Is THE REPEAL 16 COLALITION really trying to end taxes calculated from incomes?

[johnwk]

As stated at repeal 16.org, “The Coalition to Repeal the 16th Amendment (Repeal 16) is comprised of a broad range of individuals and organizations including the Tea Party Patriots, Americans For Fair Taxation, Americans for Limited Government, Competitive Governance Action and Free Market America.”

According to REPEAL 16 ORG, its stated goal is to “end our corrupting tax system and the oppressive IRS”.

They go on to ask “What is the Repeal 16 Bill?” And they answer the question as follows:

”Congressman Jim Bridenstine has introduced a bill (HJ Res 104) in the U.S. House of Representatives to repeal the 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which allows the federal government to levy the income tax”.

That statement is factually incorrect and is one of the biggest myths perpetrated upon the American People. The truth is, the 16th Amendment does not allow “the federal government to levy the income tax” as stated at REPEAL 16 ORG. In fact, the 16th Amendment does not mention “income tax” at all. But it does declare Congress may tax incomes “without apportionment among the several States….” But this power, as we shall see, is a power which preexisted the adoption of the 16th Amendment and was not only exercised before the 16th Amendment was adopted, but upheld by the United States Supreme Court! So, it stands to reason that repealing the 16th Amendment as worded in H.J. RES. 104, even if adopted and made part of our Constitution, it would not end taxes which may be laid and collected which are calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other “incomes” as was done prior to the adoption of the `16th Amendment, nor would it close down the IRS as we know it.

What are the historical facts about our federal government levying an income tax”? The first so called “income tax” is found in An Act to provide increased Revenue from Imports, to pay interest on the Public Debt, and for other Purposes. The phrase “income tax” is found in the margin dealing with Section 49 of the Act. SECTION 49 of the Act reads as follows:

Sec. 49. And be it further enacted, That on and after the first day of January next, there shall be levied, collected, and paid upon the annual income of every person residing in the United States, whether such income is derived from any kind of property, or from any profession, trade, employment or vocation carried on in the United States or elsewhere, or from any other source whatever, if such annual income exceeds the sum of eight hundred dollars, a tax of three percentum on the amount of such excess over eight hundred dollars...

This income tax was later tested in the Supreme Court and was upheld as being constitutional in SPRINGER v. U S, 102 U.S. 586 (1880). Among other arguments, the argument that the tax was direct and required an apportionment was rejected by the Court.

What the 16th Amendment actually did was put to rest the argument that Congress could not lay and collect taxes calculated from incomes without having to apportion the tax, it merely confirmed what the Court had already ruled, and that such a power was possessed by Congress from the very beginning,


The Repeal 16 Coalition’s support of Representative Bridenstine’s proposal would not end, e.g., excise taxes being levied upon the privilege of being a corporation, which may then be calculated from profits and gains earned under the corporate charter. This occurred under the Corporate Excise Tax of 1909, prior to the adoption of the 16th Amendment, and the tax was upheld in FLINT v. STONE TRACY CO., 220 U.S. 107 (1911). The Court found the tax did not have to be apportioned and the Court explained the tax was not laid upon corporate profits, but rather, the tax was laid on the “privilege” of earning income under a government granted corporate charter which made the tax indirect and did not require an apportionment. Additionally, the amount of tax to be paid was measured from the income earned under the privilege.

The court stated:

The tax under consideration, as we have construed the statute, may be described as an excise upon the particular privilege of doing business in a corporate capacity, i.e., with the advantages which arise from corporate or quasi corporate organization; or, when applied to insurance companies, for doing the business of such companies. As was said in the Thomas case, supra, the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of privileges, and the element of absolute and unavoidable demand is lacking. If business is not done in the manner described in the statute, no tax is payable.

