REBUTTED ARGUMENTS BY AN ATTORNEY ABOUT OUR TAX MATERIALS
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
INTRODUCTION:

The interesting interchange below occurred between us and an attorney who represents insurance companies in liability cases.  He is warning us that we are wrong after having read a document posted on this website.  Below that is our response.  Following our response, the attorney got very upset and refused to debate with us without explanation.  BUSTED!!!

You might want to reuse some of the argument below on an attorney of your choosing.  This is especially true if you have a relative who is either a judge or an attorney.  Please send us whatever answers you get by reusing this dialog, but please make sure you include the name, phone number, email address, and mailing address of the attorney you got the answer or response from.


INITIAL COMMENTS BY ATTORNEY:

I'd like to make a few comments about the information you recently sent me. First, taxation.

I read the entire materials you sent. While doing so I cited every statement I thought was incorrect. There are many. I do not pretend to be a Constitutional scholar, but I did study Constitutional law at Loyola and do understand the underpinnings of the government system.

Steadman is particularly wrong is his attempt to manufacture a "United States" that only includes the District of Columbia, and then to limit US citizenry to residents of that one area to the exclusion of the residents of any of the States. That is flat-out wrong. You are a citizen of the United States of America. If you surrender your citizenship, you can be deported. But you cannot have it both ways: you cannot enjoy the privileges of US citizenry, but then declare yourself immune from the tax system that supports those privileges.

His attempts to limit the jurisdiction of the US government to the District of Columbia is totally wrong. While the founders were vigilant in their efforts to prevent a central government that would control local state affairs, they also recognized the indispensable functions a central government fulfills. The fact that the jurisdiction of the federal government is "limited" means that it is limited to matters of national consequence. For example, the federal government controls interstate commerce, wages war, etc., functions a state cannot interfere with.

He also has "attorneys at law" defined as US government officers, which we are not. He limits the Federal District Court to Administrative Courts, which they are not. I can personally attest to that fact, having litigated cases in Federal Court.

Interestingly enough, if Steadman disavows any allegiance to the federal laws, then why does he avail himself of the protections of federal copyright law on the cover of his materials?

I am assembling a complete list of problems with his theory. For now, suffice to say that federal tax law is enforceable. I would think long and hard before taking on the system. Remember, this system has been scrutinized, challenged, revised, litigated, and upheld by the country's highest courts. It is also a political hot button issue. Don't you think that if the system were totally fraudulent, someone who devotes his / her entire life to the tax law system would have pressed the issue before?

I am concerned that you will face tax penalties, interest, and other punitive consequences if you maintain your present position. Remember, many people, some of them quite famous, have been put in prison for tax evasion. If the system were fraudulent don't you think their lawyers would have proven so in defense of their clients?

Please be careful. You're playing a very high-stakes game that has never been won before. If you really want to press your position, I would consult with a tax lawyer or with someone who can detail for you exactly what the consequences will be. You're dealing with potentially criminal conduct.

In closing, I understand that your first response will probably be that I don't fully understand your position. And if that it your position, you are absolutely right. i don't see it. But what I do see are some serious risks that you need to factor into your decision making process. Once you understand the risks, if you proceed you at least will be doing so fully informed of the risks and of the likelihood of those risks becoming realities.

Please give it some thought.


OUR RESPONSE:

Before we get to the audio debate stage, however, I’ll do some preliminary written responding below to his major five points below.  I’ll try very hard to minimize the amount of materials he has to look at out of respect for his and your time:

