Research Material

The Scoop Nobody Reported

Overlooking the National Press Club Ballroom, the Media Booth was dark all day November 13, 1999. On that historic day, David Bosset explained how & why the IRS approved his “zero gross income” claim, which effectively rendered himself and his 500 employees income-tax-free.

All the media were issued invitations to the lecture well in advance. Yet, except for non-member Saussy, none showed up.

What does this tell you about news reporting today?

The Scoop Nobody Reported

ON OCTOBER 31, 1999, MY COMPUTER in southern California received email from a New York organization called “We the People Congress” inviting me to the National Press Club in Washington, DC.

“We the People” were holding a “Citizens’ Summit To End The Illegal Operations Of The IRS,” on November 13. The Summit would be a “celebration” at which a number of constitutional troublemakers, including myself, would be given “an award and recognition.”

For what?

“For your courage in studying, researching and teaching income tax laws, and acting upon your conviction that there is no law or regulation that requires most U.S. citizens to pay income or social security taxes or to have those taxes withheld from their earnings.”

Also celebrated would be the fact that “the IRS has finally agreed that unless a citizen-worker receives remuneration from a source included on the list in 26 CFR Section 1.861-8(f)(1) —as you know, most citizens do not— they are not liable for the income and social security taxes, and do not have to file and pay them, nor do employers have to withhold money and file W-2s or 1099s against their workers.”

The word “agreed” leapt off the screen at me. Agreement! Agreement with the IRS that income from certain sources is excluded from income taxation— what extraordinary news!

According to the invitation, the agreement was reached between the IRS and a Florida accountant named David Bosset.

Mr. Bosset was a large employer in computer technology. In response to his “861 argument,” the IRS had abated all Mr. Bosset's taxes and penalties for 1996 and 1997. Furthermore, the Service had already begun refunding (with interest) monies he had withheld and submitted as an employer. David Bosset was scheduled to give a detailed presentation on this momentous agreement during the afternoon portion of “We the People’s” November 13 celebration.



Our Lord is the god of time, space, and motion. If he can cause the one fish in the ocean with a coin in its mouth to be first to strike Peter’s hook the moment the apostle needs money, he can decorate our lives with a rich array of coincidences just to remind us of his helpful presence in everything we do. The coincidences are there, like flowers and birds along the trail. Noticing them has been, for many years, one of my favorite pleasures.

Thirteen, according to Bullinger’s Number In Scripture, is the only number in the Bible that is all-pervasively associated with sin, rebellion, revolution, and atonement. So it is in my life.

November 13, 1999 marked the second anniversary of my gentle capture by U.S. Marshals in Venice, California. They struck at 1:13 pm—the thirteenth minute past the thirteenth hour of the thirteenth day. My capture brought closure to ten years of highly productive fugitivehood, during which time I had investigated my adversary, the United States government, and couched my discoveries in a number of manuscript drafts. During and after a brief stay in the federal prison system, I produced a final manuscript for publication under the title RULERS OF EVIL.

ROE was due to come off the press, remarkably, in Fredericksburg, Virginia, less than an hour from Washington, on November 12, 1999.

This curious array of circumstances gave me to believe that I was meant to view the first copy of ROE in the District of Columbia, the city about which the book reveals so much hitherto ignored or suppressed historical information.

But I needed more practical assurance. Before booking airline reservations, I emailed attorney Larry Becraft, who was scheduled to share the Summit's podium with Mr. Bosset.

Larry and I go way back together. Income tax law has been his specialty since the early eighties. If the Bosset approach was a fluke, or another flakey patriot scheme, Larry would tell me. My question to him was, “Is Bosset worth a celebration?” Within a few minutes, Becraft responded by typing “Bosset is making the subchapter N argument regarding sources, which you published before anyone else.”


I checked my archives. They bore Larry out. I did in fact publish the “subchapter N” (or “861”) argument a long time ago. It appeared in my Main Street Journal, the issue of April/May, 1987— going on. ... thirteen years ago.

