This letter is intended to be sent in annually by those who declare themselves to be "nonresident aliens" and "nontaxpayers" with no income from a "trade or business" and who are not involved in withholding so they don't have any money they want back. 

This letter is effective because it:

1.        Emphasizes your condition of being an informed American who won’t take any bull crap.

2.        Establishes your proper filing status  as "non-citizen national" and a nonresident alien (who must use the IRS form 1040NR rather than the 1040).

3.        Establishes the unconstitutional nature of the income tax when applied directly on individuals.

4.        Shifts the burden of proof to the government, who is then obligated to prove liability, instead of you having to prove nonliability.  It does this by:

4.1     Documents your status as a “nontaxpayer”.  Only “taxpayers” have the burden of proof under 26 U.S.C. §7491.

4.2.      Establishes full disclosure of evidence of your nonliability in your official administrative record.

5.        Forces the issues into the legal realm, which rules out the involvement of usually less-informed IRS revenue agents or clerks and instead requires the involvement of tax attorneys and persons more experienced with the law.  This has the effect of improving the qualify of the response you are likely to get from the IRS while also significantly increasing their cost of dealing with you.  IRS attorneys make $110,000/year while clerks cost them $30-40K/year.  This will make you into a “high maintenance citizen” who they will want to avoid, because you will negatively impact their bottom line.

6.        Because of the extensive research it involves, requires escalation to higher levels in the IRS to deal with the issues, and requires disclosure of who was exposed to the issues raised so that these individuals can be implicated in the conspiracy as well.

7.        Encourages full accountability by insisting that all persons involved be identified.  Discourages anonymous or other “threatening and harassing” correspondence from the IRS.

8.        Provides the minimum amount of information possible to the IRS and protects the information you do provide from use as evidence in a criminal prosecution.

9.        Leaves no room for accusations of fraud against you because of your full disclosure, and creates a tremendous burden of proof for them to refute the basis for your belief of nonliability.

10.     By providing a time limit of 45 days, establishes a default presumption of correctness of your claims if they don’t respond, which is a very common occurrence.

11.     Exposes the fraud and corruption by the government that will incentivize IRS revenue agents to defect/resign from the IRS once they learn the truth.  Your administrative file, for instance, will have a copy of this book, and unwitting IRS employees will come across this accidentally and have the fraud exposed to them as well.  This will reduce retention and ultimately the effectiveness of the IRS as an organization because of the training problems it will create for the organization.

12.     Demands an immediate examination hearing if any of the assertions made in the letter are refuted in order to document reasons and hold the revenue officer accountable.

 

WARNING:  Make sure you accompany the Tax Statement with all the enclosures indicated, and especially the 4852 forms.  The 4852 forms are important because they completely nullify the only evidence the IRS has that you had any taxable income at all.  They can be used to nullify both erroneous W-2's and erroneous 1099 forms.  Please DO NOT contact us with any questions or to ask assistance in whether or how to file tax returns.  We positively do not get involved with it.  Our About Us page indicates in section 12, Item 7, that we aren't allowed to get involved with this. A favorite trick of the IRS, especially when they receive a long correspondence like the following, is to conveniently lose all the attachments and just keep the forms, and then to fine you because you filed a frivolous return because there was no explanation of why your tax or income was zero.  We therefore suggest that do the following to prevent this devious trick from being successful: ·      Put the phrase “Page ___ of ____” so it is clear how many pages are there and none are lost. ·      At the top of each enclosure, form, and letter, put the phrase:  “Not valid without the attached letter and all enclosures” ·       Include a total page count and an itemized list of included documents in your Proof of Service by Mail. This prevents unscrupulous tactics by the IRS.

 

---

<<NAME>>
<<ADDRESS>>
<<CITY, STATE, ZIP>>

<<DATE>>

 

 

Internal Revenue Service

United States Department of the Treasury

Philadelphia, PA 19255-0215

Enclosure(s):

(1)     Blank 1040NR-EZ tax form with words “NOT LIABLE” written across it.

(2)     IRS form 4852’s for each of my revenue sources.

(3)     Book entitled The Great IRS Hoax:  Why We Don’t Owe Income Tax provided in electronic CD-ROM form.  The latest copy of this book can also be downloaded from http://famguardian.org/Publications/GreatIRSHoax/GreatIRSHoax.htm.

(4)     Test for Federal Tax Professionals.  These questions clearly establish lack of liability for paying federal income tax and thus help meet the burden of proof imposed upon the government to demonstrate liability.  Also available from http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Forms/TestForTaxProf/TestForFedTaxProfessionals.htm

(5)     IRS form 56:  Notice Concerning Fiduciary Relationship (revoking all fiduciary relationships)

(6)     IRS Deposition Questions CD/DVD, enclosed.  (available from: http://www.sedm.org/cgi-bin/cp-app.cgi?&rrc=N&affl=&act=&aff=&pg=prod&ref=EvidenceCD&cat=Media&catstr=HOME:Media)

Subject:  Tax Statement for Calendar Years ____ to ____

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

SECTION 1:  INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................................................................

SECTION 2:  AFFIDAVIT OF MATERIAL FACTS................................................................................................................................

SECTION 3:  EVIDENCE DEMANDED FROM THE GOVERNMENT TO DEMONSTRATE IRS/GOVERNMENT JURISDICTION.......................................................................................................................................................................................

SECTION 4:  CONTINGENCIES RELATED TO IRS EVASIVENESS TO ADDRESS ALL ISSUES IN THIS LETTER COMPLETELY AND IN THE SEQUENCE PRESENTED.................................................................................................................

SECTION 5. AFFIDAVIT OF RESCISSION OF PAST SIGNATURES...............................................................................................

SECTION 6. REVOCATION OF 26 C.F.R. 1.871-10 ELECTION:.............................................................................................................

SECTION 7:  RENUNCIATION OF “U.S. CITIZEN” STATUS UNDER 8 U.S.C. 1401:...................................................................

SECTION 8:  DURESS APPLIED..............................................................................................................................................................

SECTION 9:  FINAL REQUESTS AND TIMEFRAME FOR RESPONSE...........................................................................................

SECTION 10:  YOUR FIDUCIARY OBLIGATIONS AS A PUBLIC SERVANT HOLDING A PUBLIC TRUST POSITION WITH THE IRS.................................................................................................................................................................................

SECTION 11:  COPYRIGHT LICENSE AGREEMENT...........................................................................................................................

SECTION 12:  PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES AND FUTURE RETURN FILINGS..................................................

SECTION 13:  CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................................................................................

Dear Sir(s),

CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE IF THIS AFFIDAVIT IS NOT PROPERLY REBUTTED WITH A COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF ITS MAILING, ALL PARAGRAPHS NOT DENIED SHALL BE CONFESSED AFFIRMED, BY SUCH DEFAULT, AND SHALL BE ACCEPTED AS DISPOSITIVE, CONCLUSIVE FACTS BY THE DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY-INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, AND/OR STATE TAX AGENCY WHEREIN THE DISTRICT DIRECTOR AND/OR THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OR OTHER PROPERLY DELEGATED AUTHORITY, HAD THE OPPORTUNITY AND “FAILED TO PLEAD.”  ALL COUNTER-AFFIDAVITS MUST BE SIGNED WITH THE VALID LEGAL NAME OF THE RESPONDENT. FICTITIOUS OR INCOMPLETE NAMES OF RESPONDENTS OR THOSE NOT CONTAINING COMPLETE LEGAL FIRST, MIDDLE, AND LAST NAMES AND EMPLOYEE NUMBER AND PHOTOCOPY OF DRIVER’S LICENSE SHALL NOT CONSTITUTE A VALID RESPONSE BECAUSE NOT PROPERLY AUTHENTICATED.

SECTION 1:  INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this correspondence is to provide legally admissible evidence to the IRS that:

1.        Satisfies the requirements of filing a return or statement under 26 U.S.C. §6011(a).  In this case, I choose to submit a statement in lieu of a return, because I do not have any “gross income” or “taxable income”  I am not subject to the IRC, but am providing this documentary evidence to ensure that you aren’t misled into thinking that I am.

2.        I am neither a “citizen” nor a “resident” under the Internal Revenue Code.

3.        I am a “nontaxpayer” and not “liable” for the payment of any funds to the government under the authority of Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue code.

4.        I am outside of the legislative jurisdiction of the Internal Revenue Code.

5.        I do not reside in any Internal Revenue District or United States Judicial district.

6.        I have no obligation to file any form to the Internal Revenue Service in connection with the Internal Revenue Code.

7.        The IRS has no authority to enforce the tax “codes” (not “laws” but “codes”) or adversely affect anyone but elected or appointed officers of the Untied States government who have chosen, using a W-4, to enter into a voluntary employment agreement with the U.S. government.

This Tax Statement Affidavit is submitted to accompany the “1040NR” provided as Enclosure (1) for this calendar year and all future calendar years.  I believe this affidavit is necessary in view of the fact that my tax position is most likely very different from the vast majority of Americans (notice I didn’t say “taxpayers”) with whom you deal.  Consequently, I want to prevent any possibility up front that my situation is misunderstood, misrepresented, or mishandled by your organization.  As a result, the attached enclosures (1) and (2) shall be regarded as invalid and null and void without this letter and all the accompanying enclosures that are attached to it.

I apologize (and please forgive me) for the length of this letter, as I know how severe your workload is and how the staff of the Internal Revenue Service has been cut drastically over the last several years.  However, I feel strongly that this letter must be detailed and specific because of information I have about how your agency has treated other law-abiding Americans and friends of mine in the past, and because of the conclusions of the following Supreme Court case:

"It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error."
[American Communications Association v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382, 442. (1950)]

Throughout this letter, I will make several references to federal law.  If you are a state agency in receipt of this letter, the reason is because federal tax “liability” is a prerequisite to state tax liability in the case of personal income taxes under Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code in nearly every state we have examined.  This letter will also use important words of art like “income”, “gross income”, “employee”, “employer”, “tax”, “trade or business”, “United States”, “State”, etc. based on their common, ordinary definitions.  You are specifically directed not to attribute the meaning of these or any other terms used in this letter with those found in the Internal Revenue Code or state law UNLESS the specific use of the word is surrounded by quotes and the specific code section within the Internal Revenue Code is cited alongside the word in parentheses.

In connection with the satisfaction of the above requirements:

1.        According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the assessment and payment of income taxes is voluntary.

“Our system of taxation is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not distraint [force].” Flora v. U.S.,  362 U.S. 145 (1959)

2.        The implications of the Flora ruling are that I, not you, determine the terms under which I choose to volunteer and if you attempt to penalize, influence, harass, or intimidate me into changing the terms under which I choose to volunteer, then it can no longer be said that that the payment or the assessment of the tax is voluntary.  If assessment or payment of the tax isn’t voluntary, then this Tax Statement Affidavit is compelled and is inadmissible as evidence in a court of law per Weeks v. United States., 232 U.S. 383 (1914), whether the compulsion occurred either before or after the submission of this return.

3.        I have been subjected to illegal duress in the past, when IRS agents attempted illegally to impose penalties against me, a natural person, in violation of the following laws:

3.1.      26 C.F.R. 301.6671-1(b).

3.2.      Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits Bills of Attainder.

3.3.      Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which also prohibits Bills of Attainder.

This illegal duress makes it impossible to do anything “voluntarily” within the context of federal income taxes.  Therefore, even if I wanted to, I could not “voluntarily” submit a return or any other document until such duress is completely eliminated and the IRS has rebutted the evidence of its wrongdoing found in Enclosure (6).

4.        This Tax Statement therefore provides the equivalent constitutes a return and satisfies the requirements to file a return or “statement” mentioned in 26 U.S.C. §6011.

5.        You are not authorized and I do not consent to allowing you to use this Tax Statement Affidavit or any of the information on it for any purpose other than that of establishing that I have no liability to pay any imputed internal revenue tax.  This submission is subject to the terms and conditions of the Copyright License Agreement found later n Section 11.  The extent to which either the copyright or the terms of this document is violated shall be the extent to which this submission becomes involuntary and compelled because of the invasion of privacy that it represents, and in such a case, the facts and statements on it, with the exception of my name and signature, are no longer verified with my signature nor submitted under affidavit or penalty of perjury.  In all cases, however, I request that you keep this Tax Statement Affidavit in your paper only records as proof that I filed “something” so that the statute of limitations clock starts for all criminal and civil issues.  The only thing that has to appear on the return or statement in order to be valid is a signature under penalty of perjury, which this has, in order to be considered a valid filing according to the federal courts.

6.        The attached blank tax return, Enclosure (1), is provided with the words “NOT LIABLE” written across it to establish that I am not a “taxpayer”, that I am a “nontaxpayer”, and that the IRS as the moving party has the burden of demonstrating a liability. 

7.        The IRS does not have my permission to do any of the following without my explicit written and notarized advanced consent, and if it does, I withdraw my consent and withdraw verification of anything on this statement other than my name and signature with an affidavit or penalty of perjury statement.

7.1.      Propose an amended assessment or execute a “Substitute For Return” (SFR), which would be a violation of Internal Revenue Manual section 5.1.11.9.

7.2.      Correct anything appearing on this return.

7.3.      Enter anything appearing on this return into any kind of electronic information system.

7.4.      Share any of the information provided to any agency, person, government organization, or private party who is outside of the IRS and not directly involved in processing this Tax Statement Affidavit.

7.5.      Send me any correspondence demanding money or threatening enforcement actions or criminal prosecution.

8.        If the IRS insists on violating the requirement in item 7 above, they are also advised that under 18 U.S.C. §1589(3), they are involved in slavery by abusing the legal process to harass me, and any IRS agent who involves himself in such extortion shall be billed at a rate of $2,000 per hour for all effort on my part required to respond to and defend myself against such frivolous harassment and illegal terrorism.  The agent who does this therefore agrees to be held personally liable for the balance due, and 18 U.S.C. §1593 requires MANDATORY restitution for such slavery instituting by abusing the legal process.

9.        It is the height of hypocrisy and arrogance on your part for you to be on the one hand illegally soliciting donations and bribery from me under the “color of law” to then either attempt to penalize me illegally in the process or make demands about any aspect of the conditions under which I choose or volunteer to “donate”.  I simply refuse to “donate” if you refuse to let me decide the terms under which I can or will donate.  Compelled charity in that case would not be charity at all, but slavery disguised as charity.  Slavery is illegal under the Thirteenth Amendment.

10.     This Tax Statement Affidavit also constitutes a Petition for Redress of Grievances protected under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.  The right to petition for redress CANNOT be penalized, taxed, controlled, or regulated in any way by the government because it is a right and not a privilege.  You cannot penalize me for exercising this constitutional right.

11.     You are therefore not authorized by law to penalize me for submitting this Tax Statement because:

11.1.   Of the constitutional constraint against Bills of Attainder found in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3   and Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution

11.2.   The definition of the term “person” in the context of the penalty regulations found in 26 C.F.R. 301.6671-1(b), which means only an employee of a corporation, and which I am not.  If you choose to try to illegally impose any penalties on this conditional assessment, then I demand evidence that I am an “employee of a corporation” as defined there.  If you penalize me in disregard of my due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, then you will be prosecuted under 26 U.S.C. §7433for wrongful collection actions and also under the Constitution for violation of my inalienable Constitutional rights.  I shall pursue a writ of mandamus to have my property returned and have you FIRED for malfeasance, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty.

11.3.   You would be compelling me under unlawful duress to commit fraud and make false statements on future filings in order to appease your illegal, irrational, and extortionary demands.

SECTION 2:  AFFIDAVIT OF MATERIAL FACTS

First of all, I wish to briefly summarize my tax position relative to this letter and the attached enclosures.  The list below represents, in decreasing order of importance, the claims, facts, laws, and circumstances relevant to this Tax Statement Affidavit.  You are requested to resolve all lower numbered items in this section FIRST before you bring up any subsequent higher numbered issues.  For instance, you would be violating my intentions if you were to refute my claim that my earnings are not classified as " wages" found in item 13 without FIRST addressing EVERY item above it in the range 1 through 12.  This will prevent negligent and unethical approach of the IRS of choosing the easiest argument and not addressing any of the previous lower-numbered arguments or any arguments at all beyond that one simple argument.  That is also why the claims made that are easiest for you to refute are at the end of the list in this section.

1.        Substitute W-2’s, IRS form 4852, for my private employer are provided with the return and the amount of tax paid I agree under penalty of perjury is accurate, as is the payee.  All other information appearing on the original and fraudulent W-2’s is incorrect and hearsay evidence and I DO NOT attest to the accuracy of anything else on these forms.  Any other reports of “income” or “wages” provided to you by banks or employers on forms W-2 and 1099 and associated with the SSN attached to my name are hereby declared and presumed to be incorrect, fraudulent, and may not be relied upon as a basis for good faith belief, because they:

1.1.      Are provided by a party who, as far as I understand, has not signed and submitted the IRS form 2678 in order to be classified as a federal “withholding agent” as legally defined, and even if he had, the Secretary of the Treasury has no delegated authority to make a private employer that is not already part of the federal government into a “withholding agent” as defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(16), and especially if he does not reside on federal territory.

1.2.      Are not signed

1.3.      Are not submitted under penalty of perjury.

1.4.      Are hearsay evidence.

1.5.      Are only lawfully required in the case of “employees” under Subtitle C of the Internal Revenue Code (see 26 U.S.C. §3401(c )), which I just declared under penalty of perjury in the previous item I am not.

1.6.      Are a violation of the Privacy Act, because when private employers illegally volunteer to act as agents of the federal government under the color of law, they are also bound to comply with other laws relating to federal agencies, including the Privacy Act.  They in effect become a voluntary federal agency under the color of law in processing federal forms.  The Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. §552a  says that agencies may not provide Privacy Act information to other federal agencies unless authorized by the employee and as required by law in the performance of their lawful functions.  Because they are not located on federal property and federal criminal statutes under 18 USC and civil statues under 26 U.S.C. do not apply outside of federal property, then they have no jurisdiction as federal agents or “federal police” to be involved in any kind of “police power” enforcement activity related to tax collection.