1.  The United States is not the District of Columbia.

You didn’t identify the context.  In law as in English grammar, context is EVERYTHING because context determines the choice of definitions.  Context, in turn, is primarily determined by who wrote the particular law.  There are at least three different major definitions of “United States” found in the Internal Revenue Code.  Below are a few:

http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/UnitedStates.htm

or Click here

In the context of the Constitution, “United States” means the collective states of the Union ONLY.  The reason is that the Constitution is a contract between the people in the states of the Union and their government.  “We the People” as the sovereigns wrote the contract and they lived in the then 13 States of the Union at the time.  In the context of federal statutes in most cases, “United States” means by default the District of Columbia and the territories and possessions of the United States.  This includes the Internal Revenue Code.  The reason is because the author of federal statutes is the federal government, who in that context is a trustee only over federal property under its direct control, which only includes the District of Columbia and the territories and possessions.  In the context of citizenship described in Title 8 of the U.S. code, it means the District of Columbia and the territories of the United States and excludes possessions. See the below, section 14 on Citizenship:

http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Forms/Discovery/Deposition/Deposition.htm

or Click here

 If you disagree with this interpretation, then please simply:

  1. Rebut the overwhelming evidence right out of the government’s own statutes, regulations, and court rulings proving this in section 14 in the above IRS deposition on citizenship.   
  2. Rebut the attached article entitled “An investigation into the meaning of the term ‘United States’
  3. Rebut the attached whitepaper entitled “Why you are a 'national' or a 'state national' and not a U.S. citizen
  4. Rebut section 3 of the Tax Deposition Questions at:

http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Forms/Discovery/Deposition/Section%2003.htm

or Click here

What we’re talking about is not religion but fact, as evidenced by the above, and I invite you to disprove anything in the above.

2.  Attorneys are U.S. government officers.

I don’t agree that all attorneys are U.S. government officers, but the ones who litigate in federal court are, as evidenced by the two articles below:

a.  Petition for Admission to Practice (attached).  Also available at:

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/LegalEthics/PetForAdmToPractice-USDC.pdf

b.  Why you don’t want an attorney:

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/Articles/WhyYouDontWantAnAtty/WhyYouDon'tWantAnAttorney.htm

or Click here

Please rebut the facts above, right out of the legal encyclopedia and the government’s own publications

3.  Disavowing allegiance while claiming protection is morally wrong.

The Constitution delegates to the federal government authority over primarily foreign affairs, which includes foreign commerce and political relations, as well as interstate commerce.  States of the Union are foreign countries with respect to federal jurisdiction.  See:

http://famguardian.org/Publications/LegalBasisForTermNRAlien/LegalBasisForTermNRAlien.pdf

or Click here

 In the above context, the federal government acts like the fourth branch of every state government.  They handle external/foreign relations while the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches handle all matters internal to the states.  The federal government should derive the taxes needed to support its activities at external relations from those very activities, and in fact that is how the system was designed by the founders and how the Internal Revenue Code is written.  The funciton of protecting copyrights was intended to be paid entirely by taxes on foreign commerce.  Even the IRS itself in the Federal Register admitted that all federal tax revenues was intended by the founders to be derived exclusively from foreign commerce:

“Madison’s Notes on the Constitutional Convention reveal clearly that the framers of the Constitution believed for some time that the principal, if not sole, support of the new Federal Government would be derived from customs duties and taxes connected with shipping and importations.  Internal taxation would not be resorted to except infrequently, and for special reasons.”  [37 F.R. 20960, 1972]

In consonance with the above conclusions, the only "taxable sources" of income found in the Internal Revenue Code are all foreign, are placed exclusively on corporations and not businesses, and are found in 26 CFR 1.861-8(f)(1).  The only exception to that is income “effectively connected with a trade or business” upon natural persons found in 26 CFR 1.861-8(f)(1)(iv),  which is a fancy way of saying that if you hold public office, then your income is “gross income” and “taxable income”.  In fact, “trade or business” is defined in 26 USC 7701(a)(26) as “the functions of a public office”.  Our whole tax system is based upon taxes upon these two sources: foreign commerce and taxes on politicians holding public office.  Persons born in states of the Union do not appear in the list of taxable sources found in 26 CFR 1.861-8(f)(1) and this omission is deliberate, because Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 and Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution excludes direct taxes within states of the Union.  If you disagree, then please rebut the following:

 a.  Tax Deposition Questions, section 11 entitled “Taxable sources” found at:

http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Forms/Discovery/Deposition/Deposition.htm

or Click here

 b.  Tax Deposition Questions, section 3 entitled “Jurisdiction”, found at:

http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Forms/Discovery/Deposition/Deposition.htm

or Click here

 4.  Federal tax law is enforceable.  System has been challenged before and people lose.

 The only way that a law can be enforceable is if it imposes a positive legal duty and liability.  There is no place anywhere in the Internal Revenue Code Subtitle A that uses the word  “liable” or which imposes a legal duty other than upon withholding agents of nonresident aliens who have chosen to participate in the income tax system, as shown in 26 USC 1461.  The reason there isn’t “legal duty” anywhere in the law is because there simply can’t be.  The only direct tax that imposed a tangible legal duty was declared unconstitutional in 1895 by the Supreme Court in Pollock v. Farmers Loan and Trust.  Since that time, there has never again appeared a legal duty or “liability” in the law, and without a legal duty, the income tax laws are unenforceable.

 Absent a legal duty, there is no way to enforce the tax laws.  Absent a legal duty, there can be no enforcement regulations, and without regulations, the Internal Revenue Code is unenforceable and entirely voluntary.  Absent a legal duty, people may choose to volunteer, or practice “voluntary compliance”, as the government calls it.  At that point, they must compute their “gross income” and “taxable income” in accordance with the rules prescribed by the Internal Revenue Code.  The income tax is an excise tax on two types of “privileges”:  1.  "Public office" in the U.S. government (26 CFR 1.861-8(f)(1)(iv); 2.  Foreign commerce (see 26 USC 7001 and 26 CFR 1.861-8(f)(1).  The only natural persons subject to federal income taxes are privileged public officials, who earn “gross income” and “taxable income” under 26 CFR 1.861-8(f)(1)(iv) only.  No other taxable sources are listed in 26 CFR 1.861-8(f)(1) which are associated with natural persons.  All other sources of income listed there apply only to privileged FEDERAL corporations involved only in foreign commerce.  The privileged activity of being a corporation involved in foreign commerce is identified in 26 USC 7001, and it requires a “license”.  State (not federal) corporations are outside of federal legislative police powers and therefore, do not come under the purview of the Internal Revenue Code.  If you disagree, then please rebut:

a.  Tax Deposition Questions, section 1, entitled “liability”, found at:

http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Forms/Discovery/Deposition/Section%2001.htm

or Click here

 b.  Great IRS Hoax, sections 5.4.4 through 5.4.7, and 5.6.1, available for free at:

http://famguardian.org/Publications/GreatIRSHoax/GreatIRSHoax.htm

or Click here

 5.  Concerns over adverse consequences and risks, possible penalties and interest, and jail time.

 Those who violate the law should go to jail.  However, the Internal Revenue Code was repealed in 1939 and has not been a law since that time.  The Internal Revenue Code, Title 26, has never been enacted into positive law.  If it isn’t a positive law, then the only other way to refer to it is that it is a government-sponsored religion that is based on “belief” rather than legal requirement.  If you disagree, please rebut:

  1. Great IRS Hoax, section 5.6.18, found at:

      http://famguardian.org/Publications/GreatIRSHoax/GreatIRSHoax.htm

or Click here

  1. Tax Deposition Questions, section 5 entitled “First Amendment and Socialism” found at:

           http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Forms/Discovery/Deposition/Deposition.htm

           or Click here

CONCLUSIONS

Don’t believe me.  My opinion isn’t worth the water needed to flush it down the toilet!  The evidence is all that matters.  Examine the overwhelming evidence for yourself in the Tax Deposition Questions.  After you have examined the evidence for yourself, there is not other conclusion a reasonable person can reach than those I have presented above.

After you have rebutted the argument appearing above in writing, then please call me to arrange a phone conference so we can discuss this.  I’d be delighted to.  All I want is the truth and I’ll come to the debate with an open mind completely free of bias and presumption and give him the chance to prove his position with evidence.

 I look forward to your reply and to the phone conference that will follow it.

 God bless,

 Author

  Last revision: August 14, 2009 08:08 AM
   Home  About  Contact This private system is NOT subject to monitoring