Re: Poll for all government "servants" to show us - Irwin Schiff wrote a book about the IRS and the non-existent law entitled The Federal Mafia. It sold well at a cost of $42 until the IRS had a court ban it. So much for the First Amendment and free speech rights. Although

Initiate Joined: Jun 23, 2007 Posts: 259

Just want to know how many of your cheap government whores can show Ed & Elaine the Law that requires them to file a 1040?

Posted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 9:54 pm

You won't get any takers Rella. It would take someone with some true spinal column to come forth and talk us about this like real men and real women normally would address problems.
You are dealing with someone with the cowardice level of a "Peep Show Pervert". These sniveling cowards have to hide behind something. Like the cockroaches they are they do scatter when the light is on them. The lowest welfare recipient losers even show much more class than these degradated scum that arrested brother Danny Riley and the other brothers today. Please fellow Forum members keep Danny and the other brothers in your prayers tonight ( for those of you who are believers that is).

I know that the Bible tells me to pray for my enemies. I must be honest. I find it extraordinarily difficult to muster up a prayer for any of the alphabet soup dirt bags.

Initiate Joined: Jun 23, 2007 Posts: 259

JD: I like your posts! I can't find words enough to describe these treasonous low lifes who sell themselves and their country for their daily bread.

Like Esau, they are selling their birthright for a mess of pottage (a bowl of soup). Something that will only satisfy their greedy appetites temporarily. Then, what happens when the bottom falls out from under them?

Wake up you ignoramouses, before it's too late!

Prescott Bush financed Hitler -- it's a historical fact
Daddy George H.W. Bush -- was over the CIA when Kennedy was assassinated.
Daddy Bush and Mini-me Bush -- want a New World Order -- they want to kill off 80% of the population for the Elite -- which brings us to WW III.
Daddy and Mini-me Bush are members of secret societies which JFK spoke out against.
Thousands of our soldiers are engulfed in "depleted uranium" thanks to Bush, & Cheney.

Get online - watch DVDs - find out the TRUTH.

Newbie Joined: Sep 18, 2007 Posts: 20

If I may ask a silly question.

Why does the law matter?
The tyrants can make any law they want on paper. But I do not have any obligation to follow immoral unjust laws.

Initiate Joined: Jun 23, 2007 Posts: 259

Every nation has laws. Our nation was set up whereby the government derived (only, only, only) its (just, just, just) powers from the consent of the governed.

Consent for the income tax was never given to the government!

Some don't want to hear about the scriptures, (others do) but whether you will admit it or not, our system of government came from the Bible.

I think it's interesting that the scripture says, not "to withhold a man's wages lest he cry out to God".

Notice the word withhold (ing).

"The first fruits of your labor belong to God." (For charity - to help others). (Widows; and orphans - indeed). Even that is your choice!

The "first fruits" of America's labor is unlawfully confiscated by the IRS.

Initiate Joined: Jun 23, 2007 Posts: 259

Furthermore: Law matters - otherwise you have anarchy!

Anarchy - lawlessnes - is what we now have, because most of those who work for the government won't take the time to reseach the material and don't care. Their paycheck comes before their patriotism.

The law "matters", because Ed & Elaine are being imprisoned in their own home for supposedly violating a law when the law doesn't exist.

Newbie Joined: Sep 18, 2007 Posts: 20

While I can respect and appreciate your opinion I do not completely agree.

Rule of law is simply a disguise used by tyrants to enslave us.
Right,wrong and legal,illegal are not the same.

Even if some JBT's can can come up with a law,that was passed within the guidelines of our constitution, stating the government can collect income tax it is still wrong!

It was once legal to own other people but it was and is wrong.

Anarchy or lawlessness of does not scare me at all. But the tyranny we live under does.

Is this intended to be sort of a rhetorical question on your part. Or are you expecting a government thug to do anything beside mindlessly follow the orders of his masters?

Initiate Joined: Jun 23, 2007 Posts: 259

What I am saying is - you have to have law. How do you know what is morally right if you don't have a source to go by.

How do you decide what is just or unjust? You have to have a belief system founded on something you learned from the past.

Otherwise, you just decide on your own what is right or wrong. That's what the government is doing right now!

Newbie Joined: Sep 18, 2007 Posts: 20

Rella wrote:

What I am saying is - you have to have law. How do you know what is morally right if you don't have a source to go by.

How do you decide what is just or unjust? You have to have a belief system founded on something you learned from the past.

Otherwise, you just decide on your own what is right or wrong. That's what the government is doing right now!

I understand.
But I would offer that all men are created with the knowledge of good and evil.
I personally have a litmus test where I ask myself if my actions are wrongfully harming others liberty,person or property.
If not than I believe am doing nothing wrong regardless of law.

But I understand now what you are saying.

Site Admin Joined: Apr 03, 2007 Posts: 580

Common-law is a fine system of law. It's based upon the laws of nature. It is a mostly-unwritten body of law established by tens of thousands of years of custom and behavior. Man naturally does not want to kill one of his own species or hurt his own species -- the same goes with most animals too!

The law of nature is the only law you can't really "force" upon someone -- since it's already everywhere and none of us have a choice really! Any other type of law -- written, etc -- that can be forced upon someone without their consent is imperfect.

