Submitted by M. R. Hamilton on
Lately I have received questions how it is that Willie Nelson lost most of his property and Wesley Snipes was sentenced to three years in jail or Irwin Schiff was sentenced to 13 years in prison from charges relating to income tax. I have repeatedly held that it is because people who are brought into tax court do not challenge jurisdiction by filing a counterclaim in a court of record and have thought that should be enough information to satisfy the questioner. Well, is has become very apparent to me that I have fallen short with that response. Hopefully, the following will adequately inform the reader just how the IRS gets away with it and how to prevent it from happening to you when you finally stop paying income tax and filing tax returns.
One should first get a bit of knowledge about the scam. Let us take a look at 28 USC 3002 Section 2.
“Court” means any court created by the Congress of the United States, excluding the United States Tax Court.
Interesting what is different about the United States Tax Court?
As many of you may already know, 26 USC Section 7806 says that 26 USC is not law. As such, even if one considers he is a subject citizen of the United States corporation, there is no law that permits the IRS or the United States corporation to levee a tax on one's income. So that leaves us wondering just how they get away with it. This article actually updates what I said in the article about a Court of Record, wherein I stated that the tax court is an equity court. My reasoning was based on a comment the judge said in Irwin Schiff's case when Kent Dawson said "In my court, I am the law." In an equity court, it is a fact that the judge who is merely a chancellor is the law. An equity court is a court wherein the judge is to come up with a fair decision where there is no law that specifies a remedy.
However, although title 26 is not law, it is law as far as the IRS and other government agents are concerned. Even though it does not apply to people, it does apply to government agents. But the tax court is not an equity court after all. It turns out that 26 USC Section 7441 states, well, read it for yourself.
There is hereby established, under article I of the Constitution of the United States, a court of record to be known as the United States Tax Court. The members of the Tax Court shall be the chief judge and the judges of the Tax Court.
So the court is a court of record. That makes what Kent Dawson said a very serious and treasonous act. It is treasonous, because he did not uphold his oath while on the bench that day. In a court of record, the judge is a magistrate, not a tribunal. As such he was not allowed to make any decisions.
Courts of record are the highest courts in these united states. So courts of record do have jurisdiction over people, but only when another sovereign files an action against a people. So the IRS brings a case against a people claiming that the people is a taxpayer. It then claims that the taxpayer owes a tax based on 26 USC whatever. What the IRS has done is entered a court of record as the sovereign and decreed the law as is typical in common law.
Where the people being brought to the court screw up is they attempt to defend themselves in another sovereign's court. In the case of Irwin Schiff, his attorney repeatedly tried to submit case law and US code to the jury and the jury was not permitted to hear it. Here is why.
In a court of record, the law is the decree of the sovereign. The IRS presented itself as the sovereign in the court and decreed what the law will be. So when the defendants attorneys try to use case law or United States codes to defend their clients, the judge knows that the plaintiff did not decree those things to be law, so it is not permissible to use them as a defense. You never want to be a defendant in a court. You should always challenge jurisdiction.
It is virtually impossible to win as a defendant in a court of record against the IRS. The correct next step following the IRS filing an action against a people is to challenge jurisdiction. The IRS is claiming it is sovereign over people. Neither the IRS nor any other government agency is sovereign in relation to a people. So even though the IRS brought an action against a people in a court of record, the people should file a counterclaim in his court of record challenging jurisdiction of the IRS. The IRS would never be able to prove jurisdiction in your court of record. When you file a counterclaim, that makes you the counterclaimant. That makes you, the people, the boss in your court.
As a matter of fact, all of those famous people that we have heard about in the news like Willie Nelson and Wesley Snipes, can still seek retribution in their own courts of record, given some guidance. They depended on advice of counsel for legal guidance and legal guidance they got. They did not get lawful guidance. This is also why it is so important to never hire an attorney. Under common law there are no statutes so there is no statute of limitations. Wesley Snipes and Willie Nelson lost a great deal of their possessions and freedom. Their actions should be brought is a court of record and they should name their attorneys as defendants as well as any other perpetrators who went against them. I'd say that Wesley Snipes is due about $50,000 per day that he spent in prison and Willie is due what ever he lost.
So the next time you hear someone ask how people lose their possessions and go to jail when the IRS takes them to court, you will know why. If you are going to claim to be sovereign, you need to act like one. If a judge is making decisions in a court of record, it is not a court of record which by definition "proceeds according to common law". If your file your counterclaim in a court of record and the judge makes a decision, it is your responsibility as the sovereign in the court to overturn his decision. If you let him get away with it, he just commandeered jurisdiction over you and you are no longer a sovereign. If he continues to attempt to usurp your authority, you may be forced to hold him in contempt of court. Yes, people do have that authority and the US Supreme court will back you.