Bing
Forum Replies Created
Also, I think that the case should have been filed in a District Court of the United States (DCUS), and not in the United States District Court(USDC) for Washington, DC.
The USDC is an Executive Branch territorial court where the USA Constitution is not in play.
Attorney Lane has made a fatal mistake, if you ask me.
Other mistakes and errors abound in the complaint submitted by Attorney Lane and in the affidavit submitted by Schulz.
For example, in the complaint, the named plaintiffs, Schulz, Banister, Turner, et al., defined themselves as being “citizens of the United States.” Nice going guys. 🙁
Not only that, Schulz also thinks he is a juristic person, and this is evidenced by the fact that he spells his name as “ROBERT SCHULZ”.
Further, Schulz also has sworn (shaking my head here) that he resides inside the federal area of NY. And as most here know, the USA Constitution DOES NOT apply inside the federal enclaves.
I am not a lawyer, but I was greatly disappointed to see what appears to be, so many incredibly stupid mistakes in the early stages of the lawsuit.
Sigh.
There is simply no acceptable excuse for the screw-ups that have taken place.
I hope Schulz and WTP win, but I am 99.9% sure that the sloppy document preparation and carelessness with which the court papers appear to have been prepared, may doom the cause before it gets out of the blocks.
Bing
PS. The real litmus test will be how and if, the amended complaint is corrected….or not corrected, and whether the numerous strategic and tactical errors are fixed. We will just have to wait and see.
Your SFR does not exist and the IRS lacks the lawful authority to prepare SFR under IRC 6020 . And that is why you have not yet received it.
Look at it this way, a tax return is supposed to be signed under the penalty of perjury. So, knowing that, do you really think that an IRS employee is going to do that, sign your return for you, when they have to do so under the perjury penalty? The IRS employee would have no way of knowing whether your SFR is true and complete, correct?
See IRC 6065.
The above thoughts are for educational and discussion purposes only. I am not a licensed attorney and I do not give legal advice. 😀
Bing
Good luck.
Bing
JWR, please be advised that CDPH are for “taxpayers”, the CDPH are not for nontaxpayers.
If you genuinely believe that you are a nontaxpayer, then you would be well advised to begin acting like one ASAP.
You must lose the “woe is me” mentality asap because it affects your attitude. Your attitude is the single most important aspect of your life that is under your direct control.
Remember, the IRS is playing a mind-game with you and they bank on getting you soooo frustrated, that you simply give up.
Do not fall into their trap and allow them to beat you down. You must push back as best you can and as hard as you can. Forget about finding out who is writing to you, they don't want you to know that, so you would be better off seizing the initiative and simply writing directly to the IRS top 6 or 7 laywers in D.C. Shift the onus back onto the IRS's top lawyers. Write to them and you will exploit the fact that as attorneys, they have taken a solemn oath. Use that fact to your advantage.
Utilize the resources at sedm.org or go and hire someone like me, who has experience dealing with IRS's top lawyers.
My suggestion is that you should either make the appropriate donation to the ministry at sedm and then educate yourself about the next steps, or, alternatively, you should hire someone like myself. 🙂
Don't waste your time writing to your congressmen, et al, it will be fruitless and will expose the fact that you have few, if any allies. Plus, it undermines your credibility.
The single best ally you have, is the Declaration of Independence, the USA Constitution, your state Constitution, and dozens and dozens of US supreme Court cases. Once you start acting like a non-taxpayer, you really do not need any other ammunition, all you must do is organize the facts and the law in such a way and then invite the IRS's lawyers to disprove your facts, the evidence, and the law.
In other words, attack that which you know can be defeated, and do not attack that which you know can not be defeated. It is as simple and as complex as that.
Identify the IRS's weakest points and, using your affidavits, offer into evidence into your IRS maintained Administrative Record, and attack decisively at those weak points in the IRS's defense.
Bing
Gentlemen, you likely already know this, but if you are searching for conclusive evidence that the IRS lacks the lawful authority to enforce IRC Subtitles A & C against American Citizens who live and work inside the 50 Union states, I think I can help.
Go to the Code of Federal Regulations Parellel Table of Authorities and Rules, and around page 784 or thereabouts, you will see 26 USC listed, skim down the right hand side until you get to IRC sections 6001 and higher, which should correlate with chapters 61-80 of the IRC.
On the left hand side of the page, you will see where the Office of the Federal Register has determined the related Implementing Regulations are located in the various CFR titles.
The Implementing Regs for 26 USC, MUST be located in 26 CFR.
Note, for example, that IRC section 7201 and 7203, which are for tax evasion and willful failure to file, there ARE NO IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS. Thus, the IRS has no lawful authority to charge folks under those IRC sections.
Note too, that for alot of the code sections in chapters 61-80 of Subtitle F of the IRC, in many instances, the implementing regulations for various IRC sections cite the fact that the implementing regulations are contained in 27 CFR, and not 26 CFR, where one would expect them to be.
These facts, should be linked up with two important US supreme Court cases, US v. Mersky, and California Banking Associaition v. Schultz.
But it gets even better.
According to the federal regulations at 1 CFR 21.21 ©, agencies are not permitted to cross-reference to the implementing regulations promulgated for another agency. And that is precisely what the IRS does when they cite that so-and-so violated IRC section 7xxx and then the IRS presumes that they have the right to enforce a penalty for noncompliance.
The TO that you cite are consistent with what is found in the CFR Parellel Table of Authorities and Rules.
Good luck.
Bing
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and this post is NOT legal advice. I was merely pointng out certain facts and how to verify stuff. 😀
Burly Atkins, although his heart is in the right place, is a bit misinformed.
To wit, he asserted that “only corporations and government employees are required to pay income taxes”, and his statement is incorrect.
A corporation that was incorporated in one of the 50 states, and which does not receive revenue from inside the federal zone, is not required by law to pay federal income taxes, although they are required to pay state income taxes.
By contrast, a corporation that was incorporated inside Washington, DC (i.e. the federal zone) and which does not receive income from operations inside any of the 50 states, is only required to pay federal corporate income taxes.
Second, if he genuinely believed that he and his wife were non-taxpayers, then he is outside the jurisdiction of the IRS and the IRC and, therefore, he should have NEVER filed an IRS Form and requested an extension to file. IRS tax forms are for taxpayers, they are not for non-taxpayers.
Finally, Burly is also wrong when he said the worst that can happen is he would have to pay income taxes. No sir, Burly. The worst that can happen is that your sloppy and careless thinking, coupled with your misguided and ill-advised pro se advocacy, will likely result in another bogus case precedent that corrupt judges will cite as an authority, to rule against other Patriotic Americans in the future.
Bing
Sonic, kind sir, that was an outstanding rebuttal post.
Thank for sharing your research and your insights.
Keep up the great work.
Bing
Hmmm, interesting posts, thanks.
I just want to point out the fact that with respect to the Brushaber Case, the Court ruled that domestic corporations were required to pay income taxes on their US source income. Now, Brushaber was suing Union Pacific Railroad because he felt that they should not be required to pay income taxes and that his investment in UPR would be diminished as a result of Union Pacific RailRoad paying income taxes to the federal government, which Brushaber felt were not owed.
Union Pacific RailRopad came into corporate existance via a corporate charter that was granted in the U.S. territory of Utah.
In Brushaber's pleadings, his attorneys incorrectly asserted that Union Pacific was incorporated in the state of Utah. However, in reality, the Union Pacific Railroad company was established in the US territory of Utah, back in the 1860s, long before Utah was admitted as a Union state. I feel that this fact is extremely important because the US supreme Court, knowing this, still identified the UPR as a “domestic corporation”.
Domestic to where? Why, Washington, DC, of course.
And the Justices were entirely correct because when they used the term 'domestic', the Court was referring to the US territories and federal enclaves where Congress possesses “exclusive legislative jurisidcition per Const. 1:8:17 and 4:3:2.
Finally, from the time Brushaber initially filed his lawsuit in New York state, up thru his US supreme Court filings, he always identified himself as a Citizen of New York and the government failed to rebut or deny that assertion. Thus it was accepted as the Truth. And that point too is important.
Bing
Gentlemen, excellent work!!! 🙂 Thanks for the cites.
I do want to remind everyone that it is hardly any secret that the IRS and US Govt Officials have periodically admitted on the public Record, that our tax system is based upon self-assessment and voluntary payment.
My theory is that the IRS is compelled to make these public utterances because they know full well that the IRC is merely 'special law' and that the IRS lacks the delegated authority to enforce the unenacted IRC, against American Citizens who live and work exclusively inside the several states, and who are not engaged in a “trade or business” inside the federal United States.
Thus, with the IRS utterances on the Record, it is highly improbable that any person could file suit against the IRS and win, based upon the alleged “fraud at the inducement.”
The IRS banks on that fact that their public admissions about the voluntary nature of paying income taxes, will invariably get lost in all of the “clutter and the noise” that exists in modern American society.
Bing
You are welcome, JWR. Good luck.
Bing
Stay strong and stay focused. They have zeroed in on the weakest link in your “chain”, that being, of course, the company for whom you work.
JWR, do not simply just send a response letter. Raise the stakes and put the pressure on the IRS by converting the letter into an affidavit, and then exploit the fact that the IRS lawyers are members of the BAR Association. By writing directly to them and sharing your facts and evidence with licensed attorneys, you remove the possibility that they can at some point down the road, feign ignorance about your case. Understand, if they ever took you to court, those IRS attorney with whom you communicated, could very likely be subpeoned by you and be compelled to testify. And trust me, IRS's top lawyers rarely prefer to go to court against a formidable opponent.
I have nontaxpaying clients myself for whom I have assisted in stopping all of their income tax withholdings, and, knock on wood, we are still waiting to for the IRS to send out that first letter. 😀 The IRS preys on the weak and if you show any fear, they likely will pounce. But if you write professionally and you have strong facts to support why you do not owe income taxes, you are far more likely to win your battle.
Here are some IRS attorneys that you may want to write to. Again, don't write to just one attorney, you always will want to 'spread the luv around' by communicating with numerous attorneys simultaneously.
Most folks (i.e. non-lawyers) are intimidated by lawyers and they will NOT think to communicate to another lawyer. Use some “strategy” dude. For example, follow the path of least expectation. Do not behave like they want you to behave. Be aggressive.
So if the IRS tells you to reply to John Doe, address the letter instead to John Doe's bosses, bosses, bosses, bosses, bosses, boss, located in Washington, DC. Go up 5 or 6 rungs on the IRS Organizational Chart and adopt a top down communication strategy.
What you want to do is let the IRS's top lawyers be the ones to eventually issue the order to the IRS field agents to “leave you alone” and to close your case. And you can do that by showing teh IRS that you will not be pushed around.
Be courteous and professional at all times. Tell them that you want to pay what you lawfully owe, but that you have been unable to identify the enacted statute that makes you liable. Ask the IRS's attorneys for guidance. And then sit back and wait for thier non-responses.
Sure, the IRS's lawyers will likely refer your response letter to the Ogden, Utah campus anyway, but the important thing for you is that you need to build up your IRS Administrative Record NOW, and create a documented trail that you have repeatedly asked the IRS to show you the law that makes you liable to pay taxes. And the lawyer's non-responses will be deafening.
Here are some contacts:
Emily Parker, IRS Chief Counsel & Assitant General Counsel for Tax
Nicholas J. DeNovio, Deputy Chief Counsel, Technical
Bruce B. Unger, Senior Counselor to IRS Commissioner
Robert M. Brown, Chief Counsel for Income Tax & Accounting
Linda Kroening, Deputy Associate Chief Counsel for Income Tax & Accounting
David B. Robison, Chief, Appeals
Karen Ammons, Deputy Chief, Appeals
Lynda Stiff, National Director of Compliance (located in Atlanta)
Except for Ms.Stiff, they are all located at IRS HQ's @ 1111 Constitution Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20224-0002
I have lots more names and phone # if you think you may need them.
Do not waste your time trying to appeal to the IRS's Taxpayer Advocate because those IRS losers are only for taxpayers, of which you are not one.