1.7.      In accordance with 26 C.F.R. §31.3401(a)-3(a), may only indicate a nonzero amount for “Wages, tips, and other compensation” in block 2 if I have a voluntarily executed withholding agreement in place, which certainly has never been true in my case.  All monies withheld from my check have been involuntarily withheld and over my protestations, and amidst discrimination, verbal abuse, and coercion by my private employer for doing so.  Therefore, the requirement found in 26 C.F.R. §31.3401(a)-3(a) that there be a “voluntary withholding agreement” in place guarantees that monies I earned cannot property be called “wages”, and therefore are not subject to tax.

“Every man has a natural right to the fruits of his own labor, is generally admitted; and no other person can rightfully deprive him of those fruits, and appropriate them against his will…”  [The Antelope, 23 U.S. 66; 10 Wheat 66; 6 L.Ed. 268 (1825)]

These financial forms therefore create false presumptions on your part about me that are completely incorrect, unauthorized by law, and which I never consented or authorized my bank voluntarily to provide to you or about me.

2.        Identifying Number(s) :

2.1.      The identifying number appearing on your correspondence to date is NOT MY number and should be removed entirely from your records because it is in error.  The wrong number you have been using is:

Number: _____________________

2.2.      The number appearing on your correspondence and records is not a “Taxpayer Identification Number”.  Only aliens are authorized to obtain TIN’s and I am not an alien.  Therefore, I cannot be a “taxpayer”.

26 C.F.R. §301.6109-1(d)(3)

(3) IRS individual taxpayer identification number -- (i) Definition. The term IRS individual taxpayer identification number means a taxpayer identifying number issued to an alien individual by the Internal Revenue Service, upon application, for use in connection with filing requirements under this title. The term IRS individual taxpayer identification number does not refer to a social security number or an account number for use in employment for wages. For purposes of this section, the term alien individual means an individual who is not a citizen or national of the United States.

2.3.      Under your regulations, you are not authorized to use anything but a Taxpayer Identification Number to identify those filing returns.  If you dispute this, please identify a regulation authorizing you to use Social Security Numbers as a Substitute for Taxpayer Identification Numbers.  Under 1 C.F.R. 21.21(c ), the IRS is not authorized to use the numbers or regulations of any other agency in its own operations, including the Social Security Administration.

3.        Because I claim that all monies or revenues I earned other than the one cent appearing on my return are NOT “gross income”, then for those monies, I am classified as a “nontaxpayer” and therefore DO NOT have any kind of burden of proving that they are nontaxable under 26 U.S.C. §7491 . 

3.1.      The U.S. Congress, in their pamphlet entitled “Frequently Asked Questions About the Federal Income Tax”, published as Congressional Research Service report 97-59A, available from:  http://famguardian.org/PublishedAuthors/Govt/CRS/CRS-97-59A.pdf
indicated in item 2 entitled “Is the Federal Income Tax a Direct or Indirect Tax” that Subtitle A federal income taxes are indirect taxes, which means that they are only mandatory enforced taxes when applied toward corporations involved in specific excise taxable activities.

3.2.      The status of “taxpayer” is therefore always relative to the specific taxable source of income and excise taxable activities involved.  All sources of “income” for which a specific statute and implementing regulation together make the “person” liable must be included in “gross income“.

3.3.      By way of example, I am a “nontaxpayer” for the distilled spirits tax found in section 5081 of the Internal Revenue Code because I am not involved in the taxable activity of producing liquor within the federal United States.

3.4.      Instead, the burden of proving that any monies listed on any W-2 or 1099 forms you may have received about me are “taxable income” or “gross income” and of demonstrating that they were derived from a specific excise taxable activity rests squarely and exclusively on you and only you.  Respect for my due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments demands that you and not me satisfy the burden of proving that these monies qualify as “taxable income” or “gross income”.  Any “presumptions” you might want to make to the contrary about this are hereby refuted and I demand evidence of both the law and the facts that validate any such false presumption.  Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 500, confirms that “presumption” is a violation of due process:

Due process of law.  Law in its regular course of administration through courts of justice.  Due process of law in each particular case means such an exercise of the powers of the government as the settled maxims of law permit and sanction, and under such safeguards for the protection of individual rights as those maxims prescribe for the class of cases to which the one in question belongs. ….Due process of law implies the right of the person affected thereby to be present before the tribunal which pronounces judgment upon the question of life, liberty, or property, in its most comprehensive sense; to be heard, by testimony or otherwise, and to have the right of controverting, by proof, every material fact which bears on the question of right in the matter involved.  If any question of fact or liability be conclusively be presumed [rather than proven] against him, this is not due process of law.

3.5.      Note above that due process requires “administration through courts of justice”.  You can’t lawfully take my property without a court hearing.

3.6.      Title 28 of the U.S. Code, section 2201 says that the federal courts may not make any declaratory rulings regarding rights or status in the context of federal income taxes.  The implication is that if I say I am a “nontaxpayer” and if I say I am a “nonresident alien”, then they have to take my word for it and cannot change that status:

United States Code

TITLE 28 - JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE

PART VI - PARTICULAR PROCEEDINGS

CHAPTER 151 - DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS

Sec. 2201. Creation of remedy

(a) In a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction, except with respect to Federal taxes other than actions brought under section 7428 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 , a proceeding under section 505 or 1146 of title 11, or in any civil action involving an antidumping or countervailing duty proceeding regarding a class or kind of merchandise of a free trade area country (as defined in section 516A(f)(10) of the Tariff Act of 1930), as determined by the administering authority, any court of the United States, upon the filing of an appropriate pleading, may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be sought. Any such declaration shall have the force and effect of a final judgment or decree and shall be reviewable as such.

(b) For limitations on actions brought with respect to drug patents see section 505 or 512 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

3.7.      The federal courts themselves have also said that not only they, but the IRS as well, do not have the authority to classify me as a “taxpayer” when I claim to be a “nontaxpayer” for specific activities and the earnings that result from them.  Therefore, do not attempt to involuntarily reclassify me as a “taxpayer” because you have NO AUTHORITY to do so:

"And by statutory definition the term "taxpayer" includes any person, trust or estate subject to a tax imposed by the revenue act. ...Since the statutory definition of taxpayer is exclusive, the federal [and state] courts do not have the power to create nonstatutory taxpayers for the purpose of applying the provisions of the Revenue Acts..."  [C.I.R. v. Trustees of L. Inv. Ass'n., 100 F.2d.18 (1939)]

__________________________________________________________________

"A reasonable construction of the taxing statutes does not include vesting any tax official with absolute power of assessment against individuals not specified in the statutes as a person liable for the tax without an opportunity for judicial review of this status before the appellation of 'taxpayer' is bestowed upon them and their property is seized..." [Botta v. Scanlon, 288 F.2d. 504, 508 (1961)]

__________________________________________________________________

"The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law. With them Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of the revenue laws..."

"The distinction between persons and things within the scope of the revenue laws and those without is vital." Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236 http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Authorities/Circuit/LongvRasmussen281F236.pdf@ 238(1922).

3.8.      I emphasize the phrase above in Botta “a reasonable construction of the taxing statutes does not include vesting any tax official with absolute power of assessment against individuals not specified in the statutes as a person liable for the tax”.  I also wish to emphasize that you have not: 1.  Provided evidence in the form of a statute or an implementing regulation showing I am liable; 2.  Provided evidence that I am involved in an excise taxable activity; 3.  Provided evidence that I am the type of “individual” subject to levy and distraint as shown in 26 U.S.C. §6331(a), which is an elected or appointed officer of the U.S. government only; 4.  Provided evidence to support your assertion that I am a “taxpayer” for any earnings I might have other than the one cent of earnings represented on my return.  The best you can likely do is “presume” that I am liable, but due process of law requires you to prove it with evidence and to do so only in a court of law and nowhere else, because I certainly don’t consent to any interpretation other than what is clearly documented here.

4.        Pursuant to Internal Revenue Manual section 5.1.11.9, you are NOT AUTHORIZED to prepare an amended or Substitute For Return (SFR) changing the “gross income” defined on my forms 1040X or 1040NR.  Substitute For Returns are only proposed assessments, but not actual legal assessments.  The GAO audit of the IRS in November 1999 documented in GAO report number GAO/GGD-00-60R entitled “Substitute for Returns Program” available on the website at:

http://famguardian.org/PublishedAuthors/Govt/GAO/GAO-GGD-00-60R-SFR.pdf

quotes employees of the IRS officially stating, and I quote:

“In its response to this letter, IRS official indicated that they do not generally prepare actual tax returns.  Instead, they said IRS prepares substitute documents that propose assessments.  Although IRS and legislation refer to this as the substitute for return program, these officials said that the document does not look like an actual tax return.” [Report, page 1]

5.        Definition of the term “United States”:

5.1.      According to the supreme Court.  In the case of Hooven and Allison v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652, (1945), the U.S. supreme Court ruled that there are three definitions of the term “United States”:

5.1.1.           “...either as the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations, or [referred to in this document as U.S.*]

5.1.2.           “...as designating the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States (Federal government) extends” or [referred to in this document as U.S.**]

5.1.3.           “...as the collective name for the states which are united by and under the Constitution.” [referred to in this document as U.S.***]

5.2.      According to the Internal Revenue Code.  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 listed in U.S.C. Title 48, and NOT to the 50 states of the Union.  Pursuant to established rules of statutory construction, the plural of a word may not have a different meaning than the singular version of the word.  This conclusion is clearly explained (much more clearly than in even the statutes themselves) in section 5.2.7 “The definition of the word ‘state’, key to unlocking Congress’ ruse and the limited application of the Internal Revenue Code” of enclosure (5).  Therefore, the term “United States**” as used in the Internal Revenue Code has the second meaning defined in Hooven & Allison v. Evatt above and the Internal Revenue Code DOES NOT apply to me, as it has jurisdiction only within the District of Columbia and other “federal possessions”, hereafter referred to as the “federal zone”.  There is simply no statutory authority or jurisdiction delegated to the IRS to enforce the IRC on lands within the 50 states of the union not ceded to the federal government or upon Americans living in those lands.  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, which prohibit direct taxes on individuals without apportionment among the states.  Direct taxes can therefore only lawfully apply within those areas coming under exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Congress under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution, which means the federal zone only.  See the DEFINITIONS section at the beginning of Enclosure (5), the Great IRS Hoax book, under the definition of “State” for further clarification on the important distinctions in the definition of “State”.

5.3.      For further extremely detailed research and justification for the above definition of “United States” as the federal zone, refer to section 5.2.6 of Encl (5).  Failure by you to rebut all of the findings and conclusions in that section, point by point, shall constitute an admission of their validity.

6.       My Citizenship and Domicile status:

6.1.      I am a national of ______________(statename) Republic and of the United States.  I was born in ____________________ on ____________.  I have been domiciled at my current address, indicated in my tax return, for almost ___ years.  This address is: _______________________.  The fact of my residence at this address for that period as reflected in my administrative record over the last ____ years constitutes prima facie evidence that I am a sovereign Citizen of the united States of America NOT subject to direct taxation by the federal government as per section 5.6 of enclosure (5) and Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution.

6.2.      I am a “non-citizen National” of the united States of America (also called U.S.* or U.S.***), and not a “citizen of the United States” (U.S.**), since I was not born or naturalized in the “federal zone”, which includes the District of Columbia or federal territories or possessions.  Refer to sections 4.11 thru 4.11.9 inclusive of enclosure (5) for further details on this distinction.  In the immigration and naturalization codes, I am referred to as a “U.S. National” rather than a “U.S. citizen” as described in 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(21) through 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22) and 8 U.S.C. §1408.

6.3.      For the purposes of your records and as required by IRS publication 54, page 6 for the year 2000, I am a nonresident alien of the “United States”, since I do not live in the District of Columbia (the seat of the federal government) or any other part of the “federal zone” to include U.S. territories or possessions:

6.3.1.           For an explanation of the meaning of the term “federal zone”, refer to enclosure (5), section 4.8.

6.3.2.           The state I live in, being ________________, is a community property state and I receive no taxable income from any properties in that state.

6.3.3.           I do not have income above the minimum amounts found in publication 54, which is why I am submitting this Tax Statement Affidavit, in order to recover taxes on any amounts paid and still meet the reporting requirements for my nontaxable income.

6.3.4.           The union state in which I live fully satisfies the meaning of “foreign country” identified in IRS Publication 54 on page 12 of the year 2000 version.  Also, the definition of “foreign country” found in said publication does not  expressly exclude the 50 states of the United States of America.  This fact is completely explained and justified in section 5.2.12 of Enclosure (5) and elsewhere in section 5.2.

6.4.      Below is the ONLY definition of the term “U.S. citizen” found anywhere in the Treasury Regulations or the U.S. Code:

26 C.F.R. 31.3121(e) State, United States, and citizen.

(b)…The term 'citizen of the United States' includes a citizen of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands, and, effective January 1, 1961, a citizen of Guam or American Samoa.

Based on the above definition, I cannot be a “citizen of the United States”.  The only thing I can be therefore is a nonresident alien.  Refer to section 10.1.20 of Encl. (5) if you are going to try to play games with the word “includes” in the above definition in a futile effort to illegally expand the definition of “citizen of United States” beyond the clear language above.  Please respond to this section and rebut every statement in that section in your response to this correspondence or you shall be presumed to agree with its findings.  Such an attempt would be a violation of due process, a violation of the Sixth Amendment, and a violation of the “void for vagueness” doctrine described in U.S. v. De Cadena, 105 F.Supp. 202, 204 (1952).

6.5.      “U.S. citizenship” renunciation status:

6.5.1.           I have already modified my voter registration to reflect the fact that I have renounced my U.S.** citizenship but retain my state Citizenship and “U.S. national” status.  Notarized evidence of this is available upon request.

6.5.2.           I have already voluntarily and absent duress renounced U.S.** citizenship and noticed the Secretary of State and the Attorney General as required by 8 U.S.C. §1481(a)(6), thus removing U.S. jurisdiction resulting from U.S.** citizenship.  Notarized evidence of this is available upon request.

6.5.3.           I have requested a Revocation of Election to treat Real property as effectively connected with a trade or business in the United States as required by 26 C.F.R. 1.871-10, thus removing U.S. jurisdiction resulting from U.S.** citizenship.  Notarized evidence of this is available upon request.

6.5.4.           The presumptions established in 26 U.S.C. §877(a)(2) do not apply because I am still a “non-citizen U.S. National” as identified in 8 U.S.C. §1452.  Furthermore, 26 U.S.C. §877 does not apply to me because it only relates to persons domiciled in the “United States”, which I am not.  Presumptions of tax avoidance appearing there also violate due process according to Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, under the definition of “due process” on page 500:

“If any question of fact or liability be conclusively presumed against him, this is not due process.”

6.6.      I am not a “resident” of the “United States” defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) because I am not an “alien”.  The only definition of “resident” found in 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(A) describes “resident aliens”.  Therefore “resident”, “alien”, and “resident alien” are all synonymous terms in the Internal Revenue Code.  Under 26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1(c)(3), “aliens” and “nonresident aliens” are mutually exclusive classes so I therefore can’t be an “alien” or a “resident” and at the same time also be a “nonresident alien”.  See section 4.10 of Enclosure (3) for further explanation.

6.7.      State and federal taxing jurisdictions are territorially mutually exclusive and foreign to each other, and both the state and federal jurisdictions have their own citizens, privileges, and immunities.  It is a physical and legal impossibility for me to be domiciled in such a way that I am a resident of both territorial jurisdictions or subject to tax in both jurisdictions simultaneously without committing perjury in the process of claiming that my income is “effectively connected with a trade or business in the United States” as a sovereign National of ________(statename) living in nonfederal areas of ________(statename).

"It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of a state, which are distinct from each other and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances of the individual. Of the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States and of the privileges and immunities of the citizen of the state, and what they respectfully are, we will presently consider; but we wish to state here that it is only the former which are placed by this clause under the protection of the Federal Constitution, and the latter, whatever they may be, are not intended to have any additional protection by this paragraph of the amendment." Slaughterhouse Cases,  16 Wall. 36, 71.

"Both before and after the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution, it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the United States in order to be a citizen of his state." Citing U.S. v. Cruikshank,  92 US 542, 549 (1875)

This explains why I can be a resident of one and a nonresident alien of the other as explained in section 5 below, where I define “United States”, “foreign”, “foreign government”, “state”, etc.  You will also note that one does not lose one’s constitutional rights by virtue of not being a 14^th Amendment federal citizen.  One can apparently lose their “privileges and immunities”, but NOT their constitutional rights, because rights constrain the actions of government and are not incident to citizenship.

6.8.      For your benefit, let me summarize the findings and legal research in this section for the purpose of ________(statename) personal income tax found in R&TC §17001-18776 and federal income tax found in 26 U.S.C./IRC.  A nonfederal area is anything outside of “State” as defined in R&TC section 17018:

Table  1: Federal and state income tax filing status by residency.

