Source: http://famguardian1.org/Subjects/Taxes/Articles/IRSIsATerroristOrganization.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 12:14:05+00:00

Document:
SOURCE: Great IRS Hoax, section 7.1.7 version 3.12.
terrorism. "Act of terrorism" means an activity that involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life that is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; and appears to be intended--(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping. 18 U.S.C.A. §3077.
violence. Unjust or unwarranted exercise of force, usually with accompaniment of vehemence, outrage, or fury. People v. McIlvain, 55 Cal.App.2d 322, 130 P.2d 131, 134. Physical force unlawfully exercised; abuse of force; that force which is employed against common right, against the laws, and against public liberty. Anderson-Berney Bldg. Co. v. Lowry, Tex.Civ.App., 143 S.W.2d 401, 403. The exertion of any physical force so as to injure, damage or abuse. See e.g. Assault.
Violence in labor disputes is not limited to physical contact or injury, but may include picketing conducted with misleading signs, false statements, publicity, and veiled threats by words and acts. Esco Operating Corporation v. Kaplan, 144 Misc. 646, 258 N.Y.S. 303.
violent.Moving, acting, or characterized, by physical force, especially by extreme or sudden or by unjust or improper force. Furious, vehement; as a violent storm or wind. A violent attack marked by, or due to, strong mental excitement. Vehement, passionate; as, violent speech. Violent reproaches produced or effected by force, not spontaneous or natural; as, a violent death. Displaying or proceeding from extreme or intense force; caused by unexpected unnatural causes.
Note that the object of terrorism can and often is the government. Remember that in this country, the people are the sovereigns and the government is their agent or servant. They direct and manage their government using elections and jury service. Therefore, terrorism directed at the people is effectively terrorism directed at the government.
Harassment or intimidation of any kind, including stalking, mailing threatening communications, and excessive and costly litigation as a punishment for those who don’t cooperate.
So if the government is using any kind of force against a member of society and cannot or will not cite a specific law either making the action they are opposing a crime within their jurisdiction or making you liable to do something that you aren’t doing within their jurisdiction, then they are involved in an act of “terrorism”, because they are applying force unlawfully. There is no other way you can look at it. Not only that, but if they evade or avoid justifying their behavior, then you can add to the charge that they are “obstructing justice” and covering up wrongdoing! Hiding the unlawfulness of what they are doing by evading responsibility for justifying it or refusing to address the legal issues authorizing it is obstruction of justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. Chapter 73: Obstructing Justice.
Malicious and unwarranted prosecutions, which abuses the legal system to harass, intimidate, and financially plunder innocent Americans.
All of the above are terrorist activities if the law does not specifically authorize them or if they are accomplished outside of the federal zone, and chapter 5 provides over 300 pages of proof showing why any efforts on the part of the IRS to enforce income taxes, and especially in the 50 states and outside of federal enclaves within those states, are unlawful activities in the context of Subtitle A income taxes of natural persons.
I am writing to you to report terrorist activity happening on American soil. The good news is that the perpetrators will be easy for you to find. The bad news is this: they will be easy to find because many of them work for you. You will probably want to ignore the rest of this letter, because it is not about the kind of terrorism you care about: the kind that endangers your power. On the contrary, this terrorism increases your power, and only endangers the freedom of the American public, which is why you will do nothing about it (except condone it). However, I feel compelled to report it to you anyway, because your unresponsiveness will show a lot of people that you do not care at all about their freedom or well-being.
On May 6th of this year, there was an armed invasion of my home carried out by the IRS under the guise of a “search warrant.” In reality, my “crime” was that I spoke my mind, and the IRS did not like what I had to say. So a dozen or so armed agents raided my house, confiscated my computers, and stole several cases of my “Theft By Deception” video. Could it be that the IRS does not want a public discussion of this issue?
The government will not tolerate this public expression of my beliefs, despite the fact that it is unquestionably “non-commercial” speech protected by the First Amendment. Nor is the government willing to have an open, rational discussion about what your own law books say. So the IRS and your underlings at the DOJ have tried to silence me. In 2001, the IRS made the asinine accusation that the expression of my conclusions constitutes an “abusive tax shelter” under 26 USC § 6700, and that I should therefore be silenced via court order. That allegation was utterly baseless, so they soon gave up on it. The DOJ then attempted to subpoena everything I had ever written about taxes, privately or publicly, in a case that was not even about me. (It was an injunction case against Thurston Bell, with whom I had no business dealings and very little personal contact.) The U.S. Attorney in the case (Evan Davis) even admitted to me on the phone that the subpoena was overly broad. So that attempt at intimidation and harassment also failed.
Then the government tried the most blatant thuggery against me so far: the armed invasion of my home last month. By sending to your office (and to the IRS) letters swearing that I received income, and swearing that I did not file income tax returns or make payments to the IRS since 1997, and by making my situation and my actions completely public, I removed any need whatsoever for them to invade my home and steal my records and my computers. I had given you all the factual evidence you could want (without being asked for it), and given you an explanation of why my actions were completely legal and proper (i.e. because I do not owe the tax). The only things you would need to prove to convict me of tax evasion or failure to file a tax return is that my income is taxable and that I have no reason to suspect otherwise. So why did the government choose thuggery? Because in a “fair fight,” you would lose.
Once again, I hereby request that you supply me with direct written answers to the enclosed six questions about how to determine one’s taxable income, and I am going to suggest that others also ask you to answer those questions as well. However, once again you will not answer them because to do so would expose the largest financial fraud in history, which would endanger your power. You will do what many other government officials have done when confronted with the evidence: you will show the world that you are willing to terrorize citizens who speak their minds, but you are either unable or unwilling to answer perfectly reasonable questions about what the law itself says. The IRS and the “Department of Justice” care not at all about the “rule of law”; they care only about whatever will maintain or increase their own power.
I (and thousands of others) know that the entire government, top to bottom, is utterly incapable of refuting my conclusions, because my conclusions agree with what the law itself says. Every tyrannical stunt that the government tries will only make the public angrier when the truth becomes widely known. But tyrants never learn from history; they always resort to any amount of violence to hang on to power, even though that tactic almost always backfires. The IRS and your “Department of Justice” apparently are doomed to learn the same lesson, since you are utterly incapable of rational and open discussion, as you will now demonstrate by failing to answer the enclosed questions.
1) Should I use the rules found in 26 USC § 861(b), and the related regulations beginning at 26 CFR § 1.861-8, to determine my taxable domestic income?
2) If some individuals—including myself—should not use those sections for determining their taxable domestic income, please show me where the regulations say who should or should not use those sections for that.
3) If a U.S. citizen lives and works exclusively within the 50 states, and receives all of his income from within the 50 states, do 26 USC § 861(b) and 26 CFR § 1.861-8 show such income to be taxable?
Reason for question: Section 217 of the Revenue Act of 1921, statutory predecessor of 26 USC § 861 and following, stated that income from within the U.S. was taxable for foreigners and for U.S. citizens and corporations deriving most of their income from federal possessions (but did not say the same about the domestic income of most Americans). The regulations under the equivalent section of the 1939 Code (e.g. §§ 29.119-1, 29.119-2, 29.119-9, 29.119-10 (1945)) showed the same thing. The current regulations at 1.861-8 still show income to be taxable only when derived from certain “specific sources and activities,” which, concerning domestic income, still relate only to foreigners and certain Americans receiving income from federal possessions (26 CFR §§ 1.861-8(a)(1), 1.861-8(a)(4), 1.861-8(f)(1)).
4) Should one refer to 26 CFR § 1.861-8T(d)(2) to determine whether the “items” of income he receives (such as compensation, interest, rents, dividends, etc.) are excluded for federal income tax purposes?
Reason for question: The regulations (26 CFR § 1.861-8(a)(3)) state that a “class of gross income” consists of the “items” of income listed in 26 USC § 61 (e.g. compensation, interest, etc.). The regulations (26 CFR §§ 1.861-8(b)(1)) then direct the reader to “paragraph (d)(2)” of the section, which provides that such “classes of gross income” may include some income which is excluded for federal income tax purposes.
Reason for question: After defining “exempt income” to mean income which is exempt, eliminated, or excluded for federal income tax purposes (26 CFR § 1.861-8T(d)(2)(ii)), the regulations give a list of types of income which are not exempt (i.e. which are subject to tax), which includes the domestic income of foreigners, certain foreign income of Americans, income of certain possessions corporations, and income of international and foreign sales corporations, but which does not include the domestic income of the average American (26 CFR § 1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii)).
6) What types of income (if any) are not exempted from taxation by any statute, but are nonetheless “excluded by law” (not subject to the federal income tax) because they are, under the Constitution, not taxable by the federal government?
Reason for question: Older income tax regulations defining “gross income” and “net income” said that neither income exempted by statute “or fundamental law” were subject to the tax (§ 39.21-1 (1956)), and said that in addition to those types of income exempted by statute, other types of income were exempt because they were, “under the Constitution, not taxable by the Federal Government” (§ 39.22(b)-1 (1956)).
This enclosure describes exactly what a U.S. Attorney must prove in order to have me convicted of willful failure to file (26 USC § 7203) or willful tax evasion (26 USC § 7201). Since I have consistently made it publicly known that 1996 was the last year for which I filed a federal income tax return or made payments to the IRS, and since I have consistently admitted that I received enough income in each of those years that if my income was taxable, both returns and payments would have been legally required—and I would not hesitate to admit both of those facts to any jury—all you must prove is that: 1) the income I received is taxable, and; 2) I had no reason to suspect otherwise.
1) Based on legally-binding citations I have already found or have already been shown, I cannot have even an “unreasonable” belief that I should use the rules found in 26 USC § 861(b) and 26 CFR § 1.861-8 to determine my taxable domestic income (i.e. my “taxable income from sources within the United States”).
2) Based on legally-binding citations I have already found or have already been shown, I cannot have even an “unreasonable” belief that the rules found in 26 USC § 861(b) and 26 CFR § 1.861-8 do not show my income to be taxable.
1) Based on legally-binding citations I have already found or have already been shown, I cannot have even an “unreasonable” belief that the “items” of income listed in 26 USC § 61 (e.g. compensation, interest, rents, etc.) are not always taxable, but are in some cases exempt or excluded for federal income tax purposes.
2) Based on legally-binding citations I have already found or have already been shown, I cannot have even an “unreasonable” belief that where the regulations list types of commerce, income from which is not exempt (i.e. income from which is taxable), the type of income I receive is not included.
Because the two issues above each lead to the same conclusion using independent citations and reasoning, you must prove at least one of the first two, and at least one of the second two. In doing so, you can rely on only those citations that I have already seen (due to the “willfulness” factor), and that are the legal equivalent or superior to Treasury regulations. In other words, you can rely only on statutes, regulations, or Supreme Court rulings. According to the Internal Revenue Manual, any court rulings other than those of the Supreme Court, as well as any IRS letters, notices, letter rulings, revenue rulings, procedures, publications, or forms are insufficient and irrelevant, as they do not carry the legal weight of the regulations relied upon above.
Can you recognize the government’s terrorism against this man? We sure can! All he wants is an accountable government that is a servant and protector of its people. What he gets in response is harassment, legal terrorism, evasion, and propaganda. This is unconscionable in a free society and every bit as reprehensible as the acts of the Stalin in Russia or Hitler in Germany.

References: §3077
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 6700
 § 861
 § 1
 § 861
 § 1
 § 861
 § 1
 § 1
 § 61
 § 1
 § 1
 § 7203
 § 7201
 § 861
 § 1
 § 861
 § 1
 § 61