[00:00.000 --> 00:05.520]  This news brief brought to you by the International News Net.
[00:05.520 --> 00:10.920]  Greenpeace demonstrators occupied oil sands in Alberta, Canada, Tuesday, calling it a
[00:10.920 --> 00:12.280]  crime scene.
[00:12.280 --> 00:18.920]  The activists forced the company to temporarily suspend production of 155,000 barrels a day.
[00:18.920 --> 00:25.360]  A Greenpeace spokesman said the tar sands emit more emissions than entire countries.
[00:25.360 --> 00:31.480]  Crystal is to grant blanket amnesty to 200,000 foreigners living in the country illegally.
[00:31.480 --> 00:36.560]  Immigrants will have free access to the government's health care system, schooling and other social
[00:36.560 --> 00:38.400]  benefits.
[00:38.400 --> 00:43.760]  General Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, is privately requesting between
[00:43.760 --> 00:53.640]  30 and 40,000 more troops, a request that has produced huge resistance among key lawmakers.
[00:53.640 --> 00:59.880]  A group of senators unveiled legislation Thursday aiming to strip telecom firms that took part
[00:59.880 --> 01:04.720]  in the Bush administration's spying program of immunity from lawsuits.
[01:04.720 --> 01:09.840]  The bill aims to fix problems with surveillance laws that threaten the rights and liberties
[01:09.840 --> 01:11.880]  of American citizens.
[01:11.880 --> 01:16.960]  The legislation would affect the way the government can search Americans' personal records, conduct
[01:16.960 --> 01:22.720]  wiretapping and otherwise collect and use information on U.S. citizens.
[01:22.720 --> 01:28.020]  Given the provisions sure to grab attention, it revisits a secret program launched by George
[01:28.020 --> 01:33.880]  Bush after 9-11 that collected sensitive information without a court order.
[01:33.880 --> 01:39.880]  Lawmakers, including then-Senator Barack Obama, voted last year to grant telecom firms that
[01:39.880 --> 01:45.800]  took part in the program immunity from lawsuits by Americans who alleged breaches of privacy
[01:45.800 --> 01:46.800]  rights.
[01:46.800 --> 01:52.200]  While the legislation is a stand-alone bill, supporters of key provisions could strive
[01:52.200 --> 01:57.440]  to include them when Congress reauthorizes key sections of the Patriot Act later this
[01:57.440 --> 02:00.160]  year.
[02:00.160 --> 02:04.960]  A bill that could go to the Senate floor as early as next week would make it impossible
[02:04.960 --> 02:11.560]  for Barack Obama to move any Guantanamo prisoners to the U.S. for any reason, effectively blocking
[02:11.560 --> 02:15.120]  his plan to close the facility by January.
[02:15.120 --> 02:20.360]  The bar on all such transfers was written into the Senate version of the Defense Appropriations
[02:20.360 --> 02:25.920]  Bill passed by the Appropriations Committee last week and is stricter than current law,
[02:25.920 --> 02:31.040]  which allows prisoners to be brought to the U.S. for trial as long as Congress is notified
[02:31.040 --> 02:35.140]  45 days in advance of any potential risks.
[02:35.140 --> 02:41.320]  Law Professor Matthew Waxman, who worked on detainee issues at the Defense and State Departments
[02:41.320 --> 02:46.880]  under the Bush Administration, said, the Obama Administration can't close Guantanamo without
[02:46.880 --> 02:52.520]  bringing some detainees to the United States, and Congress's actions show that the political
[02:52.520 --> 02:54.920]  price of doing so will be high.
[02:54.920 --> 03:00.400]  This news brief brought to you by the International News Net.
[03:00.400 --> 03:11.400]  You are listening to the Rule of Law Radio Network at ruleoflawradio.com, live free speech
[03:11.400 --> 03:18.400]  talk radio at its best.
[04:11.400 --> 04:19.400]  You are listening to the Rule of Law Radio Network at its best.
[05:11.400 --> 05:17.600]  What you're going to do when we come for you, this is the rule of law.
[05:17.600 --> 05:24.960]  Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens, and Eddie Craig, of course.
[05:24.960 --> 05:34.320]  And just wanted to remind our listeners again about our seminar, October 24th and 25th,
[05:34.320 --> 05:39.120]  here in Austin, Texas, at Brave New Books.
[05:39.120 --> 05:44.760]  We're also doing it as a webinar, so folks who are across the country who can't make
[05:44.760 --> 05:52.200]  it to Austin, you can subscribe to the webinar and actually participate in the seminar over
[05:52.200 --> 05:53.200]  the Internet.
[05:53.200 --> 05:58.960]  We'll have a chat room set up so you can participate in the Q&A sessions.
[05:58.960 --> 06:04.560]  Everyone who signs up for the webinar will get all the materials, a link to download
[06:04.560 --> 06:11.320]  the seminar materials, and you'll get an audio and video recording after the fact.
[06:11.320 --> 06:18.080]  So please go to our website, ruleoflawradio.com, for more information about the seminar, the
[06:18.080 --> 06:20.480]  in-classroom seminar, and the webinar.
[06:20.480 --> 06:27.400]  We'll also have audio and video recordings of the seminar after the fact.
[06:27.400 --> 06:31.120]  So tonight we are going to start off with a very special guest.
[06:31.120 --> 06:40.680]  His name is Larry Bradshaw, and he is a researcher for Mr. Kornforth, who also does a radio show
[06:40.680 --> 06:47.040]  on law, not on this network, and he's going to be discussing the 1040 form tonight, IRS
[06:47.040 --> 06:48.040]  1040 form.
[06:48.040 --> 06:51.040]  Thank you for joining us, Larry.
[06:51.040 --> 06:52.040]  Larry.
[06:52.040 --> 06:53.040]  Hmm.
[06:53.040 --> 06:54.040]  Okay.
[06:54.040 --> 07:00.520]  I think we lost our guest.
[07:00.520 --> 07:02.960]  Well, this is starting out really nice.
[07:02.960 --> 07:03.960]  Okay.
[07:03.960 --> 07:06.720]  Let me see if I can get our guest back up.
[07:06.720 --> 07:07.720]  Randy.
[07:07.720 --> 07:08.720]  Okay.
[07:08.720 --> 07:15.120]  Well, what he's going to be talking about is the jurisdiction of the IRS.
[07:15.120 --> 07:20.200]  And I think, Eddie, you're more familiar with this 1040 issue than I am.
[07:20.200 --> 07:22.040]  You want to address that?
[07:22.040 --> 07:28.960]  Well, basically, if you actually read the statutes regarding the 1040, the 1040 by definition
[07:28.960 --> 07:33.880]  in statute applies only to foreigners living and working in the United States.
[07:33.880 --> 07:37.600]  It does not apply to the citizens of the several states.
[07:37.600 --> 07:39.160]  Never has.
[07:39.160 --> 07:43.880]  The only, if you actually read through the IRS code, you'll find out that the only taxable
[07:43.880 --> 07:50.160]  income that a citizen can get is earnings from overseas, or if they are a government
[07:50.160 --> 07:51.160]  employee.
[07:51.160 --> 07:58.000]  Matter of fact, if you look at the definition of employee in 1.61, I believe it is, of the
[07:58.000 --> 08:05.200]  Internal Revenue Code, it specifically states that an employee is a government employee.
[08:05.200 --> 08:08.800]  You remember, let's see, the tax lien notices that they're filing in all the counties.
[08:08.800 --> 08:13.480]  You remember how the first section on the back of the notice is always missing.
[08:13.480 --> 08:21.160]  It starts at B, not at A. Section A of that tax lien notice contains the information that
[08:21.160 --> 08:27.120]  says this tax lien only applies to an employee of the United States or a political subdivision
[08:27.120 --> 08:30.560]  of the United States.
[08:30.560 --> 08:41.240]  So if they file a tax lien and they notice the law, but they deliberately eliminate or
[08:41.240 --> 08:49.280]  redact a section of law that would tend to demonstrate that the lien is void or improperly
[08:49.280 --> 08:59.080]  filed, that goes to the issue, and this is in the case law, that if you disclose some
[08:59.080 --> 09:06.200]  information, you have a duty to disclose full information.
[09:06.200 --> 09:13.560]  So by this tactic, the IRS would disclose partial information, and by only disclosing
[09:13.560 --> 09:19.400]  partial information, give the impression they've disclosed it all, and therefore it's fraud
[09:19.400 --> 09:20.400]  by non-disclosure.
[09:20.400 --> 09:21.400]  Okay.
[09:21.400 --> 09:22.720]  Yes, and I believe we have our guest back.
[09:22.720 --> 09:23.720]  Larry, you there?
[09:23.720 --> 09:24.720]  Yes, I am.
[09:24.720 --> 09:25.720]  Okay.
[09:25.720 --> 09:26.720]  Good.
[09:26.720 --> 09:27.720]  We got him.
[09:27.720 --> 09:28.720]  Okay, Larry.
[09:28.720 --> 09:29.720]  Okay.
[09:29.720 --> 09:30.720]  You want to start?
[09:30.720 --> 09:31.720]  Yeah.
[09:31.720 --> 09:34.840]  Why don't you give us a little bit of your background so our listeners will have an idea
[09:34.840 --> 09:41.080]  of who you are and what kind of work you've done, and then get into the material that you'd
[09:41.080 --> 09:42.680]  like to present to us.
[09:42.680 --> 09:43.680]  Okay.
[09:43.680 --> 09:44.680]  Very good.
[09:44.680 --> 09:49.080]  I started researching about 10 years ago.
[09:49.080 --> 09:55.200]  I was a general contractor for about 38 years, and I've seen a lot of things go on.
[09:55.200 --> 09:59.640]  I got tired of the IRS messing with us, so one day I decided that I'd just close up
[09:59.640 --> 10:02.480]  my business and start studying the Internal Revenue Code.
[10:02.480 --> 10:08.800]  It always felt like there was something wrong with it, but there was a lot of misinformation
[10:08.800 --> 10:09.800]  out there.
[10:09.800 --> 10:17.960]  It's real easy to come across some information that's really not accurate, and so I took
[10:17.960 --> 10:27.160]  it on myself to start studying, and my first lessons, I guess you would say, was with Richard
[10:27.160 --> 10:36.760]  Standring with learning how to decode master files, and after studying with Richard for
[10:36.760 --> 10:42.120]  about a year and a half, most of his material, and of course, reading everything that I could
[10:42.120 --> 10:49.440]  find on the Internet, Taxgate, some of those different websites, and studying on my own.
[10:49.440 --> 10:52.760]  I come across Richard Kornforth.
[10:52.760 --> 10:53.760]  I started studying.
[10:53.760 --> 10:58.880]  I realized that somewhere along the line, the only way we was going to settle these
[10:58.880 --> 11:05.600]  issues would be in court, and so I felt the need to learn law, and so I started studying
[11:05.600 --> 11:07.000]  under Richard.
[11:07.000 --> 11:11.000]  I am alumni of his M Law School.
[11:11.000 --> 11:14.040]  I've read about everything that he's published.
[11:14.040 --> 11:20.960]  I am an information provider for Richard at this time, and I've got 10 years under my
[11:20.960 --> 11:25.680]  belt of studying the Internal Revenue Code, Federal Tax Law.
[11:25.680 --> 11:33.480]  I spent about almost two years working with some criminal attorneys, criminal law attorneys
[11:33.480 --> 11:36.400]  on some criminal cases.
[11:36.400 --> 11:43.980]  I realized a few years back that a lot of this information in some of the cases would
[11:43.980 --> 11:50.720]  wind up in criminal court, and at that time, there was very few people in the Patriot community
[11:50.720 --> 11:58.080]  that had any criminal background, and I had an opportunity to study under a fellow who
[11:58.080 --> 12:03.600]  had 15 years as the law clerk for the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
[12:03.600 --> 12:10.600]  He also had a doctor's degree in law, and he studied under President Obama.
[12:10.600 --> 12:20.640]  I got a real good introduction into evidence, into law, into presenting a case in court,
[12:20.640 --> 12:26.560]  how to get evidence into court, how to object, when to object, these sort of things.
[12:26.560 --> 12:33.960]  That's what I've done with Richard Cornforth's teachings, and Richard may be one of the foremost
[12:33.960 --> 12:42.880]  legal minds in this country, but from that, I have done an in-depth study of the Internal
[12:42.880 --> 12:49.520]  Revenue Code, the manuals I've read, just about everything that the Internal Revenue
[12:49.520 --> 12:56.040]  Service Trader Department has put out, case law, tax court, Supreme Court.
[12:56.040 --> 13:05.280]  You name it, I've been through it, and I've worked with a lot of people with different
[13:05.280 --> 13:14.000]  issues with the government, and here recently, I had an opportunity to work with a fellow
[13:14.000 --> 13:23.760]  here local in his battle with the IRS, and he went into tax court, got beat up there
[13:23.760 --> 13:28.400]  when I've been to the appellate court, got his case dismissed at the appellate court
[13:28.400 --> 13:37.320]  by the clerk of courts, and while I was working with that case, I decided to just take the
[13:37.320 --> 13:44.320]  information, the notice of deficiency, and the information we had from the IRS on his
[13:44.320 --> 13:50.560]  case, and just take it apart and see where it went, and that's where I am today, and
[13:50.560 --> 13:54.120]  what I've discovered here is fairly mind-boggling.
[13:54.120 --> 14:04.560]  In fact, I presented this evidence last evening to the representative of the state of Florida,
[14:04.560 --> 14:15.640]  Bill Galvano, and he was visibly upset, and he is going to give me an audience with the
[14:15.640 --> 14:22.480]  attorney general of the state of Florida because what I believe I've discovered here is a racketeering
[14:22.480 --> 14:28.480]  influence corrupt organization operating within and under the authority of the Internal Revenue
[14:28.480 --> 14:38.920]  Service, and so this is some big stuff, but what I guess was Ed was saying there earlier
[14:38.920 --> 14:49.160]  about the income tax only applies from what I can tell to government employees, and understand
[14:49.160 --> 14:57.440]  that vendors, subcontractors with federal government are considered to be employees
[14:57.440 --> 15:05.640]  of the federal government, so keeping that in mind, if I can just go through this right
[15:05.640 --> 15:11.760]  here, what I'll do is I'll walk through the evidence I have laying in front of me here,
[15:11.760 --> 15:14.040]  and I will identify the documents.
[15:14.040 --> 15:19.680]  If anybody wants to write this down, they can go search this out, and I'm going to start
[15:19.680 --> 15:26.200]  off with a notice of deficiency, and anybody that's gotten one, they look up the top and
[15:26.200 --> 15:34.560]  it says tax form 1040, and when you turn over to the notice of deficiency waiver, it's the
[15:34.560 --> 15:44.840]  form 5564, you will see the kind of tax is individual income, at least on this particular
[15:44.840 --> 15:52.520]  one here, and most of them will be that, I'm sure, but in your 4549, you will find that
[15:52.520 --> 15:58.200]  it is indicating self-employment tax on this particular person.
[15:58.200 --> 16:04.840]  If they are working for an employer, it may be different, but just for exhibit, we'll go
[16:04.840 --> 16:07.160]  with this one here.
[16:07.160 --> 16:14.160]  So we sent off a Freedom of Information Act request, and we recovered the individual master
[16:14.160 --> 16:22.480]  file transcript complete, and on that, you look at the document locator numbers, if anyone
[16:22.480 --> 16:26.960]  doesn't know what that is, when you look at your individual master file, there will be
[16:26.960 --> 16:34.680]  a number after the transaction codes, and it is a number that they use to identify what
[16:34.680 --> 16:40.840]  document it is, and where in their system that that document is located, how many pages
[16:40.840 --> 16:43.240]  are in that document, etc.
[16:43.240 --> 16:51.920]  The third digit N is crucial, it is the tax class, and I have not seen one any different
[16:51.920 --> 16:58.280]  than this, they're all tax class II, tax class II, as we'll see, is individual income.
[16:58.280 --> 17:04.880]  Now, there's a couple of other codes on there, too, that we'll be interested in, and that
[17:04.880 --> 17:12.520]  is the fourth and fifth digit in there, which is the document code, and then there will
[17:12.520 --> 17:20.360]  be the blocking series we'll talk about here in a little bit, but let's see here.
[17:20.360 --> 17:25.560]  If anyone has received one of these, which this one here in front of me has a SFR, which
[17:25.560 --> 17:32.320]  is a substitute for return, TC150, and if you follow that across, you'll see the document
[17:32.320 --> 17:38.520]  locator number there, and this particular document locator number has a tax class II,
[17:38.520 --> 17:45.840]  a document code 10, and a blocking series of three zeros, and we'll come back to that
[17:45.840 --> 17:48.240]  here in a minute.
[17:48.240 --> 17:55.040]  This next set of documents will come out, the ADP Manual IRS Information 2003, which
[17:55.040 --> 18:02.720]  is the 6209 manual or document, and if anyone wants to check this out for not sure how to
[18:02.720 --> 18:07.240]  read the document locator numbers, you go to Section 4 in that, and there will be a
[18:07.240 --> 18:13.840]  diagram in there that will show you exactly what each one of those numbers represent.
[18:13.840 --> 18:26.720]  Let's go to Section 4-9, and in the middle of that page there under the Master File Processing,
[18:26.720 --> 18:35.080]  you will see the tax classes, and if you read down through there, one is withholding Social
[18:35.080 --> 18:40.720]  Security, two is individual income tax, and five is state gift tax.
[18:40.720 --> 18:44.280]  The others are not significant at this time.
[18:44.280 --> 18:55.360]  Turn over to page 8-165, and you will see the non-master file abstract codes.
[18:55.360 --> 19:03.280]  Non-master file is a handwritten manual code that's not automatic.
[19:03.280 --> 19:06.280]  In other words, the IDS system is automatic.
[19:06.280 --> 19:11.600]  They just plug in numbers and the computer does the work for them, but the non-master
[19:11.600 --> 19:17.280]  file is the one where they actually have to handwrite out the different forms and list
[19:17.280 --> 19:21.880]  them for whatever they're doing in that file.
[19:21.880 --> 19:29.760]  You will see there the tax class is withholding, and five is tax class one, individual income
[19:29.760 --> 19:35.360]  tax, tax class two, and what I'm doing here is I'm showing you the evidence that you can
[19:35.360 --> 19:42.400]  put in front of anybody to prove the case on this thing here.
[19:42.400 --> 19:50.560]  Then you go to 4-12, and you will find the individual master file.
[19:50.560 --> 19:56.760]  Under that there's a 30 and a 31, and those are the master file tax codes.
[19:56.760 --> 20:00.080]  The form there is the 1040 series forms.
[20:00.080 --> 20:08.000]  The tax class is two, and you will see under that the non-master file forms is non-master
[20:08.000 --> 20:11.000]  file is six.
[20:11.000 --> 20:12.000]  Hello?
[20:12.000 --> 20:15.000]  Can you hear me okay?
[20:15.000 --> 20:17.480]  Yeah, we can hear you.
[20:17.480 --> 20:21.640]  Okay, I heard something ring in there and wasn't sure what it was.
[20:21.640 --> 20:23.680]  Okay, let's continue on.
[20:23.680 --> 20:28.520]  You'll see that the non-master file is a tax class six, which is not a true master file.
[20:28.520 --> 20:30.920]  That is the handwritten version of that.
[20:30.920 --> 20:40.680]  If we go on down there, you see a master file tax code 20, which is a 1040 form with a 734
[20:40.680 --> 20:42.800]  form.
[20:42.800 --> 20:48.760]  We turn over to 12-12, and we see the employment codes.
[20:48.760 --> 20:55.280]  There you see the individual master file 1040, and it has some other codes there, but you'll
[20:55.280 --> 21:04.200]  see your employment, type of tax employment, individual income, corporate excise, estate
[21:04.200 --> 21:10.480]  gift tax, railroad retirement, FUTA, miscellaneous forms.
[21:10.480 --> 21:21.600]  Over at 12-18, activity codes, you will see that the 1040 form, 1048, 1040C, 1040NR, and
[21:21.600 --> 21:26.200]  it goes on across there, and you will see then in parentheses a master file tax code
[21:26.200 --> 21:27.200]  30 and 20.
[21:27.200 --> 21:34.200]  What I'm showing you here is that 30 and 20 are in the same category, and there's quite
[21:34.200 --> 21:36.720]  a bit of evidence on that.
[21:36.720 --> 21:45.760]  Turn over to 12-67, and you will find the exempt organization master file codes.
[21:45.760 --> 21:52.800]  You follow that down, and you will find master file tax code 20, which is a 1040 form, and
[21:52.800 --> 22:00.320]  you follow it on down, and you'll see 30, which is a 1040 form on the IMF.
[22:00.320 --> 22:09.760]  Over on 12-62, still exempt organizations, down at the bottom of that page there, the
[22:09.760 --> 22:17.280]  activity codes, you will see the 1040 related forms, master file tax 20, 22, and 30, which
[22:17.280 --> 22:22.920]  establishes that those 20 and 30 are in the same category.
[22:22.920 --> 22:30.560]  And if you go over to 12-76, we'll see it again on governmental entities with the individual
[22:30.560 --> 22:38.360]  master files or the individual tax returns there, 1040 series, and the master file tax
[22:38.360 --> 22:47.960]  30 and 20 are there, once again, in the same group.
[22:47.960 --> 23:01.720]  We will see on this one master file transcript here a document code 47, and a document code
[23:01.720 --> 23:10.720]  47 shows up at 12-74 on the exempt organization, under exempt organizations.
[23:10.720 --> 23:11.720]  It may be somewhere else.
[23:11.720 --> 23:15.480]  I haven't found it, but it is listed there.
[23:15.480 --> 23:26.880]  Now, when we go back to 2.2, this is the forms and the tax classes, and we find that tax
[23:26.880 --> 23:34.200]  class five is the state and gift tax, and the tax return for that is the 706, which
[23:34.200 --> 23:45.320]  is the estate tax on that, the 709 is the gift tax, the W-2 forms are tax class five.
[23:45.320 --> 23:50.120]  You'll find, if you'll just keep following that through, you'll find the 1040 form there
[23:50.120 --> 23:51.120]  on 2-6.
[23:51.120 --> 23:59.480]  It's been tax class two and tax class six, which is the non-master file tax code 20 and
[23:59.480 --> 24:02.320]  30, so they're right there together.
[24:02.320 --> 24:10.320]  You'll also follow that down to 1040A form, and you will find in the document code a 10,
[24:10.320 --> 24:15.160]  which is a full-page 1040 form.
[24:15.160 --> 24:21.280]  And in that series there, 2-8, you'll find the 1099 miscellaneous form, and it shows it
[24:21.280 --> 24:26.600]  to be a tax class five, state and gift tax form.
[24:26.600 --> 24:34.200]  On 8-171, you will see the true tax class five is the state and gift tax, there again
[24:34.200 --> 24:39.280]  the forms for that is the 706 series and 709 series.
[24:39.280 --> 24:49.080]  And when you go into the, there's an exhibit out of the Internal Revenue Manual at 4.4.19-2,
[24:49.080 --> 24:55.520]  and you will find again a whole series here of tax class two with the master file tax
[24:55.520 --> 24:59.720]  code 20 and 30 together.
[24:59.720 --> 25:09.560]  So going over to the exhibit three, parentheses 17, parentheses 46, 0-6 out of the automated
[25:09.560 --> 25:14.880]  non-master file accounting manual, and this one's really interesting here, it's the abstract
[25:14.880 --> 25:21.240]  numbers chart, and you follow that down to tax class two, which is the lower part of
[25:21.240 --> 25:23.040]  the page.
[25:23.040 --> 25:32.200]  And we read the abstract number 004, the document code 10 and a master file tax code 20 with
[25:32.200 --> 25:39.240]  a blocking series of 000, which is on the master file, or the individual master file
[25:39.240 --> 25:43.640]  that I have in front of me here, and that's the 1040 form.
[25:43.640 --> 25:51.640]  You follow that on down and you see the same abstract number 004 with a master file tax
[25:51.640 --> 26:00.640]  30 and a blocking series of 600 to 999, which is a 1040 non-resident alien form.
[26:00.640 --> 26:03.680]  This is where it gets real interesting.
[26:03.680 --> 26:09.120]  At the bottom of the page there, you will see another abstract code of 004.
[26:09.120 --> 26:16.980]  You follow that across with a document code 54, master file tax code 20, and it references
[26:16.980 --> 26:21.640]  the Internal Revenue Code at 7803C.
[26:21.640 --> 26:29.200]  Now the Internal Revenue Manual at 3, parentheses 17, parentheses 46, 5-point, parentheses
[26:29.200 --> 26:34.560]  30, which is the non-master file, again out of that same book.
[26:34.560 --> 26:41.520]  What we see here in Assessments under the IRC 7803C says this here at 1.
[26:41.520 --> 26:48.120]  Internal Revenue Code Section 7803C provides for assessments to be made against officers
[26:48.120 --> 26:54.360]  and employees of the Internal Revenue Service who either embezzle or fail to properly handle
[26:54.360 --> 26:58.880]  an account for monies received in connection with the Internal Revenue laws.
[26:58.880 --> 27:03.800]  Then you follow that down and you will find tax class 6, which is a non-master file, document
[27:03.800 --> 27:09.000]  code 54, and the master file tax code 20.
[27:09.000 --> 27:20.160]  Now that seems to indicate that all of that, both of those are IRS or federal employees.
[27:20.160 --> 27:25.960]  Now the 1040 form is tax class 2.
[27:25.960 --> 27:38.880]  If you will go to the Treasury Financial Manual, Transmittal Letter, number 614, volume 1,
[27:38.880 --> 27:45.680]  and you turn to the third page and that's Appendix 1, you will find the tax classes.
[27:45.680 --> 27:56.360]  And tax class 2, this is what it says, report the amount of estimated taxes on taxable trusts.
[27:56.360 --> 28:04.040]  So that I think pretty well sums up what the 1040 is about.
[28:04.040 --> 28:09.160]  And apparently when people join up with the Internal Revenue Service or work with the
[28:09.160 --> 28:14.520]  federal government, they're apparently put into some kind of a trust, either that or
[28:14.520 --> 28:21.240]  this is an Irish Collections officer that are running a, the money is put into a trust
[28:21.240 --> 28:24.440]  and very similar to an escrow account.
[28:24.440 --> 28:28.640]  I haven't discovered that exactly where that goes yet.
[28:28.640 --> 28:35.600]  Now this information I'm giving you, I just put this together last week, so I've still
[28:35.600 --> 28:41.440]  got some more work to do on it to really, you know, nail it down.
[28:41.440 --> 28:50.120]  But according to the information that I got last night from the Speaker of the House who
[28:50.120 --> 28:56.960]  is an attorney himself, he picked up on it pretty quick.
[28:56.960 --> 29:01.680]  And his comment was, to me was, before I walked out of the room, he said, do you realize how
[29:01.680 --> 29:05.000]  many people could be involved in this?
[29:05.000 --> 29:11.960]  So it kind of indicated to me that he understood that this is a worse than a posse scheme.
[29:11.960 --> 29:17.680]  This is a corrupt organization operating within the government.
[29:17.680 --> 29:20.720]  I got lost in the numbers.
[29:20.720 --> 29:25.120]  Most of the numbers I didn't know what they were and I couldn't keep up with it.
[29:25.120 --> 29:30.200]  As an overview, how do you get to the fraud here?
[29:30.200 --> 29:33.760]  I can just barely hear you.
[29:33.760 --> 29:38.000]  Okay, we'll do this when we come back from break.
[29:38.000 --> 29:42.840]  Yeah, we're about to go on break, just hold on one second.
[29:42.840 --> 29:48.400]  I think Randy was asking for an overview when we get back on the other side, Larry.
[29:48.400 --> 29:49.400]  Okay.
[29:49.400 --> 29:50.400]  Okay, great.
[29:50.400 --> 29:51.400]  We'll be right back.
[29:51.400 --> 30:01.400]  We'll be back with our special guest, Larry Bradshaw.
[30:01.400 --> 30:04.560]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[30:04.560 --> 30:11.320]  Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary, the affordable, easy to understand, 4-CD course
[30:11.320 --> 30:15.320]  that will show you how in 24 hours, step by step.
[30:15.320 --> 30:19.080]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing.
[30:19.080 --> 30:23.360]  If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[30:23.360 --> 30:28.160]  Thousands have won with our step by step course and now you can too.
[30:28.160 --> 30:33.760]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case winning experience.
[30:33.760 --> 30:39.440]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the
[30:39.440 --> 30:43.280]  principles and practices that control our American courts.
[30:43.280 --> 30:49.920]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases,
[30:49.920 --> 30:52.720]  pro se tactics and much more.
[30:52.720 --> 31:00.520]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll free 866 LAWEZ.
[31:00.520 --> 31:14.040]  Yeah, I got a warrant and I'm going to solve them, to the head of government them, prosecute
[31:14.040 --> 31:15.040]  them.
[31:15.040 --> 31:16.040]  Okay.
[31:16.040 --> 31:17.040]  Okay.
[31:17.040 --> 31:34.960]  Well, I need a prosecutor to come and help me.
[31:34.960 --> 31:36.960]  Prosecute them wickedly.
[31:36.960 --> 31:45.160]  I tell them a lie and they tell it, so believe me, say what them tell with 3% of American
[31:45.160 --> 31:52.160]  vote for Bush. So how the hell he get the presidency? That's why me have a warrant for him. Everybody
[31:52.160 --> 31:55.160]  listen carefully listen to the words only the issues proceed.
[31:55.160 --> 32:14.160]  I see citizens arrest for Mr. Bush. I see a warrant for Bush. I see a citizen arrest for Mr. Bush. I see a warrant for Bush.
[32:14.160 --> 32:20.160]  Well we know from the homespun, warrant pollution. I'll return the warrant for him.
[32:20.160 --> 32:27.160]  I write about the citizens in the country. Them getting so mad and them getting angry. We have some work we need to solve.
[32:27.160 --> 32:34.160]  Need a prosecutor to come and help me. Prosecutors from any state will come over and we'll show them to you.
[32:34.160 --> 32:39.160]  Hear them tell you when me tell you. Three issues persisting is true. That is true.
[32:39.160 --> 32:53.160]  Hey Silverstein, you get the citizens arrest too. Silverstein and Hamilton clean. You know them and they don't clean. Everybody bring them in so we could solve them with warranting.
[32:53.160 --> 32:57.160]  They don't need to quarantine. You know them like me say with them clean.
[32:57.160 --> 33:17.160]  Citizens arrest for Mr. Bush. Citizens arrest for Dick Cheney. Citizens arrest for Mr. Bush. Citizens arrest for Dick Cheney.
[33:17.160 --> 33:29.160]  All these guys in the three suit. All them I do them I tell I do it. In them three suit and tie. And them I walk and I tell I fly. That's why we have to prosecute them.
[33:29.160 --> 33:34.160]  The rule of law. Randy Kelton and Deborah Stevens and Eddie Craig of course.
[33:34.160 --> 33:42.160]  We're here with our special guest Larry Bradshaw and callers. If you could just hold off the calls for another segment or two.
[33:42.160 --> 33:50.160]  We want to try to go back over some of this material and and give an overview and basically explain what a lot of stuff means.
[33:50.160 --> 33:58.160]  Randy you wanted to. Yeah I have a question. This kind of reminds me when I got the book.
[33:58.160 --> 34:09.160]  I was studying studying Microsoft Access and I got access for dummies and read it and I went back and asked them if they have access for dumber.
[34:09.160 --> 34:15.160]  I'm I'm probably unique in our listening audience but I'm lost.
[34:15.160 --> 34:27.160]  I didn't I wasn't able to make the connections because I wasn't familiar with all of the numbering and the forms and such you were discussing in more general terms.
[34:27.160 --> 34:31.160]  What is the nature of the fraud here?
[34:31.160 --> 34:42.160]  Well the nature of the fraud is is that the tax form 1040 only applies to the federal employees which includes federal vendors
[34:42.160 --> 34:54.160]  and foreigners that are that are actually anybody that's under contract with the federal government in which would be consistent with jurisdiction as I understand it.
[34:54.160 --> 35:06.160]  The federal government if you are outside of the 10 square miles of Washington D.C. and only come in under the authority of the federal government via a statute
[35:06.160 --> 35:17.160]  and whether that statute is you know directly on you imposing a tax on you or whether it's a treaty.
[35:17.160 --> 35:27.160]  And of course we know that the square foot of ground that we stand on is jurisdictional and if you reside in the state of Texas or in the state of Florida
[35:27.160 --> 35:39.160]  which I do the state government is the one that has jurisdiction and anybody that doubts that they can go down and ask their local fire department
[35:39.160 --> 35:54.160]  if there's a federal military base or some federal annex or something like that the federal courthouse you go down and ask them if they can go into that building
[35:54.160 --> 36:03.160]  and put out a fire and if they tell you that they can then what that means is that the federal government has not received session
[36:03.160 --> 36:12.160]  so therefore they are just tenants on that property so anything that happens on that property comes under the law enforcement
[36:12.160 --> 36:20.160]  and the jurisdiction of the state as far as emergency equipment stuff of that nature.
[36:20.160 --> 36:34.160]  And if the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction the state enforcement and stuff cannot go on that property because of the sovereignty issue.
[36:34.160 --> 36:44.160]  But the 1040 form it appears to me only applies to people who are under contract with the federal government
[36:44.160 --> 36:53.160]  and I believe that this information most of the documents I was reading from was out of the 6209 manual.
[36:53.160 --> 37:01.160]  There's a couple of documents there that I read from that are just out of the Treasury Financial Manual
[37:01.160 --> 37:09.160]  is actually literally one that you've got to pull up and look at and that's the one that tells you what the tax class 2 is
[37:09.160 --> 37:14.160]  that it's estimated tax on taxable trusts.
[37:14.160 --> 37:24.160]  So if the 1040 form is taxable trusts how is it that you can come under the jurisdiction of that particular tax.
[37:24.160 --> 37:33.160]  But is there anything else you know I understand how difficult it is to listen to this.
[37:33.160 --> 37:39.160]  I had a great opportunity last night to sit in front of a person who I can actually lay these documents down in front of them
[37:39.160 --> 37:51.160]  and have them look at them and I'm hoping to be able to in the near future put these on some type of electronic media form,
[37:51.160 --> 37:56.160]  PowerPoint or something like that where we can get this information out.
[37:56.160 --> 38:03.160]  So things are absolutely crucial for people and especially ones who are incarcerated and things like that.
[38:03.160 --> 38:06.160]  I believe we can open the doors to prisoners with this.
[38:06.160 --> 38:11.160]  Once we understand these issues how do we address them with the court?
[38:11.160 --> 38:25.160]  Frankly I haven't had this addressed quite in this depth but for a long time everybody's been saying the tax code doesn't apply to state citizens.
[38:25.160 --> 38:28.160]  It only applies to federal employees.
[38:28.160 --> 38:37.160]  How do we use this information to influence the courts to abide by the law as it's written?
[38:37.160 --> 38:40.160]  How is this different than the arguments?
[38:40.160 --> 38:48.160]  Well at this one time I think that what we've got to do with this information is get it in the hands of the attorney generals in the states
[38:48.160 --> 38:52.160]  because this is all criminal.
[38:52.160 --> 39:00.160]  As a civil matter it could be used in defense if you've been, well generally what you'll do is find yourself,
[39:00.160 --> 39:07.160]  if you find yourself in court it'll be facing charges of willful failure to file or tax evasion.
[39:07.160 --> 39:16.160]  And this information right here I believe would stop any jury in its tracks because there's no other place for them to go.
[39:16.160 --> 39:25.160]  And once you brought this in the burden of proof would switch to the Internal Revenue Service and I don't believe they can carry their burden.
[39:25.160 --> 39:28.160]  Now there's another aspect of this dealing with the states as well.
[39:28.160 --> 39:37.160]  If you will notice in every income tax statute in every single state the state can only charge an income tax to you
[39:37.160 --> 39:41.160]  if the federal government can charge the income tax to you.
[39:41.160 --> 39:55.160]  So your state income taxes are directly derived from the amount of taxes paid on the federal income tax.
[39:55.160 --> 40:02.160]  And following up on that, what that is is the federal employees that are working within the state,
[40:02.160 --> 40:09.160]  you know there's all kinds of federal officers here, IRS officers, judges, law clerks, everybody.
[40:09.160 --> 40:12.160]  The federal government is working within the state.
[40:12.160 --> 40:19.160]  And so those tax laws, the states have to pass a tax law otherwise they could not tax that person
[40:19.160 --> 40:22.160]  and give that money to the federal government.
[40:22.160 --> 40:28.160]  And the federal government could not tax even their own employees who are in the jurisdiction of the state.
[40:28.160 --> 40:37.160]  So they had to get those laws passed both directions so that they could tax each other's employees.
[40:37.160 --> 40:42.160]  So that's why the state tax laws are the way they are.
[40:42.160 --> 40:45.160]  And you're absolutely correct on that.
[40:45.160 --> 40:56.160]  Those laws only apply, as far as I can see, to the federal employees or the state employees under a Section 218 agreement.
[40:56.160 --> 41:12.160]  How do we influence the court to properly adjudicate these issues?
[41:12.160 --> 41:17.160]  Well, you have to make the presumption the court is going to allow you to introduce the law anyway.
[41:17.160 --> 41:23.160]  And they try very hard not to allow that to happen.
[41:23.160 --> 41:28.160]  That's the biggest problem, Randy, with most of these tax cases that have gone to federal court,
[41:28.160 --> 41:34.160]  is that the Justice Department and the judge are in league to prevent the law from being introduced in the case.
[41:34.160 --> 41:42.160]  They also do not allow testimony by the expert witnesses regarding this information.
[41:42.160 --> 41:49.160]  It's really a mess in federal court when it comes to this because you're expecting for justice to be done, and that's not going to happen.
[41:49.160 --> 41:55.160]  Their entire financial funding scheme falls apart if the federal income tax falls apart.
[41:55.160 --> 42:02.160]  And Larry, that goes to your effort to get to our legislator.
[42:02.160 --> 42:07.160]  What can the legislator or the attorney general do?
[42:07.160 --> 42:17.160]  One thing I have a hard time imagining is an attorney general who would be willing to take on the IRS, but presupposing that we could find one.
[42:17.160 --> 42:20.160]  What could the attorney general do?
[42:20.160 --> 42:23.160]  Yeah, let me clarify this.
[42:23.160 --> 42:30.160]  So you're presuming that the attorney general would be going after a federal agency, and that's not correct.
[42:30.160 --> 42:40.160]  What the attorney general would be doing would be going after criminals that are operating as an enterprise under the color of authority of the federal government.
[42:40.160 --> 42:50.160]  The government cannot break a law. The government itself, that entity, it's a paper entity. It can't do anything.
[42:50.160 --> 42:58.160]  So if one of the agents commits a crime, at that instance, they're not representing the authority.
[42:58.160 --> 43:02.160]  So that's how the attorney general can go after these people.
[43:02.160 --> 43:13.160]  Is there a way we can go after the individual from a state level if the federal income tax doesn't apply,
[43:13.160 --> 43:24.160]  then the federal official who claims to be acting under federal authority comes in with no such authority, therefore he's a state actor.
[43:24.160 --> 43:30.160]  Shouldn't we be able to pull him in the state court and hold him there?
[43:30.160 --> 43:45.160]  What you could be able to do is the state attorney general has the power to investigate any crime traded on their sovereign.
[43:45.160 --> 43:53.160]  Okay, listen, we're going to break. We're going to break. Hold on, guys. We'll be right back.
[43:53.160 --> 44:00.160]  This is the rule of law.