Location of domicile/physical residence but not workplace	California Residency Status	California Personal Income Filing status and correct form(s) to file	United States (federal territories) residency status (see 26 U.S.C. §7701 definition of “United States”)	Federal income  tax filing status and correct form(s) to file	U.S.(the country) citizenship
Nonfederal areas of California	Resident	File FTB 540 for refunds of any state taxes erroneously withheld (see FTB form 590, which states residents don’t have to withhold)	Nonresident	File IRS form 1040.	Citizen
				File IRS form 1040NR.	Alien
Nonfederal areas of other States	Nonresident	File FTB form 540NR	Nonresident	File IRS form 1040.	Citizen
				File IRS form 1040NR.	Alien
Federal areas inside California	Nonresident	File FTB 540.	Resident	File IRS form 1040. and include only federal source income but not income from nonfederal parts of California.	Citizen
				Liable for federal source income identified in 26 C.F.R. 1.861-8. File IRS form 1040NR and put only federal source income.	Alien
Outside of United States of America (the country and not the federal areas)	Nonresident	File 540NR if California source income and choose to volunteer	Nonresident	File IRS form 2555 for income from “foreign countries” and 1040 for income from federal territories identified in 26 C.F.R. 1.861-8.	Citizen
				File IRS form 1040NR for taxes erroneously withheld.	Alien

NOTES:

1.        You can read the California Revenue and Taxation Code (R&TC) for yourself on the web at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?codesection=rtc&codebody=&hits=20

Why don’t the state a federal income tax publications reflect the above considerations?  We can only assume that it is because the FTB wants to simplify these publications and because it wants to maximize revenues from income taxation.

7.       No U.S. Government Jurisdiction to assess or collect I.R.C. Subtitle A federal income taxes:

7.1.      Pursuant to 26 U.S.C. Section 6020(b), the IRS has no authority to either assess or impose Subtitles A through C income taxes upon natural persons such as myself.  Pursuant to 26 C.F.R. § 1.6151, only I, as the sovereign, can do a self-assessment and make myself responsible to pay a tax by indicating a liability on a return.  No one but me can make me liable for the income tax.  You are demanded to provide evidence of your delegated authority to do otherwise with delegation orders for each person in the chain of command between he and you.   Furthermore, even if you had such delegated authority, you must first provide to me a Treasury regulation and statute within 26 U.S.C. making me liable for any tax you claim I owe, and a copy of your Delegation Order authorizing you to sign either a form 23C Assessment of a tax return form.  I contend that no one has such authority at the IRS for Subtitle A and C income taxes imposed upon other than federal corporations or upon natural persons.  Below is your place to record the relevant statutes and regulations:

7.1.1.           26 U.S.C. Statute(s):_________________________

7.1.2.           26 C.F.R. Regulation(s):_________________________

7.2.      As a national of ___________________(statename) living on land that was NOT ceded by my state to the to the federal government, I am not subject to the territorial jurisdiction of your U.S. government agency, which is defined in Article 1, §8, Clause 17 of the Constitution of the United States, nor have I been for tax reporting periods mentioned in this Tax Statement Affidavit.

7.3.      I am not subject to in personam jurisdiction of the U.S. Government because:

7.3.1.           I have amended my citizenship and have extensive proof of this.  I have thereby eliminated any presumed 8 U.S.C. §1401 citizenship, as indicated in Section 7.

7.3.2.           I am not a federally chartered corporation with “income” as defined in the Internal Revenue Code.

7.3.3.           I am not engaged in a “trade or business in the United States**” as defined in 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7701(a)(26):

26 U.S.C. Sec. 7701(a)(26) Trade or business

The term ''trade or business'' includes the performance of the functions of a public office.

7.3.4.           I am not in receipt of any government privileges or immunities that would make me subject to any internal revenue taxes or laws:

7.3.4.1.      I am not involved in foreign trade or commerce as described in 26 C.F.R. 1.861-8(f)) of the Constitution, Art. 1, Section 8, Clause 3.

7.3.4.2.      I am not an “employee” of the U.S. government as defined below who is subject to tax:

8 Federal Register, Tuesday, September 7, 1943, §404.104, pg. 12267

26 C.F.R. §31.3401(c ) Employee: "...the term [employee] includes officers and employees, whether elected or appointed, of the United States, a [federal] State, Territory, Puerto Rico 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."

7.3.4.3.      I do NOT hold elected or appointed political or public office with the United States Government and never have.

7.4.      Since I am not living abroad or in a foreign jurisdiction outside the United States*, but inside one of the 50 union states on nonfederal property, the U.S. government has no jurisdiction to tax me on nonexistent foreign income as described in United States v. Bennett, 232 U.S. 299, 307 (1914).

7.5.      Because a presumption is established that a person is a “U.S. citizen” if they possess a social security number under 26 C.F.R. §301.6109-1(g), I have already submitted a revised SS-5 refuting that presumption by claiming other than U.S.** citizenship, so that once again, the U.S. government lacks jurisdiction over me as a private citizen to impose income taxes.

7.6.      I hereby challenge the jurisdiction of the federal government in this case, and assert that it has neither territorial or in personam or subject matter jurisdiction over me as a natural born citizen and a “non-citizen U.S. national” in this case.

7.6.1.           Title 5 of the U.S. Codes §556(d) states, as follows: “When jurisdiction is challenged the burden of proof is on the government”. 

"When a judge knows that he lacks jurisdiction, or acts in the face of clearly valid statutes expressly depriving him of jurisdiction, judicial immunity is lost."
Rankin v. Howard, (1980) 633 F.2d 844, cert. den. Zeller v. Rankin, 101 S.Ct. 2020, 451 U.S. 939, 68 L.Ed 2d 326.

"A judge must be acting within his jurisdiction as to subject matter and person, to be entitled to immunity from civil action for his acts."
Davis v. Burris, 51 Ariz. 220, 75 P.2d 689 (1938).

"When a judicial officer acts entirely without jurisdiction or without compliance with jurisdiction requisites he may be held civilly liable for abuse of process even though his act involved a decision made in good faith, that he had jurisdiction." 
Little v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 217 Miss. 576, 64 So. 2d 697.

"No judicial process, whatever form it may assume, can have any lawful authority outside of the limits of the jurisdiction of the court or judge by whom it is issued; and an attempt to enforce it beyond these boundaries is nothing less than lawless violence."
Ableman v. Booth, 21 Howard 506 (1859).

“We (judges) have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given.  The one or the other would be treason to the Constitution." 
Cohen v. Virginia, (1821), 6 Wheat. 264 and U.S. v. Will, 499 U.S. 200.

7.6.2.           The following federal cases substantiate the shifting of burden of proof to the government when jurisdiction is challenged by the accused:

McNutt v. G.M.. 56 S.Ct. 789, 80 L.Ed. 1135

Griffin v. Matthews, 310 Supp. 341, 425, F.2d 272

Basso v. U.P.L., 495 F.2d 906

Thomson v. Gaskiel, 62 S.Ct. 673, 83 L.Ed. 111

8.        Relevant rights arising from state only citizenship:  As a sovereign National of ________________(statename), I have constitutionally protected rights.  These rights derive NOT from my citizenship status or from the government, but from my CREATOR as described in the Declaration of Independence. 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Among these rights being:

8.1.      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 also includes my right to NOT communicate with the government if I so choose without risking or jeopardizing my other rights.  See section 3.10.8.1 of enclosure (5) for further details.

8.2.      The Fourth Amendment right to privacy and the security of my papers and personal effects, as documented in section 3.10.8.2 of enclosure (5).  The implications of this are that I should not be compelled by the government to provide more information than is required to accurately and completely assess the amount of any tax that you might allege that I am liable for.  This correspondence and the enclosures, it is believed, provide a more than adequate amount of detail with which to determine that in fact, I am “liable” for NO federal taxes on any of my income, either for this tax years or for the previous two tax years.

8.3.      The Fifth Amendment right of not being compelled to incriminate myself (by being compelled to file a tax return against my will containing more information than is required to asses my tax liability) or be deprived of property without due process of law (a court hearing and a judgment, and hopefully also a trial by jury).  See section 3.10.8.3 of enclosure (5) for further details.

9.    Liability for tax:

9.1.      While it is true that 26 U.S.C. §7491 imposes the burden of proof upon the “taxpayer” to prove nonliability, one must FIRST be a “taxpayer” for the specific earnings in question, which means that you must first show me the statue in the Internal Revenue Code that makes me, a natural person not residing in the “United States”, who is not a “U.S. citizen” and instead is a “non-citizen U.S. national” and a “nonresident alien”, who reserves ALL of his fundamental constitutional rights, LIABLE for the income tax “imposed” in section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code.  Otherwise, I am presumed “innocent until proven guilty” under our system of jurisprudence and a “nontaxpayer” until the burden of proof to the contrary is satisfied in its entirety by you.  Any “presumption” on your part to the contrary is a violation of my due process rights under the Constitution.  Since I have a letter from a Congressman on Congressional stationary plainly stating that there is no such statute, then you won’t be able to prove liability and therefore won’t be able to prove that I am a “taxpayer”.  Furthermore, although 26 C.F.R. 1.1-1 appears to create a liability, the scope of regulations CANNOT exceed the scope of the statute they implement in 26 U.S.C. §1, which does not reflect a liability:

"Liability for taxation must clearly appear from statute imposing tax." Higley v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 69 F.2d 160 (1934)

" `Tax' is legal imposition, exclusively of statutory origin, and liability to taxation must be read in statute, or it does not exist." Bente v. Bugbee, 137 A. 552; 103 N.J. Law. 608 (1927)

Merely "imposing" a tax does not establish liability to pay the tax. "Liability for taxation must clearly appear from statute imposing tax." Higley v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 69 F.2d 160 (1934)

" `Tax' is legal imposition, exclusively of statutory origin, and liability to taxation must be read in statute, or it does not exist." Bente v. Bugbee, 137 A. 552; 103 N.J. Law. 608 (1927)

"The taxpayer must be liable for the tax. Tax liability is a condition precedent to the demand. Merely demanding payment, even repeatedly, does not cause liability."  Bothke v. Terry, 713 F.2d 1405, at 1414 (1983)

Therefore, any amount I indicate on my tax return as a natural person as “gross income” is nothing more than a method of making a “donation” to the federal government and cannot be classified as a “tax” without committing fraud.  As a matter of fact, it is FRAUD on the part of the IRS and the government to even call the “income tax” a “tax” in my case because nowhere in the Constitution is such as “tax” even authorized.  Without the specific authority of the Constitution, whatever you may do or propose to do under the “color of law”, including collecting a “voluntary” donation, is null, void, and unenforceable ab initio.

“We start with first principles. The Constitution creates a Federal Government of enumerated powers. See U.S. Const., Art. I, 8. As James Madison XE "FOUNDING FATHERS:Madison, James"  wrote, "[t]he powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." The Federalist No. 45, pp. 292-293 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961). This constitutionally mandated division of authority "was adopted by the Framers to ensure protection of our fundamental liberties." Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 458 (1991) (internal quotation marks omitted). "Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the Federal Government serves to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front." Ibid. “  [U.S. v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995)]

Show me where your power to tax internal to states of the union, outside of federal enclaves and upon natural persons is specifically enumerated in the Constitution, because it didn’t come from the Constitution and it didn’t come from the Sixteenth Amendment,

“…the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress XE "U.S. GOVERNMENT:Congress"  from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation [on corporations and businesses rather than individuals] to which it inherently belonged, and being placed in the category of direct taxation."  [Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, 112-13, 36 S.Ct. 278 (1916)]

As a matter of fact, before the Sixteenth Amendment, the case of Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan and Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429, 158 U.S. 601 (1895)  ruled that direct income taxes on biological people like me are unconstitutional, so what change in the constitution since that case in 1895 other than the Sixteenth Amendment modified that?  As the Supreme Court said in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803):

“The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men.  It will certainly cease to deserve that high appellation, if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right.”  Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137; 1 Cranch 137, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803)

9.2.      So where is not only the Constitutional authority for what you are doing, but also please provide the following as evidence of your personal authority:

9.2.1.           Your Delegation order.

9.2.2.           A copy of your Pocket Commission under IRM section 1.16.4 pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. §552.

9.2.3.           The source of your authority to exercise the equivalent of “police powers” as a federal agency within the borders of the sovereign union states.  The Supreme Court has ruled hundreds of times that the federal government has no police powers inside the borders of the states of the Union, and that is where I am writing to you from.  The act of collecting IRC Subtitle A taxes is a police power as clearly shown in Federalist Paper #45, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution, and Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution.  Here is the definition of “police power” from Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1156:

Police power. An authority conferred by the American constitutional system in the Tenth Amendment, U.S. Const., upon the individual states, and, in turn, delegated to local governments, through which they are enabled to establish a special department of police; adopt such laws and regulations as tend to prevent the commission of fraud and crime, and secure generally the comfort, safety, morals, health, and prosperity of the citizens by preserving the public order, preventing a conflict of rights in the common intercourse of the citizens, and insuring to each an uninterrupted enjoyment of all the privileges conferred upon him or her by the general laws.

The power of the State to place restraints on the personal freedom and property rights of persons for the protection of the public safety, health, and morals or the promotion of the public convenience and general prosperity.  The police power is subject to limitations of the federal and State constitutions, and especially to the requirement of due process.  Police power is the exercise of the sovereign right of a government to promote order, safety, security, health, morals and general welfare within constitutional limits and is an essential attribute of government.  Marshall v. Kansas City, Mo., 355 S.W.2d 877, 883 .

9.3.      Based on the extensive documentation provided in this Tax Statement Affidavit, the IRS has the burden of proof in showing that the statements made in this letter are not indeed fact.  Otherwise, whatever isn’t explicitly and individually refuted with facts and evidence stands as truth:

TITLE 5 - GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND EMPLOYEES

PART I - THE AGENCIES GENERALLY

CHAPTER 5 - ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE

SUBCHAPTER II - ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE

Sec. 556. Hearings; presiding employees; powers and duties; burden of proof; evidence; record as basis of decision

(d) Except as otherwise provided by statute, the proponent of a rule or order has the burden of proof. Any oral or documentary evidence may be received, but the agency as a matter of policy shall provide for the exclusion of irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious evidence. A sanction may not be imposed or rule or order issued except on consideration of the whole record or those parts thereof cited by a party and supported by and in accordance with the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence. The agency may, to the extent consistent with the interests of justice and the policy of the underlying statutes administered by the agency, consider a violation of section 557(d) of this title sufficient grounds for a decision adverse to a party who has knowingly committed such violation or knowingly caused such violation to occur. A party is entitled to present his case or defense by oral or documentary evidence, to submit rebuttal evidence, and to conduct such cross-examination as may be required for a full and true disclosure of the facts. …

9.4.      In preparing this Tax Statement Affidavit, I have NOT relied upon any of the IRS Publications, forms,  or the Internal Revenue Manual (available at the post office and on your website) because, as explained in section 3.18 of enclosure (5), the Federal Courts have ruled that these publications of the “Service” cannot be relied upon as having “the force of law” and are only directory in nature and not binding directly upon me as an American outside of your territorial and subject matter jurisdiction in this case.  The ONLY thing that is binding upon me as a sovereign National of the ______________(statename) are the U.S. Constitution, and these legal authorities have been carefully been referenced throughout this letter.

9.5.   The only section in all of Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code that makes any entity liable to pay a tax on income is Internal Revenue Code (IRC) section 1461 which states:

"Every person required to deduct and withhold any tax under this chapter is hereby made liable for such tax...".

And who is this "any person" that Congress made liable to "deduct" and "withhold"?  IRC section 7701(a)(16) defines this  person as the "withholding agent", who is"

"..required to deduct and withhold any tax under the provisions and sections 1441, 1442, and 1443."

So one looks up those three code sections and sees that code section 1441 applies to nonresident aliens, code section 1442 applies to foreign corporations, and code section 1443 applies to certain foreign tax-exempt organizations under IRC 1443.  The astonishing truth is that subtitle A imposes the liability for the payment of "income" taxes on earnings of foreigners and of U.S. Citizens working in a foreign country that has a current tax treaty with the United States and earning over the $78,000 annual exclusion.

The Supreme Court in their 1924 decision Cook v. Tait ruled that Congress has the power to tax the income received by a native citizen of the United States domiciled abroad from property situated abroad and that the constitutional prohibition of unapportioned direct taxes within the states of the union does not apply in foreign countries.

9.6.   There is no code section in all of Subtitles A or C, or anywhere else in the entire Internal Revenue Code for that matter, that makes the U.S. Citizen or nonresident alien earning his or her living exclusively within the States of the Union liable for a tax on his or her own income.  Period  It simply doesn't exist! 

 

10.    No Taxable “sources” under 26 C.F.R. 1.861-8(f)(1) for ANY of my earnings (not “income”, but “earnings”):

10.1.   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 are 26 U.S. Code Section 861 for sources “within the United States**” and section 862 for sources “without the United States**”.  These sections  address the “source” issue and impose a clear requirement that taxable income not only must be of a taxable type or item of income 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 ignorantly insist that 26 U.S.C Sections 861 and 862 do not apply to me as a state Citizen living on nonfederal territory in the 50 states with only income from the 50 states, then you are going to have to find another section 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 3.14.9 of enclosure (5), which identifies THE ONLY specific sources of income that are subject to the Subtitle A income tax.  All sources other than those listed in that regulation are, by definition, excluded as explained in section 5 of enclosure (6).

10.2.   I had no “Gross Income” or “Taxable Income” for the years in question.  In 26 USC Section 63 you will find Taxable Income defined to mean “gross income less deductions…”  In 26 USC Section 61 you will find Gross Income defined to mean “all income from whatever source derived.”

10.3.   In 26 USC Section 863 Special Rules for Determining Source you will find indicated “items of Gross Income…shall be allocated or apportioned to sources within or without the United States, under regulations [Implementing Regulations as they are the only type of regulations, which have the full force and effect of the law] prescribed by the Secretary.”

10.4.   26 C.F.R.1.863-1 Determination of Taxable Income states “The taxpayer’s income from sources within or without the United States will be determined under the rules of sections 1.861-8 through 1.861-14T for determining taxable income from sources within the United States.”

10.5. 26C.F.R.1.861-8(f)(1) provides a complete list of all taxable sources of income from within the United States.  I do not find any designation to my income being listed within the exclusive parameters of this Implementing Regulation.  Thus, my income is outside the legal fence as referenced in 26 C.F.R.1.861-8(f)(1).

