- 1) Someone was asking about the statement concerning corporations listed in PENN HAULOW v. DUNN. The supposed statement is not there, but here is somethingMessage 1 of 1 , Sep 25, 2007View Source1) Someone was asking about the statement concerning corporations listed in PENN HAULOW v. DUNN.The supposed statement is not there, but here is something similar, and a few other cites along those same lines:
“Governments descend to the Level of a mere private corporation, and take on the characteristics of a mere private citizen… where private corporate commercial paper [Federal Reserve Notes] and securities [checks] is concerned. … For purposes of suit, such corporations and individuals are regarded as entities entirely separate from government.” - Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States 318 U.S. 363-371
2) Also note, I am trying to discover evidence the following cites work. I have been told by someone that does not get involved that these cites removed the IRS permanently from their life. You must understand what a judicial district is, they do still exist and the court hates it. I did file an appeal under this concept and the court has still not decided what to do with it, or me. The court did call me and said the judge is requesting I write a different appeal. I said no, I think I made her cry.
§ 7408. Actions to enjoin specified conduct related to tax shelters and reportable transactions
(d) Citizens and residents outside the United States
If any citizen or resident of the United States does not reside in, and does not have his principal place of business in, any United States judicial district, such citizen or resident shall be treated for purposes of this section as residing in the District of Columbia .
§ 7701. Definitions (39) Persons residing outside United States
If any citizen or resident of the United States does not reside in (and is not found in) any United States judicial district, such citizen or resident shall be treated as residing in the District of Columbia for purposes of any provision of this title relating to—
3) It is established, of course, that a prisoner may not be incarcerated solely because of his inability to pay a fine. See Bearden v. Georgia, 461U.S. 660 (1983) (State cannot revoke probation for failure to pay a
fine and make restitution, in absence of finding that defendant's failure to pay was his fault or that alternative punishment was inadequate); Tate v. Short, 401 U.S. 395 (1971) (State cannot convert a fine into a jail term solely because defendant is indigent); Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235 (1970) (State cannot impose prison
sentence beyond statutory maximum solely because defendant is too poor to pay fine).
Similarly, the Supreme Court has explained that it is unconstitutional to incarcerate a defendant convicted of an offense which did not otherwise carry a jail term in order to have him satisfy his fine. Tate v. Short, 401 U.S. 395 (1971).
John-Chester: Stuart: sovereign without subjects
c/o postal service location
21001 N. Tatum Blvd. Suite 1630472
Phoenix, Arizona republic cf 85050 cf