IRS taken to U.S. Supreme Court
unconstitutional and illegal actions.
What you have been told all your life about income taxes and the IRS is a
lie. Hard to believe? Probably not, but then, HOW DO YOU PROVE IT? Well, let?s
begin by asking one simple question out of dozens we could ask in challenging
the IRS scam; Do you have lawful "income" subject to taxation by government?
We have all been led to believe that, "of course, my wages are "income,"
however, as you will soon discover, that is a lie. We have been presuming wages
are income but have you ever you actually proven that belief? We have all been
deceived on this fact, among many others, and there is only ONE way to prove
that, and that is by looking at the actual evidence long suppressed.
The question of "what is income," along with many other questions, have been
presented to the lower courts, and all have rejected the questions, and ignored
the plain evidence, calling the challenges "frivolous." Now, in this Supreme
Court case, (http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12-6169.htm),
they can't ignore it any longer without violating their oaths of office, and
their duty to Americans across this country to uphold their own past rulings and
So, let's say I tell you that you owe me $10,000 for work I did for you, and
send you a bill. Would you pay it? Why not? Of course, you'd fight that because
you know you don't owe it, and yet, we have all accepted without question the
presumption that all we bring in as wages is "income" and that we owe tax on
this. Is this the truth?
Well, let's address this in a few simple Supreme Court cases to set the
stage, and YOU decide for yourself if you want to know more, and discover that
you have lawful, constitutional authority to stop the pillaging of your monies.
Is that a fair request?
We have all been led to believe that "income" is our wages, salary or
compensation for services. Our parents and grandparents have accepted this
social propaganda, and believed it without question. Why should we question it
when everyone accepts it as fact?
A business or corporation can deduct all costs to be able to be in business
and to make a "profit." The "profit" is what is above and beyond all expenses to
pay employees for working, pay their costs for goods sold, electricity,
everything that they had to pay for to make it possible to be in business and to
actually make a profit.
Question: Does it cost you anything to be able to arrive at work, do the
work, and go home? Anything? No, you say? What about gas to get to work? What
about food to feed yourself to be able to work? What about a home to live in to
be able to sleep, and have the ability to work, or insurance, or whatever costs
it takes to keep you functioning as a human being able to work?
Make the connections... there is NO difference between a business expense
sheet, and YOURS. Is all that a business brings in, a "profit?" No... they have
lots of costs. So why should the IRS, or you, presume that all you bring in is
"profit" when the courts don?t support that contention?
"In principle, there can be no difference between the case of selling labor
and the case of selling goods." United States Supreme Court, Adkins v. Children's
Hospital, 261 U.S. at 558.
The Supreme Court clearly understood that a person?s labor "cost" the person
to be able to provide it, just as it costs corporations or businesses money to
sell goods. However, the IRS claims your labor is worth nothing, and is all
"...income; as used in the statute should be given a meaning so
as not to include everything that comes in. The true function of
the words "gains" and "profits" is to limit the meaning of the word "income."
United States Supreme Court, S. Pacific v. Lowe, U.S. 247 F.
Notice "gains" and "profits" are linked to the word "income," limiting what
can be defined as "income." So, ask yourself this again; Did it cost you
anything to be able to get to work? Yes! So all you receive as "wages" cannot
possibly be all "profit," right?
"If there is no gain, there is no income." 
...It [income] is not synonymous with receipts. Simply put, pay from a job is a
'wage,' and wages are not taxable. Congress has taxed income, not
compensation." United States Supreme Court Conner v. United States. 303 F. Supp. 1187
(1969) pg. 1191: 47 C.J.S. Internal Revenue 98, Pg. 226. (Emphasis
The IRS claims that all you make is "gain," or "profit," but the S.Ct case
above states otherwise. Whom do we believe? What is it that you are actually
taking home for your labor? All "Gain," all "Income," or something else?
"We must reject in this case...the broad contention submitted in behalf of
the Government that all receipts - everything that comes in - are income within
the proper definition of the term 'gross income'..." United States Supreme Court Doyle v. Mitchell Brother, Co., 247 US
Notice the IRS? own code in Section 22 GROSS INCOME:
(a): Gross income includes gains, profits, and income derived from salaries,
wages, or compensation for personal service...
Gains, profits and income are redundant terms, and confuse the lawful
definition of what a "profit" is because it is the same thing as income. They
all mean the same thing. Defining it in Section 22 gives the false and
misleading impression there is a difference between these terms when none
If "gains, profit and income" are the same as "salaries, wages, or
compensation," why state "derived from?" One does not "derive" income "FROM" a
wage if they lawfully mean the same thing. If wages ARE income already, why use
the term "derived from?" The code speaks truth in many cases, but we have to
decode their confusion.
"The statute and the statute alone determines what is income to be taxed. It
taxes only income "derived" from many different
sources; one does not "derive income" by rendering services and charging
for them." Edwards v. Keith, 231 F. 110 (2nd
Cir. 1916). (Emphasis added).
You render services and are paid a wage in exchange for your service... but
that wage is NOT "income" according to original intent. "Derived" income is
something completely different. You "derive" income from a source
for that income, much like you derive an apple from your apple tree. You don?t
consider the branches of the tree to be "income," or you diminish the source for
income, and attack the tree itself, causing a loss of potential income.