10.6.   In 26 C.F.R. Section 1.861-8T(d)(2)(ii)(A) you will find stated “In general.  For purposes of this section, the term ‘exempt income’ means any income that is in whole or in part, exempt, excluded, or eliminated for federal income tax purposes.”  Exclusion is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as meaning “denial of entry or admittance.”

10.7.   The only list of Income that is not considered as tax exempt is found in 26 C.F.R. Section 1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii).  There is no listed reference including income from my source identified here either.

10.8.   I certify under penalty of perjury that I derive no “income” or “gross income” that translates into government “sources” of revenue “within the United States” or “without the United States” as defined in 26 C.F.R. 1.861-8(f).

10.9.   I am well aware of the specious case frequently cited by the government to try to defeat the 861 source position and found in Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Company, 348 U.S. 426, 429 (1955), wherein the following quote is frequently cited from that case:

But Congress applied no limitations as to the source of taxable receipts, nor restrictive [348 U.S. 426, 430] labels as to their nature.

However, the Supreme Court was referring to the taxability of personal “sources” of income under 26 U.S.C. 61 rather than the government sources of income/revenue found in 26 U.S.C. Sections 861 through 865.  Misapplying the conclusions of this case to I.R.C. sections 861 through 865 leads to absurd conclusions, not the least of which is that all income of people living ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD is subject to U.S. income taxes, which we know simply isn’t true.  I refer you to sections 5.6.10.3 and 5.6.10.10 of Enclosure (5) for complete rebuttal of this false and deceiving argument on the part of the government.  I also demand that you rebut the arguments presented by me in those sections of the book and absent your ability to rebut, you have admitted the validity of the conclusions found there.  Silence is acquiescence in the legal field.

11.     No “income” within the meaning defined by the Constitution or as defined by the U.S. Supreme Court.  I certify that I have no “income” as defined within the meaning of the Constitution and all revenue acts ever passed by Congress:

11.1.   According to the U.S. Supreme Court:

11.1.1.        Congress may not define the term “income”.  Only the U.S. Constitution can do so (see Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920):

“In order, therefore, that the [apportionment] clauses cited from article I [§2, cl. 3 and §9, cl. 4] of the Constitution may have proper force and effect …[I]t becomes essential to distinguish between what is an what is not ‘income,’…according to truth and substance, without regard to form.  Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone, it derives its power to legislate, and within those limitations  alone that power can be lawfully exercised… [pg. 207]…After examining dictionaries in common use we find little to add to the succinct definition adopted in two cases arising under the Corporation Tax Act of 1909, Stratton’s Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415, 34 S.Sup.Ct. 136, 140 [58 L.Ed. 285] and Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179, 185, 38 S.Sup.Ct. 467, 469, 62 L.Ed. 1054…”

[emphasis added]

11.1.2.      Income is defined as profits of federal corporations in both the 16^th Amendment and all the revenue acts enacted by Congress:

“…Whatever difficulty there may be about a precise scientific definition of ‘income,’ it imports, as used here, something entirely distinct from principal or capital either as a subject of taxation or as a measure of the tax; conveying rather the idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activities.”

Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Co., 247 U.S. 179, 185, 38 S.Ct. 467 (1918):

“This court had decided in the Pollock Case that the income tax law of 1894 amounted in effect to a direct tax upon property, and was invalid because not apportioned according to populations, as prescribed by the Constitution.  The act of 1909 avoided this difficulty by imposing not an income tax, but an excise tax upon the conduct of business in a corporate capacity, measuring, however, the amount of tax by the income of the corporation…Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, 55 L.Ed. 389, 31 Sup.Ct.Rep. 342, Ann. Cas.”

Stratton’s Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 414, 58 L.Ed. 285, 34 Sup.Ct. 136 (1913)

___________________________________________________________________
“Income has been taken to mean the same thing as used in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909 (36 Stat. 112) in the 16^th Amendment, and in the various revenue acts subsequently passed.”  [Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170, 174, (1926)]

11.2.   Unless one has “income”, then one cannot have “gross income”.

11.3.   The term “person”, as defined within the meaning of Subtitles A through C of the Internal Revenue Code means “federal corporations”.  See 26 C.F.R. 1.6671-1 for an example of this, which is the section defining who is liable to pay penalties under Subtitle F of the Internal Revenue Code:

[Code of Federal Regulations]

[Title 26, Volume 17, Parts 300 to 499]

[Revised as of April 1, 2000]

From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access

[CITE: 26C.F.R.301.6671-1]

[Page 402]

TITLE 26--INTERNAL REVENUE

Additions to the Tax and Additional Amounts--Table of Contents

Sec. 301.6671-1 Rules for application of assessable penalties.

…

(b) Person defined. For purposes of subchapter B of chapter 68, the term ``person'' includes an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs.

12.    I Don’t earn “wages” as defined in the Internal Revenue Code and Treasury Regulations

12.1.   The term “wages” is defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(14) as:

(a) Wages

     For purposes of this chapter, the term ''wages'' means all remuneration (other than
     fees paid to a public official) for services performed by an employee for his
    employer,including the cash value of all remuneration (including benefits) paid in any
    medium other than cash; except that such term shall not include remuneration paid -…

12.2.   We then look up the definition of “employee” as used above , and we find

26 C.F.R. §31.3401(c ) Employee: "...the term [employee] includes officers and employees, whether elected or appointed, of the United States, a [federal] State, Territory, Puerto Rico 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."

12.3.   Since I am not an elected or appointed federal “employee”, then I do not earn “wages” as defined above.  You must be an “employee” before you can have “wages” as defined in the Internal Revenue Code and the Treasury Regulations.

12.4.   Furthermore, even if I were an elected or appointed officer of the U.S. government as required by the Internal Revenue Code, under 26 C.F.R. §31.3401(a )-3, I must have a voluntarily executed withholding agreement in place in order for any monies I receive in exchange for my labor as a federal “employee” to be legally defined as “wages”:

26 C.F.R. Sec. 31.3401(a)-3  Amounts deemed wages under voluntary withholding agreements.

(a) IN GENERAL. Notwithstanding the exceptions to the definition of wages specified in section 3401(a) and the regulations thereunder, the term "wages" includes the amounts described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section with respect to which there is a voluntary withholding agreement in effect under section 3402(p). References in this chapter to the definition of wages contained in section 3401(a) shall be deemed to refer also to this section (Section 31.3401(a)-3).

(b) REMUNERATION FOR SERVICES.

(1) Except as provided in subparagraph (2) of this paragraph, the amounts referred to in paragraph (a) of this section include any remuneration for services performed by an employee for an employer which, without regard to this section, does not constitute wages under section 3401(a). For example, remuneration for services performed by an agricultural worker or a domestic worker in a private home (amounts which are specifically excluded from the definition of wages by section 3401(a)(2) and (3), respectively) are amounts with respect to which a voluntary withholding agreement may be entered into under section 3402(p). See Sections 31.3401(c)-1 and 31.3401(d)-1 for the definitions of "employee" and "employer".

12.5.   As  have already repeatedly emphasized, none of the money you received that was deducted from my pay by my private, nonfederal employer was VOLUNTARILY withheld, and therefore cannot be classified legally as “wages”.  These monies were withheld under duress by my criminal employer, who incidentally is not an "employer" as defined in the Internal Revenue Code.

13.    Constitutional restrictions disallowing reporting my receipts or profits as either “income” or “gross income”:

13.1.   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).  This case has never been overruled, and is 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.

13.2.   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 federally chartered corporations, federal partnerships 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 a natural person directly).  This was confirmed in the following two Supreme Court cases:

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

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

13.3.   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!  You might be tempted to say that any kind of tax is slavery, but in fact this is not true.  The Constitution allows for excise taxes, which are also called indirect or privilege 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..."

Another relevant quote on the subject of income taxes as slavery is the Supreme Court case of Yik Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1885):

“For the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself.”

13.4.   As documented in chapters 4 and 5 of enclosure (5), the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. Codes, and the C.F.R.’s are completely consistent with all of the above conclusions of law, and in particular, specify in 26 C.F.R. section 1.861-8(f) as the only legitimate “sources” of “gross income” for which a U.S. Citizen may become liable to pay federal taxes.  The content of 26 C.F.R. 1.861-8(f) (and the corresponding statutes in 26 U.S.C. Secs. 861 and 862) limits taxable “sources” to foreign income and privileged activities that I am not involved in 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 taxable sources in 26 C.F.R. 1.861-8(f) also deal with privileged activities, like FSC (Foreign Sales Corporation) and DISC (Domestic International Sales Corp) which I am not involved in. 

13.5.   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 6.4.16 and 6.4.17 of enclosure (5) 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.

13.6.   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... "

14.     I am not now and never have been a “fiduciary” for government property under 26 U.S.C. §6903.  I am a fiduciary for God only and all of my property belongs to Him.  Since God is a “nontaxpayer”, then so am I.  The Bible says in 1 Cor. 3:16-17 and 1 Cor. 12:27 that I as a believer in God that my body is “a temple of God” and by implication that I am personally a church.  I am the steward and trustee for that property, and the Trust document is the Bible.  I am simply demanding that the government enforce separation of church and state in my case by leaving me and God’s property that I am a steward over alone .  Since the Bible is  sacred covenant and contract between me and my God, and because the Government cannot interfere with my right to contract, and because the First Amendment guarantees me a right of religious expression, then the government cannot interfere with the trust document or my stewardship in executing it for God, who is a “nontaxpayer”.  If you have records indicting the contrary, then I:

14.1.   Have enclosed an IRS form 56 eliminating all such fiduciary relationships (see enclosure (5)).

14.2.   Demand that you send to me the authority by which such a relationship was established, because I never authorized it.  Failure to provide evidence of the existence of fiduciary duty within 30 days shall constitute a nihil dicit judgment under common law of the fact that none exists.

15.     I am not now and never have been a “transferee” for U.S. government property as defined in 26 U.S.C. §6902  and I demand any evidence you might have that might suggest the contrary.  Failure to provide evidence of the existence of my status as a “transferee” within 30 days constitutes a nihil dicit judgment under common law establishing that I am not such a transferee.

16.     The entirety of all my property and my estate is now classified and always has been classified as a “foreign estate” under 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(31)  in regards to Title 26 of the Internal Revenue Code and I demand any evidence you have that might suggest the contrary.  Failure to provide evidence suggesting that any part of my estate is not a foreign estate within 30 days constitutes a nihil dicit judgment under common law establishing that my estate is a foreign estate as legally defined.

17.     The only reason you may have received any “taxes” that were either illegally withheld under Subtitle C or paid under Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code is because of the presence of duress and unlawful coercion against my property rights and my right to work by my private (nonfederal) employer, who I am very afraid to prosecute because I might lose my job.  He nevertheless deserves to be behind bars for acts of organized extortion.  You should interpret receipt of withholding monies by you from my private employer as evidence of extortion, racketeering, and conspiracy against my property rights in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.  For you to condone or encourage or permit such criminal conduct on the part of private employers makes you an accessory to extortion and racketeering in violation of 18 U.S.C. §872  and 18 U.S.C. §225 .  Instead, as my fiduciary agent (see Public Law 96-303, Executive Order 12731 , and 5 C.F.R. § 2635.101, you are duty-bound to right this wrong and return this unlawfully extorted money back to me.  If you don’t, I will prosecute you personally for

17.1.   Breach of fiduciary duty in violation of Public Law 96-303, Executive Order 12731 , and 5 C.F.R. § 2635.101.

17.2.   RICO in violation of 18 U.S.C. §872

17.3.   Peonage under Thirteenth Amendment, 18 U.S.C. §1581 , and 42 U.S.C. §1994.

17.4.   Bank robbery, if you attempt any Notice of Levies on me in violation of my Fifth Amendment rights.

17.5.   Conspiracy against rights under 18 U.S.C. §241.

17.6.   Obstruction of justice, for not revealing the truth to me about this matter in violation of 18 U.S.C. Chapter 73.

18.     Don’t try to pull any scams with the word “includes” in your response because I know your game and it’s a violation of my due process rights to use ambiguous definitions or laws that are “void for vagueness”.  See the following for hard proof of this:

Either the law applies to me as a private individual or it doesn’t, and I’m not going to play word guessing games or engage in speculation about what either you or any federal judge who is both paid by the income tax and subservient to your organized extortion “thinks” the word “includes” implies.  If the law doesn’t explicitly identify me as a person “liable” for the tax as a private person residing in a union state and outside of your territorial jurisdiction, then I’m not responsible to subject myself to your harassment or your illegal attempts at racketeering and extortion in order to get me to “volunteer” under duress to pay a “tax” that I don’t owe.  Prove your authority using only the law or get out of my life, please.

19.     The only difference between what you do and what the Mafia does is the authority of law, both in the Constitution and in the Statutes that implement the Constitution.  If you can’t show me the law that makes me responsible in clear and unambiguous terms, or you know what the law says and refuse to explain or justify the good faith basis for your belief, then:

19.1.   I have no choice but to assume that you are the Mafia, and your inaction and negligent administration of the tax code was what earned you that name.

19.2.   Your position also meets the definition of “frivolous”, because:

19.2.1.        You refuse to discuss the legal merits of your arguments:

Frivolous. Of little weight or importance.  A pleading is "frivolous" when it is clearly insufficient on its face and does not controvert the material points of the opposite pleading, and is presumably interposed for mere purposes of delay or to embarrass the opponent. A claim or defense is frivolous if a proposent can present no rational [or legal] argument based upon the evidence or law in support of that claim or defense.  Liebowitz v. Aimexco Inc., Col.App., 701 P.2d 140, 142.  Frivolous pleadings may be amended to proper form or ordered stricken under federal and state rules of civil procedure."

19.2.2.        Your response is not provided in affidavit form as this affidavit is, which makes it inadequate for the validation of a liability or a return in accordance with 26 U.S.C. §6065.

19.3.   I must conclude that you are a Communist as defined in 50 U.S.C. §841, because the U.S. Congress in that section defines a “communist” as follows:

“Unlike political parties, the Communist Party acknowledges no constitutional or statutory [lawful] limitations upon its conduct or upon that of its members. The Communist Party is relatively small numerically, and gives scant indication of capacity ever to attain its ends by lawful political means. The peril inherent in its operation arises not from its numbers, but from its failure to acknowledge any limitation as to the nature of its activities, and its dedication to the proposition that the present constitutional Government of the United States ultimately must be brought to ruin by any available means, including resort to force and violence [or using income taxes]. Holding that doctrine, its role as the agency of a hostile foreign power [the Federal Reserve and the American Bar Association (ABA)] renders its existence a clear present and continuing danger to the security of the United States.”

If you refuse to acknowledge or comply with or explain the lawful basis for your authority, then YOU ARE A COMMUNIST because you refuse to acknowledge or comply with lawful constraints upon your authority.  So show me the law that makes me liable and acknowledge the laws that limit and define your power to me or YOU ARE A COMMUNIST as the United States Congress defines it.

20.     Without the explicit authority of Constitutional, statutory, and regulatory law combined making me “liable” and evidence of that lawful authority provided to me in satisfaction of my due process rights under the Constitution, any amount of money that you might attempt to extort from me is paid in violation of the following laws, which in effect makes me into a co-conspirator with you in the following serious felonies.  It also makes you into a money laundering operation for the extortion racket headed by our corrupted politicians:

20.1.   18 U.S.C. §201:  Bribery of public officials and witnesses.  I would be compelled to bribe my Congressman with monies extorted from me involuntarily.

20.2.   18 U.S.C. §597  Expenditures to Influence Voting.  The monies I involuntarily paid to the federal government absent Constitutional authority could be used by politicians to influence voters to vote for them because of some socialist benefit they might receive.

21.     I cannot in good conscience subsidize any government activity that is not explicitly authorized by both the Constitution and the Statutes and regulations that implement it and a clear and explicit showing by the moving party (that is you) that jurisdiction exists as required by the Administrative Procedures Act , 5 U.S.C. §556(d).  To do otherwise or acquiesce otherwise would be to condone and subsidize criminal behavior by our government and by public servants in our government.  Such acquiescence would also constitute Treason against the Constitution in violation of Article III of the Constitution.  My military oath prevents me from any act of such Treason.  You cannot penalize me for honoring my Constitutional oath.

22.     Silence or lack of response to all the demands in this legal notice after a 30 day period shall constitute acquiescence to all of the determinations and facts herein contained and will result in a Notice of Default served upon you with a Proof of Mailing provided by a registered Notary Public.

23.     Don’t bother quoting any federal court cases below the Supreme Court in response to this legal notice because your own Internal Revenue Manual, section 4.10.7.2.9.8 says that any ruling below the Supreme Court may not be applied to more than the single “taxpayer” in the case involved.  If you can’t follow your own written internal procedures, then why on earth should I do what you expect me to or even listen to you?

24.     Don’t bother asserting jurisdiction based on my citizenship status because I am a “non-citizen U.S. national” and have taken the necessary steps identified in 8 U.S.C. §1452  to establish myself as such and also as a “nonresident alien” for the purposes of the income tax.

25.     You may feel tempted to retaliate against this Tax Statement Affidavit by overriding your IDRS system and manually entering bogus time-barred assessments or penalties against me that are back-dated.  Be advised that I am very familiar with how to decode my non-sanitized IMF file and if you do so, you will be prosecuted for fraud, put behind bars, and fired from the service for your misconduct if I have anything to say about it.  I have thoroughly documented how this fraud is committed at the web address below and have informed others of how to identify this fraud and gather the evidence needed to put you behind bars for doing it.

http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Instructions/0.7ObtAndAnalyzingIMF.htm

26.     What the Lord requires of you in this case is to DO JUSTICE and to LOVE MERCY.  You can’t do either if you care more about stealing my money through FRAUD than you care about following the law and the Constitution, your own integrity, and about upholding the public trust and the Constitution that maintains the civil society that we both value.  Both of these biblical requirements, JUSTICE and MERCY, can be satisfied by refunding to me the money that was illegally sent to you under duress by my criminal employer, who forced me to pay a tax I didn’t voluntarily want to pay as a condition of employment.

