<<CITIZEN’S NAME>>

<<ADDRESS>>

<<CITY>>, <<STATE>> <<ZIP>>

<<PHONE>>

<<FAX>>

<<EMAIL ADDRESS>>

<<DATE>

Directed personally to:

<<EMPLOYER NAME>>                                               Certified Mail:___________________________

<<TITLE>>

<<ADDRESS>>

<<CITY>>, <<STATE>> <<ZIP>>

Attn: ___________________________

Subject:  Request for Compliance with Federal and State Income Tax Reporting and Withholding Laws

References:  (1) A book entitled The Great IRS Hoax:  Why We Don’t Owe Income Tax, available for free downloading from:

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/taxes.htm.

Dear Sir,

This letter is being provided to notify you of my wishes regarding employment tax withholding and reporting to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) as well as state agencies for my pay and benefits.  As you know, tax season is fast approaching, and you will soon be mailing out W-2 forms to employees such as myself.  Before you get to work preparing my W-2’s and submitting them to the IRS and the state agencies for tax reporting, I want to ensure that the process and methods you use for all employees are in strict compliance with federal and state tax laws and that the resulting W-2 forms are as accurate as you can legally make them.  At the same time, I would like to help you minimize your legal liability, both to government taxing authorities and to your employees.

I will begin by emphasizing that everything I am about to say in this letter is based on several continuous months of thorough research studying the Internal Revenue Code and the state taxation codes on the Internet in the process of writing a 1,000 page book about income taxes referenced in Ref. (1).  I and/or others have also spoken personally to tax attorneys and IRS agents about the content of this letter and have personally confirmed its accuracy and truthfulness.  All of the laws I am about to discuss you can read yourself on the internet at the following URL:

Below is a summarized list of the requirements that federal law (26 U.S.C., also called the I.R.C or Internal Revenue Code) and other Titles of the U.S. Codes impose on you in the reporting of my taxable wages as revealed by my research.

1.        The Privacy Act of 1974 found in 5 U.S.C. 552a covers the handling of personal information, such as Social Security Numbers (SSN’s) and personnel records.  This section places clear requirement on government agencies that:

1.1.      No agency shall disclose any record which is contained in a system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains, unless disclosure of the record would be

1.1.1.          (1) to those officers and employees of the agency which maintains the record who have a need for the record in the performance of their duties;

1.1.2.          (3) for a routine use as defined in subsection (a)(7) of this section and described under subsection (e)(4)(D) of this section;

1.1.3.          (7) to another agency or to an instrumentality of any governmental jurisdiction within or under the control of the United States for a civil or criminal law enforcement activity if the activity is authorized by law, and if the head of the agency or instrumentality has made a written request to the agency which maintains the record specifying the particular portion desired and the law enforcement activity for which the record is sought;

1.2.      The term ''routine use'' means, with respect to the disclosure of a record, the use of such record for a purpose which is compatible with the purpose for which it was collected.

1.3.      In your case, “routine use” DOES NOT include disclosure to the IRS without my consent or knowledge, as the Privacy Act Statement in my employee record does not indicate this is one of the purposes for which such information is maintained or used.

1.4.      Therefore, you may not disclose my SSN or my address to outside agencies such as the IRS without my express written consent, which you do not have, nor am I willing to provide such information on a W-4 form which you can provide to such agency.

2.        Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C.) section 1 imposes the income tax on “taxable income”.

3.        Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C.) section 63 defines “taxable income” generally as “gross income” minus deductions.

4.        Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C.) section 61 defines “gross income” generally as income “from whatever source derived”.

5.        Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C.) sections 861-865 and related regulations determine the taxable “sources of income”.

6.        Income and “wages, tips and other compensation” reported by you to the IRS on form W-2’s must be “taxable income”, within the meaning of Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C.) section 63.

7.        Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C.) section 3401(c ) defined employee as follows:

For purposes of this chapter, the term ''employee'' includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term ''employee'' also includes an officer of a corporation.

Any non-governmental employees you may have are not considered “employees” by the United States Government as defined above.

