fg_admin
Forum Replies Created
-
Neo,
That’s interesting information and thanks for sharing it. The mechanism you describe, however, is STILL not expressly authorized by law and therefore FRAUDULENT because:
1. The term “lawful permanent resident” is defined in Title 8 and it doesn’t include anyone born in a state of the Union and certainly nowhere expressly includes a “non-citizen national” pursuant to 8 USC 1101(a)(21) and 8 USC 1452. Yes, we both agree that a non-citizen national is a statutory “alien” pursuant to 8 USC 1101(a)(3), but there is no way for him/her within Title 8 to become a “lawful permanent resident”. If you disagree, show me someone born in a state who told the whole truth about that fact to the Dept. of State and got a green card issued to them.
2. The rights of people domiciled in states of the Union are INALIENABLE according to the Declaration of Independence, which is organic law. Therefore, they can’t be contracted or bargained away or converted into a privilege in relation to a REAL, de jure government. The only way around this problem are for the judge/IRS to admit that they don’t represent a real government but a private corporate franchise. Only by being a private corporation and acting in a private capacity can they lawfully contract in that way with you if you are domiciled in a state of the Union protected by the organic law. We know this is the case, but we also know that they don’t ever want to admit that.
3. Nowhere is the status of “resident alien” declared or expressly conferred by simply filing IRS form 1040. The IRS has a hard time even telling the truth about who the form is really used by. The only place you can go to find out that the 1040 is a “U.S. person”, “U.S. citizen”, and “U.S. resident” form is IRS Document 7130. They don’t put that in the 1040 booklet or on the form. It’s a scam because they are digging a hole and hoping that your own false presumptions will cause you to fall into it. Even if you raise the issue that the 1040 form is ONLY for resident aliens and not citizens unless abroad, they routinely call you a crack pot. Therefore, if you asked the IRS whether you can change your status from being a non-citizen national to a resident alien by filing form 1040, they would say no. Your hypothesis can’t therefore be true.
4. You can’t be a “resident” in a place without a physical presence there. The non-citizen national in the state who made the UNLAWFUL election to be treated as a statutory “resident alien” is committing perjury because the physical place where he/she lives didn’t change. In reality, all he/she did was unlawfully elect himself into a “public office” by filling out a tax form and sending a bribe/kickback to someone to treat him like a public officer. That, too is a CRIME. 18 U.S.C. 211 makes it a crime to bribe someone to get them appointed into a public office, and probably everyone in the IRS could and probably should be prosecuted for THAT crime, because all “taxpayers” are public officers. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17( :cool:, the “taxpayer” is representing an office with a domicile in the District of Columbia, but he never physically moved there so technically he CAN’T be a resident alien. Furthermore, aliens are NOT permitted to serve in public offices, hence, even if he was lawfully appointed, he is serving ILLEGALLY. EVERYTHING they are doing right now is illegal and a SCAM from the get go.
What you are trying to do is come up with a way for a sovereign party protected by the Constitution who CAN’T lawfully bargain away ANY right in relation to government to waive sovereign immunity under 28 USC 1605 and change his status from a protected party to a privileged resident alien. It can’t be done because his rights are INALIENABLE in relation to a REAL, DE JURE government. Only those not protected by the Constitution can do so, which means they fit one of the following criteria:
1. They are domiciled on federal territory not protected by the Constitution. The District of Columiba IS protected by the Constitution because it was inside of Virginia before it was ceded and was protected by the Constitution at the time it was ceded, and according to the U.S. Supreme Court in Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901) the protection of the Constitution against that land can’t be removed by any act of congress. That is because rights are unalienable and can’t be bargained away, which is further confirmation of what we are saying.
2. They are in a foreign country (other than a state of the Union). They don’t enjoy the protections of the Constitution while abroad.
The average American doesn’t satisfy either of the above two conditions, and certainly doesn’t while in a constitutional but not statutory “state” applying for a bank account. Consequently, the ONLY way to truthfully describe what banks are doing by allowing “nonresident aliens” who are non-citizen nationals to open bank accounts as statutory “resident aliens” with Taxpayer Identification Numbers is that they are helping depositors commit the following crimes:
1. Impersonating a statutory but not constitutional “U.S. citizen”. 18 U.S.C. 911.
2. Impersonating a public officer. 18 U.S.C. 912. All public offices can be exercised ONLY in the District of Columbia and NOT elsewhere and they don’t work in the District of Columiba as required by 4 USC 72.
3. Conspiracy to defraud the “United States”. 18 U.S.C. 287. Everyone participating in a public benefit who does not in fact qualify because not a public officer in the government is committing a fraud upon the United States.
4. Filing false information returns. 26 U.S.C. 7206, 7207. They file information returns against depositors and all these are false because the depositors do not lawfully occupy a public office and therefore are NOT engaged in the “trade or business” franchise as required by 26 USC 6041(a).
5. Fraud in connection with computers. 18 U.S.C. 1030. All their account holder records are knowingly fraudulent because they misrepresent the status of nearly all their depositors.
6. Bribing public officials. 18 USC 201. Taxes paid by those not lawfully occupying a public office and paid to those in the District of Columbia who ARE public officers is bribery of public officials.
We pointed this interaction out to the SEDM folks. Looks like they added it to the following:
Non-Resident Non-Person Position, Form #05.020, Section 21.1
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/MemLaw/NonresidentNonPersonPosition.pdf
-
Lindsey Springer's Audio Update on his Case, 10/17/2009
http://famguardian.org/Disks/TaxDVD/Resear…009(edited).mp3
Fantastic. Springer has problems, though:
1. He admits that using W-2 forms is not a problem. We disagree. Its a contract to call your earnings “wages” as statutorily defined which are connected to a “trade or business”.
2. He admits litigating in Tax Court, which means he admits to being a “taxpayer”. Tax Court Rule 13(a) says that only “taxpayers” can go into tax court. He lost the battle before he even sets foot in court by admitting he is a “taxpayer”. See:
The Tax Court Scam, Form #05.039
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
3. He says the District of Columbia is not protected by the Constitution and that the Heller ruling on gun control recently was a farce. We disagree. The U.S. Supreme Court held in Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901) that the constitution attaches to the LAND (NOT the status of the people in it) and that once attached, it cannot be DEtached without the consent of the state that originally owned it. The ten mile square area that forms the district was ceded by Maryland and Virginia, and Virginia took its portion back, leaving only Marland on the east side of the Potomac. The Constitution was ratified BEFORE the district was donated by these two states and while the District was setup temporarily in New York, meaning that it covered the entire area of these two states. At no time has Maryland ever agreed to remove the protections of the Constitution from the area it ceded, so it STILL remains protected and subject to the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment.
Quote:“There could be no doubt as to the correctness of this conclusion, so far, at least, as it applied to the District of Columbia. This District had been a part of the states of Maryland and [182 U.S. 244, 261] Virginia. It had been subject to the Constitution, and was a part of the United States[***]. The Constitution had attached to it irrevocably. There are steps which can never be taken backward. The tie that bound the states of Maryland and Virginia to the Constitution could not be dissolved, without at least the consent of the Federal and state governments to a formal separation. The mere cession of the District of Columbia to the Federal government relinquished the authority of the states, but it did not take it out of the United States or from under the aegis of the Constitution. Neither party had ever consented to that construction of the cession. If, before the District was set off, Congress had passed an unconstitutional act affecting its inhabitants, it would have been void. If done after the District was created, it would have been equally void; in other words, Congress could not do indirectly, by carving out the District, what it could not do directly. The District still remained a part of the United States, protected by the Constitution. Indeed, it would have been a fanciful construction to hold that territory which had been once a part of the United States ceased to be such by being ceded directly to the Federal government.”[Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)]
An understanding of this subject is CRITICAL to the issue of taxation, because of the following holding of the U.S. Supreme Court in the above case:
Quote:“Loughborough v. Blake, 5 Wheat. 317, 5 L. ed. 98, was an action of trespass or, as appears by the original record, replevin, brought in the circuit court for the District of Columbia to try the right of Congress to impose a direct tax for general purposes on that District. 3 Stat. at L. 216, chap. 60. It was insisted that Congress could act in a double capacity: in one as legislating [182 U.S. 244, 260] for the states; in the other as a local legislature for the District of Columbia. In the latter character, it was admitted that the power of levying direct taxes might be exercised, but for District purposes only, as a state legislature might tax for state purposes; but that it could not legislate for the District under art. 1, 8, giving to Congress the power 'to lay and collect taxes, imposts, and excises,' which 'shall be uniform throughout the United States,' inasmuch as the District was no part of the United States. It was held that the grant of this power was a general one without limitation as to place, and consequently extended to all places over which the government extends; and that it extended to the District of Columbia as a constituent part of the United States. The fact that art. 1 , 2, declares that 'representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states . . . according to their respective numbers' furnished a standard by which taxes were apportioned, but not to exempt any part of the country from their operation. 'The words used do not mean that direct taxes shall be imposed on states only which are represented, or shall be apportioned to representatives; but that direct taxation, in its application to states, shall be apportioned to numbers.' That art. 1, 9, 4, declaring that direct taxes shall be laid in proportion to the census, was applicable to the District of Columbia, 'and will enable Congress to apportion on it its just and equal share of the burden, with the same accuracy as on the respective states. If the tax be laid in this proportion, it is within the very words of the restriction. It is a tax in proportion to the census or enumeration referred to.' It was further held that the words of the 9th section did not 'in terms require that the system of direct taxation, when resorted to, shall be extended to the territories, as the words of the 2d section require that it shall be extended to all the states. They therefore may, without violence, be understood to give a rule when the territories shall be taxed, without imposing the necessity of taxing them.'”Lindsey's lack of understanding of this subject is one of the reasons why he is having so much trouble. His ignorance is blood in the water for the sharks and parasites in the District of Criminals intent on protecting their plunder program and “protection racket” INSTEAD of you.
-
Please send this to everyone!
Jeffrey A. Dickstein
Attorney at Law
500 W. Bradley Rd., C-208
Fox Point, WI 53217
(414) 446-4264
CRITICAL ACTION ALERTAMERICA IN CRISIS
Federal Court Totally Eliminates Free Speech and Right to Defend(see how)
William J. Benson uncovered a massive government fraud and publicized his findings. The federal government accused him of making false statements.
Benson attempted to defend by submitting evidence of the truth of what he was saying. That evidence consisted of official, certified, government documents he personally obtained by visiting Washington, D.C., and the capitols of all forty-eight states. Unable to contest this evidence, a federal district court judge threw out the evidence and found Benson guilty.
Such conduct is prohibited by the First and Fifth Amendments which preclude the government from:
No. 1 – Acting as invincible tyrants who can censor and punish speech because it proves wholesale government theft; and
No. 2 – Charging someone with illegal conduct and refusing them the right to defend against those charges.
Benson's case is now before the United States Supreme Court.
We must let government know we will not tolerate being accused of lying about government misconduct and denied the right to prove our innocence. We must protect our right to freedom of speech and we must protect our right to defend in court.
We've made it fast, safe and free to let your voice be heard. Just click here. In a few seconds you can send an e-mail to local and national TV and Radio Stations, to Congress, and sign a petition for Redress of Grievance.
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out-because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out-because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out-because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me-and there was no one left to speak out for me.
–Pastor Martin Niemoller
-
BobT12,
Interesting you and Alex Jones should use that sybolism in the second bitmap with the statue of liberty. That same symbolism has been on the FG website for over 8 years. It's even the same color. Maybe Alex is a copy cat? See:
Babylon the Great is Falling
http://famguardian.org/Publications/Babylo…lling/index.htm
The love of money is the cause of the fall of Babylon. The ways that sinful love has manifested itself to corrupt our society are documented also in:
1. The Monetary Sins of the West
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/MoneyBanki…monetarysin.pdf
2. The Great IRS Hoax
http://famguardian.org/Publications/GreatI…reatIRSHoax.htm
-
The only thing that can convey a right to circumvent the Fifth Amendment takings clause is your consent. In law, all rights are property, anything that conveys rights is property, all contracts convey rights and are therefore property, and all franchises are contracts and therefore property. If you are consensually participating in the “trade or business” franchise contract codified in Subtitles A and C of the I.R.C., then they can do ANYTHING they want under that contract because they already have your consent.
On the other hand, if you did all of the following, then the levy is illegal:
1. Don't consent. Make it clear at every point that you don't consent
2. Don't use forms or remedies available ONLY to franchisees called “taxpayers”. For instance, only “taxpayers” can use IRS appeals.
3. Don't accept any “benefits” of the franchise
4. Don't take on any statutorty “status” under the franchise agreement such as “taxpayer”, “U.S. citizen”, “U.S. resident”, “U.S. person”, “iundividual”, or “person”.
5. Don't use property connected to the franchise such as the Social SEcurity Number or Taxpayer Identification Number. See 20 CFR 422.103(d) for proof that the property belongs to the government and NOT you.
6. Don't invoke any provision of the franchise agreement in any criminal civil or administrative dispute.
7. Claim “nonresident” status.
8. The only thing you invoke in your defense is the Constitution and the common law, and possibly also an anti-franchise franchise similar to the one found on the following form:
Tax Form Attachment, Form #04.201
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm (OFFSITE LINK)
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/Tax/Withholding/TaxFormAtt.pdf (OFFSITE LINK)
Based on the above, you can answer the question yourself. To illustrate how this works, lets use commercial real estate assocations as an example. Many homeowner associations allow the association to LIEN the property of the member WITHOUT a court order under the terms of the association contract. Is that legal? It SURE is! You agreed to it when you bought the property and anything done with your consent cannot form the basis for an injury cognizable in any constitutional court. If you challenged such an administrative lien in court, the judge would laugh you out of the courtroom.
Quote:Quod meum est sine me auferri non potest.What is mine cannot be taken away without my consent. Jenk. Cent. 251. Sed vide Eminent Domain.
Id quod nostrum est, sine facto nostro ad alium transferi non potest.
What belongs to us cannot be transferred to another without our consent. Dig. 50, 17, 11. But this must be understood with this qualification, that the government may take property for public use, paying the owner its value. The title to property may also be acquired, with the consent of the owner, by a judgment of a competent tribunal.
[Bouvier's Maxims of Law, 1856;
SOURCE: [url url=”http://"http://"http://"http://"http://"http://"http://"http://"http//"http://famguardian.org/Publications/BouvierMaximsOfLaw/BouviersMaxims.htm""""""""”]”]http://famguardian.org/Publications/BouvierMaximsOfLaw/BouviersMaxims.htm]
If you act like a franchisee and accept the benefits of the franchise, then its legal against those with a domicile on federal territory that is no part of any state of the Union. If you don't or if your domicile is in a state of the Union protected by the Constitution, then it isn't. The choice is entirely yours, but your ACTIONS must be entirely consistent with that choice or you will not have standing in court to sue to recover an injury if you don't make your actions and statements entirely consistent with that choice in EVERY particular. The following document is designed to ensure that your words and your actions are ENTIRELY consistent on this point and are mandatory for all those who use or intend to use materials available on this website in their own defense, both administratively and during litigation:
Path to Freedom, Form #09.015
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm (OFFSITE LINK)
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/Procs/PathToFreedom.pdf (OFFSITE LINK)
-
Watch the trailer to Alex Jones' new Video, “Fall of the Republic”, on You Tube, then order a copy and make copies to share with all on your email list. Time is running out! The signs are there, if people will just open their eyes to determine why some of these 'government' mandated changes are coming, and see what rights they are being commanded to forfeit, they will understand they are no longer being served by 'government', but are being ruled. If I have not the power to dictate to you how you should live your life, how can I delegate that power to a representative government that only exist in our minds, not in reality, and there only because we choose to agree it exists. Can it testify? Can I lawfully go to a foreign country and commit murder? If not, then how can I delegate that power to someone else? In the end, I am only giving the murderer some place to hide his crimes, and then choosing to believe that non-existing entity is the guilty party. How convenient! Example: how many of our so-called caring citizens are aware that the reason we were switched from analog TV to digital TV was to open up analog band width needed to be able to track the VeriChips government expects to tag everyone with to keep tabs on their total lives and locations? Lets face it, the corporations that run this country neither spend money nor relinquish control without dissension unless there is a greater hidden goal. How has the public benefited from the forced obsolescence of the analog TV sets?. How many people now have to go without TV because their means of sustenance do not allow for the expenditure to purchase a new TV?
[url url=”http://www.youtube.%20com/watch?v=wDQ6nI%20sgKW0″]http://www.youtube. com/watch?v=wDQ6nI sgKW0[/url]
-
SOURCE: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pi…001209207700339
__________________________
Quote:And, we don't have to start from scratch on any of these plans. You see, until recently, Congress actually allowed certain Americans to opt out of Social Security and invest privately. The prime beneficiaries of these waivers were public employees. While they couldn't opt out one by one, their governmental units could withdraw from Social Security, and a number did so. As late as 1981 three counties in Texas voted to opt out and form their own system. This was too much for Congress, and so it ended that waiver opportunity in 1983. But we now have the record of those three counties, and it's impressive. Such plans can very well serve as models for more general proposals to let all workers, public and private, save for their own retirement.See also:
http://www.ssa.gov/history/reports/pcsss/J…k_Statement.pdf
-
Neo,
This is not a big problem for those who want to pursue the nonresident alien position or the position advocated by this website. It is ONLY a problem for those who want to continue participating in federal franchises, a subset of which ALSO want to simultaneously be nonresident aliens. Since those who are members of this fellowship are prohibited from participating in government franchise, then its not a problem for any of them, but only for those who are violating the Disclaimer and the Copyright/Software License Agreement such as yourself because of use of our materials to interact with the government, legal profession, and courts and yet continuing to participate in government franchises. I hope you are beginning to see why we have this prohibition in our Disclaimer: Because it creates a financial conflict of interest that interferes with being a good trustee and fiduciary of God under the Bible Trust Indenture.
The bible is clear on this subject. It says “come out of her my people”. “Her” is Babylon the Great Harlot, which is personified by the government/mammon. That government, according to the prophet Isaiah in Isaiah 14:9-11, is the very personification of Satan himself. See:
Delegation of Authority Order from God to Christians, Form #13.007, Sections 4.2 through 4.2.3
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/SelfFamilyChurchGovn…OfAuthority.pdf
You want to have one foot on either side of the fence and you can't do that and still claim to be a Christian or claim to be honoring the requirements for using the materials found on this website:
Quote:“And I heard another voice from heaven saying, “Come out of her, my people, lest you share in her sins, and lest you receive of her plagues. For her sins have reached to heaven, and God has remembered her iniquities. Render to her just as she rendered to you, and repay her double according to her works; in the cup which she has mixed, mix double for her. In the measure that she glorified herself and lived luxuriously, in the same measure give her torment and sorrow; for she says in her heart, 'I sit as queen, and am no widow, and will not see sorrow.' Therefore her plagues will come in one day—death and mourning and famine. And she will be utterly burned with fire, for strong is the Lord God who judges her.”[Rev. 18:4-8 , Bible, NKJV]
The bible also says that you MUST choose whom you will serve, and you can't serve two masters.
Quote:“No servant [or religious ministry or biological person] can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon [government].”[Luke 16:13, Bible, NKJV]
All those who participate in franchises are, in fact and in deed, serving two OR MORE masters. All those acting as “public officers” for any government and ALSO who are Christians are, in fact, serving TWO OR MORE masters.
Quote:“But as for me and my house, WE WILL SERVE [ONLY] THE LORD!”[Josh. 24:15, Bible, NKJV]
The fact of the matter is that the only way the average American can become a statutory “taxpayer” or a statutory “U.S. citizen”, “U.S. resident”, or “U.S. person” is to LIE on a government form and to commit perjury under penalty of perjury, or to tolerate and condone false presumptions or reports by others that connect you to such statuses. It's a dead end to try to protect or perpetuate such unlawful FRAUD and perjury by helping you, financial institutions, or their customers continue in it or justify it. By doing that, now you're engaged in a conspiracy with all those who help you to commit fraud and to defraud the United States in criminal violation of 18 USC 287. THis state is how the go after every freedom fighter they have a hard on for of late, including Wesley Snipes, Eddie Kahn, Irwin Schiff, etc. Are you trying to throw us into the same pit?
This discussion will go nowhere unless and until we recognize the limits that the law places on upon your behavior, the behavior of financial institutions, and their customers. Any other approach is an attempt:
1. To make us into a society of policy and men and NOT law.
2. Sanction, perpetuate, and profit from fraud and criminal activity.
3. Aid and abet the government in perpetuating a “protection racket”.
4. Sanction a destruction of the separation of powers between the federal and state governments that is the foundation of the protection of private rights.
5. Bribe public officials with monies illegally collected in violation of 18 U.S.C. 201.
Indirectly, you are asking me to explain and justify how you, a government officer, can defend your own actions that are clearly criminal because you have been misrepresenting your status all these years on government forms, and doing so under penalty of perjury in violation of 18 USC 1621, 1001, and 1542. I'm not going to do it. That's clearly YOUR job. The Bible, however, is clear. When you realize you have comitted a crime or an offense against your brother or your neighbor, you are required to repent AND to make restitution with your brother, with or without a law that requires such restitution. If that offense has turned the government into a thief and a robber against otherwise INNOCENT people and you have received or profited from the robbery, you are required to pay back DOUBLE what you recieved:
Quote:“If a man [or a government made up of men such as we have now] delivers to his neighbor [you, the franchisee] money or articles to keep, and it is stolen out of the man's house, if the thief is found, he shall pay double.”[Exodus 22:7, Bible, NKJV]
“For any kind of trespass, whether it concerns an ox, a donkey, a sheep, or clothing, or for any kind of lost thing which another claims to be his, the cause of both parties shall come before the judges; and whomever the judges condemn shall pay double to his neighbor.“
[Exodus 22:9, Bible, NKJV]
The Bible says we can't make a false report against our neighbor.
Quote:“You shall not circulate a false report. Do not put your hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness.[Exodus 23:1, Bible, NKJV]
Information returns are “reports” in a biblical context. Every government form you have filled out in the past that you now know, based on reading this website and the law for yourself, misrepresents your status is also a false report that you have a moral and biblical obligation to correct AND to ensure that other people file correctly. That, in fact, we would argue, is the essence of what it means to “love your neighbor” in a biblical context: Prevent him/her from being victimized by false reports and being the target of unlawful enforcement activity by the government.
The truth is painful, inconvenient, and costly and for that reason, most people hide from it, but it's still the truth and the truth is the ONLY thing we are interested in here. Are you going to continue hiding behind a fig leaf [or the self-serving PRESUMPTIONS that personify the fig leaf] like Adam and Eve after they sinned, or repent and progress? As a recipient of the plunder and a public officer in the government, it is difficult for you to deal with this truth because you benefit so substantially financially from it. We applaud you for coming here to try to resolve the problems created by the truth, but we are definitely never going to compromise that truth or use it for a commercial purpose or to help you defend clearly unlawful activity, in this case FRAUD, on government forms and information returns that misrepresent your true status and your eligibility to participate in government franchises. It's obvious that you don't like lying on government forms to perpetuate the flow of your share of the plunder, but that in fact is the only option left to you now that you know the truth.
Quote:“Where do wars and fights come from among you? Do they not come from your desires for pleasure [unearned money from the government] that war in your members [and your democratic governments]? You lust [after other people's money] and do not have. You murder [the unborn to increase your standard of living] and covet [the unearned] and cannot obtain [except by empowering your government to STEAL for you!]. You fight and war [against the rich and the nontaxpayers to subsidize your idleness]. Yet you do not have because you do not ask [the Lord, but instead ask the deceitful government]. You ask and do not receive, because you ask amiss, that you may spend it on your pleasures. Adulterers and adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship with the world [or the governments of the world] is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world [or the governments of the world] makes himself an enemy of God.”[James 4:4 , Bible, NKJV]
“The government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul.”
Are you Paul in the above? We think it's entirely irrational, unreasonable, and naive to PRESUME that:
1. EVERYTHING the government does is lawful and legal or that everyone who “thinks” they are obeying the law is actually obeying the law.
2. You can function in a non-confrontational way with those who are clearly violating the law such as the financial institutions you describe.
By trying to do that, you are guilty of the very thing you yourself call “curve fitting” and looking for a “silver bullet”. The feds have never and will never have jurisdiction to establish or enforce federal civil franchises and the public offices that implement them within Constitutional but not statutory states of the Union. This is an unavoidable consequence of the separation of powers doctrine that is the foundation of the protection of our PRIVATE, constitutional rights. See:
Government Conspiracy to Destroy the Separation of Powers, Form #05.023, Section 10.2
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/MemLaw/SeparationOfPowers.pdf
The only way the account holder agreement of “U.S. citizens” at financial institutions could be truthful and therefore lawful is for the account holders to actually and physically reside and have a domicile on federal territory at the time they established the account and to correct their account application when that status changes. This, in practice, almost NEVER is the case. Anything beyond that is fraud and criminal activity if you don't apply this standard. The state citizen who opens an account as a statutory and not constitutional “U.S. citizen” has done more than just lost his marbles, he is engaged in a CRIME.
1. 18 U.S.C. 911 makes it a CRIME to impersonate a statutory “U.S. citizen”. Now you're asking us to help you commit such a crime by trying to justify it. It CAN'T be justified.
2. 18 U.S.C. 912 makes it a CRIME to impersonate a public officer in the government. All “taxpayers” are public officers and the IRC cannot and does not authorize the CREATION of any new public offices, but only the regulation of EXISTING offices. If you disagree, show me the provision that allows you to “elect” yourself into public office by filling out a tax form and to do so in the ONLY place that such offices can be exercised, which is the District of Columiba pursuant to 4 USC 72.
Note that we are not saying that those who participate in the U.S. military such as yourself should not receive a retirement, but that the ONLY way they can lawfully (according to the Bible and God's laws) do so is as OTHER than a “public officer” with NO STRINGS ATTACHED AND NO PARTICIPATION in any provision of the Internal Revenue Code as “taxpayers” and therefore “public officers”.
Quote:“Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world [the franchises of the world and the “statuses” under those franchises that qualify one for “benefits”].”[James 1:27, Bible, NKJV]
“Come out from among them [the unbelievers and government idolaters]
And be separate, says the Lord.
Do not touch what is unclean,
And I will receive you.
I will be a Father to you,
And you shall be my sons and daughters,
Says the Lord Almighty.”
[2 Corinthians 6:17-18, Bible, NKJV]
“You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; 5 you shall not bow down to them nor serve them [as a “public officer”]. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, 6 but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments. “
[Exodus 20: 4-6, Bible, NKJV]
For more on this subject and the biblical dilemma you face, see also:
“Public” v. “Private” Employment: Why You Really Work for Uncle Sam if you Receive Federal Benefits
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Reme…eEmployment.htm
We're STILL waiting for you to tell us why the Nonresident Alien Position Pamphlet, Form #05.020, sections 15.5, 15.6, and 21 mentioned in our initial response doesn't answer the question that kicked off this thread and how it can be improved to better answer it and thereby prevent future questions of this nature.
We empathize with your dilemma and we have faced it ourselves. Everything on this website is a representation of the information and tools we have identified in our search for answers to address that very dilemma, while also faithfully respecting the limitations and requirements of God's Law and our delegation of authority order as God's Trustees over His property, which is the Earth and the entire Universe.
-
As many of you may remember, Eddie Kahn, was found guilty of a couple of spurious and embellished felony tax crimes as a co-defendant in the Wesley Snipes case. He was sentenced to 10 years in communist federal gullag for refusing to participate in the state-sponsored religion of socialism. While serving that time he was hit with another indictment. Moved to Washington DC for the upcoming trial, Eddie relates some of his experiences in that DC jail where the ratio of blacks to whites is about 100 to 1. He also comments on his recent experiences in the courtroom where legal chicanery to run political prisoners down the slippery slope to silence has become an art to those who would destroy resistance to tyranny.
Give this issue your read and then take a moment to jot Eddie a line. Also read his wife Kookie's comments. She may never see her husband outside the prison confines again, yet she stands by him!! Enjoy the 5 minute video “Stand by Me” on the link she attaches below.
Be sure to jot Kookie a note too!!
Original Message
From: Kookie Kahn –
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 7:37 PM
Subject: Inside The Beast Report – October 2009 Issue #15
Dear Subscribers,
Attached please find Issue #15 of Eddie Kahn's Inside The Beast Report. Feel free to share with others.
Kookie Kahn – P.O. Box 27, Timnath, Colorado 80547
___________________________________________
1 October 2009 Issue #15
INSIDE THE BEAST REPORT
EB Graphics © [Online Newsletter Only]
But no weapon that is formed against you shall prosper, and every tongue that shall rise against you in judgment you shall show to be in the wrong, This [peace, righteousness, security, triumph over opposition] is the heritage of the servant of the Lord [those in whom the ideal Servant of the Lord is reproduced]; this is the righteousness or the vindication which they obtain from Me [this is that which I impart to them as their justification], says the Lord. — Isaiah 54:17
This is a periodic online newsletter written by Eddie Ray Kahn. Request a subscription by emailing FreeEddieKahn@yahoo.com. A requested donation for an annual subscription of $50 to pay for expenses is appreciated but is not required. Each issue will give an update on Eddie's current situation and share knowledge that Eddie is learning such as “chinks in the government's armor” during his illegal incarceration as a co-defendant in the Wesley Snipes Tax Case. Please do not email this address and ask for tax advice. This is for information only and should not be construed as legal advice.
Update on Eddie
Well, it is past time for another “Beast”, isn't it? Sorry it is late, but I've been very busy just trying to survive in this D.C. jail. At the end of September, I have been here for one year.
A year ago, if you would have told me that I would have been able to make it a year here without getting stabbed or at least getting beat up, I would not have believed you. Those occurrences are very common here, happening every week. And white people are such a minority, making up only about 2-3% of the jail population. One thing I have found out is that, as a group, blacks are just as racist toward whites as whites are toward blacks. I hear the word “Cracker” (slang for a white man) a lot, usually with the m-f words preceding it.
How have I been able to make it thus far without being assaulted? I read my Bible every day. I then try to apply God's main law – Love the Lord with all your heart, mind and soul and treat others as you would want to be treated in my daily life. I have found that this works wonders. Example: Some of the most vocal racist guys here have mellowed concerning me. A few weeks ago, a large group of guys were in one of the TV rooms watching a football game. I was the only white guy in there. This one man was very loud, talking about how bad a “m-f Cracker” was playing and how he hated them all. Then he looked over at me and said, “I am not talking about Mr. Kahn because he‟s a white nigger.”
Free Eddie Kahn Fund
Donations are accepted by sending to:
Kookie Kahn, P.O. Box 27, Timnath, Colorado 80547
By: Check, Money Order, Cash
PayPal address of FreeEddieKahn@yahoo.com
God Bless you for your help.
THIS ISSUE:
Update on Eddie
Update on Defendant Kahn's Case
2
I have been in this Unit for about 9 months now. Because I know how to spell, know something about the law and how to formulate a letter and/or Motions, a lot of them come to me for help or advice. They know I will help anyone that I can…and I will do it for free. In here, that last part is a rarity.
Although I never ask them for anything, you call tell by their actions most of them are very appreciative. Example: Whenever I need to use one of the phones (we have 8 phones and about 150 inmates), I have to get in one of the phone lines. It may take anywhere from 30 minutes up to 3 hours before I get to actually use the phone. However, more and more often, I am being offered spots toward the front, if not the front, of the line by guys who then have to go to the back of the line themselves. What does it say in Matthew 5:16 – “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven”. My experience has been that when I try to let my light shine, blessings inevitably follow.
To me, it just proves God's word in Luke 6:38, that the more you give, the more you will receive, pressed down and running over. By applying God's laws, statutes and commandments in our daily living, our lives will get better, no matter what our circumstances may be. Well, I will get off my soapbox now and we will get on to
The
Nitty
Gritty…
To “visit” Eddie by letter his current address is:
Eddie Ray Kahn – DC#320542 – 1901 “D” Street SE Washington, DC 20003
“…I was in prison, and ye came unto me.” Matthew 25:36
“Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us.” – Ephesians 3:20
And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. Romans 8:28
Update on Defendant Kahn's Case
The reason that I state “Defendant Kahn‟s case” and not “my” case is because of the following:
1) There are no affidavits by the Plaintiff that have been put in the Court Record or the Evidence file that state that there has been a crime committed and that positively identify me as the man who has committed the crime (I told Judge Kennedy that I had never seen such an affidavit and did not believe that such an affidavit existed. I asked him if he had seen such an affidavit. His answer: “I‟m not going to answer that question or any other questions like it.”). The Standby Counsel, Mr. Brodnax, admitted to me that there are “no affidavits of any kind” in the Court Record or the Evidence file.
2) I also asked: “Judge Kennedy, have you made a judicial determination that the Defendant and I are the same entity”? He refused to answer the question and he would not tell me why he would not answer the question. Think maybe he is hiding something? My position: Until he makes such a determination on the Record, with findings of fact and conclusions of law, I am not the Defendant Kahn and will not respond as such. 3
Also: Before the U.S. Attorneys can go to the Grand Jury to try and get an Indictment, the Plaintiff must first file a Criminal Complaint stating, under Oath or Affirmation, that a crime has been committed and that I am the man that has committed the crime. They did not do that in this case, violation Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (F.R. Crim.P.) which states:
Rule 3. The Complaint
The complaint is a written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged. It must be made under oath before a magistrate judge or, if none is reasonably available, before a state or local judicial officer.
Additionally, No one has filed any affidavits of probable cause. So, the questions is, what are they asking us to plead to when no man or woman has sworn that we have done anything wrong? Why would you plead Guilty or Not Guilty when no man or woman has sworn that you have committed a crime?
They must submit affidavits of probable cause to conform to the Fourth Amendment, which states:
AMENDMENT 4
Unreasonable searches and seizures
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or Affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
In this case, the Magistrate signed the arrest warrants despite the fact that there were no affidavits of probable cause, supported by Oath or Affirmation. In other words the Magistrate violated all the Defendants 4th Amendment Right to be secure in their person. He also violated F. R. Crim. P. 4, 9 and 41 regarding this matter.
Rule 4. Arrest Warrant or Summons on a Complaint
(a) Issuance. If the complaint or one or more affidavits filed with the complaint establish probable cause to believe that an offense has been committed and that the defendant committed it, the judge must issue an arrest warrant to an officer authorized to execute it. At the request of an attorney for the government, the judge must issue a summons, instead of a warrant, to a person authorized to serve it. A judge may issue more than one warrant or summons on the same complaint. If a defendant fails to appear in response to a summons, a judge may, and upon request of an attorney for the government must, issue a warrant.
Rule 9. Arrest Warrant or Summons on an Indictment or Information
(a) Issuance. The court must issue a warrant or, at the government's request, a summons for each defendant named in an indictment or named in an information if one or more affidavits 4
accompanying the information establish probable cause to believe that an offense has been committed and that the defendant committed it. The court may issue more than one warrant or summons for the same defendant. If a defendant fails to appear in response to a summons, the court may, and upon request of an attorney for the government must, issue a warrant. The court must issue the arrest warrant to an officer authorized to execute it or the summons to a person authorized to serve it.
Rule 41. Search and Seizure
(2) Requesting a Warrant in the Presence of a Judge.
(A) Warrant on an Affidavit. When a federal law enforcement officer or an attorney for the government presents an affidavit in support of a warrant, the judge may require the affiant to appear personally and may examine under oath the affiant and any witness the affiant produces.
(:cool: Warrant on Sworn Testimony. The judge may wholly or partially dispense with a written affidavit and base a warrant of sworn testimony if doing so is reasonable under the circumstances.
(C ) Recording Testimony. Testimony taken in support of a warrant must be recorded by a court reporter or by a suitable recording device, and the judge must file the transcript or recording with the clerk, along with any affidavit.
Shouldn't the defendants ask for the case to be dismissed because of this Constitutional and F.R. Crim. P. violation? I think so.
The Plaintiff's next problem: The United States Supreme Court has stated that, before there can be a Case or Controversy, there must first be an injured party. In fact, they state that there are three essential elements that must first be proven before the Court would have jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter.
MANUEL LUJAN, JR., SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, PETITIONER
v.
DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE, ET AL
Over the years, our cases have established that the irreducible constitutional minimum of standing contains three elements: First, the plaintiff must have suffered an “injury in fact” — an invasion of a legally-protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, see id., at 756; Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 508 (1975); Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 740 – 741, n. 16 (1972); fnl and (b) “actual or imminent, not „conjectural‟ or “hypothetical,‟” Whitmore, supra, at 155 (quoting Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983)). Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of – the injury has to be “fairly… traceable to the challenged action of the defendant, and not…the result [of] the independent action of some third party not before the court.” Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26, 41-42 (1976). Third, it must be “likely,” as opposed to merely “speculative,” that the injury will be “redressed by a favorable decision.” Id., at 38, 43.
The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing these elements. See FW/PBS, Inc. v. Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 231 (1990); Warth, supra, at 508. Since they are not mere 5
pleading requirements but rather an indispensable part of the plaintiff's case, each element must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof, i.e., with the manner and degree of evidence required at the successive stages of the litigation. See Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, 497 U.S. 871, 883-889 (1990); Gladstone, Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U.S. 91, 114-115, and n. 31 (1979); Simon, supra at 45, n.25; Warth, supra, at 527, and n. 6 (Brennan, J., dissenting). At the pleading stage, general factual allegations of injury resulting from the defendant's conduct may suffice, for on a motion to dismiss we “presume that general allegations embrace those specific facts that are necessary to support the claim,” National Wildlife Federation, supra, at 889. In response to a summary judgment motion, however, the plaintiff can no longer rest on such “mere allegations” but must “set forth” by affidavit or other evidence “specific facts, “Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 56 (e), which for purposes of the summary judgment motion will be taken to be true. And at the final stage, those facts (if controverted) must be “supported adequately by the evidence adduced at trial.” Gladstone, supra, at 115, n. 31.
Did you catch the two most important words in the last sentence? They are “if controverted.” In other words, we must object. Example: “Your Honor, I object. The U.S. Attorneys are trying to bring a Case before the Court in which there is no injured party. According to the Supreme Court, they have no Article III standing. Please ask the Plaintiff to state, for the Record, the name of the injured party if one exists and to state specifically how I injured him. The Supreme Court has said these elements must be proven if controverted”.
The Court also stated in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, et al: “The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing these elements. See FW/PBS, Inc. v. Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 231 (1990); Warth, supra, at 508. Since they are not mere pleading requirements but rather an indispensable part of the plaintiff's case, each element must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof…”.
Question: Who is the injured party in this case? The Plaintiff, the United States of America? The Plaintiff is a fiction. Do you know the definition of a Fiction Plaintiff? Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, states: Fictitious Plaintiff: A person appearing in the writ, complaint for record as the plaintiff in a suit, but who in reality does not exist, or who is ignorant of the suit and of the use of his name in it. It is a contempt of court to sue in the name of a fictitious party.
Can a fiction be injured? Will the U.S. Attorney claim that his client has been injured? No. He will say that the “Public” or “Society” has been injured. Answer: If they have been injured, then put them on the witness stand. I want to cross examine them. Now where do they go?
Self representation: Judge Kennedy held a “second” Faretta Hearing for me on 10-6-09, even though I have never had the first one. He wants me to represent myself or accept Mr. Brodnax as my Court appointed counsel or hire counsel of my choice. I told him I have sent out employment letter to almost 50 law firms in the D.C. area. In the letter, I stated that, if they were interested in being my Assistance of Counsel, to please answer 29 questions concerning the lawyer's competency and his previous track record defending cases such as this one. I also asked the attorney to send me a copy of his license to practice law so that I could be sure he is complying with D.C. law. Rule 49 of the F.R. App. P. state that it is a Contempt of Court to practice in D.C. without a license. 6
So far, I have only gotten 6 law firms to respond. They all said thanks, but no thanks. Why do you think they have this type of attitude? Maybe they could not answer the competency questions? Maybe they have never won a case like mine? Maybe they don't have a license to practice law in D.C.? Maybe all the above? One thing is for sure…they have no desire to answer those questions or give me a copy of their license.
I explained the problem to Judge Kennedy. He said “I will give you Mr. Brodnax.” I said “Judge Kennedy, how can you hire Mr. Brodnax and give him to me as my Assistance of Counsel? You said you were authorized to hire him under the Criminal Justice Act of 1964. However, that Act only authorizes you to hire Counsel for someone who cannot afford to hire his own. I have told you that I have family and friends that have offered to hire counsel for me. I have a copy of the Criminal Justice Act, codified and revised in Title 18 of the U.S. Code at section 3006A. I cannot find any section which authorizes you to hire Counsel for someone who has the financial means to hire his own. Where is that section, your Honor?”
Judge Kennedy would not answer the question. Actually Judge Kennedy will not answer any questions!
The judge then just started asking me Faretta questions without even telling me what he was doing. These are questions that judge's ask you if you want to represent yourself. They are used to determine if you are qualified to represent yourself. I told him “I am not going to answer those questions. I am telling you now, on the Record, that I am not competent to represent myself. There is no way I would even attempt it.”
However, Judge Kennedy was determined that something was going to get resolved that day. He had me at the podium from 11AM until 12:30PM, trying everything he knew to either get me to represent myself, hire counsel or take Mr. Brodnax. I told him I could not represent myself because I was very confused about what was going on.
I have tried numerous times to get some clarity by asking him questions, but, thus far, he has refused to answer any questions, leaving me totally confused about what is going on. I told him, because of his refusal to answer any questions, that I do not understand anything that is going on.
Finally, in frustration, he stated that I was just going to have to represent myself. Question: How do you declare that someone is going to have to represent themselves in a trial with a maximum penalty, if found guilty, of 225 years when the man has just told you numerous times in open court on the Record that he is not competent and refuses to do so?
There is another status conference scheduled for 10-20-09. Judge Kennedy will, I'm sure, be trying to proceed as though I am representing myself. I will be just as adamant that there is no affidavit in the court Record or the Evidence file that states that a crime has been committed and that I am the man who committed the crime. Without a sworn Criminal Complaint and/or an Affidavit of Probable Cause that alleges I have violated an Act of Congress, there is nothing to plead Not Guilty to and no probable cause to suspect that I have injured anyone. 7
I will reiterate that I have never pled “Not Guilty” nor has anyone that I have authorized pled “Not Guilty” for me. I have always stated that I am not a party to this case and there is no evidence in the court Record that states otherwise.
We will see what transpires. All prayers are appreciated. Only with His help will we prevail.
May God Bless you all,
Disclaimer
Please understand this information is not to be construed as legal advice. It is for educational purposes only and disseminated under my First Amendment Right of Freedom of Speech.
Eddie
Kookie's Korner
With all that is going on in this trial I am reminded of a cartoon that I recently saw where a judge is meeting (out of court) with the prosecuting US Attorneys. His comment explains it all and reads,.. “Gentlemen, it‟s not a matter of right or wrong….but whether or not we can get away with it!” This seems to be the thinking of a great number in our judicial system in today's world. It is sad to know that it has come to this but we must continue to do what we know is truthful and righteous, regardless of what others do, knowing judgment is upon each of us.
Please pray with me that justice will prevail in this case. As difficult as it is to pray for the prosecutors and judge, we must remember that they need it the most and we are instructed to do this in obedience to the Lord. Pray also for the jury, that their eyes, minds and hearts would soak in the truth and they not be blinded by corruption and lies. Please continue to pray without ceasing for each of the defendants in this case.
I am including a link which is a composite audio/video of a song done by various musicians from different places around the world. The song entitled “Stand By Me“, originally released in 1955 by the Staples Singers was released again in 1961 by Ben E. King who had been the lead singer for the Drifters. As I listen to this song I continue to Stand By Eddie. I am boldly asking each one of you to join me in standing by him. Please find it in your heart to send him a note of encouragement as this trial is scheduled to start November 9, 2009. Eddie's address is: Eddie Ray Kahn – DC#320542 – 1901 “D” Street SE Washington, DC 20003
[Click Here for “Stand by me”]. http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=2539741
-
We have studied this subject extensively, and the only conclusion one can reach is that:
1. There is no statute or regulation authorizing a nonresident alien to make an election to be treated as a resident alien unless they are married to a statutory but not constitutional “U.S. citizen” or “resident alien” pursuant to 26 USC 6013(g) and (h).
2. Even if an NRA satisfies the criteria in 26 USC 6013(g) and (h), they STILL cannot avail themselves of the privilege of making such an election or any other privilege within the “trade or business” franchise documented in I.R.C. Subtitles A and C UNLESS and UNTIL they are lawfully engaged in a public office in the District of Columbia and NOT any state government. The I.R.C. cannot and does not authorize the CREATION of any new public offices within the U.S. government and those who assume or act as if it does are guilty of impersonating a public officer in criminal violation of 18 U.S.C. 912.
This subject is mentioned in:
Non-Resident Non-Person Position, Form #05.020, Sections 15.5, 15.6, and 21
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/MemLaw/NonresidentNonPersonPosition.pdf
You have admitted reading the NRA position pamphlet above in the past, so why didn’t you kick off your post by explaining why the above sections do not answer your question or how it could be improved to prevent repeating the same tired subjects again. Is there a reason you didn’t do this, and thereby demonstrate that you are exercising the “due diligence” that is mandatory for all those who participate in these forums? That is what we have done and it’s not unreasonable to therefore apply the same standard to you.
If you find anything to improve in the above, please submit the suggestion to the SEDM Contact Us page and also this forum. Otherwise:
1. You aren’t allowed to PRESUME that such an election is lawful. All presumption is a violation of due process of law for those protected by the COnstitution because physically present within a constitutional and not statutory “State”, and also results in the creation of a state-sponsored religion in violation of the First Amendment if the presumption causes a surrender of rights to the government or destroys equal protection. See:
Presumption: Chief Weapon for Unlawfully Enlarging Federal Jurisdiction, Form #05.017
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/MemLaw/Presumption.pdf
2. The maxim of law applies that states that if it ain’t expressly included and authorized somewhere in the statutes, then it must be presumed to be purposefully unauthorized and excluded.
QUOTE “Expressio unius est exclusio alterius.A maxim of statutory interpretation meaning that the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another.Burgin v. Forbes, 293 Ky. 456, 169 S.W.2d 321, 325; Newblock v. Bowles, 170 Okl. 487, 40 P.2d 1097, 1100.Mention of one thing implies exclusion of another.When certain persons or things are specified in a law, contract, or will, an intention to exclude all others from its operation may be inferred.Under this maxim, if statute specifies one exception to a general rule or assumes to specify the effects of a certain provision, other exceptions or effects are excluded.”
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 581]
3. If it is expressly forbidden or criminal by a statute, then it is definitely not authorized. See 18 U.S.C. 912, 18 U.S.C. 654, etc. All of these statutes and several others are identified as a defense in the following form:
Corrected Information Return Attachment Letter, Form #04.002
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/Tax/CorrErrInfoRtns/…eturnLetter.pdf
4. If you aren’t aware of a statute that expressly authorizes such an election, you must give yourself and not the government the benefit of the doubt under the Ninth and Tenth Amendment, which states that all powers not expressly granted to the government are reserved to the states and the people respectively.
QUOTE “In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes it is the established rule not to extend their provisions, by implication, beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out. In case of doubt they are construed most strongly against the government, and in favor of the citizen.”
[Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151 (1917)]
-
EDITORIAL: Larry Becraft Responds to the Prior Post:
_______________________
I do not place much credence in that isolated statement. Judges write opinions for the purpose of explaining how they reached certain results and conclusions. If a decision by a Supreme Court, it applies in that jurisdiction. It has no effect in other jurisdictions. But then again over time, an opinion containing “dicta” may not be upheld in the future. That statement about “not being a party to the constitution” conflicts with other authority. Let me explain.
That statement needs to be examined in the appropriate context. The Georgia Supreme Court that rendered that decision in 1854 was created by the Georgia Constitution of 1798, which is posted here:
http://georgiainfo.galileo.usg.edu/con1798.htm
That 1798 constitution was not adopted by the people, but by a committee of authorized delegates:
Quote:“We the underwritten delegates of the people of the State of Georgia, chosen and authorized by them to revise, alter or amend the powers and principles of their government, do declare, ordain, and ratify the several articles and sections contained in the six pages hereunto prefixed, as the constitution of this State; and the same shall be in operation from the date hereof.”Thus as a matter of fact, the people and citizens of Georgia had nothing to do with adoption of that 1798 constitution, which was in effect when the Padelford decision was rendered. But the later Georgia Constitutions were adopted via approval of the citizens.
That statement that people/persons/citizens were not parties to that constitution is thus correct. However, most constitutions adopted over the last 150 years have been adopted by popular vote of the people. In this respect, I would say that those voting for a constitution are “parties” to it.
Here in Alabama, our present constitution was adopted in 1901. It constitutes a charter creating a state govt and, typical of American constitutions, it created 3 branches. Constitutions create governmental institutions. The Alabama legislature was granted law-making power via our 1901 constitution. As a citizen of Alabama, I guess I could consider myself a “party” to that Constitution in the sense that I, a later citizen of Alabama, am the posterity of those previous citizens. But in reality, I was not even born in 1901, and thus clearly was not a “party”.
But all this “patriot” chit-chat about being a party to the constitution is really irrelevant. Under Alabama law, I can complain when govt violates the constitution, and I have done so many times, including just a couple of weeks ago when I drafted a motion to suppress for a friend of mine who needed one quick. Motions to suppress challenge a search with an argument that such search violated the Constitution. The same right to complain about constitutional violations exists at the federal level as well as all other States in this country. Consequently, based on legal authority I am not going to catalog here, the statement in the Padelford case is irrelevant.
Larry
-
EDITORIAL: Another report on the outcome of Pete Hendrickson's Trial
___________
====================================
From:
Date: October 27, 2009 08:58:02 AM PDT
Subject: Paul Egan of The Detroit News reports:
Federal jury finds Pete Hendrickson guilty
Reply-To: thelawstudygroup@togetherworks.com
REGARDING: “A federal jury today convicted author Peter Hendrickson on 10 counts of filing false documents.” (SEE the complete news story below)
Many many strong American hearts will be sadden by this news, especially those who know Pete personally.
Some have warned Pete that the government would use government-controlled courtroom tactics to ensure that the jury would hear only what the government wanted them to hear.
Frankly, is this outcome much of a surprise to anyone who has been observing history and keeping score. Given the mind-set of the majority of the people who now live in America, and the fact that there are very few loyal Americans left in this country.
For just like the time of the 1st American Revolution, when there were far more Tories than there were loyal Americans, very few living in America at that time actually who knew what the Laws and the Constitution said or stood for. Nor were there but a few who fully understood the governing principles of the Rule of Law.
Those who signed the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America truly understood these principles, and those of Liberty and Freedom. The rest were mere by-standers who held a wide mix of values and loyalties.
Someone have personally observed events over the past 60 years or so and have asked: Is the Rule of Law and the Constitution no longer in effect in America? Do either bullies or criminals have a good track record of honoring the Rule of Law and the Constitution? Are either bullies or criminals willing to lie, cheat, steal and also use guns to kill anyone who confront them? Think back into history, did the Founding Fathers carry only words on paper to their confrontations with the British Government? If not, what other resources and tactics did the Founding Fathers utilize, that modern Defenders of Freedom have not? How many (especially those who have received their property back from the government), must now wonder, will the government's next step be to go after them for:
The over $10 Million in private property that has been rightfully and lawfully returned to the people. Fines and/or fees that the IRS may come up with in order to punish those who have confronted IRS and their deceptive and seemingly criminal scheme? Does there now exist a basis for considering a new American Colony (located who knows where), wherein the people who share the values enumerated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America can live their lives and work together in peace, liberty and freedom. What do you think?
A final and most important question is, what can all of us come together to DO that will effectively ensure that Pete and Doreen Hendrickson do not to jail?
Federal jury finds tax protestor guilty
Paul Egan / The Detroit News
Detroit — A federal jury today convicted tax protester and author Peter Hendrickson on 10 counts of filing false documents.
Hendrickson, 54, of Commerce Township, author of “Cracking the Code,” could face prison when he is sentenced by Chief U.S. District Judge Gerald E. Rosen on Feb. 9. Each count is a three-year felony.
Hendrickson's trial began last Tuesday on charges he falsely reported zero or nominal income on his 2000 to 2006tax returns when he actually earned tens of thousands of dollars each year.
Testifying in his own defense, Hendrickson told jurors that income tax is an excise tax and excise taxes may only be levied upon those who benefit from a government privilege such as a government job.
But the government called expert witnesses from the Internal Revenue Service who rejected Hendrickson's arguments.
The jury deliberated less than half a day.
Hendrickson, who was comforted by his wife Doreen and other family members following the verdict, said he plans to appeal.
He criticized Rosen for instructing the jurors on what the law said, rather than giving them copies of the relevant statutes to read for themselves.
“He relieved the prosecution of its burden in this case,” Hendrickson said of the judge.
In 2007, U.S. District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds permanently barred Hendrickson and his wife from filing tax returns on which they falsely reported their incomes as zero. The order came in response to a lawsuit filed against Hendrickson by the U.S. Justice Department. Edmunds found Hendrickson's position on income tax to be “false and frivolous.”
Hendrickson, who remains free on bond to await his sentencing, was convicted in 1992, for failing to file a federal income tax return and for a conspiracy involving a fire bomb placed in a bin at a Royal Oak post office.
Hendrickson could face sentencing guidelines of 21 to 27 months on the latest convictions, an official said.
-
EDITORIAL: Pete Hendrickson's Report on His Trial:
_____________
The Truth Gets Mugged (for the moment…)
Four hours after being given the following instructions over my strenuous objection and insistence that the jurors be provided the actual language of the statutes, to which the judge replied (in court, but with the jury absent) that he wasn't going to let the jurors see that actual language because doing so “might cause them to speculate as to its meaning”:
WAGES DEFINED
As it relates to the charges in this case, I instruct you that the term “wages” means all payments for services performed by an employee for his employer. The term wages applies to all employees and is not restricted to persons working for the government. 26 U.S.C. § 3401(a); 26 U.S.C. § 3121(a).
EMPLOYER DEFINED
As it relates to the charges in this case, I instruct you that the term “employer” means the person for whom an individual performs or performed any service, of whatever nature, as the employee of such person . This definition applies to all employers, whether private or government. 26 U.S.C. § 3401(d); 26 U.S.C. § 3121( 😎 .
EMPLOYEE DEFINED
As it relates to the charges in this case, I instruct you that the term “employee” means any individual who performs services and who has a legal employer-employee relationship with the person for whom he performs these services. 26 U.S.C. § 3121(d)(2); 26 U.S.C. § 3401(c ).
…and after the two most attentive jurors– one of whom had actually asked during the trial to see the language of 3401 and 3121, and been rebuffed– were bumped as alternates…
Click here for the rest of this story
(or navigate to http://www.losthorizons.com/LastShotForTheLawDefiers.htm#Mugged)
-
EDITORIAL: Sent to us by a reader.
The flaws in Pete’s approach are what got him in trouble. We have warned people on this website about those flaws for years. In case you haven’t seen the document, here it is again:
Policy Document: Pete Hendrickson’s “Trade or Business” Approach, Form #08.003
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…Hendrickson.pdf
Pete obviously meant well, but the flaws in his approach are:
1. He put too much of himself into the effort and thereby became a target. We don’t put the names of fellowship members or officers on this website.
2. He didn’t know what he could rely upon as a basis for belief about his liability. Hence, he couldn’t defend his belief that he wasn’t liable with evidence that both the courts and the IRS have recognize and MUST recognize as reliable and trustworthy. See:
Reasonable Belief About Income Tax Liability, Form #05.007
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…nableBelief.pdf
3. He didn’t attach anything explanatory to his claims for refund, leaving no evidence in his administrative record that he could defend himself with during his trial, which was a process of JUDICIAL REVIEW of an agency decision that can only proceed upon what is in the records of the agency. See:
Techniques for Building a Good Administrative Record, Form #07.003
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/ResponseLetters/Guid…AdminRecord.htm
4. He filed a RESIDENT form, the form 1040. He is a nonresident. All “residents” are government public offices domiciled in the District of Columbia. You have to use a NON-RESIDENT form indicating you are a “NONTAXPAYER”. See, for instance:
Federal Non-resident, non-statutory Claim for Return of Funds Unlawfully Paid to the Government, Form #15.001
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/Claims/FedNonresNons…aimRfd-Long.pdf
5. He used a “RESIDENT” information return correction form, the Form 4852. The IRS does not make non-resident forms so you have to make your own. See:
Correcting Erroneous IRS Form W-2’s, Form #04.006
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/Tax/CorrErrInfoRtns/…ngIRSFormW2.htm
6. He filed the WRONG withho0lding documents at his job, being the Form W-4, whcih is ONLY for US GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES or those acting as kelly girls for the U.S. government by virtue of participating in the Social Security franchise. See:
Federal and State Withholding Options for Private Employees
http://famguardian.org/Publications/FedSta…teWHOptions.pdf
7. He didn’t understand citizenship or his status in relation to the government. He thought he was a statutory “U.S. citizen” and he thought that constitutional and statutory citizens are equivalent. WRONG. See
Why You are a “national”, “state national”, and Statutory but not Constitutional Citizen
http://famguardian.org/Publications/WhyANational/WhyANational.pdf
8. When members of this fellowship approached him with the above truths in the Lost Horizon forums, he BANNED them from the forums and trashed our credibility! He was so arrogant that he didn’t want to admit he could be wrong or have to apologize for being wrong, ignorant, or uniformed.
The above are all the SAME reasons they were able to do the SAME thing to Larken Rose, Irwin Schiff, Lindsey Springer, Eddie Kahn, Bill Benson, et al.
WHEN ARE PEOPLE GOING TO LEARN! ARROGANT PRESUMPTUOUS FOOLS, ALL OF THEM!
If you want to learn about similar mistakes made by many others, see:
Who’s Who in the Freedom Movement
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Case…Who/WhosWho.htm
We hope by now you all understand that the Path to Freedom is VERY narrow, that you must do your homework BEFORE you begin your journey, and that if you proceed upon the wrong premises as a “customer” of government protection called a statutory “U.S. citizen” or “U.S. resident”, you will lose. Only the educated are TRULY free, as the founders claimed.
__________________________________
From: paycheck-piracy@mail-list.com [mailto:paycheck-piracy@mail-list.com] On Behalf Of Paycheck-Piracy-list-owner@mail-list.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 1:36 PM
Subject: “Cracking the Code” author, Pete Hendrickson, convicted
TO: ___________
Paycheck Piracy does not accept any liability or responsibility for the information provided by others. It is your duty to verify the accuracy and the legality of any information accessed via the Internet.
Please note: This message was sent from an auto-notification system that cannot accept incoming e-mails. Please do not reply to this message
Paycheck Piracy:
– Does not rent, sell, use or abuse the list of subscribers.
– Does not insert any ads nor pop-ups into your message.
– Does not send HTML email (messages with different colors, fancy fonts, or pictures).
– Does not track whether subscribers opened their email (requires HTML email).
– Does not “personalize” messages with names or other data.
– Does not allow attachments.
====================================
Prepare. Persist. Prevail.
http://www.preferredservices.org
Click here to subscribe to the free e-letter, Paycheck Piracy <mailto:paycheck-piracy-on@mail-list.com>
====================================
From: _______________
Date: Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 10:55 AM
Subject: [citizensoftheUnitedStatesofAmerica_news] Pete Hendrickson Convicted of all 10 courts – author of “Cracking the Code” [6 Attachments]
Detroit News.
<http://www.detnews.com/article/20091026/ME…rotestor-guilty>
I thought he would probably be convicted and unfortunately he was. He was convicted of four counts of filing a false document being a Form 1040 and 6 counts of filing a false document being the Form 4852 (included). His defense was not correct in my personal estimation and you can’t expose the IRS using only the Code sections or that it is only an excise tax using only code. But people keep beating the same drums expecting a different music – not going to happen. The music is the same – jail almost without fail time and time again.
I don’t proffer for people to file or not to file as that is a personal choice, but I darn sure would never file a “zero” return (or a 4852 form) under the penalties of perjury [6065 (1.6065-x) is BS anyway as it fails substantive reg. test) on “wages” if I couldn’t defend and understand what the IRS uses as wages. The 3401-3406 wage code sections give rise only to 1.1441-x and similar regulations – for non-resident aliens, etc. This is real evidence and not some theory.
Then these regulations would have to pass the 553(b)©© test even if Part 1 to be substantive regulations having the force and effect of law. I have never checked that – will have to put that on by to do list to see if we can snag the non-resident aliens with a legal tax duty. Interesting idea, – wonder if the millions of illegals from Mexico could be included? Hmmm.
I would like for someone who has access to Pete or his attorneys if they would to send me the PDF Final Jury Instructions. I would also like to get the proposed jury instructions to see what the USA presented and to see if Hendrickson’s Attorneys contributed to his convictions also. The purpose is to to see how they were loaded to get the convictions. I know the game and pattern jury instructions are totally corrupted to convict, but I would still like to see the actual jury instructions. Pacer has not published the proposed or final jury instructions and I have sent them an e-mail asking why they haven’t as this is part of the public record.
We have a right to see these jury instructions.
I have the attached [not included in the Paycheck Piracy e-letter] the Docket sheet and the Verdict and the Form 4852 used by the “Cracking the Code” folks. This was a short trial in reality. 20th jury selected, 21, 22, 23, and part of 26th with the verdict on the 26th.
Lindsey Springer’s case is the one to watch as no attorneys are being used – Stilley (debarred atty – at least I think he was debarred) and Lindsey are doing their own defenses.
In reality in dealing with the IRS, you either plea bargain out and save your money, get very informed and fight like hell from the very beginning knowing full well that the judge and DoJ are all working to convict you or have an attorney with the odds of 5 or so out of 100 with the reliance defense being the best – put the blame on an accountant, etc.
The Judge in Lindsey’s case has granted him the use of PRA regulations in this case – never been done before – this is an extremely great danger to the IRS criminals as regulations expose them for what they are – lower that excrement in the septic tanks.
When I think of the thousands of Americans who have been crushed, lives and families destroyed by the IRS and with the Judges, IRS and DoJ being the coup d’etat criminals in reality – it shocks the conscience.
Ralph
Chief Justice Marshall, in the course of the debates of the Virginia State Convention of 1829–1830 (pp. 616, 619), used the
following strong and frequently quoted language:
‘The Judicial Department comes home in its effects to every man’s fireside; it passes on his property, his reputation, his life, his all. Is it not, to the last degree important, that he should be rendered perfectly and completely independent, with nothing to influence or control him but God and his conscience? * * * I have always thought, from my earliest youth till now, that the greatest scourge an angry Heaven ever inflicted upon an ungrateful and a sinning people, was an ignorant, a corrupt, or a dependent Judiciary.’
In a very early period of our history, it was said, in words as true to-day as they were then, that ‘if they (the people) value and wish to preserve their Constitution, they ought never to surrender the independence of their judges.’ O’Donoghue v. United States, 289 U.S. 516, 532 (1933).
Notice: I am not a counsellor-at-law or attorney. All research materials provided are for you to check out and use at your
discretion, and is protected under the right of free speech in all forms. I neither suggest that people file an Individual Income Tax Return or not file – that is a personal choice for each man/woman.
I have a talk show on Republic Broadcasting accessible by going to http://republicbroadcasting.org/ The show will be on Sundays (5PM – 7 PM CST). Call in is 1-800-313-9443.
______________
Ralph
Is this the lying despot JOKER that is responsible for the demise of our constitutional Republic?
—
As Maximus said before the battle, Unleash Hell!
LEGAL CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This document along with any attachment(s) is intended for and directed to the individual or entity recipient that is named herein only. If you are not the intended recipient, as specified by the sender, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in relation to the contents of the information contained herein, is strictly prohibited, and you are commanded to destroy this document in its entirety, and notify the sender. Access to this document by any other person or entity is unauthorized. Any actions contrary to the intent of this
NOTICE confirms that you accept liability for a minimum $5,000,000.00 civil penalty. All rights are reserved.”
=============================================
No law compels a private sector non-governmental work eligible man or woman to submit a form W-4 or W-9(or their equivalent) nor disclose an SSN as a condition of being hired or keeping one’s job. With the exception of an order from a court of competent jurisdiction issued by a duly qualified judge, no amounts can be lawfully taken from one’s pay (for taxes, fees or other charges) without the worker’s explicit, knowing, voluntary, written consent. http://www.preferred…sualTaking.html
This is a one-way announcement list. Only the list moderators are able to post a message.
To subscribe: <mailto:Paycheck-Piracy-on@mail-list.com>
To unsubscribe: <mailto:Paycheck-Piracy-off@mail-list.com>
Update your email address, send a message to <mailto:Paycheck-Piracy-change@mail-list.com> with your old address in the Subject: area free archived files: http://archive.mail-…paycheck-piracy
mail-list.com 1302 Waugh Dr. #438 Houston, Texas 77019 USA
To unsubscribe, or change your email address, click here.
-
EDITORIAL: Linksey Springer Update, 10/25/09
__________________________
Court Rejects Government statutory obligation theory and Holds Paperwork Reduction Act is complete defense and good faith defense during trial.
Lindsey Springer here and providing an update on the status of the Government’s theory regarding the obligation to provide information on a Form 1040 with the threat of prison for willful failure to do so.
Trial begins on Monday, October 26, 2009, and is expected to last 3 to 5 weeks.
On October 13, 2009 the United States District Court ordered the Government to provide a list of each regulation they theorize encompasses the “obligation to file a return” allegedly “required by law” in the Grand Jury indictment returned against me.
On October 19, 2009, with just minutes to spare, the Government filed the following Bill of Particulars:
Quote:“The Court ordered the United States to file a supplemental bill of particulars “specifying the ‘regulations thereunder’ . . . specifically relied upon by the government as specifying events triggering an obligation to file a return.” Doc. no. 192 at 1. The abbreviated answer to the Court’s order is that the passing, parenthetical reference to regulations in the government’s trial brief was not intended to suggest that the Government would be relying on Treasury Regulations in proving its case in chief. As indicated in the Government’s prior filings and further referenced below, the obligation to file a tax return is a statutory obligation. In its case in chief, the Government will prove that the defendant had a statutorily-mandated obligation to file a federal tax return without reference or reliance on Treasury Regulations.In the United States Trial Brief (doc. no. 138), the United States included the parenthetical phrase “and regulations thereunder,” when describing the law that specifies the events that trigger an obligation to file a return. Doc. no. 138 at 12. As previously stated by the Government in earlier responses to Defendants’ motions for bill of particulars, the filing of income tax returns is mandated by statute. United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 630-31 (10th Cir. 1990); United States v. Dawes, 951 F.2d 1189, 1193 (10th Cir. 1991); United States v. Neff, 954 F.2d 698, 699-700 (11th Cir. 1992); United States v. Hicks, 947 F.2d 1356, 1359 (9th Cir. 1991); United States v. Kerwin, 945 F.2d 92 (5th Cir. 1991); United States v. Wunder, 919 F.2d 34, 38 (6th Cir.1990). In its Bill of Particulars filed July 17, 2009, the United States identified the statutes that impacted on the required filing of individual federal income tax returns: Title 26, United States Code Sections 1, 61, 63, 6011(a), 6012(a)(1)(A), 6072(a), 6091, 6151, and 7203. Doc. no. 104 at 2. Given the likely defense that the funds received by Defendant Springer were gifts and therefore not taxable income, Title 26, United States Code Section 102 is also implicated.
Regulations under the Internal Revenue Code provide some clarification and specific examples regarding filing requirements that may or may not be helpful in a specific individual’s situation. In this case, a review of the regulations reveals no exceptions or qualifications that would exclude Defendant Springer from the filing requirement. The regulations promulgated under the Internal Revenue Code that provide clarification of the filing requirements for individuals include the following: Title 26, Code of Federal Regulations Sections 1.1-1, 1.61-1 et seq., 1.63, 1.102-1, 1.151-1, 1.6011-1 and 1.6012-1. However, as stated above, the United States did not rely upon any regulations specifying events triggering an obligation for the Defendants to file tax returns.
So, on October 21, 2009, a pretrial hearing was held and the District Court rejected the Prosecution’s statutory mandate theory. It told the United States that the Court was denying their Motion in Limine which sought to prevent me from even uttering the words “Paperwork Reduction Act” of both 1980 and 1995. The Court informed the Prosecution that I am allowed to present the Paperwork Reduction Act during their case in chief and as a good faith defense.
The reason why this is so significant is because every Court agrees that if regulations are involved in the “obligation to file a return” or play any role, then the request Form 1040 must comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and the regulations promulgated thereunder at 5 CFR 1320 by the Office of Management and Budget.
Here is just but a portion of the words I uttered to accomplish the outcome regarding “statutory mandate obligation” v. “statutory and regulation thereunder obligation” to which regulations obviously won:
Quote:“Similarly, the fact that incriminating evidence may be the by product of obedience to a regulatory requirement, such as filing an income tax return,[fn14] maintaining required records,[fn15] or reporting an accident,[fn16] does not clothe such required conduct with the testimonial privilege.[fn17] United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 35 (2000)“Typical information collection requests include tax forms, Medicare forms, financial loan applications, job applications, questionnaires, compliance reports, and tax or business records. See S. Rep., at 3-4. Dole v. Steelworkers, 494 U.S. 26, 33 (1990)
“In United States v. Tedder, 787 F.2d 540, 542 (10th Cir. 1986), this court held that tax forms were not information collection requests subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act because the filing of income tax returns was obligatory. This holding is superseded by the Supreme Court’s analysis in Dole v. United Steelworkers, ___ U.S. ___, 110 S.Ct. 929, 933, 108 L.Ed.2d 23 (1990), which included federal income tax forms within the category of information collection requests under the Act. Dole would also appear to call into question the holdings in Snyder v. IRS, 596 F. Supp. 240 (N.D.Ind. 1984) and Cameron v. IRS, 593 F. Supp. 1540 (N.D.Ind. 1984), aff’d 773 F.2d 126 (7th Cir. 1985), both of which held the Paperwork Reduction Act inapplicable to IRS forms.” U.S. v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 630-631 (fn 12) (10th Cir. 1990)
“We would be inclined to follow the general analysis of Wunder and Hicks and hold that the operation of the PRA in these circumstances did not repeal the criminal sanctions for failing to file an income tax return because the obligation to file is a statutory one. However, we are not compelled to rest our opinion on the statutory origin theory because we find the analysis of other courts which have considered the issue to be persuasive.” U.S. v. Dawes, 951 F.2d 1189, 1193 (10th Cir. 1991)
If you notice the Government cited in their “2nd Bill of Particulars” after they said “mandate of statute” they cited to “United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 630-31 (10th Cir. 1990); United States v. Dawes, 951 F.2d 1189, 1193 (10th Cir. 1991); United States v. Neff, 954 F.2d 698, 699-700 (11th Cir. 1992); United States v. Hicks, 947 F.2d 1356, 1359 (9th Cir. 1991); United States v. Kerwin, 945 F.2d 92 (5th Cir. 1991); United States v. Wunder, 919 F.2d 34, 38 (6th Cir.1990).
It is clear the Collins and Dawes decisions by the 10th Circuit rejected this theory. It is true the decision in Neff, Hicks, Kerwin and Wunder mentioned the statutory origin theory but Neff said “Congress created Neff’s duty to file the Returns in 26 U.S.C. § 6012(a), and nowhere did Congress condition this duty on any Treasury regulation. See United States v. Wunder, 919 F.2d 34, 38 (6th Cir. 1990).” See Neff at page 700 cited by the Government.
In Hicks, the 9th Circuit said “But where Congress sets forth an explicit statutory requirement that the citizen provide information, and provides statutory criminal penalties for failure to comply with the request, that is another matter. This is a legislative command, not an administrative request.” U.S. v. Hicks, 947 F.2d 1356, 1359 (9th Cir. 1991)
In Kerwin, the 5th Circuit said “This issue was considered in United States v. Wunder, 919 F.2d 34, 38 (6th Cir. 1990), which held that the Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply to the statutory requirement that a taxpayer must file a return. Since Kerwin, like the taxpayer in Wunder, was convicted of that statute, which is not an information request, there is no violation of the Paperwork Reduction Act. For the reasons set forth in Wunder, we AFFIRM.” U.S. v. Kerwin, 945 F.2d 92, 92 (5th Cir. 1991)
And of course, the problem child for the Judiciary is United States v. Wunder, 919 F.2d 34, 38 (6th Cir. 1990) which held “The tax years in question here were 1979, 1980, and 1981. Clearly, tax returns for 1979 and 1980 would not be affected by the PRA. As for the 1981 return, it did display the appropriate control number, and the regulations do not need a number because the requirement to file a tax return is mandated by statute, not by regulation. Defendant was not convicted of violating a regulation but of violating a statute which required him to file an income tax return. See 26 U.S.C. § 6012 and 7203. The Paperwork Reduction Act, therefore, does not apply to the statutory requirement, but only to the forms themselves, which contained the appropriate numbers.”
In 1995 Congress rewrote the Paperwork Reduction Act and specifically stated that its reason to write the 1980 Paperwork Reduction Act was to eliminate “exemptions” for the Internal Revenue Service. See Public Law 104-13, see 109 Stat. 163, page 171
The Commissioner instructs yearly that his or her request for income information stems from sections 6001, 6011, 6012 and “their regulations.”
There is a reason why the Government is fighting so hard against the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and that is because the Form 1040, or any other Form, must comply with the Act and they see that if they succeed on arguing the obligation is purely statutory then they think they escape the Public Protection under 44 U.S.C. section 3512.
What type of person would wish to escape a law that is entitled “public protection”? Obviously someone who is against the public. The same person argues they are protecting the public when they are ignoring the public protection provision.
For now I leave you with the words of Congress written in law greater than that of the Internal Revenue Code and that is:
Quote:(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that is subject to this subchapter if —
(1) the collection of information does not display a valid control number assigned by the Director in accordance with this subchapter; or
(2) the agency fails to inform the person who is to respond to the collection of information that such person is not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a valid control number.
( 😎 The protection provided by this section may be raised in the form of a complete defense, bar, or otherwise at any time during the agency administrative process or judicial action applicable thereto.
See 44 U.S.C. section 3512
I cannot begin tell you how appreciative I am to those of you who have given me and my family the financial support in recent months you have given no matter what the amount. Great thought goes into how I can make requests of you and I concluded that if you are led to help me then please do not ignore that leading. I can really use your support more now than ever. I am up against the Billionaires of the U.S. Department of Justice and IRS. I can receive paypal at gnutella@mindspring.com or traditionally at 5147 S. Harvard, # 116, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74135 in name of Bondage Breaker’s Ministry or Lindsey Springer
I will provide periodic updates throughout the trial. If you have signed up for this email and did not get it do not worry because I simply have not been able to update my list and I am so busy tyring to do something with nothing. I will try during my breaks to update the list.
Thank you, Lindsey Springer 10.25.09