"He has shown you, O man, what is good;
And what does the Lord require of you
But to do justly,
To love mercy,
And to walk humbly with your God?"
[Micah 6:8, Bible, NKJV]

27.     If you respond to this Tax Statement Affidavit by providing the amount of refund requested or with complete silence, then under a nihil dicit judgment, you have consented that all other revenues and receipts received by me are NOT TAXABLE and NOT GROSS INCOME, and you agree that:

27.1.   My estate is indeed a foreign estate as defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(31).

27.2.   The only amount of “gross income” I earn is the amount that I say I earn, because none of what I make is legally defined as “gross income”.  Nowhere is any of the money that I earned as a private worker who is not an elected or appointed officer of the United States legally classified as “gross income”.  I challenge you to provide any statute that concludes otherwise.  If you look in the annotated U.S. Code, 1928 edition, under 26 U.S.C. §954, you can clearly see that the definition of “gross income” has always meant, in the case of natural persons, only elected or appointed officers of the United States government.  Obfuscation of the Internal Revenue Code by greedy lawyers in the Department of Treasury can’t change that fact either, because the Constitution hasn’t changed and it remains the definition and limitation of Congress’ power to tax.

27.3.   You are forever estopped from proceeding against me in the future either administratively or in litigation for:

27.3.1.        A return or civil suit for return of the monies you refunded to me.

27.3.2.        Fraud or false statements in violation of 26 U.S.C. §7204.

27.3.3.        Failure to file a tax return in violation of 26 U.S.C. §7203.

If you find yourself unwilling or unable to consent to the above determinations in conjunction with the requested refund, please find a supervisor or other authority who has such delegated authority and have him sign the letter you enclose with your refund as an affidavit so that we can settle this matter and bar or estop any future criminal or civil litigation related to it.

28.     If you don’t comply by providing to me the refund I am demanding under the authority of law, then I will see you in court and will show you the same amount of lack of mercy that you earned by refusing to be civil or accountable or helpful to members of the public like me who you are there to SERVE as a public servant.  I will personally make sure that you will reap exactly what you sow.  Remember, “Service” is the most important part of “Internal Revenue Service”, and I am the customer you exist to serve.  Making me your servant is the very definition of tyranny in a free country.

29.    Definition of terms on IRS forms W-2, 1099, etc submitted with this return:

29.1.   The federal courts have ruled that all IRS Publications, and by implications all the forms they contain, may not be relied upon to sustain a position.  See:

·         Luhring v. Glotzbach, 304 F.2d 560 (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).

29.2.   See the following article for an explanation of why IRS forms and publication MAY NOT be relied upon as an affirmative or accurate source of truth:

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Articles/IRSNotResponsible.htm

29.3.   See also Internal Revenue Manual section 4.10.7.2.8:

"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)]

29.4.   Because IRS forms may not be relied upon to sustain a position, then this obligates me to carefully define the terms I am using as a precondition to certifying that the amounts appearing on them are correct by virtue of this affidavit and to ensure that you don’t use the deliberate vagueness and inaccuracy implicit in these forms as a means to unlawfully reach an invalid presumption about me:

29.4.1.        “Employee”:  A sovereign National of a state but not a “citizen of the United States” who works as other than an elected or appointed officer of the United States government.  Does not include or mean the same thing as “employee” defined in 26 U.S.C. §3401(c ), 26 C.F.R. §31.3401(c )-1, or 26 U.S.C. §6331(a).

29.4.2.        “Employer”:  A private party who pays money to me who is in no way associated with the United States government or connected in any way with a “trade or business” nor located in the “United States” as defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9).  Mutually exclusive of the definition of “employer” defined in either the Internal Revenue Code at 26 U.S.C. §3401(d) or in IRS publications.

29.4.3.        “Wages”:  Monies paid not for “personal services” (26 C.F.R. §1.469-9(b)(4)) or in connection with a “trade or business” (26 U.S.C. §7701_(a)(26)) in the “United States”, but instead connected with private employment for a non-federal employer on land outside the territorial jurisdiction or “police powers” or “legislative jurisdiction” of the federal corporation called the United States government.

29.4.4.        “gross income”:  Income deriving from one of two taxable “sources”, including:

29.4.4.1.   Corporate profit (see item 12 in this section for further details).  The sources of such corporate profit are identified in 26 C.F.R. §1.861-8(f).

29.4.4.2.   Pay of elected or appointed officers of the United States government that is explicitly identified in the Statutes as Large as “gross income”.  Such pay is also called “personal services” in the I.R.C. and is connected with a “trade or business” in the federal “United States”.

29.4.5.        “Penalty of perjury”: Under unlawful duress by a de facto United States government that lies, cheats, propagandizes, and steals from its people under the “color of law”, without any lawful authority, and in blatant disregard for the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, and the legislative intent of the Sixteenth Amendment documented in the Congressional record on my website at:

http://familyguardian.betterthanyours.com/TaxFreedom/History/Congress/1909-16thAmendCongrRecord.pdf

29.5.   Do NOT attempt to refute or rebut the above definitions, because under the First Amendment, I as the sovereign, am empowered to determine the precise mode under which I choose to communicate with my government as an attribute of my right to free speech.

30.    Summary and request of the IRS:

30.1. Take note of the fact that for all the above claims and arguments, I am certain that many of these arguments could easily be refuted or invalidated if they were argued on the basis of a person who claims that they are a resident or citizen of the United States** subject to its jurisdiction under 1, Section 8, Clause 17.  It is common, for instance, for the IRS to claim that wages are taxable based on recent federal appellate court rulings, and it would be correct from a legal standpoint to claim that they are taxable for citizens and residents of the United States** subject to its jurisdiction or for federally chartered corporations (see Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Co., 247 U.S. 179, 185, 38 S.Ct. 467 (1918)),  However, the jurisdictional situation is entirely different in my case, as I am claiming the U.S. Government has NO jurisdiction over me by virtue of the fact that I am NOT a federal corporation,  my lack of citizenship in the “United States**”, and the lack of federal in personam or subject matter jurisdiction over me as described in item 3 above et seq.  Therefore, if you are going to cite any federal court rulings unfavorable to any of the positions taken in this Tax Statement Affidavit, then you shall have the burden of proof to demonstrate that the taxpayer involved in the litigation was a nonresident alien not subject in any way to the jurisdiction of the U.S.** government such as myself.

30.3.   I am requesting refunds for this tax year and the previous two tax years as per 26 U.S.C. 6531, which identifies the statute of limitation for prosecuting tax crimes and claims as three years.

30.4.   The attached 1040X Income Tax Returns (enclosure (1)) are submitted with only the minimum information required to determine conclusively that there is no tax liability on my part for this tax year.  With zero taxable “gross income” for the tax years in question, it is pointless to fill in anything about expenses, profit or loss, etc. because these are irrelevant issues.  Additional information will be provided separately to complete any missing information on the 1040 (using a supplemental 1040) form only upon a satisfaction of all of the following requirements:

30.4.1.        A citation within the U.S. Code Title 26 showing conclusively that a person of my circumstance (a sovereign Citizen of the united States of America with income from the 50 states) is indeed liable to pay federal income taxes absent their consent.    This includes mention of the legal authority that authorizes “wages” or monies resulting from labor to be included in the definition of “gross income”.  Note I didn’t say “personal services”, but rather “wages”, which I don’t regard as being equivalent.

30.4.2.        A rebuttal using legal citations from the C.F.R.’s, the U.S. Codes, and the Supreme Court showing conclusively that the conclusions of this correspondence and chapter 5 of enclosure (5) are clearly in error and therefore would substantially and completely change my tax liability in a way that would require submitting a supplemental return or being liable for paying any amount of federal income tax.

30.4.3.        A signed letter from my employer stating that he is not under duress and understands the law (not the IRS Publications or Internal Revenue Manual, which are irrelevant, but instead the C.F.R.’s and U.S. Codes and the U.S. Constitution) completely relative to all the issues raised in enclosure (5) as you have clearly explained it to him (in my presence, to prevent any deception) and that he agrees completely with your position.

SECTION 3:  EVIDENCE DEMANDED FROM THE GOVERNMENT TO DEMONSTRATE IRS/GOVERNMENT JURISDICTION

If you disagree with the legal conclusions in this letter or any of the evidence presented, I make respectful demand that you produce, and send to me, all correspondence and evidence that fully detail and justify your position and your understanding of my situation and the law in a way that refutes each and every conclusion of law in this letter and enclosure (5) with at least the following documents and answers:

1.        Information specifically about your real and personal identity, including:

1.1.               Any IRS rules, regulations, or laws that exist or operate to protect your identity from disclosure (please provide a copy, and note that absent such a regulation):  

1.2.               Public servant's full legal name:

1.3.               Public servant's full legal name:

1.4.               Public servant's residence address:

1.5.               Name of agency:

1.6.               Name of supervisor and office address:

1.7.               Will public servant uphold the constitution of the United States?

  Yes  No

1.8.               ID number:

1.9.               Pocket Commission or Badge serial number:

1.10.            Bonding agency and number:

1.11.            Will public servant furnish a copy of the law or regulation that authorizes the action being taken or information requested in this case?

 Yes  No

1.12.            Will public servant read aloud that portion of the law authorizing the questions asked?

 Yes  No

1.13.            Are answers voluntary or mandatory?

  Voluntary  Mandatory

1.14.            Are the questions being asked based upon a specific law or regulation, or are they a discovery process?

1.15.            What other uses may be made of this information?

1.16.            What other agencies may have access to this information?

1.17.            What will be the effect upon me if I should not choose to answer any or all of these questions?

1.18.            Name of person in government requesting this information:

1.19.            Is this investigation general or special?

1.20.            Have you consulted, questioned, interviewed, or received information from any third party relating to this matter?

 Yes  No

1.21.            If yes, give identity of all such third parties:

1.22.            Do you reasonably anticipate either a civil or criminal action to be initiated or pursued based upon any of the information which you seek?

 Yes  No

1.23.            Is there a file of records, information, or correspondence relating to me being maintained by this agency?

 Yes  No

1.24.            Is this agency using any information on me which was supplied by another agency or government source?

 Yes  No

1.25.            Will the public servant guarantee that the information in these files will not be used by any other department other than the one by which he is employed?

 Yes  No

2.        A copy of the Delegation of Authority Order (DAO) for the IRS Commissioner and the Commissioner of the Treasury.  This order MUST show conclusively that he/she does indeed have authorization to impose and enforce direct taxes on citizens living in the 50 states and not in the federal zone (which includes the District of Columbia and all federal territories).

3.        A copy of the Delegation of Authority Order and applicable laws for the Department of Justice (DOJ) showing the authority of that department to:

3.1.               Protect IRS agents from being criminally prosecuted for wrongdoing.

3.2.               Prosecute private citizens living on nonfederal land inside the borders of a sovereign state.

4.        All documents on which you base your position that a person of my specific circumstance (a sovereign Citizen of the united States of America) has an obligation or liability to submit a "Form 1040 – US INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX RETURN" for the tax period ending _______.

5.        Evidence that I am a person involved in “a trade or business in the United States” as defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(26).

6.        Evidence that suggests that I have income from taxable sources identified in 26 C.F.R. §1.861-8(f).

7.        All documents that specifically identify all laws, statutes, regulations, and case cites that impose an obligation upon me to submit a "Form 1040 - tax return" for the "period ending_____."

8.        All contractual or waiver documents that I signed or any judicial decisions that obligate me in any way to your Service or to any specific performance contrary to the requests in this document.

9.        Copies of all determinations made by anyone in your Service that concluded that any obligation was imposed upon me, and which specifically determined the extent of that obligation.

10.     Copies of the specific "Notice" documents, sent or served upon me, prior to the making of any of the above determinations.

11.     Copies of all delegation of authority to make any determinations in reference to me.

12.     The documents that describe the format for making a request for correction or for making a request for specific documents describing any obligation upon me and your specific authority to determine, impose and enforce any such obligation, if this present format is insufficient to meet your internal procedure.

13.     Answers to the questions found in Enclosure (6).

All evidence and statements provided by you in your response must by law be accompanied and validated by an affidavit under penalty of perjury verifying their accuracy, as required by 26 U.S.C. §6065.  Nothing submitted without this affidavit is legally considered an acceptable verification of liability or verification of a “return”.  Please also include a copy of your delegation order indicating your authority to sign such an affidavit.

My authority for making the above respectful demand, if you disagree, is made as a matter of right and supported by the following Supreme Court decision:

"Whatever the form in which the Government functions, anyone entering into an arrangement with the Government takes the risk of having accurately ascertained that he who purports to act for the Government stays within the bounds of his authority...and this is so even though as here the agent himself may have been unaware of the limitations upon his authority."

[Federal Crop Insurance v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380, 384 (1947)]

SECTION 4:  CONTINGENCIES RELATED TO IRS EVASIVENESS TO ADDRESS ALL ISSUES IN THIS LETTER COMPLETELY AND IN THE SEQUENCE PRESENTED

Certainly, I am not the first American to raise these significant legal issues.  If the IRS and its employees had any sense of morality, accountability, decency, integrity, or honesty, it would have clearly and conspicuously clarified and explained the rather obvious issues and legal considerations explained in this correspondence long ago in every one of it’s regulations, publications, forms, training materials, and correspondence in order to avoid the need for expensive or extended litigation by “victims” of such abuse like myself.  Since this has not yet happened to my knowledge, your organization has thereby provided prima facie evidence supporting the conclusion that a “conspiracy of massive proportions” to uphold illegal direct income taxes on U.S. Citizens living and working in the 50 union states has been maintained successfully and clandestinely since the 16th Amendment was fraudulently declared as having been ratified by Philander Knox in 1913.  This situation is documented extensively in enclosure (5) to study for yourself, and shall form the basis for any civil or criminal damages that might be directed personally against you or against your collective agency in my case.

I would like to respectfully inform you that if you do not honor this Tax Statement Affidavit and quit harassing me to pay a tax I don’t in fact owe, that I am fully prepared to pursue extended litigation in federal court (and possibly also California Superior Court), as it is my wish to diligently and aggressively prosecute in defense of my Fifth Amendment rights to not be deprived of my property without my consent or due process of law or just compensation.  It is also my intention that the U.S. Government will be expected to compensate me for any legal expenses necessary to enforce these statutory and constitutional rights and constraints on the actions and authority of you and your agency.  I am fully aware of my rights and quite informed about your internal rules, regulations, and procedures (as documented throughout enclosure (5)) and will exploit every opportunity and resource available to gain a legal and moral advantage in my good-faith dealings with your agency.  It is my hope that your agency will follow its own rules and procedures documented in the C.F.R.’s, and will operate with the highest good faith, honesty, and integrity in dealing with my case and providing the refund requested.   It is also my hope that you will have the decency to respect my Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to not be deprived of any of my property or money without due process of law or through illegal levies or liens or otherwise, and that you will not use your authority, the court, or legal system to harass me for exercising my right to not pay federal income taxes that I am clearly not liable for.

Please note that this letter represents a departure from times past in which I faithfully submitted 1040 income tax returns and paid in full income taxes that I wrongfully assumed that I was liable for.  This pattern of behavior was more the product of ignorant and blind obedience to misleading and downright false IRS publications than it was a product of a well-informed and realistic application of the U.S. Codes, the C.F.R.’s, and the U.S. Constitution.  I apologize for the ignorant and naïve approach I have taken in the past which may have mislead you into believing that I was indeed a person who may have been liable for the payment of federal income taxes under the U.S. Code.  Forgive me for expecting anyone who works in your organization to be trustworthy, truthfor, or honorable at atll.  This misplaced trust was more a product of an inadequate and incomplete public education and a vacuum of complete or accurate legal information about any tax liability than it was a deliberate result of my own doing.  This ignorance was also fostered and encouraged deliberately by your agency and the arrogant and downright hostile personnel at your 800 number who refused to answer any of my questions about their legal authority to assess income taxes directly on citizens.

I recognize that you might be tempted to identify this tax return as “frivolous”, as I understand that this approach is a commonplace scare (FUD-Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) tactic used by your agency to perpetuate what is called the “Great Deception” documented in chapter 5 of enclosure (5).  Because each and every assertion made in this correspondence is founded in law and backed up by extensive legal research, however, that sort of label would be entirely inappropriate, “frivolous”, and would unnecessarily aggravate and frustrate the effectiveness of any administrative dealings we might have with each other over these issues in the future.  For these reasons, I insist that all such communication initiated by you and intended for me be in writing, and that they be sent only to my address above.  Such aggravation on your part (as indicated above) of the good faith dealings I am trying to establish with you would only add to the legal fees and civil damages I might be likely to ask for later in the event there was a need to litigate to protect my property rights under the 5^th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.  I’d have to say that it would be equally “frivolous” and negligent on your part to implement any of the following unscrupulous FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt-scare) tactics:

·         Providing an anonymous response.  Your regulations specifically state that income tax return filers who provide 1040 returns that aren’t signed or don’t provide all the information required are treated as the equivalent of nonfilers.  Well, I’m going to apply your own rules to you!   Your response to this Tax Statement Affidavit will be considered a non-response if you don’t: 1.  Sign it with your name; and 2.  Provide your direct email address, mailing address, and phone number.

·         Referring to the IRS Publications in your response, which as I have said are completely irrelevant, as a justification for any of your conclusions or findings, rather than relying entirely and only on the U.S. Codes or C.F.R.’s as requested.

·         Not responding to, or trying to stonewall this Tax Statement Affidavit or the legal conclusions contained in it (which I am told frequently happens), which is why it has been sent certified mail with a legal “Proof of Service”.

·         Saying “the courts have repeatedly ruled against this or that argument” without referring explicitly to the federal or supreme court case number and matter name that proves your point, and explaining your legal analysis of that case conclusively and completely.

