Are you looking for Solutions for America in Distress

You are in the right place to find out about what is really going on behind the scenes in the patriot movement in America, including solutions from Oathkeepers, Anna Von Reitz, Constitutional Sheriffs, Richard Mack, and many more people who are leading the charge to restore America to freedom and peace. Please search on the right for over 2500 articles.
You will find some conflicting views from some of these authors. You will also find that all the authors are deeply concerned about the future of America. What they write is their own opinion, just as what I write is my own. If you have an opinion on a particular article, please comment by clicking the title of the article and scrolling to the box at the bottom on that page. Please keep the discussion about the issues, and keep it civil. The administrator reserves the right to remove unwarranted personal attacks. Use the golden rule; "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Monday, May 9, 2016

Revocation of Election to Pay Income Tax -- Unanswered Letters 12 -- For "Princess"


by Anna Von Reitz

Your revocation of election takes  effect normally with the beginning of the current Federal tax year, which in this case (assuming revocation today) would be July 1 of 2015.  You are still responsible for paying prior years unless you stipulate an earlier revocation date, for example, if they were claiming that you owed taxes from 2009 that you objected to then and ever since, you could make revocation effective July 1 of 2008. 

Whether you knew it or not, this "pledge" of your service as a Withholding Agent was always voluntary so long as you are not a federal employee (military or civilian), willingly operating as a federal corporation, of African American descent, a political asylum seeker, or welfare seeker. 


The vast majority of American working people are not "eligible" for Social Security and are not naturally "eligible" to pay federal income tax, but during the Second World War a voluntary Victory Tax program was established by which patriotic Americans were asked to "donate" a portion of their wages equal to the federal income tax to the war effort. Millions upon millions of working class Americans did so.  

The sunset clause of this Act makes it clear that any such election to pay federal taxes was supposed to automatically end with the cessation of armed conflict---- at the latest, August of 1945.  Rats being what they are, the members of Congress made no provision for a general cancellation of such "taxpayer accounts", and no instructions were given to people as to how they could revoke their election to pay---- which has given rise to the monstrous abuses of the Internal Revenue Service today. 

You have created a file in their system and an account number.  They will continue to "fish" for money from you. Keep a copy of your revocation documents and mailing receipts and whenever they contact you, send them a new copy. 

In whatever you do, firmly maintain your status as an American State National (Article IV, Section 2) who is "retired" from any presumption of United States citizenship. 
---------------------------------------
See this article and over 200 others on Anna's website here:www.annavonreitz.com
To support this work look for the PayPal button on this website. 

3 comments:

  1. I made my revocation of election nunc pro tunc to my age of majority. It was unrebutted so stands as fact. I mailed it via registered mail return receipt, and never received the green card back. When I went to the post office and complained, all I got was a shoulder shrug, and a "there's nothing I can do" response. So be sure to save the receipt for payment of this service, and download the USPS tracking form which says when it was received and by whom.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thank you Margy for the info. I will make sure to do that.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This ROE approach appears to be a rather complicated way to achieve what the Pete Hendrickson approach (Cracking the Code...) accomplishes: revoking the election; and the election is made by the private payer in the W-2, 1099, K-1 information returns --testifying that "income" or "wages" were paid. The private payee may rebut this false testimony in a substitute for W-2 or amended 1099, attached to an accurate 1040 and thereby revoke that "election".
    Since the gov't has now been demoted to the status of: disinterested third party to the transaction, the IRS/DOJ retains no jurisdiction (or standing?) to attempt to challenge the payee's rebuttal. Why? The 1862 IRC plainly states:
    ..."Provided, That any party, in his or her own behalf,...shall be permitted to declare, under oath or affirmation, the form and manner of which shall be prescribed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, that he or she was not possessed of an income of six hundred dollars, liable to be assessed according to the provisions of this act,...he or she may be permitted to declare, as aforesaid, the amount of his or her annual income, or the amount held in trust, as aforesaid, liable to be assessed, as aforesaid, and the same so declared shall be received as the sum upon which duties are to be assessed and collected." - THIRTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS. Sess. II. Ch. 119. 1862 Sec. 93 (page 475)
    Note: "shall be permitted, shall be received"; shall is a mandatory term. If a payee believes he did not receive "income", his testimony must be accepted as the fact. If indeed, the gov't is the payer; and is therefore an interested second party to that transaction, only then is it permitted to attempt to rebut the payee's testimony.
    Note 2: The "...may be permitted to declare..." sounds like an attempt to confuse the reader about the mandatory nature of the law
    This is why no one (many thousands of educated filers over the last twelve years) using Hendrickson's approach to "revocation of election" has been prosecuted by the IRS for any unlawful actions.
    Only Doreen Hendrickson was jailed for contempt of court for refusing to change her testimony to that dictated by the gov't. This proves the point, don't you think? Ones own testimony is required to affirm "election", thus allowing lawful assessment and collection of ones property.
    As I understand it, Peter Hendrickson was jailed for alleged "intent" -not believing the contents of his own book.
    The logic presented to the jury being: no one could sincerely believe that the income tax is voluntary.
    NOTE: Doreen Hendrickson's Federal appeals rejection decision has set a new precedent: it is now lawful for the gov't to exact compelled testimony. This also jeopardizes ROE attempts.

    ReplyDelete

Place your comment. The moderator will review it after it is published. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason.