lchesson
Forum Replies Created
All I can say is SHOW THEM THE LAW. If it happened to me, I would take a look at the document that supposedly empowers my employer to state to act on the state's behalf. It's not worth the paper it's written on.
Don't know if this will help or not, but I know that North Carolina does not meet the requirements of this statute when they send a notice of proposed assessment:
Quote:? 25-3-401. Signature. (a)A person is not liable on an instrument unless (i) the person signed the instrument, or (ii) the person is represented by an agent or representative who signed the instrument and the signature is binding on the represented person under G.S. 25-3-402.Check Oregon's code section on UCC and see if a similar reg may apply here. Since few governments like to back-peddle, you might have to deal directly with your employer. This sounds trite, but you could always go to work for yourself.
JWR,
You probably would have been cc'd by IRS if one was filed. It's a Form 668(Y)© Notice of Tax Lien. They don't certify the thing, it only gets the rubber stamp, and most counties enter this as an actual lien. It is filed in the county where your property is located.
I did manage to get it removed from one of the credit reporting agencies, by contesting the fact that it was merely a 'notice'. I guess the County has their thumbs up their ……when it comes to anything but the status quo.
Seems I also read somewhere in the irs site that a lien is also filed with the register of deeds in D.C. Of course we know it would not. Thanks for comments, I will keep everyone updated on this.
Andyd, isn't the UCC filing only done on businesses?
Lee
Michael Badnarik, the Libertarian Party's 2004 presidential candidate, doesn't shy away from the fact that he does NOT have a Driver's License, nor does he put tags on his car.
Whenever he gets a ticket, the prosecution usually will drop the charges. I don't know how he does it, but wouldn't it be fun to tell the cops that you don't need a license and to just buzz off?
To save space, I won't post the attachments, but you can read them here:
ATTACHMENT 1:
http://www.givemeliberty.org/docs/TaxResearchCD/Attach1.htm
ATTACHMENT 2 overview:
http://www.givemeliberty.org/docs/TaxResea…h2-Overview.htm
Here is Shultz's letter to The President?s Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform which will hold it's first public meeting on 2-16-05.
______________
We The People Foundation For
Constitutional Education, Inc.
2458 Ridge Road, Queensbury, NY 12804
Phone: (518) 656-3578 Fax: (518) 656-9724
February 11, 2005
VIA PRIORITY MAIL
Hon. Connie Mack III, Chairman
The President?s Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform
C/o Shaw Pittman LLP
2300 N. Street NW
Washington, D. C. 20037-1128
Dear Chairman Mack:
This letter has been sent to each member of the Panel and comes from more than 15,000 citizens representing all fifty states.
Meaningful federal tax reform must begin with the Panel?s answer to the forty-three (43) questions that were respectfully submitted to President Bush and Treasury Secretary Snow in May of 2004. Copies of the May 10, 2004 letters to President Bush and Secretary Snow are enclosed with this letter. Please note that thirty-eight (38) of the questions are to be found at the end of Attachment #1 to the letter to Secretary Snow, and five (5) of the questions are located at the end of Attachment #2.
The questions focus on the obvious conflict between two interpretations of the meaning of the word ?income? within 16th Amendment to the Constitution: the never-overturned interpretation provided by the U.S Supreme Court versus the interpretation asserted in self-interest by the political branches.
As the Attachments conclusively document, in 1913, just months after the adoption of the 16th Amendment, Congress stretched the meaning of the term ?income? beyond the constitutional meaning and the intent of the framers of the 16th Amendment, as recorded in every official and professional document of the era: the congressional record, congressional reports, law reviews, journals of political science, newspapers of record and so forth.
In the Income Tax Act of 1913, Congress, included a non-apportioned, direct tax on the salaries, wages and compensation of ordinary Americans and instituted withholding at the source, providing the federal government?s creditors with the ultimate form of lender security ? the labor of its citizens.
However, in 1916, the Supreme Court brought the ultra vires action of Congress and the Executive branch to a screeching halt. The Supreme Court ruled in Brushaber v. Union Pacific, 240 U.S.1 (and the cases bundled with it), that wages are NOT income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment.
The Supreme Court's decision in Brushaber soundly rejected the government?s interpretation of the definition of ?income? within the meaning of the Constitution, and specifically limited ?to whom? and ?where? the income tax could apply. The Brushaber court explicitly concluded that the 16th Amendment gave Congress no new powers of taxation, meaning that direct taxes (such as Social Security taxes and Subtitle A income taxes) fell outside of the meaning of the 16th Amendment and still must satisfy the fundamental requirement of apportionment.