"The poor man or the man in moderate circumstances does not regard his wages
or salary as an income that would have to pay its proportionate tax under this
new system." Gov. A.E. Wilson on the Income Tax (16 ) Amendment, N.Y.
Times, Part 5, Page 13, February 26, 1911.
It was common knowledge that wages were not considered "income" under
"The claim that salaries, wages, and compensation for personal services are
to be taxed as an entirety and therefore must be returned by the individual...
is without support, either in the language of the Act or in the decisions of the
courts construing it... it is not salaries, wages or compensation for
personal services that are to be included in gross income. That which is to be
included is gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or
compensation for personal services." United States
Supreme Court, Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930). (Emphasis
Sound confusing given what you have been told all your life? Everything the
IRS does is confusing and convoluted to deceive. Understanding the fraud can
take some time but it is as easy as A, B, C. So, what IS lawful, constitutional
Simple example. You make a wage. You pay all your expenses. You have some
left over "principal," and you invest this in some means, and "derive" some
interest from the extra money. THAT is what is lawful income. You are deriving NOTHING from your wages. It is the value
of your labor, which costs money.
That being said, this U.S. Supreme Court case is being asked these and many
more questions which have never been adjudicated in any court of the land.
This isn't an easy 15 minute read, any more than learning to speak
another language would take you an hour to master.
If you are tired of the fraud, want to know what your constitutional and
lawful rights are, then you NEED to begin educating yourself on this topic, as
many others are doing, so that you can stand on the laws there for you, and quit
being a government slave to unconstitutional and illegal taxation.
Now, don't get me wrong here. Income taxation is lawful and constitutional,
as long as it is on true income. The key is "lawful income."
Now, the facts of this U.S. Supreme Court case to date are these:
1. The IRS attacked me for allegedly not paying what I owe for 4 years of not
filing, but deprived me of due process of law to defend my position.
2. I went through 9 federal courts, and am now in the Supreme Court, having
filed my writ with application to not have to pay court docket fee of $300, and
being allowed to file a much simpler document under less stringent criteria.
3. The court accepted this document, provided a case number for it and
4. The IRS had opportunity to respond, but waived its right to respond to my
writ. One wonders why it would waive its right to respond to allegations it
claims are true, however it seems that it believes the Court will NOT take the
case, so they don't have to respond. This lack of response, in any other court
would be an automatic default under Rule 55.
5. Documents sent that address this default have NOT been filed in the U.S.
Supreme Court as the law requires in all other courts.
6. The U.S. Supreme Court is avoiding this issue in violation of its own
laws, and it does NOT "have" to take the case, however, all case precedent in
its own court clearly states that they would take constitutional issues which
address a huge population.
7. I filed for Motion for reconsideration of the fee issue, but the Court
denied this once again, despite its own past rulings stating that all courts
were to take "substance" over "form." They have my original document accepted
and filed, so they have the substance, but are forcing "form," in order for me
to even have a chance at due process.
8. The denial of my application means I now have to pay the court cost of
$300, as well as having to redo the writ according to attorney standards
(actually printed books) at a cost of about $1500... 40 copies and the original
to the Court, three copies to the IRS, and copies for my records.
Of course, it appears they are doing everything in their power to deter me
from getting this before them, as they are hugely aware of the ramifications. If
they take it, the truth will be exposed. If they do NOT take it, due process has
been denied by the highest court in the land, and government can now run
roughshod over any one of us as it pleases.
The Courts have a sworn duty to apply law and rules to every one of us, so
where they do not, it is treason, and warring against the constitution...
"When a judge acts where he or she does not have jurisdiction to act, the
judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason." Cohens V Virginia, 19 US (6
Wheat) 264, 404, 5LEd 257 (1821). .
"No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the
Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it." Cooper v.
Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958).
"The court is to protect against any encroachment of Constitutionally secured
liberties." Boyd v. U.S., 116 U.S. 616
"The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land. Any
law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law." Marbury
v. Madison, 5 US 137
As much as is possible, this is going out to the true supreme court, that of
PUBLIC OPINION, and need to be understood by all Americans. Simply read the
questions being addressed to the Court in the documents filed to date at
Supreme Court case Documents. Read the evidence, and then YOU decide.
You can also research the document "What is Income" by going here... http://thematrixhasyou.org/PDF/Exhibit-A-What-is-Income.pdf
for a far larger body of evidence on this one question alone. If you want to
delve into this tax scam issue much more, go here... http://thematrixhasyou.org/no-tax.html, and https://foundationfortruthinlaw.org/income-tax.html
Lastly, if you feel engaged in this in the least, please help support the
costs for getting this into the Court, not to mention the costs which will be
incurred with having to travel to DC for oral argument should it come to that.
This is TOO big of an issue to let this opportunity go because of lack of funds.
You can go to foundationfortruthinlaw.org
We, the People, MUST stand on the laws and facts. Prove to yourself the
validity of the facts.
This case could change every man, woman and child?s life in our republic if
the court does its job of protecting us from such encroachment by government. Be
a part of it by simply knowing your rights and some basic law, and pass on to
everyone you know.
This will be resisted, of course, but media exposure and public pressure will
force them to address these issues, sooner or later. In so doing, and we can
bring some of the change we all want.
Pagosa Springs, Colorado