8.        Even more interesting is the definition of “employer” found in Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C.) section 3401(d )

For purposes of this chapter, the term ''employer'' means the person for whom an individual performs or performed any service, of whatever nature, as the employee of such person

Consequently, if you don’t pay people under your employ who work for the government, then you aren’t an “employer” as per the Internal Revenue Code.

9.        The IRS will try to deceive you into thinking that the above definitions do not apply or are not “inclusive” of everything that is taxable.  However, section 3.6.1.7 of Reference (1) entitled “’Includes’ and ‘Including’ (26 U.S.C. 7701(c ) clearly shows that the courts do not support this position and that this is an attempt by the Congress and the IRS to exceed their lawful authority.

10.        Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C.) sections 3401-3406 describe laws relating to withholding of income taxes by employers.

10.1.      Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C.) section 3403 states the following:

The employer shall be liable for the payment of the tax required to be deducted and withheld under this chapter, and shall not be liable to any person for the amount of any such payment.

10.2.      In spite of the above, the liability stated only applies to employers operating within the District of Columbia, based on the definition of “United States” given earlier.

11.     The only known portion of the U.S. Codes that imposes a geographical limitation on the applicability of direct (on people rather than businesses or other “legal fictions”) U.S. income taxes is 26 U.S. Code Section 861.  This is the section which addresses the “source” issue and imposes a clear requirement that taxable income not only must be of a taxable type, like that found in 26 U.S. Code section 61, but it must ALSO come from a taxable “source” that is tied to some geographical boundary.  If you are going to insist that 26 U.S.C Sec. 861 doesn’t apply to me as a citizen of the USA living in the 50 states with only income from the 50 states, then you are going to have to find another section of the Internal Revenue Code that imposes a geographical limitation, because otherwise, the entire tax code would apply to EVERYONE IN CHINA, which clearly doesn’t make sense!  This finding is consistent with the following case of Graves v. People of the State of New York, 59 S.Ct. 595 (1939):

“A tax on income is not economically or legally a tax on its source.”

It is also consistent with the 26 C.F.R. section 1.861-8(f)(1) as discussed in sections 5.5.6 of Reference (1), which identifies specific sources that are taxable.  All sources other than those listed in that regulation are, by definition, excluded as explained in section 5 of Reference (1).

12.     The Internal Revenue Publications are a fraud and cannot be relied upon to sustain a legal position nor can they be used as evidence of a “reasonable belief” in a court of law.  This is confirmed in the IRS’ own Internal Revenue Manual (IRM), which states:

"IRS Publications, issued by the National Office, explain the law in plain language for taxpayers and their advisors... While a good source of general information, publications should not be cited to sustain a position." [IRM, 4.10.7.2.8 (05-14-1999)]

This finding is also confirmed by the following federal court cases:

•  Luhring v. Glotzbach, 304 F.2d 660 (4th Cir. 1962)
•  Einhorn v. DeWitt, 618 F.2d 347 (5th Cir. 1980).
• United States v. Goldstein, 342 F.Supp. 661 (E.D.N.Y. 1972).
• Boulez v. C.I.R., 810 F.2d 209 (D.C. Cir. 1987).
• United States v. Will, 671 F.2d 963, 967 (6^th Cir. 1982).

For all of the above reasons, I do not recommend referring to, relying upon, or using any of the Internal Revenue Publications in the administration of payroll tax withholding in your organization,, because the IRS or employees working for the IRS cannot be held liable in any way for fraudulent, misleading, or downright false advice or information they provide to you in any of their publications, or over the phone.

13.     Taxability of “wages”:

13.1.   “gross income” within the ambit of Chapters 71 through 86 of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S. Code) does not include or list wages.  For instance, these chapters do not specify wages as “gross income”.

13.2.   Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C.) Section 61 identifies something that might be mistaken for wages, namely:

(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;

You will note that “wages” are not listed or included anywhere in the definition above, nor are they listed anywhere in the IRC as being part of “gross income”.

13.3.   Because labor is considered property, per the findings of the U.S. Supreme Court in Butcher’s Union Co. v. Crescent City Co. (111 U.S. 746), and because wages received for labor rendered constitute a nonprofit exchange of property rather than taxable “profit” that is part of “gross income”, and because all of my income results from such wages, none of my income is considered “gross income” subject to direct taxation by the U.S. Government or the State of California.  This conclusion is consistent with the findings of the federal courts in Stapler v. U.S., 21 F. Supp. AT 739, which said:

"Income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment and the Revenue Act, means 'gain'... and in such connection 'Gain' means profit...proceeding from property, severed from capital, however invested or employed, and coming in, received, or drawn by the taxpayer, for his separate use, benefit and disposal... Income is not a wage or compensation for any type of labor."

14.     The jurisdiction of the “United States” government to impose direct income taxes on my wages is limited to only the District of Columbia and not the 50 states of the United States of America.  For instance, the definition of the term “United States” appears in the Internal Revenue Code section 7701 as:

“United States

The term ''United States'' when used in a geographical sense includes only the States and the District of Columbia.”

And in that same section, “State” is defined as follows:

“State

The term ''State'' shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.”

You will note that “States” is the plural of “State”, and that “State” refers only to federal territories and possessions, and NOT to the 50 states of the Union.  This conclusion is clearly explained (much more clearly than in even the statutes themselves) in section 5.2.4 “The definition of the word ‘state’, key to unlocking Congress’ ruse and the limited application of the Internal Revenue Code” of Reference (1).   Therefore, the Internal Revenue Code DOES NOT apply to me, as it has jurisdiction only within the District of Columbia.  There is simply no authority delegated to the IRS to enforce the IRC within the 50 states of the union upon citizens.  This is no accident, but is a direct result of the restrictions imposed on the U.S. Government in Article 1, Section 8, clauses 1 and 3 and 1:9:4 of the U.S. Constitution.  Even if you want to assert that I am a citizen of the United States, you will still not be able to extend the jurisdiction of the federal courts or your authority beyond the boundaries of the District of Columbia and foreign lands for the purposes of the Internal Revenue Code because of the above limitations.  This may have something to do with why the Internal Revenue Code was never enacted into positive law..because it has no effect on citizens anyway!

15.     I wish to remind you quite clearly that federal income taxes, when enforced directly upon citizens of the united States of America, without apportionment, for income from domestic (within the 50 states) sources, do indeed constitute direct taxes and are unconstitutional as ruled in the Supreme Court case of Pollack v. Farmer’s Loan and Trust Company (157 U.S. 429, 158 U.S. 601) and Evens v. Gore (253 U.S. 245).  These cases have never been overruled, and are also consistent with the fact that no where in the indexes of 26 U.S.C. (the Internal Revenue Code) is there a reference to the fact that U.S. citizens (or natural born persons) are liable for the payment of taxes on income.

16.     The 16^th Amendment, which allegedly authorized “taxes on income” (even though it was fraudulently ratified) did not remove the constitutional prohibition against direct taxation of citizens without apportionment to the states.  The only type of income tax the 16^th Amendment authorized was indirect income taxes imposed on businesses and other “legal fictions” as an “excise tax” (that is to say, a tax on a business transaction or event paid by a business entity and not an individual directly).  This was confirmed in the following two Supreme Court cases:

16.1.   Brushaber vs. Union Pacific Railroad (240 U.S. 1).

16.2.   Stanton v. Baltic Mining (240 U.S. 103)

17.     The Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution outlawed slavery.  Slavery is an involuntary condition where one does not have control over the fruits of his own labor, and has no property rights.  A condition of slavery is imposed by direct income taxes on people in direct violation of the 13^th Amendment.  For instance, if I am in the 28% marginal tax bracket, which I believe that I am, and federal income taxes are imposed directly on my wages, then in effect, I am a slave for 28% of the year.  Either I’m entirely free or I’m a slave, but I can’t be both!  The only thing necessary to make me a complete slave would be for congress to increase the federal income tax rate to 100%.    And by the way, if they did this, the rights of the State of California would be completely suppressed and thereby the balance of powers envisioned by the founding fathers in the constitution would be completely eliminated!  This would in turn violate the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  You might be tempted to say that any kind of tax is slavery, but in fact this is not true.  The U.S. Constitution allows for excise taxes, which are also called indirect taxes within the Constitution.  These taxes are on business transactions or events (like sales taxes).  The payment of these types of taxes is discretionary, as all you have to do to avoid them is not buy something or not perform the event that is taxed.  What other rational way is there to interpret this?  See the U.S. Supreme Court case of Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co. (111 U.S. 746) for further details on this issue.  Here is a quote from that case:

"Among these unalienable rights, as proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant, the right any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give them their highest enjoyment...It has been well said that, THE PROPERTY WHICH EVERY MAN HAS IS HIS OWN LABOR, AS IT IS THE ORIGINAL FOUNDATION OF ALL OTHER PROPERTY SO IT IS THE MOST SACRED AND INVIOLABLE..."

18.     As documented in chapters 4 and 5 of Reference (1), the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. Codes, and the CFR’s are completely consistent with all of the above conclusions of law, and in particular, specify in 26 U.S.C. section 861 the only legitimate “sources” of “gross income” for which a U.S. Citizen may become liable to pay federal taxes.  The content of 26 U.S.C. Sec. 861 limits taxable “sources” to foreign income and is entirely consistent with the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, clauses 1 through 3.  This taxable source of income occurs primarily when citizens are overseas and as a result of international commerce, which are the only type of commerce within the jurisdiction of the federal government.  The above findings are also confirmed under the 4-1-94 edition of 26 C.F.R. 602.101, which listed the applicable forms for 26 C.F.R. section 1.1-1 (tax imposed) as OMB form 1545-0067.  If one looks up the form associated with that control number, it is form 2555, which is Foreign Earned Income.   Interestingly enough, this form also is the ONLY income tax form which lists “citizens” as being liable.  Furthermore, the IRS form 1040 is actually an addendum to that form.  After tax freedom advocates discovered this connection, the IRS, to “cover-up” the truth,  removed this reference and now in the latest version of 26 C.F.R. 602.101 NO form is associated with 26 C.F.R. 1.1-1. See section 6.5.3 of Reference (1) for more details on this issue.  This would imply that filing of income tax forms is no longer required!  I certify, under penalty of perjury, that NONE of my income has ever derived from the taxable “sources” identified in IRC section 861.  Therefore, I have no “gross income” from taxable sources.

19.        For the purposes of state income tax, the State of California uses the same definition of “gross income” and “taxable income” as the federal government.  See sections 17071, 17072, and 17073 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code, available at: 

 

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?codesection=rtc&codebody=&hits=100

For all of the above reasons, you are obligated to report my taxable income to the IRS on form W-2 as “zero”, because:

1.        It is wages, which as we have explained does not constitute “taxable income”.

2.     None of my income derives from a taxable “source” within the meaning of Internal Revenue Code section 861 or the supporting regulations found in 26 C.F.R. 1.861-1-1.861-14.

3.       The U.S. government has no jurisdiction within the Internal Revenue Code to tax receipt of income, because it was not received in the District of Columbia by a resident of the District of Columbia in accordance with 26 U.S.C. section 7701 (see definition of the terms “State” and “United States”).

I also wish to clearly emphasize several things:

1.        I am not trying to be difficult or create any trouble for you or anyone else.  I only wish to have my Constitutional and legal rights respected.

2.        It would gravely concern me if you contacted any of the people above me in my chain of authority about this request, as it is none of their concern and once again would violate my privacy and destroy trust and morale in my team.  Any attempt to involve others will simply be interpreted by me as an effort to coerce and slander me, as there is no other reason to get anyone else involved with my personal affairs or my privacy, nor can anyone above me help this situation any more than you can.

3.        My Constitutional rights as a sovereign citizen which I want respected in this case include:

3.1.               The First Amendment right of free speech, which means that I cannot and should not be taxed, harassed, penalized, or criminally prosecuted because of my beliefs or any statements I might make.  This right of free speech also includes my right to NOT communicate with the IRS on a W-4 form or a tax return.

3.2.               The Fourth Amendment right to privacy and the security of my papers and personal effects.  This means that my private and personal personnel record ought to be exactly that, and my SSN or other personal information should NOT be disclosed to third parties without my express written consent.  That is why you make ME fill out the W-4 instead of the government doing it for me.

3.3.               The Fifth Amendment right of not being compelled to incriminate myself (by being compelled to file a tax return against my will or to provide an SSN) or be deprived of property or any part of my paycheck without my consent.  This means that the government has no jurisdiction to order you to withhold my pay without my consent, regardless of whether I give you a W-4 form or not.

