fg_admin
Forum Replies Created
-
We have done as you requested. Thanks for the constructive feedback.
-
Thanks for those suggestions. We added the links to that page.
Please keep your suggestions coming.
🙂
-
See also:
Public Money v. Private Credit
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImYmZlMTU5ZGQtYTIyZi00NjZjLWIyMzctOWFkZjhhZDM1MGEy/edit
-
Our response:
1. First of all, you are quoting an IRS publication that even the IRS and the courts admit that you CANNOT RELY UPON to sustain a position. Consequently, what you present are not FACTS or EVIDENCE, but political opinion only. See:
Reasonable Belief About Income Tax Liability, Form #05.007
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…nableBelief.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
2. Second, the Substantial Presence test is found in 26 U.S.C. 7701(b ).
http://www.law.corne…de/text/26/7701
Specifically, it is found in 26 U.S.C. 7701(b )(3).
3. Third of all, they don't define WHICH of the four “United States” they are referring to. Nowhere in the I.R.C. is “United States” defined to have the meaning they impute in the untrustworthy publication 515. They do use the word “physically present” in both the publication and 26 U.S.C. 7701(b )( 3) and therefore, they can ONLY be referring to the GEOGRAPHIC and not LEGAL PERSON sense of “United States”.
4. Fourth, the Substantial Presence test has as a prerequisite that one must be an “individual”, and the ONLY way we know of to BECOME a statutory “individual” is to hold a public office per 5 U.S.C. 2105(a). If there is some other way, please produce the statutory evidence. Otherwise, the conclusions of the following pamphlet apply:
Why Your Government is Either a Thief or You are a “Public Officer” for Income Tax Purposes, Form #05.008
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…rPubOfficer.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
5. Fifth, you are correct that the FEDERAL government has jurisdiction over the STATUS of CONSTITUTIONAL aliens (foreign nationals) but not over aliens for any other purpose. Hence, they have the jurisdiction to determine that foreign nationals and NOT state nationals are “resident aliens” if they are present anywhere in the country. However, THAT type of “resident alien”, if it includes the 50 states, is a CONSTITUTIONAL “resident alien” and NOT a statutory “resident alien”. Hence, they cannot determine the status of STATUTORY aliens who are domestic nationals nor assign to them the statutory status of “resident alien” under the Substantial Presence Test. Therefore, they retain their status as STATUTORY but not CONSTITUTIONAL “aliens” and NON-individuals. They don't become “individuals” (public officers) without their consent and therefore, the Substantial Presence Test works no evil or compelled association against anyone other than FOREIGN nationals.
6. Sixth, even a statutory “resident alien” still aren't a “Taxpayer” until they engage in a public office and therefore “trade or business” in the national but not federal government. Hence, they cannot lawfully become an “individual” or a “person” UNLESS and UNTIL they consent to occupy such an office. Furthermore, it is a crime for them to IMPERSONATE a public officer if they were NOT lawfully elected or appointed per 18 USC 912. Therefore, they cannot unilaterially “elect” themselves into a public office by either filling out a tax form or an information return.
-
IS IT TOO LATE?
Bob Schulz responds to Judge Andrew Napolitano's recent challenge to “We the People” regarding the Constitution and what to do when the government abandons the Rule of Law. (Apr. 2012)
Here is the direct video link
Here is the original video by Napolitano:
-
SOURCE: http://www.justice.g…2/txdv12133.htm
______________________
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
MONDAY, JANUARY 30, 2012
FEDERAL COURT BARS NEVADA MAN FROM PROMOTING TAX FRAUD SCHEME
California Court Says Promoter’s Theories About Taxing Authority Are Wrong
WASHINGTON – A federal court has permanently barred David Champion from promoting a tax fraud scheme designed to assist his customers evade federal taxes, the Justice Department announced today. The civil injunction order was signed by Judge Percy Anderson of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
The court determined that Champion promotes a tax fraud scheme based on the frivolous claim that U.S. citizens can choose to opt out of federal income taxation by declaring themselves to be “non-taxpayers.” The court found that Champion promotes the scheme through websites, a radio program and a self-published work entitled Income Tax: Shattering the Myths. According to the government complaint, Champion, who currently resides in Nevada, repeatedly helped his customers evade taxes by establishing sham “pure trusts” to which they transferred their business and personal assets, and he falsely informed his customers that their purported trusts did not need to file income tax returns or pay taxes.
In granting the permanent injunction, Judge Anderson held that Champion’s theories concerning the government’s taxing authority are wrong. Among other things, the injunction order bars Champion from instructing people that they may become “non-taxpayers,” from offering his services to assist others in taking advantage of this false status, and from forming trusts for others.
The government alleged that Champion’s misconduct led to civil and criminal penalties against his customers. The complaint states that Internal Revenue Service (IRS) inquiries into eight of Champion’s customers revealed that he had assisted them in evading payment of approximately $1.4 million in income taxes.
In the past decade, the Justice Department’s Tax Division has obtained hundreds of injunctions to stop tax-fraud promoters and unscrupulous tax-return preparers. Information about these cases is available on the Justice Department website.
-
Dr. Johonnas Eicke: Staying Ahead of the Haters Part 1
-
I would have to agree with Stija. If you can't even find the cover letter on acrobat pages 10 through 14:
http://sedm.org/Form…stIndenture.pdf
Then you ought to lick the hands that feed you and go back to your cage on the federal plantation.
Quote:“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget ye were our countrymen.”[Samuel Adams]
The Path to Freedom says we can't help you complete the steps in the path, of which the Resignation of Compelled Social Security trustee is one of them. If there is an error in the document, we can fix it but that's all we can do.
-
Thank you for your very insightful and valuable feedback. We have implemented nearly all your suggestions and reposted the document at:
http://famguardian.o…hyANational.pdf
Additional feedback on your suggestions are included within a private email we have sent you separately through an intermediary.
We have also attached the commented version of your submission.
-
Don44.
Thanks for your valuable feedback. We are still digesting it and will report back to you when we have time.
-
The place to start in such a search is:
Free Legal Treatises, Litigation Tool #10.010
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Litigation/PracticeGuides/LegalTreatises.htm
LITIGATION TOOLS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Litigation/LitIndex.htm
-
Yes, as far as we know.
-
The forms to compel performance are in:
SEDM Forms page, Section 1.4.4
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
An action under the common law in a state court against the private employer is the only remedy available. The litigant must be a non-citizen national domiciled in a constitutional but not statutory state and be a statutory “alien”, in relation to the national government and the corporate state. He may not invoke state civil statutes and may only invoke the constitution and common law or he betrays himself as a privileged statutory citizen devoid of rights.
Techniques for litigating under the common law are found at:
Common Law Practice Guide, Litigation Tool #10.013
LITIGATION TOOLS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Liti…on/LitIndex.htm
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Item…wPractGuide.htm
If you want to know whether a state chartered corporation is considered an instrumentality of the government see:
1. A Treatise On The Law of Non-Residents and Foreign Corporations
DIRECT LINK: http://books.google….tsec=frontcover
2. A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations
DIRECT LINK: http://books.google….tsec=frontcover
Please read the above and report back your findings to us all on the status of a corporation chartered by the state as far as whether it is an officer of the state government and therefore bound to obey the constitution.
-
The following form:
Affidavit of Citizenship, Domicile, and Tax Status, Form #02.001
http://sedm.org/Form…ffCitDomTax.pdf
. . .has the following quote on whether they can disregard submitted withholding forms:
Quote:“The employer is not authorized to alter the form or to dishonor the employee's claim. The certificate goes into effect automatically in accordance with certain standards enumerated in § 3402(f)(3).”[U.S. v. Malinowski, 347 F.Supp. 347 (1972)]
Any search for remedies should begin with the forms provided for that specific circumstance, rather than forcing us to keep reinventing the wheel.
-
We don't care about what makes “sense”, but what you are willing to actually try. If you have no intention of ever pursuing this, then this discussion is pointless. So far, you have not evidenced a commitment to actually using the information provided so the discussion is pointess.