Now, if only the general public would WAKE UP and realize
they have been HAD by this rogue extortion corporation for years - since its
inception. Americans need to make a collective stand and just say
"NO!" and MEAN IT! SHOW US THE PROOF THAT WE OWE THESE
TAXES!THE IRS AND THE COURTS CAN'T PRODUCE THAT 'PROOF' BECAUSE YOU DON'T OWE
THE IRS ONE RED CENT - PERIOD. STOP BEING A VICTIM. STAND UP FOR YOUR RIGHTS.
One or two standing alone can't fight these shysters, but COLLECTIVELY WE CAN
AND WE WILL WIN!
THE POWER TO DESTROY
IRS ACTUALLY FEARS MAN WHO DOESN'T FILE
TAXES
'Would blow them out of the water if this
became public knowledge'
· Sunday, June 02, 2013
Published: 1 hour ago
Amid an unusual spotlight on IRS conduct, a
Colorado businessman contends his case is one the government particularly wants
to keep hidden because it could cause the whole federal agency to
self-destruct.
Jeff Maehr, a Colorado chiropractor who has
engaged in a number of business ventures, including PureHealthSystems.com,
admits he has refused to file federal income tax returns since 2002, but he
says the IRS is afraid to press criminal charges against him.
“They don’t want this to go to court, because
there is so much information there that would blow them out of the water if
this became public knowledge,” Maehr claimed.
“They are scared to
death to bring this in front of a jury and give it a public hearing,” he
said. “Instead, they know the IRS goes through
administrative processes and ignorant judges and courts who all play this
little game.”
Maehr insists he is not a “tax protester.”
“It’s not that I’m unwilling to pay my taxes.
In fact, I acknowledge the principle of taxes is constitutional,” Maehr said.
“However, I only want to pay the taxes that I owe.”
As WND
previously reported, the U.S. Supreme Court docketed a case by Maehr in
which he contended that while the government has constitutional authority to
tax, the IRS has engaged in “unlawful,
unconstitutional, unfair and biased” practices to declare salaries and wages to
be income without any legal basis. Earlier this month, however, the high
court declined to hear his case.
Maehr said there are
questions he has asked the IRS that the agency has yet to answer.
“I am not talking about the answer given on
their website, I am talking about a specific law or
statute that defines income as wages,” he said. “They apparently cannot
produce it, or they would’ve done so already.”
Maehr said that in 2007, the IRS attempted to
gather the information from various sources such as PayPal and his mortgage
company to prepare a $280,000 assessment it determined he owed for 2003 to
2006.
However, despite its claims, the IRS has made
no apparent effort to hold Maehr accountable for refusing to pay.
Additionally, the agency has not attempted to
go after Maehr for income from 2007 to 2011.
Maehr noted that the federal government’s
unwillingness to prosecute him is particularly noteworthy because it has had no
problem pressing charges against high-profile people such as actor Wesley
Snipes.
Snipes was convicted and sentenced to three
years in prison for failing to file tax returns for 1999 to 2001. The three
years are a fraction of the time Maehr has refused to file.
However, Maehr says he has a paper trail that
has prevented the IRS from going after him as it did Snipes.
“There are certain parameters they have to
follow when attempting to prosecute somebody for willful failure to file,”
Maehr said. “They have to be able to prove that I knew
I had a duty to file and I didn’t file."
“However, my paper trail clearly shows that I
do not believe I had a duty to file and the reasons for my believing that – and
here’s where I have asked the questions, and I want them to answer and show me where that duty is in the law in the Internal Revenue
Code.”
Maehr insisted that for the IRS to prosecute
him, it would have to answer his questions in court.
“They would need to prove their case in court
that wages are income and they can’t possibly make the case,” he said.
Circular
logic?
Maehr asserts the courts and IRS are engaging
in circular logic.
“The IRS attempts to argue in court cases
that my argument is frivolous. However, in each of these instances there has
never been any evidence entered into court,” he said. “They then turned around
and cited previous rulings as to why my case is frivolous. Essentially they are saying it is frivolous simply because they say so.”
He said, for example, courts say his case is
frivolous “because everybody knows that when you get some finances for working
from somebody that’s income and that’s all profit.”
“However, they don’t
want to look at the original intent of the law. They don’t want to look at the
Constitution, indirect or direct taxation or any of the facts. Instead they
simply ignore it all,” he said.
Maehr began researching
the issue in 2002 and discovered legal cases indicating that the definition of
income excludes wages and salaries.
Asking for help to clear up his confusion,
Maehr asked the IRS to provide the statutory authority
that wages were, in fact, income. Instead, he says the IRS simply
pointed to its own statements to back up its assertions.
“I started writing
some letters to the IRS and asking them some very basic questions,”
Maehr explained. “I told them there appears to be this question and I would
honestly like an answer since a particular law would say something, while on
the other hand, they were saying something completely different.
“I simply asked them to please clarify their
statements. However, it was always non-answers coming back, and finally they
sent me a letter saying they were not going to respond to any of my questions
anymore, and if I wanted to find an answer I would have to find it in the
courts.”
So that is exactly what Maehr did.
However, he soon discovered that the courts were unwilling to address his claims, despite his
clearly having standing.
A copy of a ruling from the 10th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals in Denver, before judges Michael Murphy, Bobby Baldock and
Harris Hartz, was included in Maehr’s filing. The ruling appears to support
Maehr’s argument, because the judges, without responding to his questions and
challenges to the constitutionality of the issue, dismissed the claims as
“frivolous” and ruled without support its argument that Maehr’s petition “contains
no valid challenges.”
In his petition, Maehr cites a wide range of
historical court and congressional statements that back up his assertions
regarding taxes. For instance, Black’s Law Dictionary defines income tax as
being “a tax on the yearly profits arising from property, professions, trades
and offices.”
Maehr argues based on this and other
references that wages are not “profits” but are instead
the simple exchange of labor for money. To bolster his assertion, he notes that
while businesses frequently pay taxes on their profits, they do not pay taxes
on their expenses.
Likewise, the labor
of an individual is the “expense” required to obtain the money, therefore it is
not “profit,” and to declare otherwise would subject corporations such as Sears
to “income taxes” on 100 percent of their cash register receipts, he argues.
The U.S. Supreme Court itself said an 1883
case, “It has been well said that, the property which every man has in his own
labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the
most sacred and inviolable.”
In 1969, the high court ruled: “Whatever may
constitute income, therefore, must have the essential feature of gain to the
recipient. This was true when the 16th amendment became effective. … If there
is no gain, there is no income. … [Income] is not synonymous with receipts.”
And a 1946 case stated, “Reasonable compensation for labor or services rendered is not
profit.”
Despite these references and the refusal of
other courts to consider the merits of his case, the Supreme Court likewise
turned down his petition.
Maehr said while he understands that the
Supreme Court typically refuses to hear about 95 percent of the cases it
receives, he believes his case met the criteria established because it involves
an important issue of interpretation of the Constitution and federal law that
directly affects every American.
“Based on their own criteria this is exactly
the type of case that they should hear. It involves a constitutional issue and
addresses a large segment of the population. A lot of their previous cases over
the years and decades have always focused on constitutional law issues and due
process.”
“With them
refusing to hear this case and considering all the facts, they have basically
stated I don’t get due process rights through the courts and I am not allowed
to defend myself against the IRS. They will not hear it, none of the courts are
willing to hear the case and adjudicate it.”
Maehr says while the news is focused on the
IRS targeting of conservative groups, critics of the agency are missing a
golden opportunity.
“The recent scandals
coming out about the IRS shows the whole agency is corrupt, and what’s amazing
is issues such as mine are not being jumped on,” he said. “What they
have done with the targeting of the conservative groups pales in insignificance
when compared to forcing every man, woman and child to
pay a tax that they are not legally and constitutionally liable for.”
Subscribe to feed
“The predawn customers would get an earful.
Breitbart News Editor Ben Shapiro, who called Drudge the “father of conservative Internet journalism and activism,” told WND, “His ability to shift a news cycle is unparalleled. The left tries to pretend that Drudge is just some muckraker living out of an undisclosed location. In actuality, he’s the most powerful news shaper of our generation.”
The Obama administration has scolded reporters for citing the Drudge Report, 
