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

6928Re: Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim...

Expand Messages
  • nickster97@yahoo.com
    Oct 27, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Because you seem to be under the impression that the consitution means
      something in your particular case. Believe it or not, you gave that up
      years ago whithout knowing it. Clyde has done you a disservice. If you
      had rebutted certain presuptions before you were assessed, then you
      would have not been liable in the first place. You seem to believe
      that you are acting as a human being rather than a fiducuary acting
      for a trust entity. You seem to believe that you have some unalienable
      rights when what you really have are rights granted to you by the US
      in which you are a citizen and that because of that, you reside in one
      of the 50 states. You are not taxed for you the human being but have
      the FIDUCUIARY responsibility to file and pay for the priveledged
      entity known as YOU! (Your name in all caps).

      Therefore, asking the court what makes you the human being liable is a
      frivolous position. Your entity known as YOU has already been
      assessed, the only thing that you can banter about that room is either
      that the statutory notices were defunct or the amount of the
      assessment is in question. There has been already one case that was
      fined for defaulting the government. You can make it the second if ou
      want, be my guest. Clyde and myself went round and round with this six
      months ago and the telltale signs are coming out. Clyde is on the
      losing end of this one.

      Take a day out of your busy schedule and read the following, I believe
      it will challenge your whole belief system.

      http://usa-the-republic.com/amendment_14/usa.html




      --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, hvncb <hvncb@y...> wrote:
      > Well Nickster, I am sure that you know well that Tax Court has
      jurisdiction to hear underlying liability and a First Amendment
      complaint as I am doing is appropriate because lack of jurisdiction
      (1.8.17) has everything to do with underlying liability.
      >
      > "Petitioners, however, underestimate the importance of this Court's
      time-honored reading of the Constitution as giving Congress wide
      discretion to assign the task of adjudication in cases arising under
      federal law to legislative tribunals." day!
    • Show all 12 messages in this topic