Additional Titles









Coming Soon





PART 2 of 2

by Edward Snook with R.S. Errol
July 23, 2007

Now, with all of this said, Hank and Judy have studied the internal revenue code, Constitution, Bill of Rights, Supreme Court cases, case law, read many books, interviewed former IRS agents, attorneys and did extensive research on the internet regarding the assessment of income taxes by the IRS. Both determined that the method used by the IRS to apply the code to Hank was unconstitutional. He was never involved in revenue taxable activities.

Their research project gave them the knowledge that all taxing authority in the United States is derived from the United States Constitution. Contrary to conventional wisdom the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new powers of taxation upon the federal government, and did not extend the taxing power to new subjects as a result of its alleged ratification.

Over the years there has been an evolution of the tax regulations to obscure the method of taxation ordained by the statutes rather than to clarify them. In addition, the writers of the tax regulations intentionally made the codes nearly impossible to navigate and understand. The only reason for this obfuscation of the laws and regulations is to cloud the issue regarding who is liable for the income tax, thereby enabling the unwitting compliance to a law that doesn�t exist.

Whether the law exists is of no consequence to the IRS. This is an agency that routinely operates under the color of law. They have no power to arrest a citizen for alleged violations of the tax code; therefore, they will arrive at their victim�s door with a local law enforcement officer to enforce the unlawful warrant. The agents in orchestration with the U.S. Attorneys create crimes where there is no intent to commit crimes, then they present their one-sided case to a grand jury that is clueless regarding the tax code and the related regulations. They complete their successful presentations without ever having to show the grand jury the law that doesn�t exist. With an ill-gotten indictment the IRS goes about trying to destroy families by causing financial ruin through legal fees, confiscation of assets by liens and levies and unbearable stress on family members. Many times this is the main purpose of their attack. Obtaining a conviction is just frosting on the cake.

Is it any wonder the IRS has not provided Hank or Judy Matthies with the statutes which requires them to file a return or requires them to pay a tax on income? Logically, if the IRS cannot provide them a copy of the law that is the basis of the indictment it follows that there are no grounds for prosecution of the alleged crimes.

Enter the tax division of the Department of Justice where the baton is passed to prosecutors that have tried and true methods of extracting convictions from uninformed juries. The defendants, armed with volumes of evidence upholding their innocence are blind sided by prosecutorial maneuvers that in effect strip all of their evidence from their defense. The main weapon used is the �Motion in Limine.� According to Black�s Law 6th Edition, �it is a pretrial motion requesting a court to prohibit opposing counsel from referring to or offering evidence on matters so highly prejudicial to the moving party that curative instructions cannot prevent a predispositional effect on the jury. Purpose of such motion is to avoid injection into trial of matters which are irrelevant�� What is irrelevant about there not being a law? Of course the information about the non-existence of the law would be highly prejudicial to the prosecutors; therefore, it is always automatically excluded with the judge�s blessing. Even if the jury was astute enough to ask to see the law the judge informs them that reading the law is not necessary and to follow his jury instructions, which almost always leads to convictions and is actually a form of jury tampering. In essence the DOJ and the judges are a part of the con. It�s not us conspiring to defraud them, it�s them conspiring to defraud us!

All Americans have a duty to obey the law. They do not have a duty to cower to the IRS, who in fact is an agency that routinely and illegally intimidates citizens with unbridled power. Where is it mandated that we are here to bow down to an agency operating under the color of law and that we obey their dictates when we know they�re false?


Hank and Judy Matthies are being charged with conspiracy because the IRS knows they don�t have to present direct proof of a conspiracy or prove a criminal agreement. The only thing they have to prove is an overt act that doesn�t even have to be unlawful. Cashing checks without a checking account comes to mind. Just grab a handful of hypotheses, throw them at the wall and see if any stick. This is the real con the IRS pulls off on an annual basis against scores of hard working American citizens and they accomplish this by using the complicity of uninformed juries.

In retrospect the IRS could have taken intermediary steps to capture alleged back taxes. This agency does that every day to many citizens through illegal methods such as notice of levy as opposed to court orders. Make no mistake about it, the mission of the IRS is to ensure �voluntary compliance,� which in itself is an oxymoron. The cost to the well intended taxpayer is inconsequential to the agency as they are known for intimidating anyone that falls out of line. They in fact take great pride in crushing elderly citizens, hard working wage earners and entrepreneurs. Their motive is to have their acts of financial rape spread far and wide in order to enhance their reputation for ruthlessness. The Matthies� are far from affluent in material possessions. They work hard, live in a modest home tax appraised for approximately $51,000 and tend to their family. In the IRS manual these are characteristics of the ideal victim. The Matthies� just want to see the law that doesn�t exist. Where is the con in that motive?

The IRS, DOJ and the judge involved in this case are sorely mistaken if they think threatening Hank and Judy Matthies with prison and supervised release, plus fining them $250,000.00 will make them change their minds. That�s absolutely not going to happen. Hank and Judy know the truth about the IRS and the income tax. They know, as does this writer that absolutely no law exists that requires them to pay such a tax and they are going to stand on the truth. The Matthies� are honest, law abiding Christians and they recognize when they�re being conned.

The IRS wants us all to believe that a husband and wife cannot discuss the way they want to handle their personal, household and financial affairs. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our personal, household and financial affairs are absolutely none of their business. We all have the right to privacy and have the right to be secure in our houses, papers and effects as per the 4th Amendment. The IRS denies that these constitutional rights even exist.

Recent Court Cases Prove the Matthies� Position

Shreveport, Louisiana - A federal jury found Shreveport, La. Attorney Tommy Cryer not guilty on July 11, 2007 of two misdemeanor counts of failure to file income taxes and dismissed two felony charges of tax evasion prior to trial. Cryer was represented by renowned tax attorney Lowell (Larry) Becraft Jr. of Huntsville, Alabama. Mr. Becraft is currently representing Hank and Judy Matthies in their battle with the IRS and their case mirrors that of Cryer�s.

Cryer stopped filing income taxes 10 years ago and challenged the government for years on the legality of filing federal income taxes. He said the court could not list any laws that make his revenues taxable. The IRS and the US Attorney�s Office were unable to produce any law, simply because none exist.

San Jose, California � Ex-IRS criminal investigator Joe Banister was indicted on or about November 18, 2004 on one count of conspiracy, three counts of willfully aiding, assisting, counseling, and procuring the filing of an amended tax return which was false with regard to a material matter. Banister was acquitted on June 23, 2005.

Mr. Banister was an IRS agent earning $80,000.00 annually, who began to study the Income Tax Code and discovered it did not apply to most American citizens and that it was being enforced by the IRS and Government of the United States illegally. When Banister questioned his superiors about his findings he was asked to resign. According to Observer sources Banister was devastated when he discovered that he had taken part in wrongfully destroying the lives of innocent people based on a law that didn�t exist.

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Enter Your E-Mail Address:

This ongoing battle is not about money. Most certainly not for the IRS and absolutely not for the Matthies'. For the IRS (government) it is about power and control. The government has an endless flow of money at its disposal. For Hank and Judy it is about principle, morals and doing what is right. It would have been more cost effective for them if they would have voluntarily filed and paid. They continue to be embroiled in this battle in hopes of leaving a better country for their children, grandchildren and future generations of all Americans.

Who�s Conning Who IRS? For part one ckick below.

Click here for part ------> 1,

� 2007 - Edward Snook - All Rights Reserved

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale

Edward Snook is 20-plus year investigative journalist, with a college major in criminal justice and the publisher of US-Obsrver newspaper.












Mr. Banister was an IRS agent earning $80,000.00 annually, who began to study the Income Tax Code and discovered it did not apply to most American citizens and that it was being enforced by the IRS and Government of the United States illegally.