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

Willful Failure to file A Winning Strategy (Should be able to use this in a tax court also)

Expand Messages
  • TheChancellor
    Subject: [legality-of-income-tax] A Winning Strategy (Should be able to use this in a tax court also) One of the cases is Walt Maken in Dayton, Ohio. Almost
    Message 1 of 11 , Jul 23, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
       
       
      Subject: [legality-of-income-tax] A Winning Strategy (Should be able to use this in a tax court also)

      One of the cases is Walt Maken in Dayton, Ohio.  Almost 40 months ago (Fall of 2000) he was charged with two counts of 7203 Willful Failure to file and a felony count of "interfering. . ."  

      At his criminal arraignment the judge read Maken the charges and asked if plead guilty or innocent.  Maken, WITHOUT an attorney, replied to this effect: "I'm not going to plead.  Instead at this time, I hereby challenge the JURISDICTION of the federal government to charge me with this crime inside the state of Ohio (specifically Dayton, Ohio). I hereby cite the STATUTORY requirements within 40 USCS 255 -- with specific reference to interpretive note #14 -- and hereby request that the court order the DOJ to produce the documentation specified PER THE STATUTE to establish their criminal jurisdiction."

      Note: Maken did NOT challenge the jurisdiction of the COURT.  Maken challenged the jurisdiction of the PROSECUTOR and requested the court, as an "independent" and "non-biased" THIRD PARTY, to order -- as it MUST when jurisdiction is formally challenged -- for the DOJ to produce the documentation as REQUIRED by the statute.

      Within an hour, Maken walked out and has not set foot inside again.  FORTY months later (July 2003), the DOJ has still NOT responded with the required documentation and his trial has not proceeded any further.  (The charges remain lingering, unprosecuted)

      I believe the reason the government have not responded to Maken is that they CAN'T.  No such documentation exists because NO SUCH JURISDICTION EXISTS. In addition, I believe the Judge, even if he wanted to, cannot let the trial proceed because per federal due process rules, challenges to jurisdiction STOP all further proceedings until resolved.  As such, the matter is immediately appealable to the next court.

      Walt's e-mail is waltmaken@....  He has a website with all his motions posted. Links are below the following graphic. 

      The 40 USCS 255 citation and other similar materials are found on our Truth-in-Taxaton CD-ROMs from the WTP Hearing last year.  This includes a several hundred page document comissioned in 1954 by Eisenhower detailing the limits federal jurisidiction and articulating the basis for the requirements of 40 USCS 255.

      The second case I am aware of is a Calfornia medical marijuana (Prop 215) patient I know that had some legal scuffle with California authorities where his pot was seized.

      Repeatedly, he administratively asked for it back and was told that even though under STATE law he could legally possess med-pot, the state authorities could NOT return his property becuase FEDERAL drug law, operating inside California, prevented them from doing so.

      WITHOUT an attorney -- he filed suit in state court, motioning the court for the return of his property. Attorneys for the state responded, in writing, denying the request stating that federal drug law jurisdiction inside California prevented them from doing so.

      He next responded to the court with a very short memorandum of law citing 3 "points and authorities" one of which was 40 USCS 255.  The other two were Lopez Supreme Court decision (PS: Texas) and the Printz decision (Montana) both regarding federal police jurisidction.  Federal Jurisdiction was the ONLY issue before the court. 

      The state attorneys did NOT directly reply.  At the actual court hearing on the matter, the Attorneys for the state remained silent and did not rebut the points and authorities.  The judge repeatedly chastised the state attorneys that he would HAVE TO rule on the law cited by the med-pot plaintiff.  Again, the Attorneys for the state remained silent squirming in their chairs.

      Guess what happens next?

      One fine California afternoon, about 3 months later, a California Highway patrol car with two of California's finest pulls up to the house.  Out step the officers with  his bag of seized marijuana.

      JURISIDICTION IS THE KEY.
      IT CAN BE CHALLENGED AT ANY TIME.  IT IS A THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT FOR PROSECUTION.
      FORMALLY CHALLENGE THE JURISDICTION OF THE DOJ, --NOT-- THE COURT.



      Committee for Return to a Constitutional Republic form of Government

      for these several States (and captured Nations) united in America

      under the Law of the Land, lawfully approved amendments/treaties and

      International Law (primarily based on customs and treaties) . . .

      Alan Bacon (sui Juris) http://arem-enterprises.org




      Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
      ADVERTISEMENT

      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

    • Joel
      Here s the link to Walt s site, http://www.angelfire.com/oh4/befree/prevfile1.html
      Message 2 of 11 , Jul 24, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
      • Joe
        Hi Would 40 USCS 255 apply in your opinion for u s bankruptcy court? Joe ... __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free,
        Message 3 of 11 , Jul 25, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi
          Would 40 USCS 255 apply in your opinion for u s bankruptcy court?
          Joe
          --- TheChancellor <thechancellor@...> wrote:
          >
          >
          > Subject: [legality-of-income-tax] A Winning Strategy (Should be able to use this in a tax
          > court also)
          >
          >
          > One of the cases is Walt Maken in Dayton, Ohio. Almost 40 months ago (Fall of 2000) he was
          > charged with two counts of 7203 Willful Failure to file and a felony count of "interfering. . ."
          >
          >
          > At his criminal arraignment the judge read Maken the charges and asked if plead guilty or
          > innocent. Maken, WITHOUT an attorney, replied to this effect: "I'm not going to plead. Instead
          > at this time, I hereby challenge the JURISDICTION of the federal government to charge me with
          > this crime inside the state of Ohio (specifically Dayton, Ohio). I hereby cite the STATUTORY
          > requirements within 40 USCS 255 -- with specific reference to interpretive note #14 -- and
          > hereby request that the court order the DOJ to produce the documentation specified PER THE
          > STATUTE to establish their criminal jurisdiction."
          >
          > Note: Maken did NOT challenge the jurisdiction of the COURT. Maken challenged the
          > jurisdiction of the PROSECUTOR and requested the court, as an "independent" and "non-biased"
          > THIRD PARTY, to order -- as it MUST when jurisdiction is formally challenged -- for the DOJ to
          > produce the documentation as REQUIRED by the statute.
          >
          > Within an hour, Maken walked out and has not set foot inside again. FORTY months later (July
          > 2003), the DOJ has still NOT responded with the required documentation and his trial has not
          > proceeded any further. (The charges remain lingering, unprosecuted)
          >
          > I believe the reason the government have not responded to Maken is that they CAN'T. No such
          > documentation exists because NO SUCH JURISDICTION EXISTS. In addition, I believe the Judge, even
          > if he wanted to, cannot let the trial proceed because per federal due process rules, challenges
          > to jurisdiction STOP all further proceedings until resolved. As such, the matter is immediately
          > appealable to the next court.
          >
          > Walt's e-mail is waltmaken@.... He has a website with all his motions posted. Links
          > are below the following graphic.
          >
          > The 40 USCS 255 citation and other similar materials are found on our Truth-in-Taxaton CD-ROMs
          > from the WTP Hearing last year. This includes a several hundred page document comissioned in
          > 1954 by Eisenhower detailing the limits federal jurisidiction and articulating the basis for the
          > requirements of 40 USCS 255.
          >
          > The second case I am aware of is a Calfornia medical marijuana (Prop 215) patient I know that
          > had some legal scuffle with California authorities where his pot was seized.
          >
          > Repeatedly, he administratively asked for it back and was told that even though under STATE
          > law he could legally possess med-pot, the state authorities could NOT return his property
          > becuase FEDERAL drug law, operating inside California, prevented them from doing so.
          >
          > WITHOUT an attorney -- he filed suit in state court, motioning the court for the return of his
          > property. Attorneys for the state responded, in writing, denying the request stating that
          > federal drug law jurisdiction inside California prevented them from doing so.
          >
          > He next responded to the court with a very short memorandum of law citing 3 "points and
          > authorities" one of which was 40 USCS 255. The other two were Lopez Supreme Court decision (PS:
          > Texas) and the Printz decision (Montana) both regarding federal police jurisidction. Federal
          > Jurisdiction was the ONLY issue before the court.
          >
          > The state attorneys did NOT directly reply. At the actual court hearing on the matter, the
          > Attorneys for the state remained silent and did not rebut the points and authorities. The judge
          > repeatedly chastised the state attorneys that he would HAVE TO rule on the law cited by the
          > med-pot plaintiff. Again, the Attorneys for the state remained silent squirming in their
          > chairs.
          >
          > Guess what happens next?
          >
          > One fine California afternoon, about 3 months later, a California Highway patrol car with two
          > of California's finest pulls up to the house. Out step the officers with his bag of seized
          > marijuana.
          >
          > JURISIDICTION IS THE KEY.
          > IT CAN BE CHALLENGED AT ANY TIME. IT IS A THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT FOR PROSECUTION.
          > FORMALLY CHALLENGE THE JURISDICTION OF THE DOJ, --NOT-- THE COURT.
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > Committee for Return to a Constitutional Republic form of Government
          >
          > for these several States (and captured Nations) united in America
          >
          > under the Law of the Land, lawfully approved amendments/treaties and
          >
          > International Law (primarily based on customs and treaties) . . .
          >
          > Alan Bacon (sui Juris) http://arem-enterprises.org
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
          > ADVERTISEMENT
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
          >
          >


