In Louisiana our constitution says that we are going to allow the State of Louisiana to issue an illegal bill of credit and borrow money in violation of the United States Constitution. As collateral for this money we will steal everyone's vehicle and put the vehicles up as collateral for this debt. Then we are going to put a tax on the permission to use the vehicles we just stole. That's actually what you are the owner of, the permission to use the vehicle, not the vehicle itself. For the rest of the story go to:
Bear, what do you expect to find on the doj.gov website? The Government is in collusion with the courts and I would dare say that most decisions are Tax Court decisions. What about the Brushaber v, Union Pacific R.R. Co. and the Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. cases which were supreme court cases and the cases you refer to were Lower court cases which can't overrule Supreme Court Cases.
To which I replied:
Sam: What is your explanation as to why the lower courts don't honor the Supreme Court decisions you reference? How do you explain the failure of the Supreme Court not to enforce those decisions on the lower courts? How are you going to get around the inaccessibility of the Supreme Court? Most of us are going to end up in the same courts that heard those cases.
Since I am familiar with principles of statutory construction, all of those rulings listed in the post are fundamentally flawed because statutory construction principles that apply to everything else are not appied to income tax.
See my comment at the bottom? I said, "What this post is intended to do is apprise you of the reality of the situation. As is the case with most legal arguments we become familiar with respecting the income tax have already been tried by somebody in a real to life court situation with verifiable results. When dealing with the income tax it is not time to rely on word-of-mouth pop law; it's time to know what the courts have already ruled and have a realistic plan based on knowledge for dealing with them. As for me, the Name Jahuwah [not the names J-sus, the Lord, or G-d] is a strong tower, the righteous runs into it and is untouchable. Proverbs 18:10 Bear" My point is to know what happened in the past and anticipate what will happen on your case unless you come up with a better plan. I hope that makes sense. Bear Tips & Tricks
Too late for public
comment. I only saw this for the first time today. I don't think HUD
has any jurisdiction to control the sale of a privately owned property
within one of the states when there is no bank or other mortgage lender
involved. There is no federal institution connection and no interstate
commerce connection. There is technically no requirement for a HUD-1,
though you would probably have a hard time convincing a title company
because they have been whipped into believing they are always
necessary. Two savvy people could close a sale by a back yard barbecue
and file the proper documents at the courthouse themselves.
HUD Attempting to Outlaw Owner Financing & Wants Your Fingerprints
HUD Wants Your Fingerprints - or Else
Agency Seeks to Outlaw ALL Owner Financing On All Non-Owner Occupied
Demands That Property Owners Become Fingerprinted, "Licensed Mortgage
Rules Apply to Owners Who Own Their Property Outright
Creates New Class of Outlaws and Could Force People to Finance Through
The Federal Government
February 16 Deadline for Public Comment
In its latest attempt to control Americans capital HUD has proposed
stunning, private property busting rules in Docket No. FR-5271-P-01.
This proposal provides a window into the minds of your federal
employees who have clearly decided that your property rights must be
lassoed for "your own protection." Like most new regulations, these
rules create new legislation without legislation being proposed by your
representatives. In this case HUD has been granted authority by the
Secure and Fair Enforcement Mortgage Licenscing Act of 2008, signed
into law by President Bush, to do whatever it pleases to enforce the
general spirit of the Act. A few hightlights of the proposed
1) Outlaws ALL unlicensed owner financing unless the owner occupies the
2) Requires mortgage originator licensing if you seek to finance your
property to someone - even if you own the property outright.
3) You cannot receive a license if you've committed any felonies - ever
- meaning you'll never be permitted to self-finance your property under
any conditions if you're a felon of any kind.
4) Mandates fingerprinting to finance your own property
5) Threatens a $25,000 penalty for owners who fail to obey HUDs rules
6) Forces owners to complete 3 hours of Federal Law training
7) Mandates owners complete 2 hours of federally approved 'ethics'
8) Requires that owners complete 2 hours of lending standards training
9) Puts upon all self-financing owners and their prospective buyers
dramatically higher costs and decreased opportunities to engage private
10) Stops you from exercising your own constitutionally protected
private property rights until the government approves your conduct -
and charges you for it.
11) HUD grants itself authority to summon you any time it chooses for a
host of reasons
12) I could go on, but you get the point.
Irrespective of what the document claims, the primary purpose of this
legislation is to force more lending and taxable transactions to pass
through federal hands. But, of course, this and the endless rules and
regulations steamrolling our society are for our own protection...
You may make your opinion known to HUD regarding this proposed
legislation (disguised as a "rule") by following the instructions on
page 2 of the document. I encourage you to contact your local real
estate professional who might be able to explain how these rules will
affect all property holders - and those who seek to become property
holders - in one fashion or another.
FORWARD this email to all people who value their private property
rights. More alerts coming over the next two weeks as some legislation
and rules are "sliding" under the radar.
> "The Law: The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
> Constitution defines the basis for United States citizenship,
The courts agree it created a new status that didn't exist
> that "[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States,
Small "p", two groups, many possible situations, but none yet can be
described as universal...
> and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,
...and that's why, because this is another qualifier that surely never
included every American using that particular definition of "United
> are citizens of the United States
> and of the State wherein they reside."
Small "c", corporate name, "reside" being a corporate activity as
defined in my state's (small "s") codes.
> The Fourteenth Amendment
> therefore establishes simultaneous state and federal citizenship.
Yes, for those limited groups not encompassing all Americans due to the
admission that TWO requirements are presented for fulfillment.
> Claims that individuals are not citizens of the United States but are
> solely citizens of a sovereign state and not subject to federal
> taxation have been uniformly rejected by the courts.
Reminds me of those who say that the courts have ignored people claiming
to make a special appearance. Yes, they have.
> The IRS issued
> Revenue Ruling 2007-22, 2007-14 I.R.B. 866, warning taxpayers of the
> consequences of making this frivolous argument.
"Taxpayers" should never claim to be something they are already shown
not to be!
All those citations are great but most rely upon key words called "words
of art" many of which ring alarm bells when I see them, such as
"resident", "customer", "business", etc. etc.
I was recently at a "business Fair" put on by the local chamber of
commerce. I saw references to "owning a business", "you are a
business", "you have a business", "you do business", etc.
I asked everyone who used the word in their signage what the definition
was that they went by. I didn't get ONE answer! Seems people assume
definitions adverse to their interests. Nobody said that business is
what you do to be busy.
When I click on reply to sender, the to is blank so I cannot send this just to
In response to Vickie's attachment: The author could be Chuck Conces. The
writing style is very much like his. He is deceased. A great warrior for those
who are battling for freedom from this tyranny.
[Attachment(s) from vicki mangum included below]
Hi Everyone,ďż˝ I have attached a good rebuttal to the IRS and it's
authority.ďż˝ I don't remember where I got this but from what I can tell it is
right on.ďż˝ Do with this what you will.ďż˝ Vicki
Subject: Only a Fool would be a Client of a Lawyer.
In states such as Michigan the State Bar Association is integrated into the
State as set forth in the State Constitution makes the lawyers of the State not
only Officers of the Court which is in the Judicial Branch, but it also makes
them agents of the Government, just like the Judge and the Prosecutor.
Thus, Lawyers are members of the same organization as the Prosecuting Attorneys
and Judges who are representatives of the government, the same government that
the U.S. Supreme Court stated in Fay v. Noia (1968) that is and has been in
perpetual war against the Rights, Liberty, and Freedom of THE PEOPLE.
Even the U.S. Courts website at
(http://www.uscourts.gov/outreach/resources/williampenntrial.htm) has a
transcript of the Trial of William Penn from the 1600's showing that the Judges
(the Courts) are a party that has historically joined the government prosecution
in the War against the Rights, Liberty, and freedom of THE PEOPLE.
Thus only a Fool would be a Client of a Lawyer.
The more things Change, the More they Stay the SAME.
In the 1770's the Parliament used their Acts such as the Stamp Act, Sugar Act,
Townshed Act, and other statutory law to justify the violation of the Rights of
Englishmen in the southern North American Colonies, as if they did not have
Rights of Englishmen under the Magna Carta.
The People who rose up against this violation of their ancient Rights as
Englishmen under English law applied Article 61 of the (125) Magna Carta against
the Parliament, after every effort at petitions for Redress were rebuffed and
ignored, as the people have a Right to correct their government and make war
against those within government (and their families and agents) who make war
against the antecedent, ancient, in perpetuum and fundamental Rights of the
People, as the legislative authority of Parliament was even restrained an
limited by fundamental law.
Where the Americans departed from the Magna Carta is that the land and people
would not return to the King, as THE PEOPLE are the equal Sovereigns.
