[00:00.000 --> 00:05.120]  Well, here's a story Western media has all but ignored. Turkey shoots down a Syrian fighter
[00:05.120 --> 00:10.880]  jet saying it violated Turkish airspace. But is there more to the story? Yeah, there is.
[00:10.880 --> 00:15.800]  I'm Ben Swan with your Truth In Media moment brought to you in part by benswan.com. Turkey's
[00:15.800 --> 00:20.240]  Air Force has shot down a Syrian aircraft for violating Turkish airspace, an action that
[00:20.240 --> 00:25.700]  Syria denounced as unprecedented and unjustifiable. The incident happened on Sunday with a plane
[00:25.700 --> 00:32.040]  crashing near the Syrian town of Qasab on the Turkish border after it was targeted by F-16s.
[00:32.040 --> 00:36.280]  The Turkish prime minister praised the military for the action saying, quote, a Syrian plane
[00:36.280 --> 00:42.000]  violated our airspace. Our F-16s took off and hit this plane. Why? Because if you violate
[00:42.000 --> 00:47.680]  my airspace, our slap after this will be hard, end quote. So what is mainstream media missing
[00:47.680 --> 00:55.680]  about this story? Actually, some very important context. I'll tell you about it after this.
[00:55.680 --> 00:59.720]  The destruction of constitutional liberties and endless foreign wars, the voice of the
[00:59.720 --> 01:05.040]  people silenced while lawmakers simply enrich themselves and the political class. I'm Ben
[01:05.040 --> 01:11.480]  Swan. Is it about left versus right? No, the real fight is liberty versus tyranny. At benswan.com,
[01:11.480 --> 01:15.720]  we are breaking the left-right paradigm. We know that the American two-party system is
[01:15.720 --> 01:22.640]  broken and that to restore American liberty means to restore your rights as an individual.
[01:22.640 --> 01:26.800]  At benswan.com, we cover stories the national media won't touch. From the National Defense
[01:26.800 --> 01:33.560]  Authorization Act to nullification, militarization of police, and crony capitalism, we are the
[01:33.560 --> 01:42.040]  face of new media. Benswan.com, where humanity is greater than politics. The place where
[01:42.040 --> 01:46.200]  the Syrian fighter jet went down was near the town of Qasab, which is the border crossing
[01:46.200 --> 01:51.040]  between Syria and Turkey. Over the past few days, there has been a major offensive by
[01:51.040 --> 01:56.120]  al-Nusra Front, the Syrian wing of al-Qaeda in Iraq, and other Islamist groups such as
[01:56.120 --> 02:00.880]  Ansar al-Sham. Those groups have been fighting to take that border crossing for days. According
[02:00.880 --> 02:05.220]  to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, quote, fighters from the al-Qaeda affiliated
[02:05.220 --> 02:10.280]  al-Nusra Front and other groups have attacked a key northern Syrian crossing and forced
[02:10.280 --> 02:15.520]  out regime forces and national defense auxiliaries. He added that fierce fighting was still underway
[02:15.520 --> 02:19.880]  at the Qasab crossing, which was attacked on Friday. The Qasab region is one of the
[02:19.880 --> 02:24.720]  last crossings between Turkey and Syria that is still under Syrian control. The Syrians
[02:24.720 --> 02:29.120]  say that Turkey is supporting that action and helping al-Qaeda rebels cross from Turkey
[02:29.120 --> 02:33.880]  into Syria. What mainstream media once again ignores is that this action by Turkey, shooting
[02:33.880 --> 02:39.160]  down that Syrian fighter jet, likely wasn't to protect Turkish airspace. More than likely,
[02:39.160 --> 02:45.480]  it was to help assist al-Qaeda fighters who are trying to overthrow that border crossing.
[02:45.480 --> 02:48.680]  For stories that affect your liberty here in the US and around the world, you can check
[02:48.680 --> 02:55.680]  me out online, benswan.com, where humanity is greater than politics.
[03:18.680 --> 03:43.680]  Okay, the bad boys are back. Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens on this Thursday, September,
[03:43.680 --> 03:51.200]  March the 27th, quarter of the way through the year already, and we do have a very special
[03:51.200 --> 03:58.080]  guest with me today. Anyone who's been around the community for very long will know about
[03:58.080 --> 04:07.280]  David Merlin. David Merlin has got him a new book out. He is one of our most knowledgeable
[04:07.280 --> 04:16.280]  tax experts, and he's going to bring you up to speed on where he's at, what he's doing.
[04:16.280 --> 04:17.280]  David?
[04:17.280 --> 04:18.280]  Hello, Randy.
[04:18.280 --> 04:23.280]  Howdy, howdy. Glad to hear from you. It's been quite a while.
[04:23.280 --> 04:26.280]  Yeah, you have been very much.
[04:26.280 --> 04:29.280]  Nice to have you back.
[04:29.280 --> 04:30.280]  Go ahead.
[04:30.280 --> 04:31.280]  No, go ahead. I was just...
[04:31.280 --> 04:37.280]  It's great to be here. I really appreciate the opportunity to talk to you on the air,
[04:37.280 --> 04:42.280]  and I promise not to disappoint. I'm sure there's a lot of people out there that have
[04:42.280 --> 04:52.280]  been wanting to shake the rafters of the IRS's confidence, and I have a particular manual
[04:52.280 --> 05:00.280]  that I've resurrected. It's one that I wrote in 1994, and 20 years have gone by, and no
[05:00.280 --> 05:06.280]  one yet has really even caught on to this particular notion while I've been in and out
[05:06.280 --> 05:10.280]  of court with it, and the government runs from it every time, and it happens to be...
[05:10.280 --> 05:16.280]  I'll have to admit, when you first brought up tax code 83, I had never heard anybody
[05:16.280 --> 05:18.280]  talk about that.
[05:18.280 --> 05:23.280]  Look around. You won't find it in anybody's work.
[05:23.280 --> 05:27.280]  So I am interested in hearing the details.
[05:27.280 --> 05:35.280]  Okay. People can find a couple of quotes from Circuit Court Decisions about Section 83
[05:35.280 --> 05:44.280]  on the home page of takefromcesar.us. That's takefromcesar, C-A-E-S-A-R, takefromcesar.us,
[05:44.280 --> 05:50.280]  is a splash page I've got up, and what I want to tell you right off the mark, there's a
[05:50.280 --> 05:59.280]  manual for sale on that page when you order the manual. To get a 10% discount, you have
[05:59.280 --> 06:06.280]  to do this particular entry. You click on the order link. It'll take you to a shopping
[06:06.280 --> 06:13.280]  cart, and the first thing you do is you enter the coupon code RANDY in honor of our gracious
[06:13.280 --> 06:20.280]  host. Enter RANDY, and then click on update. Wait a couple seconds, and it'll reset the
[06:20.280 --> 06:26.280]  price. You'll see that you'll get a 10% discount because you know RANDY. That's how important
[06:26.280 --> 06:28.280]  he is to everybody.
[06:28.280 --> 06:33.280]  And then you fill in your personal information and order the book. We're going to have books
[06:33.280 --> 06:40.280]  in hand by the end of next week. The manual is done. We're ordering it from the printer.
[06:40.280 --> 06:47.280]  I'm going to get my ISBN number on it, and it's a 1994 manual with an epilogue of over
[06:47.280 --> 06:53.280]  30 pages that I just added to bring it up to speed 20 years after I began to write about
[06:53.280 --> 06:59.280]  Section 83 of the tax code. I'm still the only one in the known universes speaking about
[06:59.280 --> 07:06.280]  it, when in fact, as you'll see on the home page of takefromcesar.us, the Fifth Circuit
[07:06.280 --> 07:14.280]  in 1992 says, quote, Section 83A explains how property received in exchange for services
[07:14.280 --> 07:26.280]  is taxed, end quote. You'll see a quote from 2011 from the Second Circuit in the case of
[07:26.280 --> 07:31.280]  Goodman versus the United States, quote, at the heart of this case is Internal Revenue
[07:31.280 --> 07:37.280]  Code, Section 83, which governs the taxation of property transferred in connection with
[07:37.280 --> 07:45.280]  the performance of services, end quote. It's the owner's manual for compensation for services.
[07:45.280 --> 07:50.280]  It applies to all property transferred in connection with the performance of services
[07:50.280 --> 07:55.280]  actually performed by a corporation, a sole proprietor, a self-employed individual, or
[07:55.280 --> 08:04.280]  an employee. That's Tax Court, 1979, Cone versus Commissioner, 79, USTC 443, comma,
[08:04.280 --> 08:10.280]  446, if you must know. Right there in the middle of page 446, it says the legislative
[08:10.280 --> 08:16.280]  history makes clear that Congress intended it to extend to more than just restricted
[08:16.280 --> 08:23.280]  stock plans for employees, that the regulations are consistent with statute, and it's universally
[08:23.280 --> 08:29.280]  applicable to all compensation for services. Nobody is teaching it. Why would you bother
[08:29.280 --> 08:34.280]  teaching it? I hope you would ask, because there's a lot of people out there that simply
[08:34.280 --> 08:41.280]  don't know what they're talking about. I happen to not be one of those people. Why teach it?
[08:41.280 --> 08:49.280]  It doesn't say that the whole paycheck is gross income. It says the excess over the
[08:49.280 --> 08:57.280]  amount paid is gross income, and it defines the amount paid as the value of any property
[08:57.280 --> 09:04.280]  that you paid for your compensation. The government can't even go on record with its own interpretation
[09:04.280 --> 09:12.280]  of Section 83, and this includes five trips to the US Supreme Court by the October term
[09:12.280 --> 09:19.280]  of 1998. Both were denied. There were two cases that made it past the clerks to the
[09:19.280 --> 09:27.280]  justices before being denied. One was purely on procedural grounds. It was before I really
[09:27.280 --> 09:31.280] ... When you reach the Supreme Court, I don't know how many people out there are familiar
[09:31.280 --> 09:38.280]  with the fact that when you reach the Supreme Court, you're dealing with an entirely brand
[09:38.280 --> 09:45.280]  new set of rules that have nothing to do with anything they do on the district court level
[09:45.280 --> 09:52.280]  or appellate court level or in tax court. Here, I was really very much a beginner. I
[09:52.280 --> 10:00.280]  had begun litigation in 1994 on tax issues that I discovered over the period of six years
[10:00.280 --> 10:05.280]  where I analyzed the differences between the tax code and the IRS. I found a whole bunch
[10:05.280 --> 10:16.280]  of differences in relation to IRS's fundamental authority to assess and impose taxes. I found
[10:16.280 --> 10:22.280]  a bunch of key regulations that changed the shape of a perfect tax code and turned it
[10:22.280 --> 10:28.280]  into the IRS. I briefed the heaviest arguments, the ones that do the most damage, the ones
[10:28.280 --> 10:32.280]  that do the heavy lifting, and took them all the way to the Supreme Court five times. Section
[10:32.280 --> 10:40.280]  83 was one of those arguments. In the 90s, I made this much progress. I got tax court,
[10:40.280 --> 10:48.280]  which was, I think, the Fourth Circuit also articulated the way that they exclude labor
[10:48.280 --> 10:56.280]  from consideration as a cost. They said that under Section 83, you don't get acknowledgement
[10:56.280 --> 11:03.280]  of your labor or the value of your labor as a cost because you didn't buy your labor before
[11:03.280 --> 11:11.280]  you sold it. My argument was always, I have a regulation under Section 83 that defines
[11:11.280 --> 11:19.280]  the amount paid as the value of any money or property paid. Where is your authority
[11:19.280 --> 11:28.280]  to exclude labor from the term any property? It penalized you for asking. Any had an invisible
[11:28.280 --> 11:34.280]  or arbitrary exclusion. We exclude your labor because you didn't buy your labor before you
[11:34.280 --> 11:40.280]  sold it. Where is your authority to do that? The regulation says any money or property.
[11:40.280 --> 11:49.280]  They never come up with a statute or other provision that provides they can exclude the
[11:49.280 --> 11:57.280]  value of labor for that reason. Five trips to the Supreme Court. I'm the biggest loser
[11:57.280 --> 12:03.280]  in the United States. That was the sole reason that they excluded labor. It was a policy.
[12:03.280 --> 12:13.280]  In 2003, I discovered four Supreme Court cases. The government won in the Supreme Court now
[12:13.280 --> 12:22.280]  where the opposing party, the party that opposed the government argued the term says any property.
[12:22.280 --> 12:28.280]  That doesn't mean all of it. The one in particular, US versus Monsanto. Monsanto was a heroin
[12:28.280 --> 12:34.280]  manufacturer and distributor. He got busted. Under the drug civil forfeiture statute, they
[12:34.280 --> 12:40.280]  seized any property. He said, hey, come on. You got to leave me enough to pay for attorneys
[12:40.280 --> 12:45.280]  out of what you took from my bank account. Come on. I said, no. The statute says we can
[12:45.280 --> 12:50.280]  seize any property. He took it all the way to the US Supreme Court. The Supreme Court,
[12:50.280 --> 12:55.280]  gee, we're very sorry. This happens to all the heroin manufacturers, Mr. Monsanto.
[12:55.280 --> 13:05.280]  But unless you can show me in the law, show us the court where in the law it excludes
[13:05.280 --> 13:12.280]  attorney's fees from any property, the government's well within its rights to seize any property.
[13:12.280 --> 13:18.280]  I got four US Supreme Court cases where the government argues exactly the way I argued
[13:18.280 --> 13:23.280]  five times to the Supreme Court under section 83 saying, where's your authority to exclude
[13:23.280 --> 13:30.280]  from any property some property? Here in four Supreme Court cases, the Supreme Court says
[13:30.280 --> 13:36.280]  there's no exception in the law. Any means all of it. It's all inclusive. I warmed up
[13:36.280 --> 13:41.280]  the brief on this. I enhanced it with a bunch of quotes and excerpts from these four Supreme
[13:41.280 --> 13:50.280]  Court cases and made it look real nice. This was October of 2005 because in the spring
[13:50.280 --> 13:58.280]  of 2005, the IRS, after many dormant years concerning my file, sent me a notice. Notice
[13:58.280 --> 14:04.280]  of change to your account. We're penalizing you. And there's something about this that
[14:04.280 --> 14:12.280]  it's funny, but it hurts. They sent me a notice in like, let's say early May of 05 and said,
[14:12.280 --> 14:19.280]  notice of change to your account. We've penalized you for promoting abusive tax shelters. We've
[14:19.280 --> 14:25.280]  penalized you. Listen closely. We've penalized you under statute that allows us to penalize
[14:25.280 --> 14:33.280]  you either a thousand dollars or 20% of what we think you would have made off of your venture.
[14:33.280 --> 14:38.280]  Notice of change to your account. Amount of penalty, one penny. Credit to your account,
[14:38.280 --> 14:44.280]  one penny. Amount you owe, zero. Please don't send a payment. If you want to challenge this
[14:44.280 --> 14:49.280]  penalty, you can take us to federal district court within 60 days. Now, before we go on
[14:49.280 --> 14:55.280]  to, there's no incentive to sue over a penalty of zero. Well, let's look at this first. We
[14:55.280 --> 15:00.280]  could have penalized you a thousand dollars, but we chose rather to penalize you 20% of
[15:00.280 --> 15:04.280]  what we think you would have made, one penny. You think I'm going to make a nickel off my
[15:04.280 --> 15:09.280]  efforts. What are you trying to tell me here? So, you know, it's a gross insult, but at
[15:09.280 --> 15:14.280]  the same time, it's a funny peculiarity. I don't know. But anyway, they took away the
[15:14.280 --> 15:20.280]  incentive for me to sue by penalizing me zero, which I don't think they have the right to
[15:20.280 --> 15:27.280]  do in the first place. But I know and I recognized on its face, they never do something without
[15:27.280 --> 15:32.280]  a reason. A month and a half later, they did the same thing over again. Another new penalty
[15:32.280 --> 15:43.280]  of zero. And I cogitated and came to the conclusion that what they wanted to do later was go to
[15:43.280 --> 15:48.280]  a grand jury and say, you know, we penalized him twice and he didn't even complain. And
[15:48.280 --> 15:53.280]  I didn't want to remain on record as somebody that failed to complain. So I warmed up the
[15:53.280 --> 15:59.280]  brief of section 83, touched it up really nice. It was one of several arguments briefed
[15:59.280 --> 16:07.280]  in a 58 page memorandum. I put a 33 page racketeering and extortion criminal complaint on top of
[16:07.280 --> 16:13.280]  it and put a cover letter with it with the two one penny penalties attached as an exhibit
[16:13.280 --> 16:19.280]  to the cover letter. And exhibit A to the memorandum and criminal complaint was a protective
[16:19.280 --> 16:26.280]  order that the judge in Austin, Texas, Lee Yeekel, issued against a client of mine asking
[16:26.280 --> 16:36.280]  questions about the law and filed a 180 page filing with Congress. Is that a break coming
[16:36.280 --> 16:43.280]  up? That's a break coming up. This is Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens here with our special
[16:43.280 --> 16:52.280]  guest, David Merlin, and we will be opening the phones in the second hour. So we'll probably
[16:52.280 --> 16:57.280]  won't, we've got phones open, but we won't be taking any calls quite yet. Hang on. We'll
[16:57.280 --> 17:04.280]  be right back. Through advances in technology, our lives have greatly improved, except in
[17:04.280 --> 17:09.280]  the area of nutrition. People feed their pets better than they feed themselves. And it's
[17:09.280 --> 17:15.280]  time we changed all that. Our primary defense against aging and disease in this toxic environment
[17:15.280 --> 17:21.280]  is good nutrition. In a world where natural foods have been irradiated, adulterated, and
[17:21.280 --> 17:27.280]  mutilated, Young Jevity can provide the nutrients you need. Logos Radio Network gets many requests
[17:27.280 --> 17:33.280]  to endorse all sorts of products, most of which we reject. We have come to trust Young
[17:33.280 --> 17:39.280]  Jevity so much, we became a marketing distributor along with Alex Jones, Ben Fuchs, and many
[17:39.280 --> 17:46.280]  others. When you order from logosradionetwork.com, your health will improve as you help support
[17:46.280 --> 17:51.280]  quality radio. As you realize the benefits of Young Jevity, you may want to join us.
[17:51.280 --> 17:57.280]  As a distributor, you can experience improved health, help your friends and family, and
[17:57.280 --> 18:03.280]  increase your income. Order now. Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls,
[18:03.280 --> 18:09.280]  letters, or even lawsuits? Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mears proven method.
[18:09.280 --> 18:13.280]  Michael Mears has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors, and now you
[18:13.280 --> 18:19.280]  can win two. You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win in court using
[18:19.280 --> 18:24.280]  federal civil rights statutes, what to do when contacted by phones, mail, or court summons,
[18:24.280 --> 18:28.280]  how to answer letters and phone calls, how to get debt collectors out of your credit
[18:28.280 --> 18:34.280]  report, how to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away. The
[18:34.280 --> 18:39.280]  Michael Mears proven method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors. Personal
[18:39.280 --> 18:44.280]  consultation is available as well. For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com
[18:44.280 --> 18:50.280]  and click on the blue Michael Mears banner, or email michaelmears at yahoo.com. That's
[18:50.280 --> 18:59.280]  ruleoflawradio.com, or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com to learn how to stop debt collectors
[18:59.280 --> 19:09.280]  now.
[19:29.280 --> 19:45.280]  Okay, we are back on this Thursday, the 27th of March, 2014. And we are live with our
[19:45.280 --> 19:52.280]  special guest, David Merton, talking about how to beat the tax guy. Okay, David, you
[19:52.280 --> 19:58.280]  were talking about one of our great friends here in Austin, Mr. Yackel. We're very familiar
[19:58.280 --> 20:02.280]  with him here. Okay, go ahead.
[20:02.280 --> 20:10.280]  Yes. Again, I didn't want to be on record as somebody that didn't complain about a
[20:10.280 --> 20:18.280]  zero penalty, so I filed that 180-page composite with 80 members of Congress. It cost me almost
[20:18.280 --> 20:31.280]  $6,000, and didn't hear from them again. But the protective order, I'm glad you brought
[20:31.280 --> 20:38.280]  that up during the break there. The protective order was in response to something else in
[20:38.280 --> 20:45.280]  the spring of 2005, where a gentleman from Texas called me up and he said, I just heard
[20:45.280 --> 20:49.280]  your name. I never heard of you before. I heard you do good work. I might be indicted
[20:49.280 --> 20:54.280]  for failure to file tax returns. Got any ideas? And the first thing I told him was, how would
[20:54.280 --> 20:57.280]  you like an exhibit that proves you sued the United States for proof of the tax that applies
[20:57.280 --> 21:01.280]  to Americans, and they can't even debate you on three or four statutes? He says, let's
[21:01.280 --> 21:08.280]  go for it. So I wrote up a Rule 27 civil lawsuit of seven or eight pages maybe, an action
[21:08.280 --> 21:14.280]  to perpetuate testimony. It's not for damages. It's not for declaratory judgment. It was
[21:14.280 --> 21:19.280]  for discovery rights. That's what an action of that sort gets you.
[21:19.280 --> 21:34.280]  In Texas, it's Rule 202. What do you call it? I hate it when I lose words. Go ahead. It's
[21:34.280 --> 21:43.280]  the action to perpetuate testimony. Civil procedure code. I'm going to shut up now.
[21:43.280 --> 21:50.280]  Federal Rule Civil Procedure 27, action to perpetuate testimony. There's not a controversy
[21:50.280 --> 21:55.280]  yet, but I don't need to involve the court, Your Honor, and so I'd really like to have
[21:55.280 --> 22:04.280]  rights to subpoena, request for admissions, interrogatories, depositions, so forth. And
[22:04.280 --> 22:11.280]  he filed behind that complaint a briefing of three tax issues from my treatise of 1994,
[22:11.280 --> 22:18.280]  which was the result of six years' analysis, which I don't know of anybody else who's
[22:18.280 --> 22:26.280]  done that in depth of research on the tax code in the IRS. And all I want, if I'm mistaken
[22:26.280 --> 22:32.280]  with my three conclusions about these several statutes, I want answers to the questions
[22:32.280 --> 22:36.280]  for review under each of those issues. I have issues A, B, and C. I have three, four, and
[22:36.280 --> 22:41.280]  five questions, a total of 12, and those are the answers I want if the conclusions are
[22:41.280 --> 22:49.280]  mistaken. And instead of disproving my conclusions with a counter memorandum, U.S. Attorney,
[22:49.280 --> 22:55.280]  Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephen Bass asks the court for a protective order against the
[22:55.280 --> 23:01.480]  12 questions, and Judge Lee Yeagle issues the protective order. So that was exhibit
[23:01.480 --> 23:05.280]  number one when I filed with 80 members of Congress was, if going gets tough, they'll
[23:05.280 --> 23:11.280]  just take Congress out of the equation and make statutes off limits. So I filed this
[23:11.280 --> 23:17.280]  with 80 members of Congress, and one of the briefed issues was Section 83. Then in 2007,
[23:17.280 --> 23:25.280]  I was asked by a gentleman here in Seattle who was facing an indictment imminently for
[23:25.280 --> 23:32.280]  a tax evasion to accompany him and his attorney to the Department of Justice and sit in on
[23:32.280 --> 23:36.280]  a meeting where I was going to listen to the prosecutor threaten him for a couple hours
[23:36.280 --> 23:41.280]  with the indictment of his wife if he didn't plead guilty by the end of the week. And during
[23:41.280 --> 23:48.280]  that meeting, I listened intently after I produced my ID and everything, so they knew
[23:48.280 --> 23:53.280]  who I was. They knew long before that, but here he is in person, everybody, David Merlin.
[23:53.280 --> 24:00.280]  So I listened for two hours and caught on. I'm a pretty sharp guy, and I figured out
[24:00.280 --> 24:07.280]  exactly what the grand jury doesn't know to ask the prosecution when the prosecution
[24:07.280 --> 24:20.280]  is seeking an indictment. And the posture of the DOJ when they go before the grand jury
[24:20.280 --> 24:25.280]  is a very specific one, and I know certain things about the tax code that place me on
[24:25.280 --> 24:33.280]  the offense. Well, when that attorney in the trial, I went to U.S. District Court in Seattle
[24:33.280 --> 24:42.280]  a couple of days for testimony, and he gets 20-year IRS officer Sue Besson on the stand.
[24:42.280 --> 24:49.280]  She's an IRS officer, meaning as opposed to an agent, she, in fact, can recommend
[24:49.280 --> 24:58.280]  prosecutions. And he asks her how long you've been an IRS, an investigating accountant,
[24:58.280 --> 25:03.280]  whatever, 20 years. In your 20 years, how many investigations have you done? She says
[25:03.280 --> 25:09.280]  about 500. And he says, how does Section 83 of the tax code operate in your conclusion
[25:09.280 --> 25:18.280]  that Mr. Goodbauer owes taxes on his compensation? And she says, I am unfamiliar with Section
[25:18.280 --> 25:30.280]  83. Here's an officer, 20 years experience, 14 years after I started hitting the IRS with
[25:30.280 --> 25:37.280]  Section 83, stating on the record under oath, she's unfamiliar with it rather than get into
[25:37.280 --> 25:43.280]  it. She could not have been telling the truth. She had to be lying. You aren't on the job
[25:43.280 --> 25:48.280]  for 20 years, and you don't know anything about the statute that explains whether or
[25:48.280 --> 25:57.280]  not somebody owes a tax on their compensation. So going back to how I introduced the issue
[25:57.280 --> 26:05.280]  to your audience, it's fundamental. It explains how to tax your pay. And here's an IRS officer
[26:05.280 --> 26:11.280]  of 20 years saying she doesn't know anything about it rather than get into the argument
[26:11.280 --> 26:19.280]  despite the fact I've been hammering with it since 1993. So I'm not here to tell you
[26:19.280 --> 26:24.280]  you're going to get your money back. I'm not here to tell you file a certain return,
[26:24.280 --> 26:30.280]  take a deduction. Pete Henderson did that, however, incompetently under Section 1341.
[26:30.280 --> 26:36.280]  He didn't have any case law that said Section 1341 explains how property received in exchange
[26:36.280 --> 26:44.280]  for services is taxed like I do about Section 83. And so he was off in more ways than one.
[26:44.280 --> 26:49.280]  First and most importantly, he was negligent. I've seen the trick of getting people's money
[26:49.280 --> 26:57.280]  back from the IRS backfire five times since 1992. You think back, I'm done with my treatise
[26:57.280 --> 27:04.280]  in 1994. If I were in fact part of the anti-tax movement, which I am not, I'd be one of the
[27:04.280 --> 27:16.280]  grandfathers, one of the oldest people with the oldest curriculum available. Now I'm not
[27:16.280 --> 27:20.280]  here to tell you you're going to get your money back. I'm not here to tell you you can
[27:20.280 --> 27:25.280]  win anything with this argument. But when the government has to run from the statute
[27:25.280 --> 27:31.280]  that explains whether or not the government is correct when they say you owe an income
[27:31.280 --> 27:37.280]  tax on your compensation for services, can you hear that you've gotten further from an
[27:37.280 --> 27:45.280]  indictment than you were had you no knowledge of Section 83? If the government can't, and
[27:45.280 --> 27:49.280]  I'm getting to the end of the manual here. There's a trick in the end of the book, Randy.
[27:49.280 --> 27:55.280]  I swear you're going to, it'll keep you up at night. If they can't deny that they're
[27:55.280 --> 28:02.280]  depriving you of Section 83 to steal your money, and it's over your state threshold
[28:02.280 --> 28:11.280]  for the value of grand larceny like $1,500, how are they not felons, each and all of them?
[28:11.280 --> 28:17.280]  How have they not conspired against your rights? That's 10 years in federal prison, 18 USC
[28:17.280 --> 28:27.280]  241. If two or more persons conspire to threaten, injure or oppress somebody in the exercise
[28:27.280 --> 28:33.280]  of a privilege immunity or constitutional right, 10 years. That's a felony. Do you know
[28:33.280 --> 28:39.280]  what you can do to a felon? You can arrest them and take them to the authorities. Case
[28:39.280 --> 28:46.280]  law across the United States says so. I did a search on LexisNexis on a circuit by circuit
[28:46.280 --> 28:56.280]  district court by district court basis and found a whole trench full of cases about citizens'
[28:56.280 --> 29:01.280]  rest on the federal level. There's a million more on the state level, and I put them in
[29:01.280 --> 29:05.280]  the back of the manual along with a bunch of federal statutes I think they're violating
[29:05.280 --> 29:11.280]  when they tax the fair market value of compensation because I think Section 83 acknowledges all
[29:11.280 --> 29:16.280]  properties at cost, including my labor. If they're committing felonies, I don't want
[29:16.280 --> 29:21.280]  to just say you're a felon. I want to tell them what laws they're in violation of when
[29:21.280 --> 29:29.280]  they take my money, when they send me a threatening communication, when they indict me for a tax
[29:29.280 --> 29:36.280]  crime and I don't owe any money. How are they not in violation of some of these statutes?
[29:36.280 --> 29:46.280]  Is that a break? That's a break. Okay, hang on. We will be back on the other side. Our
[29:46.280 --> 29:53.280]  call in number is 512-646-1984. We may start taking calls a little earlier if we get some
[29:53.280 --> 29:58.280]  good questions on point. So if you have a question for David, give us a call and we'll
[29:58.280 --> 30:05.280]  be right back.
[30:28.280 --> 30:34.280]  So protect your rights. Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself. Privacy,
[30:34.280 --> 30:39.280]  it's worth hanging on to. This message is brought to you by StartPage.com, the private
[30:39.280 --> 30:46.280]  search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo and Bing. Start over with StartPage.
[30:46.280 --> 30:51.280]  People who care about animal welfare are crowing over Burger King's promise to phase out breeding
[30:51.280 --> 30:57.280]  cages and crates for its chickens and pigs by 2017. It's the most sweeping pledge yet
[30:57.280 --> 31:02.280]  in the multi-billion dollar fast food industry. For years, animal rights groups have called
[31:02.280 --> 31:08.280]  for changes in the way livestock are treated, like confining animals in tiny pens with concrete
[31:08.280 --> 31:14.280]  floors covered in manure. With mad cow disease plus undercover investigations into these inhumane
[31:14.280 --> 31:19.280]  conditions, the public wants a change. Isn't it great that consumer pressure can have an
[31:19.280 --> 31:25.280]  impact even on the king of fast food? I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht for StartPage.com,
[31:25.280 --> 31:31.280]  the world's most private search engine.
[31:31.280 --> 31:37.280]  This is Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper that fell on the afternoon of September 11.
[31:37.280 --> 31:42.280]  The government says that fire brought it down. However, 1,500 architects and engineers concluded
[31:42.280 --> 31:46.280]  it was a controlled demolition. Over 6,000 of my fellow service members have given their
[31:46.280 --> 31:51.280]  lives. Thousands of my fellow first responders are dying. I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I'm
[31:51.280 --> 31:55.280]  a structural engineer. I'm a New York City correctional. I'm an Air Force pilot. I'm
[31:55.280 --> 32:01.280]  the father who lost his son. We're Americans, and we deserve the truth. Go to RememberBuilding7.org
[32:01.280 --> 32:02.280]  today.
[32:02.280 --> 32:07.280]  Rule of Law Radio is proud to offer the Rule of Law traffic seminar. In today's America,
[32:07.280 --> 32:10.280]  we live in an us-against-them society, and if we, the people, are ever going to have
[32:10.280 --> 32:14.280]  a free society, then we're going to have to stand and defend our own rights. Among those
[32:14.280 --> 32:17.280]  rights are the right to travel freely from place to place, the right to act in our own
[32:17.280 --> 32:21.280]  private capacity, and most importantly, the right to due process of law. Traffic courts
[32:21.280 --> 32:25.280]  afford us the least expensive opportunity to learn how to enforce and preserve our rights
[32:25.280 --> 32:29.280]  through due process. Former Sheriff's Deputy Eddie Craig, in conjunction with Rule of Law
[32:29.280 --> 32:32.280]  Radio, has put together the most comprehensive teaching tool available that will help you
[32:32.280 --> 32:36.280]  understand what due process is and how to hold courts to the rule of law. You can get
[32:36.280 --> 32:40.280]  your own copy of this invaluable material by going to RuleOfLawRadio.com and ordering
[32:40.280 --> 32:44.280]  your copy today. By ordering now, you'll receive a copy of Eddie's book, The Texas
[32:44.280 --> 32:48.280]  Transportation Code, The Law Versus the Lie, video and audio of the original 2009 seminar,
[32:48.280 --> 32:52.280]  hundreds of research documents, and other useful resource material. Learn how to fight
[32:52.280 --> 32:56.280]  for your rights with the help of this material from RuleOfLawRadio.com. Order your copy
[32:56.280 --> 33:15.280]  today and together we can have the free society we all want and deserve.
[33:15.280 --> 33:27.280]  Mr. Officer, you're taking the line ahead. Won't you follow the law of the land? I don't
[33:27.280 --> 33:53.280]  know what you're talking about, Mr. Officer. Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Debra Stevens,
[33:53.280 --> 33:58.280]  here with our special guest, David Merland, and we're talking about Section 83, the Income
[33:58.280 --> 34:08.280]  Tax Code. And I did have a question. I'm reading excess over the amount paid and I have no
[34:08.280 --> 34:15.280]  idea what that is. That's fine. I want to mark where we were when the break came up
[34:15.280 --> 34:20.280]  and that was if I'm going to call somebody a felon, I want to be able to cite exactly
[34:20.280 --> 34:24.280]  which laws I claim they're in violation of. We'll get right back to that after we answer
[34:24.280 --> 34:33.280]  your question. Section 83 is a lengthy conjunctive sentence and paragraph that can be difficult
[34:33.280 --> 34:37.280]  to get through until you've read it a few times. When you've read it a few times, a
[34:37.280 --> 34:43.280]  few things will stand out as germane and other things will fall away. It's called, first
[34:43.280 --> 34:53.280]  off, it's not called anything advanced or nebulous or strange. It's called property
[34:53.280 --> 34:58.280]  transferred in connection with the performance of services. You tell me how an entire quote
[34:58.280 --> 35:05.280]  unquote movement missed Section 83. The only way you miss Section 83 is if you don't bother
[35:05.280 --> 35:12.280]  to read the code. I started at page one, I started reading the tax code, and when you
[35:12.280 --> 35:18.280]  do that, you come to Section 83. If you don't read the tax code, you don't know about Section
[35:18.280 --> 35:23.280]  83, and I'm the only one in the known universe who's teaching it. What does that say about
[35:23.280 --> 35:28.280]  the rest of the people that are willing to experiment with your marriage, your mortgage,
[35:28.280 --> 35:36.280]  your cars, your bank account, your reputation, years of your life in prison when here am
[35:36.280 --> 35:42.280]  I? I read the code, I came to Section 83, and when I found it, I said, if this applies
[35:42.280 --> 35:49.280]  to me, it's not being enforced, and everything came to a halt. I went right to the law library
[35:49.280 --> 35:55.280]  at the University of Washington, and I looked up about 80 cases under Section 83 in the
[35:55.280 --> 36:01.280]  U.S. Code annotated and photocopied all those cases, went through it, and I found a host
[36:01.280 --> 36:07.280]  of appellate cases and a couple of tax court cases that say Section 83 applies to all compensation
[36:07.280 --> 36:12.280]  for services. The reason my jaw dropped open was because it didn't say the whole paycheck's
[36:12.280 --> 36:20.280]  gross income, like the IRS says, like Section 61A says. 61A is the definition of gross income.
[36:20.280 --> 36:26.280]  It says, except as otherwise provided, gross income means all income from whatever source
[36:26.280 --> 36:31.280]  derived, including but not limited to the following items. They got a list of, I don't
[36:31.280 --> 36:37.280]  know, 15 or 17 items there, fees, tips, commissions, salaries, alimony, gains derived from using
[36:37.280 --> 36:42.280]  property, stock, dividends, a whole bunch of other stuff, but it starts by saying, except
[36:42.280 --> 36:47.280]  as otherwise provided. That means if I find it as otherwise provided, I found an exception.
[36:47.280 --> 36:51.280]  When I look at Section 83, and it doesn't say the whole paycheck's gross income, it
[36:51.280 --> 36:57.280]  says, if in connection with the performance of services properties transferred, the excess
[36:57.280 --> 37:03.280]  for the value of that property over the amount, if any, paid for such property shall be included
[37:03.280 --> 37:09.280]  in gross income. The excess over the amount paid. You can't deduct labor. You have to
[37:09.280 --> 37:14.280]  deduct a value from dollars. It's math. It's not as if you got a bunch of pieces of property
[37:14.280 --> 37:19.280]  sitting on a table in front of you. When you exclude something from gross income, it's
[37:19.280 --> 37:26.280]  math. It says the value of any money or property paid. The first thing to understand about
[37:26.280 --> 37:33.280]  Section 83 is that they're talking about two different items of property. One is the compensation
[37:33.280 --> 37:38.280]  property transferred in connection with the performance of services. The other property
[37:38.280 --> 37:45.280]  is the services themselves. You have the case of Butcher's Union Company versus Crescent
[37:45.280 --> 37:58.280]  City, and the slaughterhouse cases from the 1800s after like 1880. These are cases where
[37:58.280 --> 38:03.280]  it was prior to the invention of refrigeration, and the government said there are so many
[38:03.280 --> 38:12.280]  people getting sick off of bad beef that we ought to regulate the slaughterhouse industry.
[38:12.280 --> 38:15.280]  They were sued a couple of times all the way to the Supreme Court saying this violates
[38:15.280 --> 38:21.280]  our rights to free labor. In the process of telling the litigants that the government
[38:21.280 --> 38:28.280]  has the right to regulate when people's health is at stake here, in the course of those proceedings,
[38:28.280 --> 38:35.280]  the Supreme Court said labor being the foundation of all other property, it is therefore the
[38:35.280 --> 38:42.280]  most sacred and inviolable property. It's the most sacred and inviolable property of
[38:42.280 --> 38:51.280]  man. It's the first picture. If you didn't have labor, you wouldn't even have loin cloths
[38:51.280 --> 38:59.280]  or spears. You'd have rocks to kill grasshoppers and eat them raw. Labor is the basis of the
[38:59.280 --> 39:06.280]  foundation of all other property. Without labor, you have no other property, not even
[39:06.280 --> 39:16.280]  a loin cloth. That's how fundamental the Supreme Court said labor is. It's the most
[39:16.280 --> 39:23.280]  sacred property. Not only is it property, it is the most sacred property of man, the
[39:23.280 --> 39:30.280]  most sacred and inviolable. There are two different sorts of property Section 83 speaks
[39:30.280 --> 39:36.280]  of. One is the property that you earn with your labor. The other is your labor itself.
[39:36.280 --> 39:44.280]  It defines the amount paid as the value of any money or property paid for property 83
[39:44.280 --> 39:51.280]  applies to. That's the value of labor paid for the compensation. When you translate,
[39:51.280 --> 39:56.280]  the value of property is determined through the terms of an arms length transaction. Set
[39:56.280 --> 40:01.280]  of a transaction negotiated between two unrelated parties acting in their own best interest
[40:01.280 --> 40:06.280]  under no compulsion to buy or sell, all relevant facts disclosed. Black's Law Dictionary,
[40:06.280 --> 40:13.280]  sixth edition, page 109, U.S. Supreme Court, 1973, U.S. versus Cartwright, and Tax Court,
[40:13.280 --> 40:19.280]  Robinson, Pledger, a couple of other decisions. The value of my labor is what my employer,
[40:19.280 --> 40:24.280]  my customer is willing to pay me for it. It's going to include my pension, my sick pay,
[40:24.280 --> 40:32.280]  vacation pay, my medical benefits, did I say pension already? It's going to include everything
[40:32.280 --> 40:40.280]  my employer deems to be includeable in what I contract for. Now, if somebody came to me
[40:40.280 --> 40:45.280]  and said, you know, Dave, great to have you here at the company. You sold more vacuum
[40:45.280 --> 40:49.280]  cleaners than anybody else in the country in the first quarter of the year. Here's a
[40:49.280 --> 40:56.280]  $4,000 bonus. I didn't contract for that, did I? That's extra contractual. It's above
[40:56.280 --> 41:02.280]  and beyond the value of my labor. I think I now have gross income. What you think is
[41:02.280 --> 41:06.280]  your business, nothing you'll ever hear me say is intended as legal advice. Anything
[41:06.280 --> 41:09.280]  that sounds like that, you just consider it something somebody else might do on a planet
[41:09.280 --> 41:14.280]  far, far away where the law matters. It doesn't matter here. I prove it on a daily basis.
[41:14.280 --> 41:21.280]  Now what you think of Section 83 is your business. It's your affair. I'm not telling you you'll
[41:21.280 --> 41:27.280]  get anywhere with this. When I say citizens arrest, this is not about arresting them.
[41:27.280 --> 41:37.280]  It's about having the right to. So nothing in this, in what I have to say is to urge
[41:37.280 --> 41:44.280]  you to act in any way, shape or form. Now back to Section 83, knowing that labor is property
[41:44.280 --> 41:52.280]  and knowing that the Section 83 is something they can't deny, they're depriving you of
[41:52.280 --> 41:56.280]  it. It's tax your pay because it says only the excess is included in gross income. And
[41:56.280 --> 42:05.280]  they say, oh no, everything's gross income. Well, that's felonious. First and easiest,
[42:05.280 --> 42:12.280]  18 USC 241. If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten or intimidate
[42:12.280 --> 42:17.280]  any person in any state, territory, Commonwealth possession or district in the free exercise
[42:17.280 --> 42:21.280]  or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the constitution or laws of the
[42:21.280 --> 42:27.280]  United States, they shall be fined under this title or in prison, not more than 10 years
[42:27.280 --> 42:36.280]  or both. That's a felony. And under all the case law about felons at large, citizens have
[42:36.280 --> 42:40.280]  the right to arrest them. So I'm going to say that's the least of it right here. Did
[42:40.280 --> 42:49.280]  you deprive me of my rights? 18 USC 242. Are you extorting money from me? 18 USC 872. All
[42:49.280 --> 42:58.280]  of these are 18 USC unless stated otherwise. 876, mailing threatening communications. 880,
[42:58.280 --> 43:02.280]  receiving proceeds of extortion. 1201, kidnapping. I've been indicted. They put me in prison
[43:02.280 --> 43:10.280]  on a tax crime. 1341, mail fraud. 1343, fraud by wire radio or television. Hey friends,
[43:10.280 --> 43:17.280]  this is Como TV down here. I'm in front of the mailbox in front of the post office down
[43:17.280 --> 43:23.280]  here. We got a line of people waiting to put their tax returns into this receptacle for
[43:23.280 --> 43:29.280]  mail here. It's April 14th. Better get those returns filed. How's that not? Fraud by wire
[43:29.280 --> 43:40.280]  radio or television if you didn't own anything. 1621, perjury. Commercially interrupted.
[43:40.280 --> 43:48.280]  For sure. This is Randy Kelton. Deborah Stevens here with our special guest David Merlin,
[43:48.280 --> 43:54.280]  our culprit number 512-646-1984. Give us a call. We'll start taking calls here pretty
[43:54.280 --> 44:06.280]  soon. We'll be right back. Hello. My name is Stuart Smith from naturespureorganics.com
[44:06.280 --> 44:10.280]  and I would like to invite you to come by our store at 1904 Guadalupe Street, Suite
[44:10.280 --> 44:15.280]  D here in Austin, Texas, buying brave new books and Chase Bank to see all our fantastic
[44:15.280 --> 44:19.280]  health and wellness products with your very own eyes. Have a look at our Miracle Healing
[44:19.280 --> 44:23.280]  Clay that started our adventure in alternative medicine. Take a peek at some of our other
[44:23.280 --> 44:28.280]  wonderful products including our Australian Eme oil, lotion candles, olive oil, soaps,
[44:28.280 --> 44:37.280]  and colloidal silver and gold. Call 512-264-4043 or find us online at naturespureorganics.com.
[44:37.280 --> 44:45.280]  That's 512-264-4043, naturespureorganics.com. Don't forget to like us on Facebook for information
[44:45.280 --> 45:04.280]  on our events and our products, naturespureorganics.com. Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[45:04.280 --> 45:10.280]  Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary, the affordable, easy to understand, poor
[45:10.280 --> 45:17.280]  CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step by step. If you have a lawyer, know what
[45:17.280 --> 45:22.280]  your lawyer should be doing. If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for
[45:22.280 --> 45:28.280]  yourself. Thousands have won with our step by step course and now you can too. Jurisdictionary
[45:28.280 --> 45:34.280]  was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case winning experience. Even if
[45:34.280 --> 45:40.280]  you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the principles
[45:40.280 --> 45:46.280]  and practices that control our American courts. You'll receive our audio classroom, video
[45:46.280 --> 45:53.280]  seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics, and much more. Please visit
[45:53.280 --> 46:08.280]  RuleOfLawRadio.com and click on the banner or call toll free, 866-LAW-EZ.
[46:08.280 --> 46:23.280]  If you did not have any problems, where are you going to look for one? If you could not
[46:23.280 --> 46:38.280]  find one, would your purpose be done? Such a sentiment, a soldier, a warrior of love, scuffling
[46:38.280 --> 47:02.280]  in the spotlight. Why do the spots fly? Why do the spots fly? Why do the spots fly?
[47:02.280 --> 47:16.280]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens here with our special guest, David Merlin.
[47:16.280 --> 47:21.280]  When we went out, we were talking, you were going through a number of statutes, some of
[47:21.280 --> 47:25.280]  our favorites here, the criminal statutes. Will you continue?
[47:25.280 --> 47:30.280]  Yeah, if you're going to call somebody a felon, you better have a law that makes it a felony
[47:30.280 --> 47:37.280]  to do what they did. I was up to 18 USC 1621 perjury. They have an oath to hold the Constitution
[47:37.280 --> 47:43.280]  when they don't. Not more than five years, I believe that's a felony right there. Section
[47:43.280 --> 47:49.280]  1951, interference with commerce by threats or violence. Well, they raided my bank account.
[47:49.280 --> 47:57.280]  1957, engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity.
[47:57.280 --> 48:04.280]  1961, racketeering. 1962, prohibited activities, that's racketeering or contributing to somebody
[48:04.280 --> 48:11.280]  else's racketeering. And 2235, obtaining search warrants maliciously. That's only one year,
[48:11.280 --> 48:20.280]  so that's a misdemeanor. 2381, treason, could be the death penalty. 2383, rebellion or insurrection.
[48:20.280 --> 48:28.280]  2384, seditious conspiracies. And 3282, offense is not capital, except as otherwise expressly
[48:28.280 --> 48:33.280]  provided by law. No person shall be prosecuted, try to punish for any offense, not capital,
[48:33.280 --> 48:39.280]  unless the indictment is found or the information is instituted within five years next after
[48:39.280 --> 48:45.280]  such offense shall have been committed. They're a felon at large for five years. Then the
[48:45.280 --> 48:50.280]  statute of limitations is run up and citizens arrest wouldn't apply then, would it?
