Show Me The Law!

Just a thought about the campaign called “Show Me The Law”, referring to the act of asking for the law in court which requires a person in the United States to pay the Federal Income Tax.

Mr. Aaron Russo had the right idea in his documentary, “America: Freedom To Fascism”, but just didn’t go far enough down the rabbit hole to get at the root of the issue. For the most important aspect of the Federal Code called the INTERNAL REVENUE CODE is that it is not in fact law, but rather what is called Prima Facie Law, or “presumed” law.

The presumption of law requires one very important thing to become an enforceable law… Consent. This most wonderful of words is the basis of this Prima Facie presumed law; the presumption being that you consent to this presumed law (the IRS Code) by silence, which is a powerful form of consent. If you do not agree that the law is fair and just, you must state loud and clearly that you do not consent to that law.

Even after hours of examination and oration in a federal tax court, never actually uncovering the lawful requirement to pay the tax, people are still being found guilty of income tax evasion.

But the word “evasion” would imply (it would be presumed by the court and the IRS) that the person being charged with the crime of “tax evasion” consents to the fact that the IRS Code is in fact law in the first place. By failing to state verbally, loudly, and repeatedly that one does not consent to an admitted and completely presumed Prima Facie law, one acquiesces to the entire Internal Revenue Code by simple silence – acquiescence to presumed law by lack of verbal non-consent.

For a more complete understanding of consent, please read my previous post here:


But this is what it boils down to, straight from the Federal Code:

(Reprint from link above)

“…of the 50 “TITLES” in UNITED STATES CODE, only 23 of those TITLES have been enacted into positive law; i.e. legal evidence of law (Congressional Statutory Law). These TITLES are as follows:

1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 23, 28, 31, 32, 35, 36,37, 38, 39, 40, 44, 46, and 49.

All other TITLES within the federal U.S. CODE are what is called “Prima Facie” evidence of law. Prima facie is not statutory law (not made into law by congress), which means that it is only enforceable via your voluntary consent.

(Source link: )

So here it is, in black and white. The Internal Revenue Code (not law, but CODE) is in Title 26, which is not listed above as congressional statutory law, and is therefore presumed law…




§ 7701. Definitions

(Source link:—-000-.html )

(a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof—

(1) Person

The term “person” shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.
(14) Taxpayer

The term “taxpayer” means any person subject to any internal revenue tax.


(Source: )

According to the list above, TITLE 26, which holds the INTERNAL REVENUE CODE that is used by the Internal Revenue Service as the basis to tax, steal, imprison, subjugate, and ruin the lives of many Americans… IS NOT STATUTORY LAW. Therefore… IT REQUIRES CONSENT!

This means that the entire basis for the Income Tax levied on the people of America is strictly voluntary!

If the word “taxpayer” as defined above in paragraph (14) is any “person” as defined above in paragraph (1) that is “subject to any internal revenue tax”, and if the U.S. CODE states that it requires consent for the so defined “person” to be subject to any authority presented by the IRS and it’s non-Statutory, Prima Facie INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, then no individual Free Man or Woman in America is required to pay an income tax on their monies earned, unless they consent to doing so by signing the corporate IRS and IRC paperwork that binds them to the tax as a contract.

(End reprint)

So in actuality, we are asking the wrong question in court!

We should not be simply asking “Please show me the law”, for that implies consent to the entirety of the IRS CODE, and thus consent to presumed law.

Instead, we should be asking the following question:

“Please show me the law that allows this prima facie presumed law in TITLE 26 to be used against me without my consent. I DO NOT CONSENT!!!”

Repeat as needed…

Please note that this is not legal advice, and is only being provided as an explanation of the law from the U.S. CODE. Please research and verify everything yourself. This covers all past and future writings by myself. And may I state that it is indeed sad that I must make this statement for fear of retribution by the makers of these tyrannies.


Clint Richardson (

Sunday, May 15, 2011

Leave a comment


  1. The only problem that I can see is that in our courts, as Mumia Abu Jamal explains in his book Jailhouse Lawyers, the law is whatever the judge says it is. Of course there is the possibility of a judge being overturned by a higher court, but in this particular instance, due to the fact that all judges are paid with taxpayer money, it wouldn’t be in their interests to do so.

    In reality, the presumption of innocence is routinely ignored while the presumption of consent is assumed even if one states loudly and clearly that one does not consent. There is only one time that our government actually asks for our consent, and that is when it holds elections. Never mind that the votes don’t have to be counted and often aren’t, and that in more than 90% of voting districts it is totally impossible to verify that the votes were counted accurately, if they can get a 50% or even (in midterm elections) a 40% turnout, we are all, even those of us who don’t vote, presumed to have consented TO BE GOVERNED in whatever way those who govern us wish to govern.

    There have been historical instances, such as Cuba when Batista only managed to get a 10% turnout, the Apartheid regime in South Africa, where they only managed to get a 7% turnout, and some previous elections in Haiti which only got a 3% turnout, where the world was unwilling to accept that such a low turnout indicated the consent of the governed, but in countries where voting is not mandatory, anything above a 30% turnout is usually deemed to confer legitimacy upon the government holding the election.

    Since we have no way to hold our federal officials directly accountable during their terms of office, which is the only time they’re supposed to represent us, we cannot exercise our will through them, so when we vote, we delegate to them the power to govern us according to their will, not ours. By voting, we are presumed to have consented to grant them the power and authority to tax us, imprison us, taser us, grope us at airports, export our jobs, give our money to their wealthy campaign donors, and even, should they decide that we are dangerous to national security, shoot us without bothering to allow us due process.

    So if half of us consent, we are all presumed to have consented. To everything. The rest, those of us who won’t vote because we do not consent to delegate our power to people we can’t hold accountable, are presumed to be “apathetic,” although in the only poll that ever questioned nonvoters, most said that the reason they didn’t vote was that they didn’t feel that anyone on the ballot with a chance of winning would represent their interests. However a recent poll of voters found that only 11% approve of what our government is doing, so 89% of voters are so apathetic that they’re granting their consent of the governed to a government they don’t approve of. Now that’s apathy!


    • mary

       /  May 16, 2011

      Jury by the law (and by that I mean the Bill of Rights) can and MUST overrule any unjust decision done by the judge. In this country EVERY case has a right to trial by jury, (not by judge), there fore JURY and the Bill of Rights overrule ANY person (judge) or law (Constitution). If the Bill of Rights places limits on our government (Constitution is the plan for government) then the Bill of Rights IS SUPREME, not the Constitution. Oh, and no, the Bill of Rights it is NOT an amendment to the Constitution. How can a law that is supreme to the Constitution be an amendment to it? Constitution and the Bill of Rights contradict one another.

      Read “The CONstitution that never was” by Ralph Boryszewski (How the American people have been conned by lawyers) google the title and buy the book.


      • I am not at all impressed by the constitution, I’m sorry. It is not law, and it is not a binding contract. Once I really read the document, and saw that the Fifth Amendment states that my rights of life, liberty, and property can in fact be taken away at any time with due process of law and with just compensation, I no longer believe it to be valid or the supreme law of the land. I refuse to use it in court, as this fifth amendment as law would allow government to steal your life and property. Why in God’s name would anyone want that?

        “…nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, 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.”


  2. Keith Kaye

     /  May 16, 2011

    Your writing is fine, except …, you say: “We should not be simply asking, Please show me the law, for that implies consent to the entirety of the IRS CODE, and thus consent to presumed law.

    In my opinion we have to ask this question BEFORE we even enter a courtroom. Asking for jurisdiction is not, in my opinion, implying consent.

    You wrote: “Even after hours of examination and oration in a federal tax court . . .” This is disheartening to hear. Anyone that believes justice will be served in ANY kind of ‘tax court’ is on dope. The resolve, if at all possible, is to remove the proceedings to an Article III court (a Lawful, Constitutional Court).

    Irwin Schiff came up with some very brilliant lawful and legal arguments that were never heard at his last trial nor did any of his arguments reflect (to my knowledge) in the transcripts of the trial because he never did properly establish HIS status, the status of the IRS and Irwin was NOT in a court of LAW; he was in ‘tax court’.

