Author #2
Forum Replies Created
See:
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Contacts/Contacts.htm
Under “Internal Revenue Service”, look at “IRS Directory-Summer 2005”. That's the latest information available.
Dear friends,
Mr. lambskin wrote me a private message, basically admitting his real identity and the fact that he is a mole. I quote:
Quote:Hey Author #2,You responded to an inquiry by Woodwalker about the W8ben in the miscellaneous section. I'm curious as to why you adhere to the idea that it's illegal to give legal advice. I hear this view all the time but have never been given a reason as to why this applies to people who don't have a license to be an attorney.
If you don't need a license to appear as counsel for the defence in a court of law, then why would it be illegal for anybody to give somebody legal advice?
I've never read the law that states this fact. Which Title is it under? Is it in Title 28 or the Statutes at Large or just under some unpromulgated statute?
I'm sure you're aware that any law that hasn't been lawfully enacted is really no law at all so, I'm guessing you state this because you've read this somewhere within the actual laws or you're just avoiding the possibility of a legal head-ache.
If you could enlighten me a little in this respect I'd greatly appreciate it. Thank you.
Grace and peace,
Andy
His name is “Andy”, and this is the same “AndyK” who made a post on the Quatloos website at:
http://www.quatloos….2f7bed9d3dc14bb
Do not respond to any of his posts. Good call, Bing.
To answer Lambskin's question: I am not suggesting that it is illegal to give legal advice. I'm sure you know that the purpose for the prescription of not giving legal advice is the following. You just want to see if we in these forums know that, because you'd like to explot it:
1. To reduce risks and liabilities to members of this forum and of the Family Guardian Fellowship.
2. Prevent this site or any member of this site from becoming ths subject of an unconstitutional injunction against the exclusively non-factual religious and political beliefs and opininions that it engages in.
Every time the government goes after people for a tax injunction, they always start with an irresponsible, presumptuous, and lazy person who refuses to take responsibility for themself and all their choices, makes them the target of “selective enforcement”, and then uses the resulting liabilities of the disgruntled member to infiltrate the group and turn the member against the fellowship and other members. The whole process must start with the following elements:
1. Establish that the speech on this website or the statement of the member or fellowhip officer is factual.
2. Find someone who relied on the speech, was injured, was among the audience authorized to use the materials, and yet also is a “taxpayer” subject to the I.R.C.
3. Get the irresponsible, lazy, and covetous victim to blame us for the injury.
4. File a complaint in federal court demanding an injunction to prevent further injuries, citing affidavits by the irresponsible member as a basis for the injunction.
The above sequence is broken and prevented by:
1. Ensuring that all materials on the site and all communications are protected by a disclaimer.
http://famguardian.org/disclaimer.htm
2. Ensuring that the disclaimer identifies all speech and communications as non-factual beliefs and opinions that are not admissible as evidence.
3. Ensuring that the authorized basis for belief is carefully defined in the disclaimer and that it does not include any communication or statement from the fellowship or any member of the fellowship and only includes the written law.
4. Ensuring that the disclaimer prohibits materials from being used for an unlawful purpose and that members are required to take complete, exclusive, and personal responsiblity for all their choices and actions.
5. Ensuring that all those who participate MUST at some point expressly and explicitly consent to the disclaimer in order to participate.
6. Ensuring that the disclaimer forbids anything communicated by the fellowship or any member of the fellowship from being interpreted as legal advice so that there is no basis for reliance upon anything said and therefore no way that an injury could conceivably occur that might be enjoinable.
Woodwalker,
We can't offer legal advice of any kind. All we can share is what we do in our own case, which is to put the name of the state of the Union as the “Country” on all federal forms.
In the future, please phrase your questions in the following form:
“How do you do this in your case?”
That way, we can never be accused of offering legal advice and thereby become the target of unlawful persecution and legal terrorism by the Federal Mafia.
For further detailed information on this subject, see section 3 of the following link that I found the other day:
http://sedm.org/ItemInfo/RespLtrs/W-8BEN/A…SFormW-8BEN.htm
Fixed. Thanks.
ANSWER: NO. Only the C# should make a difference. Experiment. You can figure this out for yourself by playing with the entries.
Author #2
Ray62,
You must have something typed into each C# field in each row. If it is blank on the report, put whatever the nearest C# value is above that. Then your error will go away.
Author #2
J. Wayne,
That's not a bug, but a feature request. There is no “all transactions” report on the MF Decoder. The transactions appear underneath each IMF Decode report for the respective year, at the end of the report. Alternatively, one can print the “all transactions” view by selecting the records using the record selector on the left, then pasting them into MS Word as a table, and then printing the MS Word document.