·         Arbitrarily refusing a refund without explanation or legal justification (a violation of the 5^th Amendment and 26 U.S.C. §7214).

·         Intimidation or threats (especially of the anonymous variety) or other types of “political posturing” you or the “Service” (is that “service”?) might feel compelled to implement in my case (not unlike that documented on page 11A of the USA Today Newspaper dated March 2, 2001).

·         Not addressing the legal issues raised here directly in the event that your agency cannot refute them.

·         Picking one item out of section 1 that is easy to answer (like item 9.6 above about wages) without answering the tougher questions in all previous items numbered 1 through 9.5.

Such an approach of “plausible deniability” or irresponsibility (documented in section 7.4.2 of enclosure (5)) will only reinforce the contentions made in enclosure (5) of the public perception of the IRS as a “Gestapo” organization (or an Internal Robbery Squad, as I have heard others say) rather than the public servant you are obligated to be under law and C.F.R. regulations (you are a “Service”, because that word is in your name, remember?.. or do you only “serve” yourself?).  The reinforcement of this negative perception by the public at large will result from the fact that every aspect of this case, all correspondence, and all litigation papers on both sides will be posted and publicized for thousands of people to learn about and read in real time on the website located at http://famguardian.org, not unlike what is found at http://www.taxableincome.net/.  Similarly, it would be dishonorable and unethical of you, should you NOT be able to legally refute the entire contents of this Tax Statement Affidavit, to NOT:

·         Modify your Publications and the Internal Revenue Manual to completely reflect the issues addressed in this Tax Statement Affidavit, in order to avoid deceiving sovereign citizens in the future that they are indeed “taxpayers” liable for federal income taxes

·         Modify your business processes to reflect the new understandings found in this letter.

·         Train and inform all IRS employees fully and completely of legal ramifications of all of the issues addressed in this correspondence in order to provide better service to the many people in the future who will imitate my approach.  Such an ongoing training program will also serve to eliminate litigation risks for your agency and the use of the defense of “plausible deniability” in the event that you or members of your agency are prosecuted for malfeasance under 26 U.S.C. §7214.

Likewise, please do not expect to call me in for an audit or tax examination or deposition without completely addressing all the issues and legal conclusions asserted in this letter, as I will not be able to respond to such a request unless and until you fulfill your legal and due process obligations (per Parts P-6-12 and P-6-20 of the Internal Revenue Manual, or IRM) to respond to and/or rebut each and every assertion and legal conclusion in this correspondence and in enclosure (5) that you disagree with.  This is the only way you will be able to uphold the public trust and a perception that you are operating in “good faith”, integrity, and honesty with respect to this request and honoring my Fifth Amendment due-process rights.  I will expect your response to rely ONLY upon carefully-researched and documented legal conclusions.  I will accept NO references whatsoever to any IRS publications in your response, and will treat them as “frivolous”, since these publications, as both I and the federal courts have said before, are completely irrelevant to the resolution of this matter of law.  In your response, please notify me of the full name, the email address, direct phone number, and mailing of address of the agent(s) or attorney(s) in the IRS and/or the Department of Justice (DOJ) who has/have been assigned to process or handle this Tax Statement Affidavit, so that I may know specifically who to effect service of process on in the event that litigation becomes necessary.

SECTION 5. AFFIDAVIT OF RESCISSION OF PAST SIGNATURES

I, ___________________________ , Citizen of _________________(statename) (not “the State of ____________” defined in R&TC Sections 6017 and 17018, which are synonymous) and domiciled in San Diego County, California, one of the American union States and “without” the United States defined in 26 U.S.C. section 7701, do hereby extinguish, rescind, revoke, cancel, abrogate, annul, nullify, discharge, and make void ab initio all signatures, belonging to me, on all previously filed Internal Revenue Service, W-4 Forms (other than EXEMPT W-4’s), 1040 Forms (that are not part of Ref. (1)) and all California 540 Income Tax Forms and all powers of attorneys, real and implied, connected thereto and over the period 1978 to 1999, on the grounds that my purported consent was not voluntarily and freely obtained, but was made through mistake, duress, fraud, and undue influence exercised by your agency and my employer.  Pursuant to Contract Law: “All 1040 (not part of Ref. (1)) and W-4 Forms (other than EXEMPT W-4’s) are, hereby, extinguished by this rescission.”.

Rescission: (Black’s 6^th Edition Law Dictionary) “To abrogate, annul, avoid, or cancel a contract; particularly, nullifying a contract by the act of a party.  The right of rescission is the right to cancel (rescind) a contract upon the occurrence of certain kinds of default by the contracting party.  To declare a contract void in its inception and to put an end to it as though it never were.  Russel v. Stephens, 191 Wash. 314, 71 P.2d 3031…A rescission amounts to the unmaking of a contract, or an undoing of it from the beginning.  It necessarily involves a repudiation of the contract and a refusal of the moving party to be bound by it…”

I was induced by fraud and duress to sign such forms and I was denied full disclosure of the voluntary nature of such forms.  I was mislead by those who knew, or should have known, into believing that filing such forms was mandatory and/or implied, were unconscionable and grossly unfair to me.  I was unduly influenced by the stronger bargaining power of my employer, the Internal Revenue Service and the State Tax agency, and acted under an implied threat and fear of losing my job and my property and out of fear of potential imprisonment for non-compliance.  Any alleged consent is null and void as it was given under duress, by mistake, and by fraud. 

Duress:  (Black’s Law Dictionary, 6^th Edition, page 504) “Any unlawful threat or coercion used by a person to induce another to act (or to refrain from acting) in a manner he or she otherwise would not (or would).  Subjecting person to improper pressure which overcomes his will and coerces him to comply with demand to which he would not yield if acting as free agent.  Head v. Gadsden Civil Service Bd., Ala.Civ.App., 389 So.2d 516, 519.  Application of such pressure or constraint as compels man to go against his will, and takes away his free agency, destroying power of refusing to comply with unjust demands of another.  Haumont v. Security State Bank, 220 Neb. 809, 374 N.W.2d 2,6.

Duress may be a defense to a criminal act, breach of contract, or tort because an act to be criminal or one which constitutes a breach of contract or a tort must be voluntary to create liability or responsibility

A contract entered into under duress by physical compulsion is void.  Also, if  a party’s manifestation of assent to a contract is induced by an improper threat by the other party that leaves the victim no reasonable alternative, the contract is voidable by the victim.  Restatement, Second, Contracts §§174, 175.

As a defense to a civil action, it must be pleaded affirmatively.  Fed.R.Civil P. 8(c ).

As an affirmative defense in criminal law, one who, under the pressure of an unlawful threat from another human being to harm him (or to harm a third person), commits what would otherwise be a crime may, under some circumstances, be justified in doing what he did and thus not be guilty of the crime in question.  See Model Penal Code §2.09.  See also Coercion; Economic duress; Extortion; Undue influence.”

Below is a list of the types of compulsion and duress applied by you and the IRS which have restricted the free exercise of my Fifth Amendment rights and has caused me in the past to file 540 and 1040 forms involuntarily and under duress:

·         Your past threatening correspondence, in which you threatened $1,000 in fines for allegedly frivolous returns, a 25% penalty for failure to file a return by the due date, even though I provided a  return that I still say is accurate in Ref. (2).  A $69 enforcement fee.  This kind of disrespectful, threatening, and harassing correspondence does not permit me to sign anything voluntarily that I might send to you.

·         Scare stories from my coworkers and friends about mistreatment by the Franchise Tax Board and the Internal Revenue Service, including strong-arm tactics like your Ref. (1), levies, liens, and seizures.

·         26 U.S.C. Sec, 7201:  Attempt to evade or defeat tax (up to $100,000 fine or imprisonment not more than 5 years along with attorney fees).

·         26 U.S.C. Sec, 7203:  Willful Failure to File (fine up to $25,000 or imprisonment for one year or both)

·         Hundreds of different penalties for late filing or underpayment, as documented in Part 20 of the Internal Revenue Manual, available at: http://www.irs.gov/prod/bus_info/tax_pro/irm-part/part20.html

·         IRS Liens and levies being imposed for nonpayment of taxes.

·         Receipt of threatening mail communications from the IRS (e.g. CP-515 “Notice of Deficiency” and subsequent Notice of Lien and Levy”).

·         Constant anxiety from and harassment by IRS agents (by telephone and otherwise).

I would be committing perjury to submit another income tax return and state that it was “voluntary”, or without putting “duress” or “distraint” near my signature.  Let’s define the word “voluntary” for the record to remove all doubt:

voluntary:  (Black’s Law Dictionary, 6^th Edition, page 1575)  “Unconstrained by interference; unimpelled by another’s influence; spontaneous; acting of oneself.  Coker v. State, 199 Ga. 20, 33 S.E.2d 171, 174.  Done by design or intention.  Proceeding from the free and unrestrained will of the person.  Produced in or by an act of choice.  Resulting from free choice, without compulsion or solicitation.  The word, especially in statutes, often implies knowledge of essential facts.  Without valuable consideration; gratuitous, as a voluntary conveyance.  Also, having a merely nominal consideration; as, a voluntary deed.”

Notwithstanding any information which you may have to the contrary, any forms that have been filed, and any implied quasi contracts that you may feel you have with me, were filed illegally and unlawfully and are without force/and or effect.

I further revoke, rescind, and make void ab initio all powers of attorney pertaining to me for any and all governmental/quasi/colorable agencies and/or Departments created under the authority of Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 17, and/or Art. IV, Sec. 3, Cl. 2 of the Constitution of the United States.

It is (and always has been) my desire that any elections I might make relative to federal income taxes not be allowed to impact any of my state returns, including any alleged elections described in 26 C.F.R. 1.871-10 that might have been made to treat my income as “effectively connected with a trade or business in the United States”.  I am sorry if I did not communicate this to you sooner or if you may have missed such an intent earlier expressed.

SECTION 6. REVOCATION OF 26 C.F.R. 1.871-10 ELECTION:

In accordance with 26 C.F.R. 1.871-10(d)(2)(iii), this Legal Notice has been submitted to the IRS in pursuit of a Revocation of Election to treat any or all of my income from real property as a federal nonresident alien from being considered by the IRS as “effectively connected with a trade or business in the ‘United States’”, as defined in 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7701.  It is provided to you as well for your information, in the event that it impacts my state income tax liability.  Information about myself in fulfillment with the above C.F.R. is as follows:

1.        Name:  ____________________

2.        Address:  ________________________

3.        SSN:  ______________________

4.        Applicable taxable year(s):__Current and all prior tax years__

5.        Grounds for the request:  My constitutional right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, privacy, respect, the fruits of my common right labors under common law, and the right to own and control property (including labor and the fruits of my labor) without any interference from government.

This Legal Notice is by no means an admission in any way that I ever made a Election to treat any of my income or assets as “effectively connected with a trade or business in the United States”, but instead is submitted to ensure that my status is properly reflected in your records and that you do indeed concur with and respect this notification.  I do not now nor have I ever lived in the ‘United States’ as defined in 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7701, nor do I have any intentions of doing so in the future.  I am sorry if I ever gave you the idea that I did by, for instance, mistakenly filing an IRS form 1040 in the past, which was the incorrect form. 

Please note that I already have an IRS form W-8 on file with my employer and have accurately declared myself to be a Nonresident Alien.  I reside outside the foreign jurisdiction to which the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) operates, which is the District of Columbia and federal territories:

“The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state.”

N.Y. re: Merriam, 36 N.E. 505, 141 N.Y. 479, Affirmed 16 S.Ct. 1973, 41 L.Ed. 287

"The exclusive jurisdiction which the United States have in forts and dock-yards ceded to them, is derived from the express assent of the states by whom the cessions are made. It could be derived in no other manner; because without it, the authority of the state would be supreme and exclusive therein," 3 Wheat., at 350, 351. Bevans v. United States, 16 U.S. 336 (1818).

“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.”  26 U.S.C. Sec. 7701

“United States: The term ''United States'' when used in a geographical sense includes [is limited to] only the States [the District of Columbia and other federal territories within the borders of the states] and the District of Columbia.” 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7701

“A canon of construction which teaches that of Congress, unless a contrary intent appears, is meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.” U.S. v. Spelar, 338 U.S. 217 at 222 (1949)

“The term 'United States' may be used in any one of several senses. It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States ex- [324 U.S. 652, 672]   tends, or it may be the collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution.”  Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652, 1945.

Foreign government:  “The government of the United States of America, as distinguished from the government of the several states.” (Black’s Law Dictionary, 5^th Edition)

Foreign Laws:  “The laws of a foreign country or sister state.” (Black’s Law Dictionary, 6^th Edition)

Foreign States:  “Nations outside of the United States…Term may also refer to another state; i.e. a sister state.  The term ‘foreign nations’, …should be construed to mean all nations and states other than that in which the action is brought; and hence, one state of the Union is foreign to another, in that sense.”  (Black’s Law Dictionary, 6^th Edition)

Treasury Decision 3980, Vol. 29, January-December, 1927, pgs. 64 and 65 defines the words includes and including as: “(1) To comprise, comprehend, or embrace…(2) To enclose within; contain; confine…But granting that the word ‘including’ is a term of enlargement, it is clear that it only performs that office by introducing the specific elements constituting the enlargement.  It thus, and thus only, enlarges the otherwise more limited, preceding general language…The word ‘including’ is obviously used in the sense of its synonyms, comprising; comprehending; embracing.”

“Includes is a word of limitation.  Where a general term in Statute is followed by the word, ‘including’ the primary import of the specific words following the quoted words is to indicate restriction rather than enlargement.  Powers ex re. Covon v. Charron R.I., 135 A. 2^nd 829, 832 Definitions-Words and Phrases pages 156-156, Words and Phrases under ‘limitations’.”

“In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes, it is the established rule not to extend their provisions by implication beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out.  In case of doubt they are construed most strongly against the government and in favor of the citizen.”  Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151, at 153.

Thank you for your prompt and expeditious processing of this Revocation of Election.  Please forward your certification and response to my address above.  I respectfully request that you give a detailed explanation and legal justification of any determination or basis you might make regarding the disposition of this notification. This includes citing any authority you are exercising and the regulation or statute from which it derives, as well as any court cites, Treasury Decisions, etc that may be relevant to the foundation of your delegated authority for making a determination of disposition.  This letter shall serve as formal legal notice that if you DO NOT respond within 45 days, then by your default and silence, the Revocation of Election is granted and there is no need to further contact us.

SECTION 7:  RENUNCIATION OF “U.S. CITIZEN” STATUS UNDER 8 U.S.C. 1401:

Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1481(a)(6), the purpose of this affidavit is to change the status of my citizenship in your records from that of “U.S. citizen” under 8 U.S.C. §1401 to “U.S. national” under 8 U.S.C. §1408(2).  I do hereby as well as retroactively from my date of birth renounce any citizenship connected with the 8 U.S.C. §1401 and forfeit any and all privileges and immunities arising from said citizenship.  This is my Right, confirmed by 15 Statutes at Large, Chapter CCXLIX, Sections One through Three, passed by the United States Congress on July 27, 1868.  It has come to my attention that the U.S. government, including the Social Security Administration (SSA), and the IRS, have been defining the term “U.S. citizen” contrary to my correct/real citizenship status and contrary to what I had believed it meant before I recently became aware of the true meaning of this term.  For the purposes of my federal citizenship status, I am and always have been from birth, a “national of the United States of America” under the following statutes:

·         8 U.S.C. §1408(2)

·         8 U.S.C. §1452

·         8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(21) through 8 U.S.C.. §1101(a)(22)

My citizenship status as a “national of the United States of America” arises out of the fact that I was born on nonfederal land in one of the sovereign 50 states and outside of the “United States” (the federal territories and possessions and the District of Columbia) to parents who were also “nationals of the United States” but who were misinformed about their true status and therefore incorrectly claimed that both they as well as I (on their tax returns) were “U.S. citizens”.  Your office, the IRS, and the SSA have incorrectly indicated that the definition of the term ‘U.S. citizen’ [as also stated in 8 USC 1401 Sec.301] means “Any individual born in one of the 50 States or the District of Columbia and who was subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at birth.” 

My correct citizenship status is that of an “American Citizen.” and not a “U.S. citizen”.  An American Citizen is:

“a sovereign human being [natural person], not to be confused with the term ‘person’ as used anywhere in the Internal Revenue Code, who under the Constitution and the laws of the united States or of a particular state, is entitled to the enjoyment of full civil rights.  The rights are those as enumerated in the Bill of Rights to the Constitution for the united States of America and because of these rights this man is not subject to the exclusive or sovereign jurisdiction of the U.S.  government at birth under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution.”

The rights guaranteed by the Constitution are absolute and natural right derived from birth, and they cannot and should not, by operation of law, be turned into a taxable government privilege by coercing me into becoming a type of citizen that I do not choose to be or by coercing me to participate in an illegal and unethical state or federal income tax system, in clear violation of my God-given inalienable rights found in the Declaration of Independence, which reads in pertinent part:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—

Notice it didn’t say “by their government” or “by their citizenship”, or “by operation of law” but rather “by their Creator”?  Here is what the author of the above, Thomas Jefferson, said privately about this subject:

 "A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate." --Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774. ME 1:209, Papers 1:134

"Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?" --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XVIII, 1782. ME 2:227

My authority for this change in your documentation of my citizenship status derives not only from 8 U.S.C. §1481(a)(6), but also from the following:

“Almost a century ago, Congress declared that "the right of expatriation [including expatriation from the District of Columbia or “U.S. Inc”, the corporation] is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," and decreed that "any declaration, instruction, opinion, order, or decision of any officers of this government which denies, restricts, impairs, or questions the right of expatriation, is hereby declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this government." 15 Stat. 223-224 (1868), R.S. § 1999, 8 U.S.C. § 800 (1940).[1] Although designed to apply especially to the rights of immigrants to shed their foreign nationalities, that Act of Congress "is also broad enough to cover, and does cover, the corresponding natural and inherent right of American citizens to expatriate themselves." Savorgnan v. United States, 1950, 338 U.S. 491, 498 note 11, 70 S. Ct. 292, 296, 94 L. Ed. 287.[2] The Supreme Court has held that the Citizenship Act of 1907 and the Nationality Act of 1940 "are to be read in the light of the declaration of policy favoring freedom of expatriation which stands unrepealed." Id., 338 U.S. at pages 498-499, 70 S. Ct. at page 296.That same light, I think, illuminates 22 U.S.C.A. § 211a and 8 U.S.C.A.§ 1185.”  Walter Briehl v. John Foster Dulles, 284 F2d 561, 583 (1957).

Additional authority for this change in your records of my citizenship status derives in part from 26 C.F.R. 301.6109-1(g):

(g) Special rules for taxpayer identifying numbers issued to foreign persons--(1) General rule--(i) Social security number. A social security number is generally identified in the records and database of the Internal Revenue Service as a number belonging to a U.S. citizen or resident alien individual. A person may establish a different status for the number by providing proof of foreign status with the Internal Revenue Service under such procedures as the Internal Revenue Service shall prescribe, including the use of a form as the Internal Revenue Service may specify. Upon accepting an individual as a nonresident alien individual, the Internal Revenue Service will assign this status to the individual's social security number.

The U.S. supreme Court has declared in the case of Hooven and Allison v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652, 1945 that:

The term 'United States' may be used in any one of several senses. It may be merely

[1] the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations [hereafter referred to as  “U.S.*”].

[2] It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends [324 U.S. 652, 672] , [hereafter referred to as “U.S.**”] or

[3] it may be the collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution. [hereafter referred to as “U.S.***”]

Be advised that I am not renouncing citizenship from “United States*” the country (the first and third definition), but simply the municipal corporation (U.S.**) located in District of Columbia and federal territories only, which is the second definition identified above.  To remove all doubt, the municipal corporation to which I am renouncing is described below:

United States Code

TITLE 28 - JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE

PART VI - PARTICULAR PROCEEDINGS

CHAPTER 176 - FEDERAL DEBT COLLECTION PROCEDURE

SUBCHAPTER A - DEFINITIONS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 3002. Definitions

(15) ''United States'' means -

(A) a Federal corporation;

(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or

(C) an instrumentality of the United States.

The U.S. Supreme Court has clearly defined the meaning of the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 US 94 (1884):

"The persons declared to be citizens are ALL PERSONS BORN OR NATURALIZED IN THE UNITED STATES AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF. The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but COMPLETELY SUBJECT [e.g., under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution] to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.  And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other.  Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards, except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts; or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired. Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indiana tribes, (an alien though dependent power,) although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more 'born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' within the meaning of the first section of the fourteenth amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations. ." 

Being “COMPLETELY SUBJECT to the jurisdiction” at the time of birth means being born in a federal enclave, territory, or possession of the United States subject to the sovereignty of the United States and outside the territorial jurisdiction of any state under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution.  Quite clearly then, I never was a “U.S. citizen”, but a “U.S. national”.  I was born at the _______________________(hospital name) on nonfederal land in _______________(city name), ____________(statename) on ______________(date of birth).  If you have any evidence to the contrary, I respectfully request that you provide said evidence within the next ten days under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. §552, and the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. §552a or permanently forfeit any and all claims to the contrary on behalf of the U.S. government.

Be advised that in all future interaction with the government, if the term “U.S. CITIZEN” appears in all capitals on any form or application, including voter registration, driver’s license, etc, then the meaning attributed to such ambiguity (given the three definitions of “United States” above) by me and by implication also you, shall be NOT that of an 8 U.S.C. §1401 citizen, but a “U.S.* Citizen” or “U.S.*** Citizen” until or unless a contrary intent is clearly expressed by the government to remove all ambiguity created by the use of all capital letters.  This also applies retroactively to any government forms I may have completed in the past.  Thus, I will not be jeopardizing the citizenship status established in this document by any interaction with the government either in the past or in the future.  The government is chargeable with a full knowledge of this reality in all its dealings with me as an American Citizen.  Such a play on words is not unlike the chicanery found throughout the Internal Revenue Code, which is rife with deceit and should have been declared “void for vagueness” a long time ago.

I Declare all previous Declarations, Affidavits, etc., either made by me or in my name by another, concerning my Citizenship Status, to be null and void.

I Declare that I pledge my complete allegiance to Christ Jesus, my King, and I am an Ambassador for Christ as per 2nd Corinthians 5:20 of the Holy Scriptures.  Hence, I have entered into the jurisdiction of the Lord's Kingdom as a Citizen thereof in fulfillment of the following scriptures:

“It is better to trust in the Lord

Than to put confidence in man

It is better to trust in the Lord

Than to put confidence in princes [or government, or bureaucrats, or judges, or lawyers].”

“I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.  You shall have no other gods [or a government or materialism or love of money or earthly] before Me.  You shall not make for yourself a carved image…you shall not bow down to them nor serve them [including your government, because you are the sovereign, not the government].  For I, the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children of the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands to those who love me and keep my commandments.” 

Bible, Exodus 20:2 through 20:6

I also Declare that I pledge my secondary allegiance (below that of God but above that of any other ephemeral nation or state) to the United States of America and to the REPUBLIC [based on individual rights and freedom], for which is stands one nation, under GOD, indivisible, with liberty, and justice and freedom for all.  God bless America!  This document shall also constitute my formal request for a "Certificate of non-citizen national status" in accordance with 8 U.S.C. §1452(b) and this document constitutes my formal oath of allegiance to the United States of America.  Even though I am not and never have been a “U.S. citizen” or “citizen of the United States”, on the assumption that your records reflect this incorrect status, you will note that in accordance with 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(22), “citizens of the United States” are also “U.S. nationals”.  Furthermore, pursuant to Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 254 (1967), the government may not remove any aspect of my citizenship or nationality without my consent and voluntary and willful participation, which I now give in the case only of any alleged status as a “citizen of the United States” or “U.S. citizen but not “U.S. national” status.

“In our country the people are sovereign and the Government cannot sever its relationship to the people by taking away their citizenship. Our Constitution governs us and we must never forget that our Constitution limits the Government to those powers specifically granted or those that are necessary and proper to carry out the specifically granted ones. The Constitution, of course, grants Congress no express power to strip people of their citizenship, whether in the exercise of the implied power to regulate foreign affairs or in the exercise of any specifically granted power.

[…]

“The entire legislative history of the 1868 Act makes it abundantly clear that there was a strong feeling in the Congress that the only way the citizenship it conferred could be lost was by the voluntary renunciation or abandonment by the citizen himself. And this was the unequivocal statement of the Court in the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 .”  Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253; 87 S.Ct. 1660 (1967)

In the event that you refuse to comply with this request to provide said requested “Certificate of non-citizen national status” upon this demand, the event of your default and/or failure to respond shall make my original copy of this document into said certificate.  Please notify all appropriate government agencies within your jurisdiction of this change in my Lawful Status.

Should you find this affidavit and the enclosures deficient or insufficient in any way to accomplish the changes in your documentation necessary to correctly reflect my citizenship as a “U.S. national”, please promptly inform me within 10 days of receipt of this letter of this condition and I will gladly provide to you any additional documentation you might require to satisfy the requirements of applicable law and regulations.  Otherwise, under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), section 1-205, your failure to respond shall constitute an affirmative act of approval of and compliance with the wishes expressed by me in this affidavit.  Should you respond with a request for additional information, please:

1.        Include your full legal name, mailing address, phone number, position, organization, title, and email address.

2.        Include a reference to the law or regulation that requires any additional information or forms you are requesting.

3.        Use an OMB-approved document which complies with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act by stating whether disclosing the information is “mandatory” or “voluntary”, the code or regulation requiring disclosure if mandatory, and by providing an OMB control number and expiration date clearly visible on the form.

4.        Complete the attached Government Questionnaire, Section 2 of this document, which establishes your lawful delegated authority to respond and intercede on behalf of the government.

I also affirm, under the Common Law of America, from without the "United States**", that I am over 18 years of age and that the contents of this correspondence is a true and correct and accurate reflection of my voluntary will , and that I am in no way under any kind of duress in signing this correspondence.

SECTION 8:  DURESS APPLIED

In accordance with the U.S. Supreme Court Case of Garner v. U.S., 424 U.S. 648, this tax return is submitted under duress and coercion and constitutes the “compelled testimony of a witness”.  Therefore, by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, it is inadmissible as evidence in a court of law because it violates my right of non-self-incrimination and was therefore obtained illegally as per the supreme Court case of Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383.  See the following of enclosure (5) for the legal research and justification behind this assertion, which you have an obligation to refute if you believe inaccurate or untrue. 

·         Section 3.10.8.3.4 Self-Incrimination Privilege Defined

·         Section 3.12.1:  18 U.S.C. 6002-6003.

·         Section 3.16.7: 1906: Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43

·         Section 3.16.29: 1985: U.S. v. Doe, 465 U.S. 605

·         Section 5.6: The Laws that Say We Aren’t Liable to File Tax Returns

·         Section 7.9.1: What to Do When the IRS Comes Knocking

·         Section 10.1.3: Compulsory Production of Documents

Below is a not all-inclusive list of some of the types of illegal compulsion and duress being applied which restrict the free exercise of my Fifth Amendment rights and make this tax return into compelled testimony submitted under duress.  It is illegal because although deriving from the “color of law”, they cannot be applied since I am domiciled outside of your territorial or subject matter jurisdiction, and keep in mind that I DO have constitutional rights since I am not a U.S.** citizen but a state citizen, and absent proof of jurisdiction by the government to act in an equity law basis, my rights cannot be abrogated or undermined by any court or the IRS:

 

1.        Illegal enforcement of criminal provisions of the Internal Revenue Code:

1.1.               There are no implementing regulations that authorize enforcement of Subtitle A income taxes upon anything other then bona-fide elected or appointed “employees” of the United States government.  See Exhibit (4), section 5.4.7.  The IRS routinely violates this restriction on their authority and thereby involves itself in criminal extortion.

1.2.               The IRS is not an enforcement agency.  See the Treasury Organization Chart below and 64 Fed.Reg. 6135-6137:

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Research/TreasOrgHist/Torg1999.pdf

1.3.               The Constitution does not authorize the IRS to solicit voluntary enforcement of the Internal Revenue Code by private third parties, such as employers, banks, or others who are not part of the federal government.  Consequently, any attempts to abuse its authority in this way is unlawful because not specifically authorized by law.  The IRS routinely violates this restriction on their authority and thereby involves itself in criminal extortion.

2.        The IRS has no legal authority to institute any kind of penalty for noncompliance with Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code against anything but corporations.  The definition of “person” in the context of penalties, as found in 26 U.S.C. §6671(b) confirms this, as does Exhibit (4), section 5.4.5.  The IRS routinely violates this restriction on their authority and thereby involves itself in criminal extortion.

3.        26 U.S.C. §6331(a) limits all levies to elected or appointed officers of the United States government.  The IRS routinely violates this restriction on their authority and thereby involves itself in criminal extortion.

4.        IRS has no Constitutional authority to send out threatening and harassing mail communications from the IRS (e.g. CP-515 “Notice of Deficiency” and subsequent Notice of Lien and Levy”) or to “pretend” like it has authority to enforce Subtitles A or C of the Internal Revenue Code.  The IRS routinely violates this restriction on their authority and thereby involves itself in criminal extortion.

5.        The constant anxiety from and harassment by IRS agents (by telephone and otherwise) resulting from the above illegal activities of the IRS render me completely incapable of acting voluntarily in the context of Subtitles A or C Income taxes under Title 26 unless and until the illegal duress is eliminated.

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 the government.  The above regulations, however, indeed do precisely that and I therefore regard them as being unconstitutional, illegal, null, and void as far as I am concerned and they should immediately be declared as such by all federal courts.  The below supreme court case emphasizes constraints on your treatment of my rights 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."

The only way to overcome Fifth Amendment restrictions documented above absent my waiver of rights is for you to sign an “Immunity from Prosecution Letter” under 18 U.S.C. 6002-6003.  In the event an authorized agent of the U.S. Government is willing to sign such an agreement for ALL future income tax returns having to do with me, then I will gladly submit more complete returns.  If there is some other way to avoid waiving my rights without fear of criminal prosecution that is not documented here, then I request your help in showing me what that method is.

According to Black’s Law Dictionary, the existence of duress vitiates any and all contracts resulting from that duress:

duress:  (Black’s Law Dictionary, 6^th Edition, page 504) “Any unlawful threat or coercion used by a person to induce another to act (or to refrain from acting) in a manner he or she otherwise would not (or would).  Subjecting person to improper pressure which overcomes his will and coerces him to comply with demand to which he would not yield if acting as free agent.  Head v. Gadsden Civil Service Bd., Ala.Civ.App., 389 So.2d 516, 519.  Application of such pressure or constraint as compels man to go against his will, and takes away his free agency, destroying power of refusing to comply with unjust demands of another.  Haumont v. Security State Bank, 220 Neb. 809, 374 N.W.2d 2,6.

…

A contract entered into under duress by physical compulsion is void.  Also, if  a party’s manifestation of assent to a contract is induced by an improper threat by the other party that leaves the victim no reasonable alternative, the contract is voidable by the victim.  Restatement, Second, Contracts §§174, 175.

As a defense to a civil action, it must be pleaded affirmatively.  Fed.R.Civil P. 8(c ).

As an affirmative defense in criminal law, one who, under the pressure of an unlawful threat from another human being to harm him (or to harm a third person), commits what would otherwise be a crime may, under some circumstances, be justified in doing what he did and thus not be guilty of the crime in question.  See Model Penal Code §2.09.  See also Coercion; Economic duress; Extortion; Undue influence.”

Therefore, it should be noted that all previous tax returns other than those for complete refunds submitted with full knowledge of the law for the year 2000 and beyond were submitted under duress.  Furthermore, any future tax returns submitted by me for anything other than a full refund now and indefinitely into the future shall be presumed to be submitted under duress in which case the information indicated on their face cannot and should not be interpreted as being factual or trustworthy in any way, and any criminal charges resulting from their lack of factual basis (including frivolous return penalties, tax evasion, jurat, etc) cannot be enforced.  When and if I receive an immunity from prosecution letter from the IRS signed by competent authority for all matters related to income taxes, then this provision shall continue to be in effect and future returns not asking for a refund in full shall be null and void and fraudulent as caused by coercion instituted against me by the IRS of the kind described above.

SECTION 9:  FINAL REQUESTS AND TIMEFRAME FOR RESPONSE

This correspondence shall also serve as a formal request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 USC 552, for a complete hard-copy version of the following:

1.        My complete administrative record (both written and electronic) for the period covered by this Tax Statement Affidavit, which is tax years ____ through ____, excluding the content of this correspondence and the attachments.

2.        My Individual Master File (IMF) specific and not literal, Data Service, Treasury/IRS 24.030 for the tax years ____ through ____.

I promise to promptly pay in full (upon sufficient written notice from you) the cost of locating and duplicating the items identified, which ultimately is determined in accordance with 26 C.F.R. 601.702(f).  I declare under penalty of perjury that I am a category E requester under the FOIA.  PLEASE EXPEDITE THIS REQUEST.

Should you have any further questions about the content of this correspondence, you are invited to visit the website below before contacting me, to answer any questions I cannot answer personally:

This website provides extensive and exhaustive documentation for all of the legal conclusions contained in this correspondence.  You are invited to visit it and critique it.  The author of the site has indicated that he is quite receptive to correcting any errors or misinformation that might exist within the information posted both on the website or in enclosure (5).  That website will also be updated routinely with the complete history of this and all future and previous Tax Statement Affidavits, as a way to educate and inform other patriotic, educated, and interested American citizens on how they too can reduce their federal tax liability.

You are reminded that, pursuant to the IRS Restructuring and Reform act of 1998, section 3707, it is illegal for a federal government official to use the term “tax protester” in describing me or in my IRS administrative files or IMF. (see http://www.irs.gov/prod/tax_regs/rra98.html).

I will expect your response to my Tax Statement Affidavit, the FOIA response, and my respectful demand for the documents and legal rebuttals requested, within 45 days of your receipt of this letter, which has been sent certified mail.  If you need additional time, please make your request in writing, stating the amount of time needed, and it will consider it but not extend the deadline for receiving refund beyond three months of receipt of this request.  If I do not hear from you within that time, your lack of response will establish prima facie evidence (a factual presumption) in support of the following and shall be a basis for immediately litigating this case:

1.        All uncontroverted legal conclusions mentioned in this correspondence are incontrovertible and sound.

2.        That you do not have any evidence or legal citations that would rebut any of these presumptions or conclusions of law found here.

3.        That the burden of proof has shifted to the government in making the case that I (as a “non-citizen U.S. National”, rather than an alleged “taxpayer”) have any federal income tax liability whatsoever for the past three years.

4.        That I indeed do not have sufficient federal income tax liability based on my current employment to even meet the requirements to file a 1040 tax return in the future, which are that I have “gross income” exceeding $2,500 for a given tax year.

5.        That I do not meet the definition of being a “taxpayer” (a person liable for the payment of federal income taxes absent his consent to do so) within the meaning of 26 U.S. Code for the past three taxable years.

6.        That, absent any documented federal income tax liability for the past three years, it is likely that there will similarly be no need to file 1040 tax returns as a Citizen of the united States of America in the future if my employment situation were not to change.

7.        That you do not have any documents responsive to my request that would rebut the presumptions or conclusions in this correspondence.

8.        That you do not have any documents or legal citations authenticating or verifying your authority under law to support or make any claim of any federal income tax obligation upon me other than what is described in this document.