Under Representative Bridenstine’s proposal which is supported by The Repeal 16 Coalition, Congress would retain power to lay "excise taxes" on corporations which are then calculated from profits, gains and other incomes. Additionally, Congress would still retain power to tax “any profession, trade, employment or vocation carried on in the United States or elsewhere” as was done during the Civil War, and then calculate the amount of tax to be paid from profits, gains salaries and other incomes earned under the listed professions, trades, employments or vocations “carried on in the United States or elsewhere”


My suggestion to those sending contributions to The Repeal 16 Coalition, or its partnership which includes Tea Party Patriots, Americans For Fair Taxation, Americans for Limited Government, Competitive Governance Action and Free Market America, is that they ask them to reject H.J.RES. 104 as being useless and demand a change to its wording as follows:


House/Senate Joint Resolution

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the sixteenth article of amendment and end taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other “incomes”.

Section 1: The sixteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2: Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money.

Section 3: This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by three fourths of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission thereof to the States by the Congress.

Making this change would not only end federal taxes calculated from profits, gains, and other “incomes”, but if adopted into our Constitution it would force Congress to return to our Constitution’s original tax plan as our Founding Fathers intended it to operate. To review our Constitution’s original tax plan as it was intended to operate by our Founders check out the hearings conducted in 1995 before the Committee on Ways and Means for the purpose of replacing the federal income tax. The submission offered by the American Constitutional Research Service outlines our Constitution's original tax plan, CLICK HERE and scroll down to page 687

JWK


“Honest money and honest taxation, the Key to America’s future Prosperity“ ___ from “Prosperity Restored by the State Rate Tax Plan”, no longer in print.

[ClydeCoulter]

Keep at it!

[johnwk]

Keep at it!

It seems to be a thankless cause. The America People seem to be comfortable in their enslavement!



JWK



If we can make 51 percent of America’s population dependent upon an Obama, welfare, food stamp, section 8 housing, college loan check, and now free Obamacare along with FREE BACON, we can blackmail them for their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s productive population enslaved to pay the bills ____ Obama’s Marxist Free Cheese Democracy, which is designed to establish a federal plantation and redistribute the wealth which wage earners, business and investors have worked to create.

[CaptUSA]

The America People seem to be comfortable in their enslavement!

See the Voltaire quote in my sig. Sums it up perfectly.

[johnwk]

See the Voltaire quote in my sig. Sums it up perfectly.

What puzzles me to no end is, there is not one "conservative" radio talk show host that I know of who dares to explain to their listening audience that repealing the 16th Amendment as worded in H.J. RES. 104 is a useless cause and would not end taxes calculated from profits, gains and other incomes. And my list of alleged "conservative" talk show hosts would include Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham, Schnitt, Mark Levin, Dennis Prager, Bill O'rielly, Mike Gallagher, Doc Thompson, Lee Rodgers, Neal Boortz, Mike Huckabee, Tammy Bruce, Monica Crowley, Herman Cain, etc. Additionally, not one of these "conservative" talk show hosts have ever, to the best of my knowledge, explained to their listeniong audience the wisdom and brilliance of our Constitution's rule of apportionment being applied to both taxation and representation. But they do give favorable air time to the tax reform ideas cooked up by the Washington Establishment, each of which is designed to defeat the very intentions and beliefs of our founder original tax plan.


JWK


If the people of the United States do not rise up and defend the constitution they have given their consent to, who is left to do so but the very people who it was designed to control and regulate?

[Ronin Truth]

If the people of the United States do not rise up and defend the constitution they have given their consent to,

Uh, pardon me please, who, where and when was that?

[johnwk]

Uh, pardon me please, who, where and when was that?

[johnwk]

SEE: Bridenstine: Repeal the 16th Amendment

”U.S. Rep. Jim Bridenstine, R-Okla., has introduced a bill in the U.S. House of Representatives to repeal the 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which allows the federal government to levy the income tax.”

Wrong Mr. Bridenstien! The 16th Amendment does not allow the federal government to levy an “income tax”. In fact, the phrase “income tax” does not even appear in the 16th Amendment, and the power to levy an income tax was exercised long before the 16th Amendment was adopted!

