The Becraft Landmark IRS Case

by Frederick Mann

Disclaimer This report is intended purely as a communication of information in accordance with the right of free speech. It does not constitute legal or tax advice. Anyone seeking legal or tax advice should consult a competent professional. Neither the author, editor, or publisher assumes any responsibility for the consequences of anyone acting according to the information in this report. Readers are specifically advised to obey all laws to the letter.

U.S. V. LLOYD R. LONG The following article is reprinted from the December 1993 edition of Free Enterprise Society News, 300 W. Shaw Ave. #205, Clovis, Calif. 93612:

"A not guilty verdict came in the Eastern District of

Tennessee

in the case of

U.S. v. Lloyd R. Long,

#CR-1-93-91. The verdict came on October 15th, 1993.

This was an amazing case involving the income tax. A Chattanooga jury agreed with the argument by Long that the income tax is actually an excise tax and only applies to certain classes of people.

Nationally prominent attorney Lowell Becraft, of Huntsville Alabama, assisted by attorney Russell J. Leonard of Sewanee, Tennessee, defended Lloyd R. Long of Decherd, Tennessee. Long was charged with willful failure to file income tax returns for 1989 and 1990.

In presenting the case for the IRS, the government, represented by assistant US attorney Curtis Collier assisted by special agent Michael Geasley of the IRS, declared that Long had grossed income in excess of $49,000.00 for each year, and that he willfully failed to file income tax returns.

The defense admitted that Long had an income in excess of $49,000.00 for each year in question, and that he did not file a return. He then proceeded to prove to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not liable for an income tax, nor was he required by law to file.

Defense testimony showed a case titled Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad wherein it was the unanimous decision of the US Supreme Court that the 16th amendment 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. It also showed that the income tax was in fact an excise tax on corporate privileges and privileged occupations. The defense then brought out a case entitled Flint v. Stone Tracy wherein an excise tax was defined as a tax being laid upon the manufacture, sale and consumption of commodities within the country; upon licenses to pursue certain occupations; and upon corporate privileges.

Mr. Long's attorneys also brought out a case entitled Simms 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.

The defense then brought out a case entitled Redfield v. Fisher, wherein the court ruled that the 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 a couple of studies done by the Congressional Research Service that shows the income tax is an excise.

Next, defense pointed out that in Tennessee Supreme Court case

Jack Cole v. Commissioner

the court ruled that citizens are entitled by right to income or earnings and that right could not be taxed as a privilege. In another Tennessee Supreme Court case

Corn v. Fort

the court ruled that individuals have the right to combine their activities as partnerships; and that this is a natural right independent and antecedent of government.

The prosecution did not challenge or attempt to refute any of these cases cited, or the conclusions of the courts.

Defense brought out in testimony the fact that nowhere in the entire IRS Code was anyone actually made liable for the income tax. They showed that in the IRS's own privacy act notice only three sections were cited, and that none of these sections made anyone liable for the tax. They also proved that this was not an oversight by showing that the alcohol tax was worded so clearly that no one could misinterpret who was liable for the alcohol tax.

Prosecution did not challenge or attempt to refute this point, nor were they able to show a statute that made anyone liable for the income tax.

Defense then presented the mission statement of the IRS stating that the income tax relied upon voluntary compliance, and a statement 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% mandatory.

Mr. Long stated that in 1989 he knew that the income tax was in fact an excise tax; and that he was not enjoying any corporation; and that income or earnings from the exercise of common right could not be taxed as an excise or otherwise; and that nowhere in the IRS Code was he made liable for the tax; and that the income tax was voluntary.

Long then stated he was so intimidated by the IRS that he filed and paid his voluntary assessment.

He then began a series of letters to the IRS explaining that he had no licenses or privileges issued to him by the federal government.

He asked for direct answers to simple questions, such as "Am I required to file federal income tax returns?";

and "Am I liable for federal income taxes?"

The IRS never gave a direct answer to any questions. Instead they inferred and insinuated and extrapolated and beat around the bush, and generally avoided answering.

So Mr. Long testified that he decided to stop volunteering.

The IRS brought in 2 expert witnesses. Both were actually IRS employees who had received training as professional witnesses.

Upon cross-examination by Attorney Becraft, one witness, a Ms. Jeu, stated that a secret code known only to the IRS, and encoded on Mr. Long's permanent record, showed that the IRS knew that he was not required to mail or file a return.

Ms. Jeu made every effort to avoid this admission to the point that she was beginning to frustrate the jury.

The other witness, upon cross-examination by Becraft gave testimony that conflicted with the Privacy Act notice.

The government also attempted to institute "guilt by association" in that they claimed Mr. Long had known and relied upon persons of questionable character.

They argued that the writers of some of the books he read and people he knew had been convicted of tax-related charges in the past and were in fact criminals.

