[Bing]

heh heh heh heh heh.

Eich ein Berliner!!

Voon-da-va!! 😆

Bing

[Bing]

Turftoe, if I may, I am curious as to the reason why you would be researching as to the status of federal employees?

Wassup wit dat? 🙂

As statisticians are fond of saying, your question is what I refer to as “an out-lier”.

I would say that your question gives new meaning to the term, “standard deviation”.

Honestly, in all my years in this forum, I can not ever recall anyone coming into the forum, and in their first post, announce that they are researching the status of federal employees.

I mean, who does that? What type of person would be interested in researching the status of federal employees?

What type of person would come into a Forum devoted to Liberty, Freedom, and Sovereignty, and announce that they have spent their time researching federal employees?

More bizzarre, is your follow-up remark regarding the bogus, unlawful redemption scam, which me, FG and all honest, law abiding people abhor.

Anyway, welcome to FG Turftoe.

If you have a moment, please share with us what the results of your 'ahem' previous “researching” on federal employees revealed. I mean, was your researching a fruitlful fishing expedition and lead you to new knowledge?

If so, can ya share with us?

Finally, thank you for your lead, or should I say leading question, because I learned some new things in this thread myself.

Bing

[Bing]

Franklin, the IRC is a repealed Code.

And all titles of the USC that have not been enacted into positive law, can be rebutted (i.e. disproved) by citing the United States Statute at Large.

See http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByT…PositiveLaw.htm

for great info

and

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwsllink.html

to see the U.S. Statutes at Large up to year 1875.

Ask yourself this simple question.

If the US Statutes at Large is THE LAW in the USA, and it supersedes the unenacted USC titles, and if the Citizens, are, as the US Supreme Court has asserted, responsible for knowing the Law, then how come the US Government has STILL failed to scan in the US SAL Volumes and put them on the internet and make them accessible for free?

Why?

I will tell you why, the same reason if you use http://www.gpo.access and try and use the search utility, which is impossible to use because it always gives millions of hits — it is because the US Government DOES NOT want us Citizens to know the Laws, lest we discovered their centuries long fraud perpetrated upon the American People.

I will tell you something else, the more successful those of us in the Tax Honesty Movement have become to exposing and uncovering the Truth, the more evil the Federal Reserve has become, by doing what it does best, using the tools in the US Government to restrict or give the appearance of restricting the liberties and freedoms of American Nationals, by warring against us via proxy.

And, if my hypothetical theory is correct, and it is all hypothetical as I have no knowledge of the future, save by only observing the past, there is going to be yet another attack against the USA soil, probably in the Heartland or west coast within the next 6 months to 3 years, and the culprits will be the Federal Reserve, working thru their proxies in the US Government.

And I would not be surprised if a Federal Reserve Bank building was attacked and was the next target, what better way to make it appear as if the Federal Reserve had nothing to do with it.

It is the same strategy that was followed by attacking the Murah bldg in Oklahoma City. In that situation the USG attacked it self. Watch the You tube video of the TV Reporters on site in OK, City in the minutes after the first explosion, and they admit that the first responders found several unexploded bombs within the then partially destroyed Murah Bldg. Did Timothy McVeigh plant those explosives too?? I doubt it.

Check out YouTUBE.

Murah was a trial run for 9/11. To see just how stupid and docile Americans really were.

Ask yourself this, how did weapons grade anthrax get deposited in the outer office of a powerful US Senator? Who had such access in the first place? And who benefited from that episode?

And what ever happen to that FBI investigation? Was it spiked? The USG agreed to pay > $5 million to the US Army Medical doctor whose name the USG Leaked to the press.

Still, no arrests. But that anthrax was prepositioned in the days after 9/11 to create a panic in the minds of the US Congress folks who were not “in on the 9/11 scam”. And the 9/11 PATRIOT ACT was produced in record time, almost as if it was already on the shelf, just waiting to be introduced.

How convenient.

