Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

FW: ARE ALL TAX HONESTY LEADERS REALLY UNDERCOVER IRS AGENTS????

Expand Messages
  • Luis Ewing
    From Luis Ewing at or or or or
    Message 1 of 2 , Dec 6, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      From Luis Ewing at <rcwcodebuster (at) comcast.net> or <rcwcodebuster (at) yahoo.com> or <rcwcodebuster (at) gmail.com> or <rcwcodebuster (at) aol.com> or <rcwcodebuster (at) hotmail.com> or <luis (at) luisewing.com> or telephone: (253) 226-3741


      (Note: Please copy and paste all 5 of my e-mail addresses listed above & below and ADD them to your CONTACTS FOLDER.)


      I have 5 different e-mail addresses under <rcwcodebuster @ the following 5 internet providers:


      a.) comcast.net>
      b.) yahoo.com>
      c.) gmail.com>
      d.) hotmail.com>
      e.) aol.com>


      New Web Sites: <www.luisewing.com> or <www.ultimateusers.com>


      GODS LAW as written in the 1599 GENEVA BIBLE at <http://www.americanvision.com/bibles.aspx> says:


      "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast refused knowledge, I will also refuse thee that thou shall be no Priest to me: and seeing thou hast forgotten the Law of thy God, I will also forget thy children." Hosea 4:6

      "And putting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, he even took it out of the way, and fastened it upon the cross, . . ." Colossians 2: 14

      "That we henceforth be no more children, wavering and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the deceit of men, and with crafttiness, whereby they lay in wait to deceive." Ephesians, 4:14

      "And we know, that the Law is good, if a man use it lawfully." Timothy 1:8

      "Think not that I am come to destroy the Law, or the Prophets. I am not come to destroy them, but to fulfill them." Mathew 5:17


      SUBJECT: THE 14 EASIEST AND BEST WAYS TO SPOT OR DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT SOMEONE IS AN . . . UNDERCOVER IRS SNOOP . . . and/or . . . . HOW TO TELL IF THE TAX GURU YOU ARE DEALING WITH IS REALLY JUST IGNORANT OF THE LAW AND LEGALLY INCOMPETENT????



      I Luis Ewing have discovered no less than . . . 14 FALSE LEGAL THEORIES . . . that is being promoted committed by a majority if NOT . . . ALL . . . the so called . . . TAX HONESTY MOVEMENT LEADERS . . . PATRIOT LEADERS . . . and . . . FEDERAL ATTORNEYS . . . that run around with all of these so called . . . TAX GURUS!!!!


      I do not slander, libel, defame, bear false witness or pass judgment against any person named here, I only point out . . . THE TRUTH . . . that most if not all the people or groups mentioned here have already been exposed and named publicly as . . . CON MEN . . . CON WOMEN . . . SCAMMERS . . . PAYTRIOTS . . . PATRIDIOTS . . . and . . .LEGAL LUNATICS . . . on no less than 2 web sites, the 1st being . . . QUATLOOS . . . and the 2nd being . . . THE MILITIA WATCHDOG.


      I do NOT give any credibility to those 2 websites and nor am I associated with them in any way, shape or form, I am just pointing out that they have already identified and did all the name calling of all the people they call scammers and screwballs listed below!


      I AM NOT PASSING JUDGMENT ON ANYONE HERE!!!!

      PASSING JUDGMENT IS GODS JOB!!!!

      See Mathew 7:1 through Mathew 7:6


      I JUST READ EVERYTHING ON . . . "QUATLOOS" . . . and . . . "THE MILITIA WATCHDOG" . . . and investigated and researched everything that . . . THEY SAID . . . about . . . ALL . . . these so called . . . TAX GURUS . . . and discovered that . . . MOST EVERYTHING THEY SAID ABOUT THESE SO CALLED . . . TAX GURUS . . . WAS IN FACT . . . THE TRUTH!!!!


      "Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" Galations 4:16

      "But he that doeth truth, cometh to the light, that his deeds might be made manfest, that they are wrought according to God." John 3:21


      I AM ONLY TRUTHFULLY EXPOSING LEGALLY INCORRECT AND . . . "FALSE LEGAL THEORIES" . . . AND PROVIDING YOU WITH THE NAMES OF THOSE WHO ARE PROMOTING THESE BOGUS AND FALSE LEGAL THEORIES . . . AND I AM LEAVING IT UP TO YOU TO DECIDE . . . WHETHER OR NOT TO CONTINUE FOLLOWING OR LISTENING TO ANYTHING THESE SO CALLED TAX GURUS AND FEDERAL TAX ATTORNEYS HAVE TO SAY ABOUT ANYTHING ON THE SUBJECT OF TRYING TO FIGHT THE IRS!!!!

      "Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" Galations 4:16

      "But he that doeth truth, cometh to the light, that his deeds might be made manfest, that they are wrought according to God." John 3:21


      THESE FOURTEEN FALSE LEGAL THEORIES BEGS THE FOLLOWING 4 QUESTIONS:

      1.) ARE THESE PEOPLE UNDERCOVER GOVERNMENT AGENTS WORKING FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OR IRS SNOOPS SETTING YOU UP FOR A BUST 4 TO 5 TO 6 YEARS LATER IN A STING OPERATION LIKE THEY DID TO WESLEY SNIPES????

      2.) ARE THESE PEOPLE JUST HARDCORE PATRIOTS WITH GOOD INTENTIONS BUT WHO ARE . . . IGNORANT OF THE LAW????

      3.) ARE THEY ALL JUST A BUNCH OF DUMMIES????

      4.) WHY HAVEN'T ANY OF THE WELL KNOWN FEDERAL TAX ATTORNEYS HANGING AROUND WITH ALL THESE TAX GURUS AT ALL THESE PATRIOT EXPOS AND TRUTH ATTACK MEETINGS SPOKE UP AND TELL ALL THE TAX GURUS THAT THESE LEGAL THEORIES ARE WRONG, OR ARE THEY JUST GOING TO SIT BACK, LET YOU FILL OUT THE FALSE AND ILLEGAL STOP WITHHOLDING FORMS KNOWING THAT IN ABOUT 4 TO 5 TO 6 YEARS LATER THAT THE IRS WILL ATTACK YOU AND THEY ARE PRAYING TO PICK UP A CLIENT WHO WILL PAY THEM A RETAINER????


      "And he said, Woe be to you also, ye Lawyers: for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burden with one of your fingers." Luke 11:46

      "Woe be to you, Lawyers: for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that came in, ye forbade." Luke 11:52


      I Luis Ewing . . . GUARANTEE . . . that by the time you get done reading this lengthy article, that . . . ALL OF YOU . . . will be . . . 100% . . . absolutely convinced that . . . ALL THE SO CALLED TAX GURUS . . . and . . . ALL THE FEDERAL TAX ATTORNEYS . . . in the so called . . . TAX HONESTY MOVEMENT . . . are either . . . UNDERCOVER GOVERNMENT AGENTS . . . or . . . IRS SNOOPS . . . or . . . COMPLETE IDIOTS WHO ARE . . . LEGALLY INCOMPETENT!!!!

      I LEAVE IT UP TO YOU TO DECIDE????


      I Luis Ewing further . . . GUARANTEE . . . that by the time you get done reading this, . . . ALL OF YOU . . . will be in . . . 100% AGREEMENT WITH ME THAT ALL OF THESE TAX GURUS AND ALL THE WELL KNOWN FEDERAL TAX ATTORNEYS THAT HANG AROUND THE PATRIOT COMMUNITY ALL NEED TO BE PUT OUT OF THE BUSINESS OF GIVING LEGAL ADVICE ON FEDERAL INCOME TAX MATTERS!!!!


      For many years now I have suspected ALL the BIG KNOW IT ALL TAX GURUS of being . . . UNDERCOVER GOVERNMENT AGENTS . . . or . . . IRS SNOOPS . . . working for either or both . . . The DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE . . . or the . . . IRS . . . or that . . . ALL OF THEM WERE COMPLETE IDIOTS, STUPID MORONS AND LEGAL LUNATICS WHO WOULD NOT KNOW THE LAW IF I HIT THEM IN THE HEAD WITH A LAW BOOK!!!!


      So I have just sat in the background and . . . WATCHED ALL . . . of them for many years now and have discovered that . . . ALL . . . of them are clearly . . . MISSTATING THE LAW!!!!


      I KNOW THAT ALL OF YOU OUT THERE IN THE SO CALLED . . . "TAX HONESTY MOVEMENT" . . . HAVE HEARD ALL THE BIG KNOW IT ALL TAX GURUS LIKE . . . BOB SCHULTZ . . . OF . . . "WE THE PEOPLE" . . . and . . . "THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS" . . . CHUCK CONCES . . . FOUNDER OF . . . "THE LAWMAN GROUPS" . . . PEYMON MOTTADAH . . . OWNER OF . . . "THE FREEDOM LAW SCHOOL" . . . STEPHEN HEMPLING . . . OF THE . . . "FREE ENTERPRISE SOCIETY" . . . "SAVE A PATRIOT FELLOWSHIP" . . . EDDIE "CON-MAN" KAHN . . . AND HIS CO-CONSPIRATORS . . . "AMERICAN RIGHTS LITIGATORS" . . . LINDSEY SPRINGER . . . EDWIN RIVERA . . . CHRISTOPHER HANSEN . . . RALPH WINTERROWD . . . L.B. BORK . . . MARCEL R. BENDSHADLER . . . JOSEPH O. SALADINO . . . MICHAEL S. MUNGOVAN aka "CAJUN MIKE" . . . "IRS CODEBUSTERS" . . . PQI & GLOBAL PROSPERITY . . . 1099 OID REFUND SCAMMERS . . . PAYCHECK PIRACY . . . PREFERRED SERVICES . . . RANDALL WHITE . . . AND . . . PETE HENDRICKSON . . . GO INTO EXTREME DETAIL OVER AND OVER AGAIN ABOUT THE DEFINITION OF . . . "INCLUDES" . . . AND . . . "INCLUDING" . . . AS PROVIDED BY . . . "26 U.S.C. 7701" . . . AT SUBSECTION (9) DEFINING . . . "UNITED STATES" . . . AND SUBSECTION (10) DEFINING . . . "STATE" AS APPLIED TO . . . 26 U.S.C. 3401 (c) . . . SOMEHOW MAKES WORKERS IN THE ALLEGED AND NON-EXISTENT . . . "PRIVATE SECTOR" . . . SOMEHOW MAGICALLY EXEMPT FROM FEDERAL INCOME TAXES????


      "For such false apostles are deceitful workers, and transform themselves into the Apostles of Christ." 2 Corinthians 11:13

      "And he said unto them, I saw Satan, like lightening, fall down from heaven." Luke 10:18

      "And no marvel: for Satan himself is transformed into an Angel of light." 2 Corinthians 11:14

      "Therefore it is no great thing, though his ministers transform themselves, as though they were the ministers of righteousness, whose end shall be according to their works." 2 Corinthians 11:15


      Did you notice how they MISQUOTE or MISSTATE out of context the true meaning of what . . . INCLUDE . . . at . . . 26 U.S.C. 7701 (c) . . . means as allegedly stated by Brigham v. United States, 160 F.3d 759 (1st Cir. 1998) as applied to . . . "26 U.S.C. 3401"????

      WHY DON'T . . . RANDALL WHITE . . . AND . . . PETE HENDRICKSON . . . AND ALL THE OTHER SO CALLED TAX GURUS JUST EXPLAIN WHAT EVERY WORD OR PHRASE IN . . . 26 U.S.C. 3401 . . . MEANS????


      Did you notice how they keep you busy looking at what they want you to look at as they try and do impress you with their so called knowledge of the cannons of law using esoteric legal terms such as . . . "Noscitur a sociis" . . . and . . . "ejusdem generis"????


      We did NOT need to look at the case law defining . . . "Noscitur a sociis" . . . and . . . "ejusdem generis." (Emphasis added).


      WE DO NOT NEED TO GO FURTHER THAN . . . 26 U.S.C. 3401 (c)!!!!


      Did you notice how ALL THESE BIG TAX GURUS go to such extreme effort to keep you distracted and impress you with their so called knowledge of the law and then make such obvious misquotes and misstatements of the law by then stating that allegedly the 1st Circuit's interpretation of . . . 7701 (c) . . . somehow magically follows from the cannon noscitur a sociis, "a word is known by the company it keeps", as found in very old and well settled Supreme Court case law, which the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld citing Jarecki v. G.D. Searle & Co., 367 U.S. 303, 307 (1961) and Gustafson v Alloyd Co. (93404), 513 U.S. 561 (1995); Circuit City Stores v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105, 114-115 (2001); Morales v. TWA, 504 U.S. 374 (1992).????


      Why did . . . PETE HENDRICKSON . . . and . . . RANDALL WHITE . . . just . . . "GLOSS OVER" . . . "26 U.S.C. 3401 (c)" . . . SO QUICKLY????


      What does those "noscitur a sociis cases" and "ejusdem generis cases" or . . . YICK WO HOPKINS . . . have to do with whether or NOT . . . YOU REALLY QUALIFY AS AN . . . "EMPLOYEE" . . . UNDER . . . 26 U.S.C. 3401 (c) . . . and . . . 26 U.S.C. 3121 (a)????

      Let's just look at . . . "26 U.S.C. 3401 (c)" . . . by itself!!!!

      Did you also notice how ALL THESE BIG KNOW IT ALL TAX GURUS go to such extra-ordinary lengths to keep you distracted and busy reading their . . . "MEMORANDUMS OF LAW" . . . trying to impress you with all their extensive legal research into showing you that the U.S. Supreme Court also reminds us to refrain from reading anything into a statute when Congress has left it out citing Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16, 23, 78 L.Ed.2d 17, 104 S.Ct. 296 (1983) (Quoting United States v. Wong Kim Bo, 472 F.2d 720, 722 (CA 1972)????


      Did you also notice how ALL THESE BIG TAX GURUS work so hard to keep you busy and distracted not looking at the relevant statutes in question, looking in other directions, by showing you other statutes that do not define what or who qualifies as an employer and employer such as . . . "28 U.S.C 3003" . . . or . . . "11 U.S.C. 102" . . . or . . . "27 CFR 72.11" . . . all 3 of which more specifically defines the terms . . . "includes" . . . and . . . "including"????


      "26 U.S.C. 7701" . . . ALREADY HAS IT'S OWN DEFINITION OF . . . "INCLUDES" . . .!!!!


      WE DID NOT NEED TO SEE . . . 28 U.S.C. 3003 . . . or . . . 11 U.S.C. 102 . . . or . . . 27 CFR 72.11 . . .!!!!

      WHY DID . . . PETE HENDRICKSON . . . AND . . . RANDALL WHITE . . . HAVE TO SHOW US THOSE NON RELATED STATUTES????


      WE DO NOT NEED TO GO FURTHER THAN . . . "26 U.S.C. 3401 (c)" . . . or . . . "26 U.S.C. 3121 (a)(e)(2)" . . . TO FIGURE OUT THAT A STATE LICENSED CORPORATION LIKE MCDONALDS, TACO BELL, BASKIN ROBBINS, AL'S AUTO SUPPLY, SCHUCKS AUTO SUPPLY, J.C. PENNEY'S, SEARS, KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN, 7-11, ALBERTSONS, SAFEWAY, QFC, BON MACEYS AND STARBUCKS COFFEES ARE ALL . . . "POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS" . . . AND . . . "INSTRUMENTALITIES" . . . OF . . . "THE 50 FEDERAL DISTRICT STATES" . . . SUCH AS . . . STATE OF CALIFORNIA . . . or . . . STATE OF TEXAS . . . or . . . STATE OF ALABAMA . . . and conjunctively . . . THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA!!!!


      ANY DUMMY SHOULD HAVE KNOWN ALREADY THAT EVERY BUSINESS THAT WAS OR IS ISSUED A MASTERS BUSINESS LICENSE FROM ANY OF THE 50 CORPORATE STATES IS IN FACT AND LAW . . . "A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE" . . . AND ALSO AN . . . "INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE STATE" . . . DUH!!!!


      WHY DID . . . PETE HENDRICKSON . . . AND . . .. RANDALL WHITE . . . AND ALL THESE BIG TAX GURUS HAVE TO SHOW US ALL THIS OTHER LEGAL CRAP FOR????


      WHY HAVEN'T THEY GONE OVER WHAT EVERY WORD OR PHRASE OR CLAUSE IN THE STATUTE . . . "26 U.S.C. 3401 (c)" . . . REALLY MEANS????

      WHY HAVE ALL THE TAX GURUS JUST GLOSSED OVER . . . "26 U.S.C 3401 (c)" . . . SO QUICKLY????


      I ALSO KNOW THAT ALL OF YOU OUT THERE IN THE SO CALLED . . . TAX HONESTY MOVEMENT . . . HAVE ALSO SEEN ALL THESE BIG KNOW IT ALL TAX GURUS GO INTO EXTREME DETAIL ABOUT WHAT THE DEFINITION OF THE TERM . . . "EMPLOYEE" . . . OR . . . "EMPLOYMENT" . . . AS PROVIDED BY . . . "26 U.S.C. 3401 (c)" . . . AND . . . "26 U.S.C. 3121 (e)(2) . . . AND . . . "CFR 404.104" . . . AS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER, ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 1943, AT PAGE 12267!!!!


      WOW, THESE GUYS HAVE LOT'S AND LOT'S OF HOMEWORK!!!!


      RANDALL WHITE . . . WROTE . . . "A MEMORANDUM OF LAW" . . . DEFINING . . . "INCLUDES" . . . AND . . . "INCLUDING" . . . IN SUPPORT OF PETE HENDRICKSON'S . . . . BOGUS 26 U.S.C. 7701 (c) ARGUMENT!!!!


      I'M IMPRESSED, HA, HA, HA!!!!


      PAYCHECK PIRACY . . . AND . . . PREFERRED SERVICES . . . MAKES IT TEN TIMES IF NOT 100 TIMES EASIER FOR THE IRS TO STEAL YOUR MONEY AND PIRATE YOUR PAYCHECK!!!!


      ALL OF THESE SO CALLED BIG TAX GURUS HAVE TO BE . . . "UNDER COVER AGENTS"!!!!


      EITHER THAT OR ALL OF THESE BIG TAX GURUS ARE . . . "REALLY STUPID"????


      THERE IS . . . "NO WAY IN HELL" . . . THAT ALL THESE BIG KNOW IT ALL TAX GURUS DID ALL THIS STUDY AND RESEARCH INTO THESE CODE SECTIONS AND STATUTES AND CASE LAW . . . AND MAKE THIS MANY MISTAKES AND GOT IT ALL WRONG . . .UNLESS THEY ALL DID IT ON PURPOSE!!!!

      IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN MY BELIEF THAT ALL OF THOSE I HAVE NAMED ARE EITHER UNDERCOVER AGENTS SETTING YOU UP FOR A IRS BUST LATER . . . OR THAT ALL OF THEM ARE . . . TOTAL IDIOTS!!!!

      WHO KNOWS?????

      MAYBE IT'S A COMBINATION OF . . . ALL OF THE ABOVE?????


      YOU KNOW I KNOW THAT THERE IS . . . "ONE THING" . . THAT ALL THESE TAX GURUS . . . WERE COUNTING ON????


      QUESTION: WHAT'S THAT YOU ASK????

      ANSWER: THEY WERE ALL HOPING THAT NOBODY IN THE TAX HONESTY MOVEMENT OR PATRIOT MOVEMENT WOULD STOP BEING TOO LAZY TO DO THEIR OWN RESEARCH OF THE LAW . . .BECAUSE IF SOME PATRIOT WERE TO ACTUALLY PICK UP A LAW BOOK AND READ IT, THAT PATRIOT WOULD DISCOVER FOR THE FIRST TIME THAT LITERALLY EVERY CASE CITE QUOTATION IN . . . "TITLE 26 INTERNAL REVENUE CODE SECTION 3401 UNITED STATES CODE SERVICE LAWYERS EDITION" . . . VERY CLEARLY SHOWS THAT EVERY . . . "26 U.S.C. 3401 CASE" . . . REGARDING . . . "EMPLOYERS" . . . AND . . . "EMPLOYEES" . . . INVOLVES A PRIVATE CORPORATION THAT IS LICENSED TO DO BUSINESS . . . IN THE . . . DISTRICT STATE OF CALIFORNIA . . . DISTRICT STATE OF TEXAS . . . AND THE . . . DISTRICT STATE OF ALABAMA!!!!

      IT DOESN'T NOT MATTER IF I DON'T HAVE EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT ALL THESE TAX GURUS ARE IN FACT . . . UNDER COVER GOVERNMENT AGENTS . . . OR . . . IRS SNOOPS!!!!!

      QUESTION: WHY YOU ASK????

      ANSWER: BECAUSE I PROVED THEM TO BE BOTH . . . IGNORANT OF THE LAW . . . AND . . . GROSSLY INCOMPETENT!!!!

      AT A MINIMUM, THE FOLLOWING WILL PROVE THAT AT THE VERY LEAST, THAT ALL THESE BIG TAX GURUS ARE ALL GROSSLY IGNORANT OF THE LAW AND LEGALLY INCOMPETENT AND THEREFORE THEY SHOULD ALL BE PUT OUT OF THE BUSINESS OF GIVING ANY LEGAL ADVICE AND ESPECIALLY REGARDING . . . FEDERAL INCOME TAX MATTERS!!!!

      THE SAME GOES FOR ALL THE BAR CARD CARRYING TAX ATTORNEYS WHO HAVE NOT CORRECTED ALL THESE LEGALLY INCOMPETENT PAYTRIOT FOR PROFIT TAX HONESTY GURUS MISTAKES!!!!

      QUESTION: HOW COME NO BAR CARD CARRYING TAX ATTORNEY HAS EVER POINTED OUT THESE FLAWS WHEN THEY STOOD RIGHT NEXT TO THE PATRIOT LEADERS AND HEARD IT WITH THEIR OWN EARS??????????????????

      ANSWER: DUH, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE A PAYING CLIENT TO REPRESENT AT TRIAL IF YOU NEVER GET CHARGED WITH A FEDERAL TAX CRIME, WOULD THEY?????

      PLEASE TAKE NOTICE WHICH TAX ATTORNEYS DO YOU SEE HANGING OUT WITH PATRIOTS AND TAX HONESTY LEADERS ON A CONSISTENT BASIS OVER THE YEARS AT ALL THE DIFFERENT PATRIOT EXPOS OR PATRIOT JUBILEES OR TEA PARTIES OR TRUTH ATTACKS OR CONTINENTAL CONGRESS MEETINGS!!!!

      "And he said, Woe be to you also, ye Lawyers: for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burden with one of your fingers." Luke 11:46

      "Woe be to you, Lawyers: for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that came in, ye forbade." Luke 11:52


      FOR 10 TO 12 YEARS OR MORE AND IN SOME CASES WE SEE THE SAME OLD PATRIOT LEADERS AND TAX HONESTY LEADERS FOR 20 YEARS PLUS PUBLICLY SPEAKING ABOUT THE STATUTES DEFINING EMPLOYEE AND EMPLOYER CITED BELOW!!!!

      FOR 10 TO 20 YEARS WE ALL HAVE SEEN THE SAME FEDERAL TAX ATTORNEYS STANDING AROUND AND LISTENING TO ALL THESE TAX GURUS SPEECHES AND SEMINARS AND NEVER CORRECTING THEM EITHER BECAUSE THEY KNEW THESE WERE TRAPS DESIGNED TO ENTRAP GOVERNMENT RESISTERS AND IRS TAX PROTESTORS AND THEY HOPE TO PICK UP A CLIENT SO THEY CAN MAKE MONEY REPRESENTING THEM WHEN THEY GET CRIMINAL CHARGES FILED AGAINST THEM AND ALL THESE SO CALLED TAX ATTORNEY EXPERTS KEPT QUIET BECAUSE WHY SHOULD THEY TELL YOU IN ADVANCE THAT THESE WERE FRAUDULENT AND INVALID LEGAL ARGUMENTS THAT WOULD NOT WORK IN COURT, DUH, YOU'D NEVER GET CHARGED AND THEY WOULD NOT HAVE A CLIENT THAT'S WHY!!!!

      ON THE FLIP SIDE OF THAT LAST ARGUMENT IF ANY BAR CARD TAX ATTORNEY WHO HANGS OUT WITH ALL THESE PATRIOT LEADERS AND TAX HONESTY LEADERS WILL NOW FALSELY CLAIM OR TRUTH FULLY CLAIM THAT THEY DID NOT KNOW OR UNDERSTAND THESE ARGUMENTS ARE JUST PLAIN WRONG, I THINK IT IS FAIR TO SAY THAT . . . ALL OF THEM . . . JUST PLED GUILTY TO BEING . . . GROSSLY . . . AND . . . LEGALLY INCOMPETENT!!!!!


      "And he said, Woe be to you also, ye Lawyers: for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burden with one of your fingers." Luke 11:46

      "Woe be to you, Lawyers: for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that came in, ye forbade." Luke 11:52


      WHETHER ALL THESE . . . TAX HONESTY GURUS . . . AND ALL . . . THE ATTORNEYS . . . THAT THEY HANG OUT WITH AT ALL THESE PATRIOT EXPOS, ETC., . . . ARE ALL . . . "UNDERCOVER GOVERNMENT AGENTS" . . . OR . . . "IRS SNOOPS" . . . WHO ARE DIRECTLY ON THE GOVERNMENT PAYROLL . . . OR . . . JUST PATRIOTS WITH . . . "GOOD INTENTIONS" . . . IT DOES NOT MATTER, BECAUSE . . . "WHAT WAS THE ROAD TO HELL PAVED WITH" . . . AND BOTTOM LINE IT DOES NOT MATTER BECAUSE THE END RESULT IS THE SAME WHEN IT IS YOU . . . WHO GOES TO PRISON . . . AND/OR GETS HIT WITH . . . A $5,000.00 FRIVOLOUS FILING FEE, . . . DOES IT REALLY MATTER????

      I SEE NO DIFFERENCE DO YOU????

      WHETHER ALL OF THEM ARE AGENTS OR IDIOTS DOES NOT MATTER!!!!

      THEY SHOULD ALL BE PUT OUT OF BUSINESS PERIOD!!!!


      * * *


      HAS ANYONE EVER NOTICED HOW ALL THE BIG KNOW IT ALL TAX GURUS . . . NEVER EVER . . . GO OVER . . . "THE DEFINITION" . . . OR THE . . . "MEANING" . . . OF THE FOLLOWING 2 TERMS:


      1.) ". . . or any political subdivision thereof, . . ."


      2.) ". . . or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. . . ."



      ALL OF THE TAX GURUS JUST QUICKLY GLOSS OVER . . . "26 U.S.C. 3401 (c)" . . . AND THEN QUICKLY LEAD YOU AROUND BY YOUR NOSE TO LOOK AT OTHER UN-RELATED STATUTES AND CASE LAW????


      HOW COME . . . "PETE HENDRICKSON" . . . and . . . "RANDAL WHITE" . . . NEVER . . . "INCLUDED" . . . THE DEFINITIONS . . . OF THOSE . . . "TWO PHRASES" . . . THAT ARE CLEARLY . . . "INCLUDED" . . . in . . . "26 U.S.C. 3401 (c)" . . . in their keep you busy looking at other statutes in their silly . . . "MEMORANDUM OF LAW"????


      HOW COME . . . "PETE HENDRICKSON" . . . and . . . "RANDAL WHITE" . . . NEVER . . . cited any cases from . . . "THE ANNOTATED CASE LAW" . . . in . . . "26 U.S.C. 3401 (c)" . . . in their silly . . . "MEMORANDUM OF LAW"????


      Every law study group, every patriot group and every tax honesty group in this country needs to make 20 to 30 photocopies of the entire . . . "26 U.S.C. 3401 ANNOTATED CASE LAW SECTION" . . . and study all the case quotations at your next meeting!!!!

      You will soon discover that literally . . . ALMOST EVERY CASE . . . that is not a state or federal entity is a . . .PRIVATE CORPORATION . . . that was . . . LICENSED . . . to do do business in the . . STATE . . . and was . . . REQUIRED TO WITHHOLD!!!!

      THESE TAX GURUS AND TAX ATTORNEYS ARE ALL WRONG PERIOD!!!!

      I THINK THAT THEY ALL KNOW THEY ARE WRONG!!!!

      I THINK THAT ALL THE TAX GURUS AND TAX ATTORNEYS ARE ALL MISSTATING THE LAW AND STATUTES OUT OF CONTEXT WITH THEIR TRUE MEANING ON PURPOSE TO SET ALL YOU PATRIOTS UP FOR A BUST LATER!!!!

      I THINK THEY ARE ALL AGENTS PERIOD!!!!

      OR IF THEY DON'T KNOW, I JUST PROVED THAT ALL OF THEM ARE REALLY . . . STUPID!!!!

      EVERY STATE LICENSED CORPORATION IS IN FACT AND LAW . . . "A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE" . . . as contemplated by . . . 26 U.S.C. 3401.


      EVERY PRIVATE SECTOR CORPORATION THAT WAS ISSUED A MASTERS BUSINESS LICENSE AND FEDERAL TAX ID NUMBER LIKE . . . MCDONALDS . . . or . . . STARBUCKS COFFEE . . . IS IN FACT AND LAW . . . "AN INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE STATE" . . . as contemplated by . . . 26 U.S.C. 3401.


