November 14, 2002 A.D.
Greetings William Kennedy,
Here are my answers to your 5 main questions:
1. How long does the process take to be cleared from the IRS, once one changes the W‑4 to the Withholding Exemption Certificate and has decoded their Individual Master File?
Answer: A properly executed Withholding Exemption Certificate (“WEC”) should take effect immediately, and be reflected in the next pay cycle.
Realistically, a lot depends on the preparatory work that the worker first does with the payroll office. The process is smoother if the worker first prepares the payroll office personnel, for example by sharing documents like 31Q&A, the SUBPOENA Press Release, and our other Press Release “Let’s Dismantle IRS: This Racket is Busted.”
To put it differently, the worker needs to view the payroll office as his potential friend and effective ally, not as an adversary. Also, the worker needs to paint the IRS as real liars and thieves, for example by concealing the WEC from us for all these many years. Clearly, a worker who “figures this out” should be viewed as a very valuable asset to any company.
When the IRS tries to paint these people as “rebels,” they are, frankly, following orders dictated to them by the Communist Manifesto.
If the worker opts to execute a WEC retroactively or “nunc pro tunc” to the date his original W‑4 was first signed, legally that worker is entitled to a prompt refund of all funds that were withheld incorrectly, ever since that date.
However, we are finding that companies are generally resistant to issuing large refunds before they have had a chance to study and confirm the legal details first. Some have chosen to be stubborn and make it necessary for the worker to sue them for excess withholding.
It takes time to make the payroll office understand that all they need to do is to deduct refunds from their next quarterly payment(s) to IRS, and leave it at that. This approach conforms to the common law, i.e. restitution with minimal added damages.
Of course, IRS may counter by (incorrectly) instructing the payroll office to withhold the maximum. It is at this point that prior education of the payroll office is most important, because most payroll personnel are not educated well enough to know why this instruction is fraudulent legal advice. Without knowing any better, these payroll personnel still think IRS is the federal government, and they do want to obey the law as told to them by the federal government. They need to know when they are being lied to!
2. Can the IRS take one to court for taking the WEC & IMF route to stop paying taxes and, once freed, can the IRS come back against them?
Answer: As a trust domiciled in San Juan, Puerto Rico, the IRS cannot take anyone to court for using a WEC and exposing errors in the IMF. There would need to be some kind of contract relationship in place, before IRS would have standing to sue, in the first instance. Remember, they were never created by any Act of Congress, so their legal standing to sue anybody remains a doubtful proposition, at best.
Also, the U.S. Department of Justice does not have any powers of attorney to represent IRS, or IRS employees, in federal courts. So, the IRS would have to be represented by the Chief Counsel appointed by the President, or by a delegate of the Chief Counsel, typically an attorney in private practice. This does in fact happen, correctly I might add, in some Tax Court cases we have reviewed.
The U.S. Department of Justice is another matter, however. They still try to use civil proceedings to enforce IRS SUMMONSES, search warrants, liens and levies, and they still use criminal proceedings to terrorize Americans for failure to file, tax evasion, and other similar charges.
The pattern we have been seeing lately, however, is that DOJ finds people to prosecute who are likely committing multiple federal offenses, e.g. mail fraud, bank fraud, bad checks and such. By also charging such people with income tax crimes, DOJ tries to widen guilt by association, namely, to broadcast a message (call it propaganda) that tax protesters are also people who commit bank fraud and mail fraud and a host of other serious crimes.
“Who would want to do THAT?” they hope most people will ask.
The information available to me indicates that criminal prosecutions for income tax charges ‑‑ and nothing else ‑‑ have fallen way off, and should continue to follow that trend, as we make more headway with litigation like enforcement of the SUBPOENA to the Treasury Secretary for the liability statutes, the preliminary injunctions against IRS, and our application to dissolve IRS permanently.
Also, I have a very deep‑seated belief that many income tax cases are totally contrived, in the manner of classic communist show trials. Some of the defendants may even spend some time in federal prisons, and then retire to a million dollar beach‑front condo, and a million dollar expense account ‑‑ somewhere in Puerto Rico or Costa Rica ‑‑ for all their troubles.