[48:50.280 --> 48:57.280]  So with regards to IRS agents, this statute has a nice twist to it. Tax code section,
[48:57.280 --> 49:04.280]  that's 26 USD, 7214. Unlawful acts of revenue officers or agents, any officer or employee
[49:04.280 --> 49:08.280]  of the United States acting in connection with any revenue law of the United States,
[49:08.280 --> 49:13.280]  one, who is guilty of any extortion or willful oppression under cover law, two, who knowingly
[49:13.280 --> 49:19.280]  demands other or greater sums than are authorized by law, three, who with intent to defeat
[49:19.280 --> 49:26.280]  the application of any provision of this title, seven, who makes or signs any fraudulent entry
[49:26.280 --> 49:31.280]  in any book or makes or signs any fraudulent certificate return or statement, shall be
[49:31.280 --> 49:39.280]  dismissed from office or discharged from employment. And they haven't gotten to the point where
[49:39.280 --> 49:46.280]  they say, if convicted, okay, even without a conviction, they shall be dismissed from
[49:46.280 --> 49:52.280]  office or discharged from employment. So what I would do is sue for a declaratory judgment
[49:52.280 --> 49:59.280]  under the Administrative Procedures Act for a declaratory judgment that this IRS agent
[49:59.280 --> 50:05.280]  shall be, I want a court order that instructs the Department of Treasury and Commissioner
[50:05.280 --> 50:12.280]  of IRS to discharge this agent from employment. And upon conviction thereof, shall be fined
[50:12.280 --> 50:15.280]  or imprisoned not more than five years. So...
[50:15.280 --> 50:19.280]  Okay. Doesn't that go to court warrant?
[50:19.280 --> 50:25.280]  Oh, yes. But it's the nature of court warrant, but the Administrative Procedures Act is so
[50:25.280 --> 50:34.280]  much better understood. I'd probably go there first to find my remedy, 5 USC 76. But the
[50:34.280 --> 50:39.280]  main thing is they can be discharged from, shall be discharged from employment, whether
[50:39.280 --> 50:45.280]  or not they're convicted. And so just to make them uncomfortable, institute a lawsuit against
[50:45.280 --> 50:54.280]  them, try to get them fired. Anyway, right after I touch on a, here's a citizens arrest
[50:54.280 --> 51:00.280]  statute, Washington State, 9A, 16, 020, use of force when lawful. The attempt or offer
[51:00.280 --> 51:05.280]  to use force upon or toward the person of another is not unlawful in the following cases.
[51:05.280 --> 51:09.280]  Number two, whenever necessarily used by a person arresting one who has committed a felony
[51:09.280 --> 51:14.280]  and delivering him or her to a public officer, covenant to receive them into custody. There's
[51:14.280 --> 51:23.280]  not a lot of, I don't have a lot of questions about that one, let's say. Now, here's, I'm
[51:23.280 --> 51:29.280]  going to quote to you from a citizens arrest case, and then we'll get to a couple of questions,
[51:29.280 --> 51:36.280]  which I promised Randy we'd do during the break there. This is a state case out of Washington.
[51:36.280 --> 51:43.280]  The rule seems to be similar when an arrest is a so-called citizens arrest, made by one
[51:43.280 --> 51:47.280]  not a law enforcement officer. It requires reasonable cause to believe the arrested party
[51:47.280 --> 51:53.280]  guilty of a felony before the rest will support a search and seizure of evidence to the crime.
[51:53.280 --> 51:59.280]  Neat, I can arrest them and I can seize evidence. Here's one from Arizona, a federal case,
[51:59.280 --> 52:05.280]  Shelburne versus City of Scottsdale, 2010. In Arizona, statutes that are in derogation
[52:05.280 --> 52:09.280]  of the common law are strictly construed, see Foundation Development Court versus Lowman's,
[52:09.280 --> 52:14.280]  1990. In the case of misdemeanors such as shoplifting, there is no common law privilege
[52:14.280 --> 52:20.280]  of arrest. This Arizona statute is in derogation of the common law because it allows private
[52:20.280 --> 52:25.280]  individuals to detain persons suspected of shoplifting, just a misdemeanor. Therefore,
[52:25.280 --> 52:32.280]  it must be strictly construed to only permit detentions of persons suspected of shoplifting.
[52:32.280 --> 52:38.280]  And here we get into, and this is right in the manual, all the federal cases I found
[52:38.280 --> 52:43.280]  that did the most, the heaviest lifting in support of the right to arrest a felon at
[52:43.280 --> 52:52.280]  large are listed here in the manual. On Section 83, you'll find it, TakeFromCaesar.us. TakeFromCaesar.us,
[52:52.280 --> 53:00.280]  when you click on the order link, type in the coupon code, Randy, and then click on
[53:00.280 --> 53:06.280]  update, and you'll see that it will amend the price down 10%. You save 10% because you
[53:06.280 --> 53:12.280]  know important people like Randy Kelton. TakeFromCaesar.us, order the manual there. It's
[53:12.280 --> 53:17.280]  about Section 83. Now back to citizen's arrest. I'm going to pick one real juicy here. It's
[53:17.280 --> 53:22.280]  off the 9th Circuit. I'm on the 9th Circuit. I'm looking for Jack versus Ray. It's a
[53:22.280 --> 53:30.280]  1966 case. Under all of the facts, it is established to my satisfaction that the arrest was lawful
[53:30.280 --> 53:35.280]  and the search incident to it. This made the evidence admissible. Reasonable cause to believe
[53:35.280 --> 53:40.280]  that felony has been committed and the arrested person committed it are sufficient to legalize
[53:40.280 --> 53:46.280]  the arrest, even if made by private citizens. And then he cites a whole bunch of circuit
[53:46.280 --> 53:54.280]  cases. I'm in the clear. So if a felony is committed, you have every right to arrest
[53:54.280 --> 54:01.280]  the felon. This is not about going out and arresting it. The law doesn't count in America,
[54:01.280 --> 54:08.280]  but you can come as close to it as proving to the IRS agent standing in front of you
[54:08.280 --> 54:13.280]  that you have every bit of authority it requires under the law to put them in cuffs as they
[54:13.280 --> 54:19.280]  speak. And that's as far as I'm going to go on that. Go ahead, Randy.
[54:19.280 --> 54:25.280]  One of the things that we talk about on the air here and what I do all the time is if
[54:25.280 --> 54:32.280]  I can get a public official to exert or purport to exert an authority he doesn't expressly
[54:32.280 --> 54:39.280]  have, or to fail to perform a duty he's required to perform, there's nothing I'd like better
[54:39.280 --> 54:44.280]  than taking out my cell phone, dial 9-1-1 right in front of him and ask the police to
[54:44.280 --> 54:49.280]  come out and arrest him. Well, you have a bad attitude.
[54:49.280 --> 54:55.280]  Yeah. Well, I fixed that. The way I handle the attitude is when the officer comes out
[54:55.280 --> 55:03.280]  to arrest me, to answer my 9-1-1 call, that what they want to accuse you of is being
[55:03.280 --> 55:12.280]  agitated. So when the officer starts to do his little double talk, oh, well, you see
[55:12.280 --> 55:18.280]  it's like this. I tell him, come on, come on, come on. Take your chicken suit off.
[55:18.280 --> 55:23.280]  A friend of mine, Kid Magnuson's brother, is the city attorney for City of Mansfield
[55:23.280 --> 55:29.280]  and one of his police officers told him that I was creating a disturbance and I was agitated
[55:29.280 --> 55:37.280]  when I'm trying to get him to arrest the local JP. And I said, Ken, ask Craig to ask the
[55:37.280 --> 55:43.280]  officer if I got agitated before I asked him to take his chicken suit off or after I asked
[55:43.280 --> 55:47.280]  him to take his chicken suit off.
[55:47.280 --> 55:52.280]  Or ask him to prove that you weren't in fact the victim of a felony.
[55:52.280 --> 55:58.280]  First things first, agitated for nothing is one thing.
[55:58.280 --> 56:08.280]  We have a special felony in Texas. And, you know, if you assault a police officer in the
[56:08.280 --> 56:14.280]  performance of his duty while you are prominently displaying a dead weapon, that's first degree
[56:14.280 --> 56:22.280]  felony. And when I did a search on it, I found thousands of hits on it.
[56:22.280 --> 56:32.280]  But that's 2202B2B. 2202B2A comes before that one.
[56:32.280 --> 56:37.280]  Says that if a person commits simple assault while displaying a deadly weapon, that's second
[56:37.280 --> 56:47.280]  degree felony unless the person is a public official acting under color of official authority,
[56:47.280 --> 56:51.280]  in which case it is a felony of the first degree.
[56:51.280 --> 56:57.280]  I did a search on Westlaw and Lexus and got zero hits.
[56:57.280 --> 57:04.280]  Never, ever has a prosecutor in Texas prosecute a public official under that statute.
[57:04.280 --> 57:10.280]  But I'm working on it. I file it all the time.
[57:10.280 --> 57:16.280]  Sure. And I have to tell you that I never got any respect until I started filing citizens
[57:16.280 --> 57:21.280]  criminal complaint. We got a court rule here in Washington that tells you how to do it.
[57:21.280 --> 57:25.280]  And when I hit on that, I was sitting over on the other side of the courtroom wondering all
[57:25.280 --> 57:30.280]  these times that how, you know, here I am playing it straight. I write and I write.
[57:30.280 --> 57:34.280]  I draft memorandums and I do all my case law research and court rule research.
[57:34.280 --> 57:40.280]  And I look over there and the prosecutor can put somebody in jail with two pages of paper.
[57:40.280 --> 57:43.280]  How do they do that? I started studying the prosecutor's job.
[57:43.280 --> 57:48.280]  And then I found that court rule on citizens criminal complaints in limited jurisdiction
[57:48.280 --> 57:53.280]  courts. I thought I started studying the criminal code.
[57:53.280 --> 57:55.280]  I said this is where the government lives all this time.
[57:55.280 --> 57:59.280]  I was wondering how they do this. It's because they're committing crime.
[57:59.280 --> 58:03.280]  And if you've got a public servant doesn't look like they can do what they're doing.
[58:03.280 --> 58:06.280]  You go to the criminal code first.
[58:06.280 --> 58:11.280]  Yes. And we have my my prosecuting attorney gave me the key.
[58:11.280 --> 58:14.280]  I went in one day and he's all upset.
[58:14.280 --> 58:20.280]  And he said, those darn grand jurors, you never know what they're going to do.
[58:20.280 --> 58:26.280]  And I thought, bingo. Did I ever find your weakness?
[58:26.280 --> 58:31.280]  Hang on. Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens here with our special guest, Dave Merlin.
[58:31.280 --> 58:33.280]  We're going to start taking calls when we come back.
[58:33.280 --> 58:37.280]  Our call in number 512-646-1984.
[58:37.280 --> 58:39.280]  Give us a call.
[58:39.280 --> 58:43.280]  We're going into our second hour and we'll be taking calls for the rest of the show.
[58:43.280 --> 58:50.280]  We'll be right back.
[58:50.280 --> 58:53.280]  The Bible remains the most popular book in the world.
[58:53.280 --> 58:58.280]  Yet countless readers are frustrated because they struggle to understand it.
[58:58.280 --> 59:01.280]  Some new translations try to help by simplifying the text,
[59:01.280 --> 59:06.280]  but in the process can compromise the profound meaning of the scripture.
[59:06.280 --> 59:09.280]  Enter the recovery version.
[59:09.280 --> 59:13.280]  First, this new translation is extremely faithful and accurate,
[59:13.280 --> 59:18.280]  but the real story is the more than 9,000 explanatory footnotes.
[59:18.280 --> 59:22.280]  Difficult and profound passages are opened up in a marvelous way,
[59:22.280 --> 59:28.280]  providing an entrance into the riches of the Word beyond which you've ever experienced before.
[59:28.280 --> 59:33.280]  Bibles for America would like to give you a free recovery version simply for the asking.
[59:33.280 --> 59:43.280]  This comprehensive yet compact study Bible is yours just by calling us toll free at 1-888-551-0102
[59:43.280 --> 59:47.280]  or by ordering online at freestudybible.com.
[59:47.280 --> 59:52.280]  That's freestudybible.com.
[59:52.280 --> 01:00:01.280]  You're listening to the Logos Radio Network at logosradionetwork.com.
[01:00:01.280 --> 01:00:05.280]  You're listening to the Liberty Beat, your daily source for Liberty news
[01:00:05.280 --> 01:00:09.280]  and activist updates online at thelibertybeat.com.
[01:00:09.280 --> 01:00:11.280]  This is Justin Armand.
[01:00:11.280 --> 01:00:13.280]  And this is Jessica Armand.
[01:00:13.280 --> 01:00:17.280]  Here with your Liberty Beat for March 27, 2014.
[01:00:17.280 --> 01:00:20.280]  Gold opened today at $1,296.
[01:00:20.280 --> 01:00:23.280]  Silver at $19.67.
[01:00:23.280 --> 01:00:26.280]  And Bitcoin is trading at $546.
[01:00:26.280 --> 01:00:29.280]  Support for the Liberty Beat comes from GrowYourOwnGroceries.org,
[01:00:29.280 --> 01:00:33.280]  now offering an eight-week course where you can learn to treat the most common family ailments
[01:00:33.280 --> 01:00:36.280]  with simple medicines you can grow or find easily.
[01:00:36.280 --> 01:00:39.280]  Learn more at GrowYourOwnGroceries.org.
[01:00:39.280 --> 01:00:44.280]  And from BitmainTech, creators of the newly released Ant Miner S2 Bitcoin Miner,
[01:00:44.280 --> 01:00:47.280]  one tera hash and only 1,000 watts.
[01:00:47.280 --> 01:00:50.280]  Order yours online today at bitmaintech.com.
[01:00:50.280 --> 01:00:56.280]  And from Affordable Sound, CD and DVD duplication along with posters and promotional material,
[01:00:56.280 --> 01:01:02.280]  online at affordablesound.com or give them a call at 512-459-5253.
[01:01:02.280 --> 01:01:04.280]  And now the news.
[01:01:04.280 --> 01:01:10.280]  On Wednesday, an Oklahoma judge ruled that the state's execution protocol was unconstitutional
[01:01:10.280 --> 01:01:16.280]  for denying inmates access to information regarding the types of drugs used in lethal injections.
[01:01:16.280 --> 01:01:20.280]  District Court Judge Patricia Parrish declared that the state had violated
[01:01:20.280 --> 01:01:25.280]  constitutionally protected due process rights by refusing to provide the company
[01:01:25.280 --> 01:01:30.280]  who produced the drug, the specific chemicals involved or the amount used in the injection.
[01:01:30.280 --> 01:01:36.280]  Lawyers for the inmates involved in the case argue that the drug cocktails remain secret and untested.
[01:01:36.280 --> 01:01:41.280]  They believe chances of suffering exist, thereby violating the constitution's protection
[01:01:41.280 --> 01:01:45.280]  against cruel and unusual punishment.
[01:01:45.280 --> 01:01:50.280]  The interim government of Ukraine has agreed to raise the price of gas by more than 50%
[01:01:50.280 --> 01:01:54.280]  as a part of a new deal with the International Monetary Fund.
[01:01:54.280 --> 01:01:59.280]  Beginning May 1st, prices will more than double for domestic consumers within Ukraine,
[01:01:59.280 --> 01:02:03.280]  as the state energy company, Naftogaz, works out a fixed timetable.
[01:02:03.280 --> 01:02:12.280]  The Ukrainian Prime Minister is expected to announce an aid package for around $15 to $20 billion.
[01:02:12.280 --> 01:02:16.280]  Three different city and state politicians were arrested throughout the nation on Wednesday.
[01:02:16.280 --> 01:02:21.280]  California State Senator Leland Yee was arrested by FBI agents for suspicion
[01:02:21.280 --> 01:02:24.280]  of taking bribes from a San Francisco area gang.
[01:02:24.280 --> 01:02:30.280]  In New York, Assemblyman Bill Scarborough was questioned and his office is searched by the FBI.
[01:02:30.280 --> 01:02:35.280]  Reports claim the investigation is focused on Scarborough's use of travel vouchers.
[01:02:35.280 --> 01:02:37.280]  Scarborough maintains his innocence.
[01:02:37.280 --> 01:02:41.280]  Charlotte, North Carolina Mayor Patrick Cannon was arrested and charged with
[01:02:41.280 --> 01:02:46.280]  theft and bribery concerning programs, receiving federal funds, honest services,
[01:02:46.280 --> 01:02:50.280]  wire fraud and extortion under color of official right.
[01:02:50.280 --> 01:02:55.280]  A federal complaint was filed accusing Cannon of collecting bribes.
[01:02:55.280 --> 01:02:57.280]  You've been listening to the Liberty Beat.
[01:02:57.280 --> 01:03:21.280]  Remember, freeing your mind is freeing our world.
[01:03:27.280 --> 01:03:29.280]  Shank for our world.
[01:03:29.280 --> 01:03:31.280]  Shank for our world.
[01:03:31.280 --> 01:03:33.280]  Shank for our world.
[01:03:33.280 --> 01:03:38.280]  Shank for justice and for all that's good.
[01:03:38.280 --> 01:03:40.280]  Shank for brotherhood.
[01:03:40.280 --> 01:03:42.280]  Shank for our world.
[01:03:42.280 --> 01:03:44.280]  Shank for our world.
[01:03:44.280 --> 01:03:46.280]  Shant for our world.
[01:03:46.280 --> 01:03:48.280]  All of them when we chant, when we see,
[01:03:48.280 --> 01:03:52.280]  say that all man was created equally.
[01:03:52.280 --> 01:03:55.280]  Chant from Babylon and do it daily.
[01:03:55.280 --> 01:04:07.920]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Debra Stevens here with our special guest, David Merlin.
[01:04:07.920 --> 01:04:14.200]  And David Merlin, when I first started doing radio shows, I was hearing about David Merlin.
[01:04:14.200 --> 01:04:18.880]  So he's been around quite a while. And he's one of the few around that do the same thing
[01:04:18.880 --> 01:04:24.640]  that we talk about. He actually takes him to task. And if we're going to beat this system,
[01:04:24.640 --> 01:04:31.600]  if we're going to change this system, we have to remember that we are not the sovereigns.
[01:04:31.600 --> 01:04:38.420]  We are the masters and they are the servants and they are not to forget it. Julius, tell
[01:04:38.420 --> 01:04:43.960]  me your own point because I've got my finger on my mic taser in case you're not.
[01:04:43.960 --> 01:04:55.080]  Well, I'm on this point, taking it to task to, I've found fraudulent orders of the court
[01:04:55.080 --> 01:05:01.320]  in the municipal court filed for my impeding traffic case. I made it to the third court
[01:05:01.320 --> 01:05:08.600]  of appeals, Randy. I have made it to the third court of appeals.
[01:05:08.600 --> 01:05:15.680]  And while I was in that process, some dummy clerk acting as a judge issued a warrant for
[01:05:15.680 --> 01:05:23.360]  my arrest. While I was in the appeals process and didn't know because I filed a motion for
[01:05:23.360 --> 01:05:28.960]  a new trial in the county court of law. And I just filed it in the municipal court just
[01:05:28.960 --> 01:05:34.640]  to let them know that I'm continuing the appeal. And I guess the clerk didn't know that and
[01:05:34.640 --> 01:05:40.040]  fraudulently signed an order of the court and a warrant for my arrest. Put out the warrant.
[01:05:40.040 --> 01:05:43.920]  I filed an affidavit of fraudulent warrant, fraudulent claim.
[01:05:43.920 --> 01:05:53.160]  Okay. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. 3249, penal code, securing and executing a document
[01:05:53.160 --> 01:06:04.920]  by deception. 3703, aggravated perjury. 3711, tampering with the government document. Did
[01:06:04.920 --> 01:06:10.480]  you file all of those? No, I'm going to in 32.48. How about that
[01:06:10.480 --> 01:06:15.840]  one? That's simulating a legal process. I'm sorry. That's the one that securing and
[01:06:15.840 --> 01:06:22.320]  executing it. Oh no, no, no, no. That's not reread that simulating legal process. That's
[01:06:22.320 --> 01:06:31.740]  really written for the Republic of Texas. And it specifically goes to simulating a order
[01:06:31.740 --> 01:06:39.280]  or a subpoena from a non-existent court, from a court that's not recognized. You probably
[01:06:39.280 --> 01:06:41.320]  won't get to that one. Okay.
[01:06:41.320 --> 01:06:46.640]  We got enough. I got enough. Now listen to this. I found,
[01:06:46.640 --> 01:06:52.960]  I dug through the court file records and I found a motion for a new trial that was denied
[01:06:52.960 --> 01:06:59.520]  by a judge a year and a half, two years ago. And that's where they took the judge's signature
[01:06:59.520 --> 01:07:08.520]  and they robo-signed that signature by superimposing it on new orders of the court for two different
[01:07:08.520 --> 01:07:14.320]  orders of the court denying two motions. And one was one I submitted on March the 3rd,
[01:07:14.320 --> 01:07:23.240]  2014. And then they re-denied my June 20th, 2012 motion with the same judge's signature.
[01:07:23.240 --> 01:07:27.960]  So the same judge's signature is now on three documents. And I have-
[01:07:27.960 --> 01:07:32.560]  Wait a minute. Did you superimpose the signatures on top of each other?
[01:07:32.560 --> 01:07:35.520]  No, I didn't. They didn't.
[01:07:35.520 --> 01:07:41.800]  Well, no, do that to make sure they're the same. Now, if I'm going to do that, I'm going
[01:07:41.800 --> 01:07:45.720]  to bring it up in Photoshop and stretch it a little bit, move it around a little bit
[01:07:45.720 --> 01:07:51.200]  so it won't match the other one. Do these, you're saying that they use the same signature?
[01:07:51.200 --> 01:07:52.200]  Exactly.
[01:07:52.200 --> 01:07:55.680]  Or the same judge signed the document?
[01:07:55.680 --> 01:08:03.160]  No, the same judge that signed the document one time, that same signature is now on two
[01:08:03.160 --> 01:08:09.280]  other orders of the court. So that exact same signature, and I've looked at it, it is identical.
[01:08:09.280 --> 01:08:11.280]  At what country was this then?
[01:08:11.280 --> 01:08:22.040]  This was in the United States, I believe, of America.
[01:08:22.040 --> 01:08:23.040]  This was in Texganistan.
[01:08:23.040 --> 01:08:33.240]  Yes, Texganistan. These yokels down there, they just don't care. And get this, they denied,
[01:08:33.240 --> 01:08:39.520]  this is how dumb they are. They denied a motion that I submitted on June 20th, 2012, and they
[01:08:39.520 --> 01:08:47.200]  denied it twice. They denied it first. The first order of the court was June 27, 2012.
[01:08:47.200 --> 01:08:53.200]  They denied it again on March the 7th, 2014, only this time they have a different processing
[01:08:53.200 --> 01:09:00.760]  clerk than the first time they denied it. But it's got the same judge's signature on
[01:09:00.760 --> 01:09:07.560]  both documents. So now I have two denials of a motion I submitted. And it's like, you
[01:09:07.560 --> 01:09:08.560]  know-
[01:09:08.560 --> 01:09:13.760]  Wait, hold on. You didn't submit this motion twice, did you? This is the one submission,
[01:09:13.760 --> 01:09:14.760]  two denials?
[01:09:14.760 --> 01:09:20.880]  Right. I submitted it once, and they had two denials now in the court record. So they're
[01:09:20.880 --> 01:09:24.960]  corrupting my file record, because if you go looking in my file record, well, when did
[01:09:24.960 --> 01:09:31.160]  they deny that? Oh, they denied it in 2014. But I thought they denied it in 2012. Oh,
[01:09:31.160 --> 01:09:33.840]  yeah, look, they denied it in 2012.
[01:09:33.840 --> 01:09:40.640]  Well, they probably have a new clerk, and they're practicing forging documents.
[01:09:40.640 --> 01:09:48.920]  Yeah. Oh, to them, it looks like it's systematic. It's beyond me. It's comical.
[01:09:48.920 --> 01:09:54.480]  You need to- criminal charges is the only way to do it. You know, right now, I'm up
[01:09:54.480 --> 01:10:01.880]  here in Dallas, Fort Worth area, and I went to a lot of trouble to ensure that the JPs
[01:10:01.880 --> 01:10:08.120]  know that when I come in there and ask them to do something, I really don't want them
[01:10:08.120 --> 01:10:15.480]  to do what I'm asking them to do, because I'm setting them up. My favorite one was a
[01:10:15.480 --> 01:10:23.600]  Judge Hayes in Mansfield, Texas. David, a friend of mine, had a hearing in front of
[01:10:23.600 --> 01:10:29.920]  me. These were eviction hearings, and I had one behind him. And while David's hearing
[01:10:29.920 --> 01:10:35.840]  was going on, I went and stood up by the bar, and the judge finally saw me standing there
[01:10:35.840 --> 01:10:39.840]  and said, can I help you? I said, yes, Your Honor, my name is Randall Kelton, and I have
[01:10:39.840 --> 01:10:44.640]  a hearing issue. Well, Mr. Kelton, what's wrong with your hearing? Oh, well, Judge,
[01:10:44.640 --> 01:10:49.720]  I was down in Mexico the other day, and my teeth worked on, and I had a drink too much,
[01:10:49.720 --> 01:10:55.240]  said cheap tequila, and I lost my hearing aid. The judge said, well, Mr. Kelton, why
[01:10:55.240 --> 01:10:58.480]  are you telling me this? I said, well, Your Honor, do you have accommodation for the hearing
[01:10:58.480 --> 01:11:04.160]  impaired? No, Mr. Kelton, I do not. We have sound system in here. We turn it up. No, I
[01:11:04.160 --> 01:11:09.280]  will not. Well, then, will you speak up? And he did. He told the bailiff, I didn't sound
[01:11:09.280 --> 01:11:14.440]  shut up, and he just threw me out of the courtroom. Well, I had my hearing, and when I left, I
[01:11:14.440 --> 01:11:18.960]  told the bailiff, you come with me. We get out in the hall, and he said, well, what could
[01:11:18.960 --> 01:11:25.000]  I do for you? I want you to arrest the judge. Well, why would I arrest the judge? For failure
[01:11:25.000 --> 01:11:30.480]  to provide accommodation for the hearing impaired, failed to perform a duty he was required to
[01:11:30.480 --> 01:11:39.480]  perform in the process, denied me in a right, in violation of 39.03 Petal Code. Well, he
[01:11:39.480 --> 01:11:44.880]  said, well, Mr. Kelton, why didn't you tell them about the Americans with Disabilities
[01:11:44.880 --> 01:11:50.960]  Act? Oh, if I had told them that, they might have turned the sound system up. And they
[01:11:50.960 --> 01:11:57.080]  kind of stepped back and said, well, you set him up. Yeah. Matter of fact, I did. I gave
[01:11:57.080 --> 01:12:09.520]  him opportunity, and he was very accommodating. Shirk. So they need to think, you know, we
[01:12:09.520 --> 01:12:16.760]  talk about David, we talk about this on the show all the time, that my ultimate outcome
[01:12:16.760 --> 01:12:23.360]  is to put every judge in the country in a position such that when they step up behind
[01:12:23.360 --> 01:12:29.600]  the bench and look out across the bar at the gallery, we want them wondering which one,
[01:12:29.600 --> 01:12:34.160]  which one of those jacklegs sitting out there in the gallery are waiting for me to render
[01:12:34.160 --> 01:12:42.400]  a ruling so he can run down to the grand jury and try to get me indicted. Exactly. We don't
[01:12:42.400 --> 01:12:49.760]  have to get any judges indicted. We just want them to consider the prospect. And the way
[01:12:49.760 --> 01:12:58.840]  we do this is, you know, when I go into the court, as far as I'm concerned, I'm nobody.
[01:12:58.840 --> 01:13:02.440]  And then I tell people on the show, you know, I walk in the courthouse, I'm the baddest
[01:13:02.440 --> 01:13:06.840]  motor scooter in the building. There's only one reason I'm the baddest motor scooter in
[01:13:06.840 --> 01:13:14.440]  the building. Because I'm nobody. I'm not a judge, I'm not a prosecutor, a lawyer, a
[01:13:14.440 --> 01:13:25.520]  bailiff, a clerk. I'm not a public official. I'm not a public servant. I am the master.
[01:13:25.520 --> 01:13:32.680]  And they are not to forget it. If they do, I'm the guy to remind them. What I'm going
[01:13:32.680 --> 01:13:36.920]  to do is I'm going to ask them to do stuff that I don't want them to do so that I can
[01:13:36.920 --> 01:13:41.160]  clobber them when they don't do it. Just like I asked the bailiff to arrest the judge. Oh,
[01:13:41.160 --> 01:13:46.200]  I can't arrest the judge. I sure can. Just go in there and throw the cuffs on him and
[01:13:46.200 --> 01:13:50.520]  drag him off to jail. That can be fun. You stand around here doing nothing all day is
[01:13:50.520 --> 01:13:55.520]  boring. Oh, I'm not going to arrest the judge. And I always say, come on, come on, take your
[01:13:55.520 --> 01:14:01.560]  chicken suit off. That one recently was walking away and I said, Mr. Bailiff, I need your
[01:14:01.560 --> 01:14:09.560]  chicken suit off. And he stopped, just froze in his tracks, spun around and said, Mr. Tuckton,
[01:14:09.560 --> 01:14:15.160]  that was uncalled for. Yes, it was called for. It's your duty to keep the peace in the
[01:14:15.160 --> 01:14:20.040]  courtroom makes no difference who breezes it. You get in there and keep the peace you
[01:14:20.040 --> 01:14:28.400]  coward. And he was fuming. But he good. I was pleased he didn't lose his cool beat me
[01:14:28.400 --> 01:14:34.640]  into unconsciousness. I get tired of that stuff. I'd have said uncalled for uncalled
[01:14:34.640 --> 01:14:45.560]  for my eye. I just called for it. Weren't you listening? It works. And we're I'm right
[01:14:45.560 --> 01:14:54.960]  now I'm filing a whole stack of criminal charges. I've redone the way I think about things we're
[01:14:54.960 --> 01:14:59.080]  going in. We're helping people with foreclosure issues. And I go in on a person that's being
[01:14:59.080 --> 01:15:05.080]  foreclosed on they wrote me a quick a quick claim. So I've got standing. I go in and file
[01:15:05.080 --> 01:15:09.120]  a challenge subject matter jurisdiction. I used to go in and say, Your Honor, this was
[01:15:09.120 --> 01:15:12.840]  a project foreclosure. They didn't have the authority to do the foreclosure. So they don't
[01:15:12.840 --> 01:15:19.000]  have standing to prosecute this eviction. And the judge would exercise his discretion
[01:15:19.000 --> 01:15:26.240]  rule against us every time. So now I say, I'm here at arm's length to this court. This
[01:15:26.240 --> 01:15:32.360]  court does not have subject matter jurisdiction as the plaintiff lacked the legal capacity
[01:15:32.360 --> 01:15:38.040]  to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the court. This does not go to the judges
[01:15:38.040 --> 01:15:48.360]  discretion. He doesn't have any here. This judge refused to read my pleading issued the
[01:15:48.360 --> 01:15:54.600]  order of eviction. They threw out this woman who had lived in this house for 30 years.
[01:15:54.600 --> 01:15:58.920]  They had foreclosed on her four years ago. They had two years to evict. They didn't get
[01:15:58.920 --> 01:16:04.600]  it done. They looked back at it and say, Oh, we screwed up. So they had a bogus company
[01:16:04.600 --> 01:16:09.800]  do an assignment of substitute trustee and they foreclosed again and we sold it to Fannie
[01:16:09.800 --> 01:16:15.720]  Mae. They sold it to Fannie Mae first time. So I filed a challenge subject matter jurisdiction.
[01:16:15.720 --> 01:16:22.320]  The judge without ruling on subject matter had the bailiffs come out with loaded pistols
[01:16:22.320 --> 01:16:29.280]  and it forcibly evict this woman from the house. I called that first degree felony aggravated
[01:16:29.280 --> 01:16:34.520]  assault. The officers didn't commit first degree felony aggravated assault as they acted
[01:16:34.520 --> 01:16:41.200]  in good faith compliance on cognitive authority. The justice of the peace did. And I'm going
[01:16:41.200 --> 01:16:46.320]  to file an appeal. I'm going to appeal it to our grand jury of my peers and see what
[01:16:46.320 --> 01:16:53.480]  they think of that garbage. Hang on. Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens here with David Merlin.