Long responded that just because a person had been convicted of a crime by a court, did not invalidate everything said.

To illustrate his point, he pointed out that apostle Paul was a murderer, but that by the grace of God he became the greatest of the Apostles.

Mr. Long added that he did not rely on anything that he did not personally check out thoroughly.

In summation Attorney Larry Becraft reminded them that Galileo was imprisoned for holding a belief that conflicted with one which everyone else knew as a fact;

and that Columbus, acting on a belief which conflicted with what everyone else knew as a fact, discovered something no one else thought existed.

The jury agreed with the defense. By finding Mr. Long "Not Guilty" on all counts they have ventured into history as preservers of freedom.

A Chattanooga TV Station quoted a government spokesman as saying that this case will change the way the IRS will handle such cases in the future. They indicated that they will be less likely to prosecute if a jury isn't going to decide in their favor.

Mr. Long's spirit was best expressed when he was asked for a final statement by a reporter as he was leaving the courtroom. His words: "To God be the glory!" Congratulations, Lloyd!"

"I DON'T WANT TO FIGHT THE IRS" Before analyzing the Becraft Landmark case, I want to address an emotional issue. For emotional reasons many people fear the IRS. They have seen horror stories about IRS victims on TV and read about them in the newspapers. They don't want to rock the IRS boat because they fear they might become an IRS victim.

They know that the IRS is a terrorist organization that can take their personal property, destroy their business, and ruin their lives. Their fear and emotion prevents them from thinking rationally about the IRS.

The IRS could even utilize their terrorist brothers from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to slaughter anyone who tries to rock the boat. Did you see the pictures of the

Waco massacre on TV?

The following article appeared in The

Arizona Republic

of May 19, 1994:

"IRS failing to collect millions, report says '92 audit level was half what it was in '81

The Associated Press WASHINGTON - The Internal Revenue Service failed to collect $127 billion in taxes from 1992. Yet audits that might have curbed the ever-growing tax gap were conducted at half the rate of 11 years earlier, a congressional report says.

"IRS major enforcement activities have not grown over the past decade," according to the General Accounting Office, the auditing arm of Congress.

From 1981 to 1992, the odds of getting audited fell from l-in-20 to l-in-33 for corporations and from l-in-56 to 1-in-110 for individuals.

Those numbers may be misleadingly optimistic, the congressional agency said.

"IRS classifies certain taxpayer contacts as audits, when in fact taxpayers' books and records were not examined," it said.

The $127 billion tax gap in 1992, the latest year available, was 67 percent larger than the $76 billion gap in 1981. If all of it had been collected, it would have cut the record $290 billion budget deficit of 1992 nearly in half.

The gap represented 18 percent of what taxpayers owed the government. IRS Commissioner Margaret Milner Richardson has vowed to reduce that to 10 percent by the year 2000.

Frank Keith, a spokesman for the IRS, said the compliance rate should start improving noticeably in several years as the IRS brings more-modern computer equipment on line and completes research that should better identify taxpayers who are most likely to pay less than they owe.

But the report notes that Congress has been funding stepped-up enforcement efforts since the late 1980s, with poor results.

"Enforcement staffing has been declining since 1988 and is about what is was in 1987. Because of overall budget shortfalls, IRS has reallocated funds from compliance initiatives to non-enforcement efforts, such as returns processing," the report says.

The compliance and enforcement staff declined from 57,470 in 1988 to 51,305 in 1992.

The report recommends that the IRS more strongly focus its compliance efforts on areas most likely to bear fruit, such as small companies and sole proprietorships, without waiting for the results of research.

Simply doing a better job of matching financial information, such as forms on partnership income, to taxpayers' returns should yield large results, it says.

The report also urges the IRS to revamp procedures to emphasize early telephone contact with delinquent taxpayers rather using the mail. And it said that if the IRS did a better job of answering its phones, taxpayers would be less likely to pay too little." [emphasis added]

The most important lesson to be learned from the above is that the IRS has limited resources. There are at least 10 million people in the U.S. who don't file tax returns nor pay federal income taxes people the IRS claims should file and pay. The real number may be much higher: 20 or 30 million.

In fact, there is an explosion of people opting out of the tax system. Every week I hear of a new organization that "untaxes" people. This is an unstoppable tide the IRS is powerless against. The probability of the IRS "going after" a particular individual is very small.

IS THE IRS REALLY A PAPER TIGER? According to tax attorney Donald W. MacPherson (Tax Fraud & Evasion: The War Stories - one of the best tax books I know of):

"Once you get past all of the tax statutes passed by Congress, the rules of evidence and of criminal procedure, interpretation by the courts of the laws and the rules, you are left with human drama. Conflict. IRS special agent versus citizen target.

Justice Department prosecutor versus defense attorney. The final arbitrator of this combat is the jury of twelve. That which is public record is but one-tenth of the story. The flesh and blood war stories are intended to cut through the legalese to the end that you will be brought to understanding, and through understanding harbor fear no longer.

Nor will the Monster, discovered as a paper tiger, any longer intimidate you, the sovereign citizen, the master. Beastmaster...

Failure to file an income tax return, failure to pay income taxes, and attempted income tax evasion are not crimes in this country.

Not yet anyway. For those acts (or failures to act) to constitute a crime, one first must act with specific intent to violate the law; knowing what the law forbids or requires, one must set out with the specific purpose to violate the law.

Willfulness. Specific criminal intent. Ignorance of the law is an excuse. Congress has declared that the tax laws are so complex that ignorance of the law is a defense so far as it goes to the citizen's state of mind; or, in other words, so far as it tends to negate willfulness.

Second, the government must assemble evidence and prove beyond a reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of twelve jurors that you intended to violate the law.

If good faith belief or misunderstanding or reliance on the advice of counsel is raised, then the government must, in effect, prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you did not believe in good faith or did not in good faith rely on the advice of your attorney or accountant.

At least some federal appellate courts hold that the belief or misunderstanding is subjective not objective. This nuance means, in the final analysis, that it is not even relevant whether what you believed was right or wrong, or whether the jury determines it was reasonable or unreasonable for you to so believe what you claim you believed.

All that matters is whether you in fact believed it. Put another way, the government must, then, prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you did not believe what you claim you believed.

Is it any wonder then the fine-tune processing by IRS and Justice Department of criminal tax cases?

After two years of investigation by the IRS special agent of the Criminal Investigation Division (CID) and review by his supervisor, plus further review by chief of CID and IRS District Director, the case then goes to the office of District Counsel, the IRS lawyers, for review. Then to Justice Department in Washington, D.C. for review where it may remain for another year or two. Then back to the local U.S. Attorney for further fine-tuning and additional investigation, if necessary, and the ultimate prosecution by way of grand jury indictment or, in the case of misdemeanor rather than felony, by a charging paper signed by the U.S. Attorney, called an "Information." A long, arduous pipeline.

For the Beast ( IRS ) can ill afford to lose criminal tax cases. If IRS cannot succeed in putting behind bars those it believes to be tax cheats, what then the impact upon the remaining one hundred million and our system based upon "voluntary compliance?"

... Just how far can you push IRS and not be prosecuted? What are the "limits of the tax law?" What must the IRS prove? The answers are found in the criminal tax cases that are won! The proof is in the pudding. If an Arkansas woman who did not file a tax return for eighteen years beat IRS at criminal charges, by what should you feel intimidated?

Consider this analogy: you go to a haunted house as a child and under cover of darkness are frightened by ghosts and goblins. Your imagination runs wild while at the house, and later you attempt, without success, to stave off recurring nightmares.

In effort to put the matter to rest, your parents take you during daylight hours back to the haunted house and show you the tricks of the trade. The props used.

That goblin was but one-sixteenth inch cardboard. Cardboard which even as a child, you could rip apart with your bare hands. Don't you feel silly? The nightmares go away...

The paper tiger. The bureaucrat, also known as the bureaurat. If the IRS agent was truly competent and was not lazy, why had he not struck out for business on his own?

Coffee and cigarettes and federal service retirement pay? The paper tiger exposed by the light of day. But who would dare to turn on the switch, or open the curtain, for this vampire Monster to be exposed to sunlight?"

BUT EVEN IF YOU FOLLOW THEIR RULES, THEY MAY "COME AFTER" YOU The following IRS atrocity story comes from Tax Revolt: The Battle for the Constitution by Martin A. Larson, who got it from the Rocky Mountain News of May 3, 1979.

It is the story of Jasper and Lucille Gates of Denver, CO, which began when they received a letter from the IRS stating that they had overpaid their 1972 tax by $1,197. However, they never received a refund.

Instead, in June 1974 they were notified, without explanation, that they owed $4,451. Soon another letter came, claiming the deficiency was $4,206. In October the IRS claimed they owed $13,700, in November it was $15,000.

By October 1975 the alleged deficiency had grown to $16,000 - all without explanation. Then in August 1978 the IRS seized their bank accounts worth about $13,000 and their home worth about $100,000.

They sold the home for $16,000. Mrs. Gates, in a wheel-chair, was evicted. With the help of sheriff's deputies, the Gates' furniture and personal effects were thrown into the street. When the news media contacted the IRS, the response was that the IRS couldn't comment because of the Privacy Act.