The first so called “income tax” is found in An Act to provide increased Revenue from Imports, to pay interest on the Public Debt, and for other Purposes. The phrase “income tax” is found in the margin dealing with Section 49 of the Act. SECTION 49 of the Act reads as follows:

Sec. 49. And be it further enacted, That on and after the first day of January next, there shall be levied, collected, and paid upon the annual income of every person residing in the United States, whether such income is derived from any kind of property, or from any profession, trade, employment or vocation carried on in the United States or elsewhere, or from any other source whatever, if such annual income exceeds the sum of eight hundred dollars, a tax of three percentum on the amount of such excess over eight hundred dollars...

This “income tax” was later tested in the Supreme Court and was upheld as being constitutional in SPRINGER v. U S, 102 U.S. 586 (1880). Among other arguments, the argument that the tax was direct and required an apportionment was rejected by the Court.

So tell us Mr. Bridenstine, why do you allege the 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution allows the “… federal government to levy the income tax.”?

Rep. Bridenstine also says: “The income tax code has become too complex for citizens to understand, and the annual time and expense required to comply with the income tax code has become intolerably burdensome,” Bridenstine said. “Furthermore, the income tax is inherently unfair with different tax rates applying to various taxpayers. The tax code is subject to endless manipulation by groups seeking to advantage themselves relative to others. Worse, the Internal Revenue Service which administers the income tax, has been used as a political weapon to suppress First Amendment rights and influence elections.”

Well Rep. Bridenstine, then why do you not change the wording of H.J.RES. 104 in such a manner so it would actually withdraw Congress’ power to levy any taxes calculated from profits, gains and other incomes, an example would be:

House/Senate Joint Resolution

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the sixteenth article of amendment and end taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other “incomes”.

Section 1: The sixteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2: Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money.

Section 3: This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by three fourths of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission thereof to the States by the Congress.


JWK

Reaching across the aisle and bipartisanship is Washington Newspeak to subvert the Constitution and screw the American People.

[Ronin Truth]

Thanks, that's just what I thought.....didn't happen.

Clues for sale.

[Danke]

johnwk, you are right that repealing the 16A doesn't eliminate the income tax. But as dumb down most Americans are WRT the income tax and its application to federally privileged receipts, repealing the 16A might be enough to eliminate the income tax. It is at least a start.

[Zippyjuan]

Ron Paul says ending taxes is certainly a goal but we need to deal with the budget deficit/ debt problem first. Cutting taxes only makes those problems worse. But both government spending and taxes can be greatly streamlined from where they are now.

[johnwk]

Ron Paul says ending taxes is certainly a goal but we need to deal with the budget deficit/ debt problem first. Cutting taxes only makes those problems worse. But both government spending and taxes can be greatly streamlined from where they are now.

Repealing the 16th Amendment as I propose would bring us back to our Constitution’s original tax plan as our founders intended it to operate and would actually encourage each State’s Congressional Delegation to cut federal spending and end federal deficits to avoid having to lay the apportioned tax.

There is no question in my mind that our federal government, which is charged with providing for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States, must have sufficient taxing power to do so. This brings us to the question: How would Congress raise sufficient revenue if it no longer had power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains, wages, tips and other lawfully realized earnings?” The fact is, ending the above mentioned method to raise a federal revenue would bring us back to our Constitution’s original tax plan allowing Congress to raise its revenue from imposts, duties, and excise taxes. And if the above taxing powers were found insufficient and Congress were forced to borrow to meet its exigencies our founders expected Congress to immediately extinguish this deficit using the apportioned direct tax levied among the States. The formula being, considering existing amendments added to our Constitution would be:

States’ pop.
---------------- X SUM NEEDED = STATE’S FAIR SHARE
U.S. Pop.

An example showing this legislative intent can be found in several of our Constitution’s ratification documents, such as the Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New Hampshire:

Fourthly That Congress do not lay direct Taxes but when the money arising from Impost, Excise and their other resources are insufficient for the Publick Exigencies; nor then, untill Congress shall have first made a Requisition upon the States, to Assess, Levy, & pay their respective proportions, of such requisitions agreeably to the Census fixed in the said Constitution in such way & manner as the Legislature of the State shall think best and in such Case if any State shall neglect, then Congress may Assess & Levy such States proportion together with the Interest thereon at the rate of six per Cent per Annum from …….