I am among millions of Americans who believe that the US Government will once again attack America in the not too distant future. And all this Tax stuff will be pushed off of the minds of millions of Americans, as we reposition our collective psyches to fight the alleged “War on Terror.”

Bob Schulz' first hunger strike was stopped after the IRS and DOJ agreed to a meeting on the Record.

And then 9/11 happened and the meeting was “canceled” and rescheduled.

Alot of Americans do not know this, but it is a fact that in 2005 two British commandos were captured by Iraqi police driving around in a auto, dressed up as Arab Muslims with wigs and all, and shooting innocent Iraqi's and killing many, all in the attempt to foment unrest and make it appear as if the Taliban or “enemies” of the Iraqi state were doing the killing.

Search YouTube and see for yourself.

See http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0920/dailyUpdate.html?s=rel

and,

http://www.paklinks.com/gs/archive/index.php/t-264274.html

and,

http://xiaodongpeople.blogspot.com/2005/09…ers-out-of.html

and

http://newsmine.org/content.php?ol=war-on-…lice-patrol.txt

The British Government demanded the release of the two commandos. And when the Iraqi government refused, British forces used tanks to attack the prison where the two commandos were held, freeing them.

Ask yourself this, why would British soldiers pretend to be Muslims and kill innocent Muslims? Who benefits? What type of war fighting strategy is this? And why do you think it is used? Serious questions.

Back on point.

I agree with reb that the burden of proof should be shifted to the corrupt IRS and DOJ Tax Division and US attorneys office, but bear in mind if you find your self in a federal territorial court, really, the only thing one wants to argue is lack of federal jurisdiction.

One has to keep hammering on the lack of jurisdiction and wait for the Court to resolve that issue first (hint: they can not resolve in their favor, so they just ignore it.

[Bing]

WOW!

Then if what you say is accurate, and I suspect that it likely is, I have been wrong for 10 years!!! LOL

I will have to go and study and reexamine what you pointed to. Thanks.

I have long believed that earning a living by working for the US Government is an excise taxable privilege, not an unalienable Right as it is when one works in the private sector.

And that when one receives compensation from the USG, whether it is “wages”, or not, that it is taxable under Subtitles A and C because it is from a “U.S. source”.

So if I understand you correctly, are you suggesting that if I am a USG contractor, and I do not receive “wages” because I did not file a W – 4 with USG, then the money that I receive is not taxable?? WOW!!!

Further, and I am likely wrong here, I thought that the Regs (I forget where) say that if one has U.S. source income than all of one's income is treated as if it is effectively connected income. But what you are saying is that the “tax” is only on “wages” and this is something I was not aware of, I thought it was also on “U.S. source” income.

Looks like I gots to do some more self education. 🙂

Thanks for the correction and I will post what I find after I study the regs.

[Bing]

Just to add what Author #5 has posted, if you are a US Government employee, even if you are a nonresident alien, you still are subject to the IRC and must pay income tax, because you receive income/compensation from a “U.S. source”, and this is true even if you DO NOT hold any public office.

You also must pay income tax if you unwiittingly make an election under 26 USC 6013 (g) or (h), by, inter alia, filing a Form 1040.

I strongly urge everyone to study the cites given by Author #5. Read it several times.

In this case the “U.S. source” being the United States Government.

In other words, you have “U.S. source income” if you work for the US Government or one of its corporations or agencies or instrumentalities.

The same reasoning applies if you are employed by the District of Columbia or by a corporation whose charter was issued by the District of Columbia. It is all U.S. source income.

CPAs and tax attorneys wrongly think “U.S. source” income comes from working inside one of the 50 Union states, but they are wrong.

Bing

[Bing]

reb, I apologize for giving you the incorrect cite in Statutes at Large.

Thanks to Admin for correcting my mistake.

Reb, see SEDM Exhibit #05.027.

We are all here to learn the Law and the Truth, so I am thankful Admin has set the record straight.

Reb, to clarify, I did not say that the tax code was repealed by Vol 68A, what I said, or meant to say, was that the repealed 1954 code was codified and compiled in US Statutes at Large Volume 68A.

REB, the what is taxed website DOES NOT have Volume 68A. But send me a PM and I will email you the first few pages of that this week, when I go to the law library.

Also, I corrected my post above, and added the clarification that I erred when I mentioned Volume 68, I should have only mentioned Volume 68A.

Admin will correct me if I am wrong, but every revision and republication of the Internal Revenue Code since 1954, has merely been a publication of a repealed code. That's it!

If memory serves me right, the repealed tax code is in Volume 68A, not Volume 68. So my reference to Volume 68 was, I think, a mistake.

I have not done a word for word comparision, but Volume 68A was the entire 1954 Repealed Code, word for word.

Go to SEDM Exhibit page and look for the Exhibit 09.005, 09.006, and 02.005. Read 26 USC 7851 and you will see that the Code was repealed on Aug 16, 1954.

Please bear with me, All my posts in this Forum are made on the fly. If something comes into my head I will type it. . . . .and worry about getting the cite correct later.

I am not making excuse for my error, just letting you know my posting style and practice.

The only thing I really look up are cites and quotes to US Supreme Ct cases.I do not do research so I can post here. I am at a disadvantage in that respect because I am working from memory. LOL

Even still, any and all errors in my posts are mine alone. But I have a safety net in that we have some super smart folks in these forums who I know, always have my back, so when I misspeak or err, they are kind enough to let us know.

Reb, if you look at the beginning of any US Code Volume, you will see a cover letter signed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and in that letter he mentions that the Statutes at Large are evidence of the Laws, and the USC titles, except for the ones enacted into positive law, are merely prima facie evidence of the law.

I hope this is clearer.

[Bing]

Reb, the US Statutes at Large is the law. They are not contained in the Congressional Record.

The USC titles, of which you cite that there are 50, are not really the law except for the ones that have been enacted into positive law.

And there really are not 50 titles, although they are numbered 1 to 50, because some titles have been combined or eliminated.

Google “Office of Law Revision Counsel” and spend a few minutes and you will see what I mean.

Also, see http://www.gpo.access.gov and read the “About US Code” page. See also 1 USC 204.

Technically speaking, Congress enacted and than repealed the 1954 Code, on August 16, 1954. They did this so that they could publish the repealed Code in Volume 68 and 68A [NOTE: Bing's REFERENCE TO VOLUME 68, is an ERROR — HE MEANT 68A] of the US Statutes at Large, to further give the false impression that it was enacted law, positive law in other words, but really it is not.

Recall that stuff published in the US Statutes at Large is the law, and is evidence of the law, as opposed to the special law/code named the Internal revenue Code, which is merely prima facie evidence of the law, in other words it can be rebutted by the US Statutes at Large. I will post the US Supreme Court cases on this in my next post.

I hope the above helps you see things clearer.

I am sure if I mispoke in my posts above, Admin, Author #2 or Sonik will correct me because I know all 3 know this material as well as or even better than I do. 🙂

Bing

[Bing]

Author #5, sir, what I meant is that this guy on the video makes the argument that since I did not sign the Constitution, I therefore am not part of the “posterity” and am not a part of the compact, and therefore I have no constitutional rights nor do I have any standing to enter a federal court and demand any remedy for any alleged wrongs suffered by me.

Admin, I am sure many of us here we like to learn your candid assessment of these videos and I myself am curious to learn whether you perceptions are different from mine or if you think I am missing something here.

All the federal courts are territorial courts, not Article III courts, so I am screwed right from the get go because I would be in the wrong Forum if I tried to seek redress. Now, the speaker is alleging that the US Code is copyrighted and I do not know that to be the case. It was my understanding that the USG is not allowed to copyright anything.

Schulz and WTP are deluding themselves if they think they can get a remedy from a federal territorial court. All I see Bobby getting is sanctions. You watch, all 11 federal circuits will band together and opine that the US Supreme Court already ruled that they will not Hear Bob's Petition case, and nothing will be accomplished.

Bob would be helping America out more if he provided the leadership to peacefully form a new government and break away from this corrupted federal government. See:

Self Government Federation: Articles of Confederation, Form #13.002

http://sedm.org/Forms/SelfFamilyChurchGovn…ArtOfConfed.pdf

Every week I spend hours and hours reading and researching tax law stuff and history, and for what? I am wasting my time, I really am starting to think I am. Writing letters and affidavits to IRS folks is not accomplishing anything.

I am glad I saw these videos even though I do not understand everything because the guy moves way too fast.

But I got the gist of it and it has pissed me off. 😡 It is almost as if everything I have done and devoted my life to for 10+ years was all for nothing.

If what he is presenting is accurate and truthful, and I am still not sure 100% (I have not watched PART 4 yet), then all the SEDM and FG documents that assert a violation of “constitutional rights” by the IRS and DOJ are incorrect because none of the folks who will use the legal treatises have any constitutional rights anyway, because they too did not sign the compact.

What has me confused is who is the “posterity” that the presenter keeps referring too? Does he mean the direct descendants of the signers? He seems to imply that, but it is not clear. Which means that Sally Hemings, the black mistress of of Thomas Jefferson, who bore him children out of wedlock, well, their descendants, which have been proven by DNA, have constitutional Rights, but yet I do not?

WTF?

It is all starting to make sense.

American society, as I alluded to in my post above, is one massive illusion. Nothing is how it appears to be except that vast majority of the American People are idiots. They are simply too intellectually lazy to even show a modicum of curiosity.

Going back 10 generations, the corrupt lawyers, in cahoots with the corrupted politicians and bankers, have taken over our Republic and replaced it with a series of corporations while misleading Americans into thinking we have liberty and freedom.

Alan Dershowitz was correct, the USA Constitution is dead.

And as C.H. and Ed Riveria proved in their seminal treatise “What Happened To Justice”, the fraud dates back 220 years to a corrupt US Congress that was being manipulated by the bankers from England.

http://sedm.org/ItemInfo/Ebooks/WhatHappJu…HappJustice.htm

We have a Supreme Administrative Court, not a constitutional supreme Court.

The US Government, led by that liar Franklin D. Roosevelt, stole the gold of the American People and accused them of “hoarding” it.

We have fiat currency backed up by nothing but the stupidity of the American People. We do not have a constitutional currency.

We can no longer pay off our debts, but can only discharge them.

They have tricked America into thinking that a worthless piece of paper, which is merely a debt instrument, is actually an asset.

We have a legal system, the UCC and every relationship moves in commerce.

We have a corrupted USG and equally corrupt 50 Union state governments, that have refused to protect the Citizenry. I mean, the 50 state have been coopted and taken over by the federal government and when the federal government accuses a state Citizen of a crime, even though the crime may have occurred on nonfederal land, the state governments do nothing to help protect the state Citizen.

The entire American society has been crafted to feed the privately owned Federal Reserve. They control inflation, the currency, the courts, the governments, everything.

We are spending all this time fighting the IRS and researching the IRS, and we really should be fighting and researching the Federal Reserve System.

Bing

[Bing]

I don't have alot of time right now, so I will take your last point and answer that because it is easiest.

An “Information report” would be the W- 3 that is filed by a payer with the Social Security Administration. A W- 3 purports to show the “wages” paid to a “employee”.

A W- 2 is also an Information report.

As I understand it, the IRS obtains the W – 3 data from SSA and then runs a computerized matching program to link up that info to what is reported on any tax returns that are filed.

Likewise, banks and mortgage companies generate Information reports and report to the IRS the amount of interest income or mortgage interest paid by the people.

I am not qualified to speak to the indictment and trial procedure, except for what I stated, because I simply do not know and have no experience with that, at least I don't have any credible experience anyway. You know far more than I do on that subject.

I cited the US Statutes at Large correctly, at least I think I have, it is 53 Stat. 4. I will look in my Blue Book when I get back to my library. But if someone here can help me out on this cite, that would be good too, especially if I cited it incorrectly.

I will paste it later, in a different reply.

I am not sure what you mean about the 1939 Code being repealed by the 1954 Code. All the 1954 Code to was rearrange an already repealed Code, I do not think the 1954 Code repealed anything, but I could be wrong about this.

I probably was not clear, I am not contending that 26 USC 871 applies only in D.C.

I agree with you that government and IRS forms are biased to create false presumption, that is why SEDM has prepared modified versions of many forms and they are very effective.

Bing

[Bing]

I just listened to Part III, and all I can say is

WOW!

And I will also say that I hope I have “standing” to author this post. LOL

It turns out that after all these years of studying this stuff, I don't know SQUAT!!!

Grrrrrrrrrr!! 😡

Folks, if you have a bank account in an FDIC insured bank and you are a signatory on the account, then you are engaged in the “conduct of a trade or business” (i.e performance of a public office) because you are a trustee and an agent of the U.S. government.

And thus, you are subject to the Internal Revenue Code.

What I can surmise is that even if you use a W8BEN form to open the bank account, and you do not use a social security number to open the account, you are STILL a US Government agent acting in a trustee capacity and you are still deemed, under the UCC to be engaged in a public office, which is exactly what a “trade or business” is defined as.

What I am starting to realize, if what this guys says is accurate, is that many of the FG and SEDM documents are incorrect.

If it is true we do not have constitutional rights, well then, we have no remedy and best be getting a head start peacefully forming our own government. Because lets face it, petitioning the corrupt US Government is a complete waste of time and money because none of us, to a person, has legal standing.

This is very sobering stuff.

Kinda like when SEDM published its seminal treatise “What Happened To Justice” and I learned that there really is no constitutional supreme Court.

American society, to sum up, is a “GRAND ILLUSION” writ large.

We in America, are living in a mansion of mirrors, and, tragically, for 12 generations, we have lost our Freedom and our Liberty, and have had our collective vision impaired by “laws” that are not really laws, “dollars” that are not really dollars, “judges” who are not really judges, and “U.S. Representatives” who do not represent We the People.

Sigh.

Folks, the world ain't what it seems. Do yourself a huge favor and listen and watch this 4 Part video 5 or 6 times until it sinks in.

Acquiring knowledge but then sitting on your butt and not taking action, is useless.

Bing

[Bing]

Reb,

Thanks for the reply.

First, I just want to correct a mistake I made in my initial reply post. I meant to cite Federal Rule of Evidence Rule 201, and not Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Leaving aside for the moment that the present 1986 IRC, which is a compilation and reclassification of the 1954 IRC, which was, itself, based upon the 1939 IRC.

And the US Statutes at Large from 1939 repealed the 1939 Internal Revenue Code, in February 1939. See 53 Stat. Sec. 4 for proof.

So, since the Internal Revenue Code you cite and are trying to defeat, is merely prima facie evidence of the law, it can be rebutted by the Statutes at Large. I am sure you already know all this stuff. But I want to make it clear lest the readers think I am advocating using the Code to argue that one is not liable.

One should only cite the IRC, assuming they do not cite 53 Stat. 4, if they are going to use it to prove that they are not subject to it. Other than that, it does not seem to make sense to rely on the IRC for anything. The tax code is for taxpayers.

By using 53 Stat. 4, one is shifting the burden of proof to the IRS.

Where nearly all Pro Se litigants mess up is that they fail to realize that there is a hierarchy of legal arguments, with the jurisdictional argument steadfastly holding down Legal Position #1.

Legal Position #2 is the Non resident alien Position. 26 USC 871, which you cite, only impose a tax on income effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business in the federal United States, or on income from “U.S. sources”. ( and here, “U.S. means the District of Columbia ONLY)

But more basic than that, where the IRS invariably ensnares folks is that false Information reports are prepared by ignorant Payers, and that creates a series of rebuttable presumptions which must be defeated.

Most of the lies that emanate form the IRS and corrupted US DOJ Tax Division attorneys is based on FALSE PRESUMPTION.

All to often though, as you well know better than most reb, the IRS and the very corrupted DOJ Tax Division attorneys conspire with a more corrupted federal Judge to ignore evidence proving that the Hear say evidence contained in the Information report, is wrong.

Bing

[Bing]

Okay, for those that care or might be interested, the key case the Speaker refers to is NOT a US Supreme Court case from 1854, but instead is a case from the Georgia Supreme Court.

The cite is padelford, fay & Co. v. Mayor, Alderman, City of Savannah, 14 Ga. 438.

Go to

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/…FDE&oref=slogin

To read a great article that appeared in the 1854 edition of the New York Times.

I am undecided that the Speaker is correct in his interpretation, although much of what he says appears to make good sense. Basically, he is saying I, as a American Citizen, are NOT protected by the USA Constitution because I am not part of the Founder's Posterity.

This is strange to me, because I thought I had Constitutional Rights. I know I am protected by the Union state Constitution where I am domiciled

He is advocating that we, the Sovereigns, stop seeking justice in court and stop trying to get redress in court, and instead simply form our own governments. And to this point I agree 100%.

We have an unalienable Right to throw off our corrupted US and state Governments and form our own governments.

Anyway, I listened to part 1 twice now, and will listen to it several more times before listening to Part II.

This is profound stuff.

He is raising profound ideas.

Even though I confess to not understanding all of what he says, my gut tells me it is profound nonetheless, and therefore is worthy of being listened to.

Bing

[Bing]

Great find!! Thanks for posting it.

I just listened to Part 1. It is very compelling but some parts of it I simply do not understand. He is saying I am not part of the Posterity? Then who is, Only direct desendants of Thomas Jefferson, et al.?

I was unable to discern the US Supreme Ct case he repeatedly cited from 1854. I thought he was saying “Pulliam case” but he was not. he speaks too quickly at times.

Do you have the case citation from 1854?

I do not understand, he is basically saying that the Union of 50 states have given up their sovereignty by forming a “Perfect Union” and that the People are not sovereign.

But this appears to contradict standing US Supreme Ct cases.

It is interesting to hear him constructively criticize WTP and Bobby Schulz for repeatedly seeking redress in federal courts, while bypassing state courts.

This is one mistake I never thought of, but it makes sense and helps explain alot.

Somebody, perhaps Mike Bodine, should make Schulz listen to these tapes.

I confess, I acquired The Law of Nations many years ago, and I surmise I read, maybe, about 5% of it. I just got overtaken with other projects and I never devoted the time to go back and read and study it as I now realize I should have.

I have to listen to it several more times.

Finally, I want to suggest that the FORUM regulars listen to these tapes and then we should discuss and dissect them in teh Forum, so we can try and get on the same page.

Thanks for posting this.

Bing

[Bing]

Outstanding!!!

Bravo, reb!!! Bravo!!!

I am going to go and read and in some cases, re-read the US Supreme Ct cases you have cited. The ones I have read which you cited, I have forgotten what they were about.

I concur with 95% of your post.

My dissenting 5% is because I think you are mistaken when you dismiss the “regulations” and assert that it does not matter what is in the Regs.

And this is my reasoning.

The CFR is a special edition of the Federal Register and as such, the positive law at 44 USC 1507 (4) requires said content to be judicially noticed.

So, a nontaxpayer in litigation with the IRS can and should cite the relevant treasury regulations in 26 CFR, such as, for example, 26 CFR 31.3401(a)(6)-1(b ) and 1.871 -1 [ i ], and, inter alia, 26 CFR 1.871 -7 (a) (4), to name just 3 key regulations, then cite FedR.Civ.Procedure Rule 201, and file Rule 201 Motion and ask the Court (suspending for the moment, the fact that the Court does not have jurisdiction –which is a separate issue) and cite 44 USC 1507(4) and request that the Court judicially notice it.

Reb, unlike you, I genuinely think the Regs can be effectively used, if not in litigation, than most certainly as a preemptive tool in affidavits filed with the IRS to justify the foundation of one’s reasonable good faith belief that they were not required to pay income taxes to the IRS.

Understand that I, and many others in these Forums hold your opinions and legal insights in high regard and I am not being argumentative with you, I just respectfully dissent from a small portion of your lead post.

Under Rule 201. all facts judicially noticed by the court, MUST be incorporated into final Jury Instructions.

And here is where many, if not most Pro Se folks commit strategic and tactical trial misteps, because they almost never File Rule 201 Motions.

What I am saying is that the contents of 26 CFR can and should be strategically cited and exploited, in order to outflank opposing counsel and get critical facts admitted into the Trial record, and, most importantly, getting these facts before the Jury and as part of the Jury Instructions.

When Rule 201 Motion is filed, in effect, there is next to no judicial discretion allowed. Further, unlike evidentiary hearings, opposing Counsel is hard pressed to convince the Court that the 201 Motion should be denied.

Either the Motion succeeds on its own merit or it does not. And if facts are plead in sufficient detail, and the 201 Motion is denied, then one is laying the groundwork for an eventual Appeal for denial of Due Process.

Nor do I agree that continued attempts to prove that the income tax does not apply to them, risks having any averments added to the IRS’ list of Frivolous tax arguments. This is simply not the case with respect to the Trade or Business Scam and Non-Resident Non-Person position.

These 2 legal arguments are rarely argued, and when they are, they are grossly mishandled by legal novices who parrot what others say.

The Non-Resident Non-Person Position, when correctly and properly laid out, is the single best, most effective way to defeat the IRS. Why? Because it (i.e. the Regs) has been around for decades even though the IRS did not even define the term NRA until the mid 1980s.

Last time I looked, I did not see any IRS rebuttal to the NRA Position. Why? Because they do not want to risk drawing attention to it.

As smart as Bob Schulz and WTP are, or purport to be, it is distressing to see, in year 2008, that BS and WTP have not yet done a mass emailing extolling the virtues and compelling nature of the NRA position. To say that B.Schulz and WTP are behind the curve on this key issue, is a understatement. Maybe they are just too busy fighting illegal immigration.

Back on point.

I also respectfully disagree with the notion that it does not matter what is written in the manuals and in publications, there are numerous US Supreme Court cases which state otherwise and that representations and statements made in publications are sometimes held to be binding.

What happens in federal courts is that folks are buried with IRS and Judicial presumption. Ask Sherry Peel Jackson. They are presuming one is engaged in the manufacture, sale or alcohol or wine and spirits, and this is why they often refer to the nonpayment of “taxes” instead of specifying “income taxes.”

Finally, I think you nailed the Due Process down real good and you made some excellent points.

Thank you for sharing and teaching us.

Bing

[Bing]

First, @ http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/Liability.htm

At the very top of the page, there appears a url that says:

“There's No Statute Making Anyone Liable to Pay IRS Subtitle A Income Taxes”

which is inoperable.

************

Second, on the same page, further down, there appears:

“[4.2]7.2.9.8 (05-14-1999)

Importance of Court Decisions”

And this url link is also inoperable.

*************

Third, the url appears at

“Furthermore, the IRS Penalty Handbook [120.1] 1.2.1 [08-20-1998] details 10 points explaining how penalties are to encourage ?Voluntary Compliance? “

and here too, the url link is inoperable.

*****************

Also, just as a general comment and observation.

The time of our FAmGuardian Admins is very valuable, and they need to assess whether these inoperable links should be fixed, given the fact that a good case can be made for deleting the entire web page and waiting until a more update, current web page is created. Just my .02 cents.

Does FamGuardian even need this web page? Is not this info duplicated elsewhere?

If one were to read this particular web page, it is apparent that there is much in there that is outdated somewhat. And a good part of the page was based upon one or more letters written to the IRS many years ago. we have far more superior letters available on FG and SEDM.

When the web page was crafted 6, 7 and 8 years ago, the web page was based upon our then knowledge, but we have learned so much since then.

I am not complaining, just make a suggestion. 🙂

Bing