This is a copy of the summary of the law given to Hank by Judge Furgeson referred to by Judge Furgeson in the hearings (Commentary is added by Avery): You will want to compare these citations provided by the US District Judge, Department of Justice and the Internal Revenue Service with the citations provided by Hank Goltz.


The law according to Gargotta:

1.        791 F.2d 68 (1985-86) from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

          Norman E. Coleman v. C.I.R. & Gary Holder v. Secy. of the Treasury and U.S.A.

Gargotta noted: “ignorance of law – groundless arguments no excuse to file returns.”  He then highlighted the following: Circuit Judge Easterbrook waxing inelegantly: "The government may not prohibit the holding of these beliefs, but it may penalize people who act on them." 


(Note by Avery: This famous doctrine of “ignorance of the law is no excuse” has produced a phenomenal incongruence in our society leading one to the unavoidable and ludicrous conclusion that only the very wealth and completely ignorant can fully comply with the federal tax laws.  Those that study these laws are the ones who bring up all the groundless and frivolous arguments. The ignorant, just pay. Notice the mutation of the doctrine from “ignorance of the law is no excuse,” to “ignorance of the law – groundless arguments no excuse.” This doctrine could only refer to a process in which the more one studies the law the more inaccurate, groundless and obtuse one becomes in their understanding of the law. This doctrine seems to restrict itself to the federal tax laws. Generally the more one studies something the more they understand about it.  However, contrary to all nature and principle the more one studies the federal tax law the more one is lead to senility. The only other possible explanation for this aberration is that the more one discovers the falsehoods propagated by the federal government to steal the wealth of the citizens of the states the more one comes into distain by the defenders of federal tyranny.)


Later, "Coleman declined to offer any evidence concerning his income; he insisted that the IRS bear the whole burden of production." 


Still later, "Coleman thinks that only net income may be taxed under the Sixteenth Amendment - net income as Coleman defines it rather than as Congress does.  Holder, who styles himself a 'private citizen’, insists that wages may not be taxed because the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes only excises taxes, and in Holder's world excises may be imposed only on 'government granted privileges.'  Because Holder believes that he is exercising no special privileges, he thinks he may not be taxed.  These are tired arguments.  The code imposes a tax on all income See 26 U.S.C. 61.  Wages are income, and the tax on wages is constitutional."


And later, "Coleman argues that the IRS had to prove the amount of his income; he needed to show nothing.  The statute is otherwise.  People must make an honest report of their income to the government."  


Later still, "Statutes need not be unambiguous in every application to be constitutional.  Many words acquire meaning through judicial and administrative construction over the years, and this evolutionary process is constitutional."


(Note by Avery: This type of thinking was called “poison to liberty” by James Madison, architect of the U.S. Constitution, in his Federalist Letter #62: “The internal effects of a mutable policy are still more calamitous. It poisons the blessings of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?” Further this “evolutionary” process must exemplify the Constitution’s intent and may not alter its real meaning or permit its opposite, i.e., a prohibition against a direct tax upon the people cannot evolve into a permission and obligation upon the people to pay a direct tax by judicial and administrative constructions which is the present case with regard to federal income taxes. All such “judicial and administrative construction” is unconstitutional, tyrannical and void from their beginning and challengeable at any time forever.)


And later, "If a person should have known that his position is groundless, a court may and should impose sanctions."


Then later, "The purpose of Sections 6673 and 6702, like the purpose of Rules 11 and 38 and of Section 1927, is to induce litigants to conform their behavior to the governing rules regardless of their subjective beliefs.  Groundless litigation diverts the time and energies of judges from more serious claims; it imposes needless costs on other litigants.  Once the legal system has resolved a claim, judges and lawyers must move on to other things.  They cannot endlessly rehear stale arguments."


(Note by Avery: The interpretation we get from this previous statement and the one about the “constitutional evolution of ambiguous laws through judicial and administrative construction” is that once a legal system has perverted the constitutional law and its intent the judges and lawyers must implement the tyranny by rejecting all arguments to the contrary and induce the litigants to subjection no matter what the Constitution may lead the citizen to know beyond the shadow of a doubt.)


And finally, "People who wish to express displeasure with taxes must choose other forums, and there are many available.  Taxes are onerous, no doubt, and the size of the tax burden gives people reason to hope that they can escape payment.  Self-interest calls forth obtuseness.  An obtuse belief - even if sincerely held - is no refuge, no warrant for imposing delay on the legal system and costs on one's adversaries.  The more costly obtuseness becomes, the less there will be."


(Note by Avery: Again the arrogance of these statements should move us all to consider other means of expressing displeasure. Some means come to my mind which the author may not have envisioned. The author should be damned glad that the people have sought the courts for their expressions. The author had described the tax system as a machine for the creation of self-interest obtuse delays and costs which eat away at the booty of the “government.” Our author knowing that the onerous size of the tax burden produces this effect should be at his business of judging rightly in his courtroom rather than heaping up perverted rulings upon the backs of the innocent litigants who dare to dream of promised justice in a courtroom of the free and the brave. Only a fool believes that tyranny will triumph eternally.)


2.                 687 F.2d 264 (1982) from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

      Gerald C. Funk and Judith M. Funk v. C.I.R.

Gargotta noted: “frivolous arguments do not excuse filing of returns.”  He then highlighted the following: “ taxpayers’ reliance on constitutional arguments challenging imposition of tax did not constitute reasonable cause for failure to file timely return or relieve taxpayers of liability for negligence or intentional disregard of applicable rules and regulations;


(Note by Avery: This notion turns our nation upside down. The constitution is made secondary if not irrelevant by rules and regulations made up by bureaucrats who care more about fleecing the sheep than preservation of the property of the people. When one complains of a possible violation of the Constitution the entire system should be slowed to consider the merits and if it be shown that the complaint is true the litigant should be excused and rewarded for his imposition caused by the excess and greed of the lustful servants of the people. And if the litigant be wrong he should be given ample time to come into compliance.)


Later, “It is not disputed that Taxpayers failed to report as income wages received during the 1976 and 1977 taxable years.”


Then later, “We reject Taxpayers’ sixteenth amendment claim because the constitutionality of the sixteenth amendment was upheld by the Supreme Court.


(Note by Avery: There is no doubt that the 16th Amendment has been upheld, but how was it upheld? It was upheld that it added no new taxing power to the Federal government, i.e., this tax was still in the nature of an indirect tax not a direct tax such as the present un-apportioned income tax on each person in every state by the federal government. Therefore this amendment did not expand the taxing jurisdiction of the federal government to all state citizens in the U.S. but merely expanded the applicable income taxable to those the federal government had authority over already, namely those with income from overseas. The federal government cannot make law or impose taxes directly upon the people of the states. This is the most fundamental idea in the constitution of the U.S. The states make laws for the people of each state and the federal government governs the relations between the states and foreign nations. If the federal government makes laws for the citizens of each state and they can tax each one directly then why would we retain the states at all? The founders knew this immediately and did not delegate authority to the federal government to make law for the people or tax the people directly.)


And later, “Taxpayers’ constitutional objections under the first, fourth, fifth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, thirteenth, and fourteenth amendments are frivolous and without merit.”


(Note by Avery: We see just how much trouble we are in by such blanket unfounded statements to the effect that the most fundamental constitutional provisions separating the powers of the state from the federal government are frivolous. Tyranny has grown strong in America. But remember it has no roots and that which grows without roots in real law cannot stand when the winds of liberty blow upon it.)


Then later, “Furthermore, section 61(a) of the code defines gross income as ‘all income from whatever source derived, including … compensation for services.’  In sum, the sixteenth amendment authorizes the imposition of a tax upon income without apportionment among the states, and under the statute, the term ‘income’ includes the compensation a taxpayer receives in return for services rendered.  Taxpayers’ argument that wages received for services are not taxable as income is clearly frivolous.”


(Note by Avery: We see from this bureaucratic “interpretation” of rules that it is contrary to the most fundamental premise of the Constitution of the U.S. There is no recognition of the state governments at all under this view.)


And later, “Neither do we believe Taxpayers’ reliance on their frivolous constitutional arguments constitute reasonable cause for failure to file a timely return; nor does it relieve them of liability for negligence or intentional disregard of the applicable rules and regulations.”


(Note by Avery: What is culpable about “intentional disregard” when a person recognizes the unlawful nature of a thing imposed upon them? If we applied this reasoning to everything in life we would not be able to oppose any kind of injustice. And is it not the position of every tyrant that ever lived that any opposition to their abuse of the people was a frivolous argument? How then does our author propose that we resist evil without being negligent and intentional in our disregard for tyranny? These statements fall well short of judicious perception and reflect no more than prejudice by one with interest in the spoils of a wrecked and plundered society.)


3.       26 C.F.R. 1.61-1 Gross Income.  Gargotta noted: “IRS regulation re definition of income.” He then highlighted the following:  “(a) General definition.  Gross income means all income from whatever source derived, unless excluded by law.  Gross income includes income realized in any form, whether in money, property or services.  Income may be realized, therefore, in the form of services, meals, accommodations, stock or other property, as well as in cash. … Gross income, however, is not limited to the items so enumerated.”


4.       26 USCA S 61 & 26 I.R.C. 61 Gross income defined.  Gargotta noted: “IRC definition of income.”  He then highlighted the following:  “… gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:”


5.       650 F.Supp. 202 Rachel Templeton v. I.R.S.  Gargotta noted: “definition of taxpayer – broad.”   He then highlighted the following: plaintiff, a citizen of the United States, was a ‘taxpayer’ for the purposes of exemptions from disclosure,”


Later, “Specifically, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant has no proof that the plaintiff is a ‘person liable’ for the payment or collection of a tax, or as a ‘taxpayer’.’  For the purpose of this memorandum the Court will refer to ‘person liable … or taxpayer’ as a taxpayer.  The plaintiff challenge is common among the group of litigants called ‘tax protestors’.”


(Note by Avery: Is it not revealing why the government is so upset by the challenge of “tax protestors” to the term “taxpayer” used through out the tax code? If this term, “taxpayer” is really everyone in the United States why in the hell would the tax code use a term like “taxpayer?” Would not a better term be “citizens” residing in each state of the United States of America? The term “taxpayer” does not apply to all citizens. It is clear that the author wants to include all citizens of every state into the class called “taxpayers” without justification. It is clear that the federal government cannot lawfully defend against a claim that one is not a “taxpayer” if they do not have income from some form of corporate activity under the interstate or foreign jurisdiction of the federal government.)


And later, “The tax code does not contain one general definition of ‘taxpayer’ applicable to every section of the Code.”


Then later, “This particular definition states that: ‘the term ‘taxpayer’ means any person subject to a tax under the applicable revenue law.’  However, 26 U.S.C. 1 describes many categories of persons liable for taxes, and taken together those categories provide a complete definition of ‘taxpayer’.”


Still later, “The plaintiff alleges that she is not within the definition of taxpayer but is in the ‘non-taxpayer’ category.”


And later, “The Supreme Court of the United States adopted an extremely broad definition of ‘taxpayer’.  Cook v. Tait, 265 U.S. 47,44 *205 S.Ct. 444, 68 L.Ed. 895 (1924).


And finally, “The language of the statute and the accompanying regulations is clear and unambiguous ‘and … imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States 26 CFR 1.1-(1)(A) (1985)


(Note by Avery: Is it not clear that the code and the law at one time were restricted to a group uncommon with the citizens of the states? Is it not clear that the federal government wants to usurp authority and pervert the constitution to include all citizens in all the states as federal income “taxpayers?” Is it not clear that the federal courts rely on obtuse rulings and perversions of the code to evolve the unconstitutional effect of making all citizens of every state a federal income “taxpayer?”)


The law according to Royal Furgeson:

26 U.S.C.A. 1         He highlighted: “(a) there is hereby imposed on the taxable income of … (1) every married individual … (2) every surviving spouse … in accordance with the following table: … (c) There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual … a tax determined in accordance with the following table…”


26 U.S.C.A. 6012   He highlighted: “Persons required to make returns of income” … “(d)(2) Earned income.—“


(Note by Avery: Finally the judge is able to distill all these evolutionary perversions and obtuse rulings down to the tax tables in the IRS pamphlets that you get in the mail with your 1040 form. How can Judge Furgeson or any other judge in America claim to be a supporter of “the rule of law” upon enslaving every state in the union under the direct law making and direct tax imposing power of the federal government against the clear language of the Constitution of the United States? Judge Royal Furgeson lost his composure with the simple request by Hank Goltz that the Department of Justice and the Internal Revenue Service direct the Court and Mr. Goltz to the provision that makes Mr. Goltz a “taxpayer” rather than a citizen. Judge Furgeson, rather than perform this task which should be simply answered upon request by every citizen in America prior to paying taxes, chastised Mr Goltz in open court accusing him of being an anarchist who would prefer our nation reduced to chaos, where any one bigger could squash the smaller, rather than pay his taxes. It is obvious that Judge Furgeson has become that very thing that he hates so much. Rather than produce the law that makes all citizens of America liable for a direct federal income tax, Furgeson bursts into a tirade accusing the honest seeker of the law with the crime of lawless, obtuse, frivolous obfuscation of which Judge Furgeson has now made himself a great defender by refusing to provide. Can there be any hope for these Judges? Can they escape justice and pervert it forever? Does history support tyranny unopposed continually forever? How then was America born in the first place?)