      How many different ways do I have to write the same thing over and over again to make all of you folks out there understand that . . . ALL OF THESE SO CALLED . . . TAX GURUS . . . and . . . ALL THEIR TAX ATTORNEY FRIENDS . . . ARE BULLSHITTING YOU????????????????


      EITHER ALL OF THEM ARE . . . UNDERCOVER AGENTS . . . SETTING YOU UP FOR A BUST LATER . . . or they are all just really . . . STUPID????


      WHICH 1 IS IT?????


      * * *


      Note: "Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" Galations 4:16


      HERE ARE THE . . . FIFTEEN (15) . . . GUARANTEED & SURE FIRE WAYS . . . TO SPOT AN . . . UNDERCOVER IRS SNOOP . .. or . . . PATRIDIOT:



      1.) ANYONE AND EVERYONE WHO PUTS OUT DISTRIBUTES, GIVES AWAY OR SELLS . . . "STOP WITHHOLDING FORMS" . . . IS PROBABLY AN UNDERCOVER IRS AGENT . . . or . . . PATRIDIOT!!!!


      2.) ANYONE AND EVERYONE WHO FALSELY CLAIMS THAT THE TERM . . . "WAGES" . . . AS PROVIDED BY . . . "26 U.S.C. 3401 (a) . . . ONLY APPLIES TO STATE OR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES AND DOES NOT APPLY TO WORKERS IN . . . "THE PRIVATE SECTOR" . . . IS PROBABLY AN . . . UNDERCOVER IRS AGENT . . . or . . . PATRIDIOT!!!!


      3.) ANYONE AND EVERYONE WHO FALSELY CLAIMS THAT THE TERM . . . "WAGES" . . . AS PROVIDED BY . . . "26 U.S.C. 3121 (a)" . . . ONLY APPLIES TO STATE OR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES AS DEFINED BY . . . "26 U.S.C. 3121 (e)(2)" . . . AND DOES NOT APPLY TO WORKERS IN THE ALLEGED . . . "PRIVATE SECTOR" . . . IS PROBABLY AN . . . UNDERCOVER IRS AGENT . . . or . . . PATRIDIOT!!!!


      4.) ANYONE AND EVERYONE WHO FALSELY CLAIMS THAT . . . 26 USC 3401 (c) . . . DEFINITION OF . . . EMPLOYEE . . . ONLY APPLIES TO EMPLOYEES OF THE FEDERAL OR STATE GOVERNMENT AND ANYONE AND EVERYONE WHO FALSELY CLAIMS THAT 26 USC 3401 (c) DOES NOT APPLY TO EMPLOYEES OF THE ALLEGED . . . PRIVATE SECTOR . . . IS PROBABLY AN UNDERCOVER IRS AGENT . . . or . . . PATRIDIOT!!!!


      5.) ANYONE AND EVERYONE WHO FALSELY CLAIMS THAT . . . 404.104 . . . DEFINITION OF . . . EMPLOYEE . . . AS PUBLISHED ON PAGE 12267 OF THE FEDERAL REGISTER, ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 1943 ONLY APPLIES TO EMPLOYEES OF THE FEDERAL OR STATE GOVERNMENT AND ANYONE AND EVERYONE WHO FALSELY CLAIMS THAT 404.104 DOES NOT APPLY TO EMPLOYEES OF . . . THE ALLEGED PRIVATE SECTOR . . . IS PROBABLY AN UNDERCOVER IRS AGENT . . . or . . . PATRIDIOT!!!!


      6.) ANYONE AND EVERYONE WHO FALSELY CLAIMS THAT . . . 26 U.S.C. 7701 (a)(9) & (10) . . . DEFINITION OF . . . "INCLUDES" . . . SOMEHOW MAGICALLY DOES NOT APPLY TO ANY OF . . . THE 50 CORPORATE STATES . . . IN THE CURRENT . . . NEW UNION . . . TODAY IN 2009 . . .LIKE . . . STATE OF CALIFORNIA . . . or . . . STATE OF TEXAS . . . or . . . STATE OF ALABAMA . . . BUT SOMEHOW ONLY APPLIES TO . . . A FEDERAL STATE . . . , e.g., THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, BUT NOT A FOREIGN STATE SUCH AS . . . SPAIN . . . OR . . . FRANCE . . . WHICH ARE NOT LOCATED ON THIS CONTINENT IS PROBABLY AN . . . UNDERCOVER IRS AGENT . . . or . . . PATRIDIOT!!!!


      7.) ANYONE AND EVERYONE WHO FALSELY CLAIMS THAT . . . 26 U.S.C. 7701 (a)(9) & (10) . . . DEFINITION OF . . . "INCLUDES" . . . DOES NOT INCLUDE A UNION STATE SUCH AS . . . "California" . . . OR . . . "Texas" . . . WHICH DO NOT EXIST TODAY IN . . . THE NEW UNION, BECAUSE BOTH OF THOSE . . . "States" . . . in . . . "THE OLD UNION" . . . WERE DESTROYED AT THE END OF THE CIVIL WAR AND THEIR . . . Constitutions . . . WERE SUSPENDED AND PLACED INTO . . . "THE ARCHIVES DIVISION OF THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE."


      8.) ANYONE AND EVERYONE WHO FALSELY CLAIMS THAT . . . 26 U.S.C. 7701 (a)(9) . . . DEFINITION OF . . . "STATE". . . SOMEHOW MAGICALLY DOES NOT APPLY TO THE FEDERAL MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AND / OR UNITED STATES CORPORATIONS WHICH ARE BOTH . . . "FEDERAL STATES" . . . SUCH AS . . . "STATE OF CALIFORNIA" . . . or . . . "STATE OF TEXAS" . . . IS PROBABLY AN UNDERCOVER IRS AGENT . . . or . . . PATRIDIOT!!!!


      9.) ANYONE AND EVERYONE WHO FALSELY CLAIMS THAT . . . 26 U.S.C. 7701 (a)(10) . . . DEFINITION OF . . . "UNITED STATES". . . SOMEHOW MAGICALLY ONLY MEANS . . . "A FEDERAL STATE", . . . e.g., . . . "THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA", . . . OR A STATE LISTED IN THE SAME GENERAL CLASS, SUCH AS . . . "THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO" . . . IS PROBABLY AN UNDERCOVER IRS AGENT . . . or . . . PATRIDIOT!!!!


      10.) ANYONE AND EVERYONE WHO FALSELY CLAIMS THAT . . . 26 U.S.C. 3121 (e)(1) . . . DEFINITION OF . . . "STATE". . . ONLY INCLUDES OR MEANS ONLY . . . "THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA" . . . or . . . "THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO" . . . or . . . "THE VIRGIN ISLANDS" . . . or . . . "GUAM" . . . or . . . "AMERICAN SAMOA" . . . IS PROBABLY AN UNDERCOVER IRS AGENT . . . or . . . PATRIDIOT!!!!


      11.) ANYONE AND EVERYONE WHO FALSELY CLAIMS THAT . . . 26 U.S.C. 3121 (e)(2) . . . DEFINITION OF . . . "UNITED STATES". . . ONLY INCLUDES OR MEANS ONLY . . . THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO . . . or . . . "THE VIRGIN ISLANDS" . . . or . . . "GUAM" . . . or . . . "AMERICAN SAMOA" . . . IS PROBABLY AN UNDERCOVER IRS AGENT . . . or . . . PATRIDIOT!!!!


      12.) ANYONE AND EVERYONE WHO FALSELY CLAIMS THAT . . . 26 U.S.C. 6103 (b)(5) . . . DEFINITION OF . . . "STATE". . . ONLY INCLUDES OR MEANS ONLY . . . "FEDERAL STATES" . . . SUCH AS . . . "THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA" . . . or . . . "THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO" . . . or . . . "THE VIRGIN ISLANDS" . . . or . . . "GUAM" . . . or . . . "AMERICAN SAMOA" . . . or . . . "THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS" . . . BUT ALSO FALSELY CLAIMS THAT IT DOES NOT APPLY TO ANY OF THE 50 FEDERAL DISTRICT STATES IN THE NEW UNION TODAY IN 2009 SUCH AS . . . "STATE OF CALIFORNIA" . . . OR . . . "STATE OF TEXAS" . . . or . . . "STATE OF ALABAMA" . . . IS PROBABLY AN UNDERCOVER IRS AGENT . . . or . . . PATRIDIOT!!!!


      13.) ANYONE AND EVERYONE WHO ADVISES YOU TO APPLY FOR ANY TYPE OF . . . "REFUNDS OF MONEY" . . . THAT YOU PROBABLY ARE NOT LEGALLY ENTITLED TO . . . IS PROBABLY AN . . . UNDERCOVER IRS AGENT . . . OR . . . PATRIDIOT!!!!


      14.) ANYONE AND EVERYONE WHO PUTS . . . "LEGAL DISCLAIMERS" . . . on their advertisements is probably an . . . UNDERCOVER IRS AGENT!!!!


      15.) ANYONE AND EVERYONE WHO ARGUES THAT 861 PROVIDES . . . A BLANKET TAX EXEMPTION . . . FOR ALL DOMESTIC SOURCE INCOME . . . THAT FAILED TO PRESENT THE PROPER JURY INSTRUCTION THAT . . . THE 861 DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC SOURCE INCOME . . . "HAS 2 SUB-DEFINITIONS" . . . 1 SUB-DEFINITION THAT SAYS FOREIGN SOURCE INCOME WHICH YOU HAVE TO REPORT . . . AND . . . THE OTHER SUB-DEFINITION THAT ALSO SAYS DOMESTIC SOURCE INCOME THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO REPORT . . . IS PROBABLY AN . . . UNDERCOVER IRS AGENT . . . OR . . . PATRIDIOT!!!!


      * * *

      MARCEL R. BENDSHADLER . . . JOSEPH O. SALADINO . . .AND . . . MICHAEL S. MUNGOVAN . . . aka . . . "CAJUN MIKE" . . . WERE JUST CONVICTED FOR PUSHING THIS . . . BS PRIVATE SECTOR EMPLOYEES WAGES ARE NOT TAXABLE!!!!