Today the U.S. Congress is just like the Parliament. The Congress does not
believe that it is limited by fundamental law. The U.S. Congress is using its
Acts to make statutory law against the fundamental Rights of American
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Researched by T. Bell
When judges are bribed by the Corporate STATES for profit to convict you, their bias and they must lawfully recluse their self's as judges. That is the LAW. How many million void Judgments that are criminal acts, doe,s take by BAR Attorney Judges and there BAR Attorney court officers that do not represent you under common and are controlled by the same STATE.How long before the American people Wake Up and close down the American BAR ASSOCIATION AND DRIVE'S IT AND IT's CORRUPTION OUT OF our land and return to courts of Justice for all there we are tried by our peers as intended not by the wicked and corrupt. Jerry James Stanton
Michigan Compiled Laws
MCL 600.8381 (1)(b)
(1) Until October 1,
2003, when fines and costs are assessed by a magistrate, a traffic bureau, or a
judge of the district court, not less than $9.00 shall be assessed as costs and
collected for each conviction or civil infraction determination and each guilty plea or civil infraction admission except for parking violations. Of the costs
assessed and collected, for each conviction or civil infraction determination
and each guilty plea or civil infraction admission, $9.00 shall be paid to the
clerk of the district court. (get the picture now why court appointed attorneys
won't advise clients to go to trial?)
(b) Beginning October 1,
2003, the clerk shall transmit $9.00 of any costs assessed before October 1,
2003 to the justice system fund created in section 181 of the revised
judicature act of 1961, 1961 PA 236, MCL 600.181.
600.181 Justice system
fund; creation; use; disposition; investment; distributions.
(1) The justice system
fund is created in the state treasury. The money in the fund shall be used as
provided in this section.
iv) To the secretary of
the legislative retirement system for deposit with the state treasurer in the retirement fund created
in the Michigan legislative retirement system act, 1957 PA 261, MCL 38.1001 to
38.1080, 1.2% of the fund balance.
(vii) To the state court
fund created in section 151a, 14.3% of the fund balance.
(viii) To the court
equity fund created in section 151b, 25.55% of the fund balance.
(c) Excess court fees
transmitted by the state treasurer pursuant to section 217 of the judges
retirement act of 1992, Act No. 234 of the Public Acts of 1992, being section
38.2217 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.
you sponsor and support:
1.The repeal of MCL 600.181(vi) and MCL
600.181(viii)? This is a conflict of interest when legislators
and judges receive bribe money to create and prosecute the people they
2.The rights and duties of jurors to be
taught in every school as part of their Civics Education.
The jurors have two
main duties. First, they must determine from the evidence what the
facts are. Second,
they must take the law stated in the court's instructions, apply it to the
and decide whether
the facts prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. See Sparf v. United
States, 156 U.S. 51,
102-107, 15 S.Ct. 273, 39 L.Ed. 343 (1895); Starr v. United States, 153 U.S.
614, 625, 14 S.Ct.
919, 923, 38 L.Ed. 841 (1894).
The jurors have the
power to ignore the court's instructions and bring in a not guilty
verdict contrary to
the law and the facts. Horning v. District of Columbia, 254 U.S. 135, 138, 41
S.Ct. 53, 54, 65
L.Ed. 185 (1920).
3.Legislation that makes mandatory for
every judge in any court operating within the state of Michigan to fully inform juries of their rights and
duties as well as their power of nullification? Any judge who fails to comply
must be removed from the bench and prosecuted for criminal violation of due
4.Enforce the law on employers who hire
5.Legislation that will open both
Federal and State Grand Juries to Citizens under the "Private
Prosecutor" status which will allow them access to file complaints against
government employees who act outside of their authority and commit acts of
Jerry Stanton wrote:
> When judges are bribed by the Corporate STATES for profit to convict
> you, their bias and they must lawfully recluse their self's as judges.
And you should not forget to help them do it! Most people always
> That is the LAW. How many million void Judgments that are criminal
> acts, doe,s take by BAR Attorney Judges and there BAR Attorney court
> officers that do not represent you under common and are controlled by
> the same STATE.
How many people don't care as long as they can afford the fine?
> How long before the American people Wake Up and close
> down the American BAR ASSOCIATION AND DRIVE'S IT AND IT's CORRUPTION
> OUT OF our land and return to courts of Justice for all there we are
> tried by our peers as intended not by the wicked and corrupt.
There is no need to wait for anyone to join you in doing this, as we all
get our opportunity to (dis?)qualify all parties before any case
proceeds to trial. It is we who decide early on (some much earlier than
others!) whether or not to let sham proceedings by unqualified
impersonators take place using our name in the cast of characters.
> > 3. Legislation that makes mandatory for every judge in any
> court operating within the state of Michigan to fully inform
> juries of their rights and duties as well as their power of
That would take too long as these jurors cannot even pass high school
equivalency exams. Most can't find Earth on a globe. So they ought to
explain all that in 7th grade.
> Any judge who fails to comply must be removed from the
> bench and prosecuted for criminal violation of due process rights.
Why don't the people who care a little about their case just disqualify
these judges for the myriad causes they usually provide? In the same
way that each case is SUPPOSED to have an arraignment (most Americans
will even waive that right now) I think a formal disqualification for
cause ought to be on everyone's agenda, along with a subpoena for
required documentation. Then people wouldn't feel they needed numbers
of followers to have success individually.
> 5. Legislation that will open both Federal and State Grand
> Juries to Citizens under the "Private Prosecutor" status which will
> allow them access to file complaints against government employees who
> act outside of their authority and commit acts of Fraud?
Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and Federal Witness: 18
U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13, 1964(a). I didn't need special legislation to file
complaints against government employees who acted outside of their
authority and committed acts of fraud. Paul Andrew Mitchell didn't need
it either. I'm sure there must have been others as well. Don't wait
for legislation; try it, you'll like it.
I just posted extensive comments on my blog relative to the argument, "Taxpayer
is not a CITIZEN of the United States??" here: http://bit.ly/98ncDC
I'm interested in what you think about my comments. I think they are well
thought out and reality based. Maybe you have time to comment yourself as well.
I believe that if you review 26 USC section 871, titled " Tax on nonresident
alien individuals" it will be found the privilege of residing within the U.S. is
the grounds for "a tax of 30 percent of the amount received fromn sources within
the United States by a nonresident alien individual..."
It is readily apparent that this section does not apply to citizens of the
United States. Neither is it cited within typical indictments as a statute that
authorizes a tax upon citizens.
What statutes imposes a tax upon citizens of the United States ??? Well, it
that statute exists, it is not alleged and put into contestation in any IRS
prosecutions. Of course, it would be an ESSENTIAL ELEMENT of any valid
indictment. An indictment that does not allege EVERY ESSENTIAL ELEMENT of a
crime is invalid. Almendarez v United States, 523 U.S. 224, 228 (1998).
A casual reading of any income tax indictment reveals they always refer to the
defendant as a "taxpayer." That is a conclusion of law that has NO standing in
a valid indictment and should be challenged. The statutory imposition of
"taxpayer" is another essential element that must be alleged in a valid
--- In email@example.com, "Barry" <bear@...> wrote:
> I just posted extensive comments on my blog relative to the argument,
> "Taxpayer is not a CITIZEN of the United States??" here:
> http://bit.ly/98ncDC <http://bit.ly/98ncDC> I'm interested in what
> you think about my comments. I think they are well thought out and
> reality based. Maybe you have time to comment yourself as well. Bear
The judicial requirements of Due Process place the burden of proof on the movant
to evidence the court has jurisdiction of the question presented in the
pleading. It is also a requirement for the movant to allege and evidence the
defendant had a duty beholding to the movant. A couple of cases applying the
principals to tax issues include Speiser v Randall, 357 U.S. 513, 529 (1958)and
Spreckles Sugar v McClain, 192 U.S. 397. Shepardizing the cases, and following
the headnote key numbers in the Federal Digest system, can readily locate
This may be of help to others. Please review and post if OK.
"The limits of tyrants is perscribed by the endurance of thos whom they oppress."
Frederic Douglas, 1857
Oath of Office to convert or challenge the Jurisdiction of the Court.
I have been
thinking for some time of a way to use their words and offers to benefit each
and everyoneâs journey before the so-called judicial system that we have before
us at this time. Most already know that this is a private judicial system that
is stacked against us. Most understand that semantics and different meanings
give them their power over us. SoâŚ.use that against them.
suggest this for your consideration; the oath of office is required for all
public employees, as we are led to believe. To have a better understanding of
who you are dealing with go to www.manta.com
and under US companies type in the name ofthe public body you may be interested in using this format, i.e., County
ofâŚ., City ofâŚ.., Township ofâŚ., Police Department ofâŚ you get the idea. The
original body has been changed and is now a deritive of.
