Detecting language using up to the first 30 seconds. Use `--language` to specify the language
Detected language: English
[00:00.000 --> 00:06.440]  On April 2nd, 2024, I was interviewed about the truth of the income tax by Gary Brown,
[00:06.440 --> 00:10.040]  host of the Legal Beagles podcast.
[00:10.040 --> 00:15.440]  Legal Beagles is a loose association of Americans who study law on their own, with many choosing
[00:15.440 --> 00:18.160]  to bring court actions as pro se litigators.
[00:18.160 --> 00:22.840]  The most significant subject they're currently working on is to remove private homes from
[00:22.840 --> 00:24.400]  the property tax rules.
[00:24.400 --> 00:29.240]  I'll put links in the notes where you can get more information about Legal Beagles.
[00:29.240 --> 00:34.800]  Gary and I had a great time during the interview, and I know you're going to have a great time
[00:34.800 --> 00:35.800]  watching it.
[00:35.800 --> 00:37.400]  So let's get to it.
[00:37.400 --> 00:39.080]  Greetings and salutations.
[00:39.080 --> 00:41.560]  Welcome back to another episode of the Legal Beagle.
[00:41.560 --> 00:46.760]  Today, we're talking with Dave Champion, who wrote the book Income Tax, Shattering the
[00:46.760 --> 00:47.760]  Myth.
[00:47.760 --> 00:51.320]  And let me tell you, there's a lot of ways to find out about the income tax, and you
[00:51.320 --> 00:56.520]  can piece together podcasts and other videos from a lot of other people.
[00:56.520 --> 01:02.320]  And this is a comprehensive book that tells you pretty much all you need to know if you
[01:02.320 --> 01:04.000]  read the book cover to cover.
[01:04.000 --> 01:10.520]  And honestly, in the first 50 pages, tells you a lot more than 99% of the rest of the
[01:10.520 --> 01:17.280]  Americans that have never read this book or never read the code about how understanding
[01:17.280 --> 01:18.680]  the income tax.
[01:18.680 --> 01:25.120]  So I would highly recommend you checking out Dave's work, whether it be the book or his
[01:25.120 --> 01:26.120]  videos or whatnot.
[01:26.120 --> 01:31.440]  I'm going to give you a short little intro here from the end of the interview where he
[01:31.440 --> 01:35.680]  tells us how to find him and all his platform he's on.
[01:35.680 --> 01:38.480]  But shortly after that, we'll get right into it.
[01:38.480 --> 01:40.880]  So without further ado, here we go.
[01:40.880 --> 01:43.160]  Please tell us where we can find you.
[01:43.160 --> 01:44.160]  Absolutely.
[01:44.160 --> 01:45.320]  Thank you, Gary.
[01:45.320 --> 01:49.640]  If you want to purchase Income Tax, Shattering the Myth, you can go to drreality.news.
[01:49.640 --> 01:53.480]  That's drreality.news.
[01:53.480 --> 01:56.560]  In addition to Income Tax, Shattering the Myth, I want to suggest that people take a
[01:56.560 --> 01:57.920]  gander at body science.
[01:57.920 --> 02:02.520]  I'm a physiologist and I wrote a groundbreaking book on human physiology that if you're looking
[02:02.520 --> 02:07.880]  for truth, which is the whole purpose of things like this conversation today, on the nutritional
[02:07.880 --> 02:09.600]  side, I encourage you to get that.
[02:09.600 --> 02:12.800]  I'm on Rumble.
[02:12.800 --> 02:14.320]  Rumble has a weird search thing.
[02:14.320 --> 02:16.860]  If you search for Dave Champion, it doesn't always find me.
[02:16.860 --> 02:21.640]  But if you search for Dave Champion PhD, it usually brings it up.
[02:21.920 --> 02:29.320]  I'm also on X and my handle there is drreality5.
[02:29.320 --> 02:37.040]  Just drreality with the numeral 5 at the end and you'll find my account on X.
[02:37.040 --> 02:41.640]  I'm on Facebook, just Dave Champion or Income Tax, Shattering the Myth, either one will
[02:41.640 --> 02:42.920]  get you where you want to go there.
[02:42.920 --> 02:46.120]  I'm trying to think if there's any, oh, and the podcast.
[02:46.120 --> 02:51.600]  When you go to drreality.news, one of the tabs at the top of the page says podcast.
[02:51.600 --> 02:56.440]  If you enjoy podcasts more than video, you can click there and no matter what platform
[02:56.440 --> 02:59.760]  you prefer to take your podcasts from, they're all listed there.
[02:59.760 --> 03:00.760]  So just click there.
[03:00.760 --> 03:01.760]  We'll take you right there.
[03:01.760 --> 03:05.240]  So sign up to be notified when a new broadcast appears.
[03:05.240 --> 03:09.840]  And let me just say, I have not found one thing I disagree with in this book or the
[03:09.840 --> 03:12.000]  what David said today.
[03:12.000 --> 03:17.560]  And I would highly recommend if you want to speed your knowledge of how to do this other
[03:17.560 --> 03:22.000]  than reading the income tax itself and statutory as of construction, which we all need to do
[03:22.000 --> 03:23.220]  as well.
[03:23.220 --> 03:27.640]  But this is the fastest way to knowing what you need to know.
[03:27.640 --> 03:28.640]  Let's get into the interview.
[03:28.640 --> 03:29.640]  Welcome, Dave.
[03:29.640 --> 03:32.400]  Thank you for being here.
[03:32.400 --> 03:33.400]  Thanks for having me here.
[03:33.400 --> 03:34.400]  Of course.
[03:34.400 --> 03:35.400]  Absolutely.
[03:35.400 --> 03:36.760]  I say we get right into it.
[03:36.760 --> 03:38.800]  We have a lot to discuss.
[03:38.800 --> 03:42.200]  So there usually is whatever we talked about the income tax.
[03:42.200 --> 03:43.200]  That's right.
[03:43.200 --> 03:44.200]  That's right.
[03:44.400 --> 03:51.360]  First quotes I want to I want to bring up is it's on page, it's not even in the book
[03:51.360 --> 03:52.360]  yet.
[03:52.360 --> 03:57.760]  I mean, it's in the it's in the forward and it says, and you write on page IV, so page
[03:57.760 --> 04:04.000]  four of Roman numerals, to be blunt, the US government is guilty of committing the largest
[04:04.000 --> 04:06.240]  financial crime in history.
[04:06.240 --> 04:12.000]  Worse yet, it is fully aware that it is doing so and has no intention of stopping.
[04:12.040 --> 04:16.600]  Let's talk about that for a brief moment and then talk about, you know, a little bit of
[04:16.600 --> 04:17.600]  your history.
[04:17.600 --> 04:23.240]  And I want to hear about your court case that they brought those false charges against you
[04:23.240 --> 04:27.720]  and what district it was and what specific as you want to be.
[04:27.720 --> 04:37.600]  We'd like to hear how that how that came about and who Tommy Chung is and that type of thing.
[04:37.600 --> 04:44.000]  OK, first of all, largest financial crime in history, and they know they're doing it.
[04:44.000 --> 04:48.600]  People have to read income tax out of them as for themselves to understand that it is
[04:48.600 --> 04:52.160]  the largest financial crime in the history of mankind.
[04:52.160 --> 04:55.040]  But why do I say they're fully aware of it?
[04:55.040 --> 05:00.400]  Because I think that's that's really the at least for me, that's the critical component.
[05:00.400 --> 05:04.640]  When I look back 30 years ago to when I first learned about the truth of the income tax,
[05:04.640 --> 05:10.880]  if I had discovered in the end, as I initially thought, and I'm embarrassed to say, I initially
[05:10.880 --> 05:13.600]  thought it's just a mistake.
[05:13.600 --> 05:18.800]  They just like the politicians and the people at the IRS, they've just never read the law.
[05:18.800 --> 05:23.360]  It's just one big mistake, you know, because I I hadn't yet had my faith in the United
[05:23.360 --> 05:26.240]  States government utterly and completely destroyed at that point.
[05:26.240 --> 05:31.840]  But what I found in my years of research, we need to start with the premise.
[05:31.840 --> 05:36.800]  And again, your audience will understand a lot of things I'm going to say are going
[05:36.800 --> 05:41.760]  to sound odd, perhaps in the minds of some people, even untrue, if they haven't read
[05:41.760 --> 05:43.200]  income tax shadowing the most.
[05:43.200 --> 05:46.400]  So just go with me until you get a chance to read the book.
[05:46.400 --> 05:49.440]  And then you will say at the end, oh, Dave was 100 percent right.
[05:49.440 --> 05:50.440]  OK.
[05:50.440 --> 05:51.440]  Oh, thank you.
[05:51.440 --> 05:52.440]  Thank you.
[05:52.440 --> 05:56.720]  And just so we all know what we're reading here, Dave wrote this book, how many years
[05:56.720 --> 05:57.720]  ago?
[05:58.120 --> 06:02.440]  Well, I finally got to publish it 14 years ago.
[06:02.440 --> 06:03.640]  Gotcha.
[06:03.640 --> 06:08.120]  Which is way ahead of the way ahead of the times, Dave, way ahead of the times.
[06:08.120 --> 06:15.080]  Yeah, the distrust that exists in the government today did not exist 14 years ago.
[06:15.080 --> 06:20.280]  But anyway, so the first thing I'm going to say that people may say what if they haven't
[06:20.280 --> 06:26.680]  read the book is Congress has imposed the income tax on three classes of persons, classes
[06:26.760 --> 06:28.040]  of persons, a fancy legal term.
[06:28.040 --> 06:29.080]  It just means categories.
[06:29.080 --> 06:29.720]  OK.
[06:29.720 --> 06:34.280]  So Congress has imposed the income tax on the following three classes.
[06:34.280 --> 06:38.600]  The first one, non-resident aliens with U.S. source income.
[06:38.600 --> 06:42.360]  The second one is foreign corporations with U.S. source income.
[06:42.360 --> 06:46.840]  Those can be combined just foreign persons with U.S. source income.
[06:46.840 --> 06:47.480]  Those first two.
[06:48.200 --> 06:51.480]  And the last one is U.S. citizens residing abroad with foreigner income.
[06:51.480 --> 06:52.600]  Such a trivial amount of people.
[06:52.600 --> 06:53.720]  It's not even worth talking about.
[06:54.600 --> 06:56.360]  So that's it.
[06:57.160 --> 07:03.320]  Since 1913, when the income tax was first enacted, those are the only three classes
[07:03.320 --> 07:05.240]  upon whom Congress has imposed the income tax.
[07:05.240 --> 07:14.360]  So in my decades of research, which includes the regulations written by the Secretary of
[07:14.360 --> 07:21.560]  the Treasury and Treasury decisions written by the Secretary of the Treasury, as we're
[07:21.560 --> 07:26.280]  sitting here today, the 111 years since the enactment of the income tax, not a single
[07:26.280 --> 07:32.600]  regulation, not a single Treasury decision attempts to step outside the guard rails
[07:32.600 --> 07:34.280]  of those three classes.
[07:34.280 --> 07:41.880]  So if the income tax really applied to you and me, right, and by association,
[07:41.880 --> 07:47.240]  the other 334 million Americans, if that was who the income tax really applied to,
[07:47.320 --> 07:54.040]  then in 111 years, we wouldn't see every regulation and every single Treasury decision
[07:54.040 --> 08:01.000]  staying within the guard rails of foreign persons with U.S. source income and U.S. citizens
[08:01.000 --> 08:02.600]  residing abroad with foreign income.
[08:03.480 --> 08:09.640]  All the information, all the authoritative writings for 111 years stay within those guard
[08:09.640 --> 08:11.800]  rails impeccably.
[08:11.800 --> 08:15.960]  And the reason they do is the people who write the regulations and the people who write the
[08:15.960 --> 08:21.640]  Treasury decisions know if they step outside those guard rails, somebody is going to file
[08:21.640 --> 08:25.320]  a case in the United States District Court challenging the constitutionality.
[08:25.320 --> 08:28.280]  It's going to go to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court is going to say,
[08:28.280 --> 08:31.320]  ah, you have to stay within the guard rails.
[08:31.320 --> 08:37.720]  That decision would then broadcast to 334 million Americans that the government has
[08:37.720 --> 08:39.880]  been lying to them for at least 60 years.
[08:40.760 --> 08:42.680]  60 is pretty conservative.
[08:43.640 --> 08:50.040]  Well, I think the propaganda about the income tax really kicked in right after World War II.
[08:50.040 --> 08:56.760]  I mean, the way the tax originally operated, if you go back to 1913, is it only hit the
[08:56.760 --> 08:58.600]  people in the top couple percent.
[08:58.600 --> 09:02.920]  So it was really a non-issue for the vast majority of Americans.
[09:02.920 --> 09:05.240]  So Americans didn't care about it, weren't looking at it.
[09:05.240 --> 09:10.440]  Well, then World War II came along, we had the Victory Tax Act, which
[09:11.400 --> 09:16.120]  purported to allow paychecks to be withheld from.
[09:17.000 --> 09:25.480]  And then in 1942, the Victory Tax Act expired, and we then got the current statutory
[09:25.480 --> 09:26.920]  withholding scheme.
[09:26.920 --> 09:30.760]  And so we came out of World War II, there was this debt, everybody was high on the United
[09:30.760 --> 09:34.600]  States, we're the king of the world, we saved all of Europe, blah, blah, blah, blah.
[09:35.320 --> 09:41.880]  And we are poised to take over and be the god of the known earth, right?
[09:42.680 --> 09:47.880]  And so with that, the government kicked in its propaganda that, oh, no, no, no, no, no,
[09:47.880 --> 09:49.480]  it applies to everybody.
[09:49.480 --> 09:55.560]  And I think for the sake of having the American people understand this correctly, after World
[09:55.560 --> 10:01.640]  War II, the propaganda kicked in that it was a tax upon you earning a living, which it
[10:01.640 --> 10:03.400]  absolutely is not, not at all.
[10:04.200 --> 10:08.040]  Excuse me, it doesn't apply to the ordinary average American, although it does apply to
[10:08.040 --> 10:08.600]  some Americans.
[10:08.600 --> 10:11.880]  We'll probably get into that down the road if we talk about a withholding agent.
[10:12.840 --> 10:17.320]  But the vast, vast, vast, vast, vast majority of Americans who all they do is get up in
[10:17.320 --> 10:20.840]  the morning, they get the kids ready, they have a cup of coffee, a little breakfast,
[10:20.840 --> 10:23.640]  they take the kids to school, go to work, do whatever they do.
[10:23.640 --> 10:26.760]  And they collect pay every week, two, three, whatever.
[10:26.840 --> 10:34.520]  Congress has never imposed income tax on the money that those people receive for doing
[10:34.520 --> 10:36.280]  whatever it is they do for a living.
[10:37.240 --> 10:43.960]  And so when you think that 100 million Americans, that's the estimate, 100 million Americans
[10:43.960 --> 10:51.560]  file a 1040 every year and pay their income tax for a tax that was never, ever imposed
[10:51.560 --> 10:54.520]  on them, 111 years, it's never applied to them.
[10:54.520 --> 10:55.640]  It doesn't apply to them today.
[10:56.600 --> 11:02.520]  100 million Americans paying something that was never imposed on them, largest financial
[11:02.520 --> 11:04.040]  crime in history.
[11:04.040 --> 11:08.520]  And the government, because of those regulations and treasury decisions, guardrails we've
[11:08.520 --> 11:14.680]  talked about, that's clear and compelling and convincing evidence they've known all
[11:14.680 --> 11:16.840]  along who the tax really was imposed on.
[11:16.840 --> 11:25.160]  And so why do you think, just, and we'll go into detail a little later, but why do you
[11:25.160 --> 11:29.640]  think everyone believes that it's applied to them?
[11:31.640 --> 11:32.280]  I don't know.
[11:32.280 --> 11:37.160]  We could probably line 100 people up and ask them that question and probably get 100
[11:37.160 --> 11:37.800]  different answers.
[11:38.760 --> 11:43.240]  But I think probably up at the top of the list is, first of all, they were born into
[11:43.240 --> 11:44.280]  the matrix.
[11:44.280 --> 11:48.440]  So unless somebody is 70 or 80 years old, they've grown up.
[11:49.480 --> 11:50.600]  Like I'm 64.
[11:50.600 --> 11:52.040]  I don't know how old you are, Gary.
[11:52.760 --> 12:02.040]  But at 64, as soon as I had enough intellect to understand what adults were saying when
[12:02.600 --> 12:08.280]  they talked about this thing called income tax, the message I got from the time I was
[12:08.280 --> 12:12.200]  a boy was, everybody owes the income tax.
[12:12.200 --> 12:15.320]  If you earn a living, you owe income tax.
[12:15.960 --> 12:20.760]  Then in my case, after leaving the government, I went into the private sector.
[12:21.080 --> 12:24.680]  After a little bit of time working for some other companies, I opened some businesses
[12:24.680 --> 12:25.640]  of my own.
[12:25.640 --> 12:28.760]  And of course, when you're opening businesses of your own, you go to people who've opened
[12:28.760 --> 12:32.040]  businesses before you, or you go to professionals.
[12:32.040 --> 12:35.240]  You say, I'm going to open a business, and what are the proper steps?
[12:35.240 --> 12:39.640]  And they immediately start down the taxpayer road.
[12:39.640 --> 12:44.600]  Well, you need to go get an employer identification number, and you need to start withholding
[12:44.600 --> 12:45.480]  from your workers.
[12:46.120 --> 12:49.720]  And at that point in my life, I knew nothing about income tax.
[12:49.800 --> 12:58.520]  And I think one of the things, especially for people in business, is they want to believe
[12:58.520 --> 12:59.480]  that they did it right.
[13:00.280 --> 13:02.360]  They do not want to believe they were bamboozled.
[13:03.000 --> 13:06.920]  When they go out to their very good friends and say, what should I do about this?
[13:06.920 --> 13:08.520]  And they're told all this taxpayer bullshit.
[13:10.200 --> 13:16.440]  I don't think they want to say, you know, Fred over there, who's been my best friend
[13:16.440 --> 13:17.560]  since we were teenagers.
[13:18.120 --> 13:22.040]  And this gal over here, who, you know, she's wonderful.
[13:22.040 --> 13:22.760]  I love this gal.
[13:23.640 --> 13:25.480]  They both gave me completely bogus information.
[13:26.040 --> 13:32.680]  And then I went out to professionals, and I paid the money, and I got bogus information.
[13:33.240 --> 13:38.520]  And then the whole government narrative, people don't want to go there.
[13:39.080 --> 13:40.680]  I think that's a natural thing.
[13:40.680 --> 13:43.560]  They want to think, oh, I know what I'm doing.
[13:43.560 --> 13:46.200]  I asked all the right questions and got all the right answers.
[13:47.000 --> 13:53.000]  So some of their confirmation bias and their ego prevents them from saying, as I eventually
[13:53.000 --> 13:57.000]  had to say at some point in my life, jeez, I've been a dumbass.
[13:58.040 --> 13:59.880]  You know, and a lot of people can't do that.
[13:59.880 --> 14:01.240]  Then we have the fear factor.
[14:02.440 --> 14:05.720]  I think before you go into that, I think Mark Twain said it best.
[14:05.720 --> 14:09.560]  He said, it's easier to fool the people than convince them they've been fooled.
[14:10.440 --> 14:11.480]  Absolutely.
[14:12.200 --> 14:16.120]  Yeah, people are not open to that, which is a shame.
[14:16.120 --> 14:21.320]  Because I think we can all, every single human on the planet can think of a time or a subject
[14:22.120 --> 14:23.240]  concerning which they were fooled.
[14:24.520 --> 14:28.040]  But for some reason, they don't want to admit they were fooled about this.
[14:29.000 --> 14:31.800]  I think it opens so many implications.
[14:32.360 --> 14:33.320]  Then we have fear.
[14:34.600 --> 14:34.920]  Right.
[14:34.920 --> 14:37.880]  And then it feeds into the fear.
[14:37.880 --> 14:40.520]  And you're like, well, I don't want to change my thinking on that because
[14:41.080 --> 14:42.920]  seeing what happens when other people do that.
[14:43.640 --> 14:44.140]  Sure.
[14:44.780 --> 14:49.660]  And the most recent big name example is Wesley Snipes, right?
[14:49.660 --> 14:52.380]  Who went to prison for willful failure to file.
[14:53.100 --> 14:59.340]  And the unfortunate thing is, Wesley never owed a penny of income tax.
[14:59.340 --> 15:02.460]  However, he got hooked up with some people who were
[15:03.100 --> 15:05.660]  promoting something called the 861 argument.
[15:05.660 --> 15:08.380]  Gary, I know you're not there yet in the book, but when you get to-
[15:08.380 --> 15:09.260]  I'm familiar with it.
[15:09.260 --> 15:09.760]  I don't believe it.
[15:10.380 --> 15:11.420]  Okay, okay.
[15:11.420 --> 15:14.700]  So the 861 argument was a faulty argument.
[15:14.700 --> 15:26.620]  And it's dangerous in the tax arena to follow notions, ideas that are false.
[15:26.620 --> 15:27.120]  Okay.
[15:27.580 --> 15:31.340]  And I don't know if you've heard me say this before, Gary,
[15:31.980 --> 15:35.820]  but I received a phone call shortly after Snipes was indicted.
[15:36.540 --> 15:40.140]  And the phone call was from his people.
[15:40.380 --> 15:43.020]  Hollywood stars always have people, right?
[15:43.020 --> 15:44.860]  You don't talk to the star, you talk to the people.
[15:44.860 --> 15:45.360]  All right.
[15:46.380 --> 15:48.700]  So they called me and they said,
[15:48.700 --> 15:51.500]  we'd be interested in having you on Wesley's defense team.
[15:52.060 --> 15:58.220]  I said, great, there is nothing more that would make my universe, right?
[15:58.220 --> 16:03.180]  Make my life than would be to force the United States government
[16:04.140 --> 16:11.420]  to file a petition with the court to dismiss the charges, an indictment,
[16:11.420 --> 16:17.660]  a grand jury indictment for the government to request that the charges be dropped.
[16:18.860 --> 16:22.060]  And I knew I could accomplish that for Wesley.
[16:22.060 --> 16:28.620]  So I told his people, if you want me on the team, I'm thrilled to do this.
[16:28.620 --> 16:29.900]  And I explained why.
[16:29.980 --> 16:34.140]  I said, but you have to let go of the 861 argument because it's nonsense.
[16:34.140 --> 16:35.580]  And you're going to get your ass handed to you
[16:35.580 --> 16:37.660]  if you go into court with something that's non-factual.
[16:38.540 --> 16:43.660]  If you follow what the law actually says and challenge the IRS,
[16:44.620 --> 16:48.700]  challenge the United States Department of Justice tax division,
[16:48.700 --> 16:52.860]  you challenge their attorneys in pretrial motions
[16:53.580 --> 16:57.820]  with the correct evidence from the statutes, from the regulations,
[16:57.820 --> 17:00.300]  most specifically from the Treasury decisions,
[17:00.300 --> 17:06.060]  most specifically from the Internal Revenue Manual as it existed a while ago.
[17:08.140 --> 17:12.220]  They ended up obsoleting that manual because it was going to go online
[17:12.220 --> 17:14.220]  and it would have given away the whole thing.
[17:14.220 --> 17:17.580]  So they obsoleted that manual and created a whole new Internal Revenue Manual
[17:18.220 --> 17:21.420]  just to make sure what was in the old manual never went public.
[17:21.420 --> 17:25.900]  Because December of 1999, I think it was,
[17:25.900 --> 17:30.300]  federal law required all agencies to have material that could be reasonably
[17:30.300 --> 17:33.500]  accessed through the Freedom of Information Act posted online.
[17:34.220 --> 17:38.380]  So the IRS needed to make sure that the Internal Revenue Manual
[17:39.100 --> 17:44.380]  that existed at that time would never be posted online.
[17:45.340 --> 17:49.260]  So they passed the 1998 IRS Reform and Restructuring Act,
[17:49.980 --> 17:53.660]  which the only reason they even did that was to obsolete the old manual.
[17:53.660 --> 17:58.380]  So it could no longer be accessed through FOIA
[17:58.380 --> 18:01.820]  and it would not be required to be posted online.
[18:01.820 --> 18:04.460]  So thus it became a big secret.
[18:05.100 --> 18:09.180]  They didn't realize that somebody has copies of it.
[18:11.180 --> 18:13.820]  You have some copies of that we'll get into in a little bit.
[18:13.820 --> 18:20.540]  But this group that we're speaking to is familiar with the misapplication of things.
[18:20.540 --> 18:23.900]  And I want to read this next little quote from the same page.
[18:25.100 --> 18:29.100]  By intentional misapplication of the income tax laws,
[18:29.100 --> 18:31.900]  the US government has achieved a level of snitching
[18:32.460 --> 18:38.300]  by the American people that would make the most hardened KGB agent weep tears of admiration.
[18:39.100 --> 18:39.420]  Yes.
[18:40.060 --> 18:43.980]  I mean, even if you didn't read any further in the book,
[18:43.980 --> 18:49.340]  and you trusted that it was going to get to that, that says it all, doesn't it?
[18:49.980 --> 18:50.620]  It really does.
[18:51.900 --> 18:56.140]  There's nothing I can think of that's more un-American than that.
[18:56.140 --> 18:59.100]  And the part you didn't read was where I said,
[18:59.980 --> 19:04.940]  Americans will look you in the eye and say, we hate snitches.
[19:05.660 --> 19:08.380]  But when it comes to income tax, what are W-2s?
[19:08.940 --> 19:10.460]  What are 1099s?
[19:10.460 --> 19:13.020]  What are all forms of information returns?
[19:13.020 --> 19:16.460]  The IRS even has a, I'm going to call it, it's not the correct legal name,
[19:16.460 --> 19:18.220]  they actually have a snitch program.
[19:18.220 --> 19:21.260]  If you snitch somebody off and the IRS goes after them
[19:21.260 --> 19:24.460]  and recovers any funds that were owed
[19:24.460 --> 19:26.860]  based on the conventional understanding of the tax code,
[19:28.060 --> 19:29.180]  then the snitch gets 10%.
[19:31.180 --> 19:33.340]  But I want to just touch base briefly on the Snipes thing.
[19:33.340 --> 19:34.380]  Let me just finish on Snipes.
[19:34.380 --> 19:34.780]  Oh, sure.
[19:35.980 --> 19:40.380]  When I explained to his people that we could absolutely shut this case down,
[19:40.380 --> 19:44.060]  it would never go to trial if in pre-trial motions,
[19:44.060 --> 19:47.340]  we filed reference to the correct points of law.
[19:48.380 --> 19:51.740]  His people said, we're not interested in that.
[19:52.700 --> 19:56.700]  861 is the hill upon which Wesley is prepared to die.
[19:58.700 --> 20:05.820]  Do you think that was propaganda or do you think he just didn't know?
[20:06.460 --> 20:11.020]  I think Wesley actually believed that the 861 argument was factual.
[20:12.300 --> 20:14.940]  Everything I've read about him, and obviously I don't know him,
[20:14.940 --> 20:21.580]  but everything I've read about him, he's a unique person.
[20:21.580 --> 20:30.540]  He's very aggressive and I imagine when he heard about the 861 argument,
[20:31.180 --> 20:32.140]  let me rephrase that,
[20:32.140 --> 20:36.940]  when somebody brought it to him in such a way that it convinced him it was accurate,
[20:37.740 --> 20:41.420]  suddenly he said, oh, I'm all over it because I'm not paying the income tax.
[20:41.420 --> 20:43.260]  You've given me the right law.
[20:43.820 --> 20:46.300]  Okay, and so fuck it, I'm not paying.
[20:49.660 --> 20:52.220]  Multi-millionaires rarely do any research of their own.
[20:53.100 --> 20:56.940]  They say they tell one of their people to go do their research
[20:57.660 --> 21:00.780]  and if the very people you're telling to go do the research
[21:00.780 --> 21:03.500]  are the people who are bringing you the bad conclusions,
[21:03.500 --> 21:05.420]  where does that end you up?
[21:05.420 --> 21:08.220]  And I think that's my guess on how it went down.
[21:08.780 --> 21:10.540]  Well, I guess we'll have to leave it a mystery.
[21:10.540 --> 21:17.740]  It could have been disinformation from the government on a personal level with CIA agents
[21:17.740 --> 21:23.420]  or some three-letter agency saying, hey, get up in his ear and convincing that this,
[21:23.420 --> 21:29.900]  and then we'll topple him over in court and then everybody will see, we mean business.
[21:30.620 --> 21:34.860]  Yeah, and no matter what the impetus was, you are correct.
[21:34.860 --> 21:36.620]  That's exactly how it ended up going down.
[21:38.060 --> 21:39.180]  That's how it looked from this side.
[21:39.180 --> 21:46.700]  Although I will say this, I will say this, if this were some sort of government plot
[21:46.700 --> 21:50.060]  to take him to trial, I don't imagine they would have called me
[21:50.060 --> 21:51.980]  because I think they're pretty clear on what I would have said.
[21:54.380 --> 21:59.740]  I was very vocal back in the day around that era that the 861 argument was not valid
[21:59.740 --> 22:01.340]  and it was going to get a lot of people in trouble.
[22:02.540 --> 22:07.420]  So yeah, I think they would have absolutely stayed away from me.
[22:07.980 --> 22:11.500]  What if I had a way to get a hold of Wesley Snipes going around his people?
[22:12.220 --> 22:14.540]  I could have blown the whole 861 thing out of the water.
[22:14.540 --> 22:16.460]  I just didn't have that ability.
[22:17.260 --> 22:23.820]  That definitely is an interesting wrinkle that would help form some motivations that
[22:24.780 --> 22:26.620]  would lead to believe that maybe it wasn't that.
[22:28.540 --> 22:33.180]  They have such complex schemes these days and we're talking about one of them.
[22:33.660 --> 22:39.660]  Let me ask you before we get into the court cases here that you highlight up front with
[22:39.660 --> 22:41.180]  Pollock and whatnot.
[22:42.060 --> 22:42.940]  Do you think that...
[22:45.260 --> 22:45.660]  Hold on.
[22:46.380 --> 22:47.580]  I lost my train of thought.
[22:49.340 --> 22:50.620]  I'm glad I'm not the only one.
[22:50.620 --> 22:51.180]  Okay.
[22:51.180 --> 23:00.860]  So do you think that the income tax or the property tax is the worst of the fraud or are they equal?
[23:00.860 --> 23:06.620]  Well, I maybe have a different take than you do on the property tax and here's why.
[23:07.820 --> 23:12.460]  First of all, I can look at the income tax and as you've been reading an income tax
[23:13.100 --> 23:17.900]  I can lay out step by step by step by step by step that it is constitutional
[23:17.900 --> 23:22.060]  and it is legitimate applied to those three classes of persons.
[23:24.540 --> 23:28.300]  Everything beyond that is disinformation and propaganda.
[23:28.300 --> 23:35.420]  However, property tax, when I look at it historically, property tax existed in the
[23:35.420 --> 23:42.700]  colonial times and after the Revolutionary War when we had the 13 independent states that had
[23:42.700 --> 23:47.100]  not yet formed together as the national government, they all had property taxes.
[23:47.660 --> 23:59.900]  So what I look at is for more than 250 years, property taxes have been the foundation of how
[23:59.900 --> 24:02.460]  local and county and state governments have been financed.
[24:03.660 --> 24:12.780]  So I'm aware of the various legal mechanisms that play into how your property winds up on
[24:12.780 --> 24:13.900]  the tax rolls and so forth.
[24:13.900 --> 24:15.660]  So I'm not ignorant of the subject matter.
[24:16.540 --> 24:18.060]  I do take this position.
[24:18.780 --> 24:26.380]  I've been in the called the tax honesty arena for maybe just a wee bit less than 30 years.
[24:26.380 --> 24:30.620]  I found out about 30 years ago, but I don't think I became a part of this
[24:30.620 --> 24:32.060]  community for a couple of years.
[24:33.340 --> 24:39.980]  In that time, I have heard a handful of people claim that they had their property removed from
[24:39.980 --> 24:42.460]  the property tax rolls and they no longer pay property tax.
[24:43.020 --> 24:47.900]  Not one of them, when I have asked, has provided me any evidence to support that.
[24:47.900 --> 24:49.020]  I wish somebody would.
[24:49.660 --> 24:53.660]  I know there are some people active out there on social media these days, on YouTube and other
[24:53.660 --> 25:01.020]  platforms, and they're talking about the way the government works the property onto tax rolls
[25:01.020 --> 25:03.660]  and how to work the property off of tax rolls.
[25:04.380 --> 25:06.940]  That's not my area of expertise.
[25:06.940 --> 25:10.380]  So I'm really not qualified to pass judgment on the things they're saying.
[25:11.420 --> 25:11.980]  Fair enough.
[25:12.460 --> 25:17.820]  I would say that knowing what I do about both is that it's the same scheme.
[25:17.820 --> 25:19.100]  It's the exact same scheme.
[25:19.900 --> 25:26.220]  It's a little bit legal for certain people and it's a lot illegal for most people.
[25:27.660 --> 25:31.980]  We definitely have some people in our group that have been successful and that are currently
[25:33.420 --> 25:37.420]  litigating these cases in federal court, one in Pennsylvania, several in Florida,
[25:38.380 --> 25:41.580]  Texas, probably some more in the Northeast, something like that.
[25:41.980 --> 25:46.940]  So it really is the same exact playbook.
[25:46.940 --> 25:47.980]  It's the same playbook.
[25:48.860 --> 25:49.500]  Go ahead.
[25:49.500 --> 25:50.380]  So let me say this.
[25:52.620 --> 25:55.100]  As far as you've gotten in income tax shattering the mist,
[25:56.940 --> 25:59.020]  what do you think of my writing style?
[25:59.020 --> 26:00.300]  I'm not asking for compliments.
[26:00.300 --> 26:03.260]  I'm actually going somewhere based on the property tax issue.
[26:03.260 --> 26:04.700]  What do you think of my writing style?
[26:04.700 --> 26:07.340]  No, I think you're very clear and concise.
[26:07.340 --> 26:11.900]  And I came to these conclusions before I read this book.
[26:11.900 --> 26:16.220]  So it's much easier, I think, for me to read this book because I kind of understand it.
[26:16.220 --> 26:23.100]  But if I had had this book to learn what I knew already,
[26:23.820 --> 26:31.100]  I could tell you it would have been a lot easier and a lot less painful to read.
[26:31.980 --> 26:32.780]  Here's my point.
[26:33.100 --> 26:33.820]  Here's my point.
[26:33.820 --> 26:37.900]  You say you've got guys who have gotten their property off the tax rolls.
[26:37.900 --> 26:40.220]  There's various litigation going on and so forth.
[26:40.220 --> 26:43.500]  My point in asking you what you thought about my writing style was
[26:44.300 --> 26:51.180]  when you've got this down to something that is inarguable and can be presented
[26:52.060 --> 26:55.660]  with the same level of clarity as I do the income tax and income tax shattering the mist,
[26:56.300 --> 26:59.340]  with the same certainty of outcome.
[26:59.820 --> 27:03.740]  And in my case, by the way, in case your audience is unaware,
[27:03.740 --> 27:06.060]  I haven't filed or paid a penny of income tax in 30 years.
[27:07.180 --> 27:13.100]  So when you've got this down, completely down, it's inarguable.
[27:13.660 --> 27:14.940]  The methodology is clear.
[27:15.500 --> 27:17.740]  You or somebody in the group reach out to me and say,
[27:17.740 --> 27:23.100]  Dave, we would like you to write the property tax version of income tax shattering the mist.
[27:23.660 --> 27:24.300]  And I'll do it.
[27:25.020 --> 27:27.420]  Well, I can put you in touch with the right people.
[27:27.420 --> 27:30.060]  And I think that would be an honorable project to do.
[27:31.020 --> 27:33.900]  But let's not waste any more time.
[27:33.900 --> 27:35.420]  We have so much to get to.
[27:35.420 --> 27:40.460]  And we're going to jump into the federal court cases that you've cited here.
[27:40.460 --> 27:45.740]  And I think this is the quote on page eight I just highlighted.
[27:47.020 --> 27:52.220]  While they are not actual laws, they have full of force and effective law.
[27:53.180 --> 27:57.340]  And I'm wondering, you know, and I think that's,
[27:59.420 --> 28:03.340]  this is the regulations that I tell you what, before we do that,
[28:03.340 --> 28:09.500]  we should probably have a brief little outline of what the law goes through to get to us.
[28:09.500 --> 28:13.260]  So the stats, the law from Congress, the public law,
[28:13.260 --> 28:15.740]  and then the statutes, and then it goes to the regulations.
[28:16.300 --> 28:21.260]  And the regulations are kind of what we read to determine if we're a taxpayer or not, right?
[28:22.700 --> 28:23.660]  That is correct.
[28:23.660 --> 28:31.020]  And on top of that, the federal courts have held that in tax matters, the regulations control.
[28:31.660 --> 28:35.740]  Now, that is an interesting thing, because West Virginia versus EPA
[28:36.620 --> 28:38.780]  has come out in the last couple years.
[28:38.780 --> 28:46.380]  And it says that the regulatory agencies have no authority to write their own regulations, right?
[28:46.380 --> 28:48.220]  Or most of them are going to be unconstitutional.
[28:48.780 --> 28:53.660]  Well, let me put that in a little more context, if I may.
[28:53.660 --> 28:54.140]  Please.
[28:54.140 --> 29:02.060]  It has always been the case with regulations that they cannot exceed the scope of the statute.
[29:02.060 --> 29:06.300]  Now, of course, the statutes are incredibly vague.
[29:07.740 --> 29:09.020]  We'll just stick with tax law.
[29:09.740 --> 29:17.740]  Any person liable must file a tax return as per the regulations.
[29:17.980 --> 29:19.820]  You don't get any vaguer than that, right?
[29:19.820 --> 29:24.540]  Well, who are we talking about, and what regulations, and what tax returns,
[29:24.540 --> 29:28.460]  at what time, in what mode, must be filed by what date?
[29:28.460 --> 29:30.060]  None of that's in there, okay?
[29:30.060 --> 29:35.980]  So the Secretary of the Treasury takes that statute and says, okay,
[29:35.980 --> 29:43.740]  now the public needs to know the detail behind or below the statute, what tax return,
[29:43.740 --> 29:46.620]  when, upon whom, and so forth.
[29:47.180 --> 29:52.540]  And the way I characterize it in the book, as I say, the regulations put the meat on the bone.
[29:52.540 --> 29:58.700]  Now, cases like the one that you're referring to, where the court is saying, no, no, no, no, no, no.
[29:59.340 --> 30:03.100]  What the court is saying is your regulations exceeded the scope of the statute,
[30:03.660 --> 30:05.340]  and that's impermissible.
[30:05.340 --> 30:07.180]  We just saw, what, a week ago?
[30:07.980 --> 30:13.660]  The court struck down Biden's, what do they call it, tailpipe emission regulations, okay?
[30:14.460 --> 30:19.900]  And what the judge said is he literally said in his decision,
[30:20.780 --> 30:26.780]  you are creating requirements that cannot reasonably be understood to be a part of the statute.
[30:27.500 --> 30:28.060]  Right.
[30:28.060 --> 30:34.780]  So it was, the EPA exceeding reasonable boundaries for the statute are here,
[30:34.780 --> 30:36.140]  but the EPA was going there.
[30:37.020 --> 30:38.540]  And the court said that's impermissible.
[30:38.540 --> 30:42.460]  And that's always, ever since regulations began in this country, that's always been it.
[30:42.460 --> 30:45.660]  Regulations must stay within the guardrails of the statute.
[30:46.300 --> 30:52.940]  And whenever someone perceives that regulations don't stay within those guardrails,
[30:52.940 --> 30:55.580]  is when we see lawsuits such as the one you were referring to.
[30:56.140 --> 30:56.540]  Right.
[30:56.540 --> 31:00.700]  And with the mask mandates, they did that with the word sanitation, you know,
[31:00.700 --> 31:02.540]  they try to define it as something else.
[31:02.540 --> 31:07.420]  And so they could sanitize people now instead of objects and things of this nature.
[31:08.380 --> 31:12.940]  Okay, so if you want this to be a five-hour interview, bring up all the mitigation measures.
[31:15.100 --> 31:16.460]  So I'm a physiologist.
[31:18.140 --> 31:23.500]  I got removed from YouTube for telling the truth about SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19,
[31:23.500 --> 31:27.100]  the mitigation measures, the mRNA vaccines, and so forth.
[31:27.900 --> 31:31.660]  And I'll just share one big piece of news that has still not yet caught on.
[31:32.780 --> 31:36.940]  And that is that the mRNA vaccines do not create herd immunity.
[31:38.380 --> 31:42.700]  And they don't create herd immunity because they don't create memory T cells.
[31:44.780 --> 31:47.660]  The virus creates memory T cells in your body.
[31:47.660 --> 31:49.980]  The vaccine does not create memory T cells.
[31:49.980 --> 31:52.940]  And without memory, T cell society will never hit herd immunity.
[31:52.940 --> 31:56.220]  And if you never hit herd immunity, you always need another injection
[31:56.220 --> 31:58.060]  if you're afraid of getting COVID.
[31:58.060 --> 32:04.380]  So yeah, and another thing people should pay attention to is the Chevron deference decision
[32:04.380 --> 32:06.380]  that's about to come down from the Supreme Court.
[32:06.380 --> 32:09.500]  If that comes down, that might put a lot of this to bed.
[32:09.500 --> 32:13.100]  But that being said, go ahead.
[32:13.100 --> 32:15.100]  We just talked about the reasonableness standard.
[32:16.860 --> 32:19.900]  Is the regulation reasonable as far as staying within the guardrails?
[32:21.180 --> 32:30.300]  The current definition of reasonable under Chevron is to defer to the agency's interpretation.
[32:30.300 --> 32:34.620]  If Chevron is struck down, then the courts will be the arbiter
[32:34.620 --> 32:37.340]  of what reasonably stays within those guardrails.
[32:37.340 --> 32:39.340]  So your listeners understand what the issue is there.
[32:43.340 --> 32:45.020]  There's only a couple of really important
[32:46.780 --> 32:51.100]  Supreme Court cases that pretty much allowed you to write this book.
[32:51.100 --> 32:57.420]  And so would you mind highlighting just the brief synopsis of those couple?
[32:57.420 --> 32:59.580]  And then I want to talk about Judge Whitehead.
[33:00.220 --> 33:14.380]  Okay, so the whole modern income tax began with the Pollock case back in 1895,
[33:14.940 --> 33:18.780]  which was wrongly decided by the US Supreme Court.
[33:20.540 --> 33:24.060]  Everyone should keep that in mind whenever they look at Supreme Court decisions.
[33:24.620 --> 33:27.100]  There's one where the court got it wrong.
[33:27.660 --> 33:33.100]  The purpose of the 16th Amendment was to correct the error in Pollock.
[33:36.380 --> 33:43.260]  It's so odd to me because the seminal case concerning the 16th Amendment and the income tax
[33:43.260 --> 33:44.060]  is Bruce Shaver.
[33:45.580 --> 33:50.220]  In Bruce Shaver v. Union Pacific Railroad, Justice White, who you mentioned a moment ago,
[33:51.020 --> 33:52.700]  he was a chief justice in Bruce Shaver.
[33:52.700 --> 33:54.940]  He was an associate justice back in the Pollock case.
[33:55.100 --> 34:00.060]  So he did not decide with the majority in Pollock.
[34:01.180 --> 34:02.700]  He opposed that decision.
[34:02.700 --> 34:07.020]  So he got to write the decision that corrected it in Bruce Shaver.
[34:07.660 --> 34:12.780]  And there are other cases such as Stanton Mining, Baltic, and so forth.
[34:12.780 --> 34:19.900]  But really, I think there's the Supreme Court case to talk about the definition of income
[34:19.900 --> 34:24.540]  and the fact that the executive branch can't expand that.
[34:25.420 --> 34:31.660]  But in terms of the income tax not applying to the ordinary hardworking American,
[34:32.380 --> 34:34.860]  the seminal case is Bruce Shaver.
[34:35.740 --> 34:39.180]  Because in that case, Bruce Shaver said it's an excise tax.
[34:39.820 --> 34:42.620]  It's a tax upon the exercise of a privilege.
[34:42.620 --> 34:44.780]  That's a government-granted privilege.
[34:45.660 --> 34:52.300]  I think with good reason, the court didn't go into what those privileges were.
[34:53.980 --> 34:58.300]  But those privileges are in terms of the income tax.
[34:59.660 --> 35:01.100]  Taxation has its own rules.
[35:01.740 --> 35:04.780]  And we've got the constitutional regulations of direct and indirect,
[35:04.780 --> 35:07.020]  which I don't think we necessarily need to go into here.
[35:07.020 --> 35:08.220]  It gets very legalistic.
[35:08.220 --> 35:10.220]  I'm not sure we'd put your audience to sleep.
[35:10.380 --> 35:20.780]  But the government-granted privilege that's taxed in every income tax act that's passed since 1913
[35:22.540 --> 35:28.940]  has been foreign persons taking U.S. income out of the U.S.
[35:29.980 --> 35:35.100]  They're the owners, so they get to take it, but the income tax is imposed upon it.
[35:35.180 --> 35:40.460]  And then U.S. citizens residing in foreign countries,
[35:41.340 --> 35:45.820]  and I'm not sure that people understand what reside means in law.
[35:45.820 --> 35:47.820]  You probably do, but I don't think a lot of people do.
[35:47.820 --> 35:49.740]  Reside means temporary residency.
[35:52.940 --> 35:58.460]  If you live someplace permanently, in law, that's not reside.
[35:59.980 --> 36:02.860]  I once looked up reside when I was in a law library.
[36:03.500 --> 36:05.420]  There's a legal book called Words and Phrases.
[36:07.500 --> 36:10.220]  This is 20 years ago, but there's literally something like 45 different
[36:11.420 --> 36:14.940]  definitions of the word reside, depending on what kind of law they're using.
[36:14.940 --> 36:20.060]  But in tax law, reside means that is not your domicile.
[36:20.060 --> 36:23.420]  It is the place you have chosen to live temporarily,
[36:23.420 --> 36:27.260]  and you intend to return to the place where you are domiciled.
[36:27.900 --> 36:33.740]  So when a U.S. citizen goes to a foreign country, earns income there as
[36:34.540 --> 36:39.100]  temporarily being there with the intention of returning to the United States domicile,
[36:39.740 --> 36:44.940]  and then moves money from the country in which they're residing across the border into the
[36:44.940 --> 36:48.460]  United States, bang, they become liable for the income tax.
[36:50.460 --> 36:53.340]  I don't encourage people to use this expression in court filing or anything,
[36:53.340 --> 36:58.060]  but really what the income tax is, it's an international cross-border tax.
[36:58.060 --> 37:04.220]  Foreign people pulling U.S. source income out, and U.S. citizens bringing foreign income into
[37:04.220 --> 37:09.580]  this country when they're temporarily residing. That's the core of what the tax is.
[37:09.580 --> 37:12.620]  I'm sorry if I got off tangent from your question.
[37:12.620 --> 37:15.580]  No, you're good. You're going right along the path.
[37:17.340 --> 37:22.380]  You brought up excise tax, which the Constitution authorizes three different taxes, right?
[37:22.380 --> 37:32.940]  Impost, duties, and excise taxes, all of which happen to be commercial taxes,
[37:35.420 --> 37:40.220]  which is the same exact argument we're doing on the property tax side, too, by the way.
[37:40.860 --> 37:46.060]  They're all commercial taxes, so if you're in a private home doing no commercial activity,
[37:47.500 --> 37:51.740]  and that's where the homestead exemption comes in because you were farming and
[37:51.740 --> 37:55.980]  living in the same place, and so you had an exemption for the part where you lived on and
[37:55.980 --> 38:02.460]  not what you made money on, but that's neither here nor there. You were talking about Pollock,
[38:02.460 --> 38:07.100]  and you were talking about Judge White correcting into Bruce Schaber. Is that how you say it?
[38:08.300 --> 38:10.220]  Yeah, Bruce Schaber v. Union Pacific Railroad.
[38:10.220 --> 38:13.420]  Yeah, and so you go into detail in the book about
[38:14.060 --> 38:20.700]  Bruce Schaber's decision, and you talk about his writing style and such nature,
[38:20.700 --> 38:26.060]  and I read his decision, and I thought that he could have been a little more clear.
[38:26.860 --> 38:29.340]  Of course, yes. Yeah, absolutely.
[38:31.740 --> 38:37.420]  So do you think he was pressured to make it unclear? Do you think he was a bad guy?
[38:38.060 --> 38:42.380]  Do you think he thought he was being clear? What are your thoughts on White?
[38:43.020 --> 38:51.340]  So I've researched White, and obviously I can't know what was in his mind, what his motivations
[38:51.340 --> 39:04.780]  were, but in my mind, White was like, he believed that a jurist acts with rectitude in all cases,
[39:04.780 --> 39:11.980]  and it is a principle in the U.S. Supreme Court, and has been since the beginning of this country,
[39:12.780 --> 39:21.820]  that the court should not involve itself in going beyond what is necessary to be said to resolve
[39:21.820 --> 39:30.620]  the controversy before the court. And when White said that the income tax is an excise, he said
[39:30.620 --> 39:36.140]  that the contention that it is a direct tax absent apportionment is faulty, it's wrong.
[39:36.540 --> 39:41.420]  He settled the question of controversy that was before the court.
[39:43.180 --> 39:48.140]  So for somebody like, I mean, I'm absolutely confident he knew exactly what the three classes
[39:48.140 --> 39:54.620]  were, but for him to go further and say that would have required him to violate the principle that
[39:54.620 --> 39:59.020]  you don't say more than is necessary to settle the controversy. You're not there to be an activist.
[39:59.020 --> 40:04.780]  You're not there to be a professor. You're not there to educate the masses. You're there to
[40:04.780 --> 40:11.420]  settle the controversy, and that he did in no uncertain terms. I don't know anybody who's read
[40:11.420 --> 40:16.300]  Bruce Shaber and understood the challenge that was brought in the original trial case in New York
[40:16.300 --> 40:21.420]  State, and then it eventually worked its way up to SCOTUS. I don't know anybody who understands
[40:21.420 --> 40:25.580]  that lineage from the trial court all the way up to the Supreme Court and then read White's decision
[40:26.460 --> 40:34.140]  who would say he did not, he failed to settle that with a sledgehammer. He did, no question.
[40:34.780 --> 40:40.620]  Again, not being able to determine his motives, I would like to believe he was simply staying
[40:40.620 --> 40:46.060]  within what he thought was proper guardrails for a jurist. And so why do you think that,
[40:47.340 --> 40:52.700]  I mean, I get why the court's policy is to only settle the controversy before the court,
[40:52.700 --> 40:59.020]  because you could step into some things that you don't want to step into otherwise. But
[40:59.660 --> 41:09.580]  in retrospect, you do sort of end up risking unintended consequences. You do end up with the
[41:09.580 --> 41:15.340]  court being accused and perhaps rightfully then being an activist court. Yeah, fair enough,
[41:15.340 --> 41:22.540]  fair enough. But when he wasn't as clear as he could have been, I think it set us on the path
[41:22.540 --> 41:31.580]  that we're on today. Agree 100%, absolutely. Yeah, so anyway. But I'm not sure he understood
[41:31.580 --> 41:38.620]  that implication in 1960. No, I imagine he did not. I'd imagine he did not. But the sharks,
[41:38.620 --> 41:45.660]  which we would call the lawyers, took full advantage of the vague language and the
[41:45.660 --> 41:52.380]  regulation, the secretaries and such, such, such nature. But why don't you define real quick,
[41:53.020 --> 42:01.260]  indirect versus direct taxes? And why excise imposes and duties are indirect taxes? And
[42:01.260 --> 42:07.020]  what is a direct tax? Okay, let me just finish one thing with the Brasheba case. Sure. There's a
[42:07.020 --> 42:13.420]  Treasury decision out there, 2313, Treasury decision 2313, which is the Secretary of the
[42:13.420 --> 42:21.820]  Treasury's view of what Bruce Shaver conveyed. And it's really revealing. And I'm 99% certain
[42:21.820 --> 42:27.740]  it's online. So just do a search for Treasury decision 2313. If you're going to do that,
[42:27.740 --> 42:31.340]  though, don't read commentary. I'm not speaking to you, Gary. I'm speaking to your audience.
[42:31.340 --> 42:38.700]  Don't read editorialization about it. Read the actual Treasury decision from the first word to
[42:38.700 --> 42:44.940]  the last word. I think it will be very eye opening. Okay, direct and indirect. This is what the Supreme
[42:44.940 --> 42:51.260]  Court has referred to as the two great tax classes. Every tax that Congress imposes has to fall within
[42:51.260 --> 42:57.180]  one or the other of those categories. As you mentioned earlier, the indirect taxes are
[42:57.180 --> 43:04.460]  specifically cited as imposed excises and duties. So under the umbrella of indirect are those three
[43:04.460 --> 43:11.180]  forms of indirect tax, of which the income tax is an excise tax, according to the Supreme Court
[43:11.180 --> 43:17.980]  and Bruce Shaver. The other hemisphere, if you will, is a direct tax. And direct tax,
[43:18.780 --> 43:24.220]  broadly interpreted, is a tax upon the exercise of a right. However, excuse me,
[43:24.220 --> 43:31.420]  let me make this go away. Didn't realize my ringer was on. I apologize. Okay. But within the bounds
[43:31.420 --> 43:39.820]  of the Constitution, in the Hylton case, the Supreme Court said that a direct tax applies to
[43:40.620 --> 43:48.700]  land and slaves. So when the founding fathers were putting together the language they use in the
[43:48.700 --> 43:55.580]  federal Constitution, and they wrote the words direct taxation, in their minds, according to the
[43:55.580 --> 44:05.420]  Supreme Court, not according to me, in their minds, to impose a national direct tax could only be.
[44:05.420 --> 44:13.420]  Direct tax, as per the Supreme Court, can only apply to real property or slaves. And of course,
[44:13.420 --> 44:19.260]  after the 13th Amendment, we have no slaves. So as far as the direct tax imposed by Congress,
[44:19.900 --> 44:24.060]  it can only apply to real property. And of course, the other side, the indirect taxes,
[44:25.020 --> 44:32.620]  the federal courts have held that the salient characteristic of an excise tax or any indirect
[44:32.620 --> 44:39.500]  tax is that if you choose to stay away from whatever has that kind of tax imposed upon it,
[44:40.380 --> 44:45.980]  then you won't have to pay that tax. I think the language they use is something like absolute
[44:45.980 --> 44:53.020]  unavoidable demand. That cannot exist if it falls into the category of an indirect tax.
[44:54.460 --> 45:00.220]  One might say, when you have to pay a toll to go across a bridge, the only reason that's
[45:00.860 --> 45:06.140]  permissible in this country is because there's always the longest circuitous route that doesn't
[45:06.140 --> 45:13.500]  take you across the bridge. So since the bridge is a shorter route, but it is avoidable,
[45:14.620 --> 45:18.380]  they can make that an excise. And so I'm glad you brought that up.
[45:19.180 --> 45:25.980]  So I've been digging into toll roads and that type of thing. Now, when you go into a national park,
[45:25.980 --> 45:32.300]  for instance, that is a public road that you could travel upon to get to a location. Well,
[45:32.300 --> 45:39.340]  there are some locations that are not without tolls. You can't get into the park without it.
[45:39.340 --> 45:45.580]  What are your thoughts on if there's three roads into Teton National Park, for instance,
[45:45.580 --> 45:50.860]  and it's $20 to get in Teton National Park, then is that lawful?
[45:51.660 --> 45:55.900]  First of all, I don't know if you're actually paying a toll fee to use the roads or whether
[45:55.900 --> 46:04.060]  they considered an entrance fee to go into an area that is under the regulatory control of Congress.
[46:04.060 --> 46:08.140]  But I'm going to suggest that if you want to go further down the rabbit hole,
[46:09.020 --> 46:12.700]  try and find the constitutional authority for the federal government to create
[46:13.500 --> 46:20.060]  within a state of the union, any national park. I engaged in that about two years ago,
[46:20.060 --> 46:26.380]  just out of vital curiosity. And I could find no law, no constitutional provision,
[46:27.020 --> 46:35.260]  and no, the kind of law that could be seen as authorizing national park. It seems like there
[46:35.260 --> 46:42.460]  was a Congress passed a statute saying they can create national parks. Okay. You can say anything
[46:42.540 --> 46:47.340]  you want, but you have to have the constitutional authority. And I'm going to imagine, I didn't look
[46:47.340 --> 46:53.740]  back at the original. Actually, when that law was passed, they didn't have, as they do today,
[46:53.740 --> 47:00.060]  where they cite the constitutional provision that authorizes that public law. They didn't have that
[47:00.060 --> 47:05.180]  back then. But if they did, I imagine you would find it was possessions and territories. It's
[47:05.180 --> 47:11.180]  not within the states of the union. But as I'm sure you're well aware, whenever Congress passes
[47:11.180 --> 47:15.900]  something that applies in the possessions and territories, Americans, including American
[47:15.900 --> 47:21.420]  attorneys, are so, so ignorant of those constitutional distinctions between different
[47:21.420 --> 47:28.060]  definitions of the United States, as declared by the US Supreme Court. They take Article 1,
[47:28.060 --> 47:33.740]  Section 8, Clause 17, and they apply it everywhere. And nobody challenges it on that basis.
[47:34.380 --> 47:37.820]  Yeah. My limited understanding of the national parks and how they
[47:38.380 --> 47:44.940]  charge to drive down the road is they get permission from the local municipality and the
[47:44.940 --> 47:51.900]  state. And there's some regulations along that. But again, it's limited and let's not waste time
[47:51.900 --> 47:56.460]  anymore on that. Just a little hook for everybody that wants to go dig into something, you know,
[47:56.460 --> 48:04.060]  that might have to pay to drive through their local parks. But let's get into the 16th Amendment.
[48:05.020 --> 48:10.220]  So, what did the 16th Amendment do?
[48:11.660 --> 48:17.180]  The 16th Amendment, despite its, one might say incredibly vague language,
[48:18.380 --> 48:26.060]  all it did was correct Pollock. And that's probably a very, to discuss how Pollock got
[48:26.060 --> 48:31.180]  it wrong and how the 16th Amendment got it right would probably be, we'd be getting into very
[48:31.180 --> 48:35.100]  nuanced elements of the law and we'd probably bore your audience to tears. But I think it's
[48:35.100 --> 48:40.540]  important that people understand that the court got it wrong in Pollock. The 16th Amendment,
[48:41.420 --> 48:49.660]  which absolutely was promoted by, I guess what we want to call the, what we call today,
[48:49.660 --> 48:58.540]  the elites of the country. They saw Pollock, that wrong decision, as problematic on many levels,
[48:58.540 --> 49:03.900]  most especially for the wealthy, right? Because poor people don't engage in those sort of issues.
[49:03.900 --> 49:09.020]  It would never even really come to their attention back then. But it did affect the business
[49:09.020 --> 49:17.580]  transactions of the well-to-do, the elites. And so, the 16th Amendment was a product of those
[49:17.580 --> 49:23.660]  elites pushing and spending a lot of money out in the community to gain support. And eventually,
[49:24.460 --> 49:29.420]  they got the 16th Amendment ratified, which when you look at what the 16th Amendment actually means,
[49:29.420 --> 49:35.420]  it was a good thing. The problem is, you talked earlier about how people love to pervert everything
[49:35.420 --> 49:41.740]  in this country, especially the elites. What happened was, in the wake of the 16th Amendment,
[49:41.740 --> 49:49.260]  a completely false construct about what it did came to exist. I mean, on the IRS's website,
[49:49.820 --> 49:57.980]  it says the 16th Amendment authorized an income tax. The 16th Amendment did no such thing.
[49:58.940 --> 50:03.820]  The government has had the ability to impose an income tax since the very first day,
[50:03.820 --> 50:11.820]  the very first Congress sat. The American people believe the 16th Amendment authorizes a tax on
[50:11.820 --> 50:21.020]  their labor. When you read the Bruce Shaver decision, it's absolutely clear that it didn't
[50:21.020 --> 50:33.100]  do that because all it did was correct Pollock, and the income tax remained after the income tax
[50:33.100 --> 50:39.820]  remained a tax upon the exercise of a government-granted privilege. Americans going out
[50:39.820 --> 50:43.340]  and earning their own money to survive and shelter themselves and clothe themselves and
[50:43.340 --> 50:47.420]  feed themselves and raise the family, that's not a government-granted privilege, so the income tax
[50:47.420 --> 50:53.740]  doesn't apply to that. But you talk to the average American and you say, why do you think it is that
[50:53.740 --> 50:59.660]  the government is allowed to tax your labor? Well, the 16th Amendment, it told me that in my school
[50:59.660 --> 51:06.700]  book. All right. Well, we know for, I think we're all becoming aware now that whatever they label
[51:06.700 --> 51:14.460]  the bill, it's doing the exact opposite. That's a good rule of thumb for sure. Absolutely.
[51:15.580 --> 51:21.340]  So going back to the direct and incorrect tax, the direct tax has to have apportionment,
[51:21.340 --> 51:27.420]  which means it has to be applied equally across the board, which is why the income tax,
[51:27.420 --> 51:34.780]  if it was considered a direct tax, would be absolutely unlawful because everyone would be
[51:34.780 --> 51:41.180]  paying the same. Well, they're trying to make them unequal, which is not allowed with direct
[51:41.180 --> 51:47.020]  taxes under the Constitution. Well, the argument that the government made in Brasheber was that
[51:47.020 --> 51:53.900]  the income tax was a direct tax absent apportionment. In other words, that the 16th Amendment had done
[51:53.900 --> 51:58.940]  away with the constitutional regulation of apportionment on a direct tax. And white
[51:58.940 --> 52:04.460]  strangled that in the cradle. Okay. I said, absolutely, that's not what it means.
[52:06.620 --> 52:14.300]  And then half of the federal circuits have ruled that it is a direct tax absent apportionment.
[52:14.300 --> 52:22.300]  The other half of the circuits have ruled that it's an excise. And honestly, it's difficult to
[52:22.300 --> 52:27.340]  explain the half that says it's a direct tax absent apportionment, considering the Supreme
[52:27.340 --> 52:33.260]  Court has absolutely said it's not. And people get very upset about this. And the government
[52:33.260 --> 52:37.580]  only cites the half of the circuits that say it's a direct tax absent apportionment.
[52:38.380 --> 52:45.020]  But here's the thing, whichever it may be, it's still only imposed on those three classes of
[52:45.020 --> 52:52.940]  persons. So if you've got some multimillionaire in Brazil who's got shares in Apple and he's
[52:53.020 --> 52:57.980]  getting paid dividends, and so before the money goes offshore to him in Brazil,
[52:59.020 --> 53:04.220]  the U.S. withholding agent is required to cleave off the U.S. income tax and pay that over to the
[53:04.220 --> 53:09.420]  government, I don't care what you call that. You can call it indirect, you can call it direct,
[53:09.420 --> 53:13.260]  you can call it excise, you can call it direct absent apportionment, call it whatever the hell
[53:13.260 --> 53:19.180]  you want to, it doesn't apply to me, it doesn't apply to you. So I think that argument, given
[53:20.060 --> 53:25.980]  upon whom the tax operates, kind of pulls people in a direction, they're wasting time and energy,
[53:25.980 --> 53:31.820]  it's kind of a specious argument. I would like to see the half of the circuits that claim it's a
[53:31.820 --> 53:36.540]  direct tax without apportionment. I wish there was a mechanism by which the U.S. Supreme Court
[53:36.540 --> 53:41.420]  could force them to come into alignment with the Supreme Court statements in Bruce Schaber,
[53:41.420 --> 53:48.380]  but as you know, that mechanism doesn't exist. The only way that would work would be if it came up,
[53:48.380 --> 53:54.620]  say, through the Fifth Circuit. By the way, the circuits that hold that it's a direct tax absent
[53:54.620 --> 54:00.140]  apportionment, when an attorney comes into court and cites Bruce Schaber and says it's an excise,
[54:00.780 --> 54:05.900]  they sanction that attorney. So in order to get those circuits straightened out,
[54:06.540 --> 54:11.420]  what would have to happen would be an attorney would have to go in, make the Bruce Schaber
[54:11.420 --> 54:16.940]  argument, make the excise argument, accept the sanction that would almost certainly occur,
[54:17.660 --> 54:23.100]  and then appeal to the United States Supreme Court and part and parcel with the Supreme Court's
[54:23.100 --> 54:29.020]  decision would be reversal of the sanction. I mean, that would be the only way to correct that.
[54:29.660 --> 54:33.580]  It's stood the way it is now, 50-50, for many, many decades.
[54:33.580 --> 54:38.140]  So to further explain our audience and what we're doing, we are all pro se litigants.
[54:39.100 --> 54:45.180]  We're all pro se litigants, which I would think with your amount of knowledge that you would be
[54:45.180 --> 54:52.220]  easy to fit in to do these type of things. And so we do want the details about
[54:53.020 --> 54:56.780]  what we need to do to go into the appellate courts and change the decision because we're
[54:56.780 --> 55:02.460]  willing to do it. We're absolutely willing to go make these arguments. We're absolutely willing to
[55:04.060 --> 55:09.580]  change this. We know that the judges have been appointed and are corrupt, and we'll go into
[55:10.060 --> 55:13.260]  your judicial conferences and all that next. But
[55:14.620 --> 55:20.780]  any detail you want to tell us about how to go about making that argument to flip these
[55:20.780 --> 55:28.140]  decisions, to make them be in line with what the Supreme Court has said, we absolutely want
[55:28.700 --> 55:35.740]  tips on that so we can go in and make those arguments and do it for the purpose of returning
[55:35.740 --> 55:40.380]  to the Republic. Well, let me give you just the most basic tip right here.
[55:41.580 --> 55:44.940]  You can either read the Bruce Shaver case or you can read Income Tax Shattering the Miss and you
[55:44.940 --> 55:50.460]  will find Justice White's statement from that decision in which he says the contention
[55:50.460 --> 55:55.660]  that the income tax is a direct tax absent apportionment is, I forget his exact word,
[55:55.660 --> 56:01.980]  but basically he says that's wrong. That's inaccurate. That's not true. And it doesn't
[56:01.980 --> 56:07.020]  get any stronger statement than that. He literally says this contention is wrong.
[56:09.740 --> 56:14.700]  If it were me as a pro se litigant, I would go into court in one of these circuits where that
[56:14.700 --> 56:20.300]  circuit holds its direct tax absent apportionment. And I would remember you have to have a cause of
[56:20.300 --> 56:26.460]  action to begin with. But if you have a cause of action that allows you to work that into the
[56:26.460 --> 56:32.620]  decision and then the decision, one or two things has to happen. Either the litigant has to be
[56:32.620 --> 56:45.100]  sanctioned or violating a well-settled point of law in that circuit or part of the court's decision
[56:45.100 --> 56:50.620]  has to turn on the issue of is it an excise or is it a direct tax absent apportionment?
[56:51.100 --> 56:58.700]  One the other or both of those would have to be in the case and then you'd have to seek certiorari
[56:58.700 --> 57:05.340]  to SCOTUS. Right. And so do you know off the top of your head which circuits are not in line with
[57:05.340 --> 57:11.740]  the Supreme Court? I don't. I don't. I mentioned the fifth because I'm 99% certain the fifth is
[57:11.740 --> 57:18.140]  one of those that says that it's a direct tax absent apportionment. But you can look it up
[57:18.140 --> 57:22.380]  quickly enough. I mean if you just simply do an internet search, which circuits hold that blah,
[57:22.380 --> 57:30.220]  blah, blah, it'll come right up. Right. So we've all come across a bunch of judge. We're in all
[57:30.220 --> 57:35.740]  circuits pretty much. These litigants are pretty much infiltrated in all these circuits.
[57:36.220 --> 57:44.780]  And we're very much aware of the judges that ban certain things from coming in their courtroom.
[57:45.740 --> 57:50.620]  And we're now discovering why these things happen. And I thought it was very interesting
[57:50.620 --> 57:57.500]  in the book that you went into the judicial conferences that are had for the federal judges
[57:57.500 --> 58:02.540]  and it explains to them strategies on how to get rid of these arguments out of their courtroom.
[58:02.540 --> 58:10.220]  And if you would, go into a little bit about who runs the judicial conferences and who's given the
[58:10.220 --> 58:17.740]  judges advice and why that shouldn't be allowed. Okay. So judicial conferences for those who are
[58:17.740 --> 58:24.620]  unaware, they are, I guess if you were like a real estate agent or a medical doctor or a nurse,
[58:24.620 --> 58:28.700]  this would be continuing education. Okay. The requirement that you have to every year in order
[58:28.700 --> 58:36.380]  to keep your license. So judicial conferences are sort of akin to that for judges and they're held
[58:36.380 --> 58:44.140]  only in the ritziest hotels. They're normally at destination locations. You like Vail, Colorado,
[58:44.140 --> 58:54.460]  places like that so that the judges can go skiing and yeah. The stated purpose is to make sure
[58:55.260 --> 59:03.820]  that judges are following the evolution of the law just like we expect MDs to follow the evolution
[59:03.820 --> 59:11.420]  of science. Okay. We don't want an MD to treat us on a principle he learned 40 years ago in medical
[59:11.420 --> 59:16.700]  school when that's been disproven time and time again. We want him to be up on the court. So
[59:16.700 --> 59:23.580]  that's the concept that the government wants to keep all of its judges. Okay. That's the stated
[59:23.580 --> 59:28.780]  purpose. I think it's run by the Department of Justice. All these conferences are put on by the
[59:28.780 --> 59:31.900]  Department of Justice. Which is the executive branch, right?
[59:32.780 --> 59:41.420]  Which is the judicial branch, which is separation of powers. So all these people from the judicial
[59:41.420 --> 59:48.460]  branch go to these wonderful destination events and then the Department of Justice, the executive
[59:48.460 --> 59:57.420]  branch gets up and says we want you to understand what the evolution of the law is. We want you to
[59:57.420 --> 01:00:05.820]  understand what's important. Okay. So honestly, I don't think it gets any more unethical than that.
[01:00:07.340 --> 01:00:16.460]  That a judge would take a free flight to a destination event, go fly fishing on the days off
[01:00:17.020 --> 01:00:24.780]  and then sit in this giant ballroom with hundreds of other judges and get told by the executive
[01:00:24.780 --> 01:00:32.860]  branch what the law should really look like in this country. It just doesn't get any more unethical.
[01:00:32.860 --> 01:00:38.780]  They're just concerned citizens, Dave. Of course, yes. And of course, since we're
[01:00:38.780 --> 01:00:44.220]  talking about income, the judicial conferences cover all sorts of law. But since we're here
[01:00:44.220 --> 01:00:52.860]  talking about income tax today, the discussions are led by the speakers that speak before the
[01:00:52.860 --> 01:01:01.420]  conferences on income tax are from the Department of Justice tax division. So you've literally got
[01:01:01.980 --> 01:01:09.980]  the civil litigators and the criminal prosecutors from DOJ's tax division teaching judges
[01:01:11.260 --> 01:01:17.980]  what the law should look like. Now somebody can say, well, that's just the executive branch
[01:01:17.980 --> 01:01:24.380]  opinion and the judges can walk out the door and do whatever they want. But it's just like MDs.
[01:01:24.380 --> 01:01:33.500]  If you sit through this continuing education and you're presented year after year with essentially
[01:01:33.500 --> 01:01:39.660]  the same narrative, unless you're a particularly stubborn individual, you're eventually going to
[01:01:39.660 --> 01:01:46.300]  fall into line with that subtle brainwashing. And I think that's definitely the case with a lot of
[01:01:46.300 --> 01:01:50.540]  the United States District Court judges and the circuit judges who attend these conferences. You
[01:01:50.540 --> 01:01:57.180]  attend 15 years worth of conferences and you're hearing the same repetitive narratives concerning
[01:01:57.180 --> 01:02:05.100]  certain limited areas of law. You're going to eventually, I think most of them, perceive
[01:02:05.100 --> 01:02:10.780]  that what they're being told by the executive branch is the right thing, the correct thing.
[01:02:10.780 --> 01:02:17.340]  It's factual, it's accurate. But not one in a thousand federal judges flies back home after
[01:02:17.340 --> 01:02:22.540]  those conferences and turns to his clerks and says, I think they gave me bullshit at that
[01:02:22.540 --> 01:02:27.180]  conference. I want you to research this. You said getting together. I guess that's virtually unheard
[01:02:27.180 --> 01:02:37.660]  of. I might use the word conspiring, but hey. Yes. Absolutely. Absolutely. I just did a video
[01:02:37.660 --> 01:02:43.340]  that just came out yesterday on the ways the United States government tricks the American
[01:02:43.340 --> 01:02:49.420]  people into filing and it makes them scared. And one of the things that I discuss and I'm
[01:02:49.420 --> 01:02:54.620]  reading right from the government's frivolous tax argument pages. And one of the things is
[01:02:54.620 --> 01:03:01.260]  that they say people who claim the income tax is only upon the exercise of the privilege
[01:03:01.900 --> 01:03:08.620]  for foreign persons earning U.S. source income. Those are tax protesters. The reason that the
[01:03:08.620 --> 01:03:16.060]  government says they're tax protesters is because they use the word only. So if you only talk about
[01:03:16.060 --> 01:03:20.620]  the first two classes, non-residential and U.S. source income and foreign corporations
[01:03:20.620 --> 01:03:26.380]  with U.S. source income, if you only talk about those two, the reason the government's reasoning
[01:03:26.380 --> 01:03:32.300]  is if you say the income tax applies only to non-residential lands with U.S. source income
[01:03:32.300 --> 01:03:37.500]  and foreign corporations with U.S. source income, you are making an illegal tax protester argument
[01:03:38.060 --> 01:03:48.860]  because by using the word only, you excluded U.S. citizens residing abroad with foreign income.
[01:03:49.500 --> 01:03:55.820]  So what they're saying is if you mention one and two, but you don't bring up three,
[01:03:56.780 --> 01:04:02.540]  then you're an illegal tax protester. But the point is, and then of course they know what the
[01:04:02.540 --> 01:04:08.300]  truth is, they're trying to scare people. Like somebody who's listened to me for however many
[01:04:08.300 --> 01:04:14.700]  years and knows about foreign persons with U.S. source income is one of the privileges upon which
[01:04:14.700 --> 01:04:19.340]  the tax is imposed. And if they read that government statement, they say, oh my God,
[01:04:20.060 --> 01:04:26.300]  Dave's been wrong all these years because they failed to note that the government's way of
[01:04:26.300 --> 01:04:32.460]  characterizing it is if you say only those two are the people upon whom the tax has been imposed,
[01:04:32.460 --> 01:04:37.020]  you're making a tax protester argument because you didn't bring up class three. It's so childish.
[01:04:37.020 --> 01:04:44.460]  But since Americans know absolutely nothing about income tax, they fall for it. Yes,
[01:04:44.460 --> 01:04:50.140]  absolutely. And people fall for it hook, line, and sinker because they haven't educated themselves,
[01:04:50.140 --> 01:04:56.300]  which is a damn shame. So we've gone to the point that we know that the income tax is an excise tax,
[01:04:56.300 --> 01:05:04.540]  right? And it is allowed as an excise tax. But what are the requirements of imposing an excise tax?
[01:05:05.100 --> 01:05:08.620]  Is it an excise tax? And I think we're going to get into the word privilege here.
[01:05:09.340 --> 01:05:17.100]  What privilege are U.S. citizens using that requires them to pay an excise tax?
[01:05:20.460 --> 01:05:25.660]  If I frame that right. So excise taxes are far broader than just the income tax.
[01:05:25.660 --> 01:05:36.220]  Sure. Yeah. And what the exact contours are of an excise has never been established by the U.S.
[01:05:36.220 --> 01:05:41.500]  Supreme Court. There's no sort of list from the Supreme Court that says these things are
[01:05:41.500 --> 01:05:48.220]  legitimate excises. These things are illegitimate. They're not really excise taxes. The first
[01:05:48.220 --> 01:05:55.260]  criteria that I think is inarguable is that it must be a government-granted privilege.
[01:05:55.820 --> 01:06:01.900]  Now, the state courts and federal courts universally have ruled that something must first be a
[01:06:01.900 --> 01:06:07.500]  privilege, in fact, truthfully a privilege, something Americans don't have a natural right
[01:06:07.500 --> 01:06:14.460]  to do in order for it to be taxed as an excise. So that's job one. It has to be something that
[01:06:14.460 --> 01:06:21.100]  the American people do not have an inherent right to do. I think an example of that,
[01:06:22.860 --> 01:06:27.500]  which people can disagree with me, but it's legally, constitutionally, historically,
[01:06:28.300 --> 01:06:32.300]  distilling spirits. By the way, I disagree with that. By the way, I don't think that's a legitimate
[01:06:32.300 --> 01:06:37.980]  excise tax. But it has been a legitimate excise tax since the beginning. It was one of the first
[01:06:37.980 --> 01:06:43.260]  taxes the federal government ever passed after it first was seated. And as you probably know,
[01:06:43.260 --> 01:06:49.340]  George Washington led the federal troops to go put down Shays Rebellion, which was about distilling
[01:06:49.340 --> 01:06:56.700]  spirits and the taxes upon it. So I think given the history, the legal history of distilling spirits,
[01:06:56.700 --> 01:07:03.580]  we could say today, speaking just legally, not morally or ethically, distilling spirits is a
[01:07:03.580 --> 01:07:09.980]  government-granted privilege. Certainly importing them into the country is a government-granted
[01:07:09.980 --> 01:07:15.900]  privilege. Importing firearms is a government-granted privilege. Then we get into the issue about
[01:07:15.900 --> 01:07:21.100]  firearms manufacturing and firearms wholesaling and firearms dealers and all of that under the
[01:07:21.100 --> 01:07:26.780]  Federal Firearms Act. And I actually have made several videos on this subject as well as written
[01:07:26.780 --> 01:07:32.860]  treatises on it. And the Federal Firearms Act is territorial in nature. It has no application
[01:07:32.860 --> 01:07:37.740]  within the 50 states of the union, except those areas within the states of the union that have
[01:07:37.740 --> 01:07:43.260]  been properly ceded to the federal government. And I've written why that is. I've detailed the
[01:07:43.260 --> 01:07:48.060]  language of the constitution and the language of the statutes and tied them together so people
[01:07:48.060 --> 01:07:53.900]  can make sense of the fact that the Federal Firearms Act is not constitutional as applied
[01:07:53.900 --> 01:08:00.300]  within the 50 states to the sovereign lands of the 50 states. And so I want to read a quote from
[01:08:00.300 --> 01:08:07.740]  your book on page 29 about excise taxes. And it says, quote, the obligation to pay an excise tax
[01:08:07.740 --> 01:08:15.020]  based upon the voluntary action of the person taxed in performing the act, enjoying the privilege
[01:08:15.820 --> 01:08:22.060]  or engaging in the privilege, which is subject of the excise. And the element of absolute
[01:08:22.060 --> 01:08:29.340]  unavoidable D demand is lacking. And that's from People XL Attorney General versus Nagli.
[01:08:29.340 --> 01:08:37.020]  If I said that right, I'm not sure. So basically what you're saying is that excise taxes are
[01:08:37.020 --> 01:08:43.740]  voluntary if you choose to engage in the privilege, but there are no privileges really defined.
[01:08:44.540 --> 01:08:48.700]  That is correct. That's what I said by the Supreme Court has never actually
[01:08:50.140 --> 01:08:58.380]  formed any sort of a rule like the, you know, the, what is it, having a senior moment,
[01:08:58.380 --> 01:09:07.900]  the gun case from 2022, the Bruin test. So we've got the Bruins test, we've got the Dobbs test
[01:09:07.900 --> 01:09:11.820]  coming out in the last couple of years. In all of the judicial history of the United States,
[01:09:11.820 --> 01:09:20.780]  there has never been a privilege test articulated by the US Supreme Court. So
[01:09:21.900 --> 01:09:28.620]  we're still sort of hunting and pecking at that. My view is the burden of proof for that is on the
[01:09:28.620 --> 01:09:33.420]  government because when you look back at the history of the United States and its formation
[01:09:33.420 --> 01:09:36.700]  in the writings of the founding fathers on issues like unalienable rights and so forth,
[01:09:37.180 --> 01:09:45.740]  if there's any dispute between whether something is a unalienable right of the American people
[01:09:46.460 --> 01:09:51.900]  or it's not, therefore to do it would be a privilege, government granted privilege,
[01:09:51.900 --> 01:09:59.660]  I think if there's any debate about that, then the benefit of the doubt has to go to the citizen.
[01:09:59.660 --> 01:10:04.460]  So I think the burden of proof to show that something is indeed a privilege
[01:10:04.460 --> 01:10:09.340]  falls upon the government. Exactly. And they have the burden of proof on all of this.
[01:10:09.340 --> 01:10:16.940]  And see if you think this is a fair characterization that IRS and the government
[01:10:16.940 --> 01:10:21.420]  wants you to believe that the income tax is a direct tax without apportionment,
[01:10:21.420 --> 01:10:30.140]  but they'll leave the apportionment part out when in fact it is an excise tax that is voluntary.
[01:10:30.700 --> 01:10:40.620]  Does that capture the miscommunication here and that's why you can make them believe it's
[01:10:40.620 --> 01:10:45.820]  a direct tax that they have to pay versus and no one understands what apportionment means?
[01:10:46.540 --> 01:10:52.860]  Well, I just want to be very clear that voluntary in terms of the conversation you and I are having
[01:10:52.860 --> 01:11:01.820]  right now, voluntary would mean not choosing to engage in the privileged activity. It does not
[01:11:01.820 --> 01:11:09.260]  mean a person can engage in the privileged activity and voluntarily choose whether or not
[01:11:09.260 --> 01:11:13.020]  to participate. That's not voluntary. Yes, thank you for correcting.
[01:11:13.020 --> 01:11:18.860]  Voluntary nature is, yeah, so for instance, if I don't want to pay the tax on distilling spirits,
[01:11:18.860 --> 01:11:24.780]  I can stay away from distilling spirits. So in the context of the income tax,
[01:11:26.220 --> 01:11:32.780]  I can stay away from the privilege by not residing abroad and then moving by foreign earned income
[01:11:32.780 --> 01:11:40.780]  back into the United States. I can steer clear of the obligation to file and pay if I don't act
[01:11:40.780 --> 01:11:45.260]  as a withholding agent on US source income as it's leaving the country going to its foreign owner
[01:11:45.340 --> 01:11:50.540]  because that is a requirement. If I'm moving US source income down the pipeline to its foreign
[01:11:50.540 --> 01:11:55.100]  owner and it's just about to leave the country, so I'm the last domestic guy with it, I have to
[01:11:55.100 --> 01:12:01.260]  withhold the tax at the point where I must withhold the tax. That's number one. And then once I've
[01:12:01.260 --> 01:12:05.500]  done that, I'm obligated to file and pay that over to the government. So if I stay away from just
[01:12:06.140 --> 01:12:12.620]  those two issues, it's so simple. Oh, I do stay away from those two issues and the income tax
[01:12:12.620 --> 01:12:18.300]  has no hold on me. But we should probably talk about before our time runs out that it's a form
[01:12:18.300 --> 01:12:30.060]  driven regulatory matter and Americans are volunteering, Americans are declaring themselves
[01:12:30.620 --> 01:12:36.780]  to have exercised these privileges by the forms they sign. And I don't mean they're 1040.
[01:12:36.780 --> 01:12:44.860]  Right. Right. And so another myth that furthers this problem that the American people believe
[01:12:44.860 --> 01:12:48.300]  that they're having to pay it is they don't understand what property is.
[01:12:49.100 --> 01:12:53.740]  Oh, so true. So true. Yes. Like they don't consider their paycheck their property.
[01:12:54.620 --> 01:12:58.140]  That blows my mind. They consider the couch in their living room their property.
[01:12:59.100 --> 01:13:01.980]  But they don't consider their paycheck their property. Mind blowing.
[01:13:01.980 --> 01:13:05.260]  If you wouldn't mind going through that little example you put in the book about
[01:13:05.260 --> 01:13:12.620]  selling widgets, that would be great. Okay. The point I was trying to make in that example
[01:13:12.620 --> 01:13:19.660]  is that if I decide that I can make a bunch of money by buying widgets at $100 a piece
[01:13:19.660 --> 01:13:27.020]  and selling them at $200 a piece, then I started out with $100 of my property.
[01:13:27.020 --> 01:13:33.980]  I exchanged that $100 for a widget, which I valued at $100 because that's what I was willing to pay
[01:13:33.980 --> 01:13:38.700]  for it. And the seller valued it at $100 because that's the amount for which they were willing to
[01:13:38.700 --> 01:13:44.060]  sell it. But whether I'm holding this $100 in this hand or the widget in this hand,
[01:13:44.620 --> 01:13:51.100]  it's still my property. So now I've got the widget. I offer the widget on sale for $200.
[01:13:51.980 --> 01:13:57.660]  Someone just says, I'll take that deal. They give me $200 and I give them the widget.
[01:13:58.620 --> 01:14:03.260]  The way we tend to think about things, the American people tend to think about things, is
[01:14:03.900 --> 01:14:10.300]  I have my original $100 investment and then I have this other $100. And depending on how it came to
[01:14:10.300 --> 01:14:16.780]  be, it could be called gains or profits or income or revenue or capital gains in some cases.
[01:14:17.740 --> 01:14:22.380]  We tend to put all these labels on it. But in reality, at the end of the day,
[01:14:22.380 --> 01:14:28.300]  after the person has sold that widget for $200, literally what they're holding in their hand is
[01:14:28.940 --> 01:14:35.740]  their property valued at $200. That's it. Every step of the way, as this moved and changed and
[01:14:35.740 --> 01:14:42.460]  you got this and I got that and he got this, every step of the way, what I'm holding in my hand is my
[01:14:42.460 --> 01:14:51.340]  property. When somebody opens the mail and they pull out their check, oh, here's my $2,300 check
[01:14:51.340 --> 01:15:02.220]  for the work I've done. That $2,300 is your property. And as such, when it comes to taxation,
[01:15:02.220 --> 01:15:07.020]  of course, we're focused today on the income tax. When it comes to taxation, there has to be
[01:15:08.060 --> 01:15:17.740]  something that you did that was a government-granted privilege that led to holding
[01:15:17.740 --> 01:15:24.460]  that $2,300 check in your hand. It's your property whether you engaged in an excise
[01:15:24.460 --> 01:15:27.740]  taxable activity or not. It's still your property. But for the government to have
[01:15:27.740 --> 01:15:32.620]  the constitutional authority to take even a penny of it, you had to have been involved in an excise
[01:15:32.620 --> 01:15:37.820]  taxable activity. And of course, people who just go to work and earn a living, they're engaged in
[01:15:37.820 --> 01:15:42.620]  no excise taxable activity whatsoever, although they declare otherwise when they fill out certain
[01:15:42.620 --> 01:15:47.660]  forms. And the IRS takes their word for them. See if you like this. In this country,
[01:15:47.660 --> 01:15:53.660]  you have the exclusive right to property, which is to use, own, and dispose of property.
[01:15:54.380 --> 01:15:59.100]  So if you have the exclusive right, that means there's no one else that has interest in that
[01:15:59.100 --> 01:16:06.940]  property. So if your wages are your property, then who gave interest to the government in your
[01:16:06.940 --> 01:16:12.540]  property? Because if you have the exclusive right, who gave them interest in it? No one.
[01:16:13.100 --> 01:16:19.580]  Right. But interestingly, the government doesn't claim it has. I mean, they claim it
[01:16:19.580 --> 01:16:24.620]  in their propaganda. They don't claim it in the law. That's what people will discover in income
[01:16:24.620 --> 01:16:32.700]  tax shattering the myths, is that the government has never taxed your property. But no one reads
[01:16:32.700 --> 01:16:38.620]  the law. They just hear the propaganda on NBC. And of course, the thing is the government doesn't
[01:16:38.620 --> 01:16:42.620]  come along. So you're sitting at your desk working away. Let's say you're, I don't know,
[01:16:42.620 --> 01:16:46.380]  you're a bookkeeper for a company. So you're sitting at your desk and you're typing away,
[01:16:46.380 --> 01:16:50.460]  and you're doing your bookkeeping and your mouse thing. And, you know, okay, I'm lining up the
[01:16:50.460 --> 01:16:57.900]  numbers. The government doesn't come in and say, you earn $200 today, give me $60. The government
[01:16:57.900 --> 01:17:03.180]  doesn't say that. What happens is when you go to get that job, the company says you need to sign
[01:17:03.180 --> 01:17:08.860]  this form that's a W-4, and then we're going to begin payroll withholding. So if you know the law
[01:17:08.860 --> 01:17:14.620]  and you say, nah, that's not really for me. W-4 doesn't apply to me. It's not applicable to my
[01:17:14.620 --> 01:17:20.780]  circumstances. It requires me to sign it under perjury, which I can't do because I know I would
[01:17:20.780 --> 01:17:25.820]  be committing perjury to sign it. They say, well, you can't work here if you don't. Ah, so now you're
[01:17:25.820 --> 01:17:31.660]  suborning perjury. Yeah, okay. So eventually most people, they just go ahead and sign the form.
[01:17:31.660 --> 01:17:35.660]  Actually, most people sign the form without a word because they think they're required.
[01:17:37.580 --> 01:17:44.380]  And I'm going to tell your audience what a W-4 actually is in law. And the ironic thing is,
[01:17:45.100 --> 01:17:50.540]  income tax is law, right? It's all based on what appeared in the public law, what then was codified
[01:17:50.540 --> 01:17:59.340]  to the statutes, the regulations. Okay. So it's law. But rarely do tax forms either in their title
[01:17:59.340 --> 01:18:05.900]  or in the material that appears underneath. Rarely do they ever convey what the law really is.
[01:18:05.900 --> 01:18:12.700]  It's just, it means you sign it or else. It doesn't say here's who it's for and here's who it's not.
[01:18:12.700 --> 01:18:22.860]  They don't say that. So here's what a W-4 is and to whom it applies. A W-4 is where a person who
[01:18:22.940 --> 01:18:31.420]  is subject to payroll withholding declares to the entity for which they work that they are entitled
[01:18:31.420 --> 01:18:38.460]  to certain exemptions from the standard withholding rate. All right. So I said it's to be used by
[01:18:38.460 --> 01:18:47.900]  somebody who is required to have withholding performed. So who is required to have with
[01:18:47.900 --> 01:18:54.300]  payroll withholding performed? Non-resident aliens with U.S. source income. That's it.
[01:18:54.300 --> 01:18:57.420]  And that's going to blow people's mind because most people, you know, they consider, no,
[01:18:57.420 --> 01:19:03.180]  everybody, if you work, you have to be, that's your socialized bullshit. That's not what the law says.
[01:19:03.180 --> 01:19:09.020]  And of course, then the companies enforce that. Like the companies are, I don't know, the courts,
[01:19:09.020 --> 01:19:14.140]  the companies are the cops. They enforce that. You can't work here. We're going to withhold anyway.
[01:19:14.140 --> 01:19:17.660]  Even if you don't sign that, then we're going to withhold a single zero and we're going to
[01:19:17.660 --> 01:19:23.740]  fuck you as hard as we can because you refuse to sign that form. Also, when you get into
[01:19:24.620 --> 01:19:32.700]  the law about who's to use a form W-4, the only people that are permitted in the law to sign a
[01:19:32.700 --> 01:19:42.060]  W-4 are those who are working for a government entity that is under Congress's exclusive
[01:19:42.060 --> 01:19:48.380]  legislative jurisdiction. That's it. If you're foreign, so for instance, somebody may work,
[01:19:48.380 --> 01:19:53.020]  I don't know, that Puerto Rico has a Department of Interior. I don't know if that's true.
[01:19:53.020 --> 01:19:57.980]  But if you're a park ranger for the Department of Interior, for the government of Puerto Rico,
[01:19:57.980 --> 01:20:00.940]  Puerto Rico is under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Congress.
[01:20:01.740 --> 01:20:07.500]  So, and you work for a government entity. So, is that person a non-resident alien? Because that's
[01:20:07.500 --> 01:20:10.860]  the only person who's required to have the payroll withholding done. But nevertheless,
[01:20:10.860 --> 01:20:16.060]  that person can be compelled, if all the boxes are checked, that person can be compelled to fill
[01:20:16.060 --> 01:20:22.620]  out a W-4. But we're not talking about that guy. We're talking about hundreds of millions of
[01:20:22.620 --> 01:20:27.580]  Americans who get up every day and go to work. They go to the office, they go to the warehouse,
[01:20:27.580 --> 01:20:34.620]  they go to the mechanic shop, they install HVAC systems, whatever. There is no law in existence,
[01:20:34.620 --> 01:20:41.180]  zero, that requires them to fill out a W-4 or have payroll withholding of any type done,
[01:20:41.180 --> 01:20:46.860]  not just income tax, any payroll withholding, that's government payroll withholding. None of it.
[01:20:46.860 --> 01:20:53.500]  It's not for you. And I'm sure a lot of people right now are thinking one of two things. Either
[01:20:53.500 --> 01:20:57.580]  they're thinking, that's really cool, I didn't know that. Or they're thinking that guy champion
[01:20:57.580 --> 01:21:02.940]  is out of his fucking mind. One of the two. If you're thinking the latter, please read Income
[01:21:02.940 --> 01:21:09.100]  Tax Shattering, because chapter eight deals with exactly this and takes you through the law,
[01:21:09.100 --> 01:21:14.060]  what the courts have said about the law, what the courts have said about the meaning of legal terms,
[01:21:14.060 --> 01:21:19.180]  when they can be used, how they can be used, how they cannot be used. And you take all the rules
[01:21:19.180 --> 01:21:25.980]  and then you read the statutes applying the rules for statutory construction. Gary, you're familiar
[01:21:25.980 --> 01:21:30.780]  with that, rules of interpretation, rules of statutory construction. When you know the rules
[01:21:30.780 --> 01:21:37.900]  of statutory construction, you read through all the law, it doesn't apply to me. That's the
[01:21:37.900 --> 01:21:41.980]  realization people come to. So the people who are thinking I'm out of my mind right now,
[01:21:41.980 --> 01:21:46.620]  do yourself a favor. You will find at the end, you're going to say, you know, that champion guy,
[01:21:47.660 --> 01:21:51.020]  I didn't believe it. I thought he was a lying asshole, but he was really telling me the truth.
[01:21:51.740 --> 01:21:57.100]  Yeah. So we are currently putting out a series. We're in our third episode,
[01:21:57.100 --> 01:22:03.180]  fourth one records tomorrow about taking steps along the way. We're going to go through all the
[01:22:03.180 --> 01:22:09.500]  statutory constructions, all these types of things that teach you how to read these things. And one
[01:22:09.500 --> 01:22:19.180]  of the most important things about all this is when the definition of in a title is not the same
[01:22:19.180 --> 01:22:26.460]  as like a generic 1828 Webster's dictionary, they have to define so in the terms in the title. So
[01:22:26.460 --> 01:22:33.740]  there's a definition, there's definitions in the title, just like in title 26 was the IRS code,
[01:22:33.740 --> 01:22:40.940]  title 26 7701 is the definitions, is that right? Okay, so and they define person differently than
[01:22:40.940 --> 01:22:46.860]  the rest of the code in the US code. And so if we could, unless there's something you want to
[01:22:46.860 --> 01:22:52.380]  that we you think we've missed up until now. And look, there's no way we can cover it all. But
[01:22:52.380 --> 01:23:01.420]  I would like to get into a little bit of that subtitle a and the definitions of 7701 and why
[01:23:02.300 --> 01:23:04.780]  why it's so misread and so vague.
[01:23:06.860 --> 01:23:12.700]  I think the first problem, and I know I'm preaching to the choir with this is that nobody
[01:23:12.700 --> 01:23:18.700]  reads the definitions that they read law, as if every word has its plain English dictionary
[01:23:18.780 --> 01:23:23.580]  meaning and that's that's if you want to get screwed over by the law, do that.
[01:23:24.300 --> 01:23:28.540]  Read it like the words actually mean what they mean in the English dictionary. And yeah,
[01:23:28.540 --> 01:23:34.140]  the politicians and the legislative draftsman and the executive agencies will own you if you
[01:23:34.140 --> 01:23:42.380]  read law that way. Now sometimes that does apply, but not in the areas you care about.
[01:23:43.340 --> 01:23:52.300]  Right. So and to be clear, the Supreme Court has said that the legislature, any legislature,
[01:23:53.820 --> 01:24:01.740]  creating their own definitions for words we think we know the meaning of, in order to tailor the
[01:24:01.740 --> 01:24:08.700]  legislation to this to the intentions of its authors, is a completely acceptable practice,
[01:24:08.700 --> 01:24:12.620]  provided that the definitions are made available to the people reading the statute.
[01:24:13.180 --> 01:24:17.340]  So it's really the fault of the American people at this point that they don't ever go read the
[01:24:17.340 --> 01:24:22.540]  definition section. And they imagine there's a little bit of hubris involved here. They
[01:24:22.540 --> 01:24:30.460]  imagine they always know what it means. And and they don't. So you said something about the
[01:24:30.460 --> 01:24:35.340]  7701A being, was it vague, misleading? What was the adjective you used?
[01:24:35.340 --> 01:24:42.300]  Oh, well, so you go into detail about, you know, you read all the subtitles, C, B, C,
[01:24:42.300 --> 01:24:50.380]  and all this, where all these taxes apply. But it refers to A. And when you go back to A and
[01:24:50.380 --> 01:24:56.300]  determine who it really applies to, you realize that you may or may not be a taxpayer at that
[01:24:56.300 --> 01:25:04.220]  point. And so I was just getting, wanted you to talk about the confusion of reading that,
[01:25:04.220 --> 01:25:11.180]  and not realizing the confusion was up above. And you're associating these terms and words
[01:25:11.180 --> 01:25:16.940]  that you think are, that you think you know the definition to, that absolutely are not what you
[01:25:17.820 --> 01:25:23.100]  have been led to believe. Sure. The one that sticks in my
[01:25:23.900 --> 01:25:34.380]  day is the 7701A30, which is U.S. person. Such a vague term. It first appeared in legislation
[01:25:34.940 --> 01:25:45.580]  in 1962. It was incorporated via 1962 legislation into the tax code. And if there's one single
[01:25:45.580 --> 01:25:52.060]  trick that was most instrumental in fooling the American people about income tax, it's inclusion
[01:25:52.060 --> 01:25:59.900]  of the term U.S. person. Because Americans, most Americans consider themselves patriotic,
[01:26:00.460 --> 01:26:05.020]  whatever that word means to them. Okay. So they're reading through the tax code,
[01:26:05.020 --> 01:26:12.940]  and it says a U.S. person is liable for, or a U.S. person must do. And the good-hearted American
[01:26:12.940 --> 01:26:19.020]  says, well, I'm a U.S. person, God damn it. You know I am. I served my country. I went to war.
[01:26:19.100 --> 01:26:25.420]  I came back. I pay my taxes. I'm a U.S. person. So I got to do all this stuff because I'm a good
[01:26:25.420 --> 01:26:32.620]  U.S. person. So in tax law, none of that applies. No, you don't. The meaning of U.S. person in tax
[01:26:32.620 --> 01:26:41.740]  law, and every single time U.S. person appears any place in the statutes or the regulations
[01:26:41.740 --> 01:26:51.820]  or the treasury decisions, since 1962, it is only used in the following manner. It is a U.S. citizen
[01:26:52.780 --> 01:27:02.060]  or domestic corporation involved in the flow of U.S. source income to its foreign owner.
[01:27:02.620 --> 01:27:07.820]  A moment ago, I said as an example, the Brazilian millionaire who owns shares in Apple.
[01:27:08.540 --> 01:27:14.700]  But because he's in Brazil, he probably hired an investment firm to invest his money in various
[01:27:14.700 --> 01:27:21.340]  places, right? So he hired a U.S. investment firm. The U.S. investment firm then purchased,
[01:27:21.340 --> 01:27:27.660]  on his behalf, shares of Apple. So now Apple's paying dividends. Those dividends don't go to
[01:27:27.660 --> 01:27:34.860]  the guy in Brazil. Those dividends go back to the investment firm. In a simple transaction,
[01:27:34.860 --> 01:27:41.340]  the investment firm then pays it to the Brazilian guy. In that scenario, the investment firm is the
[01:27:41.340 --> 01:27:49.420]  U.S. person because the flow of U.S. source income, in this case, originating from Apple,
[01:27:50.300 --> 01:27:55.180]  it goes to the investment firm, and the investment firm then pays it out to the Brazilian millionaire.
[01:27:55.980 --> 01:28:03.420]  So the investment firm is the U.S. person. Now, let's take a different example. Let's say I,
[01:28:03.420 --> 01:28:09.900]  Dave Champion, hire an investment firm, a U.S. investment firm, and they buy a bunch of shares
[01:28:09.900 --> 01:28:15.660]  for Apple. Apple pays the investment firm my dividends. The investment firm pays me my dividends.
[01:28:15.660 --> 01:28:20.700]  There is no U.S. person in that transaction because there is no U.S. source income flowing
[01:28:20.700 --> 01:28:27.420]  to a foreign person. That's the definition of U.S. person. And because of the way Americans see this
[01:28:27.420 --> 01:28:34.540]  issue where they interpret what's written in law regulations as they know, which you brought up,
[01:28:35.900 --> 01:28:45.020]  U.S. person in particular has, it was brilliantly evil on behalf of the legislative draftsman over
[01:28:45.020 --> 01:28:48.060]  at the Treasury Department to get Congress to put that in there.
[01:28:48.060 --> 01:28:51.500]  Yeah, you got to hand it to them for just the brilliancy of the scheme.
[01:28:51.900 --> 01:28:59.580]  It just, oh, I have never failed to give, not Congress, because they're idiots,
[01:29:01.020 --> 01:29:04.460]  the people in the Treasury Department over the years, most especially the people in the background
[01:29:04.460 --> 01:29:08.780]  whose names we don't know, but they've been there in one capacity or another for the last 110 years,
[01:29:08.780 --> 01:29:14.300]  who are pushing this corrupt agenda forward. I have never failed to give them the credit that
[01:29:14.300 --> 01:29:19.500]  they are due. They, at this moment, they want, everything is just the way they would want it
[01:29:19.500 --> 01:29:25.180]  right now. 95% of the U.S. public believes them. Most people believe that people like
[01:29:25.180 --> 01:29:31.500]  Dave Champion are out of their minds. You know, best case scenario, well, Dave is just misled.
[01:29:31.500 --> 01:29:36.220]  They think the government's game is actually strong. They don't know what weak sauce the
[01:29:36.220 --> 01:29:39.740]  government's game really is. The only people who really know that are those who've read
[01:29:39.740 --> 01:29:44.860]  income tax shattering the mist. And then they're like, oh my God, the government's position is
[01:29:45.660 --> 01:29:51.420]  indefensible. That's how weak it is. It's literally indefensible. But only the people who've
[01:29:51.420 --> 01:29:56.540]  read what the law really says understand how ridiculous the government's position is.
[01:29:56.540 --> 01:30:01.420]  But back to my point, the government has won at this point. And it's won because a bunch of
[01:30:01.980 --> 01:30:08.460]  brilliant people have pushed this corrupt agenda forward. And they have the power of government
[01:30:08.460 --> 01:30:14.620]  behind them. Yes, I would say it began with Woodrow Wilson, the administrator, which enacted
[01:30:14.620 --> 01:30:22.300]  all these administrative states, which allow these regulators to rewrite the intention of Congress
[01:30:22.300 --> 01:30:29.100]  and mislead the people. But in actuality, what you're describing is that the federal government
[01:30:29.740 --> 01:30:37.900]  was purposely set up by the founding fathers as having limited income from the U.S. citizens.
[01:30:37.980 --> 01:30:43.820]  So that they weren't able to gather all this wealth and power and able to do these things,
[01:30:44.460 --> 01:30:50.620]  subversive things. And what has happened through the administrative state? It has
[01:30:50.620 --> 01:30:56.300]  allowed them to gather all these resources and put all the fear into everyone and
[01:30:57.340 --> 01:31:03.420]  rule with an iron fist in reality. And so where do we go, Dave? What do we do now?
[01:31:03.900 --> 01:31:08.380]  I want you to know, first of all, your audience, I'm nonpartisan. I'm not a Republican. I'm not a
[01:31:08.380 --> 01:31:15.100]  Democrat. I did spend 30 years in the Republican Party. And I left when I saw what Republican
[01:31:15.100 --> 01:31:19.900]  politicians were doing that were completely adverse to all that I had been raised to believe
[01:31:19.900 --> 01:31:26.060]  Republicans stood for. I left the party. So I didn't change. The party changed. I am here in
[01:31:26.060 --> 01:31:33.100]  Nevada where I live. I am registered nonpartisan. But I do want to point out that this phenomenon
[01:31:33.100 --> 01:31:36.380]  that you and I are talking about that I mentioned a moment ago with the, you know,
[01:31:36.380 --> 01:31:42.940]  I'm a damn fine American. Part of what I struggle with is I think it would be fair to say
[01:31:44.220 --> 01:31:51.740]  that people who identify as Republican tend to have stronger, more passionate feelings about
[01:31:51.740 --> 01:31:56.780]  patriotism than those on the left. Some people can disagree with me. That's my experience.
[01:31:57.740 --> 01:32:01.180]  When you hear about, you know, join the military, serve your country, you know,
[01:32:02.220 --> 01:32:07.020]  follow, you obey the law. I'm a law and order candidate. They tend to be the people on the
[01:32:07.020 --> 01:32:15.980]  right. But yet, Republicans, at least back when I was one, believe in small government,
[01:32:16.700 --> 01:32:21.900]  limited government, limited by the boundaries of the Constitution, non-intrusive government,
[01:32:22.780 --> 01:32:31.500]  uh, controls on spending. So to me, all of that agenda that's supposed to be a Republican agenda
[01:32:32.060 --> 01:32:38.060]  can be fulfilled by people learning what the income tax says, following what the law says,
[01:32:38.060 --> 01:32:45.420]  obeying the law, no longer filing tax returns, basically grabbing the federal government by the
[01:32:45.420 --> 01:32:50.700]  net and say, you're going to live within your means now because we're not fucking paying you
[01:32:50.700 --> 01:32:56.540]  anymore. And you're obeying the law when you do that. That's the most amazing thing. You can
[01:32:56.540 --> 01:33:01.980]  get all those things, limited government, controls of spending, smaller less intrusive government,
[01:33:01.980 --> 01:33:09.180]  you can get all those things by learning the law and obeying it. But the number one group of people
[01:33:09.180 --> 01:33:15.020]  who tell me I'm out of my fucking mind are Republicans because they consider themselves
[01:33:15.740 --> 01:33:20.300]  uber patriotic and you gotta pay your taxes if you're a patriotic American.
[01:33:20.940 --> 01:33:24.860]  So I want to encourage people who lean right, maybe Republican isn't the right word,
[01:33:24.860 --> 01:33:31.420]  but people who lean right, please get over that construct that, you know, you have to pay your
[01:33:31.420 --> 01:33:36.860]  taxes to be a good American. Um, at least in terms of the limited discussion of the income tax,
[01:33:36.860 --> 01:33:43.500]  just learn the law and follow it. Please. We, although that agenda, that right leaning agenda,
[01:33:43.500 --> 01:33:49.260]  we can accomplish it if we all learn what the income tax law says and we all obey it.
[01:33:49.980 --> 01:33:55.020]  All right. Preaching over. Carry on. Well, look, I don't want to get too,
[01:33:55.660 --> 01:33:59.020]  I want to still get a little bit of your story in and I know we probably should have done it up
[01:33:59.020 --> 01:34:05.340]  front, but, um, you know, what, what made you come to write the book and you have to tell
[01:34:05.340 --> 01:34:12.860]  us about Tommy Chung. Okay. So what caused me to write the book was, uh, I'm going to do the short
[01:34:12.860 --> 01:34:17.660]  version. Um, well, I knew absolutely nothing about tax law. I, all I knew was these letters,
[01:34:17.660 --> 01:34:21.740]  I R S and I, that's, I didn't want to know anything more than that. Uh, I owned a couple
[01:34:21.740 --> 01:34:26.140]  of businesses, my accountant, I had an accountant on retainer. He didn't do what he was supposed to
[01:34:26.140 --> 01:34:31.260]  do. And I ended up in a conflict with the internal revenue service and they, which I was unaware
[01:34:31.260 --> 01:34:36.220]  because all the mail was going to his office. Okay. And they ended up, um, levying a bank account.
[01:34:36.220 --> 01:34:43.420]  We're going back to 1992 or three. They ended up, uh, loving a bunch of money from my payroll
[01:34:43.420 --> 01:34:48.220]  account for my workers. And, uh, that started a chain of events where in discussing it with
[01:34:48.220 --> 01:34:56.060]  some of my friends, um, a couple of them told me about this thing that you don't know income tax.
[01:34:56.060 --> 01:35:02.620]  And because of my law enforcement background, uh, I was like, okay, so when a cop wants to see
[01:35:02.620 --> 01:35:09.660]  something, uh, he either needs like exigent circumstances or needs a warrant to, to seize
[01:35:09.660 --> 01:35:18.780]  your property. And like, so how could the IRS sees my payroll account when there,
[01:35:19.740 --> 01:35:24.700]  no one had gone to see a judge. There was no judicial process. There was nothing. Um,
[01:35:24.700 --> 01:35:29.020]  some guy pulled out a document from his desk drawer, filled it out, got it countersigned by
[01:35:29.020 --> 01:35:34.700]  a supervisor, tore the top copy off, mailed it to the bank and the bank gave him my money.
[01:35:34.700 --> 01:35:41.500]  I'm like, okay, so, uh, something's wrong here. That was my first impression. Something is wrong
[01:35:41.500 --> 01:35:46.620]  here. And so they gave me a couple of books to read and I did, um, one of them was good. One of
[01:35:46.620 --> 01:35:54.940]  them was worthless. And, but it quit my appetite. I'm like, and I grew up in that kind of patriotic
[01:35:54.940 --> 01:36:00.780]  home I was just referring to a few moments ago. And so the idea, when it started to the
[01:36:00.780 --> 01:36:07.420]  possibility started to present itself in my mind that maybe the federal government is lying to
[01:36:08.140 --> 01:36:15.180]  everyone. And if they're lying, then that means they're stealing our money based on a lie.
[01:36:16.300 --> 01:36:22.220]  That cannot be permitted to stand. Okay. That was my position. If they're doing that,
[01:36:22.220 --> 01:36:26.780]  that cannot be permitted to stand. But of course I had to know for a fact,
[01:36:26.780 --> 01:36:29.340]  is that really happening? Or is this just kind of my impression at the,
[01:36:29.900 --> 01:36:35.340]  you know, the embryonic phase of my education? So I continued on and I did research for 17
[01:36:35.340 --> 01:36:39.660]  years before I published income tax shattering the mist. And I started and stopped the book a
[01:36:39.660 --> 01:36:45.500]  couple of times writing the book a couple of times. Um, because my standard, my ethical standard to
[01:36:45.500 --> 01:36:51.100]  ask somebody else to pay me for what's in that book. Uh, I set a standard for myself and the
[01:36:51.100 --> 01:36:55.580]  bar was this, you've probably heard of speed dating where you sit down at the table and you
[01:36:55.580 --> 01:37:02.860]  have a little interaction with a gal. Okay. Um, so if we can imagine speed income tax challenging,
[01:37:03.420 --> 01:37:06.700]  the bar I set for myself is that I could sit behind a table like I am now,
[01:37:07.260 --> 01:37:11.740]  and the government could line up all the attorneys that they had working in their
[01:37:11.740 --> 01:37:18.060]  tax division at DOJ and they could sit down in front of the table and challenge me on a point
[01:37:18.060 --> 01:37:24.860]  of tax law. And I could intellectually destroy every single one of them, every single issue they
[01:37:24.860 --> 01:37:29.900]  raised, I could destroy it. I set that bar that if I couldn't do that to every single attorney
[01:37:29.900 --> 01:37:37.740]  in the DOJ, then I could not ethically ask anybody to pay me a penny. Um, when I was 100% confident,
[01:37:37.740 --> 01:37:43.980]  I could do that without fail every time. Um, without question, I said, okay, now I can share
[01:37:43.980 --> 01:37:49.420]  this with my fellow countrymen. And sort of the humorous thing is I, in my naivete back then,
[01:37:49.420 --> 01:37:55.980]  I thought once somebody writes the comprehensive compendium that lays it all out, they get to the
[01:37:55.980 --> 01:38:03.100]  final page and they close the book, they're 100% convicted balls to bone that the government has
[01:38:03.100 --> 01:38:09.900]  lied to the entire country. Then I thought people would be like, everybody needs to know this,
[01:38:09.900 --> 01:38:17.660]  you know, nobody wants to know. So I was really wrong. That's how I got to write the book.
[01:38:17.660 --> 01:38:23.660]  It's like looking in the mirror, you know, sometimes you don't want to see the things
[01:38:23.660 --> 01:38:27.740]  because then you know, you have to change or you have to come to a different understanding
[01:38:27.740 --> 01:38:33.980]  about it, which is very, very scary. And on top of what the IRS has done to your neighbor,
[01:38:33.980 --> 01:38:36.380]  you're thinking, I don't want to change my thinking on this.
[01:38:37.180 --> 01:38:42.140]  Yes. And I try and tell people, I'm going to use your neighbor scenario. Your neighbor thought he
[01:38:42.140 --> 01:38:48.940]  owed the tax. Okay. Your neighbor was playing on the government's playing field with the
[01:38:48.940 --> 01:38:53.500]  government's rules and either accidentally or intentionally did the wrong thing. And I try
[01:38:53.500 --> 01:38:58.940]  and tell them, you're not doing that. You're not on the government's playing field. You've now
[01:38:58.940 --> 01:39:02.700]  stepped off because of the knowledge that you have. You're going to handle your affairs differently.
[01:39:02.700 --> 01:39:08.300]  You're going to be outside that entire construct. Yeah. And I think when you bring up the neighbor,
[01:39:08.300 --> 01:39:12.860]  what you're really bringing up is the concept that I don't want to risk jack shit. And whenever I
[01:39:14.460 --> 01:39:20.860]  see it that way, I think what if the founding fathers had that pussy ass point of view?
[01:39:21.420 --> 01:39:27.980]  That's right. And what I tell our audience all the time is we are at a stage in the Republic that
[01:39:27.980 --> 01:39:35.500]  there will be a sacrifice required from all of us to save it, to be free and not live in a
[01:39:35.500 --> 01:39:40.860]  250 square foot apartment and your speech has to be regulated and everything else.
[01:39:40.860 --> 01:39:46.620]  They're coming for all of us. Now, if you want to stick your head in the sand over there for a while,
[01:39:47.660 --> 01:39:52.860]  maybe you get away in a couple more years as they gobble all of us up, but they're going to
[01:39:52.860 --> 01:40:01.740]  come get you too. So you might as well start learning right now and get in the fight because
[01:40:01.740 --> 01:40:07.260]  it will end in your enslavement. If you're not already, we've already been enslaved, but
[01:40:08.380 --> 01:40:15.180]  it will further end in your further enslavement if you don't get involved. So do what you want.
[01:40:15.180 --> 01:40:18.860]  What's the old saying? They came for the Jews. I wanted the Jews, so I didn't worry. I came
[01:40:18.860 --> 01:40:23.500]  for the Christians. I wanted Christians. I didn't worry. And then they came for me and there was no
[01:40:23.500 --> 01:40:29.740]  one around because they had come for everyone. That's what's happening right now. And so
[01:40:30.780 --> 01:40:35.980]  you could get involved, writ something or not, but you're going to be risking it all regardless.
[01:40:36.700 --> 01:40:43.980]  Absolutely. Yeah. People need to get involved. And it's interesting because of all the ways that
[01:40:44.060 --> 01:40:51.900]  people could get involved. By my estimate, learning the truth about the income tax and
[01:40:51.900 --> 01:40:58.380]  obeying it, following the law, it's kind of a private thing because nobody's standing up
[01:40:58.380 --> 01:41:03.100]  on their roof with a bullhorn screaming, I don't pay my taxes. I don't pay the income tax. It's
[01:41:03.100 --> 01:41:09.820]  kind of a private thing, but I think it's one of the most effective things a person can do.
[01:41:10.620 --> 01:41:16.860]  They're literally, we're talking about withholding consent. They're withholding resources
[01:41:17.900 --> 01:41:23.420]  from a government that has become rapacious and a government that many people feel is
[01:41:24.780 --> 01:41:29.180]  not working in the best interest of the American people anymore. And you're literally, by doing
[01:41:29.180 --> 01:41:35.420]  this, you're withholding resources from this organization you consider evil. But then so many
[01:41:35.420 --> 01:41:41.260]  Americans are like, yeah, I do consider them evil. But if I did what you said, there might be risk
[01:41:41.260 --> 01:41:50.620]  involved. They're doing things in your name that you don't agree with. They're doing atrocious
[01:41:50.620 --> 01:41:58.300]  things in your name that you don't agree with. How can you stand there and morally choose to fund
[01:41:58.300 --> 01:42:04.780]  that? You wouldn't put up with an addict in your house stealing $20 bills off the dresser to go
[01:42:04.860 --> 01:42:10.860]  get high and come back and just wreck the place. Well, that's what's happening in our governments.
[01:42:11.420 --> 01:42:17.660]  That is what's happening. And we choose to continue to support it financially. It's not okay.
[01:42:17.660 --> 01:42:22.540]  Absolutely. I'm with you a thousand percent. Not okay. Not okay. Is there anything else you want to
[01:42:22.540 --> 01:42:27.820]  get? I know you said you had about two hours. I mean, we literally could go for five hours and
[01:42:29.900 --> 01:42:34.620]  no one would be upset about it and they would all watch it. But I want to respect your time.
[01:42:35.020 --> 01:42:41.100]  And if we have to have you back, that's fine. We would love to. And I appreciate you being respectful
[01:42:41.100 --> 01:42:46.300]  of the time today. I am 100% willing to come back again. And if you want a third time, whatever it
[01:42:46.300 --> 01:42:51.420]  takes to cover all the things that you want to talk about, I'm game. I think we've covered
[01:42:51.980 --> 01:42:59.980]  quite a bit of ground today. I don't think I could encourage people any more than I already have
[01:42:59.980 --> 01:43:07.180]  to learn what the truth is and live it out. Whether you do it for you, this is best for me
[01:43:07.180 --> 01:43:12.620]  and my family because I get to keep 100% of the fruits of my labor. If you want to do it for that
[01:43:12.620 --> 01:43:17.900]  reason, great. I mean, what's better than keeping your money and spending it on your spouse and your
[01:43:17.900 --> 01:43:23.900]  kids? If you want to do it because you're tired of this government and you want to withhold
[01:43:23.900 --> 01:43:32.060]  resources, great. Do it. Whatever your motivation is, there's all sorts of areas where we can engage
[01:43:32.060 --> 01:43:37.740]  in civil disobedience. The definition of civil disobedience is intentionally breaking the law
[01:43:37.740 --> 01:43:43.180]  to make a political point. The nice thing about what we've been talking about today
[01:43:44.060 --> 01:43:53.500]  is you're not breaking any laws. You're actually following the law. Why any American
[01:43:53.980 --> 01:44:03.900]  would not want to keep their own property as a form of protest? Imagine protesting by following
[01:44:03.900 --> 01:44:12.220]  the law. I want to encourage you to do that. Gary, you mentioned that you had learned much of this
[01:44:12.220 --> 01:44:18.700]  before you read my book, but you also mentioned how much time and effort it took. I just want to
[01:44:18.780 --> 01:44:25.180]  encourage your audience because I was down the same road you wrote, 17 years of research before
[01:44:25.180 --> 01:44:30.460]  the book. Not a lot of people have the time or energy to do that or the resources behind them
[01:44:30.460 --> 01:44:36.300]  to make that kind of time available. I was very fortunate to have that. So I'm going to suggest,
[01:44:36.300 --> 01:44:41.980]  and Gary, when I'm gone, you can tell your audience your point of view. I'm going to suggest that at
[01:44:41.980 --> 01:44:48.060]  400 pages can be consumed. I mean, I know people who've read it in the weekend. Now, that's
[01:44:48.060 --> 01:44:52.540]  obviously somebody who's got some really strong reading skills. But I mean, literally,
[01:44:52.540 --> 01:44:56.540]  a person could read this in a week, two weeks, three weeks, maybe a month if they're reading
[01:44:56.540 --> 01:45:02.220]  it in their spare time. And at the end, they will know every damn thing they need to know.
[01:45:02.860 --> 01:45:10.060]  And they will, as I mentioned earlier, close that final page and they will be 100% confident.
[01:45:10.700 --> 01:45:16.780]  Not like I'm going off on some tangent. I'm 100% confident of what the law says and how to obey it.
[01:45:17.340 --> 01:45:23.340]  So I would suggest for most people, 99% of the people hearing our voices today,
[01:45:24.380 --> 01:45:29.180]  the best fastest way to get the information you need is through reading up and sharing this.
[01:45:29.180 --> 01:45:32.140]  Okay. I'm going to give you the last word. Close us out.
[01:45:34.060 --> 01:45:40.620]  Last word. Thank you for caring enough to spend your time with Gary and I today.
[01:45:41.420 --> 01:45:48.220]  The very fact that you have spent your time here, it indicates, and we don't know you.
[01:45:48.220 --> 01:45:52.060]  You know, I don't know your names. If I passed you in a grocery store aisle, I wouldn't know you.
[01:45:53.420 --> 01:46:00.060]  But I want to say thank you because we live in a time when people are not really interested in
[01:46:01.340 --> 01:46:07.180]  what is right, what is proper, how to control the government and limits its overreach.
[01:46:07.580 --> 01:46:12.140]  People don't seem to have a passion for moral issues anymore. And I'm not talking about who's
[01:46:12.140 --> 01:46:19.420]  using what restroom. I'm talking about macro issues. So few Americans care about things that
[01:46:19.420 --> 01:46:24.540]  really matter anymore. And the fact that you spent your time with Gary and I here today
[01:46:25.180 --> 01:46:28.940]  means you do care. And I thank you from the bottom of my heart.
[01:46:37.180 --> 01:46:37.680]  Thank you.