[01:16:53.480 --> 01:17:00.880]  Call in number 512-646-1984. We'll be right back.
[01:17:00.880 --> 01:17:05.640]  My name is Jessica Arman. I'm an activist, a GCN listener and mother of three. Our drinking
[01:17:05.640 --> 01:17:09.520]  water and food are filled with fluoride and other contaminants that harm our teeth and
[01:17:09.520 --> 01:17:14.280]  gums. To protect my family, I created My Magic Mud, an all-natural teeth brightening and
[01:17:14.280 --> 01:17:19.400]  strengthening remedy. My Magic Mud is a soft powder that polishes your teeth, reduces sensitivity
[01:17:19.400 --> 01:17:23.480]  and removes harmful toxins from deep inside your mouth. You deserve a bright, healthy
[01:17:23.480 --> 01:17:27.880]  smile. Visit MyMagicMud.com and get yours today. That's MyMagicMud.com.
[01:17:27.880 --> 01:17:32.440]  Hi, this is Kurt Hildebrand. I've been using Magic Mud for a while now and I just can't
[01:17:32.440 --> 01:17:35.840]  believe how much healthier my teeth and gums feel. I love the product.
[01:17:35.840 --> 01:17:40.800]  This is Anna Martin, the libertarian homeschooler. I homeschool, so I drink coffee. And I drink
[01:17:40.800 --> 01:17:45.240]  coffee, so I use Magic Mud. It gets my teeth really clean. Give it a try.
[01:17:45.240 --> 01:17:49.040]  This is John Bush of the Liberty Beat. My wife and I use My Magic Mud because it brightens
[01:17:49.040 --> 01:17:53.440]  our smile and our daughter uses it because it makes brushing fun. To get your can of
[01:17:53.440 --> 01:18:01.600]  My Magic Mud, go to Brave New Books or order it online at MyMagicMud.com.
[01:18:01.600 --> 01:18:05.160]  At Capital Coin and Bullion, our mission is to be your preferred shopping destination
[01:18:05.160 --> 01:18:09.080]  by delivering excellent customer service and outstanding value at an affordable price.
[01:18:09.080 --> 01:18:13.080]  We provide a wide assortment of your favorite products featuring a great selection of high
[01:18:13.080 --> 01:18:17.320]  quality coins and precious metals. We cater to beginners in coin collecting as well as
[01:18:17.320 --> 01:18:21.720]  large transactions for investors. We believe in educating our customers with resources
[01:18:21.720 --> 01:18:26.520]  from top accredited metals dealers and journalists. If we don't have what you're looking for,
[01:18:26.520 --> 01:18:29.680]  we can find it. In addition, we carry popular young Jeopardy
[01:18:29.680 --> 01:18:34.760]  products such as Beyond Tangy Tangerine and Polynburst. We also offer One World Way, Mountain
[01:18:34.760 --> 01:18:39.880]  House Storable Foods, Berkey Water Products, ammunition at 10% above wholesale and more.
[01:18:39.880 --> 01:18:44.000]  We broke through Metals IRA accounts and we also accept Bitcoins as payments. Call us
[01:18:44.000 --> 01:18:51.000]  at 512-646-6440. We're located at 7304 Burnett Road, Suite A, about a half mile south of
[01:18:51.000 --> 01:18:57.000]  Anderson. We're open Monday through Friday 10 to 6, Saturdays 10 to 2. Visit us at CapitalCoinandBullion.com
[01:18:57.000 --> 01:19:00.000]  or call 512-646-6440.
[01:19:00.000 --> 01:19:07.000]  This is the Logos Mapogos Radio Net.
[01:19:30.000 --> 01:19:37.000]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton and Debbie Stevens here with David Merlin. And Julius,
[01:19:42.520 --> 01:19:49.520]  you're off point. Don't you have an IRS question? Or were you not listening to our show?
[01:19:51.560 --> 01:19:55.160]  If you weren't listening to our show, before you called in, you would have taken your phone
[01:19:55.160 --> 01:20:02.160]  and beat yourself around the eyes and ears.
[01:20:11.320 --> 01:20:18.320]  What I want you to do is go to the college parking lot and call from there. Then when
[01:20:18.320 --> 01:20:25.320]  security shows up, let me talk to them. I'll help you out.
[01:20:25.320 --> 01:20:28.320]  You know that I'm not to do that.
[01:20:28.320 --> 01:20:34.320]  Yeah, we tried to get you beaten into unconsciousness last time. Maybe we'll do better this time.
[01:20:34.320 --> 01:20:36.320]  That's right. I think so.
[01:20:36.320 --> 01:20:43.320]  Okay. Thank you, Julius. We think we may have someone on point. Okay, we're going to Brian
[01:20:43.320 --> 01:20:48.320]  in Illinois. Hello, Brian. What do you have for us?
[01:20:48.320 --> 01:20:51.320]  Good evening, Randy. How are you today?
[01:20:51.320 --> 01:20:52.320]  I'm good.
[01:20:52.320 --> 01:20:55.320]  I'm on a call.
[01:20:55.320 --> 01:21:01.320]  Yeah. I talked to you about a month ago about an attorney that I had hired and I had some
[01:21:01.320 --> 01:21:08.320]  problems with him. To refresh you, the incident that I had with the attorney was that he was
[01:21:08.320 --> 01:21:15.320]  billing me excessively. In Illinois, if you have an intern that's working for you, that
[01:21:16.320 --> 01:21:23.320]  intern is not allowed to individually bill you as an associate. That particular attorney
[01:21:23.320 --> 01:21:26.320]  did that to me.
[01:21:26.320 --> 01:21:33.320]  Then there was an instance where I came into his office to show him some items of mine.
[01:21:33.320 --> 01:21:40.320]  We took some pictures of those items. After we removed the items, I asked for some Windex
[01:21:40.320 --> 01:21:47.320]  and some paper towels. I got filled labor times for providing the paper towels and the
[01:21:51.320 --> 01:21:52.320]  Windex.
[01:21:52.320 --> 01:21:57.320]  Okay. Did you ask him for an itemized billing?
[01:21:57.320 --> 01:22:00.320]  Yes, he did provide me with one.
[01:22:00.320 --> 01:22:07.320]  Did the itemized billing accurately reflect work done and did he charge you a reasonable
[01:22:10.320 --> 01:22:13.320]  amount for the work done?
[01:22:13.320 --> 01:22:18.320]  As a matter of opinion, I would say no.
[01:22:18.320 --> 01:22:21.320]  Then sue him for malpractice.
[01:22:21.320 --> 01:22:28.320]  Well, this is what's interesting, Randy, is I decided to hire a private investigator.
[01:22:28.320 --> 01:22:35.320]  In doing the investigation, one of the reasons I did the investigation is he came up with
[01:22:35.320 --> 01:22:42.320]  the pretty ingenious idea, I thought, at the time. He said, well, let's set a trap for
[01:22:42.320 --> 01:22:48.320]  these people that are leaving you deftly, leaving the defamation and leaving the statements
[01:22:48.320 --> 01:22:54.320]  about you. Let's get them to buy something from you and then I'll examine the item and
[01:22:54.320 --> 01:23:01.320]  then I'll send that item to a process server. We'll have him examine it and then we'll
[01:23:02.320 --> 01:23:07.320]  get an affidavit from him and then we'll have the process server deliver the item. That
[01:23:07.320 --> 01:23:13.320]  way, if they say something was wrong with your item, we'll have clarification that
[01:23:13.320 --> 01:23:14.320]  they're wrong.
[01:23:14.320 --> 01:23:21.320]  I thought that was an ingenious idea and he had done that for me, but I later found out
[01:23:21.320 --> 01:23:28.320]  that the person who bought the item from me and he charged me to do all this work, that
[01:23:28.320 --> 01:23:34.320]  person that bought the item from me is a friend of his daughter's.
[01:23:34.320 --> 01:23:39.320]  Oh, so you've got everybody trying to screw you.
[01:23:39.320 --> 01:23:41.320]  Well, yeah, that's what I don't understand.
[01:23:41.320 --> 01:23:48.320]  Okay, okay. Here's the deal. Everybody needs to understand that all of these professions
[01:23:48.320 --> 01:23:55.320]  have oversight agencies. Now, the Bar Association is next to worthless, but we've got a way
[01:23:55.320 --> 01:24:05.320]  around that. If you file a complaint against his professional license, that is a big deal
[01:24:05.320 --> 01:24:11.320]  for everybody but lawyers. Well, it's a big deal for lawyers, but for a different reason.
[01:24:11.320 --> 01:24:17.320]  I have a friend who's a clinical psychologist and he got into an investment scheme with
[01:24:17.320 --> 01:24:22.320]  some guy who invested a bunch of money for him in silver and then stole all the money.
[01:24:22.320 --> 01:24:29.320]  Well, when he demanded the money back, the guy went to the Board of Psychology and filed
[01:24:29.320 --> 01:24:34.320]  a complaint against him claiming that he was a patient of this guy. He wasn't.
[01:24:34.320 --> 01:24:35.320]  Right.
[01:24:35.320 --> 01:24:41.320]  But Bill was terrified. He said, these guys have put you out of business. They get a
[01:24:41.320 --> 01:24:46.320]  complaint, man, they're when you see the ringer. He was afraid they were going to ruin his
[01:24:46.320 --> 01:24:53.320]  practice over a totally bogus complaint. I mean, that's a big deal for these guys.
[01:24:53.320 --> 01:24:54.320]  Right.
[01:24:54.320 --> 01:25:03.320]  Lawyers, if you file a bar grievance against a lawyer, the state bar will get that grievance
[01:25:03.320 --> 01:25:07.320]  and they'll throw it in the trash and they'll send you this letter back that said, we examined
[01:25:07.320 --> 01:25:13.320]  into your accusation, find it does not rise to the level of misconduct. I sent in 38 felonies
[01:25:13.320 --> 01:25:21.320]  and misdemeanors on lawyers to the Commission on Judges to the State Commission on Judicial
[01:25:21.320 --> 01:25:25.320]  Conduct. All of them got the same letter back. We examined into your accusation, find it
[01:25:25.320 --> 01:25:30.320]  does not rise to the level of misconduct. Who cares?
[01:25:30.320 --> 01:25:36.320]  Because when I called him out on it, he basically said, there's nothing you can do to me.
[01:25:36.320 --> 01:25:47.320]  Is that a fact? He's not going to tell you about malpractice insurance. One bar grievance.
[01:25:47.320 --> 01:25:53.320]  Okay. One thing you need to know, never ever threaten anybody.
[01:25:53.320 --> 01:25:54.320]  Correct.
[01:25:54.320 --> 01:26:01.320]  And that goes to the adage in law, never give fair warning.
[01:26:01.320 --> 01:26:02.320]  Okay.
[01:26:02.320 --> 01:26:10.320]  If you tell someone what you're planning to do, they'll accuse you of threatening them.
[01:26:10.320 --> 01:26:17.320]  Never give fair warning. Set them up to do something that you know they won't do that
[01:26:17.320 --> 01:26:23.320]  they're required to do and then hammer them for it. Ask the lawyer to do something he's
[01:26:23.320 --> 01:26:30.320]  required to do. Read the bar association standards. Most states have adopted the model American
[01:26:30.320 --> 01:26:37.320]  Bar Association standards. They vary slightly, but not much. My bargrievance.net site is
[01:26:37.320 --> 01:26:42.320]  down at the moment, but I'm trying to get it back up. I've got a format on there where
[01:26:42.320 --> 01:26:47.320]  in four questions you can get to any particular grievance and you'll be amazed what you can
[01:26:47.320 --> 01:26:53.320]  grieve these guys for. If they part their hair on the wrong side, you can grieve them.
[01:26:53.320 --> 01:27:00.320]  If you grieve them, the state bar is not going to do anything, but their insurance company
[01:27:00.320 --> 01:27:01.320]  is.
[01:27:01.320 --> 01:27:02.320]  Right.
[01:27:02.320 --> 01:27:06.320]  One bar grievance your first year of practice, they'll cancel immediately. Two bar grievances,
[01:27:06.320 --> 01:27:11.320]  any one year of practice, if you've been practicing 20 years, they cancel. Three, they'll cancel
[01:27:11.320 --> 01:27:18.320]  your law firm's malpractice insurance. Bar grievances really hurt lawyers, but they will
[01:27:18.320 --> 01:27:25.320]  never say anything to you about it. If they do, you grieve them for that because they're
[01:27:25.320 --> 01:27:33.320]  forbidden to. That's their Achilles heel. If you file a malpractice suit against them,
[01:27:33.320 --> 01:27:41.320]  their malpractice insurance carrier will indemnify them on the suit and then cancel. When they
[01:27:41.320 --> 01:27:48.320]  go to get new insurance, it's going to at least double. It starts between 35 and 40
[01:27:48.320 --> 01:27:53.320]  grand a year. Everybody has their weak side.
[01:27:53.320 --> 01:27:59.320]  Hey, Randy. Is there a chance to get you back to tax law anytime tonight?
[01:27:59.320 --> 01:28:12.320]  I'm hoping to. We're not getting anybody on point. Hang on, Brian. Let me see if Andy's
[01:28:12.320 --> 01:28:17.320]  on point. I don't want to hold David if we're not going to have any questions on point.
[01:28:17.320 --> 01:28:19.320]  Go for it. Thank you.
[01:28:19.320 --> 01:28:30.320]  Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Brian. Hello, Andy. Yeah. Hey, guys. I am on point. I'm
[01:28:30.320 --> 01:28:35.320]  not the one involved in the suit, but I've got a good friend of mine who in 2008 had
[01:28:35.320 --> 01:28:41.320]  to shut down his stone business here in the Austin area. He was selling the ornamental
[01:28:41.320 --> 01:28:49.320]  rock for the exterior of homes and for the boulevards in the subdivisions out west of
[01:28:49.320 --> 01:28:55.320]  the city. He is now being audited on that year, and they're saving the others like $160,000.
[01:28:55.320 --> 01:29:01.320]  It's out of the blue. Unfortunately, he's good at building things and good at selling
[01:29:01.320 --> 01:29:08.320]  rock, but he's not so up to speed on these kinds of things, and he doesn't have an accountant.
[01:29:08.320 --> 01:29:17.320]  He is a sharp guy. Is this material that you have something that you think he may be able
[01:29:17.320 --> 01:29:25.320]  to get some use out of? Well, I'll tell you, first off, his accountant doesn't know either
[01:29:25.320 --> 01:29:31.320]  that Section 83 governs the taxation, the compensation. He's out in the cold, and where
[01:29:31.320 --> 01:29:39.320]  I found my materials applied gravity, we're going to have to hold on until after the break.
[01:29:39.320 --> 01:29:43.320]  Yeah, I'll hold until the break, because I really want to hear what you think. Okay,
[01:29:43.320 --> 01:29:49.320]  I'll be here. Okay, this is Randy Kelton, David Stevens here with David Merlin. Call
[01:29:49.320 --> 01:29:56.320]  in number 512-646-1984. Give us a call. We need some questions on point. We'll be right
[01:29:56.320 --> 01:30:06.320]  back. Japan is number one in life expectancy, right? Well, maybe not. Recent discoveries
[01:30:06.320 --> 01:30:12.320]  have people wondering if those famous 100-year-old Japanese aren't just a scam. I'm Dr. Catherine
[01:30:12.320 --> 01:30:18.320]  Albrecht, back with the bizarre details next. Privacy is under attack. When you give up
[01:30:18.320 --> 01:30:23.320]  data about yourself, you'll never get it back again, and once your privacy is gone, you'll
[01:30:23.320 --> 01:30:29.320]  find your freedoms will start to vanish, too. So protect your rights. Say no to surveillance
[01:30:29.320 --> 01:30:35.320]  and keep your information to yourself. Privacy, it's worth hanging onto. This message is brought
[01:30:35.320 --> 01:30:41.320]  to you by Startpage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing.
[01:30:41.320 --> 01:30:49.320]  Start over with Startpage. For Japanese investigators, it was a gruesome discovery. The bones of
[01:30:49.320 --> 01:30:54.320]  an elderly woman thought to be alive were found in a backpack belonging to her son.
[01:30:54.320 --> 01:30:59.320]  Why had he stashed his mother's remains instead of giving her a decent burial? Well, the
[01:30:59.320 --> 01:31:04.320]  sordid truth was more about money than gruesomeness. As it happens, he never reported his mother's
[01:31:04.320 --> 01:31:10.320]  death back in 2001 and had been collecting her benefits ever since. The discovery is
[01:31:10.320 --> 01:31:15.320]  just one of many suggesting the Japanese may not live as long as we thought. In a nationwide
[01:31:15.320 --> 01:31:21.320]  search, more than 200,000 so-called centenarians or 100-year-olds have turned up to be dead
[01:31:21.320 --> 01:31:27.320]  or missing. I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht for Startpage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[01:31:31.320 --> 01:31:37.320]  I lost my son. My nephew. My uncle. My son. On September 11, 2001. Most people don't know
[01:31:37.320 --> 01:31:42.320]  that a third tower fell on September 11. World Trade Center 7, a 47-story skyscraper, was
[01:31:42.320 --> 01:31:46.320]  not hit by a plane. Although the official explanation is that fire brought down Building
[01:31:46.320 --> 01:31:51.320]  7, over 1,200 architects and engineers have looked into the evidence and believe there
[01:31:51.320 --> 01:31:57.320]  is more to the story. Bring justice to my son. My uncle. My nephew. My son. Go to buildingwhat.org
[01:31:57.320 --> 01:32:03.320]  why it fell, why it matters, and what you can do. Nutritious food is real body armor.
[01:32:03.320 --> 01:32:09.320]  It builds muscle, burns fat, improves digestion, and feeds the entire body the nutrients it
[01:32:09.320 --> 01:32:13.320]  needs. Did you know the U.S. government banned the hemp plant from growing in the United
[01:32:13.320 --> 01:32:18.320]  States and classified it as a Schedule I drug to hide it behind a marijuana plant? People
[01:32:18.320 --> 01:32:23.320]  have been confused about this plant for over 80 years, and many still don't know what
[01:32:23.320 --> 01:32:29.320]  hemp is. So now you know hemp is not marijuana, and marijuana is not hemp. They are different
[01:32:29.320 --> 01:32:34.320]  varieties of the same species. HempUSA.org wants the world to know these basic facts
[01:32:34.320 --> 01:32:39.320]  and to help people understand that hemp protein powder is the best kept health secret you
[01:32:39.320 --> 01:32:45.320]  need to know about. Remember, hemp protein powder contains 53% protein, is gluten free,
[01:32:45.320 --> 01:32:54.320]  anti-inflammatory, non-GMO, and is loaded with nutrients. Call 888-910-4367. 888-910-4367
[01:32:54.320 --> 01:33:02.320]  and see what our powder, seeds, and oil can do for you. Only at HempUSA.org. You are
[01:33:02.320 --> 01:33:07.320]  listening to the Logos Radio Network. LogosRadioNetwork.com.
[01:33:33.320 --> 01:33:38.320]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens, here with our special guest, David Merlin,
[01:33:38.320 --> 01:33:43.320]  and we're talking to Andy in Texas.
[01:33:43.320 --> 01:33:52.320]  Yeah, Andy asked if his friend who is a sole proprietor of a business that makes ornamental
[01:33:52.320 --> 01:33:59.320]  stone decorations and carvings, who is having trouble with the, he's either in or facing
[01:33:59.320 --> 01:34:07.320]  an IRS audit. There's a difference between civil and criminal. In a civil matter, such
[01:34:07.320 --> 01:34:15.320]  as when the IRS is after your money through lean or levy, they are up against the Fifth
[01:34:15.320 --> 01:34:21.320]  Amendment. You have rights to due process before they can seize property. But in a criminal
[01:34:21.320 --> 01:34:32.320]  case, they're up against the Sixth and Seventh Amendment as well. In a civil matter, my materials
[01:34:32.320 --> 01:34:40.320]  won't even make them bat an eye at it. They'll ignore you and they always get your money.
[01:34:40.320 --> 01:34:45.320]  In a criminal matter, when you have rights of the accused in the Sixth and Seventh Amendment,
[01:34:45.320 --> 01:34:55.320]  such as right to face your accuser, right to depose and examine witnesses, rights to
[01:34:55.320 --> 01:35:05.320]  a trial by jury, rights to counsel, and a right to a unanimous verdict, it puts an additional
[01:35:05.320 --> 01:35:13.320]  burden on the government, my findings do, that they don't seem able to surmount. And
[01:35:13.320 --> 01:35:22.320]  so, in probably upwards of 15 instances, Criminal Investigations Division of the IRS has dropped
[01:35:22.320 --> 01:35:30.320]  the investigation. One man in Florida, the publisher who happens to be handling this
[01:35:30.320 --> 01:35:39.320]  manual on Section 83 that you see at TakeFromCaesar.us, he went before a grand jury in January 2007
[01:35:39.320 --> 01:35:45.320]  and told them, I coached him a great deal, he says, I'm not here as a defendant today.
[01:35:45.320 --> 01:35:49.320]  I'm here as a criminal counter-compliant. They should be in prison. They don't deny
[01:35:49.320 --> 01:35:55.320]  a word of this. And he held up my 2006 filing with 80 members of Congress, gave it to the
[01:35:55.320 --> 01:36:00.320]  grand jury, and in the cover letter to that, it has a list of things the grand jury doesn't
[01:36:00.320 --> 01:36:05.320]  know to ask the prosecution. He never heard from the grand jury again, and so he asked
[01:36:05.320 --> 01:36:11.320]  to become my promoter. And he says the 58-pager memorandum that I filed with Congress is basically
[01:36:11.320 --> 01:36:19.320]  a second Bible. In the instance of a criminal prosecution, preferably before the indictment
[01:36:19.320 --> 01:36:26.320]  even comes down, because once the indictment comes down from the grand jury, they steamroll.
[01:36:26.320 --> 01:36:32.320]  So beforehand, there's been many instances where people armed with my findings have been
[01:36:32.320 --> 01:36:40.320]  able to avert a criminal investigations division investigation in the IRS, and they still lose
[01:36:40.320 --> 01:36:44.320]  their money. They are leaned and levied. There's nobody that can help you with that unless
[01:36:44.320 --> 01:36:50.320]  you're going to play totally within the box. And for that, you want H&R Block, Ronny Deutsch,
[01:36:50.320 --> 01:36:58.320]  J.K. Harris, tax masters, a few choice attorneys out there that simply know the IRS and what
[01:36:58.320 --> 01:37:07.320]  they're able to get when the IRS exercises its own discretion. I operate between IRS
[01:37:07.320 --> 01:37:16.320]  and the legislation in the tax code. I do not put on knee pads for the client and help
[01:37:16.320 --> 01:37:24.320]  them through a tax matter. I only work really with this material in criminal cases. So no,
[01:37:24.320 --> 01:37:29.320]  my stuff will not help him at all. Even though the government cannot deny for one moment,
[01:37:29.320 --> 01:37:37.320]  they deprived him of Section 83 to even allege that he owes a tax on the value of his labor.
[01:37:37.320 --> 01:37:43.320]  That's very, very interesting information that you just gave. That's disgusting. You
[01:37:43.320 --> 01:37:48.320]  know, the Inland Revenue Service, I mean, the IRS, I mean, yeah, goes back to the Queen.
[01:37:48.320 --> 01:37:52.320]  Well, good show, Randy. I'll let you guys go. Thank you very much.
[01:37:52.320 --> 01:37:54.320]  Thank you, sir.
[01:37:54.320 --> 01:38:01.320]  Okay. Thank you, Andy. Okay. Now we're going to go to Terry in Michigan. Hello, Terry.
[01:38:01.320 --> 01:38:04.320]  I understand you have a question on point.
[01:38:04.320 --> 01:38:07.320]  Yeah. Hi, Randy and David.
[01:38:07.320 --> 01:38:08.320]  Hi there.
[01:38:08.320 --> 01:38:19.320]  This has to do with, I got two 1099s in the mail from two credit card companies and they're
[01:38:19.320 --> 01:38:22.320]  stating a cancellation of debt.
[01:38:22.320 --> 01:38:25.320]  Wait, 1099 what?
[01:38:25.320 --> 01:38:31.320]  There were 1099s that they sent into the IRS telling the IRS that there was a cancellation
[01:38:31.320 --> 01:38:35.320]  of debt on my part.
[01:38:35.320 --> 01:38:39.320]  I forget which one that is. Do you remember which one that is, David?
[01:38:39.320 --> 01:38:44.320]  Not at all, but that's kind of a good news, bad news scenario. Good news is your debt
[01:38:44.320 --> 01:38:49.320]  was canceled. Bad news is the IRS wants you to pay taxes on the money that you now don't
[01:38:49.320 --> 01:38:51.320]  owe.
[01:38:51.320 --> 01:38:58.320]  Right. I understand what my tax account told me. And that's what I was wondering because
[01:38:58.320 --> 01:39:05.320]  now the first one was for $30,000, which is one that I used in the Michael Mears method,
[01:39:05.320 --> 01:39:14.320]  got that taken care of in 2011. But just now they sent me the 1099 telling me that they
[01:39:14.320 --> 01:39:24.320]  sent it into the IRS from 2011. And then the second one was for $4,000. And that was something
[01:39:24.320 --> 01:39:29.320]  that I never did anything to, but I looked and it's still in my credit report. Yep,
[01:39:29.320 --> 01:39:34.320]  they told the IRS they forgave the debt.
[01:39:34.320 --> 01:39:42.320]  Yeah, your question comes from inside the box and you're better served by one of all
[01:39:42.320 --> 01:39:49.320]  of the many certified tax professionals out there. They'll know the quickest route to
[01:39:49.320 --> 01:39:56.320]  resolution and the very least, you'll end up having to pay to get the IRS out of your
[01:39:56.320 --> 01:40:03.320]  life right off the top of their head. Whereas I deal with certain conclusions, certain findings
[01:40:03.320 --> 01:40:10.320]  that came to the top of my research that proves the IRS is overtly illegal in everything they
[01:40:10.320 --> 01:40:17.320]  do. And so I simply don't operate in the box. You have a life to protect. You're not under
[01:40:17.320 --> 01:40:21.320]  the gun with an indictment. You don't have a jury trial ahead of you. And so there's
[01:40:21.320 --> 01:40:26.320]  really nothing I bring to your party other than to tell you, get a licensed professional
[01:40:26.320 --> 01:40:31.320]  between you and the IRS. And I think, and I'll be teaching this forever, the best you
[01:40:31.320 --> 01:40:38.320]  can do here to keep the IRS out of your life is to start a home business and consult with
[01:40:38.320 --> 01:40:44.320]  people in the industry to find out exactly what the IRS will and won't permit and establish
[01:40:44.320 --> 01:40:51.320]  all of the allowable deductions you can possibly gather and you deem or you view the amount
[01:40:51.320 --> 01:40:56.320]  you pay at the end of the year to the IRS as your price of admission to the shouting
[01:40:56.320 --> 01:41:01.320]  match with your Congressman over the conclusions in my work that they can't refute. It's the
[01:41:01.320 --> 01:41:03.320]  best you can do.
[01:41:03.320 --> 01:41:12.320]  Terry, if you will send me an email to Randy at ruleoflawradio.com. I've got a couple
[01:41:12.320 --> 01:41:17.320]  people I can send them to that may be able to help you.
[01:41:17.320 --> 01:41:25.320]  I hope you sense in this that I have a responsible approach to this. I'm not here to sell something
[01:41:25.320 --> 01:41:35.320]  I'm not here to sell snake oil. I've now seen two women die because of IRS enforcement,
[01:41:35.320 --> 01:41:42.320]  stressed to death. And this is as serious as your second heart attack to me. I'm not
[01:41:42.320 --> 01:41:47.320]  going to tell you, Oh, have I got, I'm not in this for ego. Oh, do I have the prescription
[01:41:47.320 --> 01:41:52.320]  for you here? Just file two of these and call me in the morning type crap that you get,
[01:41:52.320 --> 01:41:59.320]  excuse me, from the anti-tax movement. All it is is a bunch of BS and there are victims
[01:41:59.320 --> 01:42:04.320]  out there by the hundreds, if not thousands, they've lost their house, they've lost their
[01:42:04.320 --> 01:42:10.320]  cars, their bank accounts. I talked with one man here in Washington had a $400,000 home
[01:42:10.320 --> 01:42:19.320]  and he paid one of these gurus to write his Ninth Circuit appeal of his tax case. And
[01:42:19.320 --> 01:42:24.320]  the brief went on and on about what the courts have to do with avoid judgment. The judgment's
[01:42:24.320 --> 01:42:28.320]  void. Here's what you got to do, your honor. And failed to even argue why the judgment
[01:42:28.320 --> 01:42:35.320]  was void to begin with when there's a $400,000 house on the line. And so I've worked after
[01:42:35.320 --> 01:42:40.320]  everybody has gotten in trouble following these other prescriptions, trying to get them
[01:42:40.320 --> 01:42:47.320]  out of trouble. And I've never been the one to recommend anything that got them in trouble.
[01:42:47.320 --> 01:42:57.320]  So I'm a true advocate. I only recommend people who keep you inside the box and have never
[01:42:57.320 --> 01:43:06.320]  seen anybody win fighting the IRS. Now that may not be right, but that's how it works
[01:43:06.320 --> 01:43:11.320]  in the world you and I live in. Right. And the best you can do is when you have rights
[01:43:11.320 --> 01:43:16.320]  to a jury trial, then you might have your day in court and not be found willful, but
[01:43:16.320 --> 01:43:23.320]  I'd rather not be indicted in the first place. Personally, wouldn't that be great? Exactly.
[01:43:23.320 --> 01:43:30.320]  And I'm not going to send you to people preaching pace with patriot mythology. You won't hear
[01:43:30.320 --> 01:43:42.320]  much of that. Absolutely. Some information he could use. Okay. Hang on. This is Randy
[01:43:42.320 --> 01:43:46.320]  Stanton, Debbie Stevens, Wheel of Law Radio here with David Merlin, and that was Eddie
[01:43:46.320 --> 01:44:00.320]  Craig in the background. We will be right back on the other side.
[01:44:00.320 --> 01:44:04.320]  You feel tired when talking about important topics like money and politics? Are you confused
[01:44:04.320 --> 01:44:09.320]  by words like the constitution or the federal reserve? What? If so, you may be diagnosed
[01:44:09.320 --> 01:44:15.320]  with the deadliest disease known today, stupidity. Hi, my name is Steve Holt, and like millions
[01:44:15.320 --> 01:44:20.320]  of other Americans, I was diagnosed with stupidity at an early age. I had no idea that the number
[01:44:20.320 --> 01:44:25.320]  one cause of the disease is found in almost every home in America, the television. Unfortunately,
[01:44:25.320 --> 01:44:30.320]  that puts most Americans at risk of catching stupidity, but there is hope. The staff at
[01:44:30.320 --> 01:44:34.320]  Brave New Books have helped me and thousands of other foxaholics suffering from sports
[01:44:34.320 --> 01:44:39.320]  zombieism recover, and because of Brave New Books, I now enjoy reading and watching
[01:44:39.320 --> 01:44:44.320]  educational documentaries without feeling tired or uninterested. So if you or anybody
[01:44:44.320 --> 01:44:51.320]  you know suffers from stupidity, then you need to call 512-480-2503 or visit them in
[01:44:51.320 --> 01:44:56.320]  1904 Guadalupe or bravenewbookstore.com. Side effects from using Brave New Books products
[01:44:56.320 --> 01:45:01.320]  may include discernment and enlarged vocabulary and an overall increase in mental functioning.
[01:45:01.320 --> 01:45:07.320]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit? Win your case without an attorney with JurisDictionary,
[01:45:07.320 --> 01:45:15.320]  the affordable, easy to understand, 4-CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step-by-step.
[01:45:15.320 --> 01:45:20.320]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing. If you don't have a lawyer,
[01:45:20.320 --> 01:45:26.320]  know what you should do for yourself. Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, and
[01:45:26.320 --> 01:45:33.320]  now you can too. JurisDictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning
[01:45:33.320 --> 01:45:38.320]  experience. Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand
[01:45:38.320 --> 01:45:44.320]  about the principles and practices that control our American courts. You'll receive our audio
[01:45:44.320 --> 01:45:51.320]  classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics, and much
[01:45:51.320 --> 01:46:01.320]  more. Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll-free, 866-LAW-EZ.
[01:46:22.320 --> 01:46:31.320]  Some things in this world I will never understand. Some things I realize fully.
[01:46:31.320 --> 01:46:39.320]  Somebody's gonna police that policeman. Somebody's gonna police the bully.
[01:46:39.320 --> 01:46:47.320]  There's always a room at the top of the hills. I hear through the grapevine in this lonely
[01:46:47.320 --> 01:46:54.320]  field. They're wishing it was more than our position to fill. They know that if they don't
[01:46:54.320 --> 01:47:03.320]  do it, somebody will. Some things in this world I will never understand. Some things I realize
[01:47:03.320 --> 01:47:14.320]  fully. Somebody's gonna police that policeman. Somebody's gonna go to the police. I know
[01:47:14.320 --> 01:47:22.320]  they will. Yeah, they're gonna put the bill. Cause I've seen so much and got to say it.
[01:47:22.320 --> 01:47:29.320]  I know they will. Never fail to get back that scale. I know they will. Never fail to get
[01:47:29.320 --> 01:47:30.320]  back that scale.
[01:47:30.320 --> 01:47:35.320]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Debbie Stevens here with David Merlin, and we're talking
[01:47:35.320 --> 01:47:45.320]  to Terry in Michigan. Okay, you had credit card issues.
[01:47:45.320 --> 01:47:46.320]  Correct.
[01:47:46.320 --> 01:47:52.320]  Yeah, send me an email. I've got a couple people that, they're not outside the box.
[01:47:52.320 --> 01:47:59.320]  They're inside the box. And they will show you how to file where you can get your best
[01:47:59.320 --> 01:48:06.320]  return without doing anything that'll get you in trouble. And a lot of these people
[01:48:06.320 --> 01:48:12.320]  get into these fights and we have to pick our fights really careful. I had a friend
[01:48:12.320 --> 01:48:21.320]  who helped people with tax issues and she finally quit doing, quit working with most
[01:48:21.320 --> 01:48:29.320]  of the Patriot community because her complaint was is they forget what their purpose is.
[01:48:29.320 --> 01:48:34.320]  And it all becomes about the fight. A friend of hers sent her to a neighbor who had some
[01:48:34.320 --> 01:48:39.320]  IRS liens that she wanted, they wanted to get rid of. And she went and looked at it
[01:48:39.320 --> 01:48:42.320]  and looked at the liens and said, you want to get rid of these? And they said, yes. So
[01:48:42.320 --> 01:48:46.320]  she ripped them up and threw them in the trash and said, okay, they're gone. And they were
[01:48:46.320 --> 01:48:52.320]  abrogated. She said they expired two years ago and the IRS didn't renew them. So what
[01:48:52.320 --> 01:49:02.320]  do these people do? They write a skating letter to the IRS. So they reinstated the tax liens.
[01:49:02.320 --> 01:49:09.320]  We have to decide what our outcome is. What is it do you want to achieve? And will what
[01:49:09.320 --> 01:49:15.320]  you're going to do bring you to the outcome you want or will you run into the law of unintended
[01:49:15.320 --> 01:49:27.320]  consequences? Right. Go ahead. I never suggest that people fight with the IRS. It's the elephant
[01:49:27.320 --> 01:49:37.320]  in the corner and it will roll over you, find a way to deal with them. Go ahead. I was going
[01:49:37.320 --> 01:49:45.320]  to get to the comment made during the break by Eddie that maybe Joe Bannister would be
[01:49:45.320 --> 01:49:51.320]  able to help. I'm not sure what he does as a practitioner. He did practice in tax court
[01:49:51.320 --> 01:49:57.320]  at one time. I know he lost that. I'm not straight on whether or not he was reinstated,
[01:49:57.320 --> 01:50:03.320]  but he did step outside the box with a lot of what he was doing, teamed up with Sherry
[01:50:03.320 --> 01:50:09.320]  Jackson, Bob Schultz, and we the people was out there in public saying, we got experts.
[01:50:09.320 --> 01:50:14.320]  We got this former IRS agent, this former IRS agent. We got this accountant, this lawyer.
[01:50:14.320 --> 01:50:21.320]  We got a bunch of experts and we got 537 questions. And I have yet to meet somebody that goes
[01:50:21.320 --> 01:50:36.320]  to experts for questions. Oops. We met, Deborah and I did a seminar with Sherry Jackson in
[01:50:36.320 --> 01:50:43.320]  upstate Pennsylvania just before she went to jail. Sherry Jackson is a wonderful, nice
[01:50:43.320 --> 01:50:49.320]  lady. I really liked her a lot. I got to talk with her for several hours when I was at a
[01:50:49.320 --> 01:50:58.320]  symposium in Mexico representing a certain tax advocacy organization. But anyway, I looked
[01:50:58.320 --> 01:51:08.320]  at their questions and my 1994 treatise on the tax code answers the first 250 questions.
[01:51:08.320 --> 01:51:15.320]  The answers to the first 250 questions render the remaining 287 questions moot. And I don't
[01:51:15.320 --> 01:51:22.320]  know anybody that goes to experts for questions. I go to experts for answers and I don't have
[01:51:22.320 --> 01:51:28.320]  any questions that don't arise from the conclusions that I make. I make conclusions first and
[01:51:28.320 --> 01:51:33.320]  if I'm wrong, then you can answer me these questions that drag them right back into the
[01:51:33.320 --> 01:51:39.320]  findings. So I'm in an entirely different camp than everybody else out there. Joe Bannister
[01:51:39.320 --> 01:51:45.320]  may have stepped back inside the box to make a living helping people but at one point I
[01:51:45.320 --> 01:51:51.320]  remember being shocked and quite frankly repulsed by the amount of money he was asking to appear
[01:51:51.320 --> 01:51:56.320]  as an expert witness. When he's not an expert, an expert isn't somebody that sits there and
[01:51:56.320 --> 01:52:02.320]  says I have no clue about the statute that explains whether or not you even owe a tax
[01:52:02.320 --> 01:52:10.320]  on your paycheck, section 83. So you have to be careful and you have to work hard when
[01:52:10.320 --> 01:52:14.320]  you're in certain circles just to keep from stepping in a hoop that somebody's got laying
[01:52:14.320 --> 01:52:18.320]  out there on the ground that's going to drag you into trouble with the IRS. You just have
[01:52:18.320 --> 01:52:25.320]  to be very careful. And I am that careful. I work after the damage is done for folks
[01:52:25.320 --> 01:52:30.320]  and most of it was for free, five times all the way to the Supreme Court by October of
[01:52:30.320 --> 01:52:37.320]  2008. Now there's another thread in the tax code that's a more primary argument than
[01:52:37.320 --> 01:52:43.320]  is section 83. It might be hard right off the bat to say what's more fundamental than
[01:52:43.320 --> 01:52:48.320]  the statute that explains how to tax you, acknowledging all property is a cost. The
[01:52:48.320 --> 01:52:54.320]  other thread that's more fundamental is a thread of statutory provisions that when placed
[01:52:54.320 --> 01:53:01.320]  side by side prove to you the tax code is never applied to America, not because the
[01:53:01.320 --> 01:53:06.320]  federal government has limited jurisdiction. It's not a jurisdictional argument. It's
[01:53:06.320 --> 01:53:12.320]  a statutory scope argument. Even if the federal government did have the jurisdiction to tax
[01:53:12.320 --> 01:53:17.320]  me here, and I'm not arguing they didn't, I'm just arguing Congress hasn't enacted
[01:53:17.320 --> 01:53:25.320]  statute, the tax code, in a way that reaches the citizen of the United States, me and you
[01:53:25.320 --> 01:53:31.320]  as they call us, in the 50 states. It hasn't reached us with an income tax. So I'm arguing
[01:53:31.320 --> 01:53:36.320]  statutory scope. Get a blank piece of paper in front of you. You've got one minute. Get
[01:53:36.320 --> 01:53:41.320]  a blank piece of paper. And I can describe this rather quickly. But in the meantime,
[01:53:41.320 --> 01:53:49.320]  I want to tell you if you go to TakeFromCaesar.us, TakeFromCaesar, C-A-E-S-A-R, dot U-S, there's
[01:53:49.320 --> 01:53:54.320]  an advertisement there for the Section 83 manual. It's called Code Breaker, the Section
[01:53:54.320 --> 01:54:01.320]  83 equation. You click to order, and then you want to enter promo code, Randy, or coupon
[01:54:01.320 --> 01:54:07.320]  code, Randy. That'll get you 10% off the price of the book. You enter Randy, click on update,
[01:54:07.320 --> 01:54:13.320]  and you'll see the price change right in front of your eyes there. Now, on your blank piece
[01:54:13.320 --> 01:54:18.320]  of paper in front of you, turn it sideways so it's long, left to right, and draw a line
[01:54:18.320 --> 01:54:23.320]  right down the middle. You got two columns. Now draw a line right down the middle of both
[01:54:23.320 --> 01:54:32.320]  of those columns. This is the key to the tax code here. You're left with four columns.
[01:54:32.320 --> 01:54:36.320]  When you've paid all your taxes, when you've done everything the IRS says you have to,
[01:54:36.320 --> 01:54:40.320]  and they got no reason to come after you, and you sell your labor, there's four chapters
[01:54:40.320 --> 01:54:46.320]  they apply to you. Those are those four columns. On the far right, Chapter 24, the W-4 form.
[01:54:46.320 --> 01:54:54.320]  I hope you're right and like the devil. Chapter 24, the W-4 form. Next one over, the third
[01:54:54.320 --> 01:55:00.320]  one from the left is Chapter 21, FICA, Federal Insurance Contributions Act. That's Social
[01:55:00.320 --> 01:55:07.320]  Security for the employee. Chapter 2, second one from the left, is Social Security
[01:55:07.320 --> 01:55:14.320]  Self-Employed, and Chapter 1 is the one at the far left. Section 1 of Chapter 1, the
[01:55:14.320 --> 01:55:20.320]  tax code is Section 1 through 9999, so it goes numerically through the tax code left
[01:55:20.320 --> 01:55:27.320]  to right. Chapter 1, Section 1, married individual, filing jointly, separately, head of household,
[01:55:27.320 --> 01:55:32.320]  surviving spouse, single individual, trust, and capital gain in Section 1H. It's where
[01:55:32.320 --> 01:55:40.320]  we have all the brackets. Now, I'm not the citizen in Chapter 21. They say I'm a citizen
[01:55:40.320 --> 01:55:47.320]  of the United States. I'm going to say, okay, so I'm not the citizen in Chapter 21. Section
[01:55:47.320 --> 01:55:55.320]  3121E, as in everybody, 3121E expressly excludes citizens of the United States, so I'm going
[01:55:55.320 --> 01:56:04.320]  to ignore Chapter 21. Chapter 2, 1402B, as in boy, 1402B defines citizen. It doesn't
[01:56:04.320 --> 01:56:10.320]  tell you who is a citizen. It tells you who is not a non-resident alien, and it says a
[01:56:10.320 --> 01:56:15.320]  citizen of the possessions is not a non-resident alien, and it expressly excludes citizens
[01:56:15.320 --> 01:56:20.320]  of the United States. So I'm going to ignore Chapters 2 and 21. The reason I started in
[01:56:20.320 --> 01:56:25.320]  Chapter 21 instead of 24 on the far right is that the Form W-4 Chapter, Chapter 24,
[01:56:25.320 --> 01:56:31.320]  doesn't even impose a tax. It imposes a withholding method. There's no rate of tax imposed by
[01:56:31.320 --> 01:56:37.320]  Chapter 24. So I'm left only with Chapter 1. That's the only one left, because I'm
[01:56:37.320 --> 01:56:47.320]  not Chapter 2 and 21. Chapter 1 has no statutory definition of citizen, and I went case by
[01:56:47.320 --> 01:56:51.320]  case court by circuit court, district court by district court on LexisNexis and collected
[01:56:51.320 --> 01:56:57.320]  all the cases that mention Section 1 of the tax code. When federal jurisdiction is challenged,
[01:56:57.320 --> 01:57:04.320]  they say everyone owes the tax, Section 1 and 26 CFR 1.1-1. That's the regulation under
[01:57:04.320 --> 01:57:10.320]  Section 1 that names the U.S. citizen as a subject of the tax code. I say, okay, that's
[01:57:10.320 --> 01:57:16.320]  my citizenship. Do you have something more than just a regulation that names me as a
[01:57:16.320 --> 01:57:21.320]  subject? Because Section 1 of the code is just a table of different tax brackets. It
[01:57:21.320 --> 01:57:28.320]  doesn't even mention the term citizen. You have named me in regulation alone in violation
[01:57:28.320 --> 01:57:35.320]  of the 16th Amendment that says only Congress can lay and collect this tax. There. Wasn't
[01:57:35.320 --> 01:57:40.320]  that easy. I'm only named in a regulation, or you couldn't speak to me about the tax
[01:57:40.320 --> 01:57:48.320]  code. How in the world is that not a preservation of the idea of federalism, a limited federal
[01:57:48.320 --> 01:57:53.320]  government? When the tax code was written to not even apply to Americans, they had to
[01:57:53.320 --> 01:57:59.320]  write a regulation to apply to Americans in violation of the 16th Amendment, and this
[01:57:59.320 --> 01:58:05.320]  is one of the arguments they needed a protective order against in 2005.
[01:58:05.320 --> 01:58:12.320]  Interesting. So the regulation is not law, and where the regulation doesn't comport
[01:58:12.320 --> 01:58:15.320]  with law, you can use your poor toilet paper.
[01:58:15.320 --> 01:58:16.320]  Amen.
[01:58:16.320 --> 01:58:22.320]  Hang on. Hang on, Randy Kelton, Debra Stevens, Rule of Law Radio, here with David Merlin.
[01:58:22.320 --> 01:58:34.320]  I call it number 512-646-1984. Wait a minute. We're out of time. Thank you all for listening.
[01:58:34.320 --> 01:58:41.320]  We were having too much fun. We'll be back tomorrow night on our 4-Hour Info Marathon.
[01:58:41.320 --> 01:58:43.320]  Thank you all, and good night.
[01:58:43.320 --> 01:58:46.320]  Thanks, Randy.
[01:58:46.320 --> 01:58:50.320]  Thank you for being here.
[01:58:50.320 --> 01:58:57.320]  Bibles for America is offering absolutely free a unique study Bible called the New Testament
[01:58:57.320 --> 01:59:02.320]  Recovery Version. The New Testament Recovery Version has over 9,000 footnotes that explain
[01:59:02.320 --> 01:59:08.320]  what the Bible says verse by verse, helping you to know God and to know the meaning of
[01:59:08.320 --> 01:59:16.320]  life. Order your free copy today from Bibles for America. Call us toll free at 888-551-0102,
[01:59:16.320 --> 01:59:24.320]  or visit us online at bfa.org. This translation is highly accurate, and it comes with over
[01:59:24.320 --> 01:59:30.320]  13,000 cross references, plus charts and maps and an outline for every book of the Bible.
[01:59:30.320 --> 01:59:35.320]  This is truly a Bible you can understand. To get your free copy of the New Testament
[01:59:35.320 --> 01:59:46.320]  Recovery Version, call us toll free at 888-551-0102. That's 888-551-0102, or visit us online at
[01:59:46.320 --> 02:00:00.320]  bfa.org.