Go to www.freedom-school.com and find the
information on âOathâs of Officeâ. Study the information there and download the
forms for reference and further review. This is an awesome site for learning
the truth of whatâs going on.
NOW, if you
havenât discovered or made known to you the Supreme Court Case of Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt 324
U.S. 652, 65 S.Ct.870, (1945) This case from 1945 is the last
time that the Supreme Court addressed the term âUnited States.â
"The term 'United
States' may be used in any one of several senses:
1.It may be
merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of
other sovereigns in the family of nations.
designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States
3.It may be
the collective name of the states which are united by and under the
Constitution." [324 U.S. 652 at 671-2]
Michigan Constitution of 1835
ARTICLE XII MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Official oath or affirmation, form.
Members of the
legislature, and all officers, executive and judicial, except such inferior officers
as may by law be exempted, shall, before they enter on the duties of their
respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation:
"I do solemnly swear, or affirm, (as the case may be) that I will support
the constitution of the United
States and the constitution
of this state, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the
office of_________ according to the best of my ability." And no other
oath, declaration, or test shall be required as a qualification for any office
or public trust.
Does anyone see room for miss- understanding in what is offered
by way of the âOath of Officeâ from any state?
SoâŚ letâs give the offer (oath of office) true meaning;
âThe term âUnited Statesâ
It may be
the collective name of the states which are united by and under the
Constitution." [324 U.S. 652 at 671-2]
The term âthis
Stateâ shall mean: âOne of the several states which are united by and under the
Constitution of the United States.â
things just changed as to the jurisdiction?
makes the issue at hand to be under the constitution for the united States of
From: sam.oneil [mailto:sam.oneil@...]
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 10:12 AM
To: Barry Smith LB-Legalbear
Subject: [SPAM] Dr. Robert,Clarkson
Hello My Friend,
On a very sad note; just had the pleasure of speaking with Dr. Robert
Clarkson's Mother; her wonderful son Robert passed away sometime during the
night. He has taken the final journey, crossing into eternity to spend time
with his beloved Father. He has beaten us home; he has successfully
traversed this short time on earth. As his brother shared; he has filed his
last filing and will not have to process any more ~ PTL.
He once shared; after being wounded in Vietnam and coming to realize that
all wars are political profit machines; that he used the GI Bill to fund
four years in law school and upon graduation sued the President for fraud
and misdealing and won. His entire life was spent defending and educating
the publicly schooled along with the poor helpless victims of the Fed. He
always carried with him an encouraging word along with a unique remedy.
Robert was a great friend and a Real American Christian. He was legally
trained and in his own words cost the revenue boys millions/billions of
dollars. He was always a gentleman and never damaged anyone. He was a
champion of the cause and a true support of lawful government: the only
purpose of government is the protection of Life, Liberty and Property and
the Pursuit of Happiness. He always stood against bad government offering
services at the point of a gun and for this he spent many months caged just
like the Honorable Sherry Peel Jackson; CPA, Fraud Investigator, IRS Agent
and put there by her own agency. His often heard quote was that Freedom is
never Free. Government offering services by fear is no government at all.
There are three types of men: Real Americans, Pseudo Americans and Socialist
Americans. Real Americans make up 10% of society; they have an agenda, they
know where they are going. Pseudo Americans make up 80% of society; they
simply don't care; they just want to be lift along to do their thing.
Socialist Americans make up the last 10% and their agenda is control
comprising most of the corporations, government included.
Because of the Honorable Dr Robert Clarkson thousands today know and stand
for good government while proclaiming the truth and the way to liberty. May
your rest be sweet and gentle my dear friend. He was a man among men and
always a champion for the Truth and my dear brother your spirit will
continue to live on blessing millions. Because of your life the children may
one day be free; only if there were more like you.
We thank the Creator for your life and you will be sorely missed my friend!
The Funeral and burial will be held in Sumter, South Carolina; the date has
not been set. Please keep the family in prayer along with Robert's Mom as
she is the Mother of seven children, five boys and two girls.
Blessings my Friend...
Phone Contact: 720-675-7230
Best times to call: 8:30 am-9:00 pm MST
Bear's Pages: www.irsterminator.com www.legalbears.com
www.irslienthumper.com www.irslevythumper.com www.irs-armory.com
www.cantheydothat.com (a free lien evaluation) www.trafficrocketblog.com
Send an email to:
firstname.lastname@example.org to join Tips & Tricks for Court
From: sam.oneil [mailto:sam.oneil@...]
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 12:59 PM To: undisclosed-recipients: Subject: Another tribute to the Great Dr. Robert Clarkson, good history
for those that didn't know him well..
This obit came from someone else but it
adequately describes my good friend Bob Clarkson,
who will be missed sorely by myself and everyone that knew him. A great man and
friend to all he
knew. We spent many good evenings together over a good cigar and a glass of
R. I. P. Robert B. Clarkson, JD
Robert comes from an old
family in the low country of South Carolina and is descended from one of the
signers of the Constitution. He was gifted with a keen intellect and had a deep
appreciation for the history and heritage of South Carolina.
Robert graduated from Clemson
University, and joined the US Army, where he served in combat in Vietnam as an
infantry Platoon Leader. After being honorably discharged from the Army Robert
attended the University of South Carolina School of Law and graduated with a
Juris Doctorate (Law) degree.
Robert had an intense passion
for life and a strong sense of what was right and wrong. He took on battles,
often against the powerful, including the state and federal governments. He won
some fights and he lost some as well - usually spectacularly in either case.
Robert Clarkson, who was
wounded in Vietnam and also traumatized by the horrors of war; suffered the
rest of his life from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Not well suited to
the practice of law and with a proclivity for the cause of the underdog, he was
soon disbarred from the practice of law.
To most folks, that would
have been a devistating personal tragedy. Robert found it liberating and
focused the last 35 years of his life on the work that woukld become synonymous
with his name - protesting the evils of the graduated income tax and the
unconstitutional excesses of government in general. Robert and his older
brother Jim were among the founders of the Libertarian political party in South
Carolina and were prominent in that effort for many years. Late in life he also
had many friends in the Constitution party and the Republican party.
He had a lifelong interest in
spiritual development and eternal truths that led him to found the Church and
Seminary of the Holy Word. He was an avid student of comparative religions and
gained an in depth knowledge about an eclectic variety of spiritual and
religious belief systems.
Known affectionately by his
multitude of friends by his initials, late in life, "RBC" will be
best remembered as the founder of the Patriot Network, and as the Editor of its
publication, the Patriot Cannon.
The Patriot Network became
one of the most influential organizations dedicated to teaching citizens how to
defend themselves from the excesses of government and assert their
constitutionally protected rights. The Network was also one of the longest
running organizations of that type and is a legacy carried on today by his
The Gospel according to
Robert Clarkson was always in stark contrasts of black and white without shades
of gray. The world consisted entirely of some very evil people, most of whom
worked for the IRS, and of decicated patriots battling the evil ones to
preserve the liberties of all Americans. His explanation of these things, and
his plans to organize the faithful and lead them in battle against evil was
euphemistically known as the "Primary Meeting."
Robert held literally
thousands of these Primary Meetings all over the United States for almost
thirty years. He also trained dozens of others to hold these meetings, authored
phamplets, and prepared dozens of slides for overhead projector use in the days
before Power Point was invented.
Robert was a true believer
who looked at every setback as an opportunity to gain some insight or
advantage. Three separate times he was sent to federal prison for tax evasion.
Each time he worked tirelessly to build the movement he loved from within
prison walls and redoubled his commitment to making necessary changes in
America each time he was released. When one of his followers or associates went
to prison for "patriot" activities; Robert honored each of them with
an "Extra Mile" award as a way of keeping up the morale of his troops
and more particularly, of thumbing his nose at the government agency he most
RBC saw all governments, ours
included, as inherently evil and therefore to be resisted. For many years he
held parties at his house to celebrate Guy Fawkes Day, the commemoration of a
17th Century anarchist who attempted to blow up the English Parlaiment by
placing barrels of gunpowder in a tunnel dug under the Parlaiment building
itself. The plot was foiled and Fawkes was hanged for treason, but Robert found
him to be a great inspiration none the less.
You might think an anti
government intellectual - literally on the proverbial mission from God - would
be either boring or anti-social. Nothing is further from the truth. Robert
loved life and he loved people. He entertained guests often; and in his own
special style. He was very kind and generous but also carried frugality to
often absurd extremes.
He worked to cultivate a
personna of the ultimate penny pinching Scrooge. He said, with a wry smile
"I am a bit frugal you know" understating the obvious. When a few of
his frustrated friends in the 1970's dubbed him "MacClarkstein" alluding
to the presumed frugality of Jews and Scotts, Clarkson, who was neither
Scottish or jewish, relished the new moniker and wore it as a badge of honor.
