Would “blow them out of the water” if the facts exposed in this
case became public knowledge
Supreme Court Denies Hearing On Major Challenge to
Constitutionality of Income Tax
“The gravity of
these fundamental law questions have never been properly adjudicated… and the
evidence in fact available proves
without a doubt that the taxation scheme being implemented against
Petitioner, and all Americans, is fundamentally and profoundly unlawful, unconstitutional,
unfair and biased, and is evidence of ongoing, willful, wanton, deliberate and unconscionable fraud…
We have all been
deceived and misled and misinformed,
apparently with willful, wanton intent—clearly an
(illegal) "racket" involving every State citizen, and many government agencies and officials and even the
courts themselves…
The recent scandals coming out about
the IRS shows the whole agency is corrupt…
Have we become a
lawless people, with no means to defend our freedoms?”
- Jeffrey T. Maehr, Conclusion, Petition for
a Writ of Certiorari, U.S. Supreme Court, February 12, 2013
"When a well
packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations,
the truth will seem preposterous
and its speaker a raving lunatic" (Dresden James).
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 for 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.”
***************************************************************************
Full text of Conclusion to Petition to U.S. Supreme Court for Writ
of Certiorari
Jeffrey T. Maehr
Feb, 12, 2013
CONCLUSION
The issues herein are certainly not on equal footing with each
other but are certainly related and relevant to showing the depth and extent of
the violations of law and the presumptions made by Respondent. Petitioner has
formed, in good faith and without any criminal intent
whatsoever, his position on these issues, using this honorable
Court's own rulings, among many other sources.
Petitioner's challenges are not "frivolous" and are, in fact, based upon a reasonable reading and
interpretation of valid and extant statutory and jurisprudential authorities.
The gravity of these fundamental law
questions have never been properly adjudicated, apart from court hear- say and
presumption, and the evidence in fact available proves
without a doubt that the taxation scheme being implemented against Petitioner,
and all Americans, is fundamentally and profoundly unlawful,
unconstitutional, unfair and biased, and is evidence of ongoing, willful, wanton, deliberate and unconscionable fraud:
• Petitioner was denied due process over and over
again.
• Petitioner's evidence was dismissed without consideration.
•
Petitioner was unlawfully assessed.
• Petitioner's evidence that "income" is not wages is
clearly supported by Court precedent.
• Petitioner was mistreated, and the Courts unlawfully ruled without regard to Respondent's stand- ing to be acting against him in filing deficiency notices,
or due process of law.
• Respondent is taxing outside clear constitutional
parameters, presumptively labeling him, and all Americans, as
"taxpayers" apart from any mechanism
of law.
• Respondent is wantonly promoting the mandatory
filing of the 1040 form, which is clearly in violation of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
• Respondent has not produced the law within
the IR Code which makes Petitioner or any
American "personally" liable for filing the 1040 form, let alone
other "requirements."
• Respondent is presuming Petitioner is in its jurisdiction, apart from obvious physical, Constitutional and lawful facts that he is not, and nothing in
the record proves such jurisdiction.
• Respondent is wantonly ignoring this Court's historical,
well-settled decisions.
• Respondent claims it is a U.S. government agency, yet
also denies being so.
• Respondent is using the name "IRS" despite its
being canceled in violation of 18 U.S.C. law.
• Respondent failed to rebut Petitioner's affidavit, thereby, via default, accepted that all unrebutted affidavit evidence is true, yet this was ignored by
Respondent and lower courts.
• Respondent is denying Petitioner his 1st Amendment rights of practice of religion and to not violate
his conscience, or violate fundamental law, in witnessing
against himself as actually having lawful "income"
and committing perjury in so do- ing, and
paying an unlawful tax.
• Respondent is claiming a jurisdiction in States and over
Petitioner and all Americans without statute
or evidence and, in fact, acting outside its lawful jurisdiction.
This is
a series of ongoing, egregious wrongs that have landed many people in prison
for attempting to comply with the fundamental law of the land, and in challenging Respondent where it is clearly wrong, and
even where it is maliciously covering up the
evidence. The courts are full of this evidence.
Recent
wins by Joseph Bannister, Tommy Cryer, Vernice
Kuglin and others against Respondent show the fraud
and the fact that Respondent cannot prove its position
in criminal Court and must rely on administrative
disinformation still entrenched in our courts and society to continue the scam and harm to our citizens.
Unless
these basic questions are addressed, based on well-settled
case precedent, and this Court is willing to look
at its own rulings that invalidate Respondent's taxation scheme and the clearly contradictory lower court rulings, this wrong will continue to destroy families, wealth and the economic future of more than 330 million people
in our Republic.