Mounster,
What I did was the following:
1. Checked “yes”.
2. Circled “U.S. citizen” and put an asterisk and then a note defining the term “U.S. citizen” below. The definition said: “American national, meaning 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(21) 'national' but not an 8 U.S.C. 1401 'citizen'. Not subject to federal jursidiction”.
3. Attached the pamphlet “Why you are a 'National', 'state national', and Constitutional but not Statutory Citizen.
The pamphlet is available at:
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt…hyANational.pdf
They let me serve. While waiting to be called, I pulled the jury commissioner aside after he gave his lecture to everyone and asked him why he didn't provide the option “national but not citizen” as a choice on the form. He got belligerant and tried to make me look like a crackpot in front of everyone with a wise comment and then stomped off like the coward he was without giving me a chance to defend my honor. “You people are all the same…always trying to get out of paying taxes.”
I followed him to his office and demanded that he explain himself and handed him a copy of the pamphlet above. I went through each basic point and asked him to deny it, but he couldn't and wouldn't. He knew EXACTLY that I was right, but he didn't want the word getting out. I was better prepared than most, so you will need to read the pamphlet and do your best to understand it so you will be a good defender of the truth in a public forum like I was.
When I got to jury selection in the courtroom and they asked me whether I knew any policement or was involved in law, I said now. They try to week out people who know what the law says so that you end up with a jury full of sheep who will help the government prosecutor persecute innocent people for “malum prohibitum” acts.
Bing,
This website takes the OPPOSITE approach of Larken:
1. Doesn't conduct any public affairs or letter writing campaigns.
2. Modest rather than extreme views based entirely upon what the government says.
3. Not at war against the government, but against ignorance. Focus on facts and law, and not people or personalities.
4. Encourage individual rather than group action that is “low key” but informed.
5. Focus on education rather than propaganda.
6. No “gurus” or “cult leaders” allowed. We're just servants. Anyone who would believe anything I say is a dummy, and instead should rely on their own reading of the law and research. I just make that research a lot easier by providing links to it.
7. No lone rangers, but just a lot of informed people who help each other get more informed and make their own decisions.
8. Goal is to glorify God, and not self or some vain leader.
9. Copyright and license agreements that prevent misuse of the materials so that they are not discredited.
10. Do a LOT of listening to our readers so that materials continually improve over time, which is why they are posted to begin with: peer review.
11. Nothing commercial, so that censorship cannot be attempted in court.
That may be the main and perhaps only reason we are still around.
Bing,
Thanks. As one of his GOOD friends, I did call him on several occasions to help him get educated about some of his misconceptions. To was too proud to to be vulnerable enough to even admit that he might just be making a mistake. He was unreceptive and beligerant about entertaining other ideas. Many other people who were his friends probably did the same thing.
There is one side of his story that you didn't mention which helps exonerate he and others. Many people, Larken included, simply are too preoccupied making a living, raising a family, and paying their bills to take on what amounts to a PhD in law before they can understand all this deception. Not many have that amount of time and would be ostracized and criticized by impatient spouses and neglected children for using that much time to get educated. It's well worth it, mind you, but few people are in a family environment that would permit them to get TRULY educated without eventually ending up in divorce court or with drug addicted kids.
As an example, it has taken members of this Fellowship 5 years to research all this and come up with everything on this website. Few people, other than possibly studious engineers and university educators, would have the time or patience to do that. Even fewer would have the time or the necessary computer skills to document and organize what they learn along the way to make the result of the research useful as a reference tool as well, as this website is.
Bing,
Thanks you for those astute and accurate comments. Couldn't have said it better myself. I hope there are more than a few 861 fans out there who will read and heed your comments. Maybe this post will even end up on the Quatloser forums (http://quatloos.com), because they will like it so much!
Looks like the folks at SEDM feel the same way about Larken. See:
http://sedm.org/LibertyU/LibertyU.htm
Item 8.7, and the comments thereunder.
🙂
No.
Status Report Update on Deposition of C. Hansen conducted by the Dept. of Justice, Tax Division, on 11/30/2005 in downtown San Diego.
This narrative was relayed to us by C. Hansen via email..
____________________________________________
Friends,
Just got out of the deposition with the Department of Justice in the Federal Building in downtown San Diego. It started at 9am and concluded at 3:30pm. The subject was information contained in the Complaint filed on 5/11/05 asking for an injunction against “CHRISTOPHER M. HANSEN”. That was fun! Hansen recorded most of it as an MP3 and it will be posted on Family Guardian in the next couple days. Some brief highlights:
1. Most of the questions used really old and outdated information that isn't even available anymore. Hansen told him that it was all irrelevant because not current, and that he should be using current information because it was wrong and prejudicial.