Any governance or subjection to "law" without consent is immoral!

Initiate Joined: Jun 20, 2007 Posts: 430

I noticed some websites by another legal maverick. He has lots of theories which he states vehemently as facts, and he cites many precedents and laws which may or may not be relevant, but at least he has a novel point of view. I don't think he's been very successful however.

http://www.noconfidence.com/
http://www.noconfidence.com/0111/Pete_Hendrickson.html
http://www.tocongress.com/PRIVATEPROPERTY/03pages/section83caselaw.htm
http://www.publicvehiculartravel.com/PRIVATE_DATA_BASE/01aBASICS/index.htm

Quote:

Rules to litigate by:

1. You cannot read too much case law! Read all of the U.S. Supreme Court and appellate decisions you can lay your hands on, begin with the most frequently infringed rights in the Bill of Rights. For example, denial of counsel - read all of the cases cited here for a precursory understanding of when that 6th Amdt. right has been violated.

2. Stop learning from incompetent and ignorant people! Learn to type, sue a public servant in small claims court, learn the system and learn whose boss is responsible for misconduct, form a group and do a test case where you are sure that the police will blow it, confidence can only come from practice and responsible instruction, learn to plead in a way that gets respect from the court.

3. Choose your battles wisely. Can you afford bail, can you pay the ticket, can you effectively engage the prosecution??? If not, don't drive without insurance, don't take your plates off, etc.

4. WHENEVER gov't starts a case against you, in court, make requests for disclosure as the court rules allow.

IN ADDITION, make the same request in a different document under your state's disclosure act, like a state level Freedom Of Information Act. This way, if disclosure is not made it's not only a violation of court rules, but it also constitutes an act of official misconduct (gross misdemeanor in WA) over which you can file a citizen's criminal complaint.

5. Recuse any judge at any time. Did the judge allow a violation of court rule? Start a controversy over it naming the judge (small claims, complaint to bosses to get judge fired, etc.) and attach as exhibit to affidavit of prejudice claiming loss of the appearance of fairness entitlement under due process clause.

Newbie Joined: Oct 07, 2007 Posts: 9

Ahmed wrote on Sept. 21, 2007:

I noticed some websites by another legal maverick. He has lots of theories which he states vehemently as facts, and he cites many precedents and laws which may or may not be relevant, but at least he has a novel point of view. I don't think he's been very successful however.

http://www.noconfidence.com/
http://www.noconfidence.com/0111/Pete_Hendrickson.html
http://www.tocongress.com/PRIVATEPROPERTY/03pages/section83caselaw.htm
http://www.publicvehiculartravel.com/PRIVATE_DATA_BASE/01aBASICS/index.htm

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Sir,

After spending 19+ years avoiding theories of every kind, I fail to see anything I teach as rightfully being labeled a “theory.”

What is a “legal maverick”? I am a researcher with a background in litigation. From my office alone the Tax Code and motor vehicle codes throughout the U.S. were solved, explained, and represented as being misenforced in RICO complaints to the U.S. gov’t and remain wholly without a response, much less without proof to the contrary.

How “successful” are you when you ask criminals to not steal from you while you stand there unarmed, facing down the barrel of an aircraft carrier? Success depends on the job at hand. If there’s too much to lose, the gov’t assures your loss by whatever means necessary. I am successful a vast majority of the time in making public servants commit crimes just to keep speaking to me (the client), but in a country where the law matters naught you BYO Vaseline.

“May or may not be relevant” - ??? - I’ve shown you laws from across America that say highways are open as a matter or right to public vehicular travel and you call it “novel.” I show you Tax Court and U.S. appellate decisions saying 26 USC § 83 is universally applicable to ALL compensation, and I show you that before 1997 I had that claim all of the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, and I show you how the method by which they disposed of it contradicts four S.Ct. decisions won by the DOJ at the same the § 83 litigants were losing, and you say it “may or may not be relevant”?

To Ahmed, this “may or may not be relevant” :

“Section 83(a) explains how property received in exchange for services is taxed.” (See Montelepre Systemed, Inc. v. C.I.R., 956 F.2d 496, 498 at [1] (CA5 1992). Section 83 applies to all compensation paid for services of corporations, and for the services of individuals. (See 26 CFR 1.83-3(e), (f); MacNaughton v. C.I.R., 888 F.2d 418 (CA6 1989); Pledger v. C.I.R., 641 F.2d 287 (CA5 1981); Alves v. C.I.R., 734 F.2d 478, 481 (CA9 1984); Klingler Electric Co. v. C.I.R., 776 F.Supp. 1158, 1164 at [1] (S.D.Miss. 1991); Robinson v. C.I.R., 82 USTC 444 (1984); Cohn v. C.I.R., 73 USTC 443, 446 (1979).

That means § 83 applies to Ch.2 self employment earnings § 1402(a), FICA wages in § 3121(a), W-4 wages in § 3401(c), and in those trips to the S.Ct. I was NEVER contradicted over this. What you say “may or may not be relevant” is, in fact, being taught properly by nobody but me, the rest of America teaching instead that § 83 applies only to deferred compensation; that’s § 83(b), not (a) which IS so applicable.

Is it my “theory” that all the courts agree that § 83 applies to all compensation? Is it my “theory” that I am not the citizen defined in 26 USC §§ 1402(b), 3121(e)? Is it my “theory” that § 6413(c) allows for a credit of some FICA for individuals who in one taxable year has more than one employer?

Be good enough to tune in to my conference calls which you can get to from www.NoConfidence.com - and you’ll hear people who obviously know a great deal and who have studied under movement gurus for many years who now claim to be able to simply throw away their collection for having finally received my courses. My students laugh at R. Cornforth’s pleadings, and my successes are measured more in discomfort than by dismissals.

“Much success”? Well, 5+ months ago I notified the local cops that if the speak to me again about the MV code that I’d arrest a county judge for misenforcing the MV code against public vehicular travelers. I still drive very day without plates, d.license, registration, insurance, etc. Attached to this notice I included as Ex.A (that means “exhibit A”) the RICO complaint you see when you read www.PublicVehicularTravel.com - which was filed with the DOJ and Homeland Security Committee on 3/9/06 which remains without reply despite a Congressman was named as a defendant thereto. (David Reichert, former King Co. sheriff, Seattle).

“Much success”? Listen, “If I’m in jail, I want David Myrland writing for me.” Kurt R. Riggin, FBA #7604. Read my testimonials at - http://www.tocongress.com/indexPORTAL.htm

“Much success”? Listen, “I must say, he’s impressed me with his research.” Former 4-Term Speaker of the House of TX for whom I wrote the legislation he submitted to the TX legislature on behalf of the group for which he was lobbying.

“Much success”?

"Your brief is written better than any of the attorneys write that come into this court." Judge, on the record, open court/many attorneys.

"You’re obviously no neophyte to the judicial system. Your pleadings are in the top one percentile of everything I see in this court." Judge, on the record, open court/many attorneys.

Exactly why you omitted these testimonials from your preponderance and conclusions which you’ve spread to this blog is beyond me, but I’ve seen this tendency many, many times before - nobody can accomplish anything, everything is impossible, nobody knows the truth, nobody is competent, nobody has really done the work, never listen to anyone even if they’re S.Ct. justices - ALL IS LOST! These people (the testimonials) say these things while you say “novel approach” - you think RAP is music, don’t you.

“Much success”? Well, in Shasta County CA my client got 2 prosecutors fired, the judge retired 10 yrs. early, and 2 members of the County Bd. of Supervisors resigned, one of who he’d have been running against in June of 2006 had the NOT resigned.

“Much success”? You see in box #15 on www.NoConfidence.com - three small claims actions which stopped gov’t in its tracks. Do you know anyone who’s done that? Is that not “success”? By simply mentioning the criminal code in relation to gold and silver a municipal judge vacated a misdemeanor guilty plea without having been asked to do so. While I call that confirmed kill you call it a “theory” and doubt my success; you’re dangerous.

Much success”? I’ve gotten 5 of 6 cases dismissed in Superior Court (Klamath County, OR) brought by the OR state AG against farmers and truck drivers, and I got these dismissals by writing all pleadings, mailing them to OR, and by coaching these good people on how to copy/file/argue them in unfair trade practices civil litigation - I coached them to victory in eight months of litigation! These are the only victories for gifting club participants in the entire country while those in 32 other states (at least) were drawn and quartered.

You deter people from my teachings by saying they’re “novel” when you’ve never read a S.Ct. decision, have you. Federal and state judges don’t have time for anything “novel.”

Had you heard of “public vehicular travel” before you saw my site? Had you heard of § 83 before you saw my site? You must be so wrapped up in studying under those with only theories that you can’t read the law when you see it; I meet a lot of people just like that.

I HATE THEORIES!!! If you don’t know where you stand you don’t know anything! Stand on the law so it’s NOT you and your theory, the icing on which is a pathetic request to a servant that they honor your rights, whatever they happen to be. Stand on the law so it’s the legislative body, the law and hand cuffs, confronting your servants - abandoning theories will allow you to do this. It’s the difference between defense and offense; you’re seeing offense for the first time.

Call in to www.FirstAmendmentRadio.com - and ask Melody Gillespie (Sundays 6-8 pm Pacific) about me and my courses which she received in Dec. 2006. She’s very knowledgeable about the law and can compare me to EVERYONE who is teaching seminars and selling materials for she has worked hard to keep up with all of the emerging and existing battles and teachings. Tell her my approach is “novel” and hear what she says. Ask her what my “successes” are and if I know one damn thing about what I say is the law.

“Success”? She (Melody) just used my courses to intimidate an insurance adjuster to NOT accept a $10k check he had demanded from a widow whose house had burned down. Listen, she sent a criminal complaint w/$10k check to woman’s attorney, the attorney tells the adjuster he has the check and a criminal complaint that’ll be filed when the check is accepted, and they never heard from the adjuster again. That’s a HUGE success, but not in the form of dismissal.