The next IRS atrocity story is also one where the victims followed the "IRS rules." In June, 1988 Kay Council of High Point, NC came home one night to find a note from her husband, Alex: "My dearest Kay - I have taken my life in order to provide capital for you. The IRS and its liens which have been taken against our property illegally by a runaway agency of our government have dried up all sources of credit for us.

So I have made the only decision I can. It's purely a business decision... You will find my body on the lot on the north side of the house." At the end of a nine-year battle over a disallowed tax shelter, the IRS claimed that the Councils owed $300,000 in taxes, interest, and penalties. When their financial resources were exhausted, Mr. Council committed suicide to provide Mrs. Council with $250,000 insurance money to continue the battle. Ironically, Mrs. Council eventually won a court ruling that she and her husband owed the IRS nothing - the IRS deficiency notice had been sent four months after the statute of limitations had expired. Mrs. Council, 48, said, "I was cheated of growing old with the man I love." (This case was also the subject of a Money magazine cover story at the time.)

The important thing to realize here is that whether or not you follow the supposed "rules" of the IRS, you are at risk. I don't know who is most at risk, those who follow the "rules," or those who don't. It's quite possible that those who have least contact with the IRS are also least at risk.

You could argue, "I don't want to fight the IRS, therefore I will have nothing to do with them. I won't file returns and I won't pay." Or, "I'll be a good boy (or girl), file my returns, and pay them - because I want to fight the IRS." An extensive survey would have to be done to determine if the above arguments are closer to the truth than, "I don't want to fight the IRS, therefore I'll file and pay."

In the absence of conclusive evidence, the last is merely an emotional argument with no foundation.

THE 16TH AMENDMENT The first important point is that the Sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not grant the federal government any new taxing power. In other words, the 16th Amendment is nothing but a smoke screen, used by the IRS to pull the wool over the eyes of the ignorant and the naive.

There is also a question about whether the 16th Amendment was properly ratified. In their book, The Law That Never Was: The Fraud of the 16th Amendment and Personal Income Tax (Constitutional Research Associates, PO Box 550, South Holland, IL 60473; 1985), Bill Benson and M.J. "Red" Beckman provide conclusive evidence that the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified.

For a summary of their findings, you may want to read the excellent book, The Federal Zone: Cracking the Code of Internal Revenue, by Mitch Modeleski (Account for better citizenship, c/o

PO Box 6189,

San Rafael, Calif. PZ 94903/TDC.

This raises the issue of judicial fraud. Because the U.S. Constitution severely limits what the federal government may do, judicial fraud has been resorted to in order to create and expand various federal agencies not authorized by the Constitution.

The 16th Amendment was gotten onto "the books" through judicial fraud.

THE BECRAFT STRATEGY Mr. Becraft's strategy was to establish in court certain weaknesses of the IRS, namely:

The supposed "income tax" is really an excise tax which only applies to certain classes of people, engaged in certain activities.

The 16th Amendment grants no additional taxing power to the federal government.

An individual (as opposed to a corporation) has a natural right to live, work, and own property, without being taxed. Individuals have the right to produce earnings and income, not subject to taxation.

Individuals have the right to combine their activities in the form of partnerships; this is a natural right, independent of and antecedent to government.

This is a very important principle. The American political system is based on the principle that individuals have rights which precede the Constitution and are not dependent on it.

In other words, the Constitution or Bill of Rights doesn't grant any rights; our rights are senior to these documents.

The Constitution does grant the federal government certain very limited powers which are specified. It also stipulates, through the Bill of Rights, that the federal government's role is limited to the specific powers granted.

As a result, today, practically everything the federal government does is unconstitutional, illegal, and criminal.

A famous Supreme Court case reflects the seniority of individual rights to government:

"The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no such duty [to submit his books and papers for an examination] to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property.

His rights are such as existed by the law of the land [Common Law] long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution.

Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights."

Hale v. Henkel

201 U.S. 43 at 47

(1905)

Nowhere in the entire Internal Revenue Code is any individual made liable for the income tax.

This is not an oversight. In contrast to the income tax, the alcohol tax is so clearly worded that nobody could misinterpret who is liable for it.

(The prosecution did not attempt to challenge or refute this point. They were unable to show a statute that makes anyone liable for the income tax.)

The mission statement of the IRS states that the income tax relies upon voluntary compliance.

(The head of the alcohol and tobacco tax division of the IRS has stated to Congress that the income tax is 100% voluntary, while the alcohol tax is 100% mandatory.)

In his own defense Mr. Long then stated the following:

The income or earnings from the exercise of an individual's common right cannot be taxed as an excise or otherwise. Nowhere in the IRS Code does it make him liable for the tax. The income tax is voluntary.

Mr. Long sent the IRS a series of letters, asking the IRS questions such as, "Am I required to file income tax returns?" and "Am I liable for federal income taxes?"

The IRS never gave a direct answer to any questions.

Through this series of letters, Mr. Long created a legal foundation.

The fact that he believed he was not liable was legally established. This makes it very difficult for Mr. Long to be convicted of a crime, which requires willful intent -

the knowing intent to do wrong. Mr. Long established that he could not be guilty of willful failure to file, because he believed he didn't have to file.

This principle has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court: "If the defendant had a subjective good faith belief, no matter how unreasonable, that he was not required to file a tax return, the government cannot establish that the defendant acted willfully.

" Cheek v. U.S.

, 111 S.C. 604

(1991)

The IRS then brought in their two expert witnesses. One of them, Ms. Jeu, admitted under cross-examination by Mr. Becraft that:

The IRS used a secret code, known only to them, by which certain people were classified by the IRS as not liable.

In their own system the IRS had classified Mr. Long as not liable for federal income tax.

The above admissions by the IRS witness must have been the final nails in the coffin of the IRS's case.

COUNTS AND PRE-TRIAL MOTIONS It is instructive to examine the counts for which Mr. Long was prosecuted, as well as the pre-trial motions. Mr. Long was charged under two counts of willful failure to file income tax returns for 1989 and 1990.

After stating in many words that Mr. Long was supposed to file, each count proceeds: "... that well knowing and believing all of the foregoing, he did willfully fail to make an income tax return... " Of course, during the trial Mr. Long established that he did not know and did not believe that he was supposed to file. The IRS failed to write to him that he was supposed to file, when he requested that information.

Furthermore, the IRS had classified Mr. Long as someone not liable.

[It boggles the imagination that the IRS could have been so stupid as to prosecute Mr. Long!]

Note that Mr. Long was prosecuted for failure to file tax returns - not for failure to pay federal income taxes.

Mr. Long filed a motion requesting a bill of particulars to specify which statute he was alleged to have violated, because the statute cited in the counts he was charged with, mentioned only the penalty for willful failure to file, so it must have been some other statute that was allegedly violated.

The prosecution responded with a motion opposing the request for a bill of particulars on the grounds that it was "... typical of motions filed in tax protestor cases.

This motion is frivolous and places an unnecessary burden upon the resources of the court... " The request for a bill of particulars was denied.

Next, Mr. Long filed two motions to have a list of the jury panel for his trial released to him at least 30 days before his trial, so he could establish if any of the jurors had been subjected to tax audits or other investigations.

The prosecution had no objection to these motions and they were granted.

Mr. Long also filed three motions requesting that a wide range of information concerning the officers who investigated his case, as well as prosecution witnesses, and information relating to IRS administrative and computer systems, be made available to him.

The prosecution objected to these motions on the grounds that they were essentially frivolous and typical of tax protestors.

The court denied Mr. Long's motions, with the exception that: "Upon request of the defendant the government shall permit the defendant to inspect and copy or photograph books, papers, documents, photographs, tangible objects, buildings or places, or copies of portions thereof, which are within the possession, custody or control of the government, and which are material to the preparation of the defendant's defense or are intended for use by the government as evidence in chief at the trial, or were obtained from or belonged to the defendant."

Mr. Long then filed a motion to dismiss the case against him, partly on the grounds that the counts against him failed to charge an offense and that he was not within the purview of the Internal Revenue Code. This motion was dismissed.

Mr. Long also filed a brief to ensure that during the trial he would be able to fully testify in his own defense, submitting as evidence citations of all relevant court cases relating to his defense.

This is a very important brief, because it counters the attempt often made by the prosecution in tax cases to prevent the defendant from defending himself, by ruling certain evidence inadmissible.

Specifically, what filing such a brief does is get "on the record" (so it can be used in court later) the "legal foundation" on which the defendant is basing his or her defense. This is important in establishing to the jury "subjective good faith belief" as discussed earlier. This solid legal foundation concerning your "subjective good faith belief" is critical to successfully refute the government's claim that you had the "specific intent" to "willfully avoid a known legal duty."

To reiterate, if you truly believe you have no legal duty - based on your solid, good faith legal foundation - to file, the government is unlikely to be able to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury.

So you win! Of course, if you lay the proper foundation early, it's extremely unlikely that the government would be foolish enough to prosecute you.

Mr. Long then filed a 22-page brief challenging the admissibility of computer evidence. The basic argument is that evidence derived from computer records long after the event was not admissible.

The fact that computer records indicate that someone didn't file doesn't constitute evidence that he didn't file.

This brief could have been a "red herring" to misdirect the prosecution into believing that the main thrust of the defense would be that the prosecution couldn't prove that the defendant hadn't filed.