2. More than I'd say 60% of the questions referred to SEDM (http://sedm.org). He showed response letters, a copy of the Deposition Handout, and a copy of an email from SEDM.
3. He kept using the word “people” and trying to broaden the audience for the website to everyone. Hansen kept bringing him right back to the Disclaimer statement, which defines the terms “you”, “your”, “we”, “they”, and “readers” as the author and not other readers. Hansen said the website was written by and for the author, and was not authorized for any other use. Hansen also reminded him that FG is exclusively political and religious speech, that it is not actionable, that it says that all over.
4. He asked a lot of questions about who wrote certain things and he wanted to connect them to me. He pointed at the Copyright statement at the bottom, and tried to use it as an excuse to claim that I wrote whatever he was referring to. Hansen reminded him that there are lots of things on the website that aren't written by me, that there are hundreds of contributors, that Hansen am only the copyright holder but do not necessarily own what is on the website. Then he asked what the copyright license was for. Hansen said it was to protect the authors from political and legal persecution, and to maintain the nature of the content as strictly religious and political speech that is not actionable, so that the First Amendment rights of the authors are not infringed.
5. Then he asked me why the materials are posted on the website, if they are only for use by the author who wrote them, whoever that is. Hansen explained using the Disclaimer that they are the equivalent of a public journal, and that they were a reference tool that Hansen uses to organize my research and share with others, so that it could be exhaustively reviewed and checked for errors to remove any illegalities or falsehoods. Hansen said any other use was not an authorized use and that I could not be held responsible for what other people choose to use the information for.
6. Then he asked Hansen if he had ever prepared any tax returns. Hansen asked him what his legal definition of “tax return” was from enacted positive law. He kept trying to give me dictionary definitions. Hansen told him that his definitions were political, and not legal defintions and therefore were unreliable and irrelevant in a legal proceeding. Hansen said he can't answer his question without a legal definition. Then he said “you know”, the 1040. Hansen said “I'm not allowed to presume anything. It's a sin and a violation of due process of law. When are you going to take responsibility for doing your job as an attorney, instead of a politician?” No answer. Then Hansen explained why he didn't want to give a definition, and he explained that it was ILLEGAL to “file” a “tax return” and that the only persons who need to file tax returns are those with contracts or employment with the federal government who are therefore fiduciaries. No argument from him. Hansen said that he spend all day frequently reading everything on the Dept. of Justice website and anyone who files returns for others is just plain STUPID. He said He hasnever and will never do that because he doesn't want to get in trouble or interfere with the government's right to contract by helping other people complete tax returns, which he said are contracts. He disagreed with me and cut himself short on that one so he didn't put his foot in his mouth. Hee…heee.. 🙂
7. He asked if I knew Bob Schulz, Larken Rose, Irwin Schiff. I said “Fifth Amendment. Irrelevant to the Complaint.” Then he wanted to know my major in college, whether I had ever been in trouble or arrested. Hansen said “Fifth Amendment”. He asked if I was a network engineer. He said no. Then he said: “Your website says you are. Are you telling me that you have false information on the website?” He said that he is not one now but used to be one and that the accuracy or truthfulness of what is on the website is irrelevant because the Disclaimer makes everything on there religious and political speech that is not actionable. It is no not guaranteed to be accurate and I'm not paid to keep it accurate, so he doesn't have to take any responsibility for its accuracy. There is no such thing as true or false in the context of religious or political speech. He asked what my college GPA was and I said “Fifth Amendment”. He asked about my English classes in school. “Fifth Amentment”. He asked if I had ever been “Exempt from taxes”. Hansen asked him to define the word using a legal definition, which he refused to provide. He asked if Hansen ever gave Seminars. Hansen said it's irrelevant, because nothing that might be said is actionable and the IRS or the DOJ are not appointed as my First Amendment censor or supervisor.
8. Then he pointed to a page that identified the definition of “income”. Hansen asked him what he meant by “income”. He asked Hansen whether the definition of “income” on a page he was referring to was accurate. Hansen asked him in what context. He said “the internal revenue code”. Hansen said “No”. Then he tried to accuse the witness of putting false information on the website and got real indignant. He said “Let me remind you that you are under affirmation today, and that you will be held accountable for your answers. You mean you are giving out false information on the Family Guardian Website? That's not acceptable.” Hansen said there are seven subtitles to the I.R.C. and each of them have their own unique contexts and definitions. There are probably at least three different definitions of “income” used throughout the I.R.C. and you said the WHOLE I.R.C., as though you expected me to say that this was the only one that applies EVERYWHERE. That is simply not only wrong, but VERY presumptuous on your part. Furthermore, it's entirely irrelevant what it says on the website, because it says you can't trust ANYTHING but enacted positive law from the statutes at large after January 2, 1939, the Constitution, and the rulings of the Supreme Court. Everything on the website is religious and political speech that was not actionable.”