A lack of success is largely and all too commonly due solely to the corruption and willful derelictions committed by public servants. An example is found here, in this utter failure, this lack of success, this indication that the person attempting it knows nothing:

1. Denied counsel by state judge and then put in jail under two FTA warrants for missing a hearing which relates only to one case of the two that you have going in that criminal court. You have a lawful excuse for missing the hearing (emergency w/witnesses who testify in your absence) but you’re held for 45 days because you went to the hospital with medical emergency.

2. A denial of counsel voids all jurisdiction of the court. See - http://tocongress.com/PRIVATEPROPERTY/zzCONF_CALLS/01zerbst.htm -

3. A court w/no jurisdiction certainly is staffed by a judge w/no authority, right? A judge w/no court has no authority, right? All of those cases say that the case is over, but the judge sent you to jail, despite your 100% right to ALL of your liberty.

4. You sue in fed. court saying that the judge is not immune for he had no authority to act, and you name him as an individual.

5. Fed. court says the judge is immune and dismisses the suit but refuses to even acknowledge your claim that the denial of counsel voided the jurisdiction of the court and judge which sent you to jail.

There, that “novel” and “theoretical” mongrel WHO WAS CORRECT went and lost their case - they sure don’t SUCCEED very much. Your tendency to shoot at educated people through your keyhole of awareness makes you dangerous to higher learning, but as I said, it’s nothing I haven’t seen many, many times before.

The judge did this to this case while those who think like you stand back and throw stones accusing the loser of failure as a litigant or lawyer, when in fact your ignorance of the law and of the judge’s job is the vessel from which you spray your scent. Until you know the judge’s job, the prosecutor’s job, and the agent’s job, and the lawful limitations of each, you have no relative point of reference from which to comment on anyone’s research and efforts.

Constitutions, ordinance, statute, case law and court rules - they govern all that I do; American Jurisprudence is not a “novel point of view.” On www.NoConfidence.com - I’ve voiced an open challenge to a debate with absolutely anyone on how the Tax Code operates but you’ve not accepted - now THAT’s novel.

Data
(David R. Myrland)

Initiate Joined: Jun 20, 2007 Posts: 430

Data, I encourage you to visit the message forums at www.nhfree.com . One of the members, Lauren Canario, was arrested a few days ago for driving without a license and other papers. She believes she has a right to travel without asking the state's permission. So your expertise would be well received there.

This is one of the videos on the situation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAsC2bk5aJI

Newbie Joined: Oct 07, 2007 Posts: 9

By following the Seminars/Conf. Calls links on NoConfidence.com she'll find info on how this MV foundation (the RICO) complaint can be brought to bare in traffic court. I just appeared on John Bryant's show on FirstAmendment Radio.com where we discussed this, he has an archive wherein you may find a recording of tonite's show.

Call in on the conf. call, we discuss this a lot, Tues. nite 6-7 Pacific, Wed. nite 7-8 Pacific.

Thanks,

Data

Initiate Joined: Jun 20, 2007 Posts: 430

Lauren is being held in jail for the offense of driving with no license. I don't think she'll be attending your conference for a while.

Attorney Larry Becraft was interviewed on the Alex Jones show today, and was asked what, if anything could be done for the Browns. He said there were a lot of missed opportunities, and that whatever could be done now would basically be a long shot.

**Member** Joined: Jun 12, 2007 Posts: 3128

You may be right Ahmed, but I listened too and I heard him say something about rule #2255...............that the Browns could get a new trial under that rule. I also listened to Tom Cryer with someone by the name of Lindsey who also mentioned this exact same #2255 claiming that the Browns could get a new trial.

During Tom Cryers show he even came right out and said that he blamed judge McAuliffe............that Ed should have had an attorney sitting beside him during his trial to advise him. The fact that he did not insist was the reason that he blamed him.

I believe that this is far from over and that the Browns will get a new trial. Especially because of the recent verdicts. However I must admit that I am an optimist, and a somewhat naive person.............so forgive me but I can not believe that this injustice will be upheld! I have more faith in the American people, once they are fully aware what has gone on here!

In the mean time we can help out by calling the media..............please make the calls to the media and the US Marshals office! Please!

Newbie Joined: Oct 07, 2007 Posts: 9

In my experience, it's impossible to impress Becraft with a statutory issues involving tax law. A friend of mine was told he owed "00.00" by the IRS for 1998-2003, and the very next thing he knows is that he's indicted for evasion for perhaps 4 of those years, and Becraft and Cryer of the entrapment defense, "This has no substance."

This literally astonishes the people I tell of it, and I'm cinvinced Becraft can see only the willfulness defense. I acknowledge how very important it is that people get representation and stay out of jail, but Becraft's knowledge of tax law is severely lacking.

I know Becraft to also be keen on the void for vagueness argument against the Tax Code, but I've not been made aware that he's attempted it. I mean, I've got the DOJ silent as to whether Americans are named by statute and not just 26 CFR 1.1-1 and that should, at least, provide probably the most potent vagueness challenge one can make.

About the lady in jail over a traffic debockle, have her friends/advocate call in and we'll talk about it, her state, the charge, the things one might try, etc.. I hate to hear of this but must say that somebody that far on fire is very difficult to help.

