violations of the law on the part of public servants, accusing them under
relevant criminal statutes and pursuing their prosecution, has nothing to
do with the
movement, which is only good for theory, as it relates to income taxation.
This site is about whistleblowing, about watching
government and nailing it for conduct that violates the law. Until the
movement learns something about the Tax Code it's unable to cause
more than laughter by gov't and the tears shed by the victims of the ignroance.
role of the judiciary in the scheme operated by the IRS and DOJ has again
been exposed by the Code Breaker analysis of the Tax Code completed
in late 1993 (written in early 1994 by David R. Myrland). Hard work and common
sense allowed for this breakthrough understanding of the IRS and the Internal
Revenue Code, and of how they differ. When the courts impose enormous sanctions
for purely statutory arguments after having faced the same arguments for over
25 years, it's fair to presume the argued interpretation of relevant provisions
to be correct; it's not taxation - it's extortion and racketeering.
IRS, the DOJ, and the courts all refuse to discuss these provisions:
USC §§ 1, 31, 61, 83(a), 212, 879(a)(2), 1001, 1011, 1012, 1401,
1402(b), 3101, 3121(e), 3306(j), 6201, 6671(b), 7343, 7621, 7651(4)(A),
CFR 1.1-1, 1.83-3(e), (f), (g), 1.83-4(b)(2), 1.1001-1(a), 1.1011-1(a),
1.1012-1(a), 1.1401-1(a), 1.1402(a)-2(a), 1.1402(b)-1(d), 31.0-2(a)(1),
31.3121(e)-1(b), 301.6201-1(a), and 602.101;
USC § 411(b)(2);
Security Act of 1935 § 211, P.L. 74-271, 49 Stat. 620 (August 14, 1935),
now codified as 42 USC ch. 7;
Internal Revenue Code §§ 111, 112, 113, 3640, and 3811.
claims proven by these provisions:
Social Security has never applied to Americans.
Tax Code ch. 1 does not identify Americans as the subject of an income tax,
so the Sec. of Treasury promulgated 26 CFR 1.1-1, a mere regulation, to
identify Americans as the subjects of an income tax.
Under the law all property is a cost, including personal services, if you
honor the language of the law. The IRS/DOJ/courts have simply chosen
to exclude personal services from cost without the lawful authority to lay
a tax on the value of personal services = extortion and racketeering.
just that easy; the hard part was the five years (only, 1988-1993) of research.
You've seen how, as late as April 2018, these provisions in very specific
arguments evoke only savagery from the government where access to the law
(due process) should be.
David R. Myrland:
Tax Code § 83 screwed you the IRS would whip you to death with it, but
the courts, IRS and DOJ run from it like little girls, Superman in panties.
Tax Code § 83 explains how to tax the entire workforce and you can't
have it - It's extortion and racketeering exactly as explained in my 2-volume
From Caesar I & II. I can't stand one more contact that says,
"You're using their codes, it gives them jurisdiction, come with me and
become sui juris dejure with no contracts wiff bling bling . . . RAP is music."
THE MORONS IN THE MOVEMENT COULD READ they'd have learned of their
destruction in 1992!!! I got this document in 1992 and have been offering
it ever since, and the morons are still teaching this crap!!!
"movement" has discovered approx. 4619 reasons (best guess) to LEARN
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the law and as of 1997 it's making me sick and disgusted;
Picture it, innumerable hordes so dumb they can't sense an opportunity for
offense when you show them a law the IRS is violating; go figure. I've never
seen chop sui juris put an end to an IRS criminal investigation, but
as late as January 2018 my analysis was used by people to shut down investigations
and to negate grand juries, using only relevant provisions of law.
THE BURDEN of proof to the movement and it's exalted hero, Pete
Hendrickson, who concluded that the federal income tax is lawfully owed
only by those exercising a federal privilege, like employment.
Pete, how did Tax Code § 83 operate in your conclusion that anyone
at all owes an income tax on their pay, fees, wages, salaries, tips, or
reply is that § 83 "is gibberish." That's how Pete
and the rest of them justify learning nothing about the law. A single query
about a governing statute and he bails out claiming ignorance of the law,
ala, ["I can't interpret gibberish or apply it to fact; buy my
book."] (I'm interpreting his prowess, paraphrasing). But Pete gets results,
like this man
who was sentenced to 16 months for exotic tax returns filed Pete's way. I
can show this right to the eye balls of "the movement" and it doesn't
register that Pete
is puppy barf when you compare him to an actual researcher, a jurist, to somebody
who's done the work. This brick-in-the-head approach to jurisprudence and
to civic duty is fatal to progress of every sort, a flat refusal to be effective
or the cowardice against engaging one's public servants over lawlessness,
or both. I certainly don't care which.
blogs and chats and ask if anyone's even bothered to learn about the statute
that "explains how property received in exchange for services is taxed."
Ask around to see how many federal decisions any of them has read, ask to
see memorandums they've written; can they write? Upon my 30 yrs. exposure
to law and to gov't attorneys, I urge you to ignore anyone who claims to have
read fewer than 3000 such decisions, but if they seek to convey any notion
about the Tax Code while having no knowledge of Tax Code § 83 you'll
know their opinion to be uninformed at best; run from them.
a hypothetical - Maybe there's a law that says your personal services are
your cost, which we know would make your pay a deductible expense instead
of gross income or profit. I'd never pursue a hypothetical scenario
when it comes to gov't, but it's not a hypothetical, the gov't can't deny
it, the professionals and hordes ignore it, while puppy barf leads the ignorant
to prison. Tax Code § 83 says cost is "the value of any money or
property paid" - a gift to anyone who can read and who does not like
the IRS - and the slobbering hordes can't even lift an eyebrow or a pen in
its direction. F-bomb. Here is an actual photograph of "The Grand
Poobah of Sui Juris" -
is my god!"
looking at a defect in civic duty. I don't tell everyone they should abandon
a claim they feel is valid, but I do urge everyone to prepare to lose that
claim by having in-the-box arguments ready and understood to use thereafter.
By starting in-the-box, with only arguments concerning the interpretation
of relevant provisions, I've been able on many occasions to convince authorities
to back off, and I've kept people out of prison. Why would I leave the box
when statutory language destroys the IRS? Literally tens of millions of Americans
who have followed my tax advice have avoided liens, levies, and prison sentences.
IS FACT: Every CPA, bookkeeper, payroll expert, IRS Attorney/Agent/Officer/employee,
DOJ Attorney, state Dir. of Revenue or prosecutor (civil/criminal), Tax Court
judge, advocate (H&R Block, other), CEO, on and on and on . . . NONE OF
THEM can tell you a word about Tax Code § 83. If they can't tell you
anything about Tax Code § 83, what the Hell good are they? What the Hell
can they possibly know?
not telling the
that its minions have to shut up or to go out of their business of fraud,
but I'm telling it's
enthusiasts that they have to tell somebody else and to spare me their
tripe. I don't care what the ignorant hordes have to say about the law because
they're wrong, and I'm not wasting any more of my time on them. They've found
their respective asses with both hands, while in and out of prison, and it's
enough for them. My
students and I are having too much fun pushing servants around using ONLY
the law. My analysis of the Tax Code and the IRS was completed in late
1993 and was again proven in 2018 to evoke "no
comment" from authorities who have had the claims for 25+ years and
have yet to put them on the frivolous arguments list. Either forget what I
teach or forget the
movement; we're opposites. Forty-two provisions are officially off
limits; "move" on that.
On Sept. 1, 2001, 4 of 5 defendants in a civil suit brought by the State of
Oregon were dismissed, which were the only gifting club members in the entire
country to win after being accused of operating a pyramid promotional scheme;
I handled that entire case without a single slice of sui juris. In
2001 I set up a city to violate WA's disclosure act, in 2006 I sued that city
for the violation, I won a judgment for $25,055.00 (US), I got a check (cut
by my attorney), and I spent the money. WA then cut the statute of limitations
from five to two years to sue for RCW 42.17 violations. I never reserved rights,
I never claimed any "status" under the law or Constitution, I sued
as the "plaintiff," I revoked nothing, I was not sui juris, and
I even spoke to the judge. All of this was done in courtrooms with gold fringed
flags. I am the opposite of "the movement" in obvious ways and for