      READ ALL ABOUT IT HERE:


      <http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2009/11/federal_jury_finds_three_guilt.html>

      Federal jury finds three guilty of $9 million tax evasion scheme
      By Bryan Denson, The Oregonian

      A Portland jury this morning found three men guilty of defrauding the U.S. government of more than $9 MILLION as part of a tax-resistance scheme they sold to hundreds of Americans in more than 40 states.

      Joseph O. Saladino, 62, Marcel R. Bendshadler, 48, and Michael S. Mungovan, 66, were convicted of conspiracy to defraud the U.S. by interfering with the IRS's ability to accurately assess and calculate income taxes. A fourth defendant, Richard Ortt, was acquitted.

      A fifth man involved in the scheme, 62-year-old Richard A. Fuselier, pleaded guilty to the crime in September.

      The guilty men offered a tax evasion service from 2001 to 2005 in which they prepared more than 1,000 tax returns based on the theory that compensation for personal labor is not taxable, according to Assistant U.S. Attorney Allan Garten.

      "So let's assume for a moment that you would get a W2 that said $40,000," Garten said. "(The guilty men) would list as income $40,000, and then they would deduct the value of your labor of $40,000 ... so that you paid no taxes."

      That's illegal, he said.

      "The argument that compensation for personal labor is not taxable income is both frivolous and has been rejected consistently by the courts and the IRS," Garten said.

      As a matter of policy, he said, the Internal Revenue Service seeks to recoup taxes not properly paid to the government through such schemes.

      The four guilty men are scheduled for sentencing early next year before U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown. They face maximum sentences of five years in prison and fines of $250,000.

      -- Bryan Denson


      * * *

      PAYCHECK PIRACY . . . AND . . . PREFERRED SERVICES . . . MAKES IT EASY FOR THE IRS TO . . . "PIRATE YOUR PAYCHECK!!!!

      Ever . . . NOTICE . . . how all these so called . . . TAX GURUS . . . NEVER . . . put their . . . REAL NAMES . . . or . . . HOME ADDRESS, PERSONAL PHONE OR PERSONAL E-MAIL on any of their advertisements????

      ALL OF THESE TAX GURU CLOWNS SAY THAT THE IRS HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER WORKERS . . . IN WHAT PRIVATE SECTOR????

      ARE YOU KIDDING ME????

      ARE ALL OF THESE TAX GURU CLOWNS TALKING ABOUT THE STATE'S PRIVATE CORPORATIONS????

      WHAT PRIVATE SECTOR WORKERS ARE THEY TALKING ABOUT????

      ALL PRIVATE SECTOR EMPLOYEES THAT WORK FOR A STATE LICENSED CORPORATION ARE . . . "IN THE SYSTEM EMPLOYEES."

      THE 50 FEDERAL STATES IN THE NEW UNION HAVE THE ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY AND POWER AND JURISDICTION TO REGULATE AND TAX THEIR PRIVATE SECTOR CORPORATIONS BECAUSE THEY CREATED THEM PERIOD!!!!


      MAN THESE TAX GURUS ARE REALLY DUMB . . . OR . . . THEY ARE ALL AGENTS SETTING ALL OF YOU UP FOR A BUST 4 TO 5 TO 6 YEARS LATER!!!!

      AND ALL THE WELL KNOWN TAX ATTORNEYS ARE PRAYING THAT YOU GET CHARGED AND INDICTED SO THAT THEY CAN PICK UP A CLIENT OUT OF PATRIOT EXPOS . . . AND . . . THE TRUTH ATTACK SEMINARS!!!!


      THE FIRST MISTAKE THAT ALL THESE BIG KNOW IT ALL TAX GURUS MAKE IS THAT THEY FAIL TO MAKE THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE STATE'S . . . "PRIVATE ENTERPRISE" . . . AS OPPOSED TO THOSE WHO ARE ENGAGED IN . . . "FREE ENTERPRISE."

      If you go to your CORPORATE STATE and apply for a . . . MASTER BUSINESS LICENSE . . . to sell . . . BIKINI BOTTOM MOCHAS . . . or . . . STARBUCKS COFFEE . . .your . . . CORPORATE STATE . . . issues you . . . A MASTER BUSINESS LICENSE . . . and a . . . FEDERAL TAX ID NUMBER . . . or . . . UBI NUMBER . . . YOUR STATE LICENSED CORPORATION QUALIFIES AS A . . . POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE . . . AND AN . . . INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE STATE . . . AS CONTEMPLATED BY . . . 26 U.S.C. 3401 (c).

      THE CORPORATE STATES . . . in . . . ALL 50 STATES . . . in . . . THE NEW UNION . . . have the absolute inherent authority and power and jurisdiction to REGULATE and TAX all of their PRIVATE SECTOR CORPORATIONS like . . . MCDONALDS . . . BURGER KING . . . TACO BELL . . . KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN . . . BASKIN ROBBINS . . . ALBERTSONS GROCERY STORE . . . SAFEWAY GROCERY STORE . . . 7-11 . . . MINI-MART . . . SEARS . . . JC PENNEYS . . . BON MACY'S . . . AL'S AUTO SUPPLY . . . JORVE ROOFING . . . ALLEY CHEVROLET . . . WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE.

      ALL OF THOSE PRIVATE SECTOR CORPORATIONS ARE LICENSED ENTITIES CREATED BY THE CORPORATE STATE!!!!

      ALL OF THOSE PRIVATE CORPORATIONS ARE IN FACT AND LAW . . . "UNITED STATES CORPORATIONS," . . . DUH!!!!

      THE FEDERAL DISTRICT STATES HAVE THE RIGHT TO REGULATE AND TAX THEIR . . . PRIVATE ENTERPRISES . . . PERIOD!!!!

      THE FEDERAL DISTRICT STATES IN . . . THE NEW UNION . . . HAVE THE RIGHT TO REGULATE AND TAX THEIR . . . PRIVATE SECTOR . . . EMPLOYEES . . . AND . . . EMPLOYERS!!!!

      IF YOU ARE AN EMPLOYEE OF ANY OF THOSE STATE LICENSED CORPORATIONS, YOU ARE WORKING IN . . . "THE FEDERAL STATES PRIVATE ENTERPRISE"!!!!

      THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN . . . "PRIVATE ENTERPRISE" . . . AND . . . "FREE ENTERPRISE"!!!!

      THE 50 CORPORATE STATES HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO REGULATE OR TAX THOSE WHO ARE ENGAGED IN THEIR . . . "RIGHT TO CONTRACT" . . . AND WHO ARE ENGAGED IN . . . "FREE ENTERPRISE"!!!!

      If Luis Ewing and his 3 sons decide to sell Mochas as . . . LUIS EWING'S MOCHA STAND . . . and we do NOT go to the CORPORATE STATE to apply for any . . . BUSINESS LICENSE . . . and just start selling Mochas to private individuals, we are engaged in our "right to contract" and we are engaged in . . . "FREE ENTERPRISE."

      We are NOT conducting any . . . BUSINESS . . . "in this State" . . . or . . . "within this State."

      It's an . . . "A & B CONVERSATION" . . . and the . . . "DISTRICT STATE OF WASHINGTON". . . U.S. ATTORNEYS . . . AND . . . JUDGES . . . "C THERE WAY OUT OF IT" . . . BECAUSE . . . "THE DISTRICT STATE OF WASHINGTON" . . . CANNOT IMPAIR THE OBLIGATION OF A CONTRACT!!!!

      "THE CASE LAW" . . . "ONE (1) PATRIDIOT NAMED L.B. BORK SAYS HIS NUMBER 1 RULE IS FOR YOU TO NOT TO READ CASE LAW . . . WHICH IS SILLY, BECAUSE THE CASE LAW HE SAYS NOT TO READ SAYS" . . . that we have . . . "THE COMMON LAW RIGHT" . . . to reach our hands into the hole or opening in the doorway of . . . "THE STREAM OF COMMERCE" . . . and get out money out . . . "WITHOUT" . . . actually having to enter . . . "THE STREAM OF COMMERCE"!!!!

      Sorry, you will have to wait for my 2 Seminars next year or 2011 or 2012 sometime to get those cites!

      Luis Ewing and his 3 sons have no . . . "MINIMAL CONTACTS" . . . with the . . . "DISTRICT STATE OF WASHINGTON"!!!!


      THE SECOND MISTAKE THAT ALL THESE BIG KNOW IT ALL TAX GURUS MAKE IS THAT THEY FAIL TO RECOGNIZE THAT EVERY PERSON OR BUSINESS OR CORPORATION THAT APPLIES TO THE CORPORATE STATE FOR A MASTERS BUSINESS LICENSE TO DO BUSINESS IN THE DISTRICT STATE, IN THIS STATE OR WITHIN THIS STATE IS ISSUED A FEDERAL TAX ID NUMBER IS IN FACT AND LAW A UNITED STATES CORPORATION.

      1.) THIS APPLIES TO EVERY . . . GENERAL CONTRACTOR!!!!

      2.) THIS APPLIES TO EVERY . . . ROOFING CONTRACTOR!!!!

      3.) THIS APPLIES TO EVERY . . . LICENSED PLUMBER!!!!

      4.) THIS APPLIES TO EVERY . . . LICENSED ELECTRICIAN!!!!


      EVERY STATE LICENSED CORPORATION IS IN FACT AND LAW . . "A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE". . . AS CONTEMPLATED BY . . . "26 U.S.C. 3401 (c)"!!!!


      EVERY STATE LICENSED CORPORATION IS IN FACT AND LAW . . . "A INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE STATE" . . . AS CONTEMPLATED BY . . . "26 U.S.C. 3401 (c)"!!!!


      See RCW 82.04.200 "In this state" and "WITHIN THIS STATE" "IN THIS STATE" and "WITHIN THIS STATE" includes all federal areas lying within the exterior boundaries of the state. [1961 c 15 82.04.200. Prior: 1955 c 389 21; prior L 1949 c 228 2, part; 1945 c 249 1, part; 1943 c 156 2, part; 1941 c 178 2, part; 1939 c 225 2, part; 1937 c 227 2, part; 1935 c 180 5, part; Rem. Supp. 1949 8370-5, part.] (emphasis added). And;


      "Both parties agreed that, prior to the passage of the Buck Act (1940) 4 U.S.C.A. SSSS 105-110, the various states of the Union had no legal basis for imposing a tax on the activities of a business or individual, when such activities were carried on exclusively within the confines of a federal reservation. They are also in agreement that the effect of the Buck Act was to grant to the states certain taxing powers. This is specifically provided in 4 U.S.C.A. 4 106:"
      "(a) No person shall be relieved from liability for any income tax levied by any State, or by any duly constituted taxing authority therein, having jurisdiction to levy such a tax, by reason of his residing within a Federal area or receiving income from transactions occurring or services performed in such area; and such State or taxing authority shall have full jurisdiction and powers to levy and collect such tax in any Federal area within such State to the same extent and with the same effect as though such area was not a Federal area." Alaska v. Baker, 64 Wn.2d 207, 390 P.2d 1009 (1964) And;


      "The area within, and under, the jurisdiction of a state may come under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States by purchase by the Federal Government for a purpose prescribed by the Federal Constitution and with the consent of the state, or by cession of exclusive jurisdiction by the state to the United States. In either event, the land acquires a territorial status and ceases to be a part of the state, either territorially or jurisdictionally. Concessions Co. v. Morris, 109 Wash. 46, 186 Pac. 655." RYAN v. STATE, 188 Wash. 115, 130 [No. 26060. En Banc. October 28, 1936.] And;


      "Irrespective of what tax is called by state law, if its purpose is to produce revenue, it is income tax or receipts tax Under Buck Act [4 U.S.C.S. sections 105-110"." Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Calvert, (1971) 464 S.W.2d 170, affd. (Tex.) 478 S.W.2d 926, cert den. 409 U.S. 967, 34 L.Ed.2d 234, 93 S.Ct. 293.




      "IN THIS STATE," "WITHIN THIS STATE" as stated in the above RCW Code Section is not one of the united States of America in its original jurisdiction, nor is it part of "The State of Washington." See page 94 Session Laws of 1889-1890, December 13, 1889, making by Legislative Fiat, "State" or "State of Washington" in the Law mean, Territory or Territory of Washington. "WA" is a "fictional State within a state" which was NOT in existence at the time of the creation of The State of Washington, nor was it in existence at the time of the creation of the Territorial Code of 1881 which is still valid law today pursuant to the fact that the Code of 1881 has never been repealed. And


      In addition to the foregoing, RCW 46.04.360, under the section titled "Nonresident," reads: "Nonresident" means any person whose residence is outside this state and who is temporarily sojourning WITHIN THIS STATE. [1961 c 12 § 46.04.360. Prior: 1959 c 49 § 37; prior: (i) 1943 c 153 § 1, part; 1937 c 188 § 1, part; Rem. Supp. 1943 § 6312-1, part. (ii) 1937 c 189 § 1, part; RRS § 6360-1, part.] (emphasis added)


      "Respondent contends article 2(a) RCW 9.100.010 supports its argument that "state", as used in RCW 9.95.120, includes the United States. However reference to article 2(a) supports petitioner's contention. Article 2(a) specifically defines "state" to include the United States, making it clear that when the legislature intends the word "state" to include the federal jurisdiction., it has done so with language clearly manifesting that intent." IN RE LEHMAN, 93 Wn.2d 25, 27, 28 [No. 46150. En Banc. January 10, 1980.] And;


      "The territory is a municipal corporation and government, representing all the people within its borders. The county of Spokane is an agency of the territory to carry on certain functions of government. Neither the territory nor county are the real party in interest; but the inhabitants are. The territory by statute is authorized to accept and collect these bonds for the use of the people, and is a trustee of a trust expressed by statute." AINSWORTH v. TERRITORY OF WASHINGTON, 2 Wash. Territory 270, 278 (Janaury 21, 1887). And;

      "That a state government comes within the purview of the act is manifest by the definition of "person" contained in section 302 (h) (U.S.C.A. (Supt.), section 942 (h)). If state governments are not included within the term "any other government," then no political subdivision of any state nor any state agency comes within the purview of the act, for, obviously, the political subdivisions and agencies "of the foregoing" are such as are set up and included within "any other government" within the scope of the act." SOUNDVIEW PULP CO. v. TAYLOR, 21 Wn.(d) 261, 276 ((July 22, 1944.) And;

      "The state acts in two capacities: governmental and proprietary. The distinction between the two is best stated in Cincinnati v. Cameron, 33 Ohio St. 336, approved by this court in Seattle v. Stirrat, 55 Wash. 560, 104 Pac. 834, 30 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1275:
      "In its governmental or public character, it represents the state, while in the other it is a mere private corporation. As a political institution, the municipality occupies a different position, and is subject to different liabilities from those which are imposed upon the private corporation. But because these two characters are united in the same legal entity, it does not follow that the shield which covers the political equally protects the private corporation." STRAND v. STATE., 16 Wn.(2d) 107, 116 (January 6, 1943). And;


      STATE OF WASHINGTON . . . IS A . . .UNITED STATES CORPORATION . . . AND HAS A . . . FEDERAL TAX ID NUMBER.


      STATE OF CALIFORNIA . . . IS A . . . UNITED STATES CORPORATION . . . AND HAS A . . . . FEDERAL TAX ID NUMBER.


      STATE OF TEXAS . . . IS A . . . UNITED STATES CORPORATION . . . AND HAS A FEDERAL TAX ID NUMBER.


      ALL 3 STATES ARE UNITED STATES CORPORATIONS . . . IN THE . . . NEW UNION!!!!


      ALL 3 STATES . . . ARE . . . DISTRICT STATES!!!!

      ALL 3 STATES . . . ARE . . . FEDERAL DISTRICT STATES!!!!


      ALL 3 DISTRICT STATES HAVE . . . NEW CONSTITUTIONS . . . AND A . . . NEW GOVERNMENT!!!!


      ALL 3 DISTRICT STATES ARE . . . "FEDERAL STATES."


      THAT IS WHERE . . . EDWIN RIVERA . . . PAUL ANDREW MITCHELL . . . CHRISTOPHER HANSEN . . . RALPH WINTERROWD . . . L.B. BORK . . . AND . . . PETE HENDRICKSON . . . HAVE ALL . . . "MISSED THE BOAT."


      THAT IS WHERE ALL . . . "STATE CITIZEN GROUPS" . . . AND . . . "EXPATRIATORS" . . . AND . . . "THE COMMON LAW COURT MOVEMENT" . . . "MISSED THE BOAT"!!!!


      AND YOU WONDER WHY ALL THE JUDGES AND PROSECUTORS . . . LAUGHED . . . AND . . . SNICKERED . . . AND . . . RIDICULED . . . ALL . . . THE PATRIDIOTS . . . WHO WENT INTO COURT AND CLAIMED THAT THEY WERE NOT . . . "A 14TH AMENDMENT SLAVE CITIZEN OF THE CORPORATE UNITED STATES" . . . BUT WERE IN FACT A . . . "CITIZEN OF THE STATE" . . . HA, HA, HA, I'M LAUGHING TOO!!!!


      ALL THESE DUMB PATRIDIOTS PUT THEMSELVES RIGHT BACK INTO . . . THE FEDERAL SOUP . . . THAT THEY WERE TRYING TO GET OUT OF!!!!


      THE DISTRICT COURTS HAVE ALWAYS HAD JURISDICTION IN . . . "THE TERRITORIES" . . . AND . . . "THE POSSESSIONS"!!!!


      "STATE OF WASHINGTON" . . . IS BOTH . . . "A TERRITORY" . . . AND . . . "A POSSESSION."


      When you read . . . THE BUCK ACT . . . you will see that the term . . . "STATE" . . . INCLUDES . . . "ANY TERRITORY" . . . OR . . . "POSSESSION" . . . OF THE . . . "UNITED STATES"!!!!


      These definitions are consistent with the definitions mandated by the "BUCK ACT" which states in part:

      "110(d) The term "State" includes any Territory or possession of the United States." And;

      "11(e) The term "Federal Area" means any lands or premises held or acquired by or for the use of the United States or any department, establishment, or agency of the United States; and any Federal area, or any part thereof, which is located within the exterior boundaries of any State, shall be deemed to be a Federal area located within such State."


      HOW COME . . . "PETE HENDRICKSON" . . . and . . . "RANDAL WHITE" . . . did not . . . INCLUDE THIS FEDERAL BUCK ACT STATUTE . . . IN THEIR ANALYSIS OF . . . 26 U.S.C. 3401 (c)????

      THE TERM . . . STATE . . . INCLUDES . . . ANY TERRITORY . . . OR . . . POSSESSION . . . OF THE UNITED STATES!!!!

      The Social Security Department created 10 social security districts which like a thin plastic sheet overlay all the 50 states of the union. This creates a "fictional federal state within a state," for the purposes of applying the "Public Salary Tax Act" to these areas.

      "There has been created a fictional Federal "state within a state." Howard v. Commisioners of Sinking fund of Louisville, 344 U.S. 624, 73. S.Ct. 465, 476, 97 L.Ed. 617 (1953); Schwartz v. O'Hara TP. School Dist., 100 A.2d 621, 625, 375 Pa. 440.

      (Compare also 31 C.F.R. Part 51.2 and 52.2, which also identifies a fictional State within a state.)

      This fictional "State" is identified by the use of two-letter abbreviations like `WA", "OR", "ID", "AZ", and "TX" as distinguished form the authorized abbreviations like "Wash.", etc. This fictional State also uses a ZIP codes which are within the municipal, exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Congress. And;


      There is a vestige of State sovereignty remaining which cannot be acquired by the United States (District of Columbia) because of the limitation of the United States to powers delegated under the Constitution. See Cal. 7 Ops Atty Gen. 628; 37 Am. Jur, Municipal Corp sections 23, 26; Wichita Falls v. Bowen, 143 Tex. 45, 182 S.W.2d., 154 A.L.R. 1434; 62 CJS, Mun. Corp. section 46, page 133; Norfolk County v. Portsmouth, 186 Va. 1032, 45 S.E.2d. 136; Anchorage v. Akers, (D.C. Alaska), 100 F.Supp. 2; Kiker v. Philadelphia, 346 Pa. 624, 31 A.2d 289.



      This was accomplished by the institution of the "Buck Act," 4 U.S.C.S. sections 104-113, to implement the application of the "Public Salary Tax Act of 1939 to the "employees" working within the so called private sector. This makes all so called private sector workers who have and "use" a Social Security number subject to all State and Federal laws "within the State" a "fictional Federal area" overlaying all the land "within" the United States.


      See RCW Titles 46 and 47 wherein their code sections apply only to the above defined federal areas, to wit: "In this state" and "within this state. See the Buck Act of 1940 cited below at page 4, lines 22-24, to wit: it's codification at USC 4, §§ 105,110, et. sec., is the ciliset or vidiliset. And;


      RCW 82.04.010 Introductory.
      Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, the definitions set forth in the sections preceding RCW 82.04.220 apply throughout this chapter. [1996 c 93 § 4; 1961 c 15 § 82.04.010. Prior: 1955 c 389 § 2; prior: 1949 c 228 § 2, part; 1945 c 249 § 1, part; 1943 c 156 § 2, part; 1941 c 178 § 2, part; 1939 c 225 § 2, part; 1937 c 227 § 2, part; 1935 c 180 § 5, part; Rem. Supp. 1949 § 8370-5, part.]. And;

      CHAPTER 82.52 EXTENSION OF EXCISES TO FEDERAL AREAS

      Sections

      82.52.010 STATE ACCEPTS PROVISIONS OF FEDERAL (BUCK) ACT.
      82.52.020 STATE'S TAX LAWS MADE APPLICABLE TO FEDERAL
      AREAS--EXCEPTION.

      NOTES: Federal areas and jurisdiction: Title 37 RCW. Taxation of federal agencies and instrumentalities: State Constitution Art. 7 §§ 1, 3. And;

      RCW 82.52.010 STATE ACCEPTS PROVISIONS OF FEDERAL (BUCK) ACT.

      The state hereby accepts jurisdiction over all federal areas located "within" its exterior boundaries to the extent that the power and authority to levy and collect taxes therein is granted by that certain act of the 76th congress of the United States, approved by the president on October 9, 1940, and entitled: "An Act to permit the states to extend their sales, use, and income taxes TO PERSONS RESIDING OR CARRYING ON BUSINESS, OR TO TRANSACTIONS OCCURRING, IN FEDERAL AREAS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES." [1961 c 15 § 82.52.010. Prior: 1941 c 175 § 1; Rem. Supp. 1941 § 11337-10.] And;

      RCW 47.04.050 Acceptance of federal acts.

      The "STATE OF WASHINGTON" hereby assents to the purposes, provisions, terms and conditions of the grant of money provided in an act of congress entitled: "An act to provide that the United States shall aid the states in the construction of rural post roads, and for other purposes," approved July 11, 1916, and all acts, grants and appropriations amendatory and supplementary thereto and affecting the "STATE OF WASHINGTON". [1961 c 13 § 47.04.050. Prior: 1937 c 53 § 43; RRS § 6400-43; 1917 c 76 § 1; RRS § 6844.] And;

      RCW 47.42.920 FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS--CONFLICT AND ACCORD.

      If the secretary of the United States department of transportation finds any part of this chapter to be in conflict with federal requirements that are a prescribed condition to the allocation of federal funds to the "state", the conflicting part of this chapter is hereby declared to be inoperative solely to the extent of the conflict and with respect to the agencies directly affected, and such finding or determination shall not affect the operation of the remainder of this chapter in its application to the agencies concerned. THE RULES UNDER THIS CHAPTER SHALL MEET FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE A NECESSARY CONDITION TO THE RECEIPT OF FEDERAL FUNDS BY THE STATE. [1985 c 142 § 4.] And;

      In addition to the foregoing, RCW 46.04.360, under the section titled "Nonresident," reads:


      "Nonresident" means any person whose residence is outside this state and who is temporarily sojourning WITHIN THIS STATE. [1961 c 12 § 46.04.360. Prior: 1959 c 49 § 37; prior: (i) 1943 c 153 § 1, part; 1937 c 188 § 1, part; Rem. Supp. 1943 § 6312-1, part. (ii) 1937 c 189 § 1, part; RRS § 6360-1, part.] (emphasis added) And;


      This Court must take Mandatory Judicial Notice ER201 of CR 44.1 Determination of Foreign Law of which I now object, take exception and make an OFFER OF PROOF ER 103(2) that this "fictional court" has NO jurisdiction in the premises for failure to provide proof that I was "DRIVING" . . . a . . . "MOTOR VEHICLE" . . . in a . . . "FEDERAL AREA" . . . "in this State" . . . or . . . "within this State." See California and North Carolina's consistent definition's of those states "municipal law's" which require some sort of "contract" for proper application within the "federal areas" of the "NEW UNION."

      "Section 11205. "In this State," etc.
      "In this State" or "in the State" means within the exterior limits of the State of California and includes all territory within these limits owned or ceded to the United States of America. Added Stats 1941 section 1, effective July 1, 1943. Prior Law: Stats 1937 ch. 283 section 2 subd (d) p 621, as amended by Stats 1941 ch 162 section 1 p 1202." And;

      "Section 6017. "In this State" or "in the State"
      "In this State" or "in the State" means within the exterior limits of the State of California and includes all territory within these limits owned by or ceded to the United States of America. Added Stats 1941 ch 36 section 1, effective July 1, 1943. Prior Law: (a) Stats 1933 ch 1020 section 2 subd (i) p 2599, as amended by Stats 1935 ch 357 section 2 p 1256, Stats 1937 ch 778 section 1 p 2223, Stats 1939 ch 679 section 2 p 2170, Stats 1941 ch 247 section 1 p 1321. (b) Stats 1935 ch. 361 section 2 subd (j) p 1297, as amended by Stats 1937 ch 683 section 1 p 1936, Stats 1939 ch 677 section 1 p 2154, Stats 1941 ch 247 section 14 p 1334. And;


      "N.C. G.S. 105-164.3(7) "In this State" or "in the State" means within the exterior limits of the State of North Carolina and includes all territories within such limits owned or ceded to the United States of America. (Added Stats. 1941, c. 36, p. 536, section 1.)"

      "N.C. G.S. Sections 105-187.2 A tax is imposed for the privilege of using the highways of this State. This tax is in addition to all other taxes and fees imposed. (Stats. 19889, c.692, s.4.1)

      "N.C. G.S. 12-3 Statutory Construction;
      "State" and "United States".–The word "state," when applied to the different parts of the united States, shall be construed to extend to and include the District of Columbia and the several territories, so called; and the words "United States" shall be construed to include the said districts and territories and all dependencies.'


      It is clear that North Carolina Statutes, California Statutes and Washington Statutes agree completely with the "Buck Act" Title 4 U.S.C.S. sections 105-110, and is indentical in implication and meaning. This tax is imposed on every motor vehicle used in any "federal area" such as the Central District of STATE OF WASHINGTON aka "WA", Social Security Area, federal ZIP Code area, etc.

      ARE YOU DOING BUSINESS . . . "IN THIS STATE" . . . OR . . . "WITHIN THIS STATE"????


      If you are a . . . STATE LICENSED CORPORATION . . . like . . . MCDONALDS . . . OR . . . STARBUCKS COFFEE . . . you are . . . "A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE" . . . as contemplated by . . . "26 U.S.C. 3401 (c)" . . . and . . . "26 U.S.C. 3121 (a)(e)(2)"!!!!


      If you are a . . . STATE LICENSED CORPORATION . . . like . . . MCDONALDS . . . OR . . . STARBUCKS COFFEE . . . you are . . . "AN INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE STATE" . . . as contemplated by . . . "26 U.S.C. 3401 (c)" . . . and . . . "26 U.S.C. 3121 (a)(e)(2)"!!!!


      "...person shall include the counties, municipalities, and all political subdivisions of this state." Strenge v. Clarke, 89 Wn.2d 23, 31, 569 P.2d 60 [No. 43813. En Banc. September 8, 1977.] And;


      "STATE OF CALIFORNIA" . . . IS BOTH . . . "A TERRITORY" . . . AND . . . "A POSSESSION."


      "STATE OF TEXAS" . . . IS BOTH . . . "A TERRITORY" . . . AND . . . "A POSSESSION."


      THIS IS WHY THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS DO NOT HAVE TO GO THROUGH A SO CALLED . . . "STATE EXTRADITION PROCEEDING" . . . TO HAUL ANY . . . RESIDENT . . . OR . . . INHABITANT . . . WHO IS A DEFENDANT LIVING IN. . . THE TERRITORY OF WASHINGTON . . . OR . . . TERRITORY OF CALIFORNIA . . . OR . . . TERRITORY OF TEXAS . . . OR . . . TERRITORY OF ALAMABA. . . INTO A FEDERAL TERRITORIAL COURT.


      SORRY FOLKS, . . . IT'S . . . ALL . . . FEDERAL!!!!


      THE STATE COURTS NO LONGER EXIST IN FACT AND LAW!!!!


      "The supreme court of the United States is a constitutional court. All other Federal courts have been established by acts of Congress, pursuant to authority granted by the constitution of the United States, and, being courts provided for by legislative, and not directly by constitutional authority, the Congress may enact any laws it deems wise for the conduct and operation of such courts." STATE EX REL. N.W. OYSTER CO. v. MEAKIM, 34 Wn.(2d) 131, 138 (July 14, 1949). And;


      "Further, once this court has decided an issue of state law, that interpretation is binding on all lower courts until it is overruled by this court. Godefroy v. Reilly, 146 Wash. 257, 262 P. 639 (1928); cf. Hutto v. Davis, 454 U.S. 370, 375, 70 L. Ed. 2d 556, 102 S. Ct. 703 (1982) ("unless we wish anarchy to prevail within the federal judicial system, a precedent of this court must be followed by the lower federal courts . . ."). State v. Gore, 101 Wn.2d 481, 487, 681 P.2d 227, 39 A.L.R. 4th 975 (1984). And;


      That was the WASHINGTON STATE SUPREME COURT TALKING!!!!
      THE WASHINGTON STATE SUPREME COURT IS A LOWER FEDERAL COURT THAT MUST FOLLOW THE PRECEDENTS OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT THE SAME AS ANY LOWER FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OR ANY OTHER FEDERAL DISTRICT STATE COURT LIKE . . . "THE DISTRICT STATE OF TEXAS."

      The WASHINGTON STATE SUPREME COURT was clearly referring to itself and said . . . "unless we wish anarchy to prevail within the federal judicial system, a precedent of this court must be followed by the lower federal courts. . . ." State v. Gore, supra.

      A PRECEDENT OF . . . THIS COURT . . . MUST BE FOLLOWED BY . . . THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS. State v. Gore, supra.

      THE STATE SUPERIOR COURTS, THE STATE MUNICIPAL COURTS AND THE STATE'S DISTRICT COURTS ARE THE . . . ONLY COURTS THAT ARE LOWER THAN THE WASHINGTON STATE SUPREME COURT . . . IN THIS STATE . . . OR . . . WITHIN THIS STATE, . . . THEREFORE IT FOLLOWS THAT ALL 3 COURTS ARE THE . . . LOWER FEDERAL COURTS . . . THAT THE WASHINGTON STATE SUPREME COURT SAID MUST FOLLOW A PRECEDENT OF THIS COURT REFERRING TO ITSELF.

      IT'S ALL ONE (1) COMPLETE FEDERAL JUDICIAL SYSTEM!!!!


      And if the FIRST ORIGINAL DEJURE Constitution for "The State of Washington" was . . . NOT SUSPENDED AND PLACED INTO ARCHIVES . . . I would declare that I was or am domiciled in a . . . judicial district of the United States . . . ("The State of Washington") . . . wherein there was supposed to be District Courts seated (true Art. three Courts) and I would not, (A) be subject to the jurisdiction of Federal Courts, or (B) enforcement of summons: see IRC title 26 section 7701 (39): below:


      "IF ANY CITIZEN OR RESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT RESIDE I (AND IS NOT FOUND IN) ANY UNITED STATES JUDICIAL DISTRICT, SUCH CITIZEN OR RESIDENT SHALL BE TREATED AS RESIDING IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FOR PURPOSES OF ANY PROVISIONS OF THIS TITLE-
      (a) jurisdiction of the courts, or
      (b) enforcement of summons."


      Also see IRC title 26 sec. 7408 (C), added below:,


      "(c) Citizens and residents outside the United States.--If any citizen or resident of the United States does not have his principal place of business in, any United States judicial district , such citizen or resident shall be treated for purposes of this section as residing in the District of Columbia."


      THE CRIMINALLY CORRUPT . . . ATTORNEYS . . . PLANNED IN 1856 TO ABOLISH ALL JUDICIAL DISTRICTS . . . AND DID ABOLISH ALL JUDICIAL DISTRICTS WITHIN THE UNITED STATES . . . PRIOR TO THE CIVIL WAR EVEN STARTING. . . AND DID SO BY . . . "THE ACT OF THE 34TH CONGRESS" . . . AS CITED IN BOYER v. FOWLER, WHICH READS IN PART:

      "The act of Congress Aug. 16, 1856, regulating Courts in this Territory, and requiring the Judges of the Supreme Court to assign places for holding Courts, took effect when the order was made, pursuant to the act. The Judicial District of King county having been abolished, by the order of the judges, Nov. 10, 1856, under said act, the clerk of that Court, from that date, lost his legal existence–hence his subsequent official acts were nullities. "A majority of the Judges met in Olympia, then the Capital of the Territory, on the 10th day of November, 1856, and made the necessary order to give effect to the act of Congress. It has been held by this court, in the case of the Territory vs. Leschi, that this act took effect from the time the orders were made by the Judges of the Supreme Court. It is claimed however, that the act of Congress contemplated something more than an informal meeting of the Judges. It will be observed on an examination of the act , that no terms are used indicating orders in term time –the reference is to the orders of the Judges, or a majority of them, and not of the Court. The organic act confers upon the Judges the appointment of clerks for the District Courts. King county, up to the passage of the act of Congress referred to, was a Judicial District. On the said order of the Judges made the 10th day of November, 1856, the District Court for King County was merged into the District Court for the Second Judicial District. The clerk of the King county District Court, for ministerial or judicial purposes, ceased to exist; and as this suit was instituted subsequently to the order made by the Judges, and the bond on which the recovery is claimed, was executed on the 13th day of December, 1856, it follows that there was no District Court for King county –- no clerk having a legal official existence, and the whole proceeding a nullity. MARY ANN BOYER vs. MILES FOWLER et al. [1 Wash.T Sup. Ct. Dec. 1860]


      YOU CAN FIND . . . "THE ACT OF THE 34TH CONGRESS". . . THAT WAS PASSED ON . . . "AUGUST 16, 1856" . . . "ABOLISHING ALL JUDICIAL DISTRICTS WITHIN THE UNITED STATES" . . . IN . . . "THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD."


      IT IS NOW PRESUMED THAT YOU . . . SHALL BE TREATED FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION AS . . . "RESIDING IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA."

      SEE . . . 26 U.S.C. 4612 (4)(A).

      BECAUSE NOW, IT IS . . . IMPOSSIBLE . . . TO BE . . . "FOUND IN A JUDICIAL DISTRICT" . . . AS CONTEMPLATED BY . . . IRC TITLE 26 SECTION 7408 (c).

      BECAUSE ALL JUDICIAL DISTRICTS WITHIN THE UNITED STATES WERE ABOLISHED IN 1856!!!!


      "The State of Washington" is NOT the same as . . . "STATE OF WASHINGTON."

      "The State of California" is NOT the same as . . . "STATE OF CALIFORNIA."

      "The State of Texas" is NOT the same as . . . "STATE OF TEXAS."


      THERE ARE . . . "TWO (2) STATES" . . . AND . . . "TWO (2) CONSTITUTIONS" . . . AND . . . "TWO (2) GOVERNMENTS" . . . OR . . . MORE IN ALL 50 OF THE NEW STATES IN THE NEW UNION!!!!


      EVERY ONE OF YOU OUT THERE NEEDS TO TAKE A FIELD TRIP TO YOUR STATE CAPITAL AND VISIT . . . THE ARCHIVES DIVISION OF THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE . . . AND INSPECT YOUR . . . FIRST ORIGINAL DEJURE CONSTITUTION TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS LAWFULLY AMENDED!!!!


      "Whether a Constitution shall be amended is a "political question," but whether it has been legally amended is a "judicial question." McConaughy v. Secretary of State, 119 N.W. 408, 413, 106 Minn. 392 Words and Phrases "Political Question" And;



      ASK THE HEAD ARCHIVIST IN YOUR STATE CAPITAL:

      1.) HOW MANY CONSTITUTIONS ARE THERE????

      2.) WHAT IS THE MAIN PURPOSE OF THE ARCHIVES????

      3.) CAN I PLEASE HAVE A COPY OF THE MISSION STATEMENT OF THE ARCHIVES????

      4.) CAN I PLEASE HAVE A COPY OF THE FIRST STATUTE THAT CREATED THE ARCHIVES DIVISION OF THE OFFICE OF TH SECRETARY OF STATE????


      "Courts are not deprived of the right to pass upon constitutionality of an amendment to an existing constitution on ground that question is "political question" over which courts have no control, since question of validity of the adoption of an amendment to constitution is a "judicial" and not a "political question". Graham v. Jones, 3 So.2d 761, 767, 198 La.507 Words and Phrases" "Political Question" And;



      The first and only valid Constitution for . . . "The State of Washington" . . . is the . . .1878 Walla Walla Constitution and happens to be the 1 and . . . ONLY . . . Washington Constitution that was reviewed and ordered to be published 50,000 copies by . . . THE 50TH CONGRESS 2d Session, – SENATE – MIS. DOC. No. 55, IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, JANUARY 28, 1889.

      "When a State forms a constitution, which is approved by Congress, it is estopped to deny its validity. The action of Congress cannot be inquired into, for the judicial is bound to follow the action of the political department. White v. Hart, 39 Ga., 306; Powell v. Boon, 43 Ala.l, 459" Luther v. Borden et al., 48 U.S. 1 (1849). And;


      It is also Undisputed that the alleged 1889 [c]onstitution at Volume 0 of the private copy-writed compilation aka "The Revised Code of Washington" is NOT the Constitution upon which the President of the United States of America issued his "Proclamation of Statehood" as that alleged [c]onstitution NEVER went to Congress for approval as required by Senate Bill 185 i.e. "THE ENABLING ACT" which states in part:


      "...the legislature shall remain in abeyance until Congress approves it." And;



      The alleged Volume 0 Private Copyrighted Revised Code of Washington 1889 [c]onstitution has also proceeded in use, in violation of the Organic Act which states in part:


      "...all laws passed by the legislative assembly shall be submitted to the Congress of the United States, and, if disapproved, shall be null and of no effect."


      It is also Undisputed that this court will be unable to produce an "Authentic" "Handwritten" "Certified" copy of the alleged [c]onstitution of the State of Washington, certified in the manner prescribed in the letter from the former governor of the Territory Miles Moore to the President of the United States of America November 4, 1889 which states in part:


      ""To the President: There is herewith transmitted a copy of the Constitution of the State of Washington, certified in the manner prescribed in<br/><br/>(Message over 64 KB, truncated)
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.