Data

**Member** Joined: Jul 02, 2007 Posts: 614

Data: I don't know much in reference to the law but given 8 supreme court decisions on the income tax, several lower court decisions including a case in las vegas where 9 people were aquitted of 161 charges brought against them by the irs because the business owner paid them all in gold and silver coins and a case in memphis where a woman had sent several letters to the IRS over a 12 year period asking them to show her legislation that states "it is mandatory for united state citizens to pay a income tax" and the IRS refused and the lady was aquitted of tax evasion as a result. Even a Former IRS employee named sherry jackson couldn't find the law and she worked for the IRS.

Back to my question. given all of these cases against the income tax, why are the browns being charged? If you personally handled their appeal, what could be argued given the nature of this case?

Newbie Joined: Oct 07, 2007 Posts: 9

Identify the [authorized] modes of enforcement:

1. Impose SS tax under ch. 2 and 21. I’m not that citizen.

2. Impose ch. 1 income taxes. (See § 1). If I’m that citizen, I’m only named in regulation 1.1-1.

3. Impose FUTA. (See § 3306(j) citizen, not me, not you). I’m not that citizen either.

4. Impose W-4 withholding method for tax imposed elsewhere, in OTHER chapters. (ch.24 does not impose a rate of tax, just the W-4 method of withholding). If I don’t owe a tax under ANOTHER chapter, the W-4 does not apply; there is no ch. 24 tax.

5. Assessments, file a return. (Stamp taxes § 6201(a), foreign earned income Form 2555).

6. Penalties and interest. What tax, what gross income?

7. Lien and levy. What tax, what gross income?

8. Criminal charges. (Subtitle F, ch. 75). What tax, what gross income?

9. NOTHING ELSE.

10. Oh yeah, the imposition of ANY income tax upon the FMV of labor. My “amount paid” is the FMV of my services, the “value of any money or property paid” I paid for my compensation, according to § 83(a).” How did § 83 operate in a determination that an “income” or profit tax is imposed on the value of my personal services?

To be guilty of a crime one must meet all essential elements of the charging statute, all over the country, state and fed. (Go to - www.NoConfidence.com, to Box #15, link #26, where you’ll see an appellate briefing of essential elements for a CA superior court on public nuisance statute). The criminal prosecution and adjudication stage is where the Brown’s find themselves, while challenges exist and can be applied at any time, and they carry through to invalidate the conviction of course.

In this private database from which no documents may be downloaded by your agreement, I summarize how these different categories of enforcement [authority] are constrained by statutory language itself, when read strictly under well established maxims of interpretation.

http://tocongress.com/PRIVATEPROPERTY/06applications/06application.htm

Click on - “In a nut shell” to see how the allegations under particular statutes (crimes) are eroded as you apply the law in the way you see there, in the way the IRS/DOJ cannot speak of even when facing a citizen’s arrest in open court. (See my Ed Brown challenge entry on NoConfidence.com).

I’m guessing the Brown’s received only the FMV of the personal services for the years in controversy. I’m guessing that they’re Americans born and raised, and their compensation was earned ONshore. Defeat issues A-F in my memorandum or grant habeas; in a perfect world. (See Issues A-F at pp.17-40 of 58 pg. memorandum, go to ToCongress.com and click on “RICO”). To retain in personam jurisdiction in relation to one with the Brown’s status under the above categories, each issue must be addressed and duly, that’s DULY, invalidated with conclusions BASED ON LAW and guided by maxims. The DOJ/IRS can’t do it, the courts can’t do it . . .

Find authority to keep and hold the Brown’s under each issue of grant habeas. Very specific criteria must be met for the Tax Code’s provisions to reach you, to reach anyone. Put the building blocks of authority in the correct order and you find they support an IRS the size of an acorn in a D.C. closet, somewhere. On brick at a time.

Data

Newbie Joined: Oct 10, 2007 Posts: 2

Scotsman here:

I found the web site www.YourRemedyIsInTheLaw.com that promotes David's work. David has Free Tele-Conference Calls and a Free eGroup titled Myrland's Method's. I have never seen anything more Offensive in dealing with our "servants" than David's Offensive Litigating Strategies.

Also, David has on his Free Tele-Conference Calls, periodically, guests.

This Tuesday coming, the 16th David will have Rae Kopitka and Loma Whorton. You may remember these two ladies video of their direct challenge to Liens and Levys to their local County Council. The videos of the meetings can be found here: http://www.co.douglas.or.us/bocwebcasts.asp

The first meeting took place on August 8, 2007, click on Media Player and advance to 7min. 41sec..

The second meeting took place on August 29, 2007, click on Media Player and advance to 23min. 37sec..

The third meeting took place on September 7, 2007. The entire recording is on the issues Rae and Loma are pursuing.

Another upcoming guest is Robert Clarkson. He will be on the following Tuesday the 23rd and Wednesday the 24th. Robert is very successful with his strategies against the IRS and I encourage you to hear his take on the matter as well as David's.