For an example of this emergency tax see an Act laying a direct tax for $3 million in which the rule of apportionment is applied.

And then see Section 7 of the direct tax of 1813 allowing states to pay their respective quotas and be entitled to certain deductions in meeting their payment on time.

So, as it turns out, our founding father’s method of raising a federal revenue would allow Congress to raise existing levels of revenue. But it would also encourage Congress to end wasteful spending and spending beyond the revenue brought in from imposts, duties and excise taxes to avoid the dreaded apportioned direct tax. Keep in mind the direct tax would force each State’s Congressional Delegation to return home with a bill in hand for its state’s apportioned share of this tax and place this burden upon their Governor and State Legislature, and would deplete their own state’s treasury.

And with regard to the other taxes, which are basically upon consumption, the market place would determine the allowable limit! And this is explained in the Federalist Papers by Hamilton:

“There is no method of steering clear of this inconvenience, but by authorizing the national government to raise its own revenues in its own way. Imposts, excises, and, in general, all duties upon articles of consumption, may be compared to a fluid, which will, in time, find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be at his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions. If inequalities should arise in some States from duties on particular objects, these will, in all probability, be counter balanced by proportional inequalities in other States, from the duties on other objects. In the course of time and things, an equilibrium, as far as it is attainable in so complicated a subject, will be established everywhere. Or, if inequalities should still exist, they would neither be so great in their degree, so uniform in their operation, nor so odious in their appearance, as those which would necessarily spring from quotas, upon any scale that can possibly be devised.


It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four .'' If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.” ___ Federalist No. 21


Let us say for conversation purposes that Congress is only allowed to raise its revenue by selecting specific articles of luxury and placing a specific amount of tax on each article selected. The flow of revenue into the federal treasury under such an idea would of course be determined by the economic productivity of the nation. If the economy is healthy and thriving and employment is at a peak, the purchase of articles of luxury will be greater than if the economy is stagnant and depressed. And thus, Congress is encouraged to adopt policies favorable to a healthy and vibrant economy because the flow of revenue into the federal treasury can be disrupted should Congress adopt oppressive regulations which impeded and burden our founder’s intended free market system.


And so, if Congress is limited to raising its revenue by taxing specifically selected articles of luxury, it suddenly becomes in Congress’ best interest to work toward a healthy and vibrant economy which in turn produces a productive flow of revenue into the federal treasury! It should also be noted that taxing any specific article too high, will reduce the volume of its sales and diminish the flow of revenue into the national treasury, and thus, taxing in this manner allows the market place to determine the allowable amount of tax on each article selected as Hamilton indicates above.


Some may claim that if Congress is required to select each specific article for taxation and place a specific amount of tax on each article, such a system would invite abuse and allow Congress to exercise favoritism with impunity and would certainly pander to countless lobbyists looking for an advantage in the selection of taxable articles. But let us take a closer look at the consequences involved if Congress should attempt to abuse this power. If Congress should abuse the system and tax one article while excluding another for political gain, consumers are treated to a tax free article and Congress reduces its own flow of revenue into the national treasury. In addition, for every penny lost by excluding a lobbyist’s particular article from taxation, another article’s tax will have to be increased to reclaim that penny. And with each increase upon any specific article the reality of diminished sales becomes a very sobering factor for Congress to deal with as explained by Hamilton in Federalist No. 21.


Finally, under our Constitution’s original tax plan, let us remember that if Congress does not raise sufficient revenue from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes on specifically chosen article of consumption and spends more than is brought in which creates a deficit, it is at this time that the apportioned tax is to be used to extinguish the deficit created, and each state’s congressional delegation must return home with a bill in hand for its state’s apportioned share of this tax and place this burden upon their Governor and State Legislature, and would deplete their own state’s treasury.


The bottom line is, what do you think would happen if New York State’s big spending Congressional Delegation had to return home with a bill for New York to pay an apportioned share to extinguish the 2013 federal deficit? I kind of think tea parties would change to tar and feather parties and New York’s big spenders in Congress would REAP THEIR JUST REWARDS for their irresponsible spending.

Why is it that not one of our “conservatives” in Congress will promote a return to our Constitution’s original tax plan when its thoughtful principles do not change with the passage of time? Why is it that our mainstream media will promote every imaginable tax plan [nations sales tax, flat tax, income tax, fairtax, value added tax, etc.] all of which keeps the iron fist of government around the American people’s necks, but never even mention how our founders intended to raise a federal revenue?

JWK


“Honest money and honest taxation, the Key to America’s future Prosperity“ ___ from “Prosperity Restored by the State Rate Tax Plan”, no longer in print.

[tommyrp12]

Ron Paul says ending taxes is certainly a goal but we need to deal with the budget deficit/ debt problem first. Cutting taxes only makes those problems worse. But both government spending and taxes can be greatly streamlined from where they are now.

You cant pay a debt with a debt. Have fun trying though.

Bank Fraud in 10 minutes

[johnwk]

You cant pay a debt with a debt. Have fun trying though.

Bank Fraud in 10 minutes

During my 35 or so years in the fight to restore the miracle our founders left for us, I have noticed there are two specific issues which false leaders will not discuss. The first is the brilliance and wisdom of our Constitution’s original tax plan, including its rule of apportionment as applied to taxation. The second issue is our Founders specific intentions forbidding notes of any kind, and would include Federal Reserve Notes, from being made a legal tender in payment for either for public or private debt.

Our founders lived under the tyranny of dishonest money and despotic taxation, and they provided specific protections in our Constitution against these tools of oppression which have long been used by dishonest and corrupt governments to enslave and steal the wealth which the people have produced. And yet, which of today’s “leaders” is there to address these issues as our Founders did when framing and ratifying our Constitution?

JWK




“Honest money and honest taxation, the Key to America’s future Prosperity“ ___ from “Prosperity Restored by the State Rate Tax Plan”, no longer in print.

[tommyrp12]

................

[Danke]

SHHHHHH you'll piss off the illegitimate article 3 court judges.( Please don't quote this I'm going delete it in a bit.)

http://www.kitco.com/ind/Bevan/20121015.html




res://ieframe.dll/acr_depnx_error.htm#uscourts.gov,http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/...rs/10-5012.pdf

^ Look for the silver and gold elephants which is the whole reason they are discussing their depreciated pay. Privately issued debt instruments VS (intergovernmental ) lawful money.

They can issue lawful money and tax it, but nothing can be taxed for using an alternative in a private capacity, one outside of government/citizenship/trustee (fiduciary), status. It does not belong to them.

Sounds like you are making the David Merrill argument.

[tommyrp12]

Please erase the quote. I visit his site and he can argue for himself. He and others have demonstrated success thus far including negating the frivolous filing penalties, so its not a bad method.

[TheCount]

Please erase the quote. I visit his site and he can argue for himself. He and others have demonstrated success thus far including negating the frivolous filing penalties, so its not a bad method.

So they still lose, they just lose less than the other losers?

[tommyrp12]

So they still lose, they just lose less than the other losers?

No they win. If you consider 100% returns a win. The frivolous penalty is only applied if your claim is frivolous , and not legitimate. Theirs is legitimate.

Federal Reserve Act - Remedy

[johnwk]

Getting back to the subject of the thread, is Repeal 16 org and their coalition [Tea Party Patriots, Americans For Fair Taxation, Americans for Limited Government, Competitive Governance Action and Free Market America] and their support for H.J.RES. 104 a sincere attempt to end taxes calculated from profits, gains and other “incomes”, or a gimmick to rake in contributions to fatten their own pockets?

Let us not forget how this proposed legislation was used by Jenny Beth Martin who we now know lives large from contributions. SEE: Let’s face it: Tea Party Patriots’ Jenny Beth Martin is a fraud



JWK

[TheCount]

No they win. If you consider 100% returns a win. The frivolous penalty is only applied if your claim is frivolous , and not legitimate. Theirs is legitimate.

So why is it that if I go to the various forums for folks using these sorts of tactics, that I find plenty of posts where people are being penalized for frivolous claims?

[tommyrp12]

So why is it that if I go to the various forums for folks using these sorts of tactics, that I find plenty of posts where people are being penalized for frivolous claims?

You are going to the wrong forums I guess. Try these sites look around and come to your own conclusions about them. www.savingtosuitorsclub.net http://iuvdeposit.wordpress.com/ They are both pretty much the same with some twists here and there. I guess the method is progressing.

[TheCount]

I went to your first link. At the top in popular topics is this thread:



With this:

[tommyrp12]

First pic does not work. But if you read through the thread you will see its development.

Assuming I was looking at the same thread. (1st return redeeming lawful money) Here are the developments of it. They do try to apply it, but nothing ever comes of it. I am waiting to see what happens as well. This is also not the only success story ,you should look through the site.

Michael, I did file both state and federal. I received a State refund In full, I posted that in an previous page on this thread (Picture of the Check). After the State check arrived I received the Friv Pen letter from the FED IRS. I replied to that Friv Pen letter and posted my response also on a previous page on this thread. I have not gotten a response to my response as to the time of writing this post. Were you aware of that or are you speaking to something else? You can see a complete record of what I have done (sent) and received from the IRS in this thread if you read through it.

Update - Still no response since they received my reply on April 8th, 2014

I believe his reply included asking the agent where on the list of frivolous positions is redeeming pursuant to title 12 sec.411 ? I would be surprised to find out following the law is frivolous. Why would they state give him a refund and not the IRS ? I'm pretty sure this will end with him receiving his check.

[LibForestPaul]

Ron Paul says ending taxes is certainly a goal but we need to deal with the budget deficit/ debt problem first. Cutting taxes only makes those problems worse. But both government spending and taxes can be greatly streamlined from where they are now.

Not my debt, not my problem.
My problem is only with the jackboot thug pointing a gun at my head demanding my prosperity while the people of this land cheer in adoration of this scum.

[TheCount]

I believe his reply included asking the agent where on the list of frivolous positions is redeeming pursuant to title 12 sec.411 ? I would be surprised to find out following the law is frivolous. Why would they state give him a refund and not the IRS ? I'm pretty sure this will end with him receiving his check.

Most of the refunds are automatic/computerized. It's why people are sometimes initially successful with fraudulent returns and get nasty IRS letters later. You have to do something really blatant in order to not get your refund at all.

[Danke]

Most of the refunds are automatic/computerized. It's why people are sometimes initially successful with fraudulent returns and get nasty IRS letters later. You have to do something really blatant in order to not get your refund at all.

I have been familiar with David Merrill's work for years. And there are continuing successes. I know of one that has a 7 year track record of everything refunded year after year.

I'm curious, why do you label Returns that actually are returning one's property that is not gained from a Federal privileged as "fraudulent?"

[TheCount]

I have been familiar with David Merrill's work for years. And there are continuing successes. I know of one that has a 7 year track record of everything refunded year after year.

Is that person "judgement proof?"

I'm curious, why do you label Returns that actually are returning one's property that is not gained from a Federal privileged as "fraudulent?"

One of the definitions of fraud is intentional misrepresentation. Most of the tax refund schemes I've seen fit that description.

[Danke]

Is that person "judgement proof?"

What is "judgement proof?"

One of the definitions of fraud is intentional misrepresentation. Most of the tax refund schemes I've seen fit that description.

Please elaborate. What is the "intentional misrepresentation."

[TheCount]

What is "judgement proof?"

Having nothing to take.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encycloped...roof-mean.html

Please elaborate. What is the "intentional misrepresentation."

Intentionally misrepresenting your income by using convoluted, nonsensical logic to come to the conclusion that you 'have no income.' Usually something along the lines of:

Only the District of Columbia is the USA, so only DC residents can be taxed.
Only wages paid in gold can be taxed.
Only wages paid by the federal government can be taxed.
The taxes aren't imposed against you, they are imposed against ALL CAPITAL LETTERS YOU, which isn't really you because (ten different reasons).
The USA is really a corporation created by the Vatican, the Queen, and/or reptilians, and that means you don't need to pay taxes because (ten different reasons).