          __________________________________
          Do you Yahoo!?
          Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
          http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
        • one_second_delete
          It would seem that Maken could file civil charges for false arrest and collect damages. When their attack fails or is successfully stalled, the Defendent
          Message 4 of 11 , Jul 26, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            It would seem that Maken could file civil charges for false arrest
            and collect damages.

            When their attack fails or is successfully stalled, the Defendent
            should go on the lawful warpath to bring personal Judicial sanctions
            against the government scumbags.

            O_S_D



            > At his criminal arraignment the judge read Maken the charges and
            asked if plead guilty or innocent..............
            >
            > Within an hour, Maken walked out and has not set foot inside again.
            FORTY months later (July 2003), the DOJ has still NOT responded with
            the required documentation and his trial has not proceeded any
            further. (The charges remain lingering, unprosecuted)
          • Nick
            No, not at all, you subject yourself to the jurisdiction of the US which makes that statute Moot. ... be able to use this in a tax ... months ago (Fall of
            Message 5 of 11 , Jul 27, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              No, not at all, you subject yourself to the jurisdiction of the US
              which makes that statute Moot.

              --- In legality-of-income-tax@yahoogroups.com, Joe <fasarius@y...>
              wrote:
              > Hi
              > Would 40 USCS 255 apply in your opinion for u s bankruptcy court?
              > Joe
              > --- TheChancellor <thechancellor@c...> wrote:
              > >
              > >
              > > Subject: [legality-of-income-tax] A Winning Strategy (Should
              be able to use this in a tax
              > > court also)
              > >
              > >
              > > One of the cases is Walt Maken in Dayton, Ohio. Almost 40
              months ago (Fall of 2000) he was
              > > charged with two counts of 7203 Willful Failure to file and a
              felony count of "interfering. . ."
              > >
              > >
              > > At his criminal arraignment the judge read Maken the charges
              and asked if plead guilty or
              > > innocent. Maken, WITHOUT an attorney, replied to this
              effect: "I'm not going to plead. Instead
              > > at this time, I hereby challenge the JURISDICTION of the federal
              government to charge me with
              > > this crime inside the state of Ohio (specifically Dayton, Ohio).
              I hereby cite the STATUTORY
              > > requirements within 40 USCS 255 -- with specific reference to
              interpretive note #14 -- and
              > > hereby request that the court order the DOJ to produce the
              documentation specified PER THE
              > > STATUTE to establish their criminal jurisdiction."
              > >
              > > Note: Maken did NOT challenge the jurisdiction of the COURT.
              Maken challenged the
              > > jurisdiction of the PROSECUTOR and requested the court, as
              an "independent" and "non-biased"
              > > THIRD PARTY, to order -- as it MUST when jurisdiction is
              formally challenged -- for the DOJ to
              > > produce the documentation as REQUIRED by the statute.
              > >
              > > Within an hour, Maken walked out and has not set foot inside
              again. FORTY months later (July
              > > 2003), the DOJ has still NOT responded with the required
              documentation and his trial has not
              > > proceeded any further. (The charges remain lingering,
              unprosecuted)
              > >
              > > I believe the reason the government have not responded to
              Maken is that they CAN'T. No such
              > > documentation exists because NO SUCH JURISDICTION EXISTS. In
              addition, I believe the Judge, even
              > > if he wanted to, cannot let the trial proceed because per
              federal due process rules, challenges
              > > to jurisdiction STOP all further proceedings until resolved. As
              such, the matter is immediately
              > > appealable to the next court.
              > >
              > > Walt's e-mail is waltmaken@h... He has a website with all his
              motions posted. Links
              > > are below the following graphic.
              > >
              > > The 40 USCS 255 citation and other similar materials are found
              on our Truth-in-Taxaton CD-ROMs
              > > from the WTP Hearing last year. This includes a several hundred
              page document comissioned in
              > > 1954 by Eisenhower detailing the limits federal jurisidiction
              and articulating the basis for the
              > > requirements of 40 USCS 255.
              > >
              > > The second case I am aware of is a Calfornia medical marijuana
              (Prop 215) patient I know that
              > > had some legal scuffle with California authorities where his pot
              was seized.
              > >
              > > Repeatedly, he administratively asked for it back and was told
              that even though under STATE
              > > law he could legally possess med-pot, the state authorities
              could NOT return his property
              > > becuase FEDERAL drug law, operating inside California, prevented
              them from doing so.
              > >
              > > WITHOUT an attorney -- he filed suit in state court, motioning
              the court for the return of his
              > > property. Attorneys for the state responded, in writing, denying
              the request stating that
              > > federal drug law jurisdiction inside California prevented them
              from doing so.
              > >
              > > He next responded to the court with a very short memorandum of
              law citing 3 "points and
              > > authorities" one of which was 40 USCS 255. The other two were
              Lopez Supreme Court decision (PS:
              > > Texas) and the Printz decision (Montana) both regarding federal
              police jurisidction. Federal
              > > Jurisdiction was the ONLY issue before the court.
              > >
              > > The state attorneys did NOT directly reply. At the actual
              court hearing on the matter, the
              > > Attorneys for the state remained silent and did not rebut the
              points and authorities. The judge
              > > repeatedly chastised the state attorneys that he would HAVE TO
              rule on the law cited by the
              > > med-pot plaintiff. Again, the Attorneys for the state remained
              silent squirming in their
              > > chairs.
              > >
              > > Guess what happens next?
              > >
              > > One fine California afternoon, about 3 months later, a
              California Highway patrol car with two
              > > of California's finest pulls up to the house. Out step the
              officers with his bag of seized
              > > marijuana.
              > >
              > > JURISIDICTION IS THE KEY.
              > > IT CAN BE CHALLENGED AT ANY TIME. IT IS A THRESHOLD
              REQUIREMENT FOR PROSECUTION.
              > > FORMALLY CHALLENGE THE JURISDICTION OF THE DOJ, --NOT-- THE
              COURT.
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > Committee for Return to a Constitutional Republic form of
              Government
              > >
              > > for these several States (and captured Nations) united in
              America
              > >
              > > under the Law of the Land, lawfully approved
              amendments/treaties and
              > >
              > > International Law (primarily based on customs and
              treaties) . . .
              > >
              > > Alan Bacon (sui Juris) http://arem-enterprises.org
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
              -------------
              > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              > > ADVERTISEMENT
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
              Service.
              > >
              > >
              >
              >
              > __________________________________
              > Do you Yahoo!?
              > Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
              > http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
            • flushirs
              ... Nick, This is a good point, however, since the government is using the statutes as law, then it becomes their law. And their statutes believe it or not,
              Message 6 of 11 , Jul 27, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In legality-of-income-tax@yahoogroups.com, "Nick"
                <nickster97@y...> wrote:
                > No, not at all, you subject yourself to the jurisdiction of the US
                > which makes that statute Moot.

                Nick,

                This is a good point, however, since the government is using the
                statutes as law, then it becomes their law. And their statutes
                believe it or not, are in harmony with common law, however, it is
                the APPLICATION of those codes and regulations that is at fault.

                The government appears to be acting on some kind of implied or
                assummed contract. Was this contract properly disclosed to anyone?

                Let's assume for a moment that it may be our Social Security number
                that "contracts" us into their system. Remember, the essential
                elements of a contract must have: a. an offer, b. full disclosure of
                the terms, c. acceptance, and d. at least two signatures. Think
                back when we all accepted our SS#s. We were told by others that
                we HAD to have a number in order to work. We dutifully went down
                and got the number without all of the terms of the "contract"
                disclosed to us. That, is of course a fraud which indeed nullifies
                the contract. It is my opinion that the government is relying upon
                these kinds of contracts along with our ignorance to bind us to them.

                I have been studying my case that the government sent my way, which
                is a "Complaint for Permanent Injunction", which means that they
                are attempting to force me to withhold from my workers at Cencal.
                They make the assumption that I have "employees" which is defined
                in Title 26 as government workers.
                (c) Employee
                For purposes of this chapter, the term ''employee'' includes an
                officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State,
                or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or
                any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing.
                The term ''employee'' also includes an officer of a corporation.

                (d) Employer
                For purposes of this chapter, the term ''employer'' means the person
                for whom an individual performs or performed any service, of whatever
                nature, as the employee of such person, except that -

                It's that simple. Assuming they
                win their case, I would be one of the first people in California
                that would be ordered to lie and steal from his workers by
                the "government". That of course is a violation of God's law.

                Therefore, if the statutes are their law, then we would have a
                conflict at law in that only the Secretary (of the Treasury)26 USC
                6301 is allowed to collect taxes or his authorized delegate.
                Also see 7701 at 11 and 12 Presumably, an authorized delegate would
                indeed be a government worker.

                Therefore, jurisdiction is extremely important, so if there isn't
                any, then the case cannot proceed under these conditons.

                You make the comment above that we "subject ourselves to the
                jurisdiction" of the US.

                I've spent the last few days reading a book on jurisdiction, it's
                called "Jurisdiction and Practice of the Courts of the United States"
                by Charles Bunn, Fifth Editon, 1949.

                On page 11 he states the following: "First, is this case within the
                Judicial Power defined in the Constitution: Second, is it within the
                jurisdiction which Congress has conferred by statute on the court in
                question? If either question is answered no, the court has no
                jurisdiction, and the case must be dismissed. This is so independent
                of the wishes or the stipulatons of the parties. JURISDICTION OF A
                GIVEN CASE (UNLIKE JURISDICTION OF THE PERSON OF A PARTICULAR
                DEFENDANT) CAN BE CONFERRED ON A FEDERAL COURT ONLY BY THE
                CONSTITUTION AND BY STATUTE; NEVER BY CONSENT."

                Therefore the question I think we should ask, is the UNITED STATES
                DISTRICT COURT a "Judicial Power" defined in the Constitution.
                Is the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT within the jurisdiction which
                Congress has conferred by statute on the court in question. Again,
                if the answer is no on either issue, then of course the USDC lacks
                jurisdiction of the case.

                So why are we then concerned about consenting to the jurisdiction?
                Myself and others have been extremely concerned about the consent
                issue.

                It is my OPINION that the USDC is not a judicial power, but a court
                centered around the executive branch of the government. And perhaps,
                by entering a motion or a plea then "CONTRACTS" us into their power
                structure. Since there can be no law that interfers with contracts,
                as long as the contracts don't violate any rights or law, then
                one is free to contract at will and will bind himself to them.
                However, without full disclosure, as with dealing with IRS,
                the whole thing becomes a farce.

                However, this purported contract, if it is based upon a fraud, cannot
                hold the test of law. Anything based upon a fraud, is null and void.

                So then, is it the implied contract that binds us to this nonsense,
                rather than an operation at law?

                I'm basically thinking out loud here, and I'm not making any
                outlandish claims. But I hope this adds to your knowledge.

                Regards,

                Al Thompson
              • Nick
                Al, This isn t rocket science, its not a contract. The W-4 is a government form to hold money on an agreement with the employer (United States). This comes
                Message 7 of 11 , Jul 27, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  Al, This isn't rocket science, its not a contract.

                  The W-4 is a government form to hold money on an agreement with the
                  employer (United States). This comes from the current payment tax
                  act (1943) that was offered as an incentive to employers and
                  employees of the private sector to withhold income for the victory
                  tax act of 1942. When the tax was removed, and was voluntary by the
                  way (which is why there must be an agreement with the employer...
                  (3402(n)), this left the current tax payments act standing without
                  any tax.

                  So, now your employer sends in a W-4 and a W-2, which now becomes
                  prima facia evidence that you are an "employee" and subject to title
                  26 which is just a large law to take care of the public salary tax
                  act of 1939.

                  Thats all there is to it.



                  --- In legality-of-income-tax@yahoogroups.com, "flushirs"
                  <althompsonca@c...> wrote:
                  > --- In legality-of-income-tax@yahoogroups.com, "Nick"
                  > <nickster97@y...> wrote:
                  > > No, not at all, you subject yourself to the jurisdiction of the
                  US
                  > > which makes that statute Moot.
                  >
                  > Nick,
                  >
                  > This is a good point, however, since the government is using the
                  > statutes as law, then it becomes their law. And their statutes
                  > believe it or not, are in harmony with common law, however, it is
                  > the APPLICATION of those codes and regulations that is at fault.
                  >
                  > The government appears to be acting on some kind of implied or
                  > assummed contract. Was this contract properly disclosed to anyone?
                  >
                  > Let's assume for a moment that it may be our Social Security number
                  > that "contracts" us into their system. Remember, the essential
                  > elements of a contract must have: a. an offer, b. full disclosure
                  of
                  > the terms, c. acceptance, and d. at least two signatures. Think
                  > back when we all accepted our SS#s. We were told by others that
                  > we HAD to have a number in order to work. We dutifully went down
                  > and got the number without all of the terms of the "contract"
                  > disclosed to us. That, is of course a fraud which indeed nullifies
                  > the contract. It is my opinion that the government is relying upon
                  > these kinds of contracts along with our ignorance to bind us to
                  them.
                  >
                  > I have been studying my case that the government sent my way, which
                  > is a "Complaint for Permanent Injunction", which means that they
                  > are attempting to force me to withhold from my workers at Cencal.
                  > They make the assumption that I have "employees" which is defined
                  > in Title 26 as government workers.
                  > (c) Employee
                  > For purposes of this chapter, the term ''employee'' includes an
                  > officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a
                  State,
                  > or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia,
                  or
                  > any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing.
                  > The term ''employee'' also includes an officer of a corporation.
                  >
                  > (d) Employer
                  > For purposes of this chapter, the term ''employer'' means the
                  person
                  > for whom an individual performs or performed any service, of
                  whatever
                  > nature, as the employee of such person, except that -
                  >
                  > It's that simple. Assuming they
                  > win their case, I would be one of the first people in California
                  > that would be ordered to lie and steal from his workers by
                  > the "government". That of course is a violation of God's law.
                  >
                  > Therefore, if the statutes are their law, then we would have a
                  > conflict at law in that only the Secretary (of the Treasury)26 USC
                  > 6301 is allowed to collect taxes or his authorized delegate.
                  > Also see 7701 at 11 and 12 Presumably, an authorized delegate
                  would
                  > indeed be a government worker.
                  >
                  > Therefore, jurisdiction is extremely important, so if there isn't
                  > any, then the case cannot proceed under these conditons.
                  >
                  > You make the comment above that we "subject ourselves to the
                  > jurisdiction" of the US.
                  >
                  > I've spent the last few days reading a book on jurisdiction, it's
                  > called "Jurisdiction and Practice of the Courts of the United
                  States"
                  > by Charles Bunn, Fifth Editon, 1949.
                  >
                  > On page 11 he states the following: "First, is this case within
                  the
                  > Judicial Power defined in the Constitution: Second, is it within
                  the
                  > jurisdiction which Congress has conferred by statute on the court
                  in
                  > question? If either question is answered no, the court has no
                  > jurisdiction, and the case must be dismissed. This is so
                  independent
                  > of the wishes or the stipulatons of the parties. JURISDICTION OF
                  A
                  > GIVEN CASE (UNLIKE JURISDICTION OF THE PERSON OF A PARTICULAR
                  > DEFENDANT) CAN BE CONFERRED ON A FEDERAL COURT ONLY BY THE
                  > CONSTITUTION AND BY STATUTE; NEVER BY CONSENT."
                  >
                  > Therefore the question I think we should ask, is the UNITED STATES
                  > DISTRICT COURT a "Judicial Power" defined in the Constitution.
                  > Is the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT within the jurisdiction which
                  > Congress has conferred by statute on the court in question. Again,
                  > if the answer is no on either issue, then of course the USDC lacks
                  > jurisdiction of the case.
                  >
                  > So why are we then concerned about consenting to the jurisdiction?
                  > Myself and others have been extremely concerned about the consent
                  > issue.
                  >
                  > It is my OPINION that the USDC is not a judicial power, but a court
                  > centered around the executive branch of the government. And
                  perhaps,
                  > by entering a motion or a plea then "CONTRACTS" us into their power
                  > structure. Since there can be no law that interfers with
                  contracts,
                  > as long as the contracts don't violate any rights or law, then
                  > one is free to contract at will and will bind himself to them.
                  > However, without full disclosure, as with dealing with IRS,
                  > the whole thing becomes a farce.
                  >
                  > However, this purported contract, if it is based upon a fraud,
                  cannot
                  > hold the test of law. Anything based upon a fraud, is null and
                  void.
                  >
                  > So then, is it the implied contract that binds us to this nonsense,
                  > rather than an operation at law?
                  >
                  > I'm basically thinking out loud here, and I'm not making any
                  > outlandish claims. But I hope this adds to your knowledge.
                  >
                  > Regards,
                  >
                  > Al Thompson
                • M Furtado
                  Al, ... How are they addressing the definition of Employee? Are they using the includes is expansive crap argument to say you are an employer and they are
                  Message 8 of 11 , Sep 9, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Al,
                    You wrote:
                    > They make the assumption that I have "employees" which is defined
                    > in Title 26 as government
                    workers. 
                    > (c) Employee
                    > For purposes of this chapter, the
                    term ''employee'' includes an
                    > officer, employee, or elected official of
                    the United States, a State,
                    > or any political subdivision thereof, or
                    the District of Columbia, or
                    > any agency or instrumentality of any one
                    or more of the foregoing.
                    > The term ''employee'' also includes an
                    officer of a corporation.
                    How are they addressing the definition of "Employee?"
                     
                    Are they using the "includes is expansive crap argument" to say you are an employer and they are employees?
                    Do you have a copy of the Decembder 7, 1943 Federal Register that defines Employee USC 3401(c) and
                    CFR 31.3401(c)-1?
                     
                    Aloha! Mel
                     
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: "flushirs" <althompsonca@...>
                    Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2003 7:24 AM
                    Subject: [legality-of-income-tax] Re: Willful Failure to file A Winning Strategy (Should be able to use this in a tax court also)

                    > --- In legality-of-income-tax@yahoogroups.com, "Nick"
                    > <
                    face=Arial size=2>nickster97@y...> wrote:
                    > > No, not at all, you subject yourself to the jurisdiction of
                    the US
                    > > which makes that statute Moot.
                    >
                    >
                    Nick,
                    >
                    > This is a good point, however, since the government is
                    using the
                    > statutes as law, then it becomes their law.  And their
                    statutes
                    > believe it or not, are in harmony with common law, however, it
                    is
                    > the APPLICATION of those codes and regulations that is at
                    fault.
                    >
                    > The government appears to be acting on some kind of
                    implied or
                    > assummed contract.  Was this contract properly disclosed
                    to anyone?
                    >
                    > Let's assume for a moment that it may be our Social
                    Security number
                    > that "contracts" us into their system.  Remember,
                    the essential
                    > elements of a contract must have: a. an offer, b. full
                    disclosure of
                    > the terms, c. acceptance, and d. at least two
                    signatures.  Think
                    > back when we all accepted our SS#s.  We
                    were told by others that
                    > we HAD to have a number in order to work. 
                    We dutifully went down
                    > and got the number without all of the terms of
                    the "contract"
                    > disclosed to us.  That, is of course a fraud which
                    indeed nullifies
                    > the contract.  It is my opinion that the
                    government is relying upon
                    > these kinds of contracts along with our
                    ignorance to bind us to them.
                    >
                    > I have been studying my case that
                    the government sent my way, which
                    > is a "Complaint for Permanent
                    Injunction", which means that they
                    > are attempting to force me to
                    withhold from my workers at Cencal.
                    > They make the assumption that I have
                    "employees" which is defined
                    > in Title 26 as government workers. 
                    > (c) Employee
                    > For purposes of this chapter, the term
                    ''employee'' includes an
                    > officer, employee, or elected official of the
                    United States, a State,
                    > or any political subdivision thereof, or the
                    District of Columbia, or
                    > any agency or instrumentality of any one or
                    more of the foregoing.
                    > The term ''employee'' also includes an officer
                    of a corporation.
                    >
                    > (d) Employer
                    > For purposes of this
                    chapter, the term ''employer'' means the person
                    > for whom an individual
                    performs or performed any service, of whatever
                    > nature, as the employee
                    of such person, except that -
                    >
                    > It's that simple.  Assuming
                    they
                    > win their case, I would be one of the first people in
                    California
                    > that would be ordered to lie and steal from his workers by
                    > the "government". That of course is a violation of God's law.
                    >
                    > Therefore, if the statutes are their law, then we would have a
                    >
                    conflict at law in that only the Secretary (of the Treasury)26 USC
                    > 6301
                    is allowed to collect taxes or his authorized delegate. 
                    > Also see
                    7701 at 11 and 12 Presumably, an authorized delegate would
                    > indeed be a
                    government worker.
                    >
                    > Therefore, jurisdiction is extremely
                    important, so if there isn't
                    > any, then the case cannot proceed under
                    these conditons. 
                    >
                    > You make the comment above that we
                    "subject ourselves to the
                    > jurisdiction" of the US. 
                    >
                    > I've spent the last few days reading a book on jurisdiction,
                    it's
                    > called "Jurisdiction and Practice of the Courts of the United
                    States"
                    > by Charles Bunn, Fifth Editon, 1949.
                    >
                    > On page
                    11 he states the following: "First, is this case within the
                    > Judicial
                    Power defined in the Constitution: Second, is it within the
                    >
                    jurisdiction which Congress has conferred by statute on the court in
                    >
                    question?  If either question is answered no, the court has no
                    >
                    jurisdiction, and the case must be dismissed.  This is so independent
                    > of the wishes or the stipulatons of the parties.  JURISDICTION OF
                    A
                    > GIVEN CASE (UNLIKE JURISDICTION OF THE PERSON OF A PARTICULAR
                    > DEFENDANT) CAN BE CONFERRED ON A FEDERAL COURT ONLY BY THE
                    >
                    CONSTITUTION AND BY STATUTE; NEVER BY CONSENT."
                    >
                    > Therefore the
                    question I think we should ask, is the UNITED STATES
                    > DISTRICT COURT a
                    "Judicial Power" defined in the Constitution.
                    > Is the UNITED STATES
                    DISTRICT COURT within the jurisdiction which
                    > Congress has conferred by
                    statute on the court in question.  Again,
                    > if the answer is no on
                    either issue, then of course the USDC lacks
                    > jurisdiction of the
                    case.
                    >
                    > So why are we then concerned about consenting to the
                    jurisdiction?
                    > Myself and others have been extremely concerned about the
                    consent
                    > issue.
                    >
                    > It is my OPINION that the USDC is not a
                    judicial power, but a court
                    > centered around the executive branch of the
                    government.  And perhaps,
                    > by entering a motion or a plea then
                    "CONTRACTS" us into their power
                    > structure.  Since there can be no
                    law that interfers with contracts,
                    > as long as the contracts don't
                    violate any rights or law, then
                    > one is free to contract at will and will
                    bind himself to them.
                    > However, without full disclosure, as with dealing
                    with IRS,
                    > the whole thing becomes a farce.
                    >
                    > However,
                    this purported contract, if it is based upon a fraud, cannot
                    > hold the
                    test of law.  Anything based upon a fraud, is null and void.
                    >
                    > So then, is it the implied contract that binds us to this
                    nonsense,
                    > rather than an operation at law?
                    >
                    > I'm
                    basically thinking out loud here, and I'm not making any
                    > outlandish
                    claims.  But I hope this adds to your knowledge.
                    >
                    >
                    Regards,
                    >
                    > Al Thompson
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                    ---------------------~-->
                    > Buy Toner for Your Printer or Fax at
                    LaserTonerSuperstore.com-Save 55%!
                    > We have your brand: HP, IBM, Canon,
                    Xerox, Apple and many more for less!
                    >
                    href="http://www.LaserTonerSuperstore.com">http://www.LaserTonerSuperstore.com
                    > http://us.click.yahoo.com/YmQqWC/qicGAA/ySSFAA/J1EolB/TM
                    > ---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
                    >
                    >  
                    >
                    > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                    >
                    >
                    >
                  • Ernest R. Brown
                    Read Paul Mitchell 31 Q&As will save you some time http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm ... From: M Furtado To: legality-of-income-tax@yahoogroups.com
                    Message 9 of 11 , Sep 9, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Read Paul Mitchell 31 Q&As
                      will save you some time
                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: M Furtado
                      Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 7:51 AM
                      Subject: Re: [legality-of-income-tax] Re: Willful Failure to file A Winning Strategy (Should be able to use this in a tax court also)

                      Al,
                      You wrote:
                      > They make the assumption that I have "employees" which is defined
                      > in Title 26 as government workers. 
                      > (c) Employee
                      > For purposes of this chapter, the term ''employee'' includes an
                      > officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State,
                      > or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or
                      > any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing.
                      > The term ''employee'' also includes an officer of a corporation.
                      How are they addressing the definition of "Employee?"
                       
                      Are they using the "includes is expansive crap argument" to say you are an employer and they are employees?
                      Do you have a copy of the Decembder 7, 1943 Federal Register that defines Employee USC 3401(c) and
                      CFR 31.3401(c)-1?
                       
                      Aloha! Mel
                       
                                                                                                                                                                                         &nbs! p;                                                                                                                       
                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: "flushirs" <althompsonca@...>
                      Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2003 7:24 AM
                      Subject: [legality-of-income-tax] Re: Willful Failure to file A Winning Strategy (Should be able to use this in a tax court also)

                      > --- In legality-of-income-tax@yahoogroups.com, "Nick"
                      > <
                      nickster97@y...> wrote:
                      > > No, not at all, you subject yourself to the jurisdiction of the US
                      > > which makes that statute Moot.
                      >
                      > Nick,
                      >
                      > This is a good point, however, since the government is using the
                      > statutes as law, then it becomes their law.  And their statutes
                      > believe it or not, are in harmony with common law, however, it is
                      > the APPLICATION of those codes and regulations that is at fault.
                      >
                      > The government appears to be acting on some kind of implied or
                      > assummed contract.  Was this contract properly disclosed to anyone?
                      >
                      > Let's assume for a moment that it may be our Social Security number
                      > that "contracts" us into their system.  Remember, the essential
                      > elements of a contract must have: a. an offer, b. full disclosure of
                      > the terms, c. acceptance, and d. at least two signatures.  Think
                      > back when we all accepted our SS#s.  We were told by others that
                      > we HAD to have a number in order to work.  We dutifully went down
                      > and got the number without all of the terms of the "contract"
                      > disclosed to us.  That, is of course a fraud which indeed nullifies
                      > the contract.  It is my opinion that the government is relying upon
                      > these kinds of contracts along with our ignorance to bind us to them.
                      >
                      > I have been studying my case that the government sent my way, which
                      > is a "Complaint for Permanent Injunction", which means that they
                      > are attempting to force me to withhold from my workers at Cencal.
                      > They make the assumption that I have "employees" which is defined
                      > in Title 26 as government workers. 
                      > (c) Employee
                      > For purposes of this chapter, the term ''employee'' includes an
                      > officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State,
                      > or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or
                      > any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing.
                      > The term ''employee'' also includes an officer of a corporation.
                      >
                      > (d) Employer
                      > For purposes of this chapter, the term ''employer'' means the person
                      > for whom an individual performs or performed any service, of whatever
                      > nature, as the employee of such person, except that -
                      >
                      > It's that simple.  Assuming they
                      > win their case, I would be one of the first people in California
                      > that would be ordered to lie and steal from his workers by
                      > the "government". That of course is a violation of God's law.
                      >
                      > Therefore, if the statutes are their law, then we would have a
                      > conflict at law in that only the Secretary (of the Treasury)26 USC
                      > 6301 is allowed to collect taxes or his authorized delegate. 
                      > Also see 7701 at 11 and 12 Presumably, an authorized delegate would
                      > indeed be a government worker.
                      >
                      > Therefore, jurisdiction is extremely important, so if there isn't
                      > any, then the case cannot proceed under these conditons. 
                      >
                      > You make the comment above that we "subject ourselves to the
                      > jurisdiction" of the US. 
                      >
                      > I've spent the last few days reading a book on jurisdiction, it's
                      > called "Jurisdiction and Practice of the Courts of the United States"
                      > by Charles Bunn, Fifth Editon, 1949.
                      >
                      > On page 11 he states the following: "First, is this case within the
                      > Judicial Power defined in the Constitution: Second, is it within the
                      > jurisdiction which Congress has conferred by statute on the court in
                      > question?  If either question is answered no, the court has no
                      > jurisdiction, and the case must be dismissed.  This is so independent
                      > of the wishes or the stipulatons of the parties.  JURISDICTION OF A
                      > GIVEN CASE (UNLIKE JURISDICTION OF THE PERSON OF A PARTICULAR
                      > DEFENDANT) CAN BE CONFERRED ON A FEDERAL COURT ONLY BY THE
                      > CONSTITUTION AND BY STATUTE; NEVER BY CONSENT."
                      >
                      > Therefore the question I think we should ask, is the UNITED STATES
                      > DISTRICT COURT a "Judicial Power" defined in the Constitution.
                      > Is the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT within the jurisdiction which
                      > Congress has conferred by statute on the court in question.  Again,
                      > if the answer is no on either issue, then of course the USDC lacks
                      > jurisdiction of the case.
                      >
                      > So why are we then concerned about consenting to the jurisdiction?
                      > Myself and others have been extremely concerned about the consent
                      > issue.
                      >
                      > It is my OPINION that the USDC is not a judicial power, but a court
                      > centered around the executive branch of the government.  And perhaps,
                      > by entering a motion or a plea then "CONTRACTS" us into their power
                      > structure.  Since there can be no law that interfers with contracts,
                      > as long as the contracts don't violate any rights or law, then
                      > one is free to contract at will and will bind himself to them.
                      > However, without full disclosure, as with dealing with IRS,
                      > the whole thing becomes a farce.
                      >
                      > However, this purported contract, if it is based upon a fraud, cannot
                      > hold the test of law.  Anything based upon a fraud, is null and void.
                      >
                      > So then, is it the implied contract that binds us to this nonsense,
                      > rather than an operation at law?
                      >
                      > I'm basically thinking out loud here, and I'm not making any
                      > outlandish claims.  But I hope this adds to your knowledge.
                      >
                      > Regards,
                      >
                      > Al Thompson
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
                      > Buy Toner for Your Printer or Fax at LaserTonerSuperstore.com-Save 55%!
                      > We have your brand: HP, IBM, Canon, Xerox, Apple and many more for less!
                      >
                      http://www.LaserTonerSuperstore.com
                      > http://us.click.yahoo.com/YmQqWC/qicGAA/ySSFAA/J1EolB/TM
                      > ---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
                      >
                      >  
                      >
                      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                      http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                      >
                      >
                      >


                      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                    • prosystems
                      ... In this document at Q&A #15, What is tax evasion and who might be guilty of this crime , it says, Corporations chartered by the 50 States of the Union
                      Message 10 of 11 , Sep 10, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In legality-of-income-tax@yahoogroups.com, "Ernest R. Brown"
                        <mbluehen@s...> wrote:
                        > Read Paul Mitchell 31 Q&As
                        > will save you some time
                        > http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm

                        In this document at Q&A #15, "What is 'tax evasion' and who might be
                        guilty of this crime", it says, "Corporations chartered by the 50 States
                        of the Union are technically "foreign" corporations with respect to the
                        IRC".

                        Now that may be true. But, are corporations today really chartered by
                        one of the 50 States of the Union? Aren't they actually chartered by
                        one of the states of the federal zone, ie. State of X________ . These
                        states being in the federal zone are political subdivisions thereof and
                        their chartered corporations are also political subdivsions thereof.

                        This would make *anyone* working for a public corporation, that has
                        been incorporated by the State of X______ , a federal employee.
                        Correct?

                        I think this belies a faulty assumption, and the strategy that is based
                        on that assumption could be a dangerous strategy to follow.

                        Am I wrong? Please correct me.

                        Terry



                        > ----- Original Message -----
                        > From: M Furtado
                        > To: legality-of-income-tax@yahoogroups.com
                        > Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 7:51 AM
                        > Subject: Re: [legality-of-income-tax] Re: Willful Failure to file A
                        Winning Strategy (Should be able to use this in a tax court also)
                        >
                        >
                        > Al,
                        > You wrote:
                        > > They make the assumption that I have "employees" which is
                        defined
                        > > in Title 26 as government workers.
                        > > (c) Employee
                        > > For purposes of this chapter, the term ''employee'' includes an
                        > > officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State,
                        > > or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or
                        > > any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the
                        foregoing.
                        > > The term ''employee'' also includes an officer of a corporation.
                        >
                        > How are they addressing the definition of "Employee?"
                        >
                        > Are they using the "includes is expansive crap argument" to say
                        you are an employer and they are employees?
                        >
                        > Do you have a copy of the Decembder 7, 1943 Federal Register
                        that defines Employee USC 3401(c) and
                        > CFR 31.3401(c)-1?
                        >
                        > Aloha! Mel
                        >
                        >
                        &nbs! p;


                        > ----- Original Message -----
                        > From: "flushirs" <althompsonca@c...>
                        > To: <legality-of-income-tax@yahoogroups.com>
                        > Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2003 7:24 AM
                        > Subject: [legality-of-income-tax] Re: Willful Failure to file A Winning
                        Strategy (Should be able to use this in a tax court also)
                        >
                        >
                        > > --- In legality-of-income-tax@yahoogroups.com, "Nick"
                        > > <nickster97@y...> wrote:
                        > > > No, not at all, you subject yourself to the jurisdiction of the US
                        > > > which makes that statute Moot.
                        > >
                        > > Nick,
                        > >
                        > > This is a good point, however, since the government is using the
                        > > statutes as law, then it becomes their law. And their statutes
                        > > believe it or not, are in harmony with common law, however, it is
                        > > the APPLICATION of those codes and regulations that is at fault.
                        > >
                        > > The government appears to be acting on some kind of implied or
                        > > assummed contract. Was this contract properly disclosed to
                        anyone?
                        > >
                        > > Let's assume for a moment that it may be our Social Security
                        number
                        > > that "contracts" us into their system. Remember, the essential
                        > > elements of a contract must have: a. an offer, b. full disclosure of
                        > > the terms, c. acceptance, and d. at least two signatures. Think
                        > > back when we all accepted our SS#s. We were told by others
                        that
                        > > we HAD to have a number in order to work. We dutifully went
                        down
                        > > and got the number without all of the terms of the "contract"
                        > > disclosed to us. That, is of course a fraud which indeed nullifies
                        > > the contract. It is my opinion that the government is relying upon
                        > > these kinds of contracts along with our ignorance to bind us to
                        them.
                        > >
                        > > I have been studying my case that the government sent my way,
                        which
                        > > is a "Complaint for Permanent Injunction", which means that they
                        > > are attempting to force me to withhold from my workers at Cencal.
                        > > They make the assumption that I have "employees" which is
                        defined
                        > > in Title 26 as government workers.
                        > > (c) Employee
                        > > For purposes of this chapter, the term ''employee'' includes an
                        > > officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State,
                        > > or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or
                        > > any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the
                        foregoing.
                        > > The term ''employee'' also includes an officer of a corporation.
                        > >
                        > > (d) Employer
                        > > For purposes of this chapter, the term ''employer'' means the
                        person
                        > > for whom an individual performs or performed any service, of
                        whatever
                        > > nature, as the employee of such person, except that -
                        > >
                        > > It's that simple. Assuming they
                        > > win their case, I would be one of the first people in California
                        > > that would be ordered to lie and steal from his workers by
                        > > the "government". That of course is a violation of God's law.
                        > >
                        > > Therefore, if the statutes are their law, then we would have a
                        > > conflict at law in that only the Secretary (of the Treasury)26 USC
                        > > 6301 is allowed to collect taxes or his authorized delegate.
                        > > Also see 7701 at 11 and 12 Presumably, an authorized delegate
                        would
                        > > indeed be a government worker.
                        > >
                        > > Therefore, jurisdiction is extremely important, so if there isn't
                        > > any, then the case cannot proceed under these conditons.
                        > >
                        > > You make the comment above that we "subject ourselves to the
                        > > jurisdiction" of the US.
                        > >
                        > > I've spent the last few days reading a book on jurisdiction, it's
                        > > called "Jurisdiction and Practice of the Courts of the United
                        States"
                        > > by Charles Bunn, Fifth Editon, 1949.
                        > >
                        > > On page 11 he states the following: "First, is this case within the
                        > > Judicial Power defined in the Constitution: Second, is it within
                        the
                        > > jurisdiction which Congress has conferred by statute on the
                        court in
                        > > question? If either question is answered no, the court has no
                        > > jurisdiction, and the case must be dismissed. This is so
                        independent
                        > > of the wishes or the stipulatons of the parties. JURISDICTION
                        OF A
                        > > GIVEN CASE (UNLIKE JURISDICTION OF THE PERSON OF A
                        PARTICULAR
                        > > DEFENDANT) CAN BE CONFERRED ON A FEDERAL COURT
                        ONLY BY THE
                        > > CONSTITUTION AND BY STATUTE; NEVER BY CONSENT."
                        > >
                        > > Therefore the question I think we should ask, is the UNITED
                        STATES
                        > > DISTRICT COURT a "Judicial Power" defined in the Constitution.
                        > > Is the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT within the jurisdiction
                        which
                        > > Congress has conferred by statute on the court in question.
                        Again,
                        > > if the answer is no on either issue, then of course the USDC
                        lacks
                        > > jurisdiction of the case.
                        > >
                        > > So why are we then concerned about consenting to the
                        jurisdiction?
                        > > Myself and others have been extremely concerned about the
                        consent
                        > > issue.
                        > >
                        > > It is my OPINION that the USDC is not a judicial power, but a
                        court
                        > > centered around the executive branch of the government. And
                        perhaps,
                        > > by entering a motion or a plea then "CONTRACTS" us into their
                        power
                        > > structure. Since there can be no law that interfers with contracts,
                        > > as long as the contracts don't violate any rights or law, then
                        > > one is free to contract at will and will bind himself to them.
                        > > However, without full disclosure, as with dealing with IRS,
                        > > the whole thing becomes a farce.
                        > >
                        > > However, this purported contract, if it is based upon a fraud,
                        cannot
                        > > hold the test of law. Anything based upon a fraud, is null and
                        void.
                        > >
                        > > So then, is it the implied contract that binds us to this nonsense,
                        > > rather than an operation at law?
                        > >
                        > > I'm basically thinking out loud here, and I'm not making any
                        > > outlandish claims. But I hope this adds to your knowledge.
                        > >
                        > > Regards,
                        > >
                        > > Al Thompson
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                        http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                        > ADVERTISEMENT
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                        Service.
                      • John
                        Terry, The beauty of taking what is written as the plain meaning of what it says places the burden of proving some alternate set of facts on the person who
                        Message 11 of 11 , Sep 14, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Terry,
                          The beauty of taking what is written as the plain meaning of what
                          it says places the burden of proving some alternate set of facts on
                          the person who makes some other alternate statement or assumes some
                          alternate position. For example if you took the answer at answer 15
                          and applied it and some government agent wanted to say otherwise then
                          the burden would be on him to prove alternate facts. Now if to prove
                          his position he has to spill the beans that everything that we know
                          is just a laywer in some multi layer of jurisdiction matrix, odds are
                          he will not say a word...
                          One of the primary faults of most people is that they want to
                          assume some sort of position that provides every govenment agent some
                          easy to hit target.. All because that person assumed an impossible
                          position to prove with easy to prove facts. Folks need to learn to
                          not be so smart. Dont tell everything you know about some position.
                          Its like having a killer hand at poker. When its time to show your
                          hand and you sitting there with Aces full of kings and all it takes
                          is a pair of aces to win the hand just show the aces. If the hand
                          takes 2 pair then show the aces and kings - If the hand takes trips
                          to win then show the 3 aces. Only show what it takes to win. Your
                          opposition will never be able to understand how you could make the
                          call you did with such a week hand. The same is true with law. That
                          is how the government wins most cases. All they do is disprove
                          whatever stance a person takes. In most of our situtations the
                          burden of proof is on the government. The challenge is to get them
                          to be the plaintiff and carry the burden of proof. There are ways to
                          do that but that is a fairly long story.
                          The question about tax evasion is a fairly simple one. If the
                          govenment tries to charge you with tax evasion there are several
                          things that must be done. First the government must meet all the
                          jurisdiction elements of the statute and there are many. To
                          understand jurisdictional elements you must do a little studying -
                          the first thing you will find is that jurisdicitonal elements are not
                          essential elements of a crime. The government must plead all the
                          jurisdictional elements in the complaint. There are many for tax
                          evasion. Primarly you must be a person that can be charged under
                          ยง7343. Second, the government must plead in its indictment the
                          statute and regulation that imposes the tax on you and what the
                          activity you were involved in that created the duty to pay the tax.
                          Next the government must plead how much tax you owe the government.
                          One of the primary things that everyone kind of looks over is the
                          requirement of the government to plead in its inditment is that you
                          are a taxpayer. Unless the Secretary of the Treasury has entered
                          evidence that you are a taxpayer as defined then NOBODY including the
                          court or a jury can make that determination. I believe at titile 18
                          section 2001 in the notes there is instructions to the court to that
                          effect. So for the government to prove tax evasion its a tough row
                          to hoe unless the guy is truley a coporate criminal involved in
                          activities that are regulated by applicable regulations. Most simple
                          non-coporate persons that work for a living that were born in this
                          country will not fall within the necessary fence that can support an
                          evasion charge. Well I should not put it that way - the government
                          will charge lots of stuff and lots of times the charge has no legal
                          basis - but the charge sould not support an indictment or conviction.
                          John



                          --- In legality-of-income-tax@yahoogroups.com, "prosystems"
                          <prosystems@y...> wrote:
                          > --- In legality-of-income-tax@yahoogroups.com, "Ernest R. Brown"
                          > <mbluehen@s...> wrote:
                          > > Read Paul Mitchell 31 Q&As
                          > > will save you some time
                          > > http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm
                          >
                          > In this document at Q&A #15, "What is 'tax evasion' and who might
                          be
                          > guilty of this crime", it says, "Corporations chartered by the 50
                          States
                          > of the Union are technically "foreign" corporations with respect to
                          the
                          > IRC".
                          >
                          > Now that may be true. But, are corporations today really chartered
                          by
                          > one of the 50 States of the Union? Aren't they actually chartered
                          by
                          > one of the states of the federal zone, ie. State of X________ .
                          These
                          > states being in the federal zone are political subdivisions thereof
                          and
                          > their chartered corporations are also political subdivsions thereof.
                          >
                          > This would make *anyone* working for a public corporation, that has
                          > been incorporated by the State of X______ , a federal employee.
                          > Correct?
                          >
                          > I think this belies a faulty assumption, and the strategy that is
                          based
                          > on that assumption could be a dangerous strategy to follow.
                          >
                          > Am I wrong? Please correct me.
                          >
                          > Terry
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > > ----- Original Message -----
                          > > From: M Furtado
                          > > To: legality-of-income-tax@yahoogroups.com
                          > > Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 7:51 AM
                          > > Subject: Re: [legality-of-income-tax] Re: Willful Failure to
                          file A
                          > Winning Strategy (Should be able to use this in a tax court also)
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > Al,
                          > > You wrote:
                          > > > They make the assumption that I have "employees" which is
                          > defined
                          > > > in Title 26 as government workers.
                          > > > (c) Employee
                          > > > For purposes of this chapter, the term ''employee'' includes
                          an
                          > > > officer, employee, or elected official of the United States,
                          a State,
                          > > > or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of
                          Columbia, or
                          > > > any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the
                          > foregoing.
                          > > > The term ''employee'' also includes an officer of a
                          corporation.
                          > >
                          > > How are they addressing the definition of "Employee?"
                          > >
                          > > Are they using the "includes is expansive crap argument" to say
                          > you are an employer and they are employees?
                          > >
                          > > Do you have a copy of the Decembder 7, 1943 Federal Register
                          > that defines Employee USC 3401(c) and
                          > > CFR 31.3401(c)-1?
                          > >
                          > > Aloha! Mel
                          > >
                          >
                          >

                          >
                          &nbs! p;
                          >

                          >
                          > > ----- Original Message -----
                          > > From: "flushirs" <althompsonca@c...>
                          > > To: <legality-of-income-tax@yahoogroups.com>
                          > > Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2003 7:24 AM
                          > > Subject: [legality-of-income-tax] Re: Willful Failure to file A
                          Winning
                          > Strategy (Should be able to use this in a tax court also)
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > > --- In legality-of-income-tax@yahoogroups.com, "Nick"
                          > > > <nickster97@y...> wrote:
                          > > > > No, not at all, you subject yourself to the jurisdiction of
                          the US
                          > > > > which makes that statute Moot.
                          > > >
                          > > > Nick,
                          > > >
                          > > > This is a good point, however, since the government is using
                          the
                          > > > statutes as law, then it becomes their law. And their
                          statutes
                          > > > believe it or not, are in harmony with common law, however,
                          it is
                          > > > the APPLICATION of those codes and regulations that is at
                          fault.
                          > > >
                          > > > The government appears to be acting on some kind of implied or
                          > > > assummed contract. Was this contract properly disclosed to
                          > anyone?
                          > > >
                          > > > Let's assume for a moment that it may be our Social Security
                          > number
                          > > > that "contracts" us into their system. Remember, the
                          essential
                          > > > elements of a contract must have: a. an offer, b. full
                          disclosure of
                          > > > the terms, c. acceptance, and d. at least two signatures.
                          Think
                          > > > back when we all accepted our SS#s. We were told by others
                          > that
                          > > > we HAD to have a number in order to work. We dutifully went
                          > down
                          > > > and got the number without all of the terms of the "contract"
                          > > > disclosed to us. That, is of course a fraud which indeed
                          nullifies
                          > > > the contract. It is my opinion that the government is
                          relying upon
                          > > > these kinds of contracts along with our ignorance to bind us
                          to
                          > them.
                          > > >
                          > > > I have been studying my case that the government sent my way,
                          > which
                          > > > is a "Complaint for Permanent Injunction", which means that
                          they
                          > > > are attempting to force me to withhold from my workers at
                          Cencal.
                          > > > They make the assumption that I have "employees" which is
                          > defined
                          > > > in Title 26 as government workers.
                          > > > (c) Employee
                          > > > For purposes of this chapter, the term ''employee'' includes
                          an
                          > > > officer, employee, or elected official of the United States,
                          a State,
                          > > > or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of
                          Columbia, or
                          > > > any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the
                          > foregoing.
                          > > > The term ''employee'' also includes an officer of a
                          corporation.
                          > > >
                          > > > (d) Employer
                          > > > For purposes of this chapter, the term ''employer'' means the
                          > person
                          > > > for whom an individual performs or performed any service, of
                          > whatever
                          > > > nature, as the employee of such person, except that -
                          > > >
                          > > > It's that simple. Assuming they
                          > > > win their case, I would be one of the first people in
                          California
                          > > > that would be ordered to lie and steal from his workers by
                          > > > the "government". That of course is a violation of God's law.
                          > > >
                          > > > Therefore, if the statutes are their law, then we would have a
                          > > > conflict at law in that only the Secretary (of the Treasury)
                          26 USC
                          > > > 6301 is allowed to collect taxes or his authorized delegate.
                          > > > Also see 7701 at 11 and 12 Presumably, an authorized delegate
                          > would
                          > > > indeed be a government worker.
                          > > >
                          > > > Therefore, jurisdiction is extremely important, so if there
                          isn't
                          > > > any, then the case cannot proceed under these conditons.
                          > > >
                          > > > You make the comment above that we "subject ourselves to the
                          > > > jurisdiction" of the US.
                          > > >
                          > > > I've spent the last few days reading a book on jurisdiction,
                          it's
                          > > > called "Jurisdiction and Practice of the Courts of the United
                          > States"
                          > > > by Charles Bunn, Fifth Editon, 1949.
                          > > >
                          > > > On page 11 he states the following: "First, is this case
                          within the
                          > > > Judicial Power defined in the Constitution: Second, is it
                          within
                          > the
                          > > > jurisdiction which Congress has conferred by statute on the
                          > court in
                          > > > question? If either question is answered no, the court has
                          no
                          > > > jurisdiction, and the case must be dismissed. This is so
                          > independent
                          > > > of the wishes or the stipulatons of the parties.
                          JURISDICTION
                          > OF A
                          > > > GIVEN CASE (UNLIKE JURISDICTION OF THE PERSON OF A
                          > PARTICULAR
                          > > > DEFENDANT) CAN BE CONFERRED ON A FEDERAL COURT
                          > ONLY BY THE
                          > > > CONSTITUTION AND BY STATUTE; NEVER BY CONSENT."
                          > > >
                          > > > Therefore the question I think we should ask, is the UNITED
                          > STATES
                          > > > DISTRICT COURT a "Judicial Power" defined in the Constitution.
                          > > > Is the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT within the jurisdiction
                          > which
                          > > > Congress has conferred by statute on the court in question.
                          > Again,
                          > > > if the answer is no on either issue, then of course the USDC
                          > lacks
                          > > > jurisdiction of the case.
                          > > >
                          > > > So why are we then concerned about consenting to the
                          > jurisdiction?
                          > > > Myself and others have been extremely concerned about the
                          > consent
                          > > > issue.
                          > > >
                          > > > It is my OPINION that the USDC is not a judicial power, but a
                          > court
                          > > > centered around the executive branch of the government. And
                          > perhaps,
                          > > > by entering a motion or a plea then "CONTRACTS" us into their
                          > power
                          > > > structure. Since there can be no law that interfers with
                          contracts,
                          > > > as long as the contracts don't violate any rights or law, then
                          > > > one is free to contract at will and will bind himself to them.
                          > > > However, without full disclosure, as with dealing with IRS,
                          > > > the whole thing becomes a farce.
                          > > >
                          > > > However, this purported contract, if it is based upon a
                          fraud,
                          > cannot
                          > > > hold the test of law. Anything based upon a fraud, is null
                          and
                          > void.
                          > > >
                          > > > So then, is it the implied contract that binds us to this
                          nonsense,
                          > > > rather than an operation at law?
                          > > >
                          > > > I'm basically thinking out loud here, and I'm not making any
                          > > > outlandish claims. But I hope this adds to your knowledge.
                          > > >
                          > > > Regards,
                          > > >
                          > > > Al Thompson
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                          > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                          > > ADVERTISEMENT
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                          > Service.
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.