One of his favorite passtimes
was to invite new acquaintenances to allow him to take them to lunch. You met
at his house, got in his car, and as he drove you to lunch, he described the
great place he knew and the sumptious feast you could look forward to. Ever the
practical joker, he took you to the local homeless shelter to eat donated food
in the company of some seriously unwashed masses. To be certain of your
embarassment, he usually made a scene on the way out and loudly demanded that
the "liberal do-gooders" running the place gave him some bread or
other food to take with him. He explained to me once "Brother Allen, these
liberal do-gooders need somebody to do something to feel important and I
am just helping them out."
He loved a humerous anectode
or a good joke, particularly if the butt of the joke was some government agency
or left wing politician. In spite of his strong views and passionate way of
living his life totally dedicated to what he described as "the cause of
liberteee" he had multitudes of friends and admirers and very few enemies.
Folks outside his "movement" found him eccentric, but nobody could
dislike Robert. He was truly genuine and unpretentious, what you saw was what
you got. Mentally, he was an intellectual with a genius I.Q. who could carry
on intelligent conversations on any of hundreds of subjects. His
anti-establishment views, compounded by his PTSD, manifested in his penchant
for dressing like a slob. Robert rarely wore ties, belts, socks, or even shoes
in the summer months.
He did take pride in his
intellectual accomplishments, encouraging those around him to use the title Doctor
he had earned at the USC Law School; and he was proud of his military service
and our nations veterans. Robert went out of his way to lend a helping hand to
anyone but he had a special soft spot for fellow Vietnam veterans. In
1999 he was awarded the unusual honor of a Life Membership in the Veterans of
Foreign Wars, paid for by his comrades in arms, as a reward for a lifetime
spent selflessly helping other veterans.
He was a loyal member of the
VFW Post I once Commanded and the two of us had a special bond that extended to
more than just being veterans of combat in Vietnam. When I was married, Robert
was the Minister who officiated at the ceremony. When Robert remarried after
the death of his first wife, I was the Minister he chose to officiate at his
Robert was a dedicated family
man who loved his entire extended family but he especially cherished his
beautiful daughter Caroline. He would pretend to fuss over a shopping trip or
school expense; but in reality one of his greatest pleasures in life was being
able to provide anything for Caroline.
Robert owned a run down 26
foot sailboat for many years. He named it RUCKUS which was most
appropriate because his life and his surroundings were usually typified by one
sort of RUCKUS or another and RBC actually thrived on the disorder and chaos.
In the last few years of his
life, Robert developed a sort of super-hero alter ego for himself. He would
show up at the federal Tax Court, surrounded by his entourage of clients,
friends, and disciples, and he would be dressed in an outlandish, oversized,
Mexican Sombrero, wearing a cape that was a cross between Dracula and Superman,
proclaiming himself to be "The Great One" affecting all the modesty
of a Rush Limbaugh. His friends loved it and it drove the IRS up the wall.
Along the way, he did
win several major confrontations with his adversaries that actually forced
changes in IRS practices and proceedures that now give taxpayers more rights
and remedies than was the case thirty years ago.
This past Sunday night my
friend for over thirty five years, lost his brief battle with cancer before he
could win his long war against the Internal Revenue Service.
He will be sorely missed by
his daughter Caroline Hinkelman, his extended family, his thousands of friends
all over America - and by me. He was indeed my most unforgettable character;
and one of my dearest friends. When you pray tonight, pray for South Carolina;
she has lost a giant among men.
Bean counters at companies—i.e. who “demand” government
forms—are empowered through propaganda to “do the work of government”. These
are some of the most ignorant people you will encounter. That is because their
“truth” comes ONLY from someone-else’s OPNION. Custom “rules” these people’s
lives and that custom comes from the media—which is in turn—fed by “the fed”.
Never miss an opportunity to use the same media against
them. In most cases simply claiming “identity theft victimization” works well.
[I one time was in a police station visiting a friend and the sergeant “balked”
at my unwillingness to provide “my” SSN. I simply pointed to the poster on the
wall that stated “Be careful in revealing SSN’s]
In this article Fox Business News says “it’s ok to make up a
SS number.” Ha Ha
[In my opinion 9 digits are 9 digits. Assigning them the
LABEL “Social security Number” converts them from 9 digits to a number owned by
and assigned by government. On most forms the words “Social Security Number”
are NOT spelled-out but rather abbreviated. In such cases “SSN” could mean
literally ANYTHING you desire. For example: safe-secure number, sam sovereign
number, sucker stop number, etc. ]
When you should, shouldn't
give out your Social Security number
Your Social Security number is
one of the keys to your financial health. It's a unique indentifier lenders use
to assess your creditworthiness. It's also exactly what a would-be thief needs
to apply for a credit card, mortgage, car loan or job in your name.
If you're like most Americans,
it's also something you give out all too frequently
"As with so many procedures
in the business world, your Social Security number is something that many
companies ask for, so no one really questions it," says James Van Dyke,
president of Javelin Strategy & Research, a research firm that tracks
financial services topics. "But giving out your Social Security number is
definitely a practice consumers should think twice about."
Case in point: A recent Javelin Strategy & Research report --
the 2009 ID Fraud Survey -- found that, amongidentity
theftvictims, 38 percent said the perpetrator had obtained their Social
Security number and used it in the crime. "It's certainly logical to say
that you could eliminate 38 percent of your risk of identity theft by limiting
access to your Social Security number," says Van Dyke.
'Your Social Security number, please'
Still, saying it and doing it are two different things. Many of the forms you
encounter during the day -- at doctor's offices, at the dentist, at your
child's school -- ask for Social Security numbers. Retailers may ask for it,
too, when accepting a check for payment or before issuing check cashing
privileges. Potential employers also need it, and they may even want a copy of
the actual card, says Linda Foley, founder of the San Diego-based Identity
Theft Resource Center (ITRC:undefined,undefined,
undefined%). You'll also be asked for it at your local Department of Motor
Vehicles, car dealerships, pawnshops, drugstores -- even at the airport, should
you lose your luggage, she says. In fact, you may be surprised at how
far-reaching this practice is, says Foley.
"A few years ago, we were
putting some of my mother's things into storage, and they wanted her Social
Security number to use as a passcode," she says. "It's that
Just because someone asks for it doesn't mean you have to comply,
says Michael J. Arata, the author of "Identity Theft For Dummies,"
especially since there are only a handful of organizations that actually have a
valid need for it. For instance, anytime you're applying for credit -- for a
card, a loan, new telephone or cellular service -- the creditor will
need your Social Security number to run a credit check. You'll also need to
provide it if you are applying for federal or local government benefits such as
Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid, unemployment insurance or disability.
Another example: If you or your children receive services or aid at the state
or local level, such as free or reduced fee lunch or financial aid. The local
motor vehicle department, thanks to the USA PATRIOT Act, has the legal right to
ask for Social Security numbers, too. In addition, when you complete a cash
transaction totaling more than $10,000 you'll be required to provide your
number so that transaction can be reported to the Internal Revenue Service,
says ITRC's Foley.
Medical professionals have their
own impetus, says the ITRC's Foley. "The reason a doctor or a dentist asks
for your Social Security number is that, should you die while under his or her
care, they are required to put your Social Security number on the death
certificate," says Foley.
Even so, fulfilling
non-credit-related requests -- even medical-related requests -- is purely
optional, says L. Jean Camp, an associate professor at Indiana University and
the author of "Economics of Identity Theft." "The problem is
that you have the right to say that you're not going to give out your Social
Security number, but a business owner has the right to say he's not going to do
business with you," says Camp. "Most companies aren't being
malicious. They're just being cautious by giving themselves a way to track you
down if you don't pay a bill."
Gracefully saying 'No'
One of the best ways to get out of giving your Social Security number to
someone is to simply overlook it on your paperwork, says Arata. You may get by
without a confrontation. If you're questioned, however, ITRC's Foley suggests
being proactive. "The most basic thing you can do is ask the person or
organization why they need it. One of the most powerful things you can say is,
'Is there a law or requirement that I must provide it to you, and can you tell
me what it is?' You can also ask the person requesting your Social what will
happen if you don't disclose it," she says.
Often, as in the case of a school
or a charitable organization, they simply want it to use your number as a
unique identifier. In that case, says Javelin Strategy & Research's Van
Dyke, you'll need to start negotiating again. "Say, 'In order for me to
become your customer, I really need you to find an alternative recordkeeping
method because I know giving out my Social Security number places me at great
risk.' When you say it like that you may get better results," he says.
Even doctor or dentist offices
should be willing to forgo your Social Security number -- especially if you
have health insurance. And if they won't? Ask to give your information directly
to the doctor and have him or her input it into the system for you, says Van
Dyke. ITRC's Foley says most medical offices may also feel comfortable without
it as long as they have an emergency contact on file -- someone who knows your
Social Security number and could provide it in the event of death.
And what of the worst case
scenario -- when you absolutely can't get out of it, but you still don't feel
comfortable? You can always make up a number, says Camp, but if you do,
make sure you write it down and don't inadvertently steal someone else's
identity. "If you go this route as a last resort, make sure you put zeros
in for the two middle numbers," she says. "There are no Social
Security numbers that have double zeros in that section."
I was very interested in the term taxpayer and what that really
means. I did some research and this is what I came up with:
The description of the Individual Master File in the IRM says:
IRM 220.127.116.11.1.3 (01-30-2001)
(2)The returns filed include Income Tax Forms 1040, 1040A, 1040NR,
1040 C, 1040SS, 1040PR and Estimated Tax Returns 1040ES. Each
taxpayer account has an entity module and one or more tax modules.
The entity module contains data which describes that taxpayer as an
entity and which applies to all records of the taxpayer.
When the IRS is referring to a Taxpayer the are referring to an "entity".
The entity classification rules are published in the regulations for
26 USC Section 7701. 26 CFR 602.101 shows OMB 1545-1486
is the collection of information authorized for 26 CFR 301.7701-3
The collections of information under OMB 1545-1486, published at
61 FR 66584, December 18, 1996 is titled Simplification of Entity
Classification Rules. Stated by the regulations,
Summary: This document contains final regulations that classify
certain business organizations under an elective regime. These
regulations replace the existing classification rules.
(a) Organizations for federal tax purposes-(1) In general. The
Code prescribes the classification of various organizations for
federal tax purposes....
(4) Single Owner organizations. Under §§ 301-7701-2 and 301-7701-3, certain
organizations that have a single owner can choose to be recognized or
as entities separate from their owners. OMB 1545-1486, 61 FR 65588 &
26 CFR §301-7701-1
69 FR 43317 July 20, 2004
Section 301.7701-3(a) provides that an eligible entity with two or
more owners may
elect to be classified as an association (and thus a corporation under
§ 301.7701-2(b)(2)) or a partnership, and a eligible entity with a single
owner may elect to be classified as an association or to be disregarded
as an entity separate from its owner. Section 301.7701-3(b) provides
that unless the entity elects otherwise, a domestic eligible entity is a
partnership if it has two or more owners or is disregarded as an entity
separate from its owner if it has a single owner.
69 FR 43318, July 20, 2004
If the late or invalid election is not perfected, the default rules will
maintain passthrough taxation treatment by classifying the entity
as a partnership or a disregarded entity.
Default classification of an entity falls to a partnership or a disregarded
Now we have
Taxpayer defined as an entity, defaulting to a partnership or a
disregarded entity (AKA a entity, disregarded as being separate
from its owner), unless an election is in place.
This applies to all records of the taxpayer. So anytime they are addressing
the taxpayer -
JOHN DOE, a disregarded entity
JOHN DOE, a partnership entity
JOHN DOE, a corporation entity
JOHN DOE, a trust entity
No other classifications are specified in their regulations.
> I believe that if you review 26 USC section 871, titled " Tax on
> nonresident alien individuals" it will be found the privilege of
> residing within the U.S. is the grounds for "a tax of 30 percent of the
> amount received fromn sources within the United States by a nonresident
> alien individual..."
> It is readily apparent that this section does not apply to citizens of
> the United States. Neither is it cited within typical indictments as a
> statute that authorizes a tax upon citizens.
> What statutes imposes a tax upon citizens of the United States ??? Well,
> it that statute exists, it is not alleged and put into contestation in
> any IRS prosecutions. Of course, it would be an ESSENTIAL ELEMENT of any
> valid indictment. An indictment that does not allege EVERY ESSENTIAL
> ELEMENT of a crime is invalid. Almendarez v United States, 523 U.S. 224,
> 228 (1998).
> A casual reading of any income tax indictment reveals they always refer
> to the defendant as a "taxpayer." That is a conclusion of law that has
> NO standing in a valid indictment and should be challenged. The
> statutory imposition of "taxpayer" is another essential element that
> must be alleged in a valid indictment.
> --- In email@example.com
> <mailto:tips_and_tricks%40yahoogroups.com>, "Barry" <bear@...> wrote:
> > I just posted extensive comments on my blog relative to the argument,
> > "Taxpayer is not a CITIZEN of the United States??" here:
> > http://bit.ly/98ncDC <http://bit.ly/98ncDC> <http://bit.ly/98ncDC
> <http://bit.ly/98ncDC>> I'm interested in what
> > you think about my comments. I think they are well thought out and
> > reality based. Maybe you have time to comment yourself as well. Bear
From: sam.oneil [mailto:sam.oneil@ gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2010 6:24 AM To: undisclosed-recipients: Subject: Memorial Service for Bob Clarkson (highlights mine)
Robert Barnwell Clarkson II,
J.D., died Monday after a long struggle
with stomach cancer. Born in Sumter, he served as a platoon
commander in the 25th Infantry in Vietnam. After the war he
graduated in economics from Clemson and earned the Juris Doctor at
USC. A disabled veteran the rest of his life, he nevertheless
dedicated it to training and helping citizens defend themselves
against predatory bureaucracies. As early as his Clemson years he
was litigating against misuse of student fees. As a young attorney he
realized the IRS and state Department of Revenue were taking
advantage of often weak and ill-informed working people, and the
redressing of lawless tax collections became his primary focus. His
Patriot Network clubs in cities around the country met in
restaurants and celebrated life as they educated attendees. He
produced and distributed thousands of books, videos and other
resources and appeared as guest on hundreds of radio and TV talk
shows. The organization continues since his demise.
Known for conviviality and hospitality as well as dedication to his
work, Dr. Clarkson answered friends' phone calls "Sue 'em all."
started making headlines in the early 1980s by turning an IRS
appointment at his home into a "tea party" with real tea, a prayer,
the Pledge of Allegiance, and the sun in the agent's eyes at the
picnic table. As reported with photo in the Greenville News, the
agent left in a state of total confusion. Tea parties for many other
taxpayers followed. Arrested for leading a demonstration in front of
an IRS office in Greenville, Dr. Clarkson filed a First Amendment
suit and "got a new roof out of it."
Archly dubbing himself "The Great One", he strategically foiled
thousands of tax proceedings. His work became nationally recognized
and legally embattled. It often took him into courtrooms where he
helped citizens apply what they had learned in his seminars. Called
twice before the state Supreme Court for his activities, Dr. Clarkson
and his associates successfully defended against all charges and
sometimes had the solemn justices laughing. His third of a century in
legal and political work brought awards from the Justice Times,
Freedom Law School and similar organizations.
An occasional candidate for political office and libertarian icon, Dr. Clarkson put the Constitution Party permanently on the ballot in
South Carolina and ran for U.S. Congress on the Republican
ticket in 1992.
For more information contact
pnsecretary@ patriotnetwork. info
We are pleased to announce
that plans are finally in place for The Great One's memorial service:
Sunday, March 7, 3:00 PM
American Legion Post 14
1301 East Greenville Street
Anderson, SC 29621
Look for a cannon and a tank! Directions and map per Mapquest, arbitrarily
using Greenville as a starting point:
and enter 29621-3935 as the end zip code
just above the big green GET DIRECTIONS button.
Please let us know also if you pictures or memorabilia of RBC. We'll probably
have a display of them in the downstairs meeting room (the service will be
Family members and friends will be present. Please show respect for them and
the occasion by dressing "business casual" or what they used to call
"school clothes" when I was growing up.
Robert moved in two worlds -- patriots and his family. (Sound familiar to
anybody?) Please express your sympathy to any relatives of his that may attend.
It will mean something to them that we in the patriot community, which occupied
so much of Robert's life and work, have them in our thoughts and prayers.
Many of you know that Robert's brother Jim is a fireball of truth in his own
right. You'll enjoy talking to him!
By Robert's own wish, all are
invited to proceed from the Post to a celebration gathering at good old
Ryan's located at
Turn right onto 81 go 7/10 of
a mile turn right on Boulevard
go 7/10 of a mile turn right
onto Clemson Blvd
Ryan's is 2.5 miles on the
Near Lowes and across the
street from Golden Corral and Sonic Drive-in
We've got a room there from 4:30 PM
on. Tell them at the door you're with the Clarkson party. A tip
will be added to everyone's individual check.
Ryan's is sure they can accommodate us but there's a slim chance our group may
have to overflow into the main area. Anybody who would like to get up and offer
(brief) good memories of Robert at the restaurant, please let me know.
The family will be having a small graveside service in Columbia Monday, but the
conditions are too tight (e.g. a 30 minute time limit) to make for anything of
a gathering. Any who feel strongly about attending that event, contact me for
Let us assure you that the
work of the Patriot Network has continued full-time since our leader's tragic
demise. It will go on. There's no stopping the Patriot Network!
For freedom (2 Cor. 3:17),
Corrected biography below.
Anderson: A memorial service for Robert Barnwell Clarkson
II, 62, of Anderson , will be held at 3 pm, Sunday, March 7, in Anderson , SC ,
at the Anderson American Legion Post 14. The graveside service will be
held 1 pm, Monday, March 8, 2010 at Ft. Jackson National Cemetery , Columbia
. Following the burial, a reception will be held at the Reflections
Clubhouse, 2 Stoney Creek Rd. In lieu of flowers, memorials may be made
to Hospice Care, Palliative Care Foundation, Spartanburg .
Robert died Monday, March 1,
2010. Born June 4, 1947 in Camden , he was a son of Frances Dargan
Clarkson and the late James S. H. Clarkson, Jr. of Sumter . Robert was an
Army veteran of Vietnam , having served as a First Lieutenant and platoon
leader in the 25th Infantry Division. He was a graduate of Clemson
University and earned his Juris Doctor at the University of South Carolina
. He was self-employed as a tax advisor. He was a member of
the Western Carolina Sailing Club and the VFW.
He is survived by his
daughter, Caroline Hinkelman and husband, Travis, of Lincoln, NE;
grandchildren, Gabby and Owen; mother, Frances Clarkson of Sumter; brothers;
Jim Clarkson of Columbia, twin brother Dargan Clarkson of Sumter, Thomas
Clarkson of Kingsville, TX; sisters, Fran Clarkson and Bess Long, both of
Wednesday 10 March 2010
My house was sold at a judicial sale last month,
three years after the case was intiated, and I had
been waiting to see which of the two "plaintiffs"
would have the sale conducted. I was prepared to
challenge the confirmation of the sale by a lack
of standing, evidenced by plaintiff's own
assignment, on record, BUT...
It turns out that in Illinois, and specifically
in Cook County, only the sheriff can serve
process, and should he be disqualified, then the
coroner. In counties with populations of less
than 1 million, a special process server can serve
process. That does not apply to Cook County.
I was served by a special process server. Whenever
service of process is not done according to law, the
court does not acquire personal jurisdiction over
the defendant, me, in this case, and any judgment
is void. I used several appelate and Illinois
supreme court decisions in my Notice and Demand that
make this point very clear.
The motion for confirmation of sale is tomorrow,
and I am sure the attorney has been waiting to
get rid of my case. I faxed him my own Notice and
Demand to quash service and vacate the case, yesterday,
in time for "his" trial tomorrow.
Waiting in the wings, I have copies of the transcript
of the legislators arguing over this issue, and it was
made clear the special process severs do not apply in
Still in the trenches...
A statement of citizenship, in duplicate, from a worker has always served to relieve an employer of duty to withhold income taxes from ANY workers pay, under Section 1.1441-5 and Publication #515 (wording was altered in 1999 to disguise the provision).
Tax Code §§ 1402(b), 3121(e) 3306(j), and 42 USC 411(b)(2), define "citizen" and do not mention me, an American, but there is no statute that mentions my citizenship as a subject of the Tax Code; I'm only named in regulation 26 CFR 1.1-1 by the U.S. Treasury. This violates the 16th Amdt. which says that only Congress may lay and collect income taxes.
Citizen has not obtained the standing of a former slave by petitioning Congress for admittance to venue and jurisdiction of the Fourteenth Amendment, then Congress has no power over that individual under this clause (Amend. 14, Sec. 5)." [9 Fed. Stat. Anno. 6331. The definition in Black's Sixth Edition, pg.657, tells it all: "The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, ratified in 1868, creates or at least recognizes for the first time a citizen of the United States, as distinct from that of the states.". Notice it didn't do away with citizenship of a state, it only adds this citizen of the United States.
1.Congress decided to prevent the federal courts from deciding the matter on state citizenship and federal citizenship and such in respect to federal taxes. "§ 2201. Creation of remedy (a) In a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction, except with respect to Federal taxes,... any court of the United States, upon the filing of an appropriate pleading, may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be sought." How convenient.
While income tax arguments are barred under this rule - actions proving lack of citizenship, domicile, and residence are specifically allowed. The issue is not income tax but jurisdiction over the person. Lack of jurisdiction is proved by FRCP Rule 44 and 44.1.
You are then not arguing jurisdiction in front of that court - you are using evidence to prove that jurisdiction already exist in another court. Read 28 USC 2201 and it states that it must be argued in the proper manner - and that is by not letting the US court decide that issue - go to common law and plead condition precedent under FRCP rule 8.(The citizenship was already decided before the action began).
Many people claim that citizenship or adhesion contracts or strawmen & so on are SUPPOSEDLY responsible.
Seriously, HOW many of us were ORIGINALLY NOTIFIED by the IRS that we were an INDIVIDUAL that WITHHOLDING was REQUIRED of or that we were an INDIVIDUAL that were REQUIRED to file an INCOME TAX return?
IF NOT, then WHY did WE originally REQUEST withholding or FILE an income tax return in the FIRST PLACE?
It would CLEARLY be recognized that there is NO NEED let alone any LOGIC Whatsoever in even bringing up a citizenship issue (14th Amendment or otherwise) let alone FILE such with the County Recorders Office, or CITE ANY CASES WHATSOEVER as the BURDEN/S to Prove or Establish Grounds, Issues and/or Jurisdiction lie solely ON THE PROPONENT as Stated in Sec. 556(d)!!! NOR would Anyone KNOWING 5 USC 556(d) & 702 thereby SUBMIT themselves to an "administrative" review/determination of "status" !!! One defeated the IRS/DOJ and Exposed their Lack of Jurisdiction in the U.S. Court of Appeals Nearly Thirty YEARS Ago by using Title 5!!
Since Most American Workers do NOT "begin" their Contact with a "Summons" by the IRS whereby they can IMMEDIATELY FILE a Judicial Notice Challenging the Jurisdiction/Authority of Same, and since the IRS is NOTORIOUS for Implementing 26 USC 6331 to Seize one's financial assets, whether Bank Accounts or Paychecks, Upon receiving ANY IRS Requests for Information or CP Notices to Send NOTICES OF COMPLAINTS via Registered Mail to the Officers (e.g. Commissioner & Treasury Secretary) as well as ALL of one's Elected Officials in D.C., with Same Requesting their assistance as well as Requesting: ALL Identities, Copies of ALL Documents, Records, Points & Authorities. (the Word "ALL" encompasses things such as verified assessment, Master Files, Proof of Jurisdiction /Authority etc, without having to individually identify and ask for each as such) Such NOTICES ATTACH PERSONAL LIABILITY TO SAME and inevitably ends the Matter either by their assistance with same, or Estoppel via their Silence.
People have been saying we are not legal fictions, a person, an individual, a corporation, a FEDERAL EMPLOYEE, A UNITED STATES CITIZEN, and the like. We have claimed we are natural persons, human beings and the like.
Since Title 26 only applies to the aforementioned things we are not, I see no logical reason why a Title that claims it only deals with things we are not should be used when dealing with us.
Inversely, it is only logical to conclude that we should use a Title that claims it deals with things we claim we are, ie natural person and human beings. These Titles would be Title 15 and Clayton Act section 17.
We have been tricked into using Title 26 so as to invalidate any previously claim that we are not the things listed in Title 26.
Only an insane man would claim he is not something and then invoke the laws designed for the thing he is not.
Yet a sane man would say I am not something and invoke the law designed for that which he claims he is.
On another note:
PROSECUTION CAN'T PROVIDE THE STATUTE MAKING THE PARTY REQUIRED TO FILE
Tom Hauert was indicted on five counts Sec. 7203 WILLFUL FAILURE etc. Hauert wanted to know the OFFENSE statute he was accused of violating and would be pleading guilty to. He wanted to know the particular statute that made him a person required to pay the income tax.His attorney (addressing the judge):The prosecution has been trying to get my client to plea bargain. My client is interested but has a few demands of the prosecution in order to understand the charges and determine the potential guilt. He has a serious question that nobody will address. Will the court entertain that question? Hauert:Your honor, Section 7203 of the I.R. Code is a DISCIPLINARY STATUTE. It defines the penalty for someone who has broken the law. I need to know the underlying offense statute that is used to determine if I am the any person required to file. The term any person is ambiguous. Hauerts attorney then requested a Bill of Particulars, defining the specific offense statute that created the liability for Hauert to pay the income tax and file a 1040 Tax Return. A Bill of Particulars is a written statement of the SPECIFIC CHARGES against the defendant. This switched the burden of proof back to the government to provide such a statute. After an extended period of time, the prosecution still could not supply the court with the offense statute or regulation that made Tom Hauert (or any American Citizen) the person made liable to pay the S.1 graduated Income Tax (because no such statute exists). Hauert, therefore, filed for and was granted a DISMISSAL! http://irsdebteliminated.com/blog/2009/06/24/how-to-beat-the-irs-irs-v-hauert/
Why make up a Social Security Number when the Social Security Administration
clearly says "No Social Security Number Needed!!"
"How do I apply for a Social Security number and card?
Unless you are a **NONCITIZEN** who wants to work in the United States, you
probably do not need a Social Security number.
Generally, only **noncitizens** authorized to work in the United States by the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) can get a Social Security number. Social
Security numbers are used to report an individual's wages to the government and
to determine a person's eligibility for Social Security benefits. You need a
Social Security number to work, collect Social Security benefits and receive
some other government services.
Lawfully admitted noncitizens can get many benefits and services without a
Social Security number. You do not need a number to get a driver's license,
register for school, obtain private health insurance, or to apply for school
lunch programs or subsidized housing.
Some organizations use Social Security numbers to identify you in their records.
Most, however, will identify you by some other means if you request it.
We cannot assign you a Social Security number solely so you can get a driver's
license or a service that requires a credit check.
Although many companies, such as banks and credit companies, may ask for your
Social Security number, you are generally not required to provide one if you
don't have one." (emphasis mine)
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "dave" <dwissel@...> wrote:
> From: dave [mailto:dwissel@...]
> Bean counters at companies-i.e. who "demand" government forms-are empowered
> through propaganda to "do the work of government". These are some of the
> most ignorant people you will encounter. That is because their "truth" comes
> ONLY from someone-else's OPNION. Custom "rules" these people's lives and
> that custom comes from the media-which is in turn-fed by "the fed". ...
Yes.it is true that you do not need an SSN..absolutely. However bear this in
1. Most employers/banks don't know this.
2. They are DIRECTED by the IRS "information officers" to make it their
policy to only offer services or employment based on SSN. [I tried to get EEOC
interested in several documented cases..not a chance!]
3. They don't care to know you don't have one.. and perfectly willing to
let you go elsewhere.
I checked with 22 banks here and ALL parrot back the words of the IRS: "It is
our POLICY that we need an SSN to open an account. You are free to go elsewhere.
Employers state the same thing. "It is our policy that you have an SSN in order
to work here."
Only BOA said they would open up an account w/o an SSN..but only if they were
showed ID from another country..like Mexican ID for example.
Now if ANYONE knows of a bank that has a policy of NOT needing an SSN, let me
know. I want to put it up on a website..like a whole list of banks.
This is as good an example as you can get of asserting your
rights. Pete is no stranger to filming police and this is the second
video of his used by Cop Block. The first was confronting Arlington
police officers about parking their cruiser illegally, which Cop
Block is still waiting to hear the outcome of that investigation.
Pete’s decisions to go to his girlfriends aid, film the police, open
carry a firearm, refuse to produce ID and to walk away from the
police,without satisfying their request, were all perfectly legal acts.
Though you don’t ever have to talk to the police, Pete has a
background in Law Enforcement along with a great knowledge of open
carry laws. Therefore, while he still talked to the police and
provided them with information, above and beyond what’s legally
required, he did so with caution. Stating things like, “yes, I have an
ID but am I legally required to show you?” When told he was legally
required to (a lie) Pete would ask if the officers could show him that
statue which states such? Pete does this because the police are
legally allowed to lie to you, which they did several times in this
video, but Pete counters that by asking questions to the officers which
would force them to back up their lies. As you can see they were
unable to do that. After talking with them for a few minutes Pete
stated he was going to leave and why, then slowly backed away.
They didn’t follow him after that and he never had to produce his
government issued ID. There really was no wrong doings by the police
officers in this video (other than the harassment and lying) as they
seemed to be stumped by Pete’s actions. Though they have typical cop
syndrome of ‘if you have nothing to hide why don’t you just give us
what we ask for and/or do what we say.’ You’d think that with all the
police training and on the job experiences they would of quickly came
to the conclusion that felons don’t walk up to cops openly displaying
not only a firearm but a camera too. Do these cops think that Pete is
going to film his last five minutes of freedom, if he were a felon? I
highly doubt it and I’m speaking from the perspective of a felon (as
I’m a victim of the drug war).
So what can be learned from this video? A lot, but the two biggest
things to me are how Pete always keeps his cool and doesn’t get in a
shouting match with the officers. He doesn’t try to impress them with
a bunch of legal rambling that would make him seem like ‘a know it
all.’ He lets the officers speak and then replies giving as little
information as possible in a calm cool collected manner. The second is
how Pete counters questions with questions. In most cases, unless
driving or suspected of criminal activity, you’re not required legally
to produce ID when asked to by an officer. Cops phrase it as a
request, may I see your ID? Which isn’t them telling you to produced
it but merely a request to. Sometimes when asked if you legally have
to show them they lie and say yes because they can lie. Therefore
instead of just handing it over ask them, ‘Am I legally required to do
so?” If they say yes then ask to see the law. If you start to feel
uncomfortable remember at any point you can simply stop talking to
them. State that unless you’re under arrest you’re just going to go on
your way, like Pete does here. Leaving the cops dumbfounded.
Cop Block is hoping to get more videos like this. So the next time
you see a cop stopping somebody outside your home or down the street
grab your camera. Film them, even if there seems to be nothing going
on. Most likely the cop will ask you why you were filming the stop? I
tell the police that I’m filming to hold everyone (including myself)
accountable. We need to make this the norm as it’s a crucial method to
holding officers accountable for their actions.
If you can’t film the police sharing Cop Block’s website and social
networks is just as helpful.
Here are a few of the
most CRITICAL DEFINITIONS that I CONTINUALLY see people in the SO-CALLED
“patriot community” totally MISUNDERSTAND & ABUSE.
INDIVIDUAL - 1 obsolete : INSEPARABLE, 2 a : of, relating
to, or distinctively associated with an individual <an individual effort>
b : being an individual or existing as an indivisible whole c : intended for one person <an individual
serving>, 3 : existing as a distinct entity : SEPARATE, 4 : having marked
individuality <an individual style>, synonyms see SPECIAL, CHARACTERISTIC
something required: a : something wanted
or needed : necessity <production was not sufficient to satisfy military
requirements> b : something essential to
the existence or occurrence of something else : condition <failed
to meet the school's requirements for graduation>
REQUIRE - 1 a :
to claim or ask for by right and authority b archaic : request, 2 a : to call for as suitable or
appropriate <the occasion requires formal dress> b : to demand as necessary or essential : have
a compelling need for <all living beings require food>, 3 : to impose a compulsion or command on :
compel, 4 chiefly British : to feel or be obliged —used with a following
infinitive <one does not require to be a specialist — Elizabeth
JURISDICTION - 1: the power, right, or authority to interpret and
apply the law, 2 a : the authority of a sovereign power to govern or legislate
b : the power or right to exercise authority : control, 3 : the limits or
territory within which authority may be exercised
JURISDICTION.The power and authority
constitutionally conferred upon (or constitutionally recognized as existing in)
a court or judge to pronounce the sentence of the law, or to award the remedies
provided by law, upon a state of facts, proved or admitted, referred
to the tribunal for decision, and authorized
by law to be the subject of investigation or action by that tribunal,
and in favor or against persons (or a res) who present themselves, or who are
brought, before the court in some manner
sanctioned by law as proper and sufficient. 1 Black, Judgm. § 215.
And see Nenno v. Railroad Co., 105 Mo. App. 540, 80 S. W. 24 ; Ingram v. Fuson,
118 Ky. 882,
82 5. W. 606; Tod v. Crisman,123
Iowa, 693, 99 N. W. 686; Harrigan v. Gilchrist, 121 Wis. 127, 99 N. W. 909 ;
Wightman v. Karsner, 20 Ala. 451; Reynolds v. Stockton, 140 U. S. 254, 11 Sup. Ct. 773, 35 L. Ed. 464; Templeton v. Ferguson,
47, 33 S. W. 329
; Succession of Weigel, 17 La.
Jurisdiction is a power constitutionally conferred upon a judge or magistrate
to take cognizance of and determine causes according to law, and to carry his
sentence into execution. U. S.
v. Arredondo, 6 Pet. 691, 8 L. Ed. 547 ; Yates v. Lansing, 9 Johns.(N. Y.) 413,
6 Am. Dec. 290; Johnson v. Jones, 2 Neb.
authority of a court as distinguished from the other departments; judicial
power considered with reference to its scope and extent as respects the
questions and persons subject to it; power given by law to hear and decide
the power to hear and determine the subject-matter in controversy between
parties to the suit; to adjudicate or exercise any judicial power over them. Rhode Island v. Massachusetts,
12 Pet. 657, 717, 9 L. Ed. 1233.
Jurisdiction is the power to hear and determine a cause; the authority by which judicial officers take
cognizance of and decide causes.Brownsville
v. Basse, 43 Tex.
440. [rest omitted]
DICTIONARY, 2ND EDITION, page 673
1.Bound or obliged in law or equity; responsible; chargeable;
answerable; compellable to make satisfaction, compensation, or restitution.
Exposed or subject to a given contingency, risk, or casualty, which is more or
liability. The liability of the members of a joint-stock company may be either
unlimited or limited; and, if the latter, then the limitation of liability is
either the amount, if any, unpaid on the shares, (in which case the limit is
said to be "by shares,") or such an amount as the members guaranty in
the event of the company being wound up, (in which case the limit is said to be
"by guaranty.") Brown.—Personal liability. The liability of the
stockholders in corporations, under certain statutes, by which they may 'be
held individually responsible for the debts of the corporation, either to the
extent of the par value of their respective holdings of stock, or to twice that
amount, or without limit, or otherwise, as the particular statute directs.
DICTIONARY, 2ND EDITION, page 719
SUBJECT. In logic. That concerning which the affirmation in a
proposition is made ; the first word in a proposition.
matter considered as the object of legislation. The constitutions of several of
the states require that emery act of the legislature shall relate to but one
subject, which shall be expressed in the title of the statute. See Ex parte
Thomas, 113 Ala. 1, 21 South. 369 ; In re Mayer, 50 N. Y. 504; State v. CountyTreasurer,
4 S. C. 528 ; Johnson v. Harrison, 47 Minn.
577, 50 N. W. 923, 28 Am. St. Rep. 382.
In constitutional law.One that owes allegiance to a sovereign and is
governed by his laws. The natives of Great Britain are subjects of the
British government. Menin free governments are subjects as well as citizens;
as citizens they enjoy rights and franchises ; as subjects they are bound to
obey the laws. Webster. The term is little used, in this sense, in
countries enjoying a republican form of government. See The Pizarro, 2 Wheat.
245, 4 L. Ed. 226 ; U. S. v.
Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 18 Sup. Ct. 456, 42 L. Ed. 890.
law. The thing which is the object of an agreement.
DICTIONARY, 2ND EDITION, page 1115
ALLEGIANCE.The tie which binds the
citizen to the government, in return for the protection which the government
2. It is
natural, acquired, or local. Natural
allegiance is such as is due from all men born within the United States; acquired
allegiance is that which is due by a naturalized citizen. It has never been
decided whether a citizen can, by expatriation, divest himself absolutely of
that character. 2 Cranch, 64; 1 Peters' C. C. Rep. 159; 7 Wheat. R. 283; 9 Mass. R. 461. Infants cannot assume allegiance, (4 Bin.
49) although they enlist in the army of the United States. 5 Bin. 429.
seems, however, that he cannot renounce his allegiance to the United States
without the permission of the government, to be declared by law. But for
commercial purposes he may acquire the rights of a citizen of another country,
and the place of his domicil determines the character of a party as to trade. 1
Kent, Com. 71; Com. Rep. 677; 2 Kent, Com. 42.
4. Local allegiance is that which is due from an alien,
while resident in the United States, for the protection which the government
affords him. 1 Bl. Com. 366, 372; Com. Dig. h.t; Dane's Ab. Index,
h. t.; 1 East, P.C. 49 to 57.
DICTIONARY, 2ND EDITION, page 59
ACQUIESCENCE. Acquiescence is where a person who knows that he is entitled to impeach a transaction or enforce a right
neglects to do so for such a length of time that, under the
circumstances of the case, the other party may fairly infer that he has waived
or abandoned his right. Scott v. Jackson, 89 Cal. 258, 26 Pac. 898; Lowncles v.
Wicks, 69 Conn. 15, 36 Atl. 1072 ; Norfolk & W. R. Co. v. Perdue, 40 W. Va.
442, 21 S. B. 755 ; Pence v. Langdon, 99 U. S. 578, 25 L. Ed. 420.
Acquiescence and laches are cognate but not equivalent
terms. The former is a submission to, or resting satisfied with, an existing
state of things, while laches implies a
neglect to do that which the party ought to do for his own benefit or
protection. Hence laches may be evidence of acquiescence. Laches
imports a merely passive assent, while acquiescence implies active assent. Lux
v. Haggin, 69 Cal. 255, 10 Pac.
678; Kenyon v. National Life Ass'n, 39 App. Div. 276. 57 N. Y. Supp. GO;
Johnson-Brinkman Commission Co. v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 126 Mo. 345, 28 S. W.
870, 26 L. R. A. 840, 47
Am. St. Rep. 675. BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, 2ND
EDITION, page 20.
Which along with most peoples complete FAILURE to VERIFY
& RESEARCH things, is one of the many REASONS WHY I feel that the “patriot
community” CONTINUES to go “nowhere fast”.
Right to own land case. Motion
Motion in attachment. Jerry James Stanton
Thanks for all who
helped. And Thurston Bell for research.
Moderator/Bear: Wow! I really like the attachment and I've only read a few
pages. Rights that predate the Declaration of Independence?? Cool!
My general cause is that our rights are not taxable, and no law does so.
My present specific legal issue springs from state of Tennessee.
The material facts of my case are: The Municipal government filed a judicial
suit to collect alleged delinquent land property taxes.
My property rights are involved in said suit.
The government filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on the ground that,
pursuant to Tenn. taxing code T.C.A. 67-1-901, no defense can be made in the
suit except to plead the tax is paid.
I must file a response to the motion and show my filed defense can be made and
heard in the suit.
My initial pleading is not one of a taxpayer liable for any tax amount, but one
whose rights are involved. My pleading is that the complaint attempts to
unconstitutionally tax my rights to property under my right to life, rather than
the lawful tax upon the use of property to derive income or gain from the
Research already done in my case: I have cases in sufficient support of my
initial pleading the government is attempting to prevent from being heard..
In my search of cases regarding the government's motion and property taxes, I
have found most all of them involve only uncontested taxpayers who are liable
for some portion of the tax and come under taxing statutes which limit their due
process; and, Who belatedly complain only about the amount of the underlying
assessments instead of paying the tax and suing for refund.
Moreover, taxpayer due process limits include exhausting their administrative
remedies. However, for my constitutional defenses, the Tennessee Supreme Court,
in case: Colonial Pipeline Co. v. John G. Morgan, states that no such remedies
are necessary. The governmentâs motion in this case does not contain grounds
for administrative remedies due to this case.
I find that T.C.A. 67-5-509 establishes that the assessments are not considered
valid if a denial of minimum constitutional guarantees is plead.
I have found that T.C.A. 67-1-901 for paying the tax under protest and suing for
refund is for general taxes and strictly confined to an imminent and immediate
seizure of property by a collections officer by distress warrant; and, That the
required government land property tax suit is not such an immediate seizure. The
intent of the statute is that when the officer is there to seize property, the
only remedy to avoid such immediate loss of property is to pay the tax and sue
for refund rather than to resist and hold up taxes by filing suits. The tax must
be paid to allow for suits against taxes. Such plaintiff suits against taxes is
not the government suit required for land property taxes and such government
suit is not an immediate seizure or distress warrant. Seizure by sale of the
land comes later by court order after the government prevails in the suit and
the tax can be paid under protest and suit for refund filed up to one year
beyond the sale of the property.
I have found some cases that allow for a taxpayer defense to be filed and heard;
and, Newer taxpayers cases that state that can no longer be done by
reinterpretation of the statutes.
I have found only one old case that ruled a plea in bar on constitutional
grounds can be made; I.e., Not involving an uncontested taxpayer.
What I am thinking about doing and why: In order to prevent losing the case, our
home, and helping with all of our rights, I must file a response to the
government's motion for judgment on the pleadings; and therein, I must show a
(or my) defense can be filed and heard in the case.
I am thinking to show that all taxing statutes and the limited due process are
confined to uncontested taxpayers only; and, Only they are under taxing
sovereignty. For the government's unconstitutionally applied tax to my rights in
this government suit, I come under the constitutional due process of law
required to take those rights or else my pleading of lack of jurisdiction must
I am thinking to show the statute for paying the tax prior to suing for refund
is confined to immediate collection officer distress warrant proceedings to
seize property, which is not the government suit.
At present all I can do is respond with the cases and grounds I have. I am
thinking it is not good enough due to our present court bias.
I need help to make a better showing that for an individual who contests any
taxpayer status and taxing statutes, but whose rights are involved, can defend
to a government property land tax suit on such basis.
Moderator/Bear: Excellent job here complying with my rules.