JURY INSTRUCTIONS A "defendant's supplemental requested jury instructions" was filed. The purpose was to clearly establish in the minds of the jurors what the prosecution had to prove in order to establish guilt. These were the most important requested jury instructions:

For the government to prove guilt, the following three elements need to be established beyond reasonable doubt: 1.The defendant is a person required to file a return. 2.The defendant failed to file a return. 3.The defendant's failure to file a return was willful. The burden is on the prosecution to prove every one of the above elements. The defendant may rely on a "good faith defense" - "If a person in good faith believes that he has done all that the law requires, he cannot be guilty of the criminal intent to willfully fail to file a tax return."

FREEDOM TECHNOLOGY Freedom Technology consists of the knowledge, skills, and methods to live free - the street-smart know-how to outwit freedom-violators at every turn. It also includes the means to protect yourself, your income, and your assets against onslaughts by freedom-violators. Ultimately, Freedom Technology also includes the means to blow away the bogus power of the freedom-violating elite.

The Long case illustrates all these aspects of Freedom Technology. Mr. Long obviously did acquire some knowledge on how to deal with the IRS. He created a legal foundation by writing a series of letters to the IRS.

We don't know the details of Mr. Long's legal foundation. Possibly there were some serious weaknesses in his foundation, which led to his prosecution. Of course, it's also likely that he was prosecuted mainly because of the stupidity and incompetence of the government officials concerned.

It's also clear that the prosecution was caught flat-footed, with their pants down. The defense strategy completely outwitted them. They had no answers and couldn't contest any of the evidence relating to the nature of the income tax and who is liable for it. They must have appeared like bungling idiots to the jury.

It's important to realize that the power of the freedom-violators is bogus. People like Lloyd Long and Larry Becraft have the ability to blow away that bogus power - as they did in this case. Every individual has this ability and power. It starts with assuming personal responsibility. It grows as you educate yourself. It comes to fruition when you develop the means to say "NO!" to the system. You, personally, have to do it. Don't expect the politicians to do it for you.

Politicians have a clearly vested interest in maintaining the "status quo" to their advantage. They are generally known to be skillful liars and makers of broken promises. Be true to yourself. Take your personal power back from the politicians and bureaucrats.

Act on that personal power that is yours and yours alone.

RONALD REAGAN ON THE INCOME TAX SYSTEM The following article appeared in the

Albuquerque

Journal of May 31, 1985: "Reagan Urges 'Rebellion' On Taxes, Government

WILLIAMSBURG, VA.

President Reagan, promoting his new tax plan on the 22Oth anniversary of a revolutionary speech here by Patrick Henry, urged "rebellion" against Washington Thursday and expressed sympathy for the "cult of cheating" among American taxpayers.

"It's not considered bad behavior," Reagan said of tax cheating and referring to modern American morals. "After all, goes this thinking, what's immoral about cheating a system that is itself a cheat? That isn't a sin, it's a duty.

"Our federal tax system is, in short, utterly impossible, utterly unjust and completely counterproductive. It has earned a rebellion. And it's time we rebelled."

The outdoor crowd of several thousand, assembled on a sunny, picture-postcard day, erupted into cheers and applause as the president issued his now-familiar call for "a second American revolution."

In Williamsburg , Reagan seemed to equate his own campaign for tax simplification with the revolutionary cause of Patrick Henry, who on May 30, 1765, dramatically stood in the Virginia House of Burgesses and demanded repeal of the Stamp Act that recently had been imposed on colonists by their mother country England

Henry's call for "tax reform" prompted immediate cries of "treason," but his speech fueled a revolutionary fervor that culminated 13 months later in the Declaration of Independence

Speaking on the steps of the colonial capitol where Henry had orated, Reagan said the federal income tax is "so rigged, so unfair, that it corrupts otherwise honest people by encouraging them to cheat.... The current system just doesn't work anymore. The underground economy and the cult of cheating prove this is so."

Reagan recalled that the Founding Fathers argued, "Why should the fruits of our labors go to the crown across the sea?" He added, "in the same sense, we ask today, why should the fruits of our labors go to the capital across the Potomac river?"

The president declared, "Now is the time, in short, to get the federal government off our backs and out of our way."

Attacking both Washington and the income tax as symbols of each other will be a key feature of Reagan's strategy for selling his tax plan, particularly when he travels to middle class, family-oriented communities.

Leaving the ghost of Patrick Henry, Reagan flew later to the

Main Street

world of Sinclair Lewis in

Oshkosh, Wis. Speaking at the Winnebago County Courthouse Reagan asked: "Do the people of Oshkosh want our tax system to be complicated and unfair?"

"No," came the shouted reply.

The president asserted: "the answers are just the same every place I know of except for one city - Washington, D.C.

Sometimes folks back there are a little slow to catch on. I may need some help.""

SOURCES Suppose you pay $10,000 a year on taxes. Suppose by informing yourself you could discover how to legally stop paying those taxes. How much work are you willing to do for $10,000? How much time are you willing to spend to save an extra $10,000? How much money are you willing to spend in order to save $10,000?