Look, you already have a tour de force of a response letter from sedm.org, so you are armed with the Truth, the Facts, and the Law, so leverage that fact to exploit it to your advantange.
By directly writing simultaneously to numerous top IRS lawyers, you are conveying the fact that you will not be bullied. And they need to know that.
Good luck and let me know if there is anything else I can do.
Bing
I have in the past received a letter or two from that Parizek dude in Ogden, Utah. It is very likely that that is not his real name.
Hypothetically speaking, what I would do if I were you, is, instead of addressing the response letter to Parizek, instead, address the letter to one of the IRS' top attorneys in Washington, DC and then send notarized originals (i.e. c.c. copies but make sure they are originals) to three (3) or more other IRS attorneys in D.C. and at the same time, also send a c.c. copy to Parizek in Utah.
You should not feel obligated to write directly to some low-level IRS drone, who likely has no idea what the laws are and is more than likely, simply following orders to “collect money” from their “inventory” of alleged taxpayers.
Following this approach of writing directly to the IRS's top lawyers, demonstrates to the low-level IRS goons that a) you take their unlawful actions so seriously, that you feel compelled to go way over their head and deal directly with the IRS's top guys in Washington, D.C., 😎 if everyone did this, it will create an enormous back-log of serious correspondence at the very highest levels, and c) by alerting the IRS's top lawyers in this fashion, you stand a far better chance of getting through to at least one of them, and educating them about the Constitution and the laws. Moreover, it increases the liklihood that one or more senior IRS attorneys will begin to doubt the veracity of the IRS's practices and they might possibly defect to our beloved Freedom Movement.
Having dealt with the IRS at the very highest levels, with all due respect to sedm.org and its principals, it is my experience that one is merely wasting their time addressing letters to the name of the low-levelIRS Collection employee whose fake name appears on the letter.
I suggest that you go way above their head and address the response letter to a top IRS attorney, whose real name you know, and then as a courtesy, send c.c. copies to that IRS drone, whose fake name is Parizek. This way, you are keeping that non-entity Parizek informed, while also letting him know that you will not be intimidated by him or the IRS.
Also, to show your good faith and to convey to the IRS that you are not scared, and as a professional courtesy, you also may want to consider sending your response letter to your nearest IRS Office. Thus, when you are finished, you should be sending your response letter to at least five or more different IRS folks, in addition to the IRS drone whose fake name appears on your IRS Notice. This approach makes it far less likely that the IRS can argue effectively that they never got your response or that it was lost, etc.
sedm.org IRS response letters are extremely powerful and very persuasive, and you need to do a more effective job in leveraging that simple fact.
Let me know if you want the names of some of the IRS's top attorneys in D.C. and I will be happy to give that info. to you.
You must maintain the initiative at all times and go on the offensive. Make no mistake, law abiding American Citizens such as yourself, are waging a war against the IRS, and we must use whatever strategies and tactics necessary that will further our Cause for Liberty and Freedom.
Stay strong, keep the faith and thanks for standing up for your constitutional rights and for fighting to protect and defend the USA Constitution against the unlawful operations of the IRS.
Know too, that I am standing shoulder-to-shoulder with you, and you are joined by millions of Americans who, like yourself, are taking a stand based upon the laws, and are refusing to be a slave to the IRS.
Don't get discouraged and keep on fighting-on.
Bing
Well, I don't know the facts, but if what Larry alleges is true, it seems that Bob S. is in the wrong here.
In any case, Bob and Larry should settle this case as quickly as possible.
Attacking each other is wholly counter-productive and only serves to harm our longer-term interests.
Sigh.
Bing
- Toto75 wrote on May 11 2004, 08:02 PM:Why is it that it seems like everybody who gets involved in trusts gets into trouble?
I think one reason why the trust “experts” get into trouble, is that so many of them appear to encourage the filing of amended tax returns in order to get back from the IRS, monies that were already paid.
Bing
Yeah, I have.
Don't hold your breath waiting for the HR25 to be enacted.
the ABA, AICPA, H & R Block etc.., have tens of billions of $$$$ at stake so their lobbying efforts will make sure that HR 25 is spiked before it ever gets out of committee.
Bing