Millions
of man-hours are spent by citizens each year on complying with this scheme
(with no compensation), and millions are walking away from it after researching
the mounds of evidence now available via computers, the Internet and law-research capabilities. It is a
jigsaw puzzle that has been
purposefully hidden, scattered and obfuscated, but which is now being brought
together.
Millions
of Americans are learning of these truths from a
thousand web sites, attorneys, judges and others providing the case law and
statutes for proving the facts. The truth will be exposed, sooner or later, and
this Court has the opportunity to act on it now.
Respondent
intimidates Americans, creating fear through its campaigns.
Respondent fits the government's own
definition of "terrorism" (United States Code, p. xxxvii).
The logical question to ask
is, If Petitioner is violating any
laws, why is he not charged with criminal actions?
Why is Respondent
taking the circuitous route of using "administrative" ploys like
"summonses" and "deficiency" notices?
The answer is
because it has deceived the Courts
and knows it has accomplices in committing this easy fraud using them, and it
knows it cannot bring criminal charges against Petitioner due to the record
created by Petitioner proving no such "failure" would stand up
in Court but would expose the "income" taxation scam and other violations of law to the public at large.
Why
would Respondent not respond to Petitioner's requests
if it was acting in good faith and was standing on
the Constitution and rule of law and wanted the truth
to be known?
Is
there a law making Petitioner personally liable for filing the "income" tax" form, or not? Is
"income" actually all wages, salaries
and compensation for services, or is it something
altogether different, but has been perverted over
the decades, and essentially draining the wealth of America away under color of
law? This scheme deliberately impoverishes more than a million Americans who have
been deceived into complying and "self-assessing" for "income" they do not lawfully or
constitutionally have.
The
only way Petitioner, or all Americans, can receive proper due process of
law on this issue is for this Court
to address the Constitutional challenges made, and for all the evidence in support of Petitioner's contentions, which are well documented, to actually be looked at and compared to this ongoing egregious, unconscionable abuse of power under the color of law.
We have
all been deceived and misled and misinformed,
apparently with willful, wanton intent—clearly a "racket"
(18 U.S.C.) involving every State citizen, and many government agencies and officials and even the courts themselves.
The courts across this country
have been misled and deceived by Respondent and have, therefore, persistently
ruled in error on the merits of these and thousands of other Americans'
arguments, yet based on hearsay and presumption and not on the actual
facts available.
Correcting
this egregious error could fundamentally transform
the economy, fundamentally transform the lives of every man, woman
and child in this country, fundamentally
transform the relationship between the people and government and fundamentally
transform America's growing dissatisfaction with the biased courts.
This
obfuscation, this fraud, this clearly unlawful and unconstitutional scheme is
being vetted and will continue to be until it is corrected. Will this Court defend the American People, our Constitution, our rule of
law, and apply the law in our favor
and stop this abuse, or will far more acts of violence, theft and abuse
be allowed to carry on?
Will
this Court create a legacy that will never be forgotten, or will it discard this
unprecedented opportunity to right what is
perhaps the most fraudulent scheme ever foisted on the
Republic?
Will those in prison for
alleged "criminal" tax evasion or other alleged wrongs be allowed to
remain in prison for not complying with this
fraud, and properly resisting it?
Have we
become a lawless people, with no means to defend our freedoms? The Respondent
comes after Petitioner and other innocent Americans under color of law and yet
violates its own rules and the laws of our Republic and is now being challenged
for knowingly allowing $7 billion, in 2012 alone, to go to illegal aliens filing false returns. Is this just or fair?
Because
Respondent has consistently ignored its due
diligence and good faith duty to verify or disprove the challenges, Petitioner respectfully reserves his
rights to relief under law and justice, and to present all relief sought as
part of due process, and for the Court to grant such other and further relief
as is just and proper for all concerned.
"When
a well packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over
generations, the truth will seem
preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic" (Dresden James).
Petitioner
maintains a remand is moot since no due process
can occur unless the lower courts are ordered to address all questions and
evidence raised.
This controversy is ripe for adjudication.
The Petition
for a Writ of Certiorari and adjudication of all facts in evidence should be
granted.
Respectfully submitted,
___________________________ Date: 02/12/2013
Jeffrey T. Maehr, Sui Juris
924 E. Stollsteimer Rd.
Pagosa Springs, Colorado 81147
(970) 731-9724
Full text of Jeffrey
Maehr’s petition to the Supreme Court:
