Author #2
Forum Replies Created
See:
http://sedm.org/ItemInfo/RespLtrs/AdminRec…AdminRecord.htm
Sonik,
Nothing previously posted will be deleted. If he tries to scare people with more news of terrorism without directly addressing the facts and the law, then I will most certainly let the Administrator know so he can delete the post. I won't condone the use of this forum for terrorism or propaganda. This forum is a Mock Court and a university to learn about law and freedom, not a political platform or a political agency.
AndyK, IRS employee and attorney:
You are reminded that all of your posts to this forum from this point on will be DELETED unless and until you:
1. Deal directly with the questions asked of you in this forum.
2. Follow through with your solemn promise to answer ALL of the “trade or business scam” questions at the end of the pamphlet below under penalty of perjury.
http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/TradeOrBusScam.pdf
3. Provide a copy of your answers in PDF form by emailing them to submissions(AT)famguardian.org with a note of explanation so the administrator can post them for the jury (this forum, which is a mock court) to read and evaluate.
Your willful deception, evasions, omissions, and unsupported presumptions are a danger to society and the people on this website until you face the truth and explain and defend and justify your injurious behaviors to everyone here.
Quote:“But the person who does anything presumptuously, whether he is native-born or a stranger, that one brings reproach on the LORD, and he shall be cut off from among his people [and kicked out of the forums].”? [Numbers 15:30, Bible, NKJV]AndyK,
Is that a supreme court case? I asked for ONLY a Supreme Court case and not lower case consistent with the pamphlet below.
http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/ReasonableBelief.pdf
You're not following the administrative guidelines of the “bureau” but not “agency” you work for, the IRS. IRM 4.10.7.2.8 says that the IRS is not obligated to change its position for any case below the U.S. Supreme Court. Well, neither are we! You are also not following the guidelines for this website, which say that the only basis for reasonable belief about tax lability is the Reasonable Belief About Tax Liability Pamphlet below:
http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/ReasonableBelief.pdf
I can't find the case you mention, if that is what it is, in the Supreme Court docket. Also, please ensure that any cases you cite concern ONLY those who meet all the same qualifications as those who are allowed to read this website:
1. A nontaxpayer not subject to the I.R.C. See:
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Arti…Nontaxpayer.htm
2. No “trade or business” earnings. See:
http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/TradeOrBusScam.pdf
3. All false information return reports have been corrected and rebutted.
4. No financial accounts with social security numbers on them that might connect them to a “public office” or “trade or business”.
5. No earnings from within the District of Columbia or the “United States” as defined in 26 USC 7701(a)(9) and (a)(10).
6. A nonresident alien who is a “national” pursuant to 8 USC 1101(a)(21) but not a “citizen” pursuant to 8 USC 1401 or 26 CFR 1.1-1(c ).
7. No Currency Transaction Reports (CTRs) connecting any transactions to a “trade or business”. See:
http://sedm.org/Forms/04-Tax/DmdVerEvOfTradeOrBusiness-CTR.pdf
8. No W-4 or 1040 forms on file for the years in question, which would make them into “residents” and “U.S. persons”. See the below, section 7:
http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/NonresidentAlienPosition.pdf
9. Terminated Social Security Participation consistent with the following, to remove fiduciary duty as a “public official”:
http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Forms/Em…stIndenture.pdf
10. Rebut and denounce all uses of former Social Security Trustee Number, so as to abandon and renounce all connections with the Social Security Trustee:
11. Not a “U.S. person” under 26 USC 7701(a)(30) and no “domicile” in the “United States”.
12. Not a federal employee, public official, or federal benefit recipient exempted from the requirement for implemenitng regulations found in 44 USC 1505(a) and 5 USC 553(a).
13. Claim “diversity of citizenship” under 28 USC 1332.
Otherwise, any cites you might have are irrelevant because they do not precisely replicate a person who fits ALL the circumstances of those who are allowed to use this website, as documented in the Disclaimer, Section 1 at:
AndyK,
No “blinders” here. Show me the truth and I'll change my mind. Defend yourself, don't just sit there and whine and turn this into a personal attack. Didn't you learn enough in law school to defend yourself? I guess I'm having a battle of wits with an unarmed man, maybe?
1. I accepted all of the “plain english” in the Supreme Court cites you mentioned. I also explained that they are all relevant ONLY to the situation where there is no statutory definition of a term. No filtering there. And you didn't dispute this, so you AGREE and default under Fed.Rule.Civ.Proc. 8(d).
2. The Supreme Court said that the statutory definition SUPERSEDES, not enlarges, the common definition of the term.
Quote:“It is axiomatic that the statutory definition of the term excludes unstated meanings of that term.? Colbutti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379, 392, and n. 10 (1979). Congress' use of the term “propaganda” in this statute, as indeed in other legislation, has no pejorative connotation. As judges, it is our duty to [481 U.S. 485] construe legislation as it is written, not as it might be read by a layman, or as it might be understood by someone who has not even read it.” [Meese v. Keene, 481 U.S. 465, 484 (1987)]” [Meese v. Keene, 481 U.S. 465, 484 (1987)]“When a statute includes an explicit definition, we must follow that definition, even if it varies from that term's ordinary [or PRESUMED] meaning. Meese v. Keene, 481 U.S. 465, 484-485 (1987) (“It is axiomatic that the statutory definition of the term excludes unstated meanings of that term”); Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. at 392-393, n. 10 (“As a rule, `a definition which declares what a term “means” . . . excludes any meaning that is not stated'”); Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Lenroot, 323 U.S. 490, 502 (1945); Fox v. Standard Oil Co. of N.J., 294 U.S. 87, 95-96 (1935) (Cardozo, J.); see also 2A N. Singer, Sutherland on Statutes and Statutory Construction ? 47.07, p. 152, and n. 10 (5th ed. 1992) (collecting cases). That is to say, the statute, read “as a whole,” post at 998 [530 U.S. 943] (THOMAS, J., dissenting), leads the reader to a definition. That definition does not include the Attorney General's restriction — “the child up to the head.” Its words, “substantial portion,” indicate the contrary.”? [Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000)]
“As a rule, `a definition which declares what a term “means” . . . excludes any meaning that is not stated'” [Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379 (1979), n. 10]
?Expressio unius est exclusio alterius.? A maxim of statutory interpretation meaning that the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another.? Burgin v. Forbes, 293 Ky. 456, 169 S.W.2d 321, 325; Newblock v. Bowles, 170 Okl. 487, 40 P.2d 1097, 1100.? Mention of one thing implies exclusion of another.? When certain persons or things are specified in a law, contract, or will, an intention to exclude all others from its operation may be inferred.? Under this maxim, if statute specifies one exception to a general rule or assumes to specify the effects of a certain provision, other exceptions or effects are excluded.? [Black?s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 581]
3. You refused to reconcile the cites I provided with yours, or to explain any perceived inconsistencies. These cases include, once again (see above):
[Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000)]
[Meese v. Keene, 481 U.S. 465, 484 (1987)]
[Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379 (1979), n. 10]
[Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth, Exclusio rule]
Since you refused to deny or plead, then you agree under Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 8(d). I denied the relevancy of your cites to the case where there IS a statutory definition, such as a “trade or business”, but not in cases where there isn't. All the caselaw is consistent so far, and leans in my favor in the case where there IS a statutory definition, such as “trade or business” found in 26 USC 7701(a)(26).