9. Then he asked what “actionable” meant. Hansen said it meant “no legal consequence.” Then he said there was such a thing as correct political speech. Hansen said “No there isn't. If there was such a thing as correct political speech, President Bush would be in jail for lying to us about Iraq, but because he wasn't, then apparently the accuracy of his statements is neither correct or incorrect, or true or false. Politicians lie to us all the time and unfortunately, they can't be prosecuted for it. Pastors can't be held accountable for their speech either. Family Guardian and SEDM also fit the same category because they identify themselves as strictly religious and political and not actionable speech.”
10. He tried to get me to presume defintions and words often. Hansen kept emphasizing that he wanted a positive law legal definition, and could rely on NOTHING else without being compelled to presume something and violate my religious beliefs. Not once did he ever offer me a definition for any of the words he was using. He also tried to coax me into using the common definition. He said “you know…” Hansen said “No way, Jose. This is a legal proceeding and you are going to use legal defintions and NOTHING else. I don't mix politics with law and I ain't playing your game, Mr. Substitute Defendant.”
11. He kept asking why several steps in the Income Tax Freedom Forms and Instructions said what they said to try to establish bad motives of the writer. Hansen said that it really doesn't matter what the pages say because it's all religious and political speech that identifies itself as not actionable. He said it ain't a crime to speak, or even to be wrong, or to write that opinion on a piece of paper and mail it to the IRS, as long as the letter doesn't ask for money.
12. He asked several questions about a thing called the “Administrative Process”. Hansen said he could not answer any questions about it or SEDM. Hansen also said that based on his reading of it, he hasn't used it, wouldn't recommend it to others, and don't think it accomplishes anything meaningful or useful from what he could tell.
13. At least 30 times as he was asking about the purpose of this or that, Hansen kept going back to the Famly Guardian About Us page, which says that the purpose is to teach the law to people and help them obey it and that educating people about law is not a crime. Hansen said that it is entirely up to them how they use or apply the information they learn, and that the applicable license agreements and member agreements make all of the consequences entirely theirs and not mine.
14. Hansen got Mr. Shoemaker to admit that he is subject to the copyright license agreement on the record. Now he's the defendant formally and officially! After that slip of the tongue, the next question he asked, Hansen said “I think the Substitute Defendant ought to answer that question.
What's the answer, Mr. Shoemaker? I'm outta here.” Hee….heee.
15. There weren't any surprises as far as what they know that Hansen didn't
already know.
16. They didn't get anything they wanted from me. The deposition concluded with a summary of what they had learned. The summary basically said that:
16.1 The information on the Family Guardian website was only written by and for the author and not for anyone's else use.
16.2 The witness can't give him any other answers because I am prevented from doing so by contract.
When the deposition concluded, Mr. Shoemaker tried to tell the witness that he wasn't going to accept the Deposition Transcript printed by the witness and handed to the Court Reporter. Hansen said “If you don't, you won't have an Affirmation, because it is conditioned on accepting EVERYTHING I submit here today. You are doing exactly what I expected you to do, which is to use the Court reporter as a means of censoring my remarks and evidence for the record. He shook his head and took the Deposition Transcript back and gave it to the Court reporter.”
On the way out, he asked Hansen whether he would obey a court order to cease and desist, and he said it was impossible for him to obey it. So he asked Hansen if he was going to disobey it, and he said it is impossible for me to disobey it either because he wasn't the proper party. He siad he couldn't comply with the order because he doesn't own anything.
Then as he stood up to walk me out, he said:
“You know, you're quite a piece of work, Author #3.”
🙂
If you want to see the audio file after we have posted it in about five days,
see:
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Case…sen/CHansen.htm
God bless, and thank you all for your prayers.
Sent out on 11/23/2005:
____________________________________________
Dear Subscriber,
As you may have heard, yesterday I was sentenced to 15 months in federal prison, and I have to turn myself in Monday to begin the sentence. We of course had hoped for better, but it could have been a lot worse. (Tessa's sentencing won't happen until February 15th.)
I will be turning over this e-mail list to Tom Clayton. I hope to be able to mail him messages for him to e-mail to this list while I'm “inside.”