Should you find this affidavit and the enclosures deficient or insufficient in any way to accomplish the changes in your documentation necessary to correctly reflect my citizenship as a “U.S. national”, please promptly inform me within 10 days of receipt of this letter of this condition and I will gladly provide to you any additional documentation you might require to satisfy the requirements of applicable law and regulations.  Otherwise, under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), section 1-205, your failure to respond shall constitute an affirmative act of approval of and compliance with the wishes expressed by me in this affidavit.  Should you respond with a request for additional information, please:

1.        Include your full legal name, mailing address, phone number, position, organization, title, and email address.

2.        Include a reference to the law or regulation that requires any additional information or forms you are requesting.

3.        Use an OMB-approved document which complies with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act by stating whether disclosing the information is “mandatory” or “voluntary”, the code or regulation requiring disclosure if mandatory, and by providing an OMB control number and expiration date clearly visible on the form.

4.        Complete the attached Government Questionnaire, Section 2 of this document, which establishes your lawful delegated authority to respond and intercede on behalf of the government.

I also affirm, under the Common Law of America, from without the "United States**", that I am over 18 years of age and that the contents of this correspondence is a true and correct and accurate reflection of my voluntary will , and that I am in no way under any kind of duress in signing this correspondence.

SECTION 10:  YOUR FIDUCIARY OBLIGATIONS AS A PUBLIC SERVANT HOLDING A PUBLIC TRUST POSITION WITH THE IRS

I’d like to remind you that in executing your duties as an IRS employee that the relationship between us is a fiduciary relationship in which you have an obligation to maintain the highest ethical and moral standards in all you dealings with me as a “public servant”:

Fiduciary duty:  (Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 625) A duty to act for someone else’s benefit, while subordinating one’s personal interests to that of the other person.  It is the highest standard of duty implied by law (e.g. trustee, guardian).

A relation subsisting between two persons in regard to a business, contract, or piece of property, or in regard to the general business or estate of one of them, of such a character that each must repose trust and confidence in the other and must exercise a corresponding degree of fairness and good faith.  Out of such a relation, the law raises the rule that neither party may exert influence or pressure upon the other, take selfish advantage of his trust, or deal with the subject-matter of the trust in such a way as to benefit himself or prejudice the other except in the exercise of the utmost good faith and with the full knowledge and consent of that other, business shrewdness, hard bargaining, and astuteness to take advantage of the forgetfulness or negligence of another being totally prohibited as between persons standing in such a relation to each other.  Examples of fiduciary relations are those existing between attorney and client, guardian and ward, principal and agent, executor and heir, trustee and cestui que trust, landlord and tenant, etc.

As you consider how to respond to this Tax Statement Affidavit, I’d like to remind you of some (but not all) of your moral and ethical obligations as a government fiduciary of my private interests, which are clearly stated in the Code of Ethics for Government Service, Public Law 96-303, Passed June 27, 1980, which is prominently displayed in every U.S. Government Federal workplace.  I assume as a representative of the IRS that you are an agent or employee of the U.S. Government, and therefore, these rules also apply fully to you as well:

In particular, the fraud that is being perpetrated by the IRS claiming that Americans living in states of the union are “liable” for Subtitle A income taxes on monies that do not derive from “sources in the United States” 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.  Asking you to put enclosure (5) into my official Administrative record is my way to make sure that other government servants who happen to stumble onto my files will also learn the truth and have the corruption exposed to them.  It would be unconscionable for you to prosecute me or punish me in any way for performing my duties above as a government servant.  Like me, the IRS as an agency 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.  That means you should remind everyone you know and income tax filers you are processing who you know are citizens with W-2’s coming from addresses within the U.S. that they aren’t constitutionally or statutorily obligated to pay federal income tax.  You, the U.S. Congress, and your employer (the IRS) all need to “come clean” as we clearly describe in section 8.9 of enclosure (5).

If you and your coworkers at the IRS won’t or can’t live up to these ethics rules and come clean, then quite frankly, there is no other way to look at the job you do than to say that you are an extortionist who is a member of an “organized crime ring”, and involved in “fraud” in the operation of a “continuing financial crimes enterprise”, which is criminally punishable under the many statutes clearly identified in section 10.7.1 of enclosure (5).  In fulfillment of my ethical obligations as a government servant as indicated above, I will pursue criminal prosecution of you under this section if you refuse or  impede responding to the legal concerns raised here,  or force me to litigate to fulfill what I am asking for in this Tax Statement Affidavit.  Furthermore, sooner or later, you will have to respond to my concerns, because from now on, I will be filing (and litigating) in a similar manner EVERY YEAR.

SECTION 11:  COPYRIGHT LICENSE AGREEMENT

The information about me appearing on this correspondence and all attachments is considered copyrighted.  You do NOT have my permission to share any part of this correspondence or any of the attachments or any of the information about me already appearing in your computer systems with parties outside of the Internal Revenue Service, absent a signed court order permitting discovery.  This would clearly violate my wishes and the COPYRIGHT that applies to this document.  The penalty you agree to personally pay out of your own personal pay and benefits for violating this provision is one million dollars for each instance.  You are directed to immediately remove all information about me from your computer system so that I do not continue to receive inappropriate, threatening, unlawful, and harassing notices that clearly violate my Constitutional rights.  Furthermore, if you abuse personal information about me to continue to send me harassing or threatening notices, then you are advised that each notice creates a one million dollar personal liability on your part for violation of the copyright.  This notice also covers any information submitted through third parties that originated with me, including but not limited to any tax form.

I insist under the authority of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a, and the First Amendment, that all identifying numbers, including SSN or TIN, that are related to me are COPYRIGHTED by me and are subject to disclosure ONLY under terms that I designate IN WRITING and IN ADVANCE for each specific instance of disclosure.

I insist that all identifying numbers relating to me be erased and completely eliminated and destroyed from the records of the Internal Revenue Service and the U.S. government in their entirety.  If this is not done, the penalty for violating the copyright shall be one million dollars.  Acceptance of this application constitutes consent and asset to the terms of this license agreement.

Lastly, the use of the information appearing here on the part of the government in any legal proceeding is subject to the following copyright constraints, which the user must assent to or be found in violation of the copyright.  The grantor of this license reserves the right to waive any of these requirements in his own personal case:

1.        If any part of the information is admitted into evidence in any court trial or hearing, then the WHOLE document, all enclosures, and all references must simultaneously be admitted into evidence.

2.        None of the jurists or judges or attorneys may be in receipt of government benefits derived from income taxes in order to prevent conflict of interest in violation of 28 U.S.C. §144, 28 U.S.C. §455, and 18 U.S.C. §597.

3.        No attorney may be licensed by the state or “admitted to practice” in order to prevent a conflict of interest.

SECTION 12:  PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES AND FUTURE RETURN FILINGS

This Tax Statement constitutes a Petition for Redress of Grievances protected under the First Amendment Petition Clause.  As such, it’s submission may not be penalized in any way or identified as “frivolous” by the recipient and subject to frivolous penalties.  The IRS and/or the government are specifically asked to rebut the overwhelming evidence presented here of the illegal enforcement of the tax codes by the IRS.  Unless the Test for Tax Professionals included as Encl. (4) is answered truthfully, under oath, as a sworn affidavit by a person with delegated authority (demonstrated with evidence) to do so and the results are provided to me as a certified government document, then the IRS by their silence and inaction:

1.        Is in violation of it’s own mission statement found in IRM 1.1.1.1 to help Americans understand their tax obligations with integrity and fairness to all.

2.        Agrees entirely and completely with the position advocated in this document.

3.        Should continue to use this return to satisfy all future filing requirements every time they want to assert that a filing requirement exists.

4.        Is assured that it will not voluntarily receive any funds from me in satisfaction of any imputed tax debt, because no proof of a legitimate debt or liability has been provided.

5.        Is in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692g, which requires that any person, including the IRS, who attempts to collect any debt, including tax debts, must provide original, admissible, certified evidence of a liability.  The IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, 112 Stat. 685, in section 3466 makes the IRS subject to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.  Therefore, the IRS is obligated to provide legal evidence of debt by providing a signed 23C Assessment Certificate AND producing a statute and implementing regulation that creates a legal liability and to perform collection and enforcement actions against a “nontaxpayer” such as myself.

As far as the statute of limitations for assessment and collection of all future revenues under Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code against this “nontaxpayer”, the IRS shall, from this point forward be required, as a condition of the copyright on this document, to start the Statute of Limitation Clock for Assessment and Collection of all future tax years now.  Starting of the clock now may only be averted if or when the IRS rebuts Encl (4) and Encl. (6) with an affidavit signed under penalty of perjury by a person with demonstrated delegated authority to do so and who works for that organization.

Unless and until the government fully satisfies the burden of proof imposed upon it as the moving party as described above, and thereby honors my due process rights under the Fourth And Fifth Amendments, it is without moral or legal authority to collect any monies from me under the guise of a “tax”.  It is estopped from any and all collection or enforcement actions:

“Estoppel in pais.  The doctrine by which a person may be precluded by his act or conduct, or silence when it is his duty to speak, from asserting a right which he otherwise would have had.  Mitchell v. McIntee, 15 Or.App. 85, 514 P.2d 1357, 1359.  The doctrine rests upon principle that when a person by his acts causes another to change his condition to his detriment, a person performing such acts is precluded from asserting a right which he otherwise might have had.  Peplinski v. Campbell, 37 Wash.2d 857, 226 P.2d 211, 213.  See also Equitable estoppel”

[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 551]

The organic law upon which our country was founded says that I have a right to withhold payment of all taxes imputed to be due unless and until my Petition for Redress for illegal enforcement of the income tax codes (not “laws”, but “codes”) is completely and fully answered.

"If money is wanted by Rulers who have in any manner oppressed the People, [the People] may retain [their money] until their grievances are redressed, and thus peaceably procure relief, without trusting to despised petitions or disturbing the public tranquility." [see Journals of the Continental Congress, Wednesday, October 26, 1774]

SECTION 13:  CONCLUSIONS

I remain ready, willing, able, and eager to meet all of the legal requirements that the law imposes upon me, a natural person not in receipt of federal privileges, in the context of federal income taxes.  I will promptly pay any and all lawfully assessed and collected funds that the law says that I owe and which are properly reflected in my Individual Master File, absent any Transaction Code 370 illegal importations or time-barred assessments.  I only request that you first satisfy exactly what your own Internal Revenue Manual says you are obligated to do in my case:

“The IRS Mission: Provide America's taxpayers top quality service by helping them understand and meet their tax responsibilities [according to the law]  and by applying the tax law with integrity and fairness to all.”  [Internal Revenue Manual, section 1.1.1.1, item 1 (02-26-1999)]

As I said earlier, if you can’t show me the law that creates a liability or you refuse to discuss the law, then you are a communist as Congress, your employer, defines it.  I am only asking that you satisfy the above requirement by demonstrating the laws that make me liable, and the source of your jurisdiction to impose this tax on a person such as myself who does not reside or live in the “United States”, who is not a “U.S. citizen” under 8 U.S.C. §1401, and who earns no “wages” or “income” as constitutionally defined.  All of my concerns about your lack of authority can quickly be addressed and we can move forward with me paying the tax that the law, not you, says that I owe, by you showing me the laws in this case that contradict my extensive research as found in Enclosure (6), the Test for Tax Professionals.  Upon receipt of answers by you in affidavit form, a showing of your delegated authority to provide such answers, and your authority to act as an enforcement officer with an enforcement pocket commission, then I will gladly and enthusiastically comply with the law, as any law abiding American would do.  If you do not provide your response as an affidavit like this one, then the return is not properly verified as required by 26 U.S.C. §6065 and your response does not meet the rules of evidence required for returns.  Your failure to timely respond to my concerns and to the requirements imposed upon you by the Internal Revenue Manual shall constitute a default judgment in my favor, and you will be served with a Notice of Default by a notary public, which will quickly convert to a judgment against you in any court of law  if you proceed against me.

"Silence is a species of conduct, and constitutes an implied representation of the existence of facts in question.  When silence is of such character and under such circumstances that it would become a fraud, it will operate as an Estoppel."  [Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A. 932]

I thank you kindly in advance for your timely cooperation in being responsive to this Tax Statement Affidavit and in living up to your noble moral obligations as a government servant.  I look forward to working closely with you in resolving any questions or disputes you might have at the lowest administrative level in order to avoid litigating this matter.  We both have the same objective of conserving hard-earned taxpayer (of which I am not) dollars so that these monies may be productively used elsewhere in the support of more legitimate and important federal government functions such as the national defense, the roads, and the regulation and promotion of trade and commerce.  However, I have no reservations whatsoever about litigating this matter all the way up to the federal AND state appellate level, if you force me to, in order to get you to comply with your own laws, including 26 U.S.C., 26 C.F.R., and the Constitution of the United States.

I certify, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America from without the “United States**”, that the facts, assertions, and evidence presented by me in this correspondence are true, correct, and complete to the best of my ability and can be relied upon for all determinations of fact in the adjudication of this Tax Statement Affidavit.  I also certify under penalty of perjury that the extensive legal research that I have done on federal income taxes allows me to say with certainty that I would be committing fraud and perjury if I were to complete or submit a federal income tax return which claimed that I owed anything other than zero federal income taxes for this year or any previous year for which I have erroneously paid these income taxes.

Lastly, I do not wish to have my First Amendment right to NOT communicate with my government infringed or my right to privacy and the security of my personal papers guaranteed under the Fourth Amendment infringed by being forced to submit a tax return with more information than what appears on this Tax Statement Affidavit.

“When the government fears the people, you have liberty.  When the people fear the government [or the IRS, for that matter], you have tyranny.”

(Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence)

 

“Better is a little with righteousness.

Than  vast revenues without justice.”

(Bible, Prov. 16:8-9)

Acceptance or processing of this return constitutes an permanent estoppel by the federal government of:

·         All litigation by the recipient in any federal court based on its content or based on any federal tax liability imputed to me for the years in question or any future years.

·         Any and all of the issues raised in this letter and all attachments that are not fully and completely and individually refuted with statutes AND  implementing regulations AND case law no lower than the Supreme Court (see IRM 4.10.7.2.9.8).

Acceptance of receipt of this document also constitutes agreement by the IRS that I have fulfilled the “alleged” (but not actual) legal requirement to file a tax return, which then starts the clock for all statute of limitations regarding tax collection.

I affirm, under penalty of perjury, under the laws these united State of America (and not the “United States”), from without the "United States", that the information contained in this document that is identified in the table below is true and correct, to the best of my current information, knowledge, and belief, per 28 U.S.C. 1746(1).  The portions of this document which are verified by this perjury statement and conditional self assessment are:

Condition (see section 1 earlier)	Portion of this submission verified under penalty of perjury as required by 26 U.S.C. 6065
All requirements and conditions included in this submission are satisfied, a refund is obtained for the amount indicated on the return, and no penalties, interest, assessments, or threatening mail is received EVER regarding issues raised in this correspondence for the tax years addressed.	EVERYTHING is true, correct, and complete under penalty of perjury of a state court only and not a federal court.
If any of the following occurs: 1.        Information provided with this return is entered into a an IMF file, which is only for people who are “liable” for tax, which does not include me. 2.        Penalties, interest, or threatening correspondence is received relating to the tax years at issue. 3.        Any kind of collection or enforcement action is undertaken for the tax years covered by this correspondence. 4.        If the federal government attempts to litigate the issues in this document in a federal court or without a jury trial. 5.        I am contacted by anyone from the IRS or the Department of Justice about this correspondence without them FIRST answering under penalty of perjury ALL of the questions in our IRS Deposition Questions at: http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Forms/ Discovery/Deposition/Deposition.htm	Only my name and address and enclosures 5 and 6 and nothing else.

It would be fraud to make any other claim and fraud to sign the perjury statement associated with the attached return(s) because it falsely claims that I am within the “United States”, when in fact I am not (see 28 U.S.C. 1746(1)).  Hence the jurat and signature in this document instead of on the return itself.  The very essence of my First Amendment rights is to be able to specify the precise conditions under which I choose to communicate with my government and exactly what I choose to say, as I am doing here, without the threat of being penalized or fined or threatened in the process of doing so.

Because criminal acts of perjury can only be punished based on where they occurred, and because this document is signed in a state of the union and outside of the police powers, territorial, legislative, and subject matter jurisdiction of the “United States” government under 40 U.S.C. 255 and Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution, then any criminal or civil litigation based on the content of this submission must be effected in a state and not federal court.  To do otherwise amounts to a malicious prosecution in a court clearly devoid of any Constitutional authority or jurisdiction to hear such a case.

Very Respectfully,

 

 

 

 

/signature/

<<NAME>>

All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice, UCC 1-207

 

 

COUNTY OF ________________ )

 

I, _________________________, the undersigned mailer/server, being of sound mind and under no duress, do hereby certify, attest and affirm that the following facts are true and correct, to wit:

 

1.  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, executed the instrument.

2. That, at the city of __________, County of __________and the State of ______________, on the _______________, 200__, that, on behalf of (name)_________________, a natural person, the undersigned personally deposited  the following documents (listed below) inside the envelope, sealed them and mailed them via U.S. Certified Mail, to wit:

 

 

 

 

 

Total of ____ (  ) documents with combined total of __________ (___) pages.

 

3. That I personally mailed in the United States Postal Office, by Certified Mail # ____ ____ ____ ____ ____, Return Receipt Requested, at said City and State, one (1) complete set of ORIGINAL documents, as described in item 2 above, properly enveloped and addressed to:

 

 

 

4. That I am at least 18 years of age;

5.  That I am not related to _______________ by blood, marriage, adoption, or employment, but serve as a “disinterested third party” (herein “Server”); and further,

6. That I am in no way connected to, or involved in or with, the person and/or matter at issue in this instant action.

I now affix my signature to these affirmations.

(Signature): _______________________________________________________, Mailer/Server

(Printed name): ____________________________________________________

Witness my hand and official seal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Signature of Notary:_______________________________________