I encourage all to go to www.YourRemedyIsInTheLaw.com and create your own User Name and Password. Click on the Free Tele-Conference Calls and there you will find when David is speaking and what the phone and pin numbers are.

regards,
Michael-Edward:

Data wrote:

Ahmed wrote on Sept. 21, 2007:

I noticed some websites by another legal maverick. He has lots of theories which he states vehemently as facts, and he cites many precedents and laws which may or may not be relevant, but at least he has a novel point of view. I don't think he's been very successful however.

http://www.noconfidence.com/
http://www.noconfidence.com/0111/Pete_Hendrickson.html
http://www.tocongress.com/PRIVATEPROPERTY/03pages/section83caselaw.htm
http://www.publicvehiculartravel.com/PRIVATE_DATA_BASE/01aBASICS/index.htm

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Sir,

After spending 19+ years avoiding theories of every kind, I fail to see anything I teach as rightfully being labeled a “theory.”

What is a “legal maverick”? I am a researcher with a background in litigation. From my office alone the Tax Code and motor vehicle codes throughout the U.S. were solved, explained, and represented as being misenforced in RICO complaints to the U.S. gov’t and remain wholly without a response, much less without proof to the contrary.

How “successful” are you when you ask criminals to not steal from you while you stand there unarmed, facing down the barrel of an aircraft carrier? Success depends on the job at hand. If there’s too much to lose, the gov’t assures your loss by whatever means necessary. I am successful a vast majority of the time in making public servants commit crimes just to keep speaking to me (the client), but in a country where the law matters naught you BYO Vaseline.

“May or may not be relevant” - ??? - I’ve shown you laws from across America that say highways are open as a matter or right to public vehicular travel and you call it “novel.” I show you Tax Court and U.S. appellate decisions saying 26 USC § 83 is universally applicable to ALL compensation, and I show you that before 1997 I had that claim all of the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, and I show you how the method by which they disposed of it contradicts four S.Ct. decisions won by the DOJ at the same the § 83 litigants were losing, and you say it “may or may not be relevant”?

To Ahmed, this “may or may not be relevant” :

“Section 83(a) explains how property received in exchange for services is taxed.” (See Montelepre Systemed, Inc. v. C.I.R., 956 F.2d 496, 498 at [1] (CA5 1992). Section 83 applies to all compensation paid for services of corporations, and for the services of individuals. (See 26 CFR 1.83-3(e), (f); MacNaughton v. C.I.R., 888 F.2d 418 (CA6 1989); Pledger v. C.I.R., 641 F.2d 287 (CA5 1981); Alves v. C.I.R., 734 F.2d 478, 481 (CA9 1984); Klingler Electric Co. v. C.I.R., 776 F.Supp. 1158, 1164 at [1] (S.D.Miss. 1991); Robinson v. C.I.R., 82 USTC 444 (1984); Cohn v. C.I.R., 73 USTC 443, 446 (1979).

That means § 83 applies to Ch.2 self employment earnings § 1402(a), FICA wages in § 3121(a), W-4 wages in § 3401(c), and in those trips to the S.Ct. I was NEVER contradicted over this. What you say “may or may not be relevant” is, in fact, being taught properly by nobody but me, the rest of America teaching instead that § 83 applies only to deferred compensation; that’s § 83(b), not (a) which IS so applicable.

Is it my “theory” that all the courts agree that § 83 applies to all compensation? Is it my “theory” that I am not the citizen defined in 26 USC §§ 1402(b), 3121(e)? Is it my “theory” that § 6413(c) allows for a credit of some FICA for individuals who in one taxable year has more than one employer?

Be good enough to tune in to my conference calls which you can get to from www.NoConfidence.com - and you’ll hear people who obviously know a great deal and who have studied under movement gurus for many years who now claim to be able to simply throw away their collection for having finally received my courses. My students laugh at R. Cornforth’s pleadings, and my successes are measured more in discomfort than by dismissals.

“Much success”? Well, 5+ months ago I notified the local cops that if the speak to me again about the MV code that I’d arrest a county judge for misenforcing the MV code against public vehicular travelers. I still drive very day without plates, d.license, registration, insurance, etc. Attached to this notice I included as Ex.A (that means “exhibit A”) the RICO complaint you see when you read www.PublicVehicularTravel.com - which was filed with the DOJ and Homeland Security Committee on 3/9/06 which remains without reply despite a Congressman was named as a defendant thereto. (David Reichert, former King Co. sheriff, Seattle).

“Much success”? Listen, “If I’m in jail, I want David Myrland writing for me.” Kurt R. Riggin, FBA #7604. Read my testimonials at - http://www.tocongress.com/indexPORTAL.htm

“Much success”? Listen, “I must say, he’s impressed me with his research.” Former 4-Term Speaker of the House of TX for whom I wrote the legislation he submitted to the TX legislature on behalf of the group for which he was lobbying.

“Much success”?

"Your brief is written better than any of the attorneys write that come into this court." Judge, on the record, open court/many attorneys.

"You’re obviously no neophyte to the judicial system. Your pleadings are in the top one percentile of everything I see in this court." Judge, on the record, open court/many attorneys.

Exactly why you omitted these testimonials from your preponderance and conclusions which you’ve spread to this blog is beyond me, but I’ve seen this tendency many, many times before - nobody can accomplish anything, everything is impossible, nobody knows the truth, nobody is competent, nobody has really done the work, never listen to anyone even if they’re S.Ct. justices - ALL IS LOST! These people (the testimonials) say these things while you say “novel approach” - you think RAP is music, don’t you.

