Index of IRS Fraud Documents
The following documents have been accumulated over a number of years in researching the IRS fraud. If any document is copyrighted and the owner does not want it listed here, please point it out and it will be removed. To get the entire name of the document, simply place your mouse over the name, and look in the lower screen area for the full name. These documents prove beyond any doubt at all that the IRS is a fraudulent government agency, with the federal government's approval. Pass this on and get out of their matrix scam. Educate your self and your friends and family and help stop this corruption and destruction of our Republic!
→ 5-2-17: U.S. Supreme Court: Motion for Summary Judgment against IRS filed: IRS filed a "Waiver of right to respond" on 4-13-17. This, technically and legally, in any court in America, would be a default... They either can't or won't respond to the evidence. I filed this and copied President Trump, Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Trey Gowdy (all three branches of government), so we will see how just and uncorrupted these people are!
→ 4-20-17: U.S. Supreme Court accepted my "in forma pauperis" application and Docketed the case scheduled for May 11, 2017 Conference (16-8625 - https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles\16-8625.htm).
→ 3-30-17: Well, it appears the Sup. Ct. has DENIED my Veteran Status for not having to pay the docket fee, but it is allowing me to file "in Forma Pauperis", which is very confusing, since they sent me the DENIAL days ago, but I just received the follow-up information on how to proceed. Why they denied the veteran status is being questioned, and I already sent in the "in forma pauperis" application, so we will see what comes of this... is it just court political theater or will it actually be valid and approved?
→ 3-30-17: U.S. Supreme Court DENIED Motion to proceed free of costs as a veteran - Rule 40: Both the District Court of Colorado and the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals GRANTED my motion to proceed in the courts without costs due to not having any money to pay the court fees. Now, the U.S. Supreme Court DENIED this, which is puzzling. This means they demand $300 for filing fee, and the necessity to print a booklet of the case costing many hundreds of dollars... more oppressive depravation of access to the courts. The doc above is my next step in the process of trying to get this exposed.
→ 2-22-17: U.S. Supreme Court Petition for Writ of Certiorari on the elements the Appeals Court deemed "legally frivolous". Essentially the District Court and Appeals Court are claiming that dozens of U.S. Supreme Court still standing case precedent are "frivolous" in this challenge to IRS presumptions about American's wages being actual lawful "income" and a taxable item. Original Court precedent says, NO!
→ 2-23-17: District Courts Service of Amended Complaint by U.S. Marshals on Defendants; Satisfying to see the system working a bit.
→ 11-10-16: Motion for Rehearing En Banc DENIED: Now on to the U.S. Supreme Court with some basic, never adjudicated questions and challenges to standing court precedent being denied by government and all lower courts.
→ 10-20-16: Appeals Court "Reverse and Remand" of one critical tax issue. Now it is back to the District Court for adjudication of the evidence against the IRS.
→ 10-28-16: Motion for Rehearing En Banc: "En Banc" means all 9 judges of the Appeals court, not just 3. They are really trying hard to not make a precedent on the actual evidence against the IRS, but if they fail to do the lawful thing, this will open the door for Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, and it is this court which ruled against the IRS' stand on the two main issues.
→ 10-20-16: Partial victory: The Appeals court ORDERED "Reverse and Remand" on one issue raised, but ignored all the relevant evidence proving the IRS fraud of a tax on wages, and the 16th Amendment (1913) claim for authority for such a tax. Real, lawful "Income" tax laws predate 1913, back to 1862, so the amendment did NOT authorize this "new" tax. (See 10-3-16 document below, and this article for support documents).
→ 10-4-16: The Appeals Court still has not ruled on this case. It has been in the court since early August. I recently filed the below two documents to try to stimulate action. The new evidence regarding the 16th Amendment lie is the icing on the cake.
→ 10-3-16: 16th Amendment Addendum to Reply Brief with Motion for Summary Judgment: Addendum proves the 16th Amendment did NOT authorize the "income" tax, and that the U.S. Supreme Court's declaration that wages are NOT lawful "income" and the 16th Amendment did NOT authorize some new tax, is correct. The "income" tax should be called the "gains, profit and income tax", and existed long before 1913 when this tax was fraudulently applied to American's wages. There was no such tax prior to the 16th Amendment and certainly cannot be a lawful one after.
The two related documents referred to in the 16th Amendment Addendum above
→ 7-29-16: Appeal: Final Reply to bogus response by IRS
→ 6-10-16: Opening Brief - 10th Circuit Appeals Court; Appeal to below denials which were complete violations of numerous laws and statutes.
→ This is a second case now underway against the IRS; To prove there is no law created by Congress that forces Americans to file the so-called "income" tax.
→ Motion for reconsideration and Recusal of Judge Babcock - (Court Stamped filing of same document - waiting for results as of 5-11-16).
→ 4-25-16 - Court Stamped Amended Brief in Support of Suit against IRS, et al: Commissioner of the IRS, Social Security administration acting head, 7 revenue agents and Wells Fargo Bank, for unlawful taking of assets outside due process of law and other standing statutes for such illegal taking. OCR copy of amended brief which you can copy and paste text from.
→ FOIA to the IRS with jurisdiction challenge and proof most Americans are NOT liable for income taxes ( This document...Knox source is one of the main sources I used in the IRS FOIA challenge, but not the only one. I made changes I felt were in my best interest, mostly additions of court cases which added to the citizenship and jurisdiction issue, and the "income" as wages misunderstanding. It was a great research document and appreciation for Mr. Knox (now deceased) for blazing THAT trail for us all decades ago, but just now turning up, and thanks to Paul Andrew Mitchell for getting involved and posting it for all to utilize.)
→ U.S. Supreme Court Question on What is Income (Ignored completely by Sup. Ct. See Jeffrey-T-Maehr-v-Internal-Revenue-Service-US-Supreme-Court-S.pdf
→ Why the Citizens of ...> 90K