The other half of your question is much easier to answer, in part because IRS usually does not pursue people who drop below their radar. I counsel people all the time to stop filing, and to inform everyone who asks that they have filed everything they are required to file, and leave it at that.
If family, friends and neighbors want further explanations, all that needs to be said is that there are no federal statutes creating a specific liability for income taxes imposed by subtitle A of the IRC.
If Congress decides to cure this problem by enacting a liability statute now, they cannot do so retroactively, because of the ex post facto prohibition in the U.S. Constitution. So, Congress would, in that one Act, proclaim to the whole world that there never has been a liability statute prior to that Act! What an admission that would make, yes?
The decision to stop filing is far superior to doing “zero returns” or “exempt” W‑4’s, as some activists advise, because these latter records give IRS reasons to continue pursuing the people who opted for these other approaches. Obviously, there is still a fresh paper trail! Dropping below radar means that their paper trail on each of us comes to an abrupt end, e.g. 1040’s.
After Americans make the decision to stop filing, most often IRS just gives up tracking them ‑‑ eventually. This may take one or more cycles of the tax year, but I predict that our chances of never hearing from them again are vastly increased after we stop filing altogether.
To enhance people’s chances of discouraging IRS from “coming back at them,” we strongly encourage clients to make sure that IRS has received a certified and embossed copy of 31Q&A, with a demand that IRS make it a permanent part of their individual files on them.
Not only does this document form an excellent documentary foundation; it vastly diminishes the likelihood that such people will ever be prosecuted criminally. Why? Because there is obviously no criminal intent if someone relies upon all that provable evidence that has already been assembled by an experienced federal litigator and Private Attorney General in myself.
You see, I have a lot of wins, but you are not going to hear about them from the federal government, or the IRS, or licensed attorneys in Huntsville, Alabama. These criminals may be prone to extortion and racketeering, but they are not prone to suicide. If IRS were to advertise our wins widely, they would be shooting themselves in both feet by doing so.
Finally, IRS employees, as a rule, are not rocket scientists, great inventors, brilliant statesmen or heroic athletes. The rank and file are typically high school graduates who are lucky to be working. You do realize, I hope, that graduation from public high schools today is no guarantee that graduates are capable of reading or writing.
If and when the IRS’ rank and file do read certified affidavits proving that they are employed by a criminal money laundry and extortion racket, I am sure such a realization must give them pause to consider changing jobs as soon as humanly possible. Wouldn’t you?
If you and I do our jobs correctly, which ones of them would want to put “IRS” on their resumes 5 years from now, anyway?
3. What is our fee or charge for handling a WEC and IMF, and USA Citizen’s conversion from federal to State Citizenship?
Answer: All that we presently ask, in return for such services, is that people subscribe to the SupremeLaw discussion list and message archive at Yahoo! Groups, on the Internet, and then learn how to search and explore the thousands of private messages that are already posted there (3,300 at last count).
The fees are $20 for 6 months, and $35 for 12 months.
Although I do not obligate myself to answer every message posted to that list, I do try to give priority to subscribers who are just starting on their road to financial freedom, and to veterans who are breaking new ground with a particular chain of evidence or new logic.
We run this list using the Socratic Method: if a student doesn’t ask questions, then the teacher doesn’t give any answers. So, SupremeLaw subscribers are expected to commit themselves to a careful study of relevant documents already published in the Supreme Law Library, and links to other supporting documents like specific statutes in the United States Code and the Internal Revenue Code, e.g. IRC 3402(n)!
They are different, you know! (See archives for details.)
A WEC form is one page which can be read and understood in less than 30 minutes of study. We encourage SupremeLaw subscribers to get sample copies from the Supreme Law Library, and to do their own editing. Such simple clerical tasks are, frankly, not a good use of my time.
The switch from federal citizenship to State Citizenship is almost as simple; but, understanding the pertinent details can make the transition a bit more difficult, because so much deliberate fraud is standing in the way of simple relevant truths.
If one was born in one of the 50 States, s/he is already a State Citizen, by birthright, or “jus soli” (law of soil, in Latin).
If one was naturalized, the publications of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service state, in plain English, that one thereby becomes a Citizen of the United States of America (believe it or not!)
If one honestly believes s/he is presently a federal citizen, my thorough research proves that all Americans enjoy freedom of choice, or the “Right of Election” as the courts have called it.
And, if one is neither a State Citizen nor a federal citizen, I always make a point of emphasizing that Congress has conferred upon State Courts the right to naturalize new Citizens. This State authority is discussed in my book “The Federal Zone” in the context of defining the many conflicting meanings of “State” that we find in federal laws.
Also, there is a specific statutory authority for our right to expatriate. This is the term which the Internal Revenue Code applies to the act of abandoning federal citizenship, in order to avoid the tax. Remember, the Internal Revenue Code is municipal law, and federal citizenship is a municipal franchise.
The rubber meets the road when courts must decide one’s legal “domicile.” State Citizenship is usually inferred from one’s domicile, and domicile usually means where one lives ‑‑ the place we call home.
Thus, if one is living in D.C., one had better be able to establish a domicile in one of the 50 States as well, or a court would correctly infer that such a D.C. inhabitant is necessarily a federal citizen, because D.C. never joined the Union and the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction there, by constitutional mandate (1:8:17).
A Congressman, for example, would have no trouble proving his State Citizenship, and his domicile in one of the 50 States, even though he lives near the Capitol building inside Washington, D.C.
Finally, if one is living and working full‑time in D.C., I would expect any honest court to rule that such an American is a federal citizen by virtue of his domicile, and not a State Citizen.
4. How likely is it for the employee to lose his job for going this route, possibly for going against filing the W‑4, which their employer may feel comfortable reporting to the IRS?
Answer: I am not one to claim any special knowledge of the future. What I can say, with confidence, is that any termination of a worker for exercising his fundamental Rights is, and has always been, an unlawful and wrongful termination.
Perhaps without intending to do so, I believe you have really asked a political question, with as many different answers as there are different workplaces in America, i.e. different political situations.
Whether a company chooses to terminate someone who endeavors to tell the truth about IRS fraud will depend a lot, I think, on how the worker approaches the problem from the outset.
If this is the very first time a company’s payroll officers have heard any of this, it makes a whole lot more sense to approach them in small, even baby steps. When we were babies, we crawled before we ever walked, and we walked before we ever ran the 100‑yard dash.
For example, a brief cover letter would be in order, stating:
Greetings. I came across this amazing document on the Internet, and paid the author for a certified and embossed copy. He shipped it via Priority U.S. Mail, with Delivery Confirmation. If you would, kindly give this document a careful study and try to find any errors. After reading it myself, I cannot find any errors whatsoever, after checking every single hyperlink on the Internet and at the nearest law library. Please keep this document in my permanent personnel file. Thank you.
See what I mean? The “tone” and demeanor here are mutual problem solving and exciting discovery, not confrontation.
Let’s be realistic, however. I once worked for a company that built a new office building, then leased the ground floor to the IRS. My company’s principals were obviously receiving financial benefit directly from the IRS, so I surely would have been expendable in that situation, with or without a valid Withholding Exemption Certificate.
Under normal circumstances, workers should expect their companies to “report” the WEC to the IRS, although this is not strictly necessary and generally not advisable. The company’s legal situation is a whole lot better if they do not report it to the IRS.
The crux comes if and when IRS advises the company to ignore that WEC. It is important for workers to anticipate this development, and to be ready with a correct and timely rebuttal.
For example, the worker needs to explain, and even reiterate several times ‑‑ until the principle is clear ‑‑ that IRS has no authority to interfere with a valid contract, any more than Barry Bonds the homerun king has a right to levy your paycheck, or mine.
The company needs to understand, as early as possible, that IRS is itself seriously to blame for failing to create an official IRS Form for the WEC, for creating liabilities in regulations when the corresponding statutes do not, and for doing everything possible, all these many years, to conceal the WEC from withholding agents all across this country. They even conceal it from federal judges.
If that isn’t fraud, then I have no idea what is!
So, as long as workers remain civil, polite and respectful of their company’s payroll officers and other company co‑workers, it is legally impossible for companies to terminate workers solely for executing a WEC and then to remain harmless for such an act of wrongful termination.
