- April 2018: Robert Orth won his tax case, 7th Circuit retaliates -
Donate to American Liberties, LLC: HERE
YouTube review/tutorial about Orth v. Comm'r of IRS on the 7th Circuit: HERE
YouTube tutorial about this page: HERE
THE JUDGES MAKE YOU PAY - The law was clearly explained in brief and the Comm'r didn't even mention 85% of the provisions relied upon, and couldn't get into the language of statutory definitions or Tax Code § 83 that explains how to tax the entire American workforce. Despite this, the 7th Circuit Court called everything "outlandish theories" and the whole tax protester thing. View the video on YouTube, read the exchange of briefs below, and observe the difficulty these findings pose to the DOJ's best tax attorney.
The Supreme Court says that a court's duty is to interpret the provisions relied upon. (See Barnhart, Comm'r of Social Security v. Sigmon Coal Co., Inc., 534 US 438, 450 (2002) ("As in all statutory construction cases, we begin with the language of the statute. The first step "is to determine whether the language at issue has a plain and unambiguous meaning with regard to the particular dispute in the case." Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 US 337, 340 (1997) (citing United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc., 489 US 235, 240 (1989)). The inquiry ceases "if the statutory language is unambiguous and 'the statutory scheme is coherent and consistent.'" 519 US, at 340.")).
YOU DON'T PAY BECAUSE OF THE LAW - You pay because every judge is corrupt for the taxman; taxation without representation. In all honesty, if the law does not impose it, any demand for it is actually extortion, and when done in a pattern against multiple victims it's racketeering; it's not taxation. If the law didn't protect you the government could talk about. If a statute operates against you the IRS/DOJ/courts are always happy to beat you up with it. Watch as the IRS Comm'r runs from Tax Code § 83 when IRS' Chief Counsel says that statute explains how to tax the entire American workforce.
HE WON HIS CASE - You're now looking directly at how the court plays a role when the law interrupts cash flow. When the IRS isn't enough for you and you go to court, arguing just the law, this is what you can expect, in America; the taxman owns every judge.
IMPORTANT - THIS PAGE is premised upon your familiarity with the work on WEvGOV.com.
1. Opening Brief from Robert E. Orth: HERE
Issue A: Social Security provisions have been misapplied in this case. (pp.3-5 of Brief). Does Mr. Orth's Opening Brief rely only upon relevant or controlling provisions? Does the brief prove this point?
Issue B: As a citizen of the United States, the Appellant is named solely through the promulgation of Treasury Regulations as a subject of the tax now at issue, in violation of the 16th Amdt. which authorizes only Congress to lay and collect income taxes. Treasury Regulation 26 CFR 1.1-1 is void as derogation or vitiation of, or deviation from, statute 26 USC § 1. Without 26 CFR 1.1-1 there's no authority which subjects a "citizens of the United States" to the tax imposed by 26 USC § 1. The "deficiency" alleged by Appellee is therefore invalid. (pp.5-8 of Brief). Does Mr. Orth's Opening Brief rely only upon relevant or controlling provisions? Does the brief prove this point? Remember, the 7th Cir. is the one that said 1.1-1 "identifies the subject" of the § 1 tax, in Vallone.
Issue C: Appellee is in violation of 26 USC § 83(a) in its determination of the subject deficiency. In doing so, the executive has chosen which subject to tax in violation of the 16th Amdt. (pp.8-19 of Brief). Does Mr. Orth's Opening Brief rely only upon relevant or controlling provisions? Does the brief prove this point?
Issue D: The income tax imposed under 26 USC § 1 is not imposed by clear language; lenity; void for vagueness; misleading statements from the IRS. The deficiency at issue is void and amounts in controversy cannot be collected without a violation of Appellant's rights to due process.
D(a) If the Appellee's interpretation regarding 26 USC § 83(a) is upheld, it must be viewed as having misled the Appellant as to his duties and liabilities under 26 USC. (pp.20-22 of Brief).
D(b) The tax at issue is not imposed by clear language; lenity. (pp.22-25 of Brief). All of those S.Ct. decisions cited in support of this claim are now "outlandish theories." Happy 4th of July.
Issue E: Without clear and definitive explanation of the law and proof that it has operated according to its letter, Appellant's right to travel out of the country will be suspended while access to the law is denied. Rights to due process are violated when Appellant is sanctioned under § 7345 without proof the governing law has operated in accordance with well established canons and maxims. This requires Appellee's alleged deficiency be declared invalid. (pp.25-28 of Brief).
Provisions relied upon:
26 USC §§ 1, 61, 83(a), 212, 879(a)(2), 1001, 1011, 1012, 1401, 1402(b), 3101, 3121(e), 3306(j), 6201, 7651(4)(A), and 7655;
26 CFR 1.1-1, 1.83-3(e), (f), (g), 1.83-4(b)(2), 1.1001-1(a), 1.1011-1(a), 1.1012-1(a), 1.1401-1(a), 1.1402(a)-2(a), 1.1402(b)-1(d), 31.0-2(a)(1), 31.3121(e)-1(b), 301.6201-1(a), and 602.101;
42 USC § 411(b)(2);
Social Security Act of 1935 § 211, P.L. 74-271, 49 Stat. 620 (August 14, 1935), now codified as 42 USC ch. 7;
1939 Internal Revenue Code §§ 111, 112, 113, 3640, and 3811.
2. Anwser Brief from Comm'r of IRS: HERE
3. Reply from Mr. Orth: HERE
TO THIS POINT - The battle (exchange of briefs) is over. Review the exchange and determine for yourself who won, of course. Many litigants have pursued these arguments (Issues A, B, C above) and the result is always the same - key provisions are strictly off limits. This litigant won his case to this point, prior to judgment. Observe the evasive and deficient reply to the briefed challenges in #1, above, which is explained in the litigant's reply to the IRS' brief.
NOW OBSERVE (below) how the court reacts to the victory you likely sense after having read #1, 2, and 3, how the court acts to steal the victory with evasion and a threat of sanctions for contempt of court, essentially. The luxury of appellate litigation, especially if your issues are statutory, is how compressed and simple the exchange is, just a quick back and forth and the case is done. The appellant gets to open the action, the gov't gets one shot at a reply, and the appellant gets to rebut. This serves to leave in plain sight who should prevail and does not involve a number of motions, discovery, witnesses, jury concerns, etc., as you see in US District Court.
4. Decision by 7th Circuit Court of Appeals: HERE ("Outlandish theories")
5. Mr. Orth's criminal complaint to FBI for conspiracy and mail fraud: HERE (.pdf scanned filing) / HERE (.pdf of draft)
6. And HERE we see sanctions of $4k imposed for "frivolous appeal" but nobody discloses their interpretation of controlling provisions - TEN DAYS AFTER the court received its copy of the FBI criminal complaint. How did § 83 operate in your conclusion his claim is "outlandish," your Honor? Does 26 CFR 1.1 deviate from Tax Code § 1 or doesn't it? Is that really a citizen of the United States in Tax Code 1402(b)? Vallone, "any" 5-decisions, clear language, forced to speculate, suspension of passport privileges,
Did the 7th Cir. or the IRS ever get to the point? Of course not, just as in the five cases before 1999 where the S.Ct. denied cert. We know we have rights to more than this, and those rights are constitutional rights. Does this obstruction constitute a felony conspiracy under 18 USC § 241 by the courts and IRS/DOJ? Is it mail fraud to accept payment of the appeals filing fee only to deny the litigant access to the law? Is an abusive (capricious and arbitrary) imposition of sanctions for exercising a right an act of extortion under 18 USC § 872?
This is the mechanism by which the law is used by gov't but applied piecemeal with key omissions, and the Tax Code has always provided places to which a judge could run if somebody argued for constraining IRS authority. However, over and above all other attempts, this approach and these conclusions remains utterly without peers, and this level of evasion and oppression is purely the result of having shut off all avenues of escape the man has used in the past. Once you know which provisions to argue, and you persist on multiple circuits, your precise challenges and their statutory foundation now force the court to abandon its role, "to say what the law is." (Marbury).
We're used to watching the courts use the Tax Code to explain a liability. Here, just asking 1) does 1.1-1 deviate from statute when saying US citizens owe the tax, and 2) I've been deprived of the provisions of the statute that explains how to tax the entire workforce, evokes severe retaliation and no indulgence (proof to the contrary) whatsoever of the provisions relied upon. You'd think that in the 25+ years the gov't has had this analysis thrust into civil and criminal proceedings and investigations it would have found the time to write a brief of these provisions and add the arguments to the IRS' frivolous arguments list. Am I right? No mention of governing provisions or discussion as to how the arguments are mistaken. Judges give the IRS all of its authority and judges make you pay without regard for the law; Happy 4th of July.
How you can help:
If you think Mr. Orth won his case and that the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals is guilty as charged you can join his FBI criminal complaint by simply downloading this WORD doc, putting your name and address on it, and shipping it to the FBI and to the 7th Circuit: HERE - Send an original to the man in Indiana as well.
How to write and file criminal complaints - (not for MAC)
Report crime in a way that threatens employment -
This course comes on a FLASH drive and contains examples of state and federal criminal complaints in microsoft WORD to provide a selection of templates for your complaint.
Hours of audio instruction takes you through the many examples, which were actually used by Americans who found themselves the victim of abuse or unduly prosecuted. When you can do more than just point your finger at your servants and threaten to sue, when you can waive a pair of handcuffs instead, then you've seized for your own another vital slice of political power that you now lack.Criminal Complaint Course