“Much success”? Well, in Shasta County CA my client got 2 prosecutors fired, the judge retired 10 yrs. early, and 2 members of the County Bd. of Supervisors resigned, one of who he’d have been running against in June of 2006 had the NOT resigned.

“Much success”? You see in box #15 on www.NoConfidence.com - three small claims actions which stopped gov’t in its tracks. Do you know anyone who’s done that? Is that not “success”? By simply mentioning the criminal code in relation to gold and silver a municipal judge vacated a misdemeanor guilty plea without having been asked to do so. While I call that confirmed kill you call it a “theory” and doubt my success; you’re dangerous.

Much success”? I’ve gotten 5 of 6 cases dismissed in Superior Court (Klamath County, OR) brought by the OR state AG against farmers and truck drivers, and I got these dismissals by writing all pleadings, mailing them to OR, and by coaching these good people on how to copy/file/argue them in unfair trade practices civil litigation - I coached them to victory in eight months of litigation! These are the only victories for gifting club participants in the entire country while those in 32 other states (at least) were drawn and quartered.

You deter people from my teachings by saying they’re “novel” when you’ve never read a S.Ct. decision, have you. Federal and state judges don’t have time for anything “novel.”

Had you heard of “public vehicular travel” before you saw my site? Had you heard of § 83 before you saw my site? You must be so wrapped up in studying under those with only theories that you can’t read the law when you see it; I meet a lot of people just like that.

I HATE THEORIES!!! If you don’t know where you stand you don’t know anything! Stand on the law so it’s NOT you and your theory, the icing on which is a pathetic request to a servant that they honor your rights, whatever they happen to be. Stand on the law so it’s the legislative body, the law and hand cuffs, confronting your servants - abandoning theories will allow you to do this. It’s the difference between defense and offense; you’re seeing offense for the first time.

Call in to www.FirstAmendmentRadio.com - and ask Melody Gillespie (Sundays 6-8 pm Pacific) about me and my courses which she received in Dec. 2006. She’s very knowledgeable about the law and can compare me to EVERYONE who is teaching seminars and selling materials for she has worked hard to keep up with all of the emerging and existing battles and teachings. Tell her my approach is “novel” and hear what she says. Ask her what my “successes” are and if I know one damn thing about what I say is the law.

“Success”? She (Melody) just used my courses to intimidate an insurance adjuster to NOT accept a $10k check he had demanded from a widow whose house had burned down. Listen, she sent a criminal complaint w/$10k check to woman’s attorney, the attorney tells the adjuster he has the check and a criminal complaint that’ll be filed when the check is accepted, and they never heard from the adjuster again. That’s a HUGE success, but not in the form of dismissal.

A lack of success is largely and all too commonly due solely to the corruption and willful derelictions committed by public servants. An example is found here, in this utter failure, this lack of success, this indication that the person attempting it knows nothing:

1. Denied counsel by state judge and then put in jail under two FTA warrants for missing a hearing which relates only to one case of the two that you have going in that criminal court. You have a lawful excuse for missing the hearing (emergency w/witnesses who testify in your absence) but you’re held for 45 days because you went to the hospital with medical emergency.

2. A denial of counsel voids all jurisdiction of the court. See - http://tocongress.com/PRIVATEPROPERTY/zzCONF_CALLS/01zerbst.htm -

3. A court w/no jurisdiction certainly is staffed by a judge w/no authority, right? A judge w/no court has no authority, right? All of those cases say that the case is over, but the judge sent you to jail, despite your 100% right to ALL of your liberty.

4. You sue in fed. court saying that the judge is not immune for he had no authority to act, and you name him as an individual.

5. Fed. court says the judge is immune and dismisses the suit but refuses to even acknowledge your claim that the denial of counsel voided the jurisdiction of the court and judge which sent you to jail.

There, that “novel” and “theoretical” mongrel WHO WAS CORRECT went and lost their case - they sure don’t SUCCEED very much. Your tendency to shoot at educated people through your keyhole of awareness makes you dangerous to higher learning, but as I said, it’s nothing I haven’t seen many, many times before.

The judge did this to this case while those who think like you stand back and throw stones accusing the loser of failure as a litigant or lawyer, when in fact your ignorance of the law and of the judge’s job is the vessel from which you spray your scent. Until you know the judge’s job, the prosecutor’s job, and the agent’s job, and the lawful limitations of each, you have no relative point of reference from which to comment on anyone’s research and efforts.

Constitutions, ordinance, statute, case law and court rules - they govern all that I do; American Jurisprudence is not a “novel point of view.” On www.NoConfidence.com - I’ve voiced an open challenge to a debate with absolutely anyone on how the Tax Code operates but you’ve not accepted - now THAT’s novel.

Data
(David R. Myrland)

Newbie Joined: Oct 10, 2007 Posts: 2

Dear Rella

Michael-Edward: here.

There is only a Regulation that names an American liable to the Income Tax Issue.

There is no Statute.

Hence, we have "taxation without representation" since only The Congress has the Right to collect and lay taxes and they may do so only via statute. Were they to do so, THAT would be "taxation WITH representation".

www.ToCongress.com
www.YourRemedyIsInTheLaw.com

regards,
ME

Rella wrote:

Just want to know how many of your cheap government whores can show Ed & Elaine the Law that requires them to file a 1040?

**Member** Joined: Jul 02, 2007 Posts: 614

ok my american history might be a little bit rusty but wasn't "taxation without representation" along with excessive taxation and a total disregard for the rights of the people the main things which led to the american revolution?

Initiate Joined: Jun 20, 2007 Posts: 430

Irwin Schiff wrote a book about the IRS and the non-existent law entitled The Federal Mafia. It sold well at a cost of $42 until the IRS had a court ban it. So much for the First Amendment and free speech rights.

Although the book can not be sold, it can be given away for free, and that is what Schiff's website is doing. You can download it (32 megabytes) at the URL below.

http://www.paynoincometax.com/pdf/federal_mafia.pdf

**Member** Joined: Jul 02, 2007 Posts: 614

I'm just suprised the government has resorted to burning books like the nazis did before and during the second world war. Considering that bush and hitler are so much alike it wouldn't surprise me to see bush order certain books permentally removed from people's homes and burned because, like this book "the federal mafia", it shows the truth about the government.

**Member** Joined: Jun 12, 2007 Posts: 3128

Ahmed....................you are being redundant ..........................

See Rella's post on Endless Debate & Special Purpose.................Tuesday Sept. 11/07 Letter from Irwin Schiff

She also included the link PayNoIncomeTax.com

We know all about this Ahmed, thanks to Rella's post a month ago!

Newbie Joined: Oct 07, 2007 Posts: 9

Irwin Schiff has my vote for having misled the most people about the nature of taxation in America than anyone could if they start a million years ago. [Buyer] beware.

In an eight hour visit with him in perhaps 1995 I discovered that he views the entire Tax Code through only three statutes. Is he teaching § 83 yet? If not, what can his work possibly worth? If he knows nothing about the statute that "explains how" to tax compensation, who is he comment on the nature of what he 'perceives' to be a tax?

“Section 83(a) explains how property received in exchange for services is taxed.” (See Montelepre Systemed, Inc. v. C.I.R., 956 F.2d 496, 498 at [1] (CA5 1992). Section 83 applies to all compensation paid for services of corporations, and for the services of individuals. (See 26 CFR 1.83-3(e), (f); MacNaughton v. C.I.R., 888 F.2d 418 (CA6 1989); Pledger v. C.I.R., 641 F.2d 287 (CA5 1981); Alves v. C.I.R., 734 F.2d 478, 481 (CA9 1984); Klingler Electric Co. v. C.I.R., 776 F.Supp. 1158, 1164 at [1] (S.D.Miss. 1991); Robinson v. C.I.R., 82 USTC 444 (1984); Cohn v. C.I.R., 73 USTC 443, 446 (1979).

As a buyer who will beware, you will place this issue at the forefront when determining the competence and experience of one who claims to have something to teach you about the Tax Code.

Data

**Member** Joined: Jul 02, 2007 Posts: 614

Data: i read somewhere that according to section 861 of the IRS tax code that the 50 states isn't listed as "taxable"and that the american people aren't listed as well. could this be used in the brown's defense in addition to section 83?

Initiate Joined: Jun 23, 2007 Posts: 259

Irwin Schiff may have a few things wrong in regard to taxes: I'm not smart enough to figure it all out, but I have a lot of respect for him. I believe that he has been a pioneer in educating people about the unlawfulness of the income tax.

His book was banned by the government. A stupid excuse that it was "commercial" speech.

I heard that Irwin's biggest mistake was taking a government attorney into court with him. Of course, we know who the attorneys work for.

The Administrative courts have their own judges. How can any American get a fair trial?

Our Senators and Congressmen, (most of them) are scum. They're either too stupid to study the issue or they don't care.

I saw a Congressman from Georgia on a news program today.
He is dumber than a frog.
No wonder we're in the shape that we're in.

Ignorance has gone to seed!

**Member** Joined: Jul 02, 2007 Posts: 614

Rella: all politicians are simply puppets. the real power lies behind the scenes.

Newbie Joined: Oct 07, 2007 Posts: 9

Memorandum on § 861 which tears its lungs out -

http://tocongress.com/PRIVATEPROPERTY/01section861/861main.htm

About Schiff, right or wrong, when somebody contradicts the IRS the gov’t acts to silence it. You can’t get to argue Schiff’s claims until you’ve sort of missed entirely a host of violations in how the income taxes are imposed. What you’ve heard about Schiff is coming from people who know less than he does. He says that it’s a corporate tax, but I only know of a couple of corporations who divorced their spouses and then were awarded alimony payments, as are mentioned as items of gross income in § 61(a).

Ask Schiff why, if § 83 applies to § 3121(a) FICA wages, why don’t Americans also get a ch.1 deduction under §§ 63(c) and 151(d) from sums taxed under FICA like they do from § 61(a) wages. Schiff arrived very early on with a conclusion that makes him feel good, but he stopped reading tax law several years too early to qualify as a teacher of anything but how to get extra rolls of toilet paper to defeat a federal prison’s limit of one roll per month. The entire movement is precisely where it was when I left it in 1993 to learn the law. It’s very sad.

Data