    Our entire system is based on contract law. Plain and simple as that. If you do not establish your status and their jurisdiction in a court of LAW you are peeing up-wind.

    I live by the credo that I will pay lawful taxes for lawful functions of government.


    • mary

       /  July 13, 2011

      question is….do you pay income tax yourself….


      • Millions and millions do not pay this voluntary tax in this country.


      • Keith Kaye

         /  July 21, 2011

        Sorry about not being timely.

        Not paying, you ask? There is no way to ‘pay’ anything anymore; taxes can only be discharged.

        I know that doesn’t answer your question the way I believe you meant it to be answered but what I write is true.

        I say this again, taxes can only be discharged and taxes are only due to ‘taxpayers’. As a matter of declared status I am not a taxpayer and they will not/cannot produce anything lawful that stipulates that I am; I have asked. Many, many times.


  3. russ

     /  August 19, 2011

    I have done all of the above-challenged jurisdiction, asked for the contractual agreement, made many statements of non consent-filed notices in the county recorders office and discharged the tax bill. all to no avail.

    Those that work for the “system” are arrogant, ruthless and totally above the so called law. Those that work in the justice department as legal counsel are mean spirited, heartless and generally low IQ, not being able to secure and hold down positions in the private sector, most graduating in the lower quadrants of their class-plenty of studies to back this up. Anyway, it is the apathy and genral lack of backbone and courage of the population at large which allows such lawlessness to prevail. If you research back into history, prior to the 1940s, very few paid this insidious evil tax. It has only been the methodical grinding down and the weight of social engineering programs financed with a private credit system to which we as a society have acquiesced, that they have managed to “train” the population to be good little slaves.

    I will continue to make my stand, although it is really very lonely out here.. So many choose to take the safe easy road, gotta love that big screen TV, the F-150 in the driveway of the MC-Mansion and BBQ on Saturday. Pathetic that a comfortable slavery is chosen over the animating contest in the struggle for freedom.


    • the captain

       /  January 17, 2012

      Conditional Acceptance for Value with Proof of Claim filed on the record. When no answer within 30 days, file a Notice of Fault by Affidavit. Wait 10 days from the date of receipt, file a Notice of Default by Affidavit. Wait another 10 days, then file a Notice of Default by Res Judicata. Then file a Notice of Non-Consent by Affidavit. File all documents in the record in your county recorder’s office. You will then have all on and in the record by their acquiescence and acceptance with Proof of Claim of receipt by green cards from mailings. Make sure that you have captured control and maintain superior security interest in the Strawmineous Homo by the correct filing of UCC-1 in your state and home county.


  4. Mike Tuttle

     /  March 30, 2012

    Read “Cracking the Code” By Pete Hendrickson. Then get ALL of your money back every year like I do as well as thousands of others.


  5. Solexer

     /  March 26, 2013

    What this boils down to is nothing more than people not wanting to contribute to the society that they take for granted every day. They drive on paved roads demand fire and police protection, want their children in schools – they just don’t want to pay for it. And if you still think that “Show me the law” is valid, just google “Edward and Elaine Brown” and you will see that they are going to spend the rest of their lives in prison.


    • So… as a useful idiot, I take it you think that the “Federal Income Tax” pays for such things as roads, schools, protection, and firemen?

      L O L !!!

      This is the most uneducated comment ever!



  6. Chet

     /  August 19, 2013

    Today’s Internal Revenue Code, as it exists; as it is written, is Constitutional, as it is indeed *prima facie* evidence of the law. The definition of that very important legal term is provided to us by Supreme Court rulings and other Federal court decisions, i.e., Stephan v. United States (1943), Darby v. Cisneros (1993), Best Foods, Inc., v. United States (1956), among many others. It basically means that if there is any inconsistency between the IRC and the Statutes-At-Large, the latter must prevail. If one looks in the Preliminary Materials area of today’s IRC of 2006, you will even see references to the IRC of 1939, which is part of the Statutes-At-Large. Therefore, we must look at the actual statutory structure that today’s IRC points to.


  7. Jason Harbolt

     /  October 16, 2013

    Actually Clint, you did not define prima facia or code correctly. According to theLaw Dictionary:
    Lat. At first sight; on the first appearance; on the face of it; so far as can be judged from the first disclosure ; presumably. A litigating party is said to have a prima facie case when the evidence in his favor is sufficiently strong for his opponent to be called on to answer it. A prima facie case, then, is one which is established by sufficient evidence, and can be overthrown only by rebutting evidence adduced on the other side. In some cases the only question to be considered is whether there is a prima facie case or no. Thus a grand jury are bound to find a true bill of indictment, if the evidence before them creates a prima facie case against the accused; and for this purpose, therefore, it is not necessary for them to hear the evidence for the defense. Mozley & Whitley. And see State v. Hardelein, 109 Mo. 579, 70 S. W. 130; State v. Lawlor, 28 Minn. 210, 9 N. W. 698.
    In terms of the tax code, it would mean that by law you owe income tax unless you can prove you do not owe it.
    Law Dictionary:
    What is CODE?
    A collection or compendium of laws.
    A complete system of positive law, scientifically arranged, and promulgated by legislative authority. Johnson v. Harrison, 47 Minn. 575, 50 N. W. 923, 28 Am. St. Rep. 3S2; Railroad Co. v. State, 104 Ga. 831, 31 S. E. 531, 42 L R. A. 518; Railroad Co. v. Weiner, 49 Miss. 739.
    The collection of laws and constitutions made by order of the Emperor Justinian is distinguished by the appellation of “The Code,” by way of eminence. See CODE OF JUSTINIAN.
    A body of law established by the legislative authority, and intended to set forth, in generalized and systematic form, the principles of the entire law, whether written or unwritten, positive or customary, derived from enactment or from precedent Abbott.
    A code is to be distinguished from a digest. The subject-matter of the latter is usually reported decisions of the courts. But there are also digests of statutes. These consist of an orderly collection and classification of the existing statutes of a state or nation, while a code is promulgated as one new law covering the whole field of jurisprudence.

    Amendment 16 of the constitution states that Congress can levy an income tax without apportioning it among the states or basing it on the United States Census. This amendment exempted income taxes from the constitutional requirements regarding direct taxes, after income taxes on rents, dividends, and interest were ruled to be direct taxes in the court case of Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co. (1895). The amendment was adopted on February 3, 1913.

    When I do the “math” this tells me that congress has authorized the IRS to collect income taxes on behalf of Congress in the same manner that they use police offices to inforce other laws.


    • That’s all great and fine.

      Now, please show me where I gave Congress the power and authority to tax me and decide my fate.




    • FACIES – Lat. The face or countenance; the exterior appearance or view; hence, contemplation or study of a thing oil its external or apparent side. Thus, prima facie means at the first inspection, on a preliminary or exterior scrutiny. When we speak of a “prima facie case,” we mean one which, on its own showing, on a first examination, or without investigating any alleged defenses, is apparently good and maintainable.

      Law Dictionary:

      In other words, it is an argument that is one-sided, without investigation, exception, or rebuttal. It is an unchallenged argument.

      Thus, the IRS, being a prima facie corporation, with naught but prima facie evidence, is only as good as its known-to-be-corrupt word. And I hate to tell you this, my friend, but the 16th amendment is also prima facie. The whole Federal government is. And the constitution is nothing but the corporate charter of that corporation.


  8. Doreen Agostino

     /  September 17, 2014

    As I understand STATUTE applies to a PERSON not a HUMAN BEING and is given the ‘force’ of law ONLY by consent of the governed.


  9. Doreen Agostino

     /  December 3, 2014

    By Paul Stramer of Lincoln County Watch in Montana.

    To restore the Republic and your freedom you need to put some effort into knowing how our freedoms are being robbed from us by fraud, deception, threat, duress, coercion, and intimidation and have been for over 100 years by the criminals who have hijacked our government, wealth, and heritage for their own gain and evil intentions.

    Knowledge is power, and the ultimate civil power resides in every individual in America. By studying the following links in the order presented, you will know more about freedom and what the creator expected from us and endowed us with Through His Divine Son, and you will know your responsibility in that regard.



  1. » Blog Archive » Show Me The Law!
  2. Militant Libertarian » Show Me The Law!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: