Wednesday, November 22, 2017

Internal Revenue Law, 1879, What Real Taxes Look Like

For many, the IRS is the most feared agency associated with the United States Federal Government.  And for good reason.  The IRS will freeze your bank account, seize your assets and more if they think you owe them money.  I have been posting on here for several weeks that the vast majority of people do not owe income taxes.  Most people find that very difficult to believe, because they were never taught the truth in school like they were supposed to have been taught.

  Keep the populace ignorant in order to control them.  So what are legal taxes?  We decided to go back into history and find evidence of what legal taxes look like and how the Internal Revenue system is actually supposed to work.  We do pay a great number of legal taxes, however, way to many people of these United States pay way to much illegal taxes.  The way that works is you are required to kno0w the law.  If you do not know the law, then by presumption of law, you owe taxes on your income.

Internal revenue codes of 1879 from Chuck Thompson  Book Digitized by Google

So the above digital book is provided to you so that you can see what lawful taxes look like.  Now keep in mind, our Federal government, all of our roads, communications, railways, military, weapons and supplies, public schooling and so much more was all financed through the taxation of certain specific commercial goods only.  It's right there in black and white as evidence for all to see.  There was absolutely no taxes on the wages earned by anyone. 

  Many people want to argue that the 16th Amendment gave the Federal Government the right to tax any for of income in any way the government wishes.  NO!  It did not.


The Kerbaugh-Empire Co. case

In Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co.271 U.S. 170 (1926), the Supreme Court, through Justice Pierce Butler, stated:
It was not the purpose or the effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power. Congress already had the power to tax all incomes. But taxes on incomes from some sources had been held to be "direct taxes" within the meaning of the constitutional requirement as to apportionment. [citations omitted] The Amendment relieved from that requirement and obliterated the distinction in that respect between taxes on income that are direct taxes and those that are not, and so put on the same basis all incomes "from whatever source derived". [citations omitted] "Income" has been taken to mean the same thing as used in the Corporation Excise Tax of 1909 (36 Stat. 112), in the Sixteenth Amendment, and in the various revenue acts subsequently passed. [citations omitted] After full consideration, this court declared that income may be defined as gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, including profit gained through sale or conversion of capital."

Now by all means, what is a gain derived from labor?  I went to the ultimate source for that answer.  The Bible.

 The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem.
2Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.
3What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun?
4One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.
5The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.
6The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits.
7All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.
8All things are full of labour; man cannot utter it: the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing.
9The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
10Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.
11There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after.

In other words, labor has zero gain.  Therefore taxes on labor can not be made.  A profit on labor, which would be a fair tax would be something along the line of profit sharing or bonuses paid.  Those items are taxable.  Those are profits on labor.  Labor itself is not a gain.  You don't have to believe in the bible to profit from it's words.  So for the purpose of income taxes, taxes on your wages, is not what you are supposed to be paying, unless you want to.  Then you volunteer.  Royalties from your work, that is taxable and is fair.  Pay for the actual work itself before royalties, not fair.  Even the IRS can not define income tax on wages.  It simply does not exist.  The link here will take you to a video that shows very extensively that neither the government nor the IRS can explain taxes on wages as income or a gain and or profit.  In fact, the IRS has been losing cases against this guy for the past 30 years.  This guy even has lawsuits now up before Congress against the IRS and it's not looking good for the IRS either.  If we are going to fix this country, we all must take an active role and do some research and share that research with everyone.  Details on the 16th Amendment and the Constitution.  Where the courts are in violation of the Constitution.

Now, there is a loophole in all of this for the IRS and the Federal Government.  Foreign workers are not the people of the several states or you are free to use the term, US Citizen.  As such the IRS has unlimited and unrestricted rights to tax wages of foreigners working in this country or people working overseas or in US territories, and earning wages from non US companies.  Then the 16th Amendment applies as from any source without apportionment.  Are you a foreigner?  I'm not.  It's how the tax code is written.  That has already been shown on this site.

Wednesday, November 1, 2017

Charlottesville, Virginia, City Selling Illegally Misrepresented City Bonds?

Charlottesville, Virginia.  City council just made a public notice that will not get much, if any attention at all.  But everyone must see this.  Every American needs to be mad as hell as to what is in that public statement.  And we want everyone to see this.

  Above is a link to the MSRB, or Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board.  On that site, this link will take you to the Bond offering by the city, at least their statement anyway,  Now, this may be just a standard form, and the wording may be the same on every bond in every locality, in every state and by every state.  The problem is how the funding for those bonds are stated.  You need to read this for yourself.  Below is the words I have a real problem with and consider to be horribly illegal.

  "The Bonds are general obligations of the City, and the full faith and credit and UNLIMITED TAXING POWER OF THE CITY, are irrevocably pledged to the punctual payment of the principle of and interest on the Bonds as they become due".

  What?  Who gave these scumbags unlimited taxing power?  Are they trying to read the 16th Amendment to the US COnstitution for their basis?

  " 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."

Does anyone understand that the above Amendment gave no new taxing powers to the Federal Government, nor to the states?  That has been ruled on by the Federal Supreme Court over and over and over again.  No new power of taxation.  Google or other search engine returns all have data that is horribly incorrect.  We have posted evidence recently about this showing the true meaning of the 16th Amendment and that it does not grant the government any new rights of taxation.  Here it is again.  Watch the video.

What you will see in this video is the guy who wrote the tax laws, lie to no end about who has to pay taxes and who does not.  He uses the 16th Amendment in the wrong way.  Folk's you are being lied to everyday.  It is up to you to know if you are required to pay taxes.  And almost none of you are required to.   But Charlottesville Thinks they have an unlimited license to steal all of your money and more.  That is what unlimited means.  They can not only take everything you own, they can also bill you for so much more on top of it all.

  So, if this is in fact the case, then the City of Charlottesville has written some fraudulent paper that it plans on marketing to investors under false pretenses.  That is not only fraud, that is conspiracy to commit fraud.  This has so many violations against the people of the City of Charlottesville, the people of this state and the people of this entire Nation.  This is an outrage.  Again, it might be stated on every municipal Bond sold here in this country, but that is still fraud. 

(Story assistance by Marsha Maines)

Monday, October 23, 2017

Are Gloucester County’s Real Estate Tax Assessments Corrupt? You Decide

During a recent Gloucester Board of Supervisor and School Board candidate forum, York District Candidate Kevin Farmer expressed concerns about real estate tax rates and real estate tax assessments. § 58.1-3201 of the Code of Virginia requires all property to be assessed at 100% of fair market value. If that is the case, why does Gloucester County seem to adjust the values of property based on the amount of money needed to run our local government? I have been asking that question ever since Gloucester County Assistant Administrator Garrey Curry explained such to me about three years ago. When Mr. Curry rendered his explanation to me and another citizen, I told him under the method he described, one key element is left out of the equation; fair market value of the property.

During the candidate forum, current board members mocked at Mr. Farmer’s assertion that increases in certain real estate assessment values is how they have avoided increasing real estate tax rates each year. In Mr. Farmer’s defense, the County, through certain assessment value increases, increased revenue from real estate property taxes by $3 million since 2012.

I became even more skeptical of Gloucester’s assessments in 2016 when the Board of Supervisors approved a land swap deal with Gloucester resident Charles Kerns, Jr.; in which the County traded two pieces of property for one of Mr. Kerns’ properties. When the deal was first presented to the Board of Supervisors, then Chairperson John Meyer publicly asked, “Is the concept of swapping properties the way the County wants to do business?” He then said, “Sounds like it has the potential for a win win.” As it turns out, Supervisor Meyer had a stake in the land swap deal, in that the entrance to his personal estate shares a property line with the piece of land Mr. Kerns traded to the County.

During that time, I was an appointed At-Large member of the Gloucester Public Utilities Advisory Committee. Once I reviewed the seven properties contained in the land swap proposal, I discovered serious flaws in the assessment values of the three key properties contained in the deal. I pointed the flaws out to the Board and an independent appraiser was hired by the County to determine the value of the properties.

When the Board approved the land swap deal, their decision was based on the independent appraisal values. The combined value of the County’s two properties at that time was $35,000 and Mr. Kerns’ property was valued at $45,000. The combined assessment values of the County’s two former properties after the deal changed to $70,180 and the value of Mr. Kerns' former property changed to $41,780. At the time the deal was approved, Mr. Kerns’ property was determined to be worth $10,000 more than the property he received from the County. Within days of the deal being made, the property Mr. Kerns received from the County was assessed by the County to be worth $28,400 more than the property he unloaded on the County. Not wanting to be associated with corruption, I resigned from the Utilities Advisory Committee immediately after the Board approved the corrupt land swap deal.

The land swap deal story did not end there. Three months after the Board approved the deal, the Gloucester Mathews Gazette Journal listed one of Mr. Kerns new properties as being sold for $55,000. According to online property records; Mr. Kerns sold it to the property owner who has lived right next door to the property since 1998. Why didn’t the Board offer the property to the adjacent landowners before trading it to Mr. Kerns? Even Mr. Kerns’ offered to sell his property to Supervisor Meyer before offering it to the County. Something tells me the new owner would have preferred to buy the property for the $30,000 independent appraisal value; saving $25,000.

One can’t help but wonder if the whole corrupt land swap deal was perpetrated to keep anything from being built at the entrance to Supervisors Meyer’s and Mr. Kerns’ estates. One can easily assume the recent paving of the entrance of Summerville Road to the end of Mr. Meyer’s property line was funded with money from the land sold by Mr. Kerns. One could also easily assume this was done to move the entrance to Mr. Meyer’s estate so it is easier to find by his Airbnb customers. Despite whether or not these assumptions are correct, one fact remains; manipulation of the assessment values is clearly evident and is nothing short of government corruption. This deal needs to be investigated and those found guilty of corruption and conspiracy to commit corruption need to be held accountable.

Below we have provided a listing of randomly selected waterfront properties in four different areas of Gloucester County. Notice how the smaller the property is, the higher the assessed value per acre is. We have also provided a Slideshare presentation of Frequently Asked Questions about real estate tax assessments. 

Email comments to:
To read a detailed account of the corrupt land swap deal click on this link: 

Waterfront Property Heywood Creek Area

RPC                Acres             Assessed                  Per Acre

34244             1.39               $209,110                  $150,439

13952            1.46               $260,770                  $178,609

30791            1.48               $208,560                  $140,919

43160            1.51               $145,940                  $96,649

26229            2.53               $222,950                  $88,123

10669            2.67               $243,790                  $91,307

30679            3.43               $280,310                  $81,723

13369            9.33               $364,960                  $39,117

33757            12.6               $404,020                  $32,065

31355            170.476        $636,730                  $3,735

Bena Area

RPC                Acres             Assessed                  Per Acre

28739            1                     $225,000                  $225,000

21922            1.25               $233,200                  $186,560

19725            2.88               $201,090                  $78,955

27404            5.25               $296,720                  $56,254

40850            6.39               $342,070                  $53,532

27619            6.46               $817,360                  $126,526

21425            9.3                  $365,060                  $39,254

21951            13.11             $402,110                  $30,672

41567            13.54             $346,810                  $25,540

14341            58.35             $1,190,730              $20,406

Ware Neck Area

RPC                Acres             Assessed                  Per Acre

16800            0.75               $211,490                  $281,987

21047            0.96               $222,850                  $232,135

22199            1.44               $256,780                  $178,319

16984            1.88               $239,750                  $127,527

10396            2.01               $233,520                  $116,179

23437            2.36               $236,480                  $117,652

22617            5.02               $340,480                  $67,825

43034            6.9                  $417,910                  $60,567

18864            7.39               $209,550                  $28,356

31023            342.57          $1,510,140              $4,408

Gloucester Point Area

RPC                Acres             Assessed                  Per Acre

34254            0.296             $131,440                  $444,054

29005            0.361             $145,470                  $402,963

30469            0.52               $178,910                  $344,058

18220            0.6                  $189,900                  $316,500

12063            0.93               $221,220                  $237,871

30104            1.23               $258,690                  $210,317

29202            1.49               $263,000                  $176,510

33908            2.49               $482,670                  $193,843

15105            3.58               $246,770                  $68,930

22581            17.49             $534,910                  $30,584

Slideshare presentation of frequently asked question about real estate tax assessments. (Compiled by Albemarle County, Virginia)

Saturday, October 21, 2017

Are Gloucester County’s Budgets By Administrator Fedors As Spectacular As York District Supervisor Bazzani Claims?

During a recent Gloucester County candidate forum, York District Supervisor Phillip Bazzani touted his vast experience in creating and managing budgets involving substantial amounts of money. He further insisted he knows every aspect of Gloucester’s 2018 budget. Supervisor Bazzani has also repeatedly publicly asserted that County Administrator Brent Fedors’ budget documents are the best he has seen in the 34 years he has lived in Gloucester. Are these assertions true? Here is what we know to be true and factual.

When Mr. Fedors presented his first budget to the Board of Supervisors and the public, it lacked details that were present in budgets prepared by his predecessors. When we pointed this out to Mr. Fedors he said,

“While we are not planning to add that level of detail to the proposed budget book for FY17, we are preparing a supplemental information piece for Board Members that does. I will make sure you get a copy when it is ready.”

After receiving his response, we forwarded the email conversation with Mr. Fedors and the following statement to the Board of Supervisors.

“I and others find Mr. Fedors' budget proposal and last response disturbing for a number of reasons and hope the majority of you do as well. Foremost, Mr. Fedors' budget process does not appear to include transparency; as the Code of Virginia requires the People to be presented information at the same time as the governing body. (Unless otherwise exempted by FOIA) Mr. Fedors' budget process does not appear to include an acceptable level of transparency which has led to restricting the People from data that is necessary to evaluate how their tax dollars are being spent. I will not say much more at this time as I understand Mr. Fedors' is new to the government game. On the other hand, his staff certainly are not. One would hope they would guide their new boss in a better direction.”

Mr. Fedors provided us the information piece as he promised, but even after we expressed our concerns to him and the Board of Supervisors, his FY18 budget demonstrated the same lack of transparency. Again we contacted Mr. Fedors via email to request line item data, which the Finance Director provided.