[44:23.160 --> 44:28.160]  Our roasters bring a unique flavor that makes this the best cup of coffee you'll ever have.
[44:28.160 --> 44:34.160]  Try our new special roast hemp coffee from hempusa.org and wake up your brain without the jitters.
[44:34.160 --> 44:37.160]  Our customers look forward to their next cup of hemp coffee.
[44:37.160 --> 44:47.160]  Visit us at hempusa.org or call 908-691-2608. That's 908-691-2608.
[44:47.160 --> 44:51.160]  And see if you'll change your mind about drinking coffee again.
[44:51.160 --> 44:56.160]  Taste the difference. Feel the difference at hempusa.org today.
[45:21.160 --> 45:25.160]  This is a race for change.
[45:25.160 --> 45:31.160]  Well, I need a prosecutor to come and help me prosecute them wicked leaders, you see.
[45:31.160 --> 45:36.160]  They might be the wrong liars. They tell wrong. They are liars. They tell sweet stories.
[45:36.160 --> 45:41.160]  Will I believe me? Say what they tell me. 3% of Americans vote for me.
[45:41.160 --> 45:46.160]  So how the hell did he get the presidency? That's why I have a warrant for him.
[45:46.160 --> 45:50.160]  Everybody listen carefully. Listen to the words of the officials passing.
[45:50.160 --> 45:56.160]  All right, citizens arrest here at Rule of Law Radio.
[45:56.160 --> 45:59.160]  Okay, Randy, you had a question for the guest. Go ahead.
[45:59.160 --> 46:07.160]  Yeah, I've experienced attorney generals and I'm still having trouble getting the taste of my mouth
[46:07.160 --> 46:17.160]  because although the attorney general is apparently a member of the executive branch, they are politicians.
[46:17.160 --> 46:26.160]  We think of the attorney general as essentially a state law enforcement officer, but I don't find them to be that.
[46:26.160 --> 46:32.160]  I find them to be real political animals that are very sensitive to political pressures.
[46:32.160 --> 46:37.160]  And most of these high level officials that I know of are as corrupt as they can be.
[46:37.160 --> 46:46.160]  They know their closets full of skeletons and they're terrified that if they get someone of real importance angry at them,
[46:46.160 --> 46:49.160]  that somebody will start dragging out these skeletons.
[46:49.160 --> 46:59.160]  So with that in mind, how do we bring to bear enough political pressure to move these guys?
[46:59.160 --> 47:09.160]  Do we do it through new legislation, through mobilizing the public, through criminal charges against individuals?
[47:09.160 --> 47:21.160]  How would you suggest that we work toward accumulating pressures that will influence someone in these higher levels to actually do their jobs?
[47:21.160 --> 47:26.160]  What I suggested to the representative I spoke to last night was this.
[47:26.160 --> 47:37.160]  We all know, I think, you don't have to be a college graduate to understand that right now we're seeing a federal takeover of the sovereignty of the state.
[47:37.160 --> 47:42.160]  And the state legislatures, of course, created the federal government.
[47:42.160 --> 47:47.160]  So what we got is the servant usurping the sovereign.
[47:47.160 --> 47:59.160]  And what I told him was, here's the incentive in this, is that if we could shut off the tap of the extortion of the citizens of this state,
[47:59.160 --> 48:11.160]  you would put that money back in the hands of the citizens, they would spend that money here, which you would get your revenues off of, the state would flourish.
[48:11.160 --> 48:16.160]  And you would have plenty of money to run your state government with.
[48:16.160 --> 48:27.160]  At the same time, you would reduce the size of the federal government in comparison to the amount of money that they've been ciphering off illegally.
[48:27.160 --> 48:35.160]  And then you would once again have the states collectively would be able to control the federal government.
[48:35.160 --> 48:38.160]  And I believe that's what they need to do.
[48:38.160 --> 48:42.160]  That was an excellent argument.
[48:42.160 --> 48:47.160]  You're arguing, if you do this, you get more money to spend yourself.
[48:47.160 --> 48:50.160]  I can see that moving a politician.
[48:50.160 --> 48:51.160]  That's right.
[48:51.160 --> 49:06.160]  His eyes perked up, he listened to what I had to say, and I said, you know, the bottom line is the state governments are the ones that have the duty to protect the citizens of the state.
[49:06.160 --> 49:12.160]  And at this point in time, the federal government is time to take over.
[49:12.160 --> 49:19.160]  He's the outside sovereign who's the foreign power, essentially.
[49:19.160 --> 49:31.160]  It's the foreign power, and they've got the state legislature's bent over a barrel because they're taking all of the money, and then they're sending it back with strings on it.
[49:31.160 --> 49:40.160]  And what I suggested to him was you can cut those strings here, the purse strings, and start collecting that money yourself.
[49:40.160 --> 49:42.160]  And he was interested in that.
[49:42.160 --> 49:59.160]  And that was a good point because when you were talking about this, I was thinking if we got this done, we would essentially shut down the IRS, shut down the federal government, and I can see chaos ensuing.
[49:59.160 --> 50:07.160]  But your point is well taken that we really don't stop the flow of money.
[50:07.160 --> 50:12.160]  We just redirect it through less levels of bureaucracy.
[50:12.160 --> 50:13.160]  That's correct.
[50:13.160 --> 50:15.160]  And that means less waste.
[50:15.160 --> 50:20.160]  The money that is rightfully theirs is defined in the Constitution.
[50:20.160 --> 50:28.160]  And so that money would continue to go to them, the excise tax, customs duties, and import, and that would continue to go in there.
[50:28.160 --> 50:43.160]  So the federal government would not be damaged. It would just be reduced in size because it wouldn't be able to go out here and fund all of these immoral and illegal and whatever kind of things that they've got going on around the country.
[50:43.160 --> 50:48.160]  But also that money would stay here in the state.
[50:48.160 --> 50:53.160]  The citizens would start spending that money because it wouldn't be coming out of their paycheck.
[50:53.160 --> 50:56.160]  It's $300, $400 a week.
[50:56.160 --> 51:00.160]  You can imagine what would happen to the economy and the state.
[51:00.160 --> 51:10.160]  Yes, but if you do that, then the state is going to reap the benefit of the sales tax and whatever taxes are on what they're purchasing.
[51:10.160 --> 51:14.160]  Well, I can show you the state sales tax is illegal too.
[51:14.160 --> 51:16.160]  Yeah, he can do that.
[51:16.160 --> 51:22.160]  But if you do that, the United States will no longer be able to be the policemen of the world.
[51:22.160 --> 51:25.160]  That's right.
[51:25.160 --> 51:29.160]  In my opinion, that would be a great thing.
[51:29.160 --> 51:31.160]  In my opinion also.
[51:31.160 --> 51:40.160]  I absolutely like this. I like the position from the perspective of its political clout.
[51:40.160 --> 51:50.160]  I can see state officials just rubbing their hands together, thinking of the increase in revenue they'll get to spend.
[51:50.160 --> 52:00.160]  And since the state officials are closer to us, we're able to exercise somewhat more control over them.
[52:00.160 --> 52:05.160]  So I see this as a win-win all the way around.
[52:05.160 --> 52:07.160]  That's the way it seems to me.
[52:07.160 --> 52:18.160]  And I believe that I've got sufficient evidence to convince an attorney general that an investigation at least is warranted.
[52:18.160 --> 52:27.160]  There's been a lot of theory and stuff going around, and we've been shunned at every point, especially by politicians.
[52:27.160 --> 52:37.160]  But watching the face this guy last night, I realized as I was laying this stuff in front of him that he is an attorney.
[52:37.160 --> 52:42.160]  He's also one of the litigators of one of the oldest law firms in the state of Florida.
[52:42.160 --> 52:45.160]  And so he's a pretty sharp cookie.
[52:45.160 --> 52:55.160]  And as I lay this evidence in front of him, just as I would do if I was in a courtroom, in fact about halfway through he stopped me
[52:55.160 --> 53:00.160]  and he said, do you realize how many people could be involved in this?
[53:00.160 --> 53:07.160]  So he told me right there that he knew exactly what I was saying to him, and he's seen what I was putting in front of him.
[53:07.160 --> 53:10.160]  And now I've got something else here.
[53:10.160 --> 53:15.160]  Let me get this in before I forget about it.
[53:15.160 --> 53:17.160]  This is absolutely crucial.
[53:17.160 --> 53:29.160]  This right here had a significant impact on him, and it is from Section 6041 of the Internal Revenue Code,
[53:29.160 --> 53:33.160]  and that is the information at the source.
[53:33.160 --> 53:40.160]  And what this says is, payments of $600 or more, all persons engaged in a trade or business
[53:40.160 --> 53:44.160]  and making payments in the course of such trade or business to another person,
[53:44.160 --> 53:47.160]  and I'm going to stop there because that's all we need to do.
[53:47.160 --> 53:57.160]  I found in the Title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations, which is the Federal Acquisition Regulation System, Chapter 7,
[53:57.160 --> 54:04.160]  in the Appendix in the Privacy Act Statement, and I'll read this to you.
[54:04.160 --> 54:07.160]  You'll see when I read it here.
[54:07.160 --> 54:12.160]  It says the Executive Office of the President, the Office of Management and Budget,
[54:12.160 --> 54:21.160]  has required that all departments and agencies comply with the reporting requirements of Section 6041 of the Internal Revenue Code.
[54:21.160 --> 54:30.160]  Section 6041 states that all departments and agencies making payments totaling $600 or more in one year
[54:30.160 --> 54:36.160]  to a recipient for services provided must report to the Internal Revenue Service.
[54:36.160 --> 54:39.160]  Did you notice the difference in the reading?
[54:39.160 --> 54:53.160]  The Secretary of the Treasury, in restating 6041, used departments and agencies. In Title 26 of the United States Code, it says trades or businesses.
[54:53.160 --> 54:57.160]  Now you'll find that trade or business is not defined in the Code.
[54:57.160 --> 55:02.160]  The courts have acknowledged that it's not defined in the Code.
[55:02.160 --> 55:04.160]  They're in the United States Code.
[55:04.160 --> 55:12.160]  But I subject to you the reason that it's not is because it's in the District of Columbia Code.
[55:12.160 --> 55:21.160]  District of Columbia Code is Section 1400, and of course the Self-Employment Section is 1401.
[55:21.160 --> 55:28.160]  So that's real interesting, but then I've got a court case here, United States Supreme Court reporter,
[55:28.160 --> 55:38.160]  Central Illinois Public Services versus the United States, and I'll give you the address here.
[55:38.160 --> 55:47.160]  It's 435 U.S. 21, 1978.
[55:47.160 --> 55:51.160]  And this is what the Justice said here.
[55:51.160 --> 56:01.160]  The 16th or Income Tax Amendment to the United States Constitution became effective in February of 1913.
[56:01.160 --> 56:12.160]  The ensuing Care Act of October 3, 1913, and that gives the address, contained perhaps somewhat surprisingly a fairly expansive withholding provision.
[56:12.160 --> 56:21.160]  This, however, was repealed and in due course came to be replaced with the predecessor of the current information at the source provision
[56:21.160 --> 56:32.160]  constituting 6041 of the Internal Revenue Code, 1954, and then they referenced 26 USC 6041.
[56:32.160 --> 56:47.160]  So this 6041 is crucial here in the discrepancy in the reading of the Treasury Secretary's restatement of 6041
[56:47.160 --> 56:55.160]  and what we read in Title 26 of 6041 is major, major problems for them.
[56:55.160 --> 57:02.160]  So that right there just set the guy back on his heels.
[57:02.160 --> 57:09.160]  It appeared that to me as I looked up, he was taking a couple of deep breaths.
[57:09.160 --> 57:16.160]  But the definition for trader business, I'll read that to you here.
[57:16.160 --> 57:35.160]  This is out of the appeals court of the District of Columbia in the District of Columbia versus Grady, 288, F2D, 108, D.C. Circuit, 1960.
[57:35.160 --> 57:47.160]  The code defines unincorporated business as a trade or business conducted or engaged in by an individual and defines trader business as including and engaging in
[57:47.160 --> 58:01.160]  or carrying on any trade, business, profession, vocation or calling or commercial activity in the District of Columbia.
[58:01.160 --> 58:06.160]  Okay, listen, we're going to break.
[58:06.160 --> 58:10.160]  So hold the line, Larry, and we will be right back.
[58:10.160 --> 58:38.160]  This is the rule of law, Randy Kelton and Deborah Stevens and Eddie Craig. We'll be right back.
[58:38.160 --> 58:53.160]  Okay.
[58:53.160 --> 59:08.160]  Okay.
[59:08.160 --> 59:23.160]  Okay.
[59:23.160 --> 59:38.160]  Okay.
[59:38.160 --> 01:00:00.160]  Okay.
[01:00:00.160 --> 01:00:23.160]  Okay.
[01:00:23.160 --> 01:00:51.160]  Okay.
[01:00:51.160 --> 01:00:53.160]  Okay.
[01:01:21.160 --> 01:01:44.160]  Okay.
[01:01:44.160 --> 01:01:57.160]  Okay.
[01:01:57.160 --> 01:02:25.160]  Okay.
[01:02:25.160 --> 01:02:48.160]  Okay.
[01:02:48.160 --> 01:03:02.160]  Okay.
[01:03:02.160 --> 01:03:21.160]  Okay.
[01:03:21.160 --> 01:03:46.160]  Okay.
[01:03:46.160 --> 01:04:01.160]  Okay.
[01:04:01.160 --> 01:04:13.160]  Okay.
[01:04:13.160 --> 01:04:28.160]  Okay.
[01:04:28.160 --> 01:04:40.160]  Okay.
[01:04:40.160 --> 01:04:55.160]  Okay.
[01:04:55.160 --> 01:05:07.160]  Okay.
[01:05:07.160 --> 01:05:18.160]  Okay.
[01:05:18.160 --> 01:05:21.160]  Okay, we are back.
[01:05:21.160 --> 01:05:24.160]  Okay, Randy, go ahead. You had a question for the guys.
[01:05:24.160 --> 01:05:29.160]  Yeah, when we're going out, we were talking about two statutes that seem to conflict with one another.
[01:05:29.160 --> 01:05:40.160]  Can you kind of address how we can take advantage of that or use that to our advantage to put pressure on these politicians to intervene?
[01:05:40.160 --> 01:05:41.160]  Yes.
[01:05:41.160 --> 01:05:53.160]  The problem, anytime you have a conflict of law, then you've got an open door to file a lawsuit to the Federal District Court for declaratory injunctive relief.
[01:05:53.160 --> 01:06:01.160]  The significance of 6041 is the reporting requirement for the 1099 forms and the 1099 miscellaneous.
[01:06:01.160 --> 01:06:05.160]  And we find that that's yourself the void.
[01:06:05.160 --> 01:06:08.160]  They use that against everybody.
[01:06:08.160 --> 01:06:21.160]  But 6041 is the statute that the employers rely on as their authority to issue the 1099 miscellaneous form.
[01:06:21.160 --> 01:06:35.160]  Now, with a conflict in that, I think that it would open the door to actually sue some employers for issuing a statement.
[01:06:35.160 --> 01:06:46.160]  You understand that when an employer issues a 1099, 1099 is a kind of an insignificant document because it's not signed under penalty of perjury.
[01:06:46.160 --> 01:06:59.160]  But the employer has to file a 1096, which is signed under penalty of perjury, and it in essence becomes the charging instrument.
[01:06:59.160 --> 01:07:04.160]  And that has been missed by most of the people in the Patriot community.
[01:07:04.160 --> 01:07:13.160]  Everybody goes after the 1099 and questions this authority and raises a stand about being signed under penalty of perjury.
[01:07:13.160 --> 01:07:16.160]  It's the 1096 that they need to be going after.
[01:07:16.160 --> 01:07:25.160]  And once you get that and show that this employer has made a statement that you had taxable income,
[01:07:25.160 --> 01:07:31.160]  and the 1099, remember, is a tax class five document, a state and gift tax.
[01:07:31.160 --> 01:07:37.160]  The state and gift tax returns are 706 and 709, not the 1040.
[01:07:37.160 --> 01:07:49.160]  So what has actually happened there is the employer has misled the Internal Revenue Service, and it could be construed as a libel.
[01:07:49.160 --> 01:07:51.160]  Oh, I really like this.
[01:07:51.160 --> 01:08:00.160]  Because of the fact that they've issued that and stated under penalty of perjury that what they were reporting was taxable income when in fact it's not.
[01:08:00.160 --> 01:08:04.160]  So you have an employer within the boundaries of the state.
[01:08:04.160 --> 01:08:08.160]  That's an issue with one of the big insurance companies.
[01:08:08.160 --> 01:08:13.160]  And we have verification that that is the statute that they rely on.
[01:08:13.160 --> 01:08:28.160]  And right now we are moving forward to develop some lawsuits, actually some templates that will be made available in different formats
[01:08:28.160 --> 01:08:41.160]  for people to take that and just plug in their specific information and start suing employers for sending misinformation to the Internal Revenue Service.
[01:08:41.160 --> 01:08:46.160]  The same thing happens with the W-2 form, which is a tax class five also.
[01:08:46.160 --> 01:08:51.160]  W-4 form is tax class five also, the state and gift tax.
[01:08:51.160 --> 01:09:02.160]  How is it that when you go to work for an employer that they are taking money out of your check, send it to the federal government under the guise of a state and gift tax,
[01:09:02.160 --> 01:09:14.160]  and then the Internal Revenue Service is telling you that you have to report it on a tax class two, 1040 form, specifically with an employee?
[01:09:14.160 --> 01:09:22.160]  That is conversion when the employer takes that money and turns it over to the federal government.
[01:09:22.160 --> 01:09:38.160]  So, okay, you have an entity within the state taking money from its employees and giving it to another entity.
[01:09:38.160 --> 01:09:54.160]  The fact that that other entity claims to be associated with the foreign sovereign in the United States, that would not invoke federal jurisdiction unless you went after the third party.
[01:09:54.160 --> 01:10:11.160]  If a person within the state embezzles money from you or extorts money from you under false pretenses, it would seem that you would go after the employer within the state criminally.
[01:10:11.160 --> 01:10:25.160]  First, because criminally it has more clout and civilly second, or both at the same time.
[01:10:25.160 --> 01:10:30.160]  Conversion is a tort, but theft is not.
[01:10:30.160 --> 01:10:35.160]  Well, the conversion here in Texas comes under fraud, Randy. It's under the fraud statute.
[01:10:35.160 --> 01:10:44.160]  Yeah, but it's a cause of action. The crime is theft.
[01:10:44.160 --> 01:10:51.160]  It's like false imprisonment. It's not the crime in Texas. Kidnapping is. They just call it kidnapping.
[01:10:51.160 --> 01:10:59.160]  Conversion is what you call the cause of action. Theft is what you would call this is theft.
[01:10:59.160 --> 01:11:13.160]  Conversion is tort law. That comes under tort law, not criminal law. Criminal law is a statute that would be embezzlement or could be construed as embezzlement.
[01:11:13.160 --> 01:11:27.160]  They may have a conversion statute in Texas. It depends on the state how they write it, but you can have a tort claim and a criminal claim both in the same jurisdiction.
[01:11:27.160 --> 01:11:42.160]  You can go after the employer criminally. What I'm thinking is how do I influence my employer to be more afraid of me than the IRS?
[01:11:42.160 --> 01:11:49.160]  I throw a grand jury at him. He's looking at prison now.
[01:11:49.160 --> 01:11:57.160]  Check this information I have right here and sit down in front of an employer and lay it out in front of them. You can show them real quickly that what they're doing is not right.
[01:11:57.160 --> 01:12:13.160]  Then what you've done is you've put them on notice. Once you've put an employer or anybody on notice and then they continue to do what you have noticed them as illegal or as a tort, then they're liable for the suit.
[01:12:13.160 --> 01:12:17.160]  They're liable anyway.
[01:12:17.160 --> 01:12:32.160]  If someone's stealing from me, I don't have to tell them to stop stealing from me for it to become a crime or a tort. It's a tort anyway, and it's a crime anyway.
[01:12:32.160 --> 01:12:37.160]  Tort is common law. Understand the difference in law. Tort is common law.
[01:12:37.160 --> 01:12:41.160]  I'm very clear on the difference between tort and tort contract.
[01:12:41.160 --> 01:12:49.160]  It's statutory law. So statutory law comes under the authority of law enforcement. That's a crime.
[01:12:49.160 --> 01:12:57.160]  But tort law is a civil action that you would file against your employer that he's committed a tort against you.
[01:12:57.160 --> 01:13:01.160]  What I'm saying is if we're going to gain traction...
[01:13:01.160 --> 01:13:08.160]  Tort law could also be prosecuted under statutory law because there's two different laws that were broken.
[01:13:08.160 --> 01:13:13.160]  Yeah, that's my point. If we want to really get traction with an employer...
[01:13:13.160 --> 01:13:21.160]  If we can prosecute somebody in the state, can prosecute on the same crime, it's not double jeopardy.
[01:13:21.160 --> 01:13:32.160]  We just presented out of California a medical concern out there, a client that I have in Alabama.
[01:13:32.160 --> 01:13:39.160]  We wrote a letter to the employer. They was initiating a continuous levy.
[01:13:39.160 --> 01:13:44.160]  We presented the law to the employer and to the Internal Revenue Service.
[01:13:44.160 --> 01:13:57.160]  They copied back and forth both directions to show the employer out there that the authority of the continuous levy is from the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997.
[01:13:57.160 --> 01:14:06.160]  If you go read that law, you will find out that the continuous levy only operates against officers and employees of the federal government
[01:14:06.160 --> 01:14:13.160]  and contractors or vendors of the federal government, which are considered employees.
[01:14:13.160 --> 01:14:26.160]  This large medical concern has not levied the year taking the money out of this person's account and sent it to the federal government.
[01:14:26.160 --> 01:14:31.160]  We're in the third month now that they haven't taken any money.
[01:14:31.160 --> 01:14:34.160]  I think the handwriting is on the wall there.
[01:14:34.160 --> 01:14:41.160]  Once you put the law in front of these people, you put evidence in front of these people, then they can't deny it.
[01:14:41.160 --> 01:14:50.160]  What we've got to do is get the right information, get the right laws, and then present it properly to these people.
[01:14:50.160 --> 01:14:57.160]  If they don't respond to it, then we're going to have to sue them until our IT's leaked.
[01:14:57.160 --> 01:15:05.160]  Well, what I like to do a lot more is take them on criminally.
[01:15:05.160 --> 01:15:10.160]  But you've got to go to your attorney general to do that or law enforcement?
[01:15:10.160 --> 01:15:15.160]  Well, no. Actually, we go straight to the grand jury.
[01:15:15.160 --> 01:15:24.160]  I don't waste my time with law enforcement. Law enforcement, they don't work for us. They're politicians.
[01:15:24.160 --> 01:15:31.160]  Unless there's a law that specifically says that we cannot have access to them, we can't.
[01:15:31.160 --> 01:15:33.160]  Right. And there is no law.
[01:15:33.160 --> 01:15:36.160]  There's no law in any state, as far as I know.
[01:15:36.160 --> 01:15:46.160]  Yeah, there is in, I think, oh, just the other day, there's a couple of states, Pennsylvania.
[01:15:46.160 --> 01:15:53.160]  Oh, yeah, okay, maybe one, and that's unconstitutional, and it needs to get struck down.
[01:15:53.160 --> 01:15:57.160]  Yeah, I agree. The most powerful tool we have is a grand jury.
[01:15:57.160 --> 01:16:06.160]  And especially here in Texas and in Florida, there's nothing to stop you from going directly to a grand jury.
[01:16:06.160 --> 01:16:14.160]  As a matter of fact, we got U.S. attorneys in Fort Lauderdale hammered big time over that
[01:16:14.160 --> 01:16:21.160]  because we sent complaints to the grand jury and the U.S. attorney intercepted them.
[01:16:21.160 --> 01:16:28.160]  So we sick the mail inspectors on them, and it got real interesting down there.
[01:16:28.160 --> 01:16:35.160]  As I understand, we actually got a IRS agent fired there.
[01:16:35.160 --> 01:16:41.160]  Okay, listen, we're going to break. Hold on, hold on, hold on, Larry. We're going to break.
[01:16:41.160 --> 01:16:46.160]  All right, we'll be right back. This is the rule of law, Randy Kelton, Eddie Craig, Deborah Stevens.
[01:16:46.160 --> 01:16:53.160]  We'll be right back. Callers, if you'd like to call in and ask our guests a question, 512-646-1984.
[01:16:53.160 --> 01:17:00.160]  We'll be right back.
[01:17:00.160 --> 01:17:04.160]  You feel tired when talking about important topics like money and politics?
[01:17:04.160 --> 01:17:05.160]  Sorry.
[01:17:05.160 --> 01:17:08.160]  Are you confused by words like the Constitution or the Federal Reserve?
[01:17:08.160 --> 01:17:09.160]  What?
[01:17:09.160 --> 01:17:13.160]  If so, you may be diagnosed with the deadliest disease known today, stupidity.
[01:17:13.160 --> 01:17:19.160]  Hi, my name is Steve Holt, and like millions of other Americans, I was diagnosed with stupidity at an early age.
[01:17:19.160 --> 01:17:25.160]  I had no idea that the number one cause of the disease is found in almost every home in America, the television.
[01:17:25.160 --> 01:17:30.160]  Unfortunately, that puts most Americans at risk of catching stupidity, but there is hope.
[01:17:30.160 --> 01:17:36.160]  The staff at Brave New Books have helped me and thousands of other poxaholics suffering from sports zombieism recover.
[01:17:36.160 --> 01:17:41.160]  And because of Brave New Books, I now enjoy reading and watching educational documentaries
[01:17:41.160 --> 01:17:43.160]  without feeling tired or uninterested.
[01:17:43.160 --> 01:17:51.160]  So if you or anybody you know suffers from stupidity, then you need to call 512-480-2503
[01:17:51.160 --> 01:17:55.160]  or visit them in 1904 Guadalupe or bravenewbookstore.com.
[01:17:55.160 --> 01:17:58.160]  Side effects from using Brave New Books products may include discernment and enlarged vocabulary
[01:17:58.160 --> 01:18:01.160]  and an overall increase in mental functioning.
[01:18:01.160 --> 01:18:11.160]  I hope you enjoyed this video. If you have any questions, please post them in the comments.
[01:18:31.160 --> 01:18:36.160]  You put the beer in my pocket, took the money from my hand.
[01:18:36.160 --> 01:18:45.160]  Ain't gonna fool me with that same old trick again.
[01:18:45.160 --> 01:19:01.160]  Ain't gonna fool me.
[01:19:01.160 --> 01:19:06.160]  Ain't gonna drop me with that same old sucker punch.
[01:19:06.160 --> 01:19:11.160]  I get it now, but then I must have been out of love.
[01:19:11.160 --> 01:19:16.160]  Back then you had room to move, but now you're feeling the drive.
[01:19:16.160 --> 01:19:37.160]  Ain't gonna get me with that same old sucker punch.
[01:19:37.160 --> 01:19:47.160]  Ain't gonna fool me.
[01:19:47.160 --> 01:19:51.160]  Okay, we are back. The rule of law.
[01:19:51.160 --> 01:19:56.160]  And Eddie, you had some comments for the guest.
[01:19:56.160 --> 01:20:03.160]  You've been studying this for quite a while, and you had some points that you wanted to make that you found were interesting.
[01:20:03.160 --> 01:20:10.160]  Yeah, a lot of the stuff that he's dealing with, I have read before, and I've worked with people piecing it together,
[01:20:10.160 --> 01:20:13.160]  like the We the People Congress.
[01:20:13.160 --> 01:20:18.160]  This is stuff that we've dealt with all the time in the meetings we've had in D.C. and everything.
[01:20:18.160 --> 01:20:25.160]  And on this, when I was working at Pennzoil Quaker State in Houston, Texas, they were withholding from my paycheck.
[01:20:25.160 --> 01:20:30.160]  When I told them, I scheduled a meeting with the people in charge of the company and their bookkeeper, and I told them,
[01:20:30.160 --> 01:20:36.160]  I said, look, I did not sign a W-4 consenting to anyone to withhold from my paycheck.
[01:20:36.160 --> 01:20:42.160]  And if any more money is withheld, then I will sue the company for criminal conversion.
[01:20:42.160 --> 01:20:51.160]  And they stopped withholding, but they refused to refund the money that they had taken out without my consent.
[01:20:51.160 --> 01:20:58.160]  So basically speaking, there's a tort action remedy to be available to you if you're willing to press the issue.
[01:20:58.160 --> 01:21:03.160]  You just have to be able to use these statutes to do it.
[01:21:03.160 --> 01:21:05.160]  That's going to be the deal.
[01:21:05.160 --> 01:21:08.160]  So the information he's giving you is good.
[01:21:08.160 --> 01:21:11.160]  You just have to – we just have to figure out the best way to apply it.
[01:21:11.160 --> 01:21:12.160]  Right.
[01:21:12.160 --> 01:21:19.160]  If you take on the company, you have to be willing to go find another job.
[01:21:19.160 --> 01:21:31.160]  But then again, what I was thinking of taking on employers is, Larry, I'm about due process.
[01:21:31.160 --> 01:21:34.160]  I'm about my public officials obeying my law.
[01:21:34.160 --> 01:21:42.160]  And when one of them doesn't, I consider that an act of official misconduct or official oppression.
[01:21:42.160 --> 01:21:45.160]  It's in the federal. It's in the state.
[01:21:45.160 --> 01:21:54.160]  So I want them prosecuted just like I would be prosecuted if I'm driving down the street and my tires touch a yellow line.
[01:21:54.160 --> 01:21:56.160]  They're going to want to charge me with a criminal act.
[01:21:56.160 --> 01:22:02.160]  So if my employer steals money from me, under false premeditation –
[01:22:02.160 --> 01:22:09.160]  Yes, we're here. Larry, can you hear me? Larry?
[01:22:09.160 --> 01:22:13.160]  Okay, I think we've lost our guest. Go ahead, Randy. Let me see if I can get him back.
[01:22:13.160 --> 01:22:23.160]  Okay. But if we're going to get traction, the IRS, they feel protected.
[01:22:23.160 --> 01:22:30.160]  They can pretty much do whatever they want to. And all this time we've been trying to get to them.
[01:22:30.160 --> 01:22:34.160]  Maybe we're going after the wrong ones.
[01:22:34.160 --> 01:22:41.160]  If we go after the employer in the state for stealing money from us,
[01:22:41.160 --> 01:22:47.160]  the fact that he gives the money to the federal government does not give the federal government jurisdiction.
[01:22:47.160 --> 01:23:01.160]  What it does do is make the federal government subject to suit in the state because now they're in commerce in the state.
[01:23:01.160 --> 01:23:15.160]  And if a government employee, acting in the scope of their authority, commits an act that an ordinary person could be sued for –
[01:23:15.160 --> 01:23:21.160]  I'm sorry, acting under color of their authority, not within scope –
[01:23:21.160 --> 01:23:27.160]  commits an act that they could be sued for, the sovereign entity can be sued.
[01:23:27.160 --> 01:23:32.160]  This is this Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
[01:23:32.160 --> 01:23:39.160]  Well, I would kind of agree with that, Randy. But here's what we found out while we're talking about this here on this.
[01:23:39.160 --> 01:23:45.160]  What the IRS is actually doing is setting up the employer for a fall.
[01:23:45.160 --> 01:23:50.160]  The IRS is going to wash their hands of any responsibility because they're going to say,
[01:23:50.160 --> 01:23:56.160]  we wrote the law, we told them to read the law, they didn't bother to read the law, this ain't our fault.
[01:23:56.160 --> 01:23:59.160]  All we did was react on the reports that they gave to us.
[01:23:59.160 --> 01:24:04.160]  Now, we know that's a stack of BS a mile high, but that's what they do.
[01:24:04.160 --> 01:24:15.160]  We don't care what they do. They receive the money. They receive ill-gotten gains.
[01:24:15.160 --> 01:24:16.160]  True enough.
[01:24:16.160 --> 01:24:26.160]  Time-efficient evidence of crime and tort, enough to bring them into the state.
[01:24:26.160 --> 01:24:30.160]  This is not a federal act. We maintain that this is theft,
[01:24:30.160 --> 01:24:38.160]  and they're receiving the proceeds of an ongoing criminal conspiracy.
[01:24:38.160 --> 01:24:48.160]  Not within the scope of their authority, and they can say, well, the state gave it to us.
[01:24:48.160 --> 01:24:55.160]  We didn't know it was stolen. Sorry, Bubba, doesn't help.
[01:24:55.160 --> 01:24:58.160]  Culpability doesn't go to that.
[01:24:58.160 --> 01:25:04.160]  And in fact, we can show that they did know that the monies were being withheld illegally
[01:25:04.160 --> 01:25:09.160]  and thereby being, I don't know, would you call that embezzlement?
[01:25:09.160 --> 01:25:20.160]  Because truly embezzlement goes the other way, where someone responsible for keeping someone's books
[01:25:20.160 --> 01:25:24.160]  or handling someone's money steals it.
[01:25:24.160 --> 01:25:31.160]  I guess this would go to embezzlement, because the company is responsible to pay you,
[01:25:31.160 --> 01:25:35.160]  and they take money they should be paying you and convert it to give it to someone else.
[01:25:35.160 --> 01:25:37.160]  Yeah, they convert it to pay the accused.
[01:25:37.160 --> 01:25:41.160]  Conversion would be the proper thing.
[01:25:41.160 --> 01:25:45.160]  Their embezzlement would be if they took the money and used it themselves.
[01:25:45.160 --> 01:25:50.160]  You won't. That's what I'm saying. Here in Texas, conversion is under the fraud statute.
[01:25:50.160 --> 01:25:55.160]  Yeah, so you don't, okay, okay. Under criminal fraud or?
[01:25:55.160 --> 01:25:58.160]  Yes, under criminal fraud, go to criminal procedure.
[01:25:58.160 --> 01:26:01.160]  Then, no, no, penal code. How does it have to be penal code?
[01:26:01.160 --> 01:26:03.160]  Okay, under fraud and penal code.
[01:26:03.160 --> 01:26:08.160]  Good, great. Then we could use conversion.
[01:26:08.160 --> 01:26:11.160]  Yeah, that exactly goes to conversion.
[01:26:11.160 --> 01:26:15.160]  So we file criminally against the employer.
[01:26:15.160 --> 01:26:24.160]  We file criminally against his co-conspirators, which is not the IRS itself.
[01:26:24.160 --> 01:26:32.160]  It is the individual agent, and we file under theft, maintaining that.
[01:26:32.160 --> 01:26:38.160]  Theft is not with, or conversion is not within the scope of the authority of the agent.
[01:26:38.160 --> 01:26:43.160]  And that since the agent did not have federal authority,
[01:26:43.160 --> 01:26:48.160]  he doesn't fall under the federal protection.
[01:26:48.160 --> 01:26:51.160]  We keep him in the state.
[01:26:51.160 --> 01:26:57.160]  We won't be able to, so we leave the agent alone and just nail the employer himself.
[01:26:57.160 --> 01:26:59.160]  Actually, you probably can, Randy.
[01:26:59.160 --> 01:27:03.160]  Because not only can we keep him, well, as far as the criminal, maybe not.
[01:27:03.160 --> 01:27:09.160]  But on the part, we most certainly could by claiming violations of state constitutional law.
[01:27:09.160 --> 01:27:20.160]  What the feds are going to say is they were acting in their official capacity.
[01:27:20.160 --> 01:27:22.160]  Therefore, they have to be sued in the fed.
[01:27:22.160 --> 01:27:29.160]  The feds always force any action against the fed to go to the federal court.
[01:27:29.160 --> 01:27:31.160]  And then they get it in the federal court.
[01:27:31.160 --> 01:27:35.160]  They remove it to the fed and then claim they don't have jurisdiction to dismiss.
[01:27:35.160 --> 01:27:38.160]  Okay, Randy, can you speak up, please?
[01:27:38.160 --> 01:27:41.160]  Larry can't hear you.
[01:27:41.160 --> 01:27:42.160]  Okay, is that even?
[01:27:42.160 --> 01:27:46.160]  Yeah, I've got your channel cranked as cranked as it can be without distorting.
[01:27:46.160 --> 01:27:49.160]  I just maxed out the slider.
[01:27:49.160 --> 01:27:56.160]  Okay, well, anyway, that's if we're going to go after them, we have to go after the ones that are vulnerable.
[01:27:56.160 --> 01:28:01.160]  And the employer is absolutely going to be vulnerable.
[01:28:01.160 --> 01:28:07.160]  We go after him criminally and then come back and sue him civilly.
[01:28:07.160 --> 01:28:10.160]  A few of these get to have this happen to them.
[01:28:10.160 --> 01:28:13.160]  The rest of the employers are going to take note.
[01:28:13.160 --> 01:28:17.160]  And now we have the IRS coming to the employer and say you have to do this.
[01:28:17.160 --> 01:28:20.160]  And the employer is saying, are you out of your mind?
[01:28:20.160 --> 01:28:22.160]  I'm going to wind up suing one of my employees.
[01:28:22.160 --> 01:28:26.160]  I'd rather you sue me.
[01:28:26.160 --> 01:28:31.160]  It appears as though it's a way we can really get some traction.
[01:28:31.160 --> 01:28:38.160]  I believe that when we start going after these employers, that's the Achilles heel.
[01:28:38.160 --> 01:28:42.160]  And what will happen when you file a lawsuit against the employer,
[01:28:42.160 --> 01:28:49.160]  they're going to turn around and either cross through or emplee the IRS into the case.
[01:28:49.160 --> 01:28:52.160]  And so we're going to wind up in a three-way.
[01:28:52.160 --> 01:28:56.160]  But the bottom line is that they have to sue the IRS then.
[01:28:56.160 --> 01:28:59.160]  And so that's where we're going to get the leverage.
[01:28:59.160 --> 01:29:08.160]  We can force these employers that have the money, especially big employers, to go out and get their lawyers to go after the IRS.
[01:29:08.160 --> 01:29:15.160]  Well, the problem is when they cross-complain against the IRS,
[01:29:15.160 --> 01:29:23.160]  the Fed's going to jerk it out to the federal court, and the federal courts are incredibly corrupt, especially when it comes to IRS.
[01:29:23.160 --> 01:29:28.160]  And we're likely to get it to the federal court, and the federal court's going to say they don't have jurisdiction.
[01:29:28.160 --> 01:29:37.160]  Or the federal court is going to throw out the allegation against the agent, and then we get to bring it back to the state court.
[01:29:37.160 --> 01:29:40.160]  Okay, listen, we're going to break.
[01:29:40.160 --> 01:29:51.160]  Callers, if you'd like to call in, 512-646-1984 to ask Larry a question about this IRS code.
[01:29:51.160 --> 01:30:01.160]  We'll be right back.
[01:30:01.160 --> 01:30:04.160]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[01:30:04.160 --> 01:30:15.160]  Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary, the affordable, easy-to-understand, 4-CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step-by-step.
[01:30:15.160 --> 01:30:19.160]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing.
[01:30:19.160 --> 01:30:23.160]  If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[01:30:23.160 --> 01:30:28.160]  Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can too.
[01:30:28.160 --> 01:30:34.160]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience.
[01:30:34.160 --> 01:30:43.160]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the principles and practices that control our American courts.
[01:30:43.160 --> 01:30:52.160]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics, and much more.
[01:30:52.160 --> 01:31:02.160]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll-free, 866-LAW-EZ.
[01:31:22.160 --> 01:31:37.160]  The wicked come with temptation They're trying to buy the whole place
[01:31:37.160 --> 01:31:48.160]  They want to force the nation Because they're falling from grace
[01:31:48.160 --> 01:31:59.160]  I will not drink from that cup I just can't act that way
[01:31:59.160 --> 01:32:09.160]  They got this problem they're dreaming of And I won't be the slave come what may
[01:32:09.160 --> 01:32:19.160]  They got this problem they're dreaming of And I won't be the slave come what may
[01:32:19.160 --> 01:32:29.160]  They got this problem they're dreaming of And I won't be the slave come what may
[01:32:29.160 --> 01:32:39.160]  They got this problem they're dreaming of And I won't be the slave come what may
[01:32:39.160 --> 01:32:49.160]  They got this problem they're dreaming of And I won't be the slave come what may
[01:32:49.160 --> 01:32:59.160]  They got this problem they're dreaming of And I won't be the slave come what may
[01:32:59.160 --> 01:33:21.160]  They got this problem they're dreaming of And I won't be the slave come what may
[01:33:21.160 --> 01:33:31.160]  I can't live like that here I cannot drink from that chalice
[01:33:31.160 --> 01:33:42.160]  Ain't gonna fall for that bait The wicked come with such malice
[01:33:42.160 --> 01:33:55.160]  The wicked come with such malice
[01:33:55.160 --> 01:34:04.160]  The wicked come with such malice
[01:34:04.160 --> 01:34:14.160]  The wicked come with such malice
[01:34:14.160 --> 01:34:24.160]  The wicked come with such malice
[01:34:24.160 --> 01:34:34.160]  The wicked come with such malice
[01:34:34.160 --> 01:34:44.160]  The wicked come with such malice
[01:34:44.160 --> 01:34:54.160]  The wicked come with such malice
[01:35:14.160 --> 01:35:22.160]  Good evening, folks. Boy, this is a timely subject. I fit right perfect into everything here.
[01:35:22.160 --> 01:35:31.160]  My situation is simply this. When I hired into this establishment, I have not used to work for Tyson's.
[01:35:31.160 --> 01:35:43.160]  When I filed my exempt forms for unemployment, or I mean for the income tax, not taking income tax out, I filed an
[01:35:43.160 --> 01:35:31.160]  An
[01:35:44.160 --> 01:35:55.160]  Declaring my copyrighted upper and lower case Christian name. And I written on their W-4, you know, exempt, blocked income,
[01:35:55.160 --> 01:36:03.160]  Excluded, and also I cited the statute, the federal statute, which states that it's voluntary.
[01:36:03.160 --> 01:36:11.160]  And of course I've written over it in big letters, no contract, I do not participate to volunteer.
[01:36:11.160 --> 01:36:21.160]  And they stopped taking out income tax immediately. However, in the little business that I'm associated with now,
[01:36:21.160 --> 01:36:45.160]  I did the same thing, and I went to him, he said, well, we're on a computer system here, I don't think I can tell the computer system not to deduct, you know.
[01:36:45.160 --> 01:37:06.160]  And now I think that I have a case of, if that did come about, I'm sure I have a case of retaliation there.
[01:37:06.160 --> 01:37:29.160]  Thank you very much.
[01:37:29.160 --> 01:37:54.160]  I published this information through Richard Cornforth's website, spoke to him yesterday, and he agreed to host my material on his website.
[01:37:54.160 --> 01:38:16.160]  I've got three cases in tax court, and I've got a number of people with levies and those sort of things that we're dealing with, so I'm a pretty busy guy.
[01:38:16.160 --> 01:38:27.160]  There may be some people out there that do, but I don't recommend that because there is a provision for the exemption for military retirement.
[01:38:27.160 --> 01:38:32.160]  Under the Social Security, you can file an exempt W-4.
[01:38:32.160 --> 01:38:39.160]  And anything aside from that, I think what you're going to do when you do an exempt W-4 is you may get fired for one thing,
[01:38:39.160 --> 01:38:49.160]  but the IRS is going to come back and slap you with a frivolous filing penalty, and then they will tell your employer to withhold at the maximum.
[01:38:49.160 --> 01:38:52.160]  And I see this on a regular basis.
[01:38:52.160 --> 01:38:55.160]  So I don't recommend you doing that.
[01:38:55.160 --> 01:39:07.160]  I understand that people have to make a living, and sometimes you have to decide whether you want to give up a few dollars today and carry the fight on tomorrow.
[01:39:07.160 --> 01:39:16.160]  But surely what will happen is if you lose your job, you don't have the money to fight, you don't have the money to eat either.
[01:39:16.160 --> 01:39:25.160]  So it's a pretty tough thing out there to do to go to your employer and say, hey, I don't like what you're doing,
[01:39:25.160 --> 01:39:29.160]  because I've seen a lot of employers just fade out the road.
[01:39:29.160 --> 01:39:40.160]  But the information that I have right now, I believe that we can turn the tables on the employers before there was no law,
[01:39:40.160 --> 01:39:43.160]  there was no evidence, no facts that you could put in front of them.
[01:39:43.160 --> 01:39:50.160]  What we've developed right now is the fact evidence, which will hold up in court.
[01:39:50.160 --> 01:40:02.160]  This is self-authenticating documents, and any employer, especially if they have a law firm or a lawyer behind them,
[01:40:02.160 --> 01:40:06.160]  they will recognize that this is real now.
[01:40:06.160 --> 01:40:08.160]  We're not talking hypotheticals.
[01:40:08.160 --> 01:40:13.160]  So I think it's going to change the way the employers respond to us.
[01:40:13.160 --> 01:40:24.160]  I also believe that if we start a barrage of attacks in the state courts for conversion against the employers
[01:40:24.160 --> 01:40:32.160]  and against entities like H&R Block and some of those big accounting firms,
[01:40:32.160 --> 01:40:41.160]  you see they have the same duty as an IRS agent to make a determination of your proper taxing status.
[01:40:41.160 --> 01:40:48.160]  And if you walk into one of those agencies and they just pull a 10-40 form off the shelf and fill it out,
[01:40:48.160 --> 01:40:56.160]  then they are liable for whatever damage that it has caused you if you're not liable for that tax.
[01:40:56.160 --> 01:41:02.160]  So I believe that what we've got to do is to get organized.
[01:41:02.160 --> 01:41:05.160]  The people around the country, there's some lawyers around the country,
[01:41:05.160 --> 01:41:11.160]  there's some disbarred lawyers around the country that have the ability to write these lawsuits
[01:41:11.160 --> 01:41:19.160]  and I think might be willing participants to get some templates out there that people can use,
[01:41:19.160 --> 01:41:22.160]  because most of these cases are ditto.
[01:41:22.160 --> 01:41:31.160]  There's very few differences in them, just the name of the employer and your name and the amount.
[01:41:31.160 --> 01:41:41.160]  But I believe that once we start that...
[01:41:41.160 --> 01:41:43.160]  Mary? Mary?
[01:41:43.160 --> 01:41:49.160]  Okay, hang on a second, I had a problem there.
[01:41:49.160 --> 01:41:50.160]  Can you hear me now?
[01:41:50.160 --> 01:41:52.160]  Yes, go ahead.
[01:41:52.160 --> 01:42:01.160]  Okay, I believe that when we start that, the Internal Revenue Service is probably going to get really irate.
[01:42:01.160 --> 01:42:09.160]  We're going to have a head-on conference or confrontation with them through the employers.
[01:42:09.160 --> 01:42:16.160]  And I think that's going to benefit us out here because it will put the employers between us
[01:42:16.160 --> 01:42:20.160]  and they're going to have to start defending themselves.
[01:42:20.160 --> 01:42:25.160]  But at the same time, we can go after the internal revenue agents.
[01:42:25.160 --> 01:42:33.160]  And one of my strategies right now, I'm planning in my own case to go after the disclosure officers
[01:42:33.160 --> 01:42:39.160]  for withholding vital evidence, especially once the litigation has started.
[01:42:39.160 --> 01:42:46.160]  You'll find that when you send in a FOIA request, they will send you back a document that has been sanitized,
[01:42:46.160 --> 01:42:51.160]  meaning that the codes will not have the values behind those codes
[01:42:51.160 --> 01:42:59.160]  that you could use to determine a tax determination and or proper determination.
[01:42:59.160 --> 01:43:09.160]  And I just spoke with an IRS lawyer yesterday who told me that I'd have to see the administrative file.
[01:43:09.160 --> 01:43:11.160]  She said, well, you can't see that file.
[01:43:11.160 --> 01:43:12.160]  I said, yes, I can.
[01:43:12.160 --> 01:43:16.160]  The fact is that in this country, you have a right to face your accuser.
[01:43:16.160 --> 01:43:24.160]  And once that IRS agent files her documents or his documents along with a Form 13496,
[01:43:24.160 --> 01:43:32.160]  which is actually the affidavit of probable cause on a 6020B return, you have a right to see that.
[01:43:32.160 --> 01:43:35.160]  And they cannot prevent you from seeing it.
[01:43:35.160 --> 01:43:42.160]  Otherwise, they are violating your constitutional rights to the process of law and face your accuser.
[01:43:42.160 --> 01:43:44.160]  Okay. Listen, Larry, we're going to break.
[01:43:44.160 --> 01:43:45.160]  Hold on. We're going to break.
[01:43:45.160 --> 01:43:48.160]  And I'll let you finish up on the other side.
[01:43:48.160 --> 01:43:49.160]  And then we've got some other calls.
[01:43:49.160 --> 01:43:52.160]  We've got Tim, Jim, John, and Matt.
[01:43:52.160 --> 01:43:54.160]  We'll be taking your calls on the other side.
[01:43:54.160 --> 01:44:07.160]  That's the rule of law.
[01:44:07.160 --> 01:44:14.160]  Aerial spraying, chemtrails, the modified atmosphere, heavy metals and pesticides,
[01:44:14.160 --> 01:44:19.160]  carcinogens and chemical fibers all falling from the sky.
[01:44:19.160 --> 01:44:27.160]  You have a choice to keep your body clean, detoxify with micro plant powder from hempusa.org
[01:44:27.160 --> 01:44:32.160]  or call 908-691-2608.
[01:44:32.160 --> 01:44:36.160]  It's odorless and tasteless and used in any liquid or food.
[01:44:36.160 --> 01:44:40.160]  Protect your family now with micro plant powder.
[01:44:40.160 --> 01:44:44.160]  Cleaning out heavy metals, parasites and toxins.
[01:44:44.160 --> 01:44:49.160]  Order it now for daily intake and stock it now for long-term storage.
[01:44:49.160 --> 01:45:01.160]  Visit hempusa.org or call 908-691-2608 today.
[01:45:01.160 --> 01:45:29.160]  Thank you.
[01:45:29.160 --> 01:45:31.160]  Come on.
[01:45:59.160 --> 01:46:17.160]  Everybody listen to this song.
[01:46:17.160 --> 01:46:20.160]  One by one, my friend, tell everybody.
[01:46:20.160 --> 01:46:36.160]  Pass on the words of Almighty.
[01:46:36.160 --> 01:46:39.160]  My friend, Lord, you better have a good breed.
[01:46:39.160 --> 01:46:51.160]  You better live your life up to lead, because you know me.
[01:46:51.160 --> 01:47:18.160]  Okay, Larry, before we went to the break, you were talking about the administrative file.
[01:47:18.160 --> 01:47:22.160]  Can you please finish up on that and then we'll go to the rest of our calls?
[01:47:22.160 --> 01:47:25.160]  I had a question about that.
[01:47:25.160 --> 01:47:31.160]  If you requested an administrative file and it is a government document
[01:47:31.160 --> 01:47:41.160]  and it had normally had information on it that was sanitized or redacted before it was given to you,
[01:47:41.160 --> 01:47:46.160]  under what authority is the information redacted?
[01:47:46.160 --> 01:47:55.160]  And if there is no authority, that's tampering.
[01:47:55.160 --> 01:47:57.160]  Larry?
[01:47:57.160 --> 01:47:58.160]  Yeah, I've lost Randy.
[01:47:58.160 --> 01:48:00.160]  I can't hear him.
[01:48:00.160 --> 01:48:04.160]  Okay, let me respond to what I got from him there.
[01:48:04.160 --> 01:48:12.160]  There is a difference between sanitizing a document and redacting a document.
[01:48:12.160 --> 01:48:16.160]  The Internal Revenue Service does have the authority under the Privacy Act
[01:48:16.160 --> 01:48:23.160]  to redact information about their agents, about criminal investigations,
[01:48:23.160 --> 01:48:25.160]  anything like that that's going on.
[01:48:25.160 --> 01:48:30.160]  But redacting in that context means that they take a black marker
[01:48:30.160 --> 01:48:39.160]  and they mark out the specific information that they feel comes under the Privacy Act.
[01:48:39.160 --> 01:48:46.160]  But you still have a right to that document with those portions marked out.
[01:48:46.160 --> 01:48:49.160]  What they're doing is they're sanitizing records.
[01:48:49.160 --> 01:48:57.160]  In other words, when you send in a FOIA request and you ask for, say, an individual master file,
[01:48:57.160 --> 01:49:01.160]  what they will do is they print that off of the computer.
[01:49:01.160 --> 01:49:12.160]  And the computer is set up so that it leaves off the values that would tell you what that particular code means.
[01:49:12.160 --> 01:49:16.160]  And if you'll look at the individual master file complete,
[01:49:16.160 --> 01:49:21.160]  you'll see on there that there's only two possible employments,
[01:49:21.160 --> 01:49:25.160]  and that is IRS employee and a federal employee.
[01:49:25.160 --> 01:49:27.160]  It's right there on the front of the document.
[01:49:27.160 --> 01:49:29.160]  There's only two possibilities.
[01:49:29.160 --> 01:49:36.160]  But you'll notice that there is no value behind that, such as on the IRS employee.
[01:49:36.160 --> 01:49:42.160]  There should be a PS or a D, I believe, are the values that should be there.
[01:49:42.160 --> 01:49:46.160]  If it's a federal employee, it should indicate whether you are a vendor,
[01:49:46.160 --> 01:49:50.160]  whether you're an employee, whether you're a civilian, whether you're a military,
[01:49:50.160 --> 01:49:58.160]  or whether you're with one of the nonprofit organizations who is carrying on a government function.
[01:49:58.160 --> 01:50:06.160]  They do not want you to see this information because it would immediately raise questions.
[01:50:06.160 --> 01:50:10.160]  And so they sanitize these documents and send them back to you.
[01:50:10.160 --> 01:50:16.160]  What they plan to do is, in fact, I'll be in Dallas next week.
[01:50:16.160 --> 01:50:22.160]  We have an opportunity to go in and look at an administrative file over there.
[01:50:22.160 --> 01:50:28.160]  And we're going to find out if they're actually showing us the original file
[01:50:28.160 --> 01:50:33.160]  or if they're creating some false file that they're going to let us see.
[01:50:33.160 --> 01:50:36.160]  And we're in litigation, so we have a right to see that file.
[01:50:36.160 --> 01:50:44.160]  Just like if you're charged with a criminal act by the State Department of Justice,
[01:50:44.160 --> 01:50:50.160]  you have a right to see all of the evidence that's in that case file.
[01:50:50.160 --> 01:50:55.160]  So this is a mechanism of law that can't prevent you from seeing that.
[01:50:55.160 --> 01:51:00.160]  But we've got to see what's in those records.
[01:51:00.160 --> 01:51:06.160]  And the only way to do it is to challenge these district councils with the IRS,
[01:51:06.160 --> 01:51:09.160]  which I did yesterday.
[01:51:09.160 --> 01:51:14.160]  The lady told me, she said, well, you can't see the administrative file.
[01:51:14.160 --> 01:51:20.160]  And I said, yes, I can, if you try to hinder that, then I'll file a motion with the court
[01:51:20.160 --> 01:51:24.160]  and ask for sanctions against you for obstructing justice.
[01:51:24.160 --> 01:51:31.160]  And she immediately said, well, you know, I can make an exception.
[01:51:31.160 --> 01:51:33.160]  And, well, you're not making an exception.
[01:51:33.160 --> 01:51:36.160]  What you're going to do is you're going to produce the file.
[01:51:36.160 --> 01:51:41.160]  Now, she will not copy the file and send it to me, and I don't want her to do that.
[01:51:41.160 --> 01:51:46.160]  I want to go into the IRS office, into her office, and sit down and look at the file,
[01:51:46.160 --> 01:51:50.160]  because that's the only way I'm going to know whether I'm looking at the original file or not.
[01:51:50.160 --> 01:51:58.160]  And I'm not sure I'll ever get there, because she asked, why do you want to see the file?
[01:51:58.160 --> 01:52:02.160]  And I said, because you people are sanitizing these FOIA responses.
[01:52:02.160 --> 01:52:04.160]  And she said, well, we can do that.
[01:52:04.160 --> 01:52:05.160]  And I said, no, you can't.
[01:52:05.160 --> 01:52:06.160]  You can redact.
[01:52:06.160 --> 01:52:07.160]  And I went through that with her.
[01:52:07.160 --> 01:52:12.160]  And she agreed that, well, yeah, technically that's correct.
[01:52:12.160 --> 01:52:18.160]  So the thing is you need to know the law, and you need to stand on it.
[01:52:18.160 --> 01:52:24.160]  And when you do that, you will find that you will get respect with these attorneys
[01:52:24.160 --> 01:52:26.160]  and even with judges.
[01:52:26.160 --> 01:52:31.160]  A fellow called me today on a case that a judge was jerking him around,
[01:52:31.160 --> 01:52:33.160]  and I told him what to do.
[01:52:33.160 --> 01:52:35.160]  I said, no, you stand your ground.
[01:52:35.160 --> 01:52:39.160]  You send an objection back to the judge.
[01:52:39.160 --> 01:52:44.160]  And you tell him that his only authority is within that contract,
[01:52:44.160 --> 01:52:47.160]  and you put a copy of the contract in there.
[01:52:47.160 --> 01:52:55.160]  He got a response back from the judge actually apologizing to him for misreading the contract
[01:52:55.160 --> 01:52:57.160]  and gave him what he was supposed to have.
[01:52:57.160 --> 01:53:08.160]  So people need to get out there and get off the couch, turn the TV off, start studying law.
[01:53:08.160 --> 01:53:09.160]  It's all over the place.
[01:53:09.160 --> 01:53:11.160]  You can find it anywhere.
[01:53:11.160 --> 01:53:15.160]  What I did many years ago is I started reading appellate court cases.
[01:53:15.160 --> 01:53:18.160]  I read about six or seven of them a week.
[01:53:18.160 --> 01:53:24.160]  And after a while, that legal jargon gets in your head.
[01:53:24.160 --> 01:53:27.160]  And then you start understanding what law is all about.
[01:53:27.160 --> 01:53:32.160]  But this is what we've got to do and then turn around and put it into action.
[01:53:32.160 --> 01:53:34.160]  We've got to start suing these people.
[01:53:34.160 --> 01:53:37.160]  When they step out of line, we've got to let them know it will bite,
[01:53:37.160 --> 01:53:42.160]  understanding that we're going to run into every difficulty in the court.
[01:53:42.160 --> 01:53:47.160]  The judges are protecting the process going on.
[01:53:47.160 --> 01:53:50.160]  That's aiding and abetting.
[01:53:50.160 --> 01:53:54.160]  We're right now looking at the possibility of filing a racketeering suit
[01:53:54.160 --> 01:54:03.160]  against several IRS officials, two tax court judges and two appellate court judges
[01:54:03.160 --> 01:54:07.160]  in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeal and both of their clerks of courts.
[01:54:07.160 --> 01:54:12.160]  But we don't know where to go and it may get thrown out the first time around.
[01:54:12.160 --> 01:54:18.160]  But I spent three and a half years in Vietnam back when I was a young fellow.
[01:54:18.160 --> 01:54:23.160]  And I can tell you that you're not going to win until you go on offense.
[01:54:23.160 --> 01:54:27.160]  And there's going to be some casualties.
[01:54:27.160 --> 01:54:28.160]  All right.
[01:54:28.160 --> 01:54:30.160]  Well, listen, Larry, let's go to some calls.
[01:54:30.160 --> 01:54:32.160]  We've got some callers on the line here.
[01:54:32.160 --> 01:54:35.160]  We've got Jim, Tim and John and Matt.
[01:54:35.160 --> 01:54:38.160]  Let's go to Tim from Texas.
[01:54:38.160 --> 01:54:39.160]  Tim, thanks for calling in.
[01:54:39.160 --> 01:54:41.160]  What's your question for our guest?
[01:54:41.160 --> 01:54:43.160]  Larry, can you hear me okay?
[01:54:43.160 --> 01:54:44.160]  I can.
[01:54:44.160 --> 01:54:45.160]  Okay.
[01:54:45.160 --> 01:54:47.160]  A couple of quick things.
[01:54:47.160 --> 01:54:50.160]  First off, you were talking about the definition of trader business,
[01:54:50.160 --> 01:54:52.160]  that it said it wasn't defined in the code.
[01:54:52.160 --> 01:55:00.160]  It actually is defined in 26 U.S.D. 7701A26.
[01:55:00.160 --> 01:55:04.160]  And it defines that the term trader business includes the performance of the functions
[01:55:04.160 --> 01:55:09.160]  of a public office, which fits in with what you're talking about.
[01:55:09.160 --> 01:55:10.160]  Okay.
[01:55:10.160 --> 01:55:12.160]  And you noticed that it said includes in there?
[01:55:12.160 --> 01:55:13.160]  Yes.
[01:55:13.160 --> 01:55:15.160]  That is the loophole that they use.
[01:55:15.160 --> 01:55:24.160]  So to say that that's the definition of the term trader business is not absolutely correct there.
[01:55:24.160 --> 01:55:27.160]  It is one of the definitions.
[01:55:27.160 --> 01:55:29.160]  It's a possible definition.
[01:55:29.160 --> 01:55:31.160]  Includes a loophole.
[01:55:31.160 --> 01:55:34.160]  And you'll see it all throughout the code.
[01:55:34.160 --> 01:55:41.160]  And I have presented this to lawyers, and that is what they told me.
[01:55:41.160 --> 01:55:46.160]  They said, well, if it didn't have the includes in there, you'd be right.
[01:55:46.160 --> 01:55:54.160]  And that's how they secured the law by putting those loopholes in there.
[01:55:54.160 --> 01:56:01.160]  And while when you read Section 162, it is fairly clear.
[01:56:01.160 --> 01:56:06.160]  You'll find that I believe the first sentence in that thing is a paragraph,
[01:56:06.160 --> 01:56:11.160]  and who is it talking about, then it's the members of Congress.
[01:56:11.160 --> 01:56:18.160]  So it's all over when you really study out all of the definitions, possible definitions,
[01:56:18.160 --> 01:56:26.160]  that the trader business does include functions of the government.
[01:56:26.160 --> 01:56:31.160]  But it doesn't necessarily exclude, as that's arguable in law.
[01:56:31.160 --> 01:56:37.160]  But when you go to the District of Columbia code, then it clarifies that.
[01:56:37.160 --> 01:56:38.160]  Okay.
[01:56:38.160 --> 01:56:43.160]  But the District of Columbia code is not in Title 26.
[01:56:43.160 --> 01:56:48.160]  It has been left out, even though it should have been there.
[01:56:48.160 --> 01:56:51.160]  Yeah, also remember that include is a word of art.
[01:56:51.160 --> 01:56:56.160]  We have four cases on that to know what their position is.
[01:56:56.160 --> 01:56:57.160]  Okay.
[01:56:57.160 --> 01:57:01.160]  What was your other question?
[01:57:01.160 --> 01:57:03.160]  When you started off at the beginning of the show,
[01:57:03.160 --> 01:57:07.160]  you were mentioning a series of things or events that you would do
[01:57:07.160 --> 01:57:11.160]  to begin the process of gathering information.
[01:57:11.160 --> 01:57:17.160]  And I was just trying to find out what can – do you think it's a good idea for a bunch of us
[01:57:17.160 --> 01:57:21.160]  to try to educate people to start collecting this information on ourselves
[01:57:21.160 --> 01:57:25.160]  so we can find out what – you know, get the IMF file and decode it
[01:57:25.160 --> 01:57:28.160]  and all these things and start educating people on this
[01:57:28.160 --> 01:57:32.160]  so that once these lawsuits that you're talking about start happening,
[01:57:32.160 --> 01:57:36.160]  that people see the information they've got in their hands
[01:57:36.160 --> 01:57:39.160]  and comparing that with the information with the lawsuits
[01:57:39.160 --> 01:57:45.160]  and hopefully that would open a lot of people's eyes.
[01:57:45.160 --> 01:57:52.160]  I do recommend that you engage in the discovery process
[01:57:52.160 --> 01:57:57.160]  with the Freedom of Information Act and go after every specific document
[01:57:57.160 --> 01:57:59.160]  that could be in your case.
[01:57:59.160 --> 01:58:04.160]  Now, as a decoder myself, in fact, I don't decode anymore.
[01:58:04.160 --> 01:58:09.160]  I quit that about five years ago because I realized that decoding the master file
[01:58:09.160 --> 01:58:15.160]  is just really a waste of time because – and you don't need to.
[01:58:15.160 --> 01:58:19.160]  The ones that have done it, I've watched Richard Stanley for many years
[01:58:19.160 --> 01:58:23.160]  with his spreadsheets and all and trying to get it in the court.
[01:58:23.160 --> 01:58:27.160]  And what happens is when you get before a jury is this.
[01:58:27.160 --> 01:58:31.160]  If you complicate the case, you're going to lose.
[01:58:31.160 --> 01:58:34.160]  That's what any criminal lawyer will tell you.
[01:58:34.160 --> 01:58:37.160]  You complicate the case and the jury will get frustrated
[01:58:37.160 --> 01:58:41.160]  and what they'll do is they will go with the prosecution.
[01:58:41.160 --> 01:58:43.160]  Okay, listen, listen. Hold on.
[01:58:43.160 --> 01:58:45.160]  Larry, we're going to break right now.
[01:58:45.160 --> 01:58:47.160]  Tim, we're going to break.
[01:58:47.160 --> 01:58:50.160]  We've got other callers on the line, Jim, John, Matt.
[01:58:50.160 --> 01:58:52.160]  Tim, if you have any other questions,
[01:58:52.160 --> 01:58:55.160]  you're welcome to stay on the line until the other side.
[01:58:55.160 --> 01:58:56.160]  Thank you. Just one more.
[01:58:56.160 --> 01:59:21.160]  Okay, we'll be right back.
[01:59:26.160 --> 01:59:53.160]  Thank you.
[01:59:53.160 --> 01:59:59.160]  Thank you.