However, Congress was loathe to give up the potential bounty from an un-apportioned, direct tax on the labor of every American, and the power and control that tax and its enforcement mechanisms brought.
The Brushaber decision prompted Congress to discretely and quietly revise the 1913 Act, and via Section 25 of the Federal Income Tax Act of 1916 (amended in 1917), Congress declared that the “income” subject to the 1913 Act was not the same ?income? to be taxed under the 1916 Act. However, Congress did not go any further. What was the purpose of this change in the language, and by extension, its legal effect? Congress did not, and has yet to explain what was meant by Section 25.
Since then, Congress has looked the other way as the Executive, with the cooperation of the lesser courts, has imposed and enforced a direct tax on the salaries, wages and compensation of ordinary Americans and instituted withholding at the source.
The People have repeatedly Petitioned the government to remedy the oppression, but their repeated Petitions have been met by repeated injury.
As the final interpreter of the Constitution, we, the People believe the Supreme Court got it right ? a tax on labor is a ?slave tax,? and is a violation of fundamental, human Rights. In short, it is unconstitutional and intolerable.
By this open letter, we humbly Petition the Panel for Redress of this Grievance. We will send a representative to Washington DC for your answer to the question, ?Will the Panel provide an answer to the forty-three questions?? A simple ?Yes? or ?No? is all that we ask, written on the Panel?s stationery and signed by the Chairman of the Panel.
Our representative will attend the first meeting of the Panel, scheduled for February 16, 2005, at the Ronald Reagan Building & International Trade Center, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC. He will arrive before 10 am, outside the main entrance to the building, where he will remain until one half hour past the adjournment of the meeting. For purposes of identification, our representative will be holding a placard with the words, ?No Answers, No Taxes,? written on one side and the words, ?Obey the Constitution,? written on the other side.
We urge you to carefully review and consider the implications of the research attached to this letter.
Due to the efforts of organizations such as ours, millions of Americans know the truth about the income tax fraud. Millions have stopped filing and paying the tax because the government has not listened or responded to their Petitions for Redress. We respectfully ask that in your work for this panel, you rise above the politics of fear associated with addressing this problem and end the fraud. The future of the Republic and our Freedom depend on your personal commitment to uphold and defend the Constitution.
Respectfully submitted,
______________________
Robert L. Schulz, Chairman
Encl.
Hon. Connie Mack III, Chairman
The President?s Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform
C/o Shaw Pittman LLP
2300 N. Street NW
Washington, D. C. 20037-1128
Hon. John Breaux, Vice-Chairman
The President?s Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform
1440 New York Avenue NW
Suite 2100
Washington, DC 20220
William Eldridge Frenzel, Member
The President?s Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform
C/o Brookings Institution
1775 Massachusetts Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20036
Professor Elizabeth Garrett, Member
The President?s Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform
C/o The Law School
University of Southern California
Los Angeles, CA 90089-0017
Professor Edward P. Lazear, Member
The President?s Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform
C/o Stanford University
Hoover Institution
Stanford, CA. 94305
Professor Timothy J. Muris, Member
The President?s Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform
C/o George Mason School of Law
3301 Fairfax Drive
Arlington, VA 22201
Dr. James Michael Poterba, Member
The President?s Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform
C/o Department of Economics
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
77 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02139-4307
Mr. Charles O. Rossotti, Member
The President?s Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform
C/o The Carlyle Group
1001 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, D C 20004-2505
Mr. Jeffrey F. Kupfer, Executive Director
The President?s Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform
1440 New York Avenue NW
Suite 2100
Washington, DC 20220
Ms. Liz Ann Sonders, Member
The President?s Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform
C/o Charles Schwab
101 Montgomery Street
San Francisco, CA 94104
The ad will run.
February 12, 2005
President's Tax Reform Panel Put On Notice
Full-Page Ads To Run Next Week
Schulz Petitions The Panel For Answers
Thanks to the generous and rapid response of the People, our full-page, color ad will appear in the Daily Edition and the National Weekly Edition of a principal Washington DC newspaper, in time for next Wednesday?s first public meeting of the President?s Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform in Washington. The ad will reach hundreds of thousands of Washington Times readers on Monday and Tuesday.
The ad challenges the President's Advisory Panel to address the constitutional issues relating to the government's operation and enforcement of the federal income tax system.
The ad highlights the willingness of IRS and DOJ to ignore the Supreme Court's never-overturned holdings regarding the income tax, the collusion of the Executive, the U.S. Congress and the lesser courts to perpetuate the fraud, and the government's steadfast refusal to answer the People's Petitions for Redress regarding constitutional abuses.
(RIGHT-Click here to download a copy of the ad. 800 KB, .pdf format)
http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Mi…roof2-12-05.pdf
Based on the donations received thus far, WTP?s ad will appear in next week?s National Weekly Edition of The Washington Times, which is being mailed this weekend to over 100,000 subscribers nationwide. The ad will also appear on Tuesday, Feb 15, in the Daily Edition of The Washington Times. The Daily Edition is the regular DC-Metro area daily newspaper. The ad in the Weekly Edition was run as the ?centerfold? of the paper.
In addition to normal subscribers, those that will see the ad next week include thousands attending the large ?CPAC? (Conservative Political Action Committee) conference as well as thousands of other DC area hotel guests that will also receive complimentary copies.
Donations are still needed. As previously announced, we hope to run a continuing series of ads.
Please spread the word.
Lee
- Lee wrote on Feb 2 2005, 10:49 AM:Lazy is right. Most Americans have no idea how to live their lives. Otherwise they come face to face with another great movie line, Jack Nicholson in A few Good Men…”you can't handle the truth”.
They are taught from a VERY early age to play “by the rules”, and to not question authority. Period. From the time they enter government schools, they are taught to be “good little consumers”. Get a loan and buy your first car. Get a loan and buy your first house. File those tax returns because that's what you have to do, etc., etc.
Gov't is REALLY good at these psycho-wars. The mere possibility of investigating tax-honesty is taboo for most people. After all…”so-and-so says…” is only one excuse among many excuses folks use to justify a position that fits a pre-conceived notion.
It almost takes a spiritual awakening before one can begin to understand the “matrix”. About 8 years ago, I spent time praying specifically that I would be free from the spirit of deceit. Wow. God answered that prayer and since then I haven't looked back. It perplexes me to no end that what can be so clear to me now only results in the blank stares from others.
This is mine…for some reason I did not get logged in when I visited today 😕
Sorry, the little smirky face thing should read as 'B'
Apparently the 'Bold' keeps it turned on.
I was watching a video by Richard Sanderling and he told the story of responding to a summons carrying his 'books and records'….you know, the bible and perhaps a few Kenny Rogers records. That was funny.
The IRS can't be stupid enough to make such an obvious mistake. They've got something else up their sleeve. Perhaps they feel confident enough in their ownership of the Federal Courts that they plan on pulling off a higher profile 'win' at trial.
Do they actually own the Supreme Court also?
It would be nice if the general population could be made aware of this finding, but the majority of people are still going to 'freak-out' upon receiving a summons.
January 29, 2005
Dramatic Development:
U.S. Court of Appeals Rules IRS
Cannot Apply Force Against A Tax Payer
Without A Court Order
Tax Payers Free To Ignore An IRS Summons
Queensbury, NY ? On January 25, 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that taxpayers cannot be compelled by the IRS to turn over personal and private property to the IRS, absent a federal court order.
Quoting from the decision (Schulz v. IRS, Case No. 04-0196-cv),
?…absent an effort to seek enforcement through a federal court, IRS summonses apply no force to taxpayers, and no consequence whatever can befall a taxpayer who refuses, ignores, or otherwise does not comply with an IRS summons until that summons is backed by a federal court order?[a taxpayer] cannot be held in contempt, arrested, detained, or otherwise punished for refusing to comply with the original IRS summons, no matter the taxpayer's reasons, or lack of reasons for so complying.?
Without declaring those provisions of the Code unconstitutional on their face, the court, in effect, nullified key enforcement provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, stripping the IRS of much of its power to compel compliance with its administrative demands for personal and private property. The court characterized IRS summonses issued under Section 7602 as mere ?requests.?
The court went on to say that the federal courts are there to protect taxpayers from an ?overreaching? IRS, and that the IRS must go through the federal courts before force can be applied on anyone by the IRS to turn over personal and private property to the IRS.
Key Enforcement Provisions Of The
Internal Revenue Code Nullified
The paragraphs above begin a press release that will be sent to thousands of media outlets and influential individuals across the nation over the next several days.
The evolution of this lawsuit, Schulz v. IRS, has played an integral role in the execution of the Right-to-Petition lawsuit strategy and may soon, after the conclusive and far-reaching decision of the Appellate Court, provide the legal basis necessary to finalize, and secure jurisdiction over the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Justice to answer our claims of constitutional abuse.
In their decision in this case brought by WTP Chairman Bob Schulz, the court has expressly recognized that the IRS, as has been asserted in the Right-to-Petition lawsuit, routinely violates people's Due Process rights in their day-to-day administrative practices. As such, the findings of the Second Circuit firmly establish for the (D.C.) District Court the substance of the causes of action put forth in our Right-to-Petition lawsuit.
In the coming days, WTP Chairman Bob Schulz will make further statements about these unfolding events and detail our assertive plans to generate widespread public awareness of our efforts, and our success.
Your Support Needed
This legal milestone is proof-positive of the significant progress the Foundation is achieving in its coordinated, rational, and professionally executed attack on those that would infringe our Rights.
Without doubt, the concerted, sustained efforts (and contributions) of WTP supporters over the last several years are having a demonstrable impact on the institutions of our government.
At this time, your generous, and ongoing support is needed to finance the enormous landmark legal endeavor that we have committed to, and to insure that WTP ? and all the Plaintiffs ? and all those that support our cause, will prevail in our common quest to secure Freedom.
Please consider making a substantial one-time donation, and further committing to an ongoing, monthly investment so that our organization has the resources needed to complete this ambitious, and historical undertaking.
You have our sincerest Thanks and gratitude.
January 29, 2005
Dramatic Development:
U.S. Court of Appeals Rules IRS
Cannot Apply Force Against A Tax Payer
Without A Court Order
Tax Payers Free To Ignore An IRS Summons
Queensbury, NY ? On January 25, 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that taxpayers cannot be compelled by the IRS to turn over personal and private property to the IRS, absent a federal court order.
Quoting from the decision (Schulz v. IRS, Case No. 04-0196-cv),
?…absent an effort to seek enforcement through a federal court, IRS summonses apply no force to taxpayers, and no consequence whatever can befall a taxpayer who refuses, ignores, or otherwise does not comply with an IRS summons until that summons is backed by a federal court order?[a taxpayer] cannot be held in contempt, arrested, detained, or otherwise punished for refusing to comply with the original IRS summons, no matter the taxpayer's reasons, or lack of reasons for so complying.?
Without declaring those provisions of the Code unconstitutional on their face, the court, in effect, nullified key enforcement provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, stripping the IRS of much of its power to compel compliance with its administrative demands for personal and private property. The court characterized IRS summonses issued under Section 7602 as mere ?requests.?
The court went on to say that the federal courts are there to protect taxpayers from an ?overreaching? IRS, and that the IRS must go through the federal courts before force can be applied on anyone by the IRS to turn over personal and private property to the IRS.
Key Enforcement Provisions Of The
Internal Revenue Code Nullified
The paragraphs above begin a press release that will be sent to thousands of media outlets and influential individuals across the nation over the next several days.
The evolution of this lawsuit, Schulz v. IRS, has played an integral role in the execution of the Right-to-Petition lawsuit strategy and may soon, after the conclusive and far-reaching decision of the Appellate Court, provide the legal basis necessary to finalize, and secure jurisdiction over the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Justice to answer our claims of constitutional abuse.
In their decision in this case brought by WTP Chairman Bob Schulz, the court has expressly recognized that the IRS, as has been asserted in the Right-to-Petition lawsuit, routinely violates people's Due Process rights in their day-to-day administrative practices. As such, the findings of the Second Circuit firmly establish for the (D.C.) District Court the substance of the causes of action put forth in our Right-to-Petition lawsuit.
In the coming days, WTP Chairman Bob Schulz will make further statements about these unfolding events and detail our assertive plans to generate widespread public awareness of our efforts, and our success.
Your Support Needed
This legal milestone is proof-positive of the significant progress the Foundation is achieving in its coordinated, rational, and professionally executed attack on those that would infringe our Rights.
Without doubt, the concerted, sustained efforts (and contributions) of WTP supporters over the last several years are having a demonstrable impact on the institutions of our government.
At this time, your generous, and ongoing support is needed to finance the enormous landmark legal endeavor that we have committed to, and to insure that WTP ? and all the Plaintiffs ? and all those that support our cause, will prevail in our common quest to secure Freedom.
Please consider making a substantial one-time donation, and further committing to an ongoing, monthly investment so that our organization has the resources needed to complete this ambitious, and historical undertaking.
You have our sincerest Thanks and gratitude.
