[Bing]

The IRS wants the money back.

However, if the IRS is lawfully entitled to any money, than that would mean that the persons who filed the 4853 Forms and requested their $$$ be returned to them, committed perjury. Amazingly, though, the IRS and DOJ are not prosecuting anyone for perjury, mail fraud, etc.

Why?

No doubt that they DO NOT want to shed even more light on the illegality of the IRS's methods and the effectiveness of the CTC filing approach. The IRS is trying to plug the Dam but, alas, that puppy has already burst. Ahahahahaha.

The IRS and DOJ are lying in their complaints and the complaints are full of presumption.

A nonresident alien's remuneration that is not effectively connected with a trade or business, is excluded from “wages” and is not subject to withholding. Period. Andy, you agree with that statement, right? Sure you do.

Man, I am sure glad I have not filed an income tax return in many years, so I don't have to deal with the liars and theives that work at the IRS.

Bing

A Happy Man who lawfully pays no income taxes

[Bing]

Well, I look at it this way.

IRS employees are American Citizens and they have wives, husbands, lovers, children, sisters, brothers, etc.

I may not like what some of or even nearly all IRS employees do, or how they do their job, but even still, it is unacceptable to physically threaten or attempt to harm IRS and US Postal employees. No exceptions.

If I were at a meeting and heard Peter H. or anyone else planning a bombing of a Federal Building, you can bet that I would immediately contact the police and the FBI. No exceptions. Criminal behaviour is both unethical and unlawful. Period.

Killing or maiming IRS employees IS NOT the way to confront the IRS, although I can certainly understand why some folks get so darn angry.

I have no idea what Hendrickson did or may have done regarding the firebombing.

1) We know this much, Hendrickson pled guilty to get a lesser sentence to save his skin.

2) Hendrickson is untrustworthy, having betrayed his so-called friends to further his own self-interest.

That said, his Cracking The Code book is still GREAT!!!! 🙂

Bing

[Bing]

I strongly disagree with you, Mr Sonik.

The IRS is ASSUMING that all American Citizens who have a PayPal account, also have a corresponding income tax liability under the IRC. And that is a B/S assumption on the IRS's part.

I will say this though, as the IRS expends valuable resources running after and trying to track down the millions of Pay Pal customers, it means that they will have less $$$ and resources to pursue us law abiding American Citizens, who are non-taxpayers and who, like me, lawfully do not pay any income taxes to the IRS. 😛

My view is entirely consistent with the IRS's on this.

If one is indeed a “taxpayer”, that is to say that they are subject to or liable for, an internal revenue tax, then they should not be hiding their money from the IRS, but instead should pay 100% of all the internal revenue taxes for which they are liable.

Each year, I personally pay 100% of all the income taxes for which I am liable and which are lawfully imposed upon me by enacted positive laws. 😀

If you are a “taxpayer” as that term is defined in the IRC, then you should always pay your income taxes. It is quite simple.

Me? I just happen to be a non-taxpayer, so I refuse to pay the IRS liars and thieves any money at all. 😀

Bing

[Bing]

In the months after 9/11, long before I ever learned about the 9/11 Truth websites cited in this thread, I actually had a thought that maybe, just maybe, the 9/11 attacks were done in order to lay the groundwork for martial law.

Why?

One reason is because the Tax Honesty Movement was gaining HUGE momentum in the first 7-8 months of 2001, and we are the ONLY group of Americans that has even a hope of making any real progress against the corrupt and lying IRS and the Federal Reserve Board.

To the extent that the Tax Honesty Movement succeeds, and more America Citizens learn the Truth about the lying US Congress and how the federal government has been stealing the wealth of Americans for 90 years, folks will STOP paying income taxes and the feeding tube to the corrupt Federal Reserve becomes more and more constricted.

We represent a threat to the status quo and we threaten the Fed's illegally collected income taxes.

If you track the national debt, you will see that it is over $8 TRILLION.

AFTER the US bombs Iran by air, I suspect that China may invade Taiwan, and then there will be a USG created crises in America, like 9/11 but far wider geographic impact, (maybe outbreaks of mad cow disease) and then, I predict the USG will declare martial law.

Something has to give soon, before China starts dumping US Government paper and investing in Euros.

If martial law arrives in America, as I expect that it will, (after a faux outbreak of some avian flu, or other “flu” pandemic) The Tax Honesty Movement's successes, ironically enough, may contain the seeds of our own demise.

The only way to stop the Tax Honesty Movement, is through martial law, in which the President suspends the USA Constitution.

Bing

[Bing]

Sonik, I believe that it does not matter.

Why?

Because the IRS can not lawfully enforce the IRC against those who are not liable and who are not engaged in a “trade or business”.

So they try and lie and trick folks with B/S/ letter in which they try and scare one with their pressumptions.

The cross referencing to other titles of the CFR, is applicable to US Government employees ONLY, and not to American Citizens inside the 50 states who are NOT engaged in a trade or business.

I think you are getting hung up on the semantics and obfuscation.

Sonik, if you genuinely want an answer, I suggest you contact Ms. Amy Bunk, esquire, in the Office of the Federal Register. Her direct # number is Ms. Amy Bunk (phone 202.741.6024) . I am told that she is extremely smart and helpful, plus, she is very, very good about responding promptly. If she is not helpful, contact her boss, Michael White.

Bing

[Bing]

You are welcome, sir. 🙂

Bing

[Bing]

Sonik, I don't know what those 5 points mean. And I also think that they are irrelevent.

Remember, that the folks who draft the Regs and those employed in the Office of Law Revision Counsel, are attorneys and they are not just very crafty, they are incredibly corrupt and they are Masters at Obfuscation. By contrast, the folks in the Office of the Federal Register tend to be far more honest and adhere to the letter of the positive laws.

If Item 3 is in play, than surely that can easily be eliminated as a logical choice as serving as the legal authority for the IRS to act, because item 3 admits that “it is not regulatory”. And if the item is not regulatory, then it can hardly be relied upon as serving as legal justification to do anything.

So you are now down to 4 questions, not 5.

Now, I also think you can readily eliminate item 4 as well, because if the IRS sends someone a demand letter, demanding that one pay $$$$, and they cite IRC section 6651 as their authority to assess you a penalty (NOTE: the Reg cross references 27 CFR, and NOT 26 CFR), then I think it is safe to say that the IRS is not in the midst of testing methods other than the method of deceiving one to pay money to the IRS for which you are not lawfully liable.

So now, we are down to 3 choices.

Now, item 1 can be eliminated because it is only the positive laws, when coupled with Implementing Regulations published in the Federal Register, that have general applicability and legal effect. Remember, if there is a statute in the US Statutes at Large, and there is no Implementing Regulation to go with it, the US Supreme Court has ruled that the statute imposes no duty or obligation on anyone and can be ignored.

Now in the case of the IRS, they rely on the IRC as the basis of their alleged authority, and the IRC, which we all know, is NOT positive law. And this means that the IRS can only lawfully enforce the provisions of the IRC against USG employees engaged in a “trade or business”, because it is against those folks, and in those instances only, that NO Implementing Regs need be published.

So now, we are down to 2 choices.

With respect to item 2, this is the only choice that is even remotely plausible or could possibly be justifiable, and only then, when the IRS is trying to collect a valid excise tax related to the manufacture, sale or distribution of alcohol, tobacco, or firearms. The IRS is the collection arm for those 3 excise taxable activities.

So what the IRS does, is they often cite section 6651, but they NEVER give the full cite 26 USC 6651 (a)(1), but you should read it and you will see that the IRC section deals with the beer, etc. And note also that 26 USC 6651 DOES NOT mention “income tax return” specifically, but instead, merely refers to a “return”. This is a HUGE signal for guys like us and this is one of the IRS's weaknesses in citing section 6651. The “return” to which section 6651 is NOT an income tax return, but is a return related to the 3 excise taxable activities.

Ergo, when the IRS sends you a letter and they try and assess you a penalty, and tehy site IRC section 6651, one can conclude that the IRS liars are making the false presumption that you have a liability related to alcohol, tobacco, or firearms.

The key is to simply rebut their false presumption and shift the burden of proof back onto them.

And that is that.

I hope this is helpful.

Bing

[Bing]

Smile.

ahhh, yes, 1 CFR 21.21 ( c ) . I know it well.

In enforcing income taxes, the IRS is not permitted to cross reference the regulations promulgated by the ATF.

If the IRS sends you a letter and cites a section of the IRC, whose implementing regulations cross reference 27 CFR, and NOT 26 CFR, this is an indication that they are making the presumption that you are engaged in the manufacture, sale, or distribution of alcohol, tobacco, or firearms.

The proper way to handle such a letter from the IRS, is to reply in kind and rebut the fact that you are engaged in those 3 excise taxable activities, and then ask the IRS to produce the evidence that proves that you were NOT so engaged. Give them 20 days to respond, and then if they do not respond, send them another 20 day letter. If they fail to respond to that one, issue a Notice of Default.

The single best approach is to address your letters to one of the top IRS lawyers in D.C., and send cc: copies to several other top lawyers. Do not waste your time dealing with local IRS officials. Go right to the top with your facts and your evidence.

Bing

[Bing]

Sorry to learn that your corrupt firm fired you. I applaud you for standing up to the tyranny.

Sadly, the collective ignorance of your private sector employer worked against you.

I don't have any advice to give you, save that you should strive to educate yourself even further, by studying the Great IRS Hoax book and the other free materials available at http://www.famguardian.org and http://www.sedm.org.

If you work in an “at will” state, then you can be fired for any reason or no reason at all.

It appears that they were trying to get you to perjure yourself, so you may want to consult an attorney to see if you can sue them for wrongful discharge, because suborning perjury is contrary to public policy.

Best of luck.

Bing

Family Guardian Fellowship

[Bing]

Overall, that was a nice attempt at rebuttal, even though your conclusions are mostly incorrect and your analysis falls far from the mark. But thanks for pointing out the gaps in the quotations, I will go back and verify them.

Andy, you said, and I quote, “. . .Aside from the fact that this case, like Anerican(sic) Banana addresses the lack of jurisdiction of Congress in a foreign country,. . “

Ah-ha!!

You said “foreign country”, which is exactly what the several states are with respect to each other, and the federal United States. This is a conclusive fact that is not subject to being controverted.

Which precisely proves the point that me, Sonik, and Author #2 said with respect to the several states, in fact, being separate countries except for those things covered by the federal Constitution. See 28 USC 297 ( a ) and ( B ) for proof. How do you reconcile your assertions, with the evidence contained in 28 USC 297 ( a ) and

( b ) ?

The same fact in 28 USC 297 is contained in Corpus Juris Secundum, 2nd edition.

Perhaps if I cited the seminal Ft. Leavenworth case, it would have been clearer to you.

Let me ask you this, can the Maryland legislature enact a law that is enforceable inside Washington, D.C.? If not, why not?

Can the New Jersey legislature enact a law that is enforceable on the land where the federal courthouse sits, in Newark? If not, why not?

If the states can not enact and enforce state laws on federal land, why would you think that the opposite is true, and that the federal government can lawfully enforce federal laws inside the sovereign territory of the several states.

A few years ago, during a July 4th celebration in Philadelphia, a 600 pound stage prop fell and almost konked Assoicate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in the head. Over the next few days, there were articles in the Philadelphia Inquirer, and representatives from the City of Philadelphia told the press that since the event was held on federal land, it was outside the jurisidction and responsiblity of the City, and Barbara Grant, who was then the Mayor's spokeswoman, said, “it is federal land, so it is like it (the mishap) happened in a foreign country.”

Andy, with all due respect, for your analysis to be correct, you want us to believe that jurisdiction is a one way street and only flows one way, from the federal government down to the lowly states. However, jurisdiction is a two lane highway that runs in both directions equally and at all times.

Moreover, there is actually a section of the U.S. Attorneys Manual which proves the position advocated by Family Guardian Fellowship. I will have to search for it, but I am sure Sonik or Author #2 will be able to find it on Famguardian alot quicker than I can. Help me out here, guys.

Finally, Andy if you doubt that the 50 states of the uSA are separate, independent nations, I want to suggest that you examine the last paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, which, as you may know, is one of the Organic laws of the uSA.

Bing

[Bing]

How does one stop the madness, you ask?

Well, hypothetically speaking, I surmise that with the passage of time, some folks will become so aggravated by the injustice coming from the so-called court systems, that, well, perhaps they may do something other than simply write yet another letter to the editor.

I am sure that there are many fine judges in America, honest judges who uphold their oaths, but there are also lots of corrupt judges, and these corrupt judges are arrogant and should not be serving on the bench.

When America's Citizens finally have the courage to confront the evil judges and educate the corrupt judges, maybe then they will begin to understand the crises that we are in.

Maybe what we should do is purchase bulk quantities of “The Citizen's Handbook” and then distribute them to passers-by outside local county, state, and federal courthouses all across America.

Bing

[Bing]

A reply by Sonik Speed, shall be posted shortly. 😉

Bing

[Bing]

Thanks for the thoughtful post, Andy.

With regards to your assertions about jurisdiction, there are standing US Supreme Court cases which appear to contradict your assertions.

I was wondering maybe if you could explain your position by citing ONLY US Supreme Court opinions, and if you can reconcile your beliefs, with the cases cited in this post.

Most recently, U.S v. Lopez, 115 S. Ct. 1624, 131 L. Ed. 2d 626

(1995):

?Indeed, on this crucial point, the majority and Justice Breyer agree in principle: the Federal government has nothing approaching a police power.?

And then there is American Banana v. United Fruit Company 213 US 347, (1909), where it was ruled:

:. . .The foregoing considerations would lead, in case of doubt, to a construction of any statute as intended to be confined in its operation and effect to the territorial limits over which the lawmaker has general and legitimate power. 'All legislation is prima facie territorial.' Ex parte Blain, L. R. 12 Ch. Div. 522, 528; State v. Carter, 27 N. J. L. 499; People v. Merrill, 2 Park. Crim. Rep. 590, 596.”

And of course, in 1920, there was Sandberg v. McDonald, where the Court ruled:

“Legislation is presumptively territorial and confined to limits over which the law-making power has jurisdiction. American Banana Company v. United Fruit Co., 213 U.S. 347, 357 , 29 S. Sup. Ct. 511, 16 Ann. Cas. 1047.”

And how about Caha v. U.S. 152 U.S. 211 (1894) in which the Court ruled:

?. . .The laws of Congress in respect to those matters {outside of Constitutionally delegated powers} do not extend into the territorial limits of the States, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government.?

And how about Foley Brothers, Inc. v. Filardo, 336 US 281 (1948), where the Supreme Court ruled:

?It is well established principle of law that all federal legislation applies only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States unless a contrary intent appears?

And of course in New Orleans v. United States, 35 US (10 Pet.) 662 (1836), the Court ruled:

?. . . Special provision is made in the Constitution for the cession of jurisdiction from the States over places where the Federal government shall establish forts or other military works. And it is in these places, or in territories of the United States, where it can exercise a general jurisdiction.?

And then in United States v. DeWitt, 76 US 41 9 Wall 4, 19 L. Ed 593, the Court ruled:

?…the commerce clause…has always been understood as limited by its terms; and as a virtual denial of any power to interfere with the internal trade and business of the separate states?

You may ask, why is the Fam Guardian Constable (Sonik Speed) and his cyber cohorts, trying so hard to understand this federal jurisdiction thingy, and the simple reason can be found in the US Supreme Court's ruling in Hagans v. Lavine, 415 US 533:

?. . . The law requires proof of jurisdiction to appear on the record of the administrative agency and all administrative proceedings?

Thanks.

Bing

[Bing]

Andy, uhhh, sir, if you can be so kind as to answer my question concerning whether or not you agree or disagree that in the past, the US Supreme Court has defined the meaning of the term “Liberty?

And if you do disagree, and thereby insist that the US Supreme Court has NOT defined the definition of the term “liberty”, can you please tell us your reasons why you disagree.

I appreciate the metaphor with the windmill, but what I am asking is not a “windmill” type question.

So far, you have made vague references in your reply posts, to Famguardian.org “premises”, but oddly enough, you have stopped short of actually identifying what you think those premises really are which you supposedly disagree with. Do you think your approach in presenting what purports to be your position, is fair?

I think you will agree that such a vague position as the one you have taken, is hardly fair to the uninitiated readers of this Forum.

Now, you have posited repeatedly that the premises are incorrect, and therefore the conclusions of this website are equally incorrect, however, you fail to state the premises that you insist are faulty. Can you identify for us the premises to which you have referred? And if not, why not?

So, cutting through all of the chit-chat, I refer you back to my lead question concerning whether you agree or disagree that the US Supreme Court has defined the meaning of the term “liberty?”

If you fall silent, well, then most of us will simply assume that contrary to you unfounded retorts, your arguements are weak and your so-called position is unsupportable.

Thanks.

Bing

[Bing]

Sonik Speed wrote on Mar 22 2006, 11:30 PM:

HOLY MOLY!!! ANDY!! YOU ARE HERE!!

BING: Well hold on there Sparky…

ANDY: The name's not Sparky.? Please be polite.

SONIK: Andy. Bing called you “Sparky” because I know he is just too excited that you are here. I would like to apologize (on his behalf) to you and the readers if he has offended you in any way, though I know he does not mean it. [/b]

_______________________________________

Andy – Please respond as you see fit.

Respectfully,

Sonik Speed

[post=”2446″][/post]

Uhhh, no, I called him “Sparky” because of a vague film I think I saw in the early 1970's. 😎

Uhh, say, Letitia Baldridge, err, I meant Sonik, please do not taint my good name by apologizing on my behalf, or even thinking that you can do any such thing, in a place as ephemeral as this internet discussion board.

How ephemeral?

Well, I could easily go back and delete my “Sparky” remark, and then your “apology” would seem even less sincere than it already is.

Hey, I can appreciate your civility and graciousness extended to Andy, but you are mistaken to presume that that somehow necessitated you apologizing to him “and the readers”, in my name or on my behalf.

Let me be clear, I apologize to no one.

Sonik, if you genuinely feel you should apologize about anything, most especially about anything that you perceived as having transpired in this Forum, in the future, please apologize in your name only, and not my name. Thanks.

Bing