4. Since you did not rebut the questions at the end of the “Includes” pamphlet and none of your case cites address the case where there is a statutory definition, your hypothesis is still lacking and you have defaulted to the claims stated.
Is there something I'm missing here?
You can't say that there is an exception to the rules of statutory construction in the case of only revenue statutes, because they are just like any other rule. They also can't be “rules” unless they apply universally to all statutes, including revenue statutes. Also, you can't claim that the “Expressio unius est exclusio alterius” rule of statutory construction doesn't apply in the case of revenue statutes, because the Supreme Court applied it in Becker v. United States, 451 U.S. 1306 (1981), which was a revenue case. Therefore, if they can apply it there, they have to apply it EVERYWHERE. The fact that they haven't applied it universally everywhere in any case you cite is simply evidence of judicial involvement in the corruption and wrongful conversion of “private property” to “public use”, and not much more. Using false presumption and false information returns from private companies to compel a person to engage in a privileged “trade or business” essentially amounts to compelling the target of the false reports to donate his “private property” to a “public use” and a “public office” and compels him into the service of the socialist “state” without just compensation and in violation of the Fifth Amdenment (deprivation of property without just compensation) and the Thirteenth Amendment (involuntary servitude).
Your response sounds more like a threat than a rational discourse. Do I detect a little bitterness and enmity from the forked tongue serpent working in our government? Are threats of “selective enforcement” the only way you can win an argument? Isn't that par for the course for how your employer, the IRS, works? I don't think anyone in this forum would argue against that. It all comes down basically to silence and a naked showing of overwhelming force and TERRORISM by the IRS against debilitated (plundered) defendants, now doesn't it Mr. AndyK? This is the DE FACTO VIOLENT, TERRORIST, IRRATIONAL, TYRANNICAL government that people like you exist to preserve and protect, now isn't it? The TERROR is the only reason people pay, not the law, because you don't seem to care what the law says, now do you? You can't win on law, logic and facts, so you try to shoot the messenger? Below is the LAW OF TYRANTS, that has no place in a free civil society such as ours:
Quote:?Law emanates from the barrel of my gun.? All law is force, and he who can exercise the most force will have the only legitimate authority to make de facto law in any society.?And if you believe the arguments proffered here by me are insufficient, show me one case from the U.S. Supreme Court and not lower courts where they were ALL used as they were used here and where the government won anyway AND responsibly addressed (rather than just IGNORED) all the arguments. The following pamphlet says I'm not allowed to believe anything lower:
http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/ReasonableBelief.pdf
The questions posed to the court (of public opinion) here assembled remain, and you STILL have not answered them, which means YOU LOSE because you DESERTED THE BATTLEFIELD OF TRUTH:
1. Where does the U.S. Supreme Court and not lower courts say that they don't have to strictly follow statutory definitions?
2. Where does the U.S. Supreme Court and not lower courts say that statutory presumptions (e.g. 26 USC 7701?) applied against persons who HAVE constitutional rights (e.g. those domiciled in states of the Union who are not “public officials”) are permissible and do not violate or injure those rights? The Supreme Court said below that statutory presumptions are NOT permissible:
http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByT…presumption.htm
3. Where is the authority delegated in the law for juries or judges to make up an ad-hoc definition of a term and imply things that aren't explicitly stated in the statute itself? Doesn't this make the jury and the judge into a constitutional convention and policy board and impermissibly delegate subjective policy decisions to them and doesn't this violate the separation of powers, which requires that all policy decisions be made by the executive and legislative branches and NOT in the courts? Isn't this in conflict with what the U.S. Supreme Court said?:
Quote:“The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no election[including a JURY election at a court trial].”[West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette, 319 US 624, 638; 63 S Ct 1178; 87 L Ed 1628 (1943). Compare Romer v Evans, 517 US 620; 116 S Ct 1620; 134 L Ed 2d 855 (1996).]
You will note that a jury vote is a type of “election”. My rights CANNOT be put up to an ELECTION by a judge who wants an ignorant jury to violate the Constitution on his behalf by trampling on my Constitutional rights for not paying their social security checks. Any judge who even allows this is committing TREASON! This is WRONG!
4. Why does your abuse of the word “includes” not qualify essentially as a “compelled statutory presumption” upon the judge and jury that is a violation of due process of law and unconstitutional. See:
http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/Presumption.pdf
5. How can you sit there with a straight face and agree that we have a government of finite, limited, and delegated powers enumerated under the COnstitution, and then turn around and make up ANY DEFINITION you want for a word and construe the word so as to exceed the limits of 4 USC 72 and apply it outside the territorial or subject matter jurisdiction of federal courts in states of the union?
Quote:“It is no longer open to question that the general government, unlike the states, Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251, 275 , 38 S.Ct. 529, 3 A.L.R. 649, Ann.Cas.1918E 724, possesses no inherent power in respect of the internal affairs of the states; and emphatically not with regard to legislation.”? [Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238, 56 S.Ct. 855 (1936)]What part of “NO LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION” do you NOT understand?? Why is not the I.R.C. “legislation”?
6.? Why are we not free to invent ANYTHING we want to be included or excluded?? Why is it NOT a violation of due process for a judge to decide that something such as regular labor is included in “gross income” in 26 USC 61 even though not mentioned in a statute, and yet I am not allowed the SAME EQUAL PROTECTION of concluding that it ISN'T included?? If he can do it, so can I.? The servant, which is the judge, cannot be greater than the master he serves, which is WE THE PEOPLE.
7.? Why should not the American people and participants of this forum perceive your attempts to abuse the word “includes” as a way to compel presumption and stretch federal jurisdiction beyond the clear limits of the Constitution as the very essence of Communism?? The U.S. Code defines the essence of “communism” as “a failure to acknowledge any Constitutional limitations upon its conduct”.? To wit:
Quote:50 USC 841“It [the COMMUNIST PARTY] constitutes an authoritarian dictatorship [IRS, DOJ, and corrupted federal judiciary in collusion]? within a [constitutional] republic, demanding for itself the rights and privileges [including immunity from prosecution for their wrongdoing in violation of Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8 of the Constitution] accorded to political parties, but denying to all others the liberties [Bill of Rights] guaranteed by the Constitution. Unlike political parties, which evolve their policies and programs through public means, by the reconciliation of a wide variety of individual views, and submit those policies and programs to the electorate at large for approval or disapproval, the policies and programs of the Communist Party are secretly [by corrupt judges and the IRS in complete disregard of the tax laws] prescribed for it by the foreign leaders of the world Communist movement [the IRS and Federal Reserve]. Its members [the Congress, which was terrorized to do IRS bidding recently by the framing of Congressman Traficant] have no part in determining its goals, and are not permitted to voice dissent to party [DOJ or IRS] objectives. Unlike members of political parties, members of the Communist Party are recruited for indoctrination [in the public schools by homosexuals, liberals, and socialists] with respect to its objectives and methods, and are organized, instructed, and disciplined [by the IRS and a corrupted judiciary] to carry into action slavishly [by being compelled to engage in a “trade or business”/”public office”] the assignments given them by their hierarchical chieftains. Unlike political parties, the Communist Party [thanks to a corrupted federal judiciary] acknowledges [and is not required by courts to acknowledge] no constitutional or statutory limitations upon its conduct or upon that of its members.. . .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.
8. How can you sit there and claim to be a public servant who took an oath to support the Constitution, and then turn around and violate the very reason why the Constitution was established: The protection of INDIVIDUAL, Constitutional rights? How can you violate, without feeling even one ounce of remorse, the legislative intent of the Constitution to remove the possibility of “arbitrary power” by compelling presumptions using statutory presumptions such as 26 USC 7701(c )?
Quote:“It is apparent that a constitutional prohibition cannot be transgressed indirectly by the creation of a statutory presumption any more than it can be violated by direct enactment. The power to create presumptions is not a means of escape from constitutional restrictions.” 219 U.S., at 239 .Thus the Court held that presumptions, while often valid (and some of which, I think, like the presumption of death based on long unexplained absence, may perhaps be even salutary in effect), must not be allowed to stand where they abridge or deny a specific constitutional guarantee.” [United States v. Gainly, 380 U.S. 63 (1965)]
For you to abandon this important subject at so early a point with so many questions left unanswered is not only irresponsible, but constitutes misprision of treason, 18 USC 2382. How can you sleep at night, unless of course your conscience is so numb that you can murder and destroy people's lives without even flinching? Isn't the study of law supposed to be the study of “public virtue”? Are you not concerned with public virtue and protection and respect for everyone's EQUAL rights? Are you ONLY concerned with protecting the lawlessness and hypocrisy of your employer, the IRS, as an attorney?.
Quote:“Better is a little with righteousness, Than vast revenues [of the IRS] without justice.”[Prov. 16:8, Bible, NKJV]
_________________________
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cleanse the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of extortion and self-indulgence.[f] Blind Pharisee, first cleanse the inside of the cup and dish, that the outside of them may be clean also.
?Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men?s bones and all uncleanness. 28 Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.
?Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees [lawyers], hypocrites! Because you build the tombs of the prophets [Abe Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson in Washington Dc] and adorn the monuments of the righteous, and say, ?If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.?
?Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets.? Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers? guilt.? Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of H*LL?? Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes [such as this website]: some of them you will kill and crucify [as you are attempting to do now thorugh LEGAL TERRORISM], and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city,? that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.? Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.” [JESUS in Matt. 23:25-36, Bible, NKJV]
We don't need people in this forum or on this website who have no social conscience and no sense or morality or personal responsibility. All they are going to do is abuse the materials for personal gain and bring reproach upon the entire freedom community and us.
Quote:“He who walks with wise men will be wise, But the companion of fools will be destroyed.”? Prov. 13:20Good riddance. Everything AndyK posts from this point on will be DELETED unless and until he:
1. Deals directly with the questions asked in this forum.
2. Follows through with his promise to answer all of the “trade or business scam” questions at the end of the pamphlet below.
AndyK,
You are putting words in my mouth. Law and Supreme Court decisions DO matter and I have played by YOUR rules by providing cases which defeat yours. Now you won't explain or defend yourself when confronted with the truth of your misdeeds. Why won't you explain why the case cites I provided are insufficient? As I said before: I don't set the ground rules. The ground rules for this mock court are the same as those in a real court. I provided case cites that trump yours and explain the context in which yours apply but don't contradict them, and you haven't contradicted my explanation or my case cites. Therefore, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(d), you admit and agree with everything I said. In a battle of truth, the truth and NOT me, is SOVEREIGN and he who flees the scene first wins, my friend.
All of the authorities I cited are ONLY from the Supreme Court and they TRUMP your authorities. Your authorities relating to the use of the “ordinary meaning” of words ONLY relate to cases where there is NO STATUTORY DEFINITION, which is not the case for the term “trade or business”. There IS, in fact, a statutory definition in 26 USC 7701(a)(26) and that statutory definition SUPERSEDES, not ENLARGES, the common definition, as the authorities I provided show. Your argument is against the Supreme Court and Black's Law Dictionary, not me, my friend. Why don't you explain why the Supreme Court, and not me, is wrong?
You're trying to “personalize” the discussion so you don't have to deal with the facts and the law. You're trying to make it look like I am being arbitrary and discriminatory, like the corrupted judges you litigate in front of EVERY DAY as a lawyer for the IRS. Without the “protection racket” (e.g. corrupted judge) there to defend you by keeping the truths out of the record that I just revealed, you will LOSE EVERY TIME. That's a COWARDLY way out of dealing with the facts and the law. You've just proved that not only YOU, but your employer, the IRS, can't defend ANYTHING you do and that you are engaged in THIEVERY, wrongful converion of “private property” to a “public use”, and RACKEETING AND EXTORTION in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1951. You ALL belong behind BARS for a LONG, LONG time, my friend.
Let the record reflect, Your Honor, that Mr. AndyK, an IRS employee:
1. Has destroyed and compromised his sacred honor as an attorney by refusing to keep his promise to answer the questions contained in the following, and then backing out.
http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/TradeOrBusScam.pdf
2. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(d), has answered “Admit” to all the questions contained in the above pamphlet, because he refused to plead or deny when confronted with the truth.
Quote:“Silence can only be equated with fraud when there is a legal or moral duty to speak, or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading… We cannot condone this shocking conduct…If that is the case we hope our message is clear. This sort of deception will not be tolerated and if this is routine it should be corrected immediately”? [U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299-300 (1977) ]3. Has admitted, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(d) that the term “trade or business” includes ONLY a “public office”.
4. Has admitted that he is guilty of “misprision of felony” in violation of 18 U.S.C. 4, and become an accessory after the fact to conspiracy against rights in violation of 18 USC 241 and 18 USC 3. You are faced with the truth of your misdeeds and NOW you must report it to your supervisors and seek an enforcement remedy, or else violate your fiduciary duty to protect the public as a “public officer” by committing fraud and obstructing justice by doing nothing:
Quote:“Fraud in its elementary common law sense of deceit — and this is one of the meanings that fraud bears [483 U.S. 372] in the statute, see United States v. Dial, 757 F.2d 163, 168 (7th Cir.1985) — includes the deliberate concealment of material information in a setting of fiduciary obligation. A public official is a fiduciary toward the public, including, in the case of a judge, the litigants who appear before him, and if he deliberately conceals material information from them, he is guilty of fraud. When a judge is busily soliciting loans from counsel to one party, and not telling the opposing counsel (let alone the public), he is concealing material information in violation of his fiduciary obligations.”? [McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350 (1987)]By your silence, omission, and cowardly retreat, you are engaging in constructive fraud, and helping in the concealment of criminal activity, which is obstruction of justice. Your license ought to be pulled because you don't deserve to practice law if you are willing to go to such great lengths to continue the flow of PLUNDER into your checking account from persons who are not engaged in a “trade or business” or a “public office”. Apprehend this THIEF and CRIMINAL, Bailiff and your honor! . . .And if you don't, YOU TOO become an accessory after the fact to a conspiracy to vioilate rights.
5. Is engaged in a pattern of racketeering and interference with “commerce” of citizens within the states in violation of 18 USC 1951.
6. Is wrongfully and systematically converting “private property” for “public use”, which is larceny and emblezzlement. A “trade or business” is a public office. A public office is a “public use”. You are compelling people to convert their private property to “public use” by associating it with a Slave Surveillance Number and associating all payments with a “trade or business”. Worst yet, you are also compelling CITIZENS to become privileged ALIENS who are federal “employees” and “public officers” engaged in a trade or business within the borders of their their own country. THIEVERY and TREASON! See:http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Arti…eEmployment.htm
7. Is estopped from challenging any of these facts or law documented in this topic relating to “trade or business” in the future because he was offered an opportunity to plead and refused, and thereby admitted to the truth of everything in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(d).
Quote:“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]
____________________________________________________________________
?Equitable estoppel, or estoppel in pais, is a term applied usually to a situation where, because of something which he has done or omitted to do, a party is denied the right to plead or prove an otherwise important fact. 2?? The term has also been variously defined, frequently by pointing out one or more of the elements of, or prerequisites to, 3?? the application of the doctrine or the situations in which the doctrine is urged. 4? The most comprehensive definition of equitable estoppel or estoppel in pais is that it is the principle by which a party who knows or should know the truth is absolutely precluded, both at law and in equity, from denying, or asserting the contrary of, any material fact which, by his words or conduct, affirmative or negative, intentionally or through culpable negligence, he has induced another, who was excusably ignorant of the true facts and who had a right to rely upon such words or conduct, to believe and act upon them thereby, as a consequence reasonably to be anticipated, changing his position in such a way that he would suffer injury if such denial or contrary assertion was allowed. 5? In the final analysis, however, an equitable estoppel rests upon the facts and circumstances of the particular case in which it is urged, 6?? considered in the framework of the elements, requisites, and grounds of equitable estoppel, 7?? and consequently, any attempted definition usually amounts to no more than a declaration of an estoppel under those facts and circumstances. 8? ? The cases themselves must be looked to and applied by way of analogy rather than rule. 9?
[American Jurisprudence 2d, Estoppel and Waiver, ?27: Definitions and Nature]
____________________________________________________________________
?The doctrine of estoppel is based upon the grounds of public policy, fair dealing, good faith, and justice, and its purpose is to forbid one to speak against his own act, representations, or commitments to the injury of one to whom they were directed and who reasonably relied thereon. 11 The doctrine of estoppel springs from equitable principles and the equities in the case. 12?? It is designed to aid the law in the administration of justice where without its aid injustice might result. 13?? Thus, the doctrine of equitable estoppel or estoppel in pais is founded upon principles of morality and fair dealing and is intended to subserve the ends of justice. 14? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?? It always presupposes error on one side and fault or fraud upon the other and some defect of which it would be inequitable for the party against whom the doctrine is asserted to take advantage. 15 It concludes the truth in order to prevent fraud and falsehood and imposes silence on a party only when in conscience and honesty he should not be allowed to speak. 16
The proper function of equitable estoppel is the prevention of fraud, actual or constructive, 17?? and the doctrine should always be so applied as to promote the ends of justice and accomplish that which ought to be done between man and man. 18? Such an estoppel cannot arise against a party except when justice to the rights of others demands it 19? ? and when to refuse it would be inequitable. 20? ? The doctrine of estoppel should be applied cautiously and only when equity clearly requires it to be done. 1?? Hence, in determining the application of the doctrine, the counterequities of the parties are entitled to due consideration. 2? ? It is available only in defense of a legal or equitable right or claim made in good faith and can never be asserted to uphold crime, fraud, injustice, or wrong of any character. 3? Estoppel is to be applied against wrongdoers, not against the victim of a wrong, 4? although estoppel is never employed as a means of inflicting punishment for an unlawful or wrongful act. 5?
[American Jurisprudence 2d, Estoppel and Waiver, ?28: Basis, function, and purpose]
How do YOU define protection? My definition is as follows, and this is the ONLY protection I am willing to pay for, and by the way, it costs NOTHING:
Quote:“LEAVE ME THE H*LL ALONE AND QUITE STEALING MY MONEY BY WRONGFULLY CONVERTING PRIVATE PROPERTY TO A 'PUBLIC USE' or 'PUBLIC PURPOSE'.”?Are you, Mr. Government Employee, willing to offer me THAT kind of protection, and if you aren't, why should you be able to compel me to associate with and subsidize the EVIL embodied in a “state” full of people who refuse to provide the kind of protection I want, in violation of the First Amendment freedom from “compelled association”?
Quote:“The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone – the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men.” [Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting);? see also Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210 (1990)]It is my Constitutional Right NOT to choose to participate in or have a domicile within a state full of government whores (BABYLON THE GREAT HARLOT), over 50% of whom are collecting government benefits or are “taxpayers” who are therefore unqualified to sit on a jury because they are either receiving STOLEN PROPERTY, in the form of government handouts, or have a financial conflict of interest in violation of 18 USC 208.
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Freedom/Ar…risis-01508.pdf
It is PRECISELY the above conflict of interest that explains why the only “taxpayers” under I.R.C. Subtitle A are aliens. The IRS can only issue TINs to “aliens”, not “citizens”, 26 CFR ?301.6109-1(d)(3). 26 CFR 1.1-1(a)(2)(ii) also defines married and umarried individuals as ALIENS engaged in a trade or business. There is NO definition of “individual” anywhere in the I.R.C. that includes “citizens” not engaged in a “trade or business” or nonresident aliens with no earnings from the District of Columbia. 26 USC 911 also descibes only ALIENS, because the statutory “U.S. citizens” (8 U.S.C. 1401) described there are “aliens” under the terms of a tax treaty with a foreign country. The fox cannot be in charge of the chickens. A judge cannot have the duty to protect the rights of statutory “citizens”, and simultaneously also have the right to STEAL from them. The only people who can use the form 1040 are “aliens”, based on 26 CFR 1.1-1(a)(2)(ii). That is also why the only definition of “individual”, shown at 26 CFR 1.1441-1(c )(3) is an “alien” and not a “citizen”. This is the same “individual” appearing in the upper left corner of the IRS form 1040 as “U.S. individual” and also defined in 5 USC 552a(a)(2) as a federal employee who is a domiciliary of the “United States”, which is defined in 26 USC 7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) as the District of Columbia and nowhere expanded to include any other place.
It's illegal to bribe a voter or jurist with money STOLEN from the defendant. 18 U.S.C. 597. The travesty of justice in federal courtrooms on the tax issue is that judges, who themselves have such a conflict of interest, allow or condone this kind routine abuse of legal process to occur and refuse to allow a remedy which might prevent it.
For an interesting audio along these lines, see:
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Arti…al-20060318.mp3
AndyK, IRS Employee and IRS attorney:
If you do not respond to this posting and answer the questions you promised to answer below under penalty of perjury, then the administrator has agreed to ban you from this topic:
http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/TradeOrBusScam.pdf.
You ARE NOT banned from this topic if you defend yourself with superior authorities. Since you won't and you default and admit you are a criminal, then we have to ban you because we can't allow criminals in this forum, who might mislead and injure other participants. We must protect and police ourselves, because we can't trust the government to do it, especially considering that you are part of the government! 😆
The prosecution rests its case, Your Honor (all of YOU who are reading this). Bailiff, apprehend this man…
AndyK,
Thanks, but you're going to have to do better than that:
1. You agreed to answer all the questions and you will be held to that. I'm not giving you any wiggle room. Honor all your commitments.
2. Your answers must be signed under penalty of perjury.
3. You contradicted yourself. First, you said that you didn't want to talk about “includes”, and now you are using it as your ONLY defense. Stick to your original demand and live by the same rules you tried to impose on me.
Your lame excuses about “includes” have already been dealt with in the “includes” pamphlet at:
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Fals…c/Includess.pdf
If you are going to play that game, you have a whole new set of admissions to answer at the end of that pamphlet as well, and in writing under penalty of perjury.
You are attempting to use “includes” to do the following:
1. Compel the reader to “guess” or “presume” about the meaning of a statute by asserting that the “common definition” is included in the statutory definition. This:
1.1 Creates a statutory presumption, which the Supreme Court said is impermissible.
Quote:“The power to create presumptions is not a means of escape from constitutional restrictions,”? [New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)]“It is apparent,' this court said in the Bailey Case ( 219 U.S. 239 , 31 S. Ct. 145, 151) 'that a constitutional prohibition cannot be transgressed indirectly by the creation of a statutory presumption any more than it can be violated by direct enactment. The power to create presumptions is not a means of escape from constitutional restrictions.' ” [Heiner v. Donnan, 285 U.S. 312 (1932)]
1.2 Violates the rules of statutory construction indicated above.
Quote:“It is axiomatic that the statutory definition of the term excludes unstated meanings of that term.? Colbutti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379, 392, and n. 10 (1979). Congress' use of the term “propaganda” in this statute, as indeed in other legislation, has no pejorative connotation. As judges, it is our duty to [481 U.S. 485] construe legislation as it is written, not as it might be read by a layman, or as it might be understood by someone who has not even read it.” [Meese v. Keene, 481 U.S. 465, 484 (1987)]” [Meese v. Keene, 481 U.S. 465, 484 (1987)]“When a statute includes an explicit definition, we must follow that definition, even if it varies from that term's ordinary meaning. Meese v. Keene, 481 U.S. 465, 484-485 (1987) (“It is axiomatic that the statutory definition of the term excludes unstated meanings of that term”); Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. at 392-393, n. 10 (“As a rule, `a definition which declares what a term “means” . . . excludes any meaning that is not stated'”); Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Lenroot, 323 U.S. 490, 502 (1945); Fox v. Standard Oil Co. of N.J., 294 U.S. 87, 95-96 (1935) (Cardozo, J.); see also 2A N. Singer, Sutherland on Statutes and Statutory Construction ? 47.07, p. 152, and n. 10 (5th ed. 1992) (collecting cases). That is to say, the statute, read “as a whole,” post at 998 [530 U.S. 943] (THOMAS, J., dissenting), leads the reader to a definition. That definition does not include the Attorney General's restriction — “the child up to the head.” Its words, “substantial portion,” indicate the contrary.”? [Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000)]
“As a rule, `a definition which declares what a term “means” . . . excludes any meaning that is not stated'” [Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379 (1979), n. 10]
?Expressio unius est exclusio alterius.? A maxim of statutory interpretation meaning that the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another.? Burgin v. Forbes, 293 Ky. 456, 169 S.W.2d 321, 325; Newblock v. Bowles, 170 Okl. 487, 40 P.2d 1097, 1100.? Mention of one thing implies exclusion of another.? When certain persons or things are specified in a law, contract, or will, an intention to exclude all others from its operation may be inferred.? Under this maxim, if statute specifies one exception to a general rule or assumes to specify the effects of a certain provision, other exceptions or effects are excluded.? [Black?s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 581]
2. Making the interpretation of the statute subjective and arbitrary, as determined by the jury instead of the written law. A jury is an “arbitrary power” whose values are subjective. You are trying to make the definition of a words subjective and convert a “society of law” into a “society of men”, so that you can exploit the evils of democracy ridiculed by Madison as a means to pit jealous citizens who are receiving bribes from the public coffers of STOLEN money against those who don't want to subsidize the PLUNDER of socialism. This abuse of democracy to destroy rights is well documented below, in section 2.4 at:
http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/SocialismCivilReligion.pdf
Of the above point, the Supreme Court said:
Quote:'When we consider the nature and the theory of our institutions of government, the principles upon which they are supposed to rest, and review the history of their development, we are constrained to conclude that they do not mean to leave room for the play and action of purely personal and arbitrary power.' ” [Gulf, C. & S.F.R. Co. v. Ellis, 165 U.S. 150 (1897)]3. You are also attempting to suggest the following RIDICULOUS hypotheses:
3.1 That is it possible to create a federal government of finite, delegated powers consistent with the Ninth and Tenth Amendments using words that have subjective, incomplete, or changing meanings subject to the whims of whatever jury is sitting. This is an impossibility and “leaves room for the play of arbitrary power”, which the Supreme Court said above is the OPPOSITE purpose of the Constitution. The only way to satisfy this requirement is for the statutes to describe ALL that is included. This is what gives rise to the rules of statutory construction above.
3.2 That the jury or the judge can become legislators, because they can define whatever they want to be included. ONLY the legislative branch has that authority.
Black's Law dictionary says the word “includes” has TWO meanings: 1. Is limited to; 2. In addition to.
When it is used in its “in addition to” context, other things or classes of things that are added must ALL, in total, be included SOMEWHERE within the statutes. The law must prescribe EVERYTHING that is included, or it is void for vagueness:
Quote:“Law fails to meet requirements of due process clause if it is so vague and standardless that it leaves public uncertain as to conduct it prohibits or leaves judges and jurors free to decide, without any legally fixed standards, what is prohibited and what is not in each particular case.”? [Giaccio v. State of Pennsylvania, 382 U.S. 399; 86 S.Ct. 518 (1966)]Presumptions which prejudice constitutional rights are a tort, including presumptions or assumptions about what a word means.
Quote:(1) [8:4993] Conclusive presumptions affecting protected interests:? A conclusive presumption may be defeated where its application would impair a party's constitutionally-protected liberty or property interests.? In such cases, conclusive presumptions have been held to violate a party's due process and equal protection rights.? [Vlandis v. Kline (1973) 412 U.S. 441, 449, 93 S.Ct 2230, 2235; Cleveland Bed. of Ed. v. LaFleur (1974) 414 US 632, 639-640, 94 S.Ct. 1208, 1215-presumption under Illinois law that unmarried fathers are unfit violates process]? [Rutter Group Practice Guide-Federal Civil Trials and Evidence, paragraph 8:4993, page 8K-34]“For all the foregoing reasons, I think that these two statutory presumptions by which Congress has tried to relieve the Government of its burden of proving a man guilty and to take away from courts and juries the function and duty of deciding guilt or innocence according to the evidence before them, unconstitutionally encroach on the functions of courts and deny persons accused of crime rights which our Constitution guarantees them.” [United States v. Gainly, 380 U.S. 63 (1965)]
All presumption which prejudices constitutional rights is a violatin of due process. The purpose of the Federal Rules of Evidence is to REMOVE presumption from legal process and thereby protect rights. Presumptions about the meaning of a word by a jury may not act as a substitute for evidence. The presumption of “innocense until proven guilty” applies.
Quote:“Where the construction of a tax law is doubtful, the doubt is to be resolved in favor of whom upon which the tax is sought to be laid. (See Spreckles Sugar Refining v. McClain, 192 U.S. 397, 416 (1904); Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151, 153 (1917); Smietanka v. First Trust & Savings Bank, 257 U.S. 602, 606 (1922); Lucas v. Alexander, 279 U.S. 573, 577 (1929); Crooks v. Harrelson, 282 U.S. 55 (1930); Burnet v. Niagra Falls Brewing Co., 282 U.S. 648, 654 (1931); Miller v. Standard Nut Margarine Co., 284 U.S. 498, 508 (1932); Gregory v. Helvering, 293 U.S. 465, 469 (1935); Hassett v. Welch, 303 U.S. 303, 314 (1938); U.S. v. Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114, 123 (1978); Security Bank of Minnesota v. CIA, 994 F.2d 432, 436 (CA8 1993)).”If the judge is entitled to presume what is included because it isn't specified in the law, then the defendant is equally entitled to presume that it is NOT included, and if he is denied this opportunity, then he is being denied equal protection of the law in violation of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
As far as use of the ordinary meaning of words, that only applies when there is no statutory definition. The term “trade or business” has a statutory definition that SUPERSEDES the common definition, based on the cites above. This is also consistent with the article below, which we are still waiting for a rebuttal on:
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Arti…eEmployment.htm
I want to thank you for continuing the purpose of educating the readers so far. We all win when we learn something new that is relevant and which we can use as a tool later in our own litigation. Your cites on the “ordinary meaning” of words are already accounted for in the “includes” pamphlet below, sections 3.8. Why don't you explain why this analysis is wrong to all the participants in this forum?:
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Fals…c/Includess.pdf
Lastly, I emphasize that your answers to ALL questions MUST be entirely consistent with everything stated above or you must at least explain why they are NOT.
AndyK,
What we are saying is that a person who prepared information returns cannot do so in compliance with law and can and in most cases DO accomplish that task not in compliance with law and in violation of rights because:
1. They have not read 26 USC 6041 or 26 USC 7701(a)(26) and do not know that you can only file an information return IF the payment is connected with a privileged, excise taxable activity called a “trade or business”, which connects the party to govenrment contracts or employment or agency and connects the payment to a “public purpose” or “public use” subject to government regulation.
2. None of the IRS publications precisely define what a “trade or business” is.
2. They do not know what a “trade or business” is.
3. Both the IRS and the courts refuse to address what a “trade or business” is or to do so consistent with the rules of statutory construction.
Quote:?Expressio unius est exclusio alterius.? A maxim of statutory interpretation meaning that the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another.? Burgin v. Forbes, 293 Ky. 456, 169 S.W.2d 321, 325; Newblock v. Bowles, 170 Okl. 487, 40 P.2d 1097, 1100.? Mention of one thing implies exclusion of another.? When certain persons or things are specified in a law, contract, or will, an intention to exclude all others from its operation may be inferred.? Under this maxim, if statute specifies one exception to a general rule or assumes to specify the effects of a certain provision, other exceptions or effects are excluded.? [Black?s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 581]“It is axiomatic that the statutory definition of the term excludes unstated meanings of that term,”
[Meese v. Keene, 481 U.S. 465, 484 (1987)]
4. They do not know that the government can only either deduct or pay money to people who are federal employees or contractors who have waived their rights and the requirement for implementing regulations pursuant to 44 USC 1505(a) and 5 U.S.C. 553(a). See:
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Arti…eEmployment.htm
5. When educated about what it means from the law, the FALSE WITNESSES refuse to believe it and are not held accountable for what it means by either the IRS or the Courts. See:
http://sedm.org/Forms/04-Tax/DmdVerEvOfTradeOrBusiness-IR.pdf
6. The DOJ and IRS try to deceive them about what it means by abusing the word includes to violate due process of law and compel presumption. All presumption which prejudices constitutionally protected rights is a violation of due process of law and a tort. See:
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Fals…c/Includess.pdf
7. The judges and government counsel who are receiving PLUNDER resulting from the false information returns filed against defendants prevent parties from talking about it to the jury and preven evidence from being examined by the jury on this subject. This involves judges and government counsel in obstruction of justice, a conspiracy against rights, misprision of felony, and makes them into an accessory after the fact in violation of 18 USC 241 and 18 U.S.C. 3 & 4. See:
http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Forms/Di…ssQuestions.htm
8. Among the juries who hear this subject, over 50% of them receive PLUNDER STOLEN from the defendant and therefore are not qualified to serve as jurists, and yet the judge refuses to recuse them. See:
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Freedom/Ar…risis-01508.pdf
That the only reason the government collects any taxes at all under I.R.C. Subtitle A is because they manufacture legal ignorance in the public schools and the courts (by refusing to allow law to be discussed in the courtroom) then “harvest” that ignorance by turning us against each other as basically communist spies and informants so we violate each other's rights and privacy and enslave our neighbor with false reports. They sit back and laugh and do nothing to correct this injustice, because this PLUNDER is what pays their paychecks. They are LEECHES and PARASITES on the body politic intent on DESTROYING our Constitutional Republic and replacing it with a totalitarian democracy of people who don't respect each other's rights or even know what their rights are. The Bible Calls this wicked assembly of evildoers “BABYLON THE GREAT (GOVERNMENT) HARLOT”. They also laugh because they fooled us into doing their CRIMINAL dirty work and they don't have to assume any legal liability for the injustice. This approach amounts to constructive fraud. This constructive fraud is a cancer on the body politic that can only be righted through education. It's obvious that the government doesn't want this kind of education going on based on their persecution of this website. Hence, their behavior confirms that they know everything above and are engaging in “anti-whistleblowing activity” to silence those who know about it in order to prevent liability for their omissions from reaching the courts so they can be held accountable.
Quote:Then you will see the rise of the double standard–the men who live by force [the government and the IRS and scumbag lawyers], yet count on those who live by trade to create the value of their looted money–the men who are the hitchhikers of virtue. In a moral society, these are the criminals, and the statutes are written to protect you against them. But when a society establishes criminals-by-right and looters-by-law–men who use force to seize the wealth of DISARMED victims [who have been disarmed by making them ignorant of the law and by taking away their guns]–then money becomes its creators' avenger. Such looters [IRS] believe it safe to rob defenseless [made ignorant of the law by sneaky lawyers and politicians who run the public education system, in this case] men, once they've passed a law to disarm them. But their loot becomes the magnet for other looters, who get it from them as they got it. Then the race goes, not to the ablest at production, but to those most ruthless at brutality. When force is the standard, the murderer wins over the pickpocket. And then that society vanishes, in a spread of ruins and slaughter.Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
The prosecution rests its case.
All,
And if the W-2, 1098, 1099, and 1042-S information returns filed by the third party are FALSE or ERRONEOUS because the person against whom they were filed was not in fact and in deed engaged in a “trade or business”, as required by 26 USC 6041, then the person victimized by them has civil standing under 26 USC 7434 and under equity jurisdiction to sue them for all unjustified liabilities that result from the false report. This would be filed as a CROSS COMPLAINT to the original complaint of the IRS and would necessitate joinder of the witness to the suit, so that all matters affecting the situation can be resolved simulateneously. This will have a chilling affect on the third party giving testimony, because you will have him by the BALLS.
Incidentally, such false reports are CRIMNINAL offenses against God's laws that deserve equal punishment under man's laws:
Quote:?You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor [on an information return].”? Exodus 20:16“A false witness will not go unpunished, And he who speaks lies will not escape. ” Prov. 19:5, 19:19
“But he who hastens to be rich [by the WILLFUL OMISSION of REFUSING THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO CORRECT KNOWINGLY FALSE REPORTS] will not go unpunished.” Prov. 28:20
Notice the above doesn't say “FRAUDULENT WITNESS”, but “FALSE WITNESS”. Man's law only punishes “FRAUDULENT WITNESS” under 26 USC 7434, and thereby REWARDS AND ENCOURAGES FALSE WITNESS. This has the affect of filling government treasuries with PLUNDER and STOLEN loot collected illegally and based on false reports. See Frederick Bastiat's “The Law” for details on how this SOCIALIST scam works, as well as the statutes below from God's law:
Quote:“Better is a little with righteousness, Than vast revenues without justice.”? Prov. 16:8“The king establishes the land by justice, But he who receives bribes [or revenues not authorized by law because based on CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD and FALSE REPORTS] overthrows it. ” Prov. 29:4
There is no statutory remedy under man's law for only FALSE WITNESS if the third party submitter of false information returns is an IGNORANT IRS DISCIPLE who refuses to read the law for themself and instead believes everything the IRS says or prints or worst yet, what their high paid government whore attorney or CPA, who is on a LEASH called a LICENSE, tells them. This, despite the IRS' and the Courts frequent warnings to the contrary:
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Arti…Responsible.htm
See the Trade or Business Scam questions on this subject at the end of the pamphlet for further details on this subject of suing false witnesses:
http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/TradeOrBusScam.pdf
Can't wait to see AndyK's response to them.
The SEDM folks, I am told, are working on just such a Cross Complaint to prevent such terrorist tactics by the IRS. Go get'em, all you innocent victims of ignorant private employers and companies who don't read or follow the laws on withholding or reporting! If you want to know what those laws are, see:
http://sedm.org/LibertyU/WithngAndRptng.pdf
http://famguardian.org/Publications/FedSta…teWHOptions.pdf
And Woe to you Lawyers who facilitate the false witness through either OMISSION (ignoring correspondence requesting correction of false report or refusing to provide a statutory remedy for a FALSE report) or COMMISSION (prosecuting those innocent persons who refuse to be victimized by this form of involuntary servitude and compelled association). God will punish you ALL!:
http://famguardian.org/Publications/WoeToY…you_lawyers.pdf
I remind those readers who may have just joined us that a “trade or business” is defined as “the functions of a public office”, which means only those who are engaged in a public office by virtue of their employment, or who VOLUNTARILY and absent duress contractually agree (under 26 CFR 31.3401(a)-3(a)) to be treated as such in the process of procuring “social insurance” using a W-4 form, can have reportable “trade or business” earnings. This is what it means in the I.R.C. to be “effectively connected to a trade or business”. It means you are party to some kind of written contract, such as a 1040, W-4, SS-5, etc. See:
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Arti…eEmployment.htm
Andy,
Thanks. We will wait beyond one week. There aren't that many questions and they are all admit or deny. The only reason it would take much work is because you want supporting evidence to argue with, and that's good. Truth and education and accountability to the requirements of the law for everyone here is all we want. We're not here to “ambush you”, but to help you sharpen the sword of truth and further the ends of the law and of justice for all.
Quote:“As iron sharpens iron, So a man sharpens the countenance of his friend.”[Prov. 27:17]
“Rebuke a wise man, and he will love you.”?
[Prov. 9:8]
“A wise man will hear and increase learning, And a man of understanding will attain [and invite] wise counsel,”?
[Prov. 1:5]
“Let the righteous strike me;
It shall be a kindness,
And let him rebuke me;
It shall be as excellent oil;
Let my head not refuse it.”
[Psalm 141:5]
We at Family Guardian seek to to be wise and godly men, not scoffers or “wise guys” like those at Quatloser land.
AndyK,
There you go throwing red herrings in the mix.
1. The trade or business questions at the end of the referenced pamphlet don't address 861 argument, and for good reason: its a bad argument that the Great IRS Hoax says to avoid. Therefore, you don't have to address it either.
2. The questions don't address citizens v. residents. I don't know where you get that from.
3. The questions don't address “Includes” either.
Instead, the questions deal ONLY with the subject of a trade or business, and whose answers you clearly don't want on the record. You are just trying to make excuses to avoid getting the truth on the record. These are cowardly guerilla tactics, not unlike the coward at the IRS who refuses to sign his name and put the IRS seal on the IRS “Truth About incorrect Tax Arguments”:
http://famguardian.org/PublishedAuthors/Go…_tax_rebuts.pdf
I am not making up the the rules of court, but following the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence, just like all of us would have to do if we were really litigating. See:
http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/LegalRef…alResrchSrc.htm
The judge is not me, but the READERS who will look at the evidence for themselves and be the JURY. They are the WINNERS if you educate them. We can all be winners. They are the losers if you don't. You can't really claim to know a subject until you have to defend it in front of an informed group like this. There is no judge other than them. All that WE are asking for is for you to submit the evidence, and you have our sacred honor that it will not be tampered with. All we (not me, but WE) seek is the truth and enlightenment, but not propaganda. Our allegiance to truth and God exceeds our allegiance to filthy lucre, unlike some people we know in the legal profession. My opinion means NOTHING. The only source of reasonable belief is enacted positive law identified in the Reasonable Belief About Tax Liability:
http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/ReasonableBelief.pdf
If you disagree with the above pamphlet, please tell the group why, and be ready to defend your position. The point is that you don't want to be accountable for the truth to THEM, not me. This the same kind of game that your employer plays. If the American people could hear the WHOLE truth coming from your lips openly and frequently, then things would be VERY different and YOU KNOW IT. You're welcome to post your answers over on the Quatloser forums or elsewhere as well, if you are worried they will be tampered with, but they simply won't. Provide a pointer to the alternate copy of the answers if you like, but make sure you sign the answers and send the scanned image to Family Guardian webmaster at the address indicated as a PDF, which you can also password lock so that it can't be tampered with if you like. They will post it for all to read.
I don't set the rules of evidence or what statutes are admissible. The Fed.R.Evidence do. The goal is not to win, but to inform through argument in the court of public opinion. Prove to us that you are a REAL lawyer who wants to use his skills to educate, inform, and help people, instead of terrorize and destroy them, like your employer does. That is the only way you will win the trust of the people here, just as we have tried very hard to do. Silence constitutes acquiescence and estoppel in pais.
You, like everyone else in these forums, are perfectly entitled to disagree, but have an obligation to do so with facts and law, not opinion. Since you don't want to inform or empower the audience with facts and law by answering the questions or defending your position, then you're clearly a predator rather than a protector. You don't want to hand the slaves the key to their chains, which is the knowledge needed to understand and defend against the abuse of due process that happens daily in courts across the country on the tax issue.
You would not be banned from this forum, but only from the trade or business topic and only because your posts seek only fear and not education. You can prevent the ban one week from now by answering the questions on the record for everyone to read. I already gave you my answers. Now it's your turn. Unlike the people at Quatloser, we fight FAIR with facts and LAW, not sarcasm and presumption and prejudice.
Albert,
Thanks for the info. Anyone interested in this subject may also wish to visit:
AndyK,
I am very disappointed in your abuse of this forum. You are using it as a means of propaganda instead of education. You are trying to scare the readers away from the use of corrected information returns without addressing the facts or law supporting their or your position. This is supposed to be a mock court, not another slanted media outlet for whores of the IRS. You are going to answer the questions at the end of The Trade or business Scam article below for all to read, or you will be banned from this topic and your posts will be removed. We will have “due process” (only full FACTS and LAW) in this topic or you won't participate.
http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/TradeOrBusScam.pdf
My answers to all the questions in the above is ADMIT. I'm not asking you to do anything that I haven't therefore done. Your Constitutional duty as an IRS employee and a “public SERVANT” is to know, answer to, and obey the law so that you can fulfill your oath to support and defend the sovereign, which is We The People. Your first duty is to the PUBLIC, who you serve, and not to the courts, your pocket book or your retirement or your bosses next pay raise. Good luck finding caselaw supporting anything other than ADMIT, because there isn't any that I have been able to find. If all the ANSWERS are admit, then you and your employer are engaging in acts of terrorism, political persecution, persecution for political speech, and involving the courts in political questions that they have no business pursuing.
The fact of the matter is, that the reason the IRS gets away with the violation of the CONstitution, enacted law, and compels people to associate with a corrupted government (in violation of the First Amendment) and using fraudulent information returns filed by ignorant people who are too stupid to even know they are violating the law against innocent Americans is because of silence and omission, a failure to recognize the limits of the law on their authority, and total lack of accountability to the public, who they are supposed to be serving. I allege that you and your employer look the other way with the blessings of a corrupted judiciary because the plunder is flowing into your checking account and bloated federal retirement. I'm asking you to prove otherwise by answering the questions, so as to maintain your credibility as a “public servant”. Your behavior in this forum is demonstrating more of these same sins as your employer, the IRS, and we can't condone or allow it:
1. Refusing to address the facts and law on this subject.
2. Appealing to the fear, ignorance and presumption of the masses on this subject.
3. Demonstrating that your agency (the IRS) has no respect for law or desire to address the requirements it places upon your authority as an IRS employee.
4. Resorting to false presumption instead of facts and law, in violation of due process. See:
http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/Presumption.pdf
You can post your answers to the above in this topic, and they will also need to email a signed version of them (sign the end) to submissions(AT)famguardian.org so that they can be posted for all to read. Otherwise, please quit abusing fear, ignorance, presumption, and political propaganda disguised as “legal process” to your own personal financial benefit in violation of 18 USC 208.
You have one week to answer the quesitons and submit your answers to the email above. After that, all of your posts to this topic (but not this forum) will be deleted if we receive no answers. Accountable government, including accountability to the requirements of the law, is a MANDATE of the Constitution and this forum, and YOU are going to demonstrate your commitment to that or be banned from this topic.
If the IRS isn't ALSO going to prosecute the following types of abuses as well, then it is violating the requirement for equal protection:
1. Prosecuting those who file the false information returns (not CORRECTED, but the ORIGINALS) to begin with under 26 U.S.C. 7434.
2. Using information returns not signed under penalty of perjury as evidence. Information returns not signed under penalty of perjury, such as 1099, 1098, and 1042-S may not be used as a basis for doing a Substitute for Return because they are hearsay evidence not admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 802.
3. Filing of Substitute for Returns without an assessment signed under penalty of perjury by an assessment officer pursuant to 26 USC 6065. This is a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and 26 U.S.C. 6020. The U.S. Supreme Court said that taxes are “debts”, which therefore subjects themn to the same standards as other debts. See Milwaukee v. White, 296 U.S 268 (1935). The assessment must indicate the specific individual liable. The RACS 006 doesn't meet this critera and IRS positively refuses to provide the 23C which might do this as well. Neither is the 4340 signed under penalty of perjury, and it is signed based on electronic assessment information that is not signed or authenticated under penalty of perjury at the time of assessment either.
4. Redacting information from TXMOD reports about employees who did the assessments.
5. Playing “ricochet rabbit” with FOIA requests for assessment documents, so the perpetrators of illegal assessments can be sued as they deserve. See IRM 11.3.13.9.4:
http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByT…essmentCert.htm
6. Posting unsubstantiated hearsay evidence on their website not signed or authenticated by the author, such as their propaganda piece “The Truth About incorrect Arguments”. Please explain how ANYTHING can be identified as truth in a court of law if the witness positively refuses to take responsibility for it, sign it, put his seal on it, or take an oath about its truthfulness? When is Mr. Kolb of the IRS Chief Counsels' Office going to take just as much PERSONAL responsibility and personal liability for the accuracy of that piece as we have to take when we submit a tax return by signing it under penalty of perjury?
7. Ignoring or destroying correspondence from persons that clearly proves illegal enforcement, and then using a commercial default process against them to destroy their lives. Sounds like “guilty until proven innocent” to me.
When is the IRS going to discipline ITS OWN EMPLOYEES for doing the above? We, on the one hand, must sign everything we send to the government under penalty of perjury. The government, on the other hand, isn't required to sign ANYTHING and there isn't even one single individual in the government who is required to take personal responsibility for DESTROYING people's lives by signing their illegal SFRs under penalty of perjury. This removes any recourse in the courts, because no one can be personally held liable for malfeasance or misfeasance where you work. Equal protection DEMANDs equal accountability.
These offenses are far worse that filing of corrections to fraudulent information returns filed by ignorant clerks who don't read or follow the law and who are violating 26 U.S.C. 7434. Indirectly, what IRS is trying to do is remove the only method available to correct the affects of what amounts to compelled association and fraud by trying to prosecute people who don't want hearsay evidence to be used to compel them to become “taxpayers”, even though they are not engaged in a “trade or business”. Is there something wrong with this?
AndyK was also served via a private message with the above post. This consitutes “service of process” for discovery within this mock court.
Lchesson,
Thanks for your feedback. Both Sonik and AndyK have been rebuked publicly and equally for the same reason.
As far as whether AndyK is an IRS employee, I have in my possession an email forwarded to me by a third party in which he admitted same. Since he hasn't denied it, then under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(d), he admits it.
AndyK,
Your expectation of favoritism is unfounded. Everyone gets the same treatment here, and your employer, the IRS, owes the same obligation to the public at large. Thank you for reminding me. I contacted Mr. Sonik Speed privately yesterday to say the same thing to him. I had intended to publicly post an equivalent rebuke of similar tactics to yours on his part, but you beat me to the punch. Sonik called Pete Hendrickson a terrorist and he too should follow the guidelines on this forum for the same reasons explained above.
You will also note that other members suggested that Sonik contact Hendrickson directly just as I did. You aren't the only person who has this problem.
You called Hendrickson a “Coward, Liar, and Con Man”. You provided no evidence of any of the three nor described what qualifies you as an expert with personal knowledge on that subject. Therefore, so none of those accusations are appropriate. We won't stand for you using the forums as a soap box for political persecution of anyone, even if they deserve it. We may have to censor this forum if this keeps up, including both your and Sonik's comments.
Lastly, Sonik, you need to stop calling people names and stick to the facts, like everyone else here must. All the comments made to AndyK apply equally to you in your use of “terrorist”.