The U.S. v. Long Transcript plus exhibits of about 600 pages is available from Lloyd Long,

5048 Roarks Cove Rd, Decherd, Tennessee PZ 37324/TDC; phone (615) 967-1402.

The price is $250 plus shipping.

Larry Becraft can be contacted at

209 Lincoln St, Huntsville, AL 35801 phone (205) 533-2535.

I recently received the following press release: "IMMEDIATE PRESS RELEASE Friday, March 4, 1994, Judge David Hagen, of the Federal District Court in Reno, Nevada, issued a Declaratory Judgement that:

1.16th Amendment was and is invalid; 2.Federal Reserve Act of 1913 is declared unconstitutional as it was and is applied to State Citizens; 3.Cold Reserve Act of 1934 to be fraud on its surface and to be declared unconstitutional; and 4.Title 26 USC (Internal Revenue Code) to apply only to the Federal United States (not to the Citizens of the fifty States), and all other implications to be fraud and declared unconstitutional,

The case is known as: Ronald L. Jackson vs.

United States

, et. al. Case # CV-N-93-401-DWH.

However, as of yesterday, March 9th, the Ninth Circuit Court of

San Francisco

has placed a federal gag order on Ronald Jackson and all parties involved with the case."

[Late Addition: One of our customers has just sent me the docket of the above case. It seems that no declaratory judgement has been passed. It's also unclear if there really is such a gag order.]

A CALL TO ACTION There is no "gag order" on you. You may study, use, and spread this vital information. As Ronald Reagan implies, it is a duty to "just say 'no'." You owe this duty, not to broken-promise, lying politicians and bureaucrats, but to yourself.

Look within yourself and know that you are FREE! Take back your personal power. Take back that power in the area of taxes. Do all the research you believe is necessary. If, as a result of that research, you make certain discoveries about your "legal duties," then perhaps in good faith you might determine what your proper actions should be.

You may determine that the best and most moral action for you is to just say 'no' to lying politicians and bureaucrats. Just say 'yes' to your personal power and individual sovereignty.

Back to UnitedStatesGovernment.net

DRIVERS LICENSE VS RIGHT TO TRAVEL

Right to Travel

DESPITE ACTIONS OF POLICE AND LOCAL COURTS,
HIGHER COURTS HAVE RULED THAT AMERICAN CITIZENS
HAVE A RIGHT TO TRAVEL WITHOUT STATE PERMITS

By Jack McLamb

(from Aid & Abet Newsletter)

For years professionals within the criminal justice system have acted on the belief that traveling by motor vehicle was a privilege that was given to a citizen only after approval by their state government in the form of a permit or license to drive. In other words, the individual must be granted the privilege before his use of the state highways was considered legal. Legislators, police officers, and court officials are becoming aware that there are court decisions that disprove the belief that driving is a privilege and therefore requires government approval in the form of a license. Presented here are some of these cases:

CASE #1: "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived."

CASE #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.

It could not be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens of the states have a common law right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S Constitution.

CASE #3: "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment."

CASE #4: "The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96

287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.

As hard as it is for those of us in law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions. American citizens do indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of others. Government -- in requiring the people to obtain drivers licenses, and accepting vehicle inspections and DUI/DWI roadblocks without question -- is restricting, and therefore violating, the people's common law right to travel.

Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject? Apparently not. This means that the beliefs and opinions our state legislators, the courts, and those in law enforcement have acted upon for years have been in error. Researchers armed with actual facts state that case law is overwhelming in determining that to restrict the movement of the individual in the free exercise of his right to travel is a serious breach of those freedoms secured by the U.S. Constitution and most state constitutions. That means it is unlawful. The revelation that the American citizen has always had the inalienable right to travel raises profound questions for those who are involved in making and enforcing state laws. The first of such questions may very well be this: If the states have been enforcing laws that are unconstitutional on their face, it would seem that there must be some way that a state can legally put restrictions -- such as licensing requirements, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, vehicle inspections to name just a few -- on a citizen's constitutionally protected rights. Is that so?  

For the answer, let us look, once again, to the

courts for a determination of this very issue. In Hertado v.

"The state cannot diminish rights of the people."  

And in Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60,

"Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void."

Would we not say that these judicial decisions are straight to the point -- that there is no lawful method for government to put restrictions or limitations on rights belonging to the people? Other cases are even more straight forward:

"The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice."

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v.

, 384

436, 491.

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.

There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights." Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946

We could go on, quoting court decision after court decision; however, the Constitution itself answers our question - Can a government legally put restrictions on the rights of the American people at anytime, for any reason? The answer is found in Article Six of the U.S. Constitution:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;...shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the Contrary not one word withstanding."

In the same Article, it says just who within our government that is bound by this Supreme Law:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the

and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution..."

Here's an interesting question. Is ignorance of these laws an excuse for such acts by officials? If we are to follow the letter of the law, (as we are sworn to do), this places officials who involve themselves in such unlawful acts in an unfavorable legal situation. For it is a felony and federal crime to violate or deprive citizens of their constitutionally protected rights. Our system of law dictates that there are only two ways to legally remove a right belonging to the people. These are:

1. by lawfully amending the constitution, or
2. by a person knowingly waiving a particular right.  

Some of the confusion on our present system has arisen because many millions of people have waived their right to travel unrestricted and volunteered into the jurisdiction of the state. Those who have knowingly given up these rights are now legally regulated by state law and must acquire the proper permits and registrations. There are basically two groups of people in this category:

More- http://www.land.netonecom.net/tlp/ref/right2travel.shtml

XXXXXXXXXXXXX

===============

Millions of American Taxpayers Make Money Off of your Federal Taxes

by Derek Thompson
Friday, August 27, 2010

You've heard about the “Free-Riding Forty Seven”. They are the 47 percent of Americans who, infamously, owe no federal income taxes to the federal government. But, as many writers were fast to point out, they all still pay payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare.

Now meet the Freeloading Fifteen. Those are the 15 million American households who've got it even better. Representing about 10 percent of all taxpayers, they receive more cash from the IRS than they contribute in federal income taxes and employment taxes. (Excise and corporate taxes notwithstanding, you could say they are making money off of federal taxes.) To some, they are low-income Americans benefiting from smart and targeted welfare run through the tax code. To others, they are unacceptable free riders, contributing net zero or worse to the federal government.

Why? As National Journal's Peter Cohn explained it in a great article: The IRS as 'Sugar Daddy,' if we hate the system, we only have Congress and voters to blame. In the last 40 years, Washington has passed a series of laws, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit and the child tax credit, that send money to lower- and middle-income families through the tax system.

Republican presidents started and expanded some of these credits. Democratic presidents have started and expanded some of these credits. No party exclusively owns or disowns the Freeloading 15 million.

Not yet, at least. According to the NJ article, Rep. Dave Camp, the senior Republican on the House Ways and Means committee with jurisdiction over all tax-related issues, wants to roll back these refundable tax credits. "I don't think the tax code should be used to make payments over and above people's contributions," Camp said. "There's a lot of people that aren't contributing to Social Security and Medicare in any way. And so if you're looking at the long-term sustainability of those programs, it's something that I think you have to look at."

Here's the strange thing. Camp says he's against refundable credits. But he voted for, and still supports, the Bush tax cuts from 2001 and 2003. That law not only doubled and expanded the refundable child credit, but also it would increase the 2010 deficit over Obama's plan by $40 billion -- about the same cost as the entire child tax credit, Cohn points out.

As the chart that leads this article shows, the number of "free-riders" has spiked in 2009 and 2010. Why? Bush owns some of the increase, by reducing tax rates at the bottom and doubling the child tax credit to $1,000. Second, the recession is a major factor, as it has reduced incomes, which brings many families' tax burdens closer to zero.

Third, Obama owns some of the increase. The president's Recovery Act includes about $280 billion tax cuts. The vast majority come from individual income tax cuts (others targeted business and renewable energy projects). About half of those individual income tax credits come from Making Work Pay, which increased working Americans' weekly checks up to $800 a year for families by reducing withholding on paychecks.

Low-income Americans who don't contribute a dime to the government drive some folks nuts. But the under-paying rich who've seen their incomes run away from the median during the 2000s drive some folks nuts, too.

The way I see it, it does bother me that 10 percent of American families contribute net zero to the federal government even as they can vote on expensive programs to which they won't contribute, whether it's foreign wars or domestic entitlements. At the very least, it strikes me as an awkward civic deficiency.

On the other hand, I'm not ready to back a law that makes it illegal for refundable credits to exceed total federal tax liability. And, pace Rep. Camp, I'm certainly not ready to ask the bottom 10 percent to pay more while I ask the top 1 percent to pay less.

I know, I know: "refundable tax credit" is a scary term, but it basically means money the IRS pays you that exceeds the amount you pay in taxes. Most credits or exemptions (say, the personal exemption) only reduce your tax bill. Refundable tax credits can take your burden past zero, turning your tax bill into a tax payment. So think of them as tax payments.

Another quarter of the Obama tax cuts went to middle-upper and upper class families by patching the Alternative Minimum Tax, 87 percent of which went to families making between 100 thousand to 500 thousand dollars.

We believe what has been cut and pasted above to be true and accurate based upon our research. This as always if for your general knowlege, education, and enlightment