taxation is illegal. plain and simple. the entire way the government funds itself is not legal under the government's own laws, rooted in thousands of years of legal tradition.
people have tried and failed to make this argument a billion times via arguments rooted in "United States" law. they claim that the 16th amendment was never ratified, they claim that it's contradicted by the 5th amendment, and all other manner of claims.
unsuprisingly, courts reject these arguments over and over again - either the arguments are flawed, or the court is unwilling to admit their validity. once in a blue moon, a defendant successfully maintains one of them argument, but it's more a matter of luck than skill.
so what's the ideal basis for the defendant winning a tax case in a so-called "court of law"? what, in other words, are the clearest arguments showing that 'taxation' is not a legal activity, and that no payment is due to the government by individuals without the individual's consent?
the answer is not in the laws passed by Congress, or the Constitution itself. at best, pointing to these can help you point out the self-contradictory and incomprehensible nature of the 'laws' we are expected to follow. a law can be thrown out for being non-bindingly vague ("void for vaguenes"), but don't count on it.
the real answer lies in a question of justice. taxation cases put courts and "attack attorneys" (also known as 'prosecutors' or 'claimants') into what is really an impossible position - they are expected to uphold written law above that which is just or moral.
in reality, the absolute duty of not only court officers and public officials, but all human beings, is to uphold what is just above all else.
these may sound like abstract principles, but in fact, they are the entire basis of our legal system - a mish-mash of Anglo-Saxon common law principles, British law, and ancient Roman/Greek principles. let's examine some of these principles:
ex injuria jus non oritur (from injury, justice does not arise)
this is an incredibly clear principle. justice and 'net' (total) injury from an action are incompatible. if your action does more harm than good, it is not just, and thus, is not legal.
is this true in cases of 'taxation'? yes. the individual impulses to, primarily, self-preservation and accomodation, and secondarily, compassion, have their monetary 'fuel' deprived, which is then spent on acts of government - including mass murder, war, mass poisoning, subsidy and support of corporate crime, and aiding and abetting of fugitives. it is abundantly clear that taxation causes net harm on a population.
consensus facit legem (consensus makes the law)
taxation is not performed with the consensus of the population. if it were, no penalties would exist for it. the consent of the person being taxed does not exist, which is why the threat of confiscation of property, violence, and imprisonment is a necessary component of 'taxation'.
the individuals carrying out acts of 'taxation' (more commonly known as 'extortion', 'fraud' and 'racketeering) attempt to claim that the presence of benefit enjoyed by the defendant is enough to obligate the defendant into payment. however, neither implicit or explicit consent is ever given by the taxation defendant for the performance of those services.
a homeless man with a 'squeegee' cannot bind a motorist into paying him for wiping his windshield, nor can a pizza deliveryman randomly choose houses to give pizza to, and then obligate them to give payment. all forms of consent was absent, and therefore, no payment is required.
you could hypothetically make the case that, if the defendant actively enjoyed the benefits of the act, i.e., ate the pizza, or allowed the car to be scrubbed - then they would be obligated to give fair and reasonable payment - but this argument falls flat when applied to taxation. first, we do not enjoy benefits from the vast majority of government 'services' at all, since so many of them cause direct injury, and second, almost all the government services we use - roads, highways, subway systems, buses - are paid for at point of service. roads are usually paid for with gasoline taxes and tolls, and tolls are paid for subways and buses as well. some of us do use the services of public schools (not advisable), firefighters, and policemen (also not advisable), and it would be morally right to pay for services that are just and that you are obligated to pay for - but the vast majority of other government services don't qualify under this definition. again, that is why taxation takes the form of a mandate, and not a service in an open market.
suppressio veri (suppression of the truth)
fully informed consent is the highest standard for consent - somebody who enters into an agreement must understand the consequences of his obligations in the agreement.
this is impossible with any arrangement involving the government. huge portions of the government's spending, and actions, are beyond review or public availability, as encoded by the government's own self-regulations (confidentiality arrangements). it is impossible for fully informed consent to exist under present circumstances.
stare decisis (the decision stands)
a judge is bound to abide by a particular precedent. often, this is interpreted as meaning that the oldest precedent regarding the legal principle in question is the most binding.
what is earliest - an impartial court ruling in favor of extortion, or against it? obviously, the latter. under this principle, a judge is bound by ancient precedent - whether Hammurabi's Code, or the Ten Commandments - more than he/she is bound by modern laws which attempt to codify and legitimize acts of extortion "under the color of authority".
se defendendo (self defense)
in Wikipedia's terms - "The act of defending one's own person or property, or the well-being or property of another". acts to conceal, obfuscate, or defend one's rightful earnings - within the limits of reason, at least - cannot rightfully be used to cast aspersion onto a defendant in a taxation case, since the defendant was acting defensively to prevent unlawful injury.
respondeat superior (let the master answer)
this is relevant in counter-suits against taxation, seeking damages for distress and injury caused by unlawful injury performed in acts of 'taxation'. it renders the directors of government agents - Congress, the President, the Supreme Court, and those acting to interpret law and direct government resources on their behalf - as the parties liable for acts of mass extortion.
salus populi suprema lex esto (the good of the people shall be the supreme law)
already addressed - to win a taxation case, it merely needs to be demonstrated that the intended use of tax money is injurious to the public good relative to how the taxation defendant would have spent the money. in plain terms - "will the government spend the money in a way that's more helpful for society than how i would have spent it?"
quantum meruit (as much as he/she has earned)
describes the principle of fair/equitable payment being provided to a contractor for services rendered. as described previously, this is a negative amount - the government has provably caused more injury than benefit.
per minas (through duress)
this principle indemnifies (frees from liability) a subject of taxation from past liability for aiding and abetting known fugitives/criminals in government, since prior taxation was performed under duress (under threat). the credibility of such threat needs little further discussion, given the severity of government extortion.
non faciat malum, ut inde veniat bonum (not to do evil that good may come)
this one is absolutely essential. it literally means that an illegal act - extortion in the name of taxation - is not legally justifiable by a supposedly good outcome).
that means taxation is illegal.
non compos mentis (not in possession of [one's] mind)
a person or group cannot adequately present legal representation of themselves if they are non compos mentis - a prosecuting attorney arguing for the payment of non-contractual, non-consensual debts in court could be argued to be non compos mentis. this argument would likely have a low success rate, although it is accurate.
nemo judex in sua causa (no one shall be a judge in his own case)
a judge on the public payroll cannot legally adjudicate a case regarding the method by which he/she is paid, and should self-recuse.
a taxation case itself, therefore, cannot legally occur in a court funded by the proceeds of that same taxation.
the problem here is extremely fundamental. although prosecutors and others would prefer taxation be described as a matter of 'public interest', the reality is closer to the other end of the spectrum - a dictator ordering confiscations of property and paying people to give the illusion of legal justification for such confiscations.
mens rea (guilty mind)
a "guilty mind" must be demonstrated for a legally actionable crime to be committed. a taxation defendant who acted to withhold funds from criminal purposes in pursuit of more honorable purposes for those funds cannot be demonstrated to be of guilty mind.
malum in se (wrong in itself)
this legal principle, among others previously discussed, means that justice takes precedence over a system of laws.
taxation is malum in se, wrong in itself, as previously discussed. the act of extortion is wrong (assuming the prior owner's claim to the property in question is legitimate).
male fide (bad faith)
the party seeking legal action in favor of taxation - the 'government' - demonstrates bad faith, by compounding blackmail and threats with personal distress and possible injury of person or property caused to the defendant in the taxation case. the entire basis of all judgments that would be likely consequences of the case would be in bad faith, and thus, unjust/illegal.
leges humanae nascuntur, vivunt, moriuntur (the laws of man are born, live, and die)
this principle simply demonstrates that laws are not, and should not be, absolute - and that this has been understood since time immemorial. written law (lex scripta) are simply words, which may, or may not, be compatible with a just outcome. juries and judges may need some perspective on the fact that written law (lex scripta) is written by imperfect (and often corrupt) legislators.
jus (that which is binding)
the law is justice. that which is unjust is not law.
see the etymology for the word "just". justice is that which is right.
iudex non calculat (the judge does not calculate)
the judge (and, tangentially, the jury) should not issue a decision based on the number of arguments prevented - rather, a decision of arbitration should depend solely on the justice of the outcome. this is mentioned for purposes of legal defense - the IRS will likely try to overwhelm the court with citations of statutory law allegedly broken by the defendant, in spite of the fact that the defendant may have acted righteously.
in terrorem (in order to frighten)
this phrase describes actions by the IRS in an attempt to intimidate subjects of 'taxation'. assuming that lack of legal standing on the IRS's part has already been demonstrated, evidence of threats sent by IRS agents - especially ones which demonstrate fraud (helpful) - are correctly described as communications made in terrorem.
blackmail is illegal under statutory and common law.
in propria persona (in one's proper person, by one's self)
self-representation. usually highly recommended against, but a possible necessity in tax cases where an attorney is not willing to contest the legitimacy of government law. this idea simply needed mention.
in pari materia (in an equal matter)
refers to the principle by which more specific laws are used to elaborate on the meaning of other, less specific laws. in taxation cases, if the precedence of government law has been conceded, it may be useful for the defendant to point out that the non-specific 16th Amendment:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
is clarified, and has some of its interpretable meanings contradicted, by the more specific 5th Amendment:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, [...] nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
not addressing the question of what the original legal definition of 'income' was - which is a very interesting line of research, to say the least.
in limine (at the threshold - a motion that a case is decided without a jury)
it is a miscarriage of justice for this to happen - a motion for the abrogation of due process rights, and a motion that the case should be decided only by somebody who is partial to the outcome.
tax cases are often brought into a so-called "Tax Court", which is generally a jury-less court handled by one judge. this is a violation of your due process rights, if it happens, and, at least in the context of U.S. law - the fake nightmare that it is - redress should be sought. it is a fake proceeding that's purposefully designed to be biased against the defendant, and decisions and writs issued by that court should be considered non-binding, especially by people acting as 'police officers'. a viper without teeth and poison might as well just be a big worm, and a tax court issuing decisions nobody enforces is just an old man in a dress writing angry judgments on pieces of paper.
it's when injustice takes the form of 'law', and the 'enforcers of law' conspire to make injustice a reality, that society collapses - and the rest of the world collapses with it.
society works fine and provides more than enough for everybody without people creating injustice - 'government' and the 'taxation' that supports it can only be described as a kind of mass idiocy.
this article outlined some essential flaws in the legal reasoning behind 'taxation', and should help an informed reader create a defense against any sham legal proceedings for 'tax evasion' or related charges.
hopefully, the world will not be this fucked up forever - i would like to not have to explain these issues to my children.