A Reader's Response

The gentleman about whom I posted below has responded by email. Actually, he emailed my co-blogger, as I don't have my email address on this site. (I had my email address up at one time, but I was getting too much spam as a result.) Here's his response:

Mr. Evans,

I tried to locate an email for Stuart Buck, but his bio will not load. As your email is listed at the top of his weblog, I would as that you please forward this email to him.

Whomever S. Buck is, his uneducated propaganda does a disservice to this country and to me. His 'OPINION' on the web log is entirely incorrect. I did not raise the 'interstate commerce' issue at all. That bullshit was brought up by the judge, not me, as nothing more than a distraction. Get my argument straight. My argument is also NOT that I am not obligated to pay income taxes, it is that ALMOST ALL AMERICANS are not obligated to pay income taxes because the law AS IT IS WRITTEN is specific on whom the tax is imposed. Only those that engage in the activities under federal jurisdiction and spelled out specifically in federal law are obligated to pay income taxes. Did you even READ the press release?

Second, I was not seeking a refund of income taxes paid for 2000 & 2001, that was more court & DOJ bullshit. I am seeking a refund two bonds that are being held unlawfully without assessment. They are NOT income taxes, as I do no OWE any income taxes for those years (nor any other years for that matter).

See ROSENMAN v. UNITED STATES, 323 U.S. 658 (1945) ttp://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol
=323&page=658

EXCERPT:
But the Government contends 'payment of such tax' was made on December 24, 1934, when petitioners transferred to the Collector a check for $120,000. This stopped the running of penalties and interest, says the Government, and therefore is to be treated as a payment by the parties. But on December 24, 1934, the taxpayer did not discharge what he deemed a liability nor pay one that was asserted. There was merely an interim arrangement to cover whatever contingencies the future might define. The tax obligation did not become defined until April 1938. And this is the practical construction which the Government has placed upon such arrangements. THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT CONSIDER SUCH ADVANCES OF ESTIMATED TAXES AS TAX PAYMENTS. They are, as it were, payments in escrow. They are set aside, as we have noted, in special suspense accounts established for depositing money received when no assessment is then outstanding against the taxpayer. The receipt by the Government of moneys under such an arrangement carries no more significance than would the giving of a surety bond. (EMPHASIS ADDED)


Third, the FACT that Congress cannot define the word income was stated quite clearly by the United States Supreme Court.

". it becomes essential to distinguish between what is and what is not 'income,' and to apply the distinction, as cases arise, according to truth and substance, without regard to form. Congress can not by any definition it may adopt conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its
power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised." Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S.189, 207 (1920) If you read through my web site you will see that THE IRS also sent me a letter confirming that Congress has NOT defined the word income.

Fourth, although I am disgusted with the dishonesty of the court, I am not frustrated. If you took the time to read all of the facts in this case, you would see that this is a HUGE propaganda loss for the government. AT NO TIME, did the DOJ argue that I owed anything. AT NO TIME, did the court rule that I owe any income taxes. And to enter a judgment in favor of the government, the court HAD TO FABRICATE LIES about the arguments that I DIDN'T MAKE, all the while ignoring the primary thrust of the case.

If Mr. Buck believes that I owe income taxes, I would challenge him to cite the laws and regulations to substantiate such a claim. Otherwise, stick to things you know something about.

BTW, thanks for linking to my web site, the more people that are exposed to the truth, the better.