What we find concerning is the fact that Mr. Bazzani publicly stated Mr. Fedors’ FY17 Budget was the most comprehensive budget document he has seen in all his years of managing budgets. How could anyone make such a statement about a budget document that lacks the amount of detail Mr. Fedors’ lacked? The FY17 budget email conversation we have shared below clearly demonstrates the Board of Supervisor did not have the necessary data to effectively scrutinize Mr. Fedors’ proposed budget until several days after Mr. Bazzani praised Mr. Fedors.

We have provided Slideshare presentations of both of Mr. Fedors’ budgets and the last budget his predecessor prepared. We have provided our email conversations with Mr. Fedors, the Finance Director and the Board of Supervisors, as well as Slideshare presentations of the data we were forced to request from Mr. Fedors. We have also provided some video clips for your enjoyment. Though there are numerous other transparency shortcomings and many wasteful spending practices that we have not touched on here, we ask you to take special notice of the difference in the amount of data provided for budgeted expenditures for each department. You will see that Mr. Fedors combined budgeted expenditures into three line items for each department, whereas his predecessor had many more line items for each department. What are they trying to hide??

Written comments may be emailed to
Supervisor Bazzani stating he knows every aspect of the budget


Supervisor Bazzani praising Mr. Fedors' FY17 budget even before Mr. Fedors' information piece with detailed data was provided.

FY16 Budget (General fund expenditures begin on Slideshare page 75)
FY18 Budget (General fund expenditures begin on Slideshare page 71)
FY17 info we were forced to requested from Mr. Fedors
FY18 info we were forced to requested from Mr. Fedors
Email conversation about FY17 budget

03/20/16 at 11:57 AM

Board Members,

I and others find Mr. Fedors' budget proposal and last response disturbing for a number of reasons and hope the majority of you do as well. Foremost, Mr. Fedors' budget process does not appear to include transparency; as the Code of Virginia requires the People to be presented information at the same time as the governing body. (Unless otherwise exempted by FOIA) Mr. Fedors' budget process does not appear to include an acceptable level of transparency which has led to restricting the People from data that is necessary to evaluate how their tax dollars are being spent.

I will not say much more at this time as I understand Mr. Fedors' is new to the government game. On the other hand, his staff certainly are not. One would hope they would guide their new boss in a better direction.


----- Forwarded Message -----
From: "Fedors, Brent"

To: Kenny
Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2016 10:41 AM
Subject: Re: 2017 Budget

Mr. Hogge -

While we are not planning to add that level of detail to the proposed budget book for FY17, we are preparing a supplemental information piece for Board Members that does.

I will make sure you get a copy when it is ready - likely Tuesday.


On Mar 17, 2016, at 9:22 AM, Kenny wrote:


We are looking for a proposed budget document that contains at least as much information as the 2016 budget proposal which can be found at:'s%20Proposed%20Budget.pdf?ver=2015-03-05-090048-737

A "general fund expenditure budget" as presented in the 2016 proposal is one example of the expanded data we would like to continue to see and are hoping the Supervisors are already assessing as they process the FY17 proposal. 


From: "Fedors, Brent" <>
To: Kenny
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 12:37 PM
Subject: Re: 2017 Budget

Mr. Hogge -

There are also copies of the book available for public review at both libraries and in the County Administration office.

Please let me know if there are specific questions you have that I may be able to address - I'm glad to help in any way I can.


On Mar 16, 2016, at 9:55 AM, Kenny wrote:

Hello Mr. Fedors,

I would like to get a copy of the "2017 Budget Book" that has been provided to the Supervisors. The information posted on the County's website is not detailed enough for the People to do any sort of analysis of what is being proposed.

Thank you sir,

Email conversation about FY18 budget data

Mar 20 at 11:15 AM

To Kenny

Message body

 Attached is the information as requested.

 1st tab – General Fund by Expenditure Line Item

2nd tab – Provides information on the Total Transfers Out line item from the General Fund

3rd tab – Capital Projects

4th tab – External Agencies Funding Request and what is included in the Proposed Budget

Please let me know if you have questions or need anything further.



From: Fedors, Brent
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2017 2:06 PM
To: Kenny
Cc: Tinsley, Stephanie <>; Lewis, Christi <>
Subject: Re: FY18 Budget Info Request

Mr. Hogge -

I am forwarding this to Ms. Tinsley who will coordinate our response.

Thank you for your inquiry,


On Mar 19, 2017, at 9:51 AM, Kenny wrote:

Hello Mr. Fedors,

Hope this finds you in good health and spirits.

Can I get a copy of the proposed FY18 line item budget and proposed capital improvement expenditures? If possible; I would also like something that reflects the name of all external agencies/nongovernmental organizations that are requesting FY18 funding and how much each is asking for. Electronic copies are preferred.

Thank you,