I reviewed that issue. Careful to give due credit to the strategy’s developers (“We all owe an incalculable debt to the tireless, brilliant work of Billie Murdoch and Larry Becraft”), I confided to my readers that “We have been led by the Holy Spirit into the Internal Revenue Code itself, to find that most Americans have been excluded from the imposition of any liability to a federal income tax.” My report stated:

The Internal Revenue Code (Title 26 US Code) imposes a tax upon various objects and then makes various persons liable for the collection and payment of the tax. In Section 4071 (a), a tax upon certain tires is imposed. In 4071 (b) the manufacturer, producer, or importer of theses certain tires is made liable for the tax. In 4371, a tax is imposed upon foreign insurance instruments. Section 4373 makes liable anyone who makes, signs, issues, or sells these instruments. Under 4495, a tax imposed upon seabed minerals and also makes related person liable for payment of the tax. In these and many other expressly-cited taxes, the Internal Revenue Code first imposes the tax, and then makes some class or classes of person liable for payment of the tax. One such tax is the income tax.

The income tax is imposed at section 1 of Subtitle A of the Code. An income tax is imposed on incomes “from whatever source derived.” The Code divides sources of income into two geographical categories— sources within the United States, and sources without the United States.

Sources of income located within the United States are listed at section 861 of Subchapter N (the subchapter is entitled “Tax Based on Income from Sources Within or Without the United States”). Of those having income from these “sources within,” only two classes of person are made liable for an income tax: nonresident aliens (section 871) and foreign corporations (881).

No income tax is imposed upon incomes derived by United States citizens from sources within the United States. The only persons liable for a tax on income derived from sources within the United States are nonresident aliens and foreign corporations.

However, not all United States citizens are excluded from imposition of an income tax. Section 911 imposes a tax on incomes derived from sources without the United States by U.S. citizens residing and working abroad. And 931 imposes a tax on the income of U.S. citizens derived from sources within a possession of the United States.

There is no provision in the Code for a tax upon the income of United States citizens living and domiciled in the United States if the income is derived from sources within the United States...


Getting there

I flew United to Dulles Airport on November 12. While in the friendly skies, strapped into my seat, silver screen in my face, I was forced to watch The Sixth Sense. This is not the paranormal horror flick Disney’s marketeers would want you to think it is.

It is a surprisingly important picture, one that can be, I believe, of inestimable clinical value in preparing highly opinionated individuals for mind-changing, life-saving awakenings —such as the Internal Revenue Code’s provisions respecting income earned by U.S. citizens from sources within the United States.

The film places us and its characters in a reality that we accept without question as true. This reality, however, turns out to be a lie. We do not learn that we are deceived one second before the protagonist learns he is deceived. We wake up even as he does. It’s a rare thrill—perhaps the original, forgotten purpose of drama—to watch someone we care for sharing our discovery that nothing is what it seems.

The Sixth Sense is about falling gracefully from deception into undeception. Although the strangeness of undeception is initially shocking and frightening, it is, after all, immutable reality. Accepting this fact gives us comfort and peace.

May America so wake up to the income tax reality!


The presentation

“We the People Congress” had arranged a special rate for attendees at the Washington Plaza Hotel, about a mile’s walk from the National Press Building.

It was dark when I arrived. Not until around midnight did the front desk locate the box of RULERS OF EVIL which the hotel had received much earlier in the day but misplaced. I opened the box and snapped a digital photograph of its contents for my archives.

Next morning I had breakfast with Larry Becraft, Bill Benson, discoverer and grand publicist of the failure of any State lawfully to ratify the 16th Amendment; paralegal writer Tina Terry; and Kathleen Gennaro, who was lobbying Congress on behalf of the 2nd Amendment.

Leaving the hotel, I noticed across the street from the entrance a heroic statue in greened bronze. A closer look proved it to be none other than the Great Questioner of Authority, himself— Martin Luther.

Most commercial elevators superstitiously omit thirteen from their floor enumeration. Not the National Press Building, whose Otis spirited us right up to a floor numbered 13, scene of the Press Club’s Ballroom, where “We the People Congress’s Citizens’ Summit” was slowly coming together, between forty and fifty strong.

Most of the morning was consumed by speaker Bill Benson’s familiar story of the non-ratification of the income tax amendment. Today, Benson revealed, fourteen years after the alleged fact, that Senator Orrin Hatch’s lawyer, in his capacity as the Senator’s representative, had offered Benson money not to publish or talk about his discoveries.

The podium was then given to Larry Becraft, who amplified on the perfidy of the Sixteenth.

We broke late for lunch.

Upon reassembling, the group heard Summit Chairman Robert Schultz read the names of the sixty or so persons to be awarded and recognized, about one-tenth of whom were present. Six of us rose to polite applause.

Then David Bosset unveiled his presentation, “How to Apply and Benefit from our Income Tax Laws, or Why I Love the Tax Law Just As It Is!”

A dominant theme underlying Mr. Bosset’s presentation was his personal journey from deception to undeception. Discovering the truth about income tax law was indeed liberating for him. But it was also emotionally and professionally devastating. He regretted the many years in which he, as an accountant, had advised clients on taxation in ways that had cost them dearly. “It’s a hard pill to swallow,” he said, “knowing that my being wrong caused thousands of clients to lose thousands of dollars because I didn’t know the law. That’s why so many CPAs and attorneys won’t do as I have done. It takes... integrity.”

David Bosset now advises U.S.-citizen clients and employees that income derived from domestic sources is not subject to withholding or taxation. A slide in his presentation said it another way:

Significantly, the only application of the federal income tax upon the income of U.S. Citizens in existence is with respect to (1) a U.S. citizen’s foreign earned income, and (2) the income of U.S. citizens living abroad.

Mr. Bosset’s manner was not charged with patriot rhetoric. He did, however, warn U.S. citizens to know the Code before using it as a foundation for discussing income taxes with authorities. “If the IRS senses you don’t know what you’re talking about, or that you’re afraid, they can be mean as a junkyard dog,” he said. His presentation was distributed in hardcopy to his audience, and is fully presented at


A nation of aliens

U.S. citizens nevertheless do file income tax returns and do pay income taxes on domestic earnings. I view this as a fact pregnant with critical implications. Since the Revenue Code imposes no requirement file and pay upon citizens whose income derives from domestic sources, in order to file and pay these citizens must...misrepresent their true citizenship! Conventional wisdom and misguided professionals have led them to do this through the simple mechanism of signing under penalty of perjury the various tax forms, statements, and certificates that make them liable for income taxation. These documents are meant for aliens. The ubiquitous 1040 form, for example, is the product of section 874 (a) of the Code, which states: “A nonresident alien individual shall receive the benefit of the deductions and credits allowed to him in this subtitle only by filing or causing to be filed with the Secretary a true and accurate return.”

Now, for a U.S. citizen to sign, under oath, documents meant exclusively for aliens would constitute, it seems to me, constructive renunciation of his or her citizenship. At the very least, would not such evidence of voluntary expatriation invite executive reviewers to treat signers as... aliens?

A resident alien’s rights, unlike those of a citizen, are easily abused without offense to the Constitution. In Shaughnessy v. U.S. ex rel. Mezei, 345 US 206 (1953), the Supreme Court held that a U.S. Attorney’s proceeding against a resident alien upon the basis of secret, undisclosed information without a hearing was consistent with due process. Numerous other cases place an alien’s liberty, as Shaughnessy put it, “completely at the mercy of the unreviewable discretion of the Attorney General.” Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath, 339 US 33 (1953); Kimm v. Rosenberg, 363 US 405 (1960); Zakonaite v. Wolf, 226 US 272 (1912), and Jay v. Boyd, 351 US 345 (1956).

If a U.S. citizen makes himself an alien, to whom is allegiance owed? None of the tax forms ask, and the citizen—unaware there’s even a question— is silent. Yet an alien’s allegiance is a matter of considerable importance to national security. Might not the silence of the citizen-as-alien entitle the Attorney General, or her delegates in Justice or Treasury, to venture a presumption? Presumptions against aliens may be formed, as the Court has just told us, in secret and without a hearing. And presumptions bind unless and until rebutted.


The default State

About seven hundred years ago, one State claimed jurisdiction over all mankind. This was the See of Rome, the Holy See, whose sovereign, Pope Boniface VIII, declared in 1302 that “it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” No governing body has ever successfully challenged that claim, which remains the papacy’s strength to this day.

Anglican Bishop Mandell Creighton once famously said, “The Roman Catholic Church is a State, and the worst form of state at that, an autocracy.” (An autocracy is government by one all-powerful man.) Few U.S. citizens seem to be aware that the federal courts tend to agree with at least part of Bishop Creighton’s appraisal. The Roman Catholic Church in America is officially recognized as a foreign State.

In 1984, shortly after the Vatican opened the Apostolic Nunciature, its embassy on Massachusetts Avenue in the District of Columbia, a suit was filed in Philadelphia. The plaintiffs asked the district court to declare that President Reagan’s administration had unconstitutionally granted to the Roman Catholic faith privileges that were being denied to other establishments of religion.

Chief Judge John Fullam (who happened to be a Roman Catholic himself) dismissed the suit on grounds that federal courts have no authority to intervene in “foreign policy decisions” of the executive branch. The plaintiffs— the American Jewish Congress, the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs, Seventh Day Adventists, the National Council of Churches, the National Association of Evangelicals, and Americans United for Separation of Church and State— appealed to the Third Circuit. They were rebuffed with the dictum that “the Roman Catholic Church’s unique position of control over a sovereign territory gives it advantages other religious organizations do not enjoy.” Clearly, from a legal standpoint, the Holy See’s presence in Washington as an accredited foreign State has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with secular government.

I submit that the Holy See is the default State of which U.S. citizens-as-aliens are presumed subject by undisclosed executive review. The Roman Pontiff is a sovereign who is sure not to intercede with the United States on behalf of his subjects in matters of federal revenue, since (as I theorize in RULERS OF EVIL from little-known but very convincing evidence) the United States was created between 1758-1775 by the papacy’s private army—the Society of Jesus—as an unwitting Protestant tributary to Rome.

It can be demonstrated, I further submit, that the purchasing power of revenues policed by the IRS has always been distributed throughout the world more according to the private designs of the papacy than to the expressed wishes of voting American taxpayers. Since these voter-taxpayers have, by constructive renunciation of U.S. citizenship, made themselves subjects of Roman autocracy, their wishes count for little.

The downgrade is almost imperceptible. If the citizen-aliens cooperate with revenue agents, they enjoy the same constitutional liberties ordinarily due U.S. citizens and are none the wiser about their status. But if by fraud, non-payment, evasion, perjury, or illegal or “frivolous” protest they obstruct the lawful collection of income tax revenues, their foreign sovereign allows them and their property to be attacked with the same process due any alien whom the United States perceives to be a threat to its national security, as in Shaughnessy above. (It is the same process by which the Inquisition has historically administered persons deemed heretical by the Church: guilt is presumed, and innocence is virtually impossible to prove.) Through all this, the oppressed citizen remains none the wiser toward his or her self-alienation. Ignorance forms the illusion that government has grown tyrannical. In response, time and energy are dedicated to the mirage of “taking back our country.”

The beauty of David Bosset’s agreement with the IRS is that it restores life, liberty, and property to the citizen without harangue, threats, or putting anybody down. It forcefully demonstrates that the Revenue Code organically provides U.S. citizens the opportunity to achieve exclusion of domestic income from taxation. Deep strata of theological, legal, and philosophical principles undergird the agreement, but Mr. Bosset prudently refrained from arguing or debating any of these. Toward the end of his address, he recalled: “I told them the law. They had either to refute me or do as I asked. Since they couldn’t refute me, they did as I asked.”


The irony of the venue

David Bosset’s presentation, a message of inestimable value to every United States citizen, unfolded in the working press’s own throne-room, and with a good deal of advance promotion. Yet the working press, to whom U.S. citizens look for information, never showed up. This had the effect of rendering the occasion secret.

Robert Schultz, Chairman of “We the People Congress” and organizer of the Summit, had expected at least C-SPAN to cover the event. But not even C-SPAN, whose coverage of a similar “We the People Congress” event back in July resulted in record-breaking orders for the network’s cassette tape, ever appeared.

There’s a logical reason, of course. America’s working press generally pays taxes on income derived from sources within the United States. It has grown comfortable with the firmly-established reality that exclusion from income taxation is attainable only at the price of one’s death certificate. So have millions of Americans in all walks of life, and businesses and lawfirms and foundations and schools and scientific institutions and churches—all of them subject to an unknown sovereign by means of an unthinkable connection.

I think the media shun may well have been a blessing, because, to tell the truth, the Citizens’ Summit To End The Illegal Operations Of The IRS was a hodgepodge of angry, discordant messages that would only have confused the court of public opinion. David Bosset’s presentation showed that the operations of the IRS were not illegal! But the inertia of patriotic outrage blinded the group’s leadership to this fact. Having celebrated agreement with the IRS, Chairman Schultz then offered for general consideration a “Remonstrance.” The Remonstrance charged that the Sixteenth Amendment was “illegally and fraudulently proclaimed to be ratified in 1913 by a lame-duck Secretary of State.” It condemned the federal courts for issuing “a series of largely unintelligible rulings that fail even to recognize the basic question of whether the income tax is a direct tax or an excise tax, suggesting, for instance, that the income tax is ‘in the nature of’ an indirect, excise tax, reflecting the mood of powerful special interests...” It complained that “the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) says the income tax is voluntary. This is an obvious fiction.” And so on.

I don’t understand. Hadn’t David Bosset just demonstrated how the tax system is perfectly legal? If the Remonstrance is a U.S. citizens’ complaint, it’s not very patriotic. Federal leaders should be applauded for concocting a system, beginning with Philander Knox’s perfidious reporting of the ratification of the 16th Amendment, that extracts as much revenues as traffic will bear from the income of aliens. If an alien doesn’t like the income tax system, let him or her depart. Or become naturalized and reap the benefits of U.S. citizenship.

In addition to its erroneous conception, the Remonstrance tends to polarize—we the righteous against they the evildoers—a process which I attempt to show in RULERS OF EVIL is exactly what the Jesuits have so brilliantly employed to subjugate nations for more than four centuries. Divide et impere, “divide and conquer,” has never failed Rome.

I couldn’t find that “We the People Congress” corporately professes Christianity. But I know that some of its members consider themselves Christian. These I would remind that Jesus never remonstrated with civil rulers—never, not once. Christians would be truer to Christ by remonstrating, not with federal leaders, but with their own failure to grasp the great truth that they are U.S. citizens oppressed by income taxation only because they, through conventional wisdom and the advice of misguided professionals like David Bosset once confessedly was, have invited the law to presume they were aliens. Albert the Alligator’s funny saying is embarrassingly true: “We have seen the enemy and he is us!”

At any rate, it seems to me that “We the People Congress” might more profitably spend its time researching the well-cut pathways through the Internal Revenue Code that David Bosset has so skillfully trodden, and then quietly and professionally walk to freedom. I believe a whole nation might follow.

F. Tupper Saussy
Author of Rulers of Evil

(not available in bookstores)

Notice: TGS HiddenMysteries and/or the donor of this material may or may not agree with all the data or conclusions of this data. It is presented here 'as is' for your benefit and research. Material for these pages are sent from around the world. If by chance there is a copyrighted article posted which the author does not want read, email the webmaster and it will be removed. If proper credit for authorship is not noted please email the webmaster for corrections to be posted.