Remember that the essential aspect of being a “right” is that the free exercise of rights CANNOT be penalized, taxed, or regulated in any way by anyone, including employers or the government.  Any attempt to silence or punish or fire me for the exercising Constitutionally protected rights is a violation of rights.  The below Supreme Court case emphasizes this in Harman v. Forssenius, 380 U.S 528 at 540, 85 S.Ct. 1177, 1185 (1965):

"It has long been established that a State may not impose a penalty upon those who exercise a right guaranteed by the Constitution." Frost & Frost  Trucking Co. v. Railroad Comm'n of California, 271 U.S. 583. "Constitutional rights would be of little value if they could be indirectly denied,' Smith v. Allwriqht, 321 US. 649, 644, or manipulated out of existence,' Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S.  339, 345."

An important outcome of the above considerations is that if you attempt to undermine, penalize, tax, or coerce me in the exercise of the above rights, then you are liable under the following sections of the U.S. Codes for civil damages:

Table 1:  Abbreviated List of Laws Violated for infringing upon Constitutionally protected rights

Crime	Penalty	Law	Code sectionSupreme Court Case(s) Constitutional references
Conspiracy against rights	They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both	If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same	18 U.S.C. 241
Federally protected rights being violated	Shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.	(b) Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, by force or threat of force willfully injures, intimidates or interferes with, or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with - (1) any person because he is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from -     (B) participating in or enjoying any benefit, service, privilege, program, facility, or activity provided or administered by the United States;     (C) applying for or enjoying employment, or any perquisite thereof, by any agency of the United States;     (D) serving, or attending upon any court in connection with possible service, as a grand or petit juror in any court of the United States.	18 U.S.C. 245
Extortion	Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; but if the amount so extorted or demanded does not exceed $1,000, he shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.	Whoever, being an officer, or employee of the United States or any department or agency thereof, or representing himself to be or assuming to act as such, under color or pretense of office or employment commits or attempts an act of extortion.	18 U.S.C. 872

Other considerations apply to the exercise of the rights we just discussed above, especially as it pertains to the use of and disclosure of Social Security Numbers.  I will therefore like to provide formal legal notice to you of your obligations relating to the compelled disclosure of Social Security Numbers:

Federal Law, Section 7 of Public Law 93-579 provides that: It shall be unlawful for any Federal, State or local government agency to deny to any individual any right [First, Fourth, Fifth Amendment], benefit, or privilege provided by law because of such individual's refusal to disclose his social security account number. Federal courts have ruled the Privacy Act applies equally to the private sector.

The law provides that you can be held personally responsible and liable, as well as your company or agency for violating these privacy rights.

There is no law requiring an individual to obtain or use a social security number. Your requirement and/or demand that I provide a social security number to you is a violation of one or more of the following laws: 4 C.F.R. 83.9; 5 USC Sec. 552a; 7 C.F.R. 1.123; 7 USC Sec. 2204g; 14 C.F.R. 1212.604; 17 C.F.R. 249.501a; 19 C.F.R. 118.11; 19 C.F.R. 122.25; 19 C.F.R. 24.5; 24 C.F.R. 5.212; 28 C.F.R. 16.53; 28 C.F.R. 513.31; 28 C.F.R. 700.25; 29 CFR 70a.10; 29 C.F.R. 71.12; 31 C.F.R. 1.32; 31 C.F.R. 501.806; 32 C.F.R. 270.19; 32 CFR 310.20; 32 C.F.R. 311.5; 32 C.F.R. 316.6; 32 C.F.R. 317.20; 32 C.F.R. 323.5; 32 CFR 505.2; 32 C.F.R. 701.108; 32 C.F.R. 806b.9; 38 C.F.R. 1.575; 38 C.F.R. 3.216; 38 USC Sec. 5101; 39 C.F.R. 266.4; 45 C.F.R. Part 801; 47 C.F.R. 0.554; 49 C.F.R. 10.29.

Because of the above considerations, it is NOT my wish that my SSN be put on any correspondence you provide to the government EXCEPT to the Social Security Administration.  You are not authorized and you do not have my consent, with or without a valid and signed W-4 form, to disclose my Social Security Number to the Internal Revenue Service, as this would violate the Privacy Act of 1974 and the above laws.

Finally, as you consider how to respond to this letter, I’d like to remind you, of the moral and ethical obligations, we both have, which are clearly stated in the Code of Ethics for Government Service, which is prominently displayed in every U.S. Government Federal workplace.    Here they are:

I.  Put loyalty to the highest moral principles and to country above loyalty to persons, party, or Government department.

II.  Uphold the Constitution, laws, and regulations of the United States and of all governments therein and never be a party to their evasion.

III.  Give a full day's labor for a full day's pay;  giving earnest effort and best thought to the performance of duties.

IV.  Seek to find and employ more efficient and economical ways of getting tasks done.

V.  Never discriminate unfairly by the dispensing of special favors or privileges to anyone, whether for remuneration or not; and never accept, for himself or herself or for family members, favors or benefits under circumstances which might be construed by reasonable persons as influencing the performance of governmental duties.

VI.  Make no private promises of any kind binding upon the duties of office, since a Government employee has no private word which can be binding on public duty.

VII.  Engage in no business with the Government, either directly or indirectly, which is inconsistent with the conscientious performance of governmental duties.

VIII.  Never use any information gained confidentially in the performance of governmental duties as a means of making private profit.

IX.  Expose corruption wherever discovered.

X.  Uphold these principles, ever conscious that public office is a public trust.

In particular, the fraud that is being perpetrated by the IRS that U.S. citizens are liable for tax on income from sources in the United States or that you as an employer are obligated to withhold them is a violation of rules I, II, V, VII, IX, and X.  As a government servant, this letter is also my way of fulfilling rule IX above, where I am expected to expose corruption wherever discovered.  I’m stating these to emphasize that I am doing everything I can to live up to my own moral and ethical obligations and that everything in this letter is aimed at upholding these obligations.  Like me, the Department of the Navy as an organization, and you as a government servant and you as an individual need to work hard to deserve the public trust, which means you should stand up for what is right, even over the objections and misinformation of your supervisors if need be and over your own personal financial interests and job security. 

We have to realize that the IRS is a federal government agency and you and DFAS are also agencies of the federal government.  There is a clear and perceived conflict of interest here, as far as I can tell that is my duty to point out under the ethics rules identified above.  On the one hand, the Navy needs me to serve, but on the other hand, the very same money I pay in taxes also pays me through the IRS.  The DFAS and DOD undoubtedly would like to cooperate in forcing employees to have and use SSN’s (SOCIALIST SECURITY NUMBERS) because that is what the IRS and the Social Security Administration (their sister agencies) want.  But I’m here to report that I won’t use my SSN and I can’t be forced to provide it to the IRS because it would violate my rights.  SSN’s are un-American and violate my religious and moral beliefs as well (see Rev. 13:16-18 in the Bible).

Finally, if you wish to free yourself of the need to pay federal income taxes and free yourself from slavery to the extortionists at the IRS, I invite you to visit my website at:

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/taxes.htm

Click on “The Great IRS Hoax:  Why We Don’t Owe Income Tax” in the upper left corner and download my book free of charge.  It very thoroughly documents why NO ONE is liable for federal income taxes, and why the law agrees with me.  I’d also encourage you to share what you learn from the book with your fellow officers, coworkers, and family members.

I certify under penalty of perjury within the United States of America that the facts, statements, and claims made in this letter are true, correct, and complete in every respect and accurately represent the law, and the basis for my reasonable belief that both I and my employer have no liability for federal income taxes on individuals like myself and that the only accurate and legal way to report income from my employer is to indicate “zero” on my W-2 tax forms.

 Sincerely,

  

<<NAME>>

All rights reserved, UCC 1-207

 

 ____________________________________________________________________________

STATE OF CALIFORNIA    )

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO  )

 

On __________________________ before me ___________________personally appeared ______________________ personally known to me (proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that he executed same in his authorized capacity, and that by his signature on the instrument the person or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument.

 Witness my hand and official seal.

  

 

Signature of Notary:_______________________________________