This is another way of saying that workers need to remain calm and, by all means, do everything possible to avoid arguments or shouting. Such misconduct might be perceived as trouble‑making or disturbing the peace, both of which are good grounds for termination.
5. Will their voting rights be lost permanently, and will what you teach them help them out of their current problems with the IRS?
Answer: Voting is a fundamental Right in America, as guaranteed by specific provisions in the U.S. Constitution. For example, the U.S. House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every 2 years by the People of the several States. See Article I, Section 2, Clause 1 (“1:2:1”).
No decision to switch from Form W‑4 to a WEC could or would ever be construed as a waiver of that fundamental Right. On this point about waivers, the U.S. Supreme Court has already set a very high standard for waivers of fundamental Rights in the case of Brady v. U.S.
The reality, however, is that all States presently require voters to execute voter registration forms which affirm, under penalty of perjury, that the signer is a federal citizen. These forms are obviously unconstitutional, for this one reason. The nationwide problem with these voter registration forms was confronted in Gilbertson’s OPENING BRIEF to the Eighth Circuit in St. Louis, Missouri:
Some State Citizens, including me, have opted to remove ourselves completely from the County Registrar’s roster of registered voters. I did this in order to make myself “squeaky clean” as far as any federal income tax liabilities were concerned. Remember, the Code of Federal Regulations at 26 CFR 1.1‑1 attempted to make federal citizens and resident aliens (green card holders) liable for taxes imposed by subtitle A.
Others have realized the overall fraud of federal citizenship, and have decided to remain registered to vote, because voting is such an important act of participation in American government, at all levels.
Still others have visited their Registrar of Voters, and negotiated minor edits to the voter registration form.
And, when I was on sabbatical in Hawaii during the Summer of 2000 A.D. believe it or not I did take careful note that the County Registrar of Voters there had authorized a subtle yet important change in the language on their forms, from “citizen” to “Citizen”.
So, with all the knowledge we have now accumulated and published in the Supreme Law Library, I don’t think the federal or State courts are going to get very far, if they should try to prove a federal income tax liability, or willful evasion of such a tax, from a signed voter registration form. In fact, I don’t think any prosecutor will reach first base with such a ridiculous and demonstrably erroneous approach to tax collection and enforcement.
Lastly, yes, one main thrust of the Supreme Law Library has been to empower readers with the knowledge necessary to help them understand what the IRS really is, and why it is we should be working together to dismantle this extortion racket, and abolish the federal income tax, with all deliberate speed.
Clearly, everyone’s situation is a little bit different from the next. Some people may have already become entangled with offers in compromise, payment plans, and other IRS bureaucratic red tape.
The main principles which we must keep foremost before us are that fraud vitiates even the most solemn promises, and there is no statute of limitations on fraud.
The sooner Americans come to realize that no longer filing is the surest path to financial freedom, and to the speedy demise of the IRS, the better we will all enjoy living in a thriving Republic and a most productive economy.
This is not only our birthright. It is also our destiny as the greatest nation that has ever existed on planet Earth. And, that destiny is now within our reach, if we will only extend a generous helping hand to each other. All your clients are now in an excellent position to do just that!
Now, here are my answers to your other 2 questions:
1. How long does a seminar session last, and would you be able, if need be, to do 2 days?
Answer: We begin by planning for a day‑long seminar with 4 sessions of 90 minutes each: 60 minutes for lecture, and 30 minutes for questions and answers. If questions arise during the lecture, we answer them and extend the lecture time. If the sponsors prefer, we hold questions until after each 60‑minute lecture. So, here’s a typical one‑day schedule:
Registration: 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. (required)
First Session: 9:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.
Second Session: 10:45 a.m. to 12:15 p.m.
Third Session: 1:30 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
Fourth Session: 3:15 p.m. to 4:45 p.m.
Fifth Session: 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. (optional)
Depending on the room rental contract, I am available to do a fifth session after dinner, particularly if the attendees are expecting to attend a 2‑day seminar. So, yes, we can accomplish at least twice as much with a 2‑day seminar, and I do prefer 2 days to 1 day.
2. Since you are a lawyer, have you been successful in helping other taxpayers out of jams with the IRS in court?
Answer: Yes and no. Please understand that I have been the target of severe economic retaliation for my published writings and extensive judicial activism. You might have trouble believing the sheer number of “clients” who have retained me for litigation, then later stiffed me by not paying for enormous amounts of professional work.
Of course, those “clients” did sign and file the pleadings I prepared for them, so there was no question about the quality of the work I had performed for them. In retrospect, these clients were “set‑up’s”.
We have enjoyed a number of important, even historic wins, but the sinful pride and professional jealousy we find almost everywhere in the so‑called “freedom movement” is one factor which prevents other activists from giving credit where credit is due. People v. Boxer is an excellent early example: Boxer fell totally silent, rendering our affidavits and verified pleadings the “truth of the case.”
I am fond of citing Knox v. U.S. et al., even though I was not Counsel on that case, because it was John Knox who first explained federal municipal law to me, at a time when he was also experiencing the very same kinds of retribution and obstruction which I later saw in my own path. I met him at a conference on tax and monetary reform, and the conference organizers thought he was a lunatic. He won that case! I confirmed same when I went out of my way to visit the Clerk’s office at the USDC in San Antonio, Texas.
In my own 2 cases, fighting enforcement of 2 IRS SUMMONSES, the first case was quietly dismissed by U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker in San Francisco, and the second just withered away after I demanded in open court that a pro tem federal judge order the U.S. Attorney to disclose the liability statutes. These two cases are written up in the Preface to “The Federal Zone,” eleventh edition.
The way our government mangles the truth is perhaps best illustrated in USA v. Gilbertson. The OPENING BRIEF I prepared for Gilbertson was so thorough, we heard via the grapevine that the Clerk of the Eighth Circuit surmised it would take that court 2 YEARS to decide all the issues that arose in that BRIEF.
After Gilbertson was incarcerated and the OPENING BRIEF was filed, Gilbertson flipped out and threw me off the case. Later, the Eighth Circuit issued an UNPUBLISHED summary ruling in which they held that the IRC is not vague! I believe, by doing so they were throwing in the towel and forcing the case upstairs, because the evidence of vagueness is extremely well documented and overwhelming. But, they would not even do me the courtesy of serving me with a copy of their UNPUBLISHED opinion; I had to trip over it one day, when I was browsing the Internet.
What is even more amazing is that, about 2 years later, that same Eighth Circuit ruled that UNPUBLISHED opinions are unconstitutional. Since then, I have been unable to find a benefactor willing and able to finance an application to the U.S. Supreme Court for a Writ of Mandamus, to compel the Eighth Circuit to rule on the People’s application for intervention of right. After Gilbertson threw me off that case, I did my best to salvage all that work by applying for intervention on behalf of the People of the USA, but the Eighth Circuit has consistently refused to rule on that application.
Since then, our knowledge and expertise have continued to expand. Now, when an interesting IRS case crosses my path, we intervene instead on behalf of the United States ex rel., using statutory authorities that are ready‑made for Private Attorneys General like me. We have also learned to leverage the Internet much more effectively. Some of the most recent interventions by the United States ex rel. Paul Andrew Mitchell can be viewed by sending a blank email message to the following email address:
The vacation autoresponder is programmed to respond with a list of URL’s to recent income tax cases in which the United States has intervened ex rel., using the Civil RICO remedies at 18 U.S.C. 1964. If you want to look at other examples of cases in which Citizens have represented the United States ex rel., just use Google to search for “U.S. ex rel.” and “United States ex rel.” The last time we performed this particular search, Google found something like 7,000+ cases.
Perhaps our crowning achievement, to date, is the United States’ intervention in the Microsoft antitrust case that I wrote. You may already know that this case was recently decided with a settlement that many regard as favorable to Microsoft. Our letter to Bill Gates is the best place to start, if you are interested in this line of research, namely, restoring the Article III federal courts.
We have shifted our focus in recent years to restoring the Article III constitutional courts. Why? Because IRS would have been gone a long time ago, if the federal courts had only done their jobs.
If I can provide answers to any more of your excellent questions, please don’t hesitate.
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Author, Damaged Party and Plaintiff/Appellant,
Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al.: