearms taxable activities.
The identity of the Secretary is not found in title 26 U.S.C.. The only reference to the identity of the Secretary of the Treasury is in 27 C.F.R. at section 250.11 (definitions) which specifically states: "Secretary means Secretary of the Treasury of Puerto Rico".
Departamento De Hacienda
Secretary of the Treasury
Manuel Diaz Saldana
P.O. Box 4515
San Juan, Puerto Rico, 00902
1-787-721-2020
He's the head honcho. Also, you are usually dealing with an agent with a title of "Revenue Agent." The only definition of revenue agent is in 27 C.F.R.section 250.11 and is defined as: "Revenue Agent means any duly authorized Commonwealth Internal Revenue Agent of the Department of the Treasury of Puerto Rico."
""
Ironic though for my situation, the Fed Gov pays me, every month and its tax free. I do not pay income taxes, as I am not required to. xD Capital gains tax, may be different story, so McCafee may be in trouble having a US Citizenship of some kind... or being he used USD $ to get his crypto earnings... They make this shit so complicated and intimidating because they know most people CANT sit down for more than ten minutes with a meditated thought let alone fight the Gov...
Learn to change your thinking, and your reality changes. Why do you think people like Trump, do not pay taxes, or pay much taxes? Why does McCafee have to pay when Trump can dodge millions in taxes? Why Westly Snipes had to pay millions in taxes? Because some people understand how the law is written, and that there is a difference in how its interpretted or enforced.
Information is power, cause knowing is half the battle.
![[+]](https://sinister.ly/images/modern/collapse_collapsed.png)
![[Image: 4GNsK67.png]](http://i.imgur.com/4GNsK67.png)
