[an amused spectator]

Instead many of these people now find themselves owing back taxes, penalties and interest.

Which back taxes, penalties and interest are ruled upon by people whose paychecks come directly from said back taxes, penalties and interest, just like the old English vice-admiralty courts. ;-)

[ancient_geezer]

Which back taxes, penalties and interest are ruled upon by people whose paychecks come directly from said back taxes, penalties and interest, just like the old English vice-admiralty courts. ;-)

• If that were true, the protestation that taxes do not apply to you is non-sence. For those judges will be certain to make the tax law apply to you;
• Alternatively the law does apply to you and is constitutional and the judges will make certain the tax law applies to you.

Notice, in both evaluations exactly the same result will be obtained from the Courts.

Furthermore:

1) Federal judges are appointed for life, and good behaviour. Their pay cannot be taken away from them.

2) Federal judges have ruled their pay is subject to income tax, though at any time they could rule otherwise if they so desired and believed otherwise.

3) It would be in the personal and financial interest for the courts to rule that the income tax is unconstitutional and illegal. In so doing the law would be void, the IRS which is authorised under that law would ceased to exist or have power over the people or the courts.

4) Judges are ruling against there own personal interest in support the income tax against you in the courtroom. For if it did not apply to you, it cannot apply to them.

Something is lacking in your analysis and it is called reason and credibility. It does not pass the test of Occum's razor, nor the laugh test.