To try to minimize the harm to my family, I went back and filed returns for 1997 through 2004. In addition, the people who maintain the http://www.861.info, http://www.taxableincome.net, and http://www.theft-by-deception.com web sites have taken them down, in the hopes of improving my sentence. Judge Baylson made it clear on two occasions that the existence of those web sites, and the continued selling of my “Theft By Deception” video, would have made my sentence worse.
As a result of filing returns and taking down the sites, the judge yesterday rejected the prosecution's request for a maximum sentence (which could have been as high as five years). He also dismissed the government's attempt to increase the sentence based on alleged perjury, which they requested based on the reasoning that if the jury didn't believe me, I must have lied on the stand. (Apparently this is not an unusual thing for the government to ask for, but interestingly, Judge Baylson had the same take on it that I did: that such a penalty amounts to punishing someone for taking the stand in his own defense.) For those rulings, I am grateful.
What I believe about the correct interpretation and application of the law has NOT changed, and will not change unless and until someone presents me with EVIDENCE (not assertions) that I'm wrong. That certainly did not happen at trial, where neither the government nor the court had much to say about the issue, other than “incorrect.” (Interestingly, at sentencing the government was obviously angry that I haven't recanted my BELIEFS, but Judge Baylson made it quite clear that I had a right to believe anything I want, and that he was not asking me to change my
beliefs.)
But the bottom line is that I feel like I have failed. I failed my family, and I failed all of you. I misjudged how a dozen “average” Americans would view the case, and would reach a verdict.
At the moment we intend to appeal, but I'm not sure we can afford to, in light of what we're paying the IRS, what we've already paid in legal fees, and the $10,000 fine imposed by the court (as part of the sentence). Despite the much-appreciated generosity of those on this list, we ended up with remaining legal bills of between $10,000 and $20,000. (I had intended to give you all a precise, itemized list, but there are a lot of other things I have to do before Monday.)
I guess what it comes down to is this: whether we can afford to appeal depends upon whether YOU think it's worth funding. The price tag could be as much as $40,000. (It would be filed by Peter Goldberger, well known across the country as an outstanding appeals attorney. In fact, the judge at sentencing twice commented on what a good attorney Mr. Goldberger is.) Split among 6,400 people (the number of people on this list), this would only come to $6.25 per person (though of course, in reality the number of people who contribute is always a fairly small percentage of those asked).
But I also want to make a separate, more desperate, and more shameless (or
shameful) plea to all of you. I cannot express how much it pains me to know the stress and pain that my efforts have brought upon my family. Tessa remains incredibly (and inexplicably) supportive, and even our daughter seems to be taking it as well as could be expected. (They plan on visiting a lot.) They don't deserve what's happening to them, and right now I don't really feel like I deserve their support.
I have no right to ask any of you to try to help fix the problems I've caused for my family. But I'm going to anyway. I cannot praise Tessa enough, and to have her suffer for her courage and support is something I can't bear to imagine. To get to the point, I am unjustifiably begging each of you to please help financial support my amazing, precious wife while I'm in prison, so finances are one thing she doesn't need to worry about. I have fun imagining what would happen if each of you went hog-wild and donated $250, so Tessa would get $1.6 million (that even the IRS would know isn't taxable)! Of course, that won't happen, but any support you could give would be greatly appreciated. I can't bear to think of Tessa having financial problems while I'm in no position to help.
Again, I have no right to ask, but I have to.
Whether for legal expenses, or just to help Tessa out financially, contributions can be sent to the following. However, ALL DONATIONS SHOULD BE MADE TO “TESSA DAVID.” (The money is not really for me, and I won't be around to sign checks anyway.) So you know, we will NOT be using donations to pay the alleged back taxes, or the fine imposed on me (or any that might be imposed on Tessa at her sentencing). We are already dealing with that ourselves by getting a home-equity loan.
Contributions can be sent here:
Tessa David
c/o Larken Rose
P.O. Box 653
Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
(If you prefer to make donations via PayPal, they can be sent to
“larken@taxableincome.net”)
Tessa and I can't express how much all of your support, moral and financial, has helped us, and asking for MORE support is not what we were hoping we'd be doing at this point. Then again, neither was preparing to go to prison. This is the fate that resulted from my own choices, and I will deal with it as best I can. Thank you for all your support.
Sincerely,
Larken Rose
(P.S. Very soon I will be publishing a book, unrelated to the tax issue, called “How to be a Successful Tyrant (The Megalomaniac Manifesto).” I think a lot of you will like it, and hopefully that will make some money for Tessa in a way other than shamelessly begging for handouts. We'll make sure you hear about the book when it's out.)
