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

Re: [tips_and_tricks] Re: letter from CA

Expand Messages
  • Roger Hattman
    Just a suggestion:  I might be very careful how you word you letter.  I have never dealt with the California Franchise Tax Board, so I make the assumption
    Message 1 of 12 , Jun 2, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Just a suggestion:  I might be very careful how you word you letter.  I have never dealt with the California Franchise Tax Board, so I make the assumption that they are like the feds.  That is, they probably flag you as "resister" or whatever.  Most likely you are not flagged yet.  So watch you wording carefully.  Some wording I would question " I did not have taxable income according to my understanding of the term"    Already you give them the suggestion that you are researching the phrase taxable income and have formed an opinion of it.  Better might be "I have not recieved any income" or " "I have not recieved any taxable income" or whatever.  The less info you give the better.  Remember, that you are building a record.  It is good to ask questions so that when they do not answer it builds your case.  Remember Vernice Kughlin?

    • Klaus Becker
      If you have found more of these, would appreciate your forwarding the urls to me privately. Each of the five case below were all filed on the same day, 10
      Message 2 of 12 , Jun 2, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        If you have found more of these, would appreciate your forwarding the urls to me privately.  Each of the five case below were all filed on the same day, 10 April 2006 (with one exception: 11 April 2006) at San Diego, Calif; Montgomery, Alabama; Topeka, Kansas, and 2 in Florida: Largo, Winter Park.  Interesting.  I presume there were more filed elsewhere on the same day.  Each case is the same with the same cites and boilerplate, etc.  All being very deceptive in nature.  It still pays to read "Cracking the Code" IMHO for its informational value.
        Klaus in Iowa
         
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 3:02 AM
        Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Re: letter from CA

        I would be very WARY of "Cracking the Code".

        It appears that the IRS & DOJ are going after many of those who have used it's METHODS & obtained REFUNDS.

        http://www.usdoj. gov/tax/Dowling_ Complaint. pdf

        http://www.usdoj. gov/tax/Golson_ Complaint. pdf

        http://www.usdoj. gov/tax/Gerstenk orn_Complaint. pdf

        http://www.usdoj. gov/tax/Spitzer_ Complaint. pdf

        http://www.usdoj. gov/tax/Artman_ Complaint. pdf

        Patrick in California

        "It ain't what ya don't know that hurts ya. What really puts a hurtin' on ya is what ya knows for sure, that just ain't so." -- Uncle Remus

        --- In tips_and_tricks@ yahoogroups. com, Tracy Darling <tdarling1@. ..> wrote:
        >
        > Hello, All:
        > I am deeply grateful to all of you for your comments. I apologize for the
        > delay in reply, but I have been a bit overwhelmed by the responses and
        > support I have had in this matter! I purchased the "Cracking the Code" book
        > and am reading it now.

      • BOB GREGORY
        *I acknowledge that this is a confusing area. And I suspect that the IRS/DOJ are continuing with one of their common tactics, that of using federal judges who
        Message 3 of 12 , Jun 2, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          I acknowledge that this is a confusing area.  And I suspect that the IRS/DOJ are continuing with
          one of their common tactics, that of using federal judges who get their pay from the federal
          government and on whom the IRS allegedly maintains dossiers, to "interpret" the law in their
          favor.  It is the same approach used to erode the bill of rights.  Back in the 1930's federal judges lobbied long and hard against the Public Salary Tax Act (which violates Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution) until they sold out their principles in exchange for having the law exclude judges already on the bench.  Once they were required to pay income taxes (as federal employees)  the IRS had a way to control and influence them

          The Dowling Complaint indicates that the IRS made an "error" when it processed Mr. Dowling's
          return and allowed the Form 4582 correction.  An "error" like that might be understandable
          occasionally in a big organization.  However, the IRS has been fairly regularly committing the
          same "error" as more and more people use Hendrickson's approach.  So far, Hendrickson has
          received reports of refunds or credits totaling over ten million dollars ($10,000,000).  If the
          Dowling "error" was made in 2004, it almost indicates a case of terminal stupidity for the IRS
          to be continuing to make the same "error" five years later, particularly when many of the cases
          involve the IRS questioning the returns, entering protracted correspondence with the filers of
          the returns and finally resolving the matters in the filers' favor.  Are they just trying to drum up later
          business for the DOJ?

          Certainly following Hendrickson's approach is a personal choice and not without some risk.
          You pays your money and takes your choice, or you doesn't pays your money and takes
          your choice.

          There is a small chance that sooner or later large numbers (20 or 30 million) more people will wake up and join the 60+ million the IRS acknowledges are already not filing tax returns, and that will seriously overload the IRS administrative and  prosecutorial system.  Educating that many of America's dumbed-down people about details of the tax code or the administrative and court processes would be a practical impossibility.  But maybe waking them up to the waste, fraud and abuse in the tax system and the government as a whole could be a bit easier.  All it would take would be to make them angry enough to be willing to join millions of others in just stopping filing returns.  Presently there are only about 300+ prosecutions per year among all of the tens of millions of non-filers.  Of course there are many more administrative actions.  But if the volume of non-filers grew to a seriously unmanageable size, what could they do?  Resistance to tyranny through civil disobedience is how Martin Luther King worked against segregation and how Gandhi achieved the independence of India.   It would probably work to end the income tax.       

          On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 3:02 AM, paradoxmagnus <paradoxmagnus@...> wrote:


          I would be very WARY of "Cracking the Code".

          It appears that the IRS & DOJ are going after many of those who have used it's METHODS & obtained REFUNDS.

          http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/Dowling_Complaint.pdf

          http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/Golson_Complaint.pdf

          http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/Gerstenkorn_Complaint.pdf

          http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/Spitzer_Complaint.pdf

          http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/Artman_Complaint.pdf

          Patrick in California


        • BOB GREGORY
          It may be worth considering to put the ball back in their court by asking them to supply copies of whatever information they have which indicates that you had
          Message 4 of 12 , Jun 2, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            It may be worth considering to put the ball back in their court by asking them to supply copies of whatever information they have which indicates that you had income.

            Roger Hattman wrote:

            Just a suggestion:  I might be very careful how you word you letter. 



          • Frog Farmer
            ... CA is a figment of the imagination, but definitely a federal zone . ... In that they too are imaginary? The feds might be more real. To really have an
            Message 5 of 12 , Jun 3, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              Roger Hattman wrote:

              > Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Re: letter from CA

              "CA" is a figment of the imagination, but definitely a "federal zone".

              > Just a suggestion: I might be very careful how you word you letter.
              > I have never dealt with the California Franchise Tax Board, so I make
              > the assumption that they are like the feds.

              In that they too are imaginary? The feds might be more real. To really
              have an FTB, you need qualified people. Unless you like to let
              unqualified people mess with you. You can do that any time you feel
              like it.

              > That is, they probably flag you as "resister" or whatever.

              Probably, whoever's there anticipating the next paycheck would do that,
              but to call them "the Board" is a BIG ASSUMPTION that may not be a good
              one.

              > Most likely you are not flagged yet.

              Most likely. I know I am. The last time they mistakenly bumped into
              me, two phone calls took care of everything after I thought about it
              over a weekend, even when the paperwork threatened the worst. I got the
              feeling my file was up to date!

              > So watch you wording carefully. Some wording I would question "
              > I did not have taxable income according to my understanding of the
              > term"

              Nobody cares what you think of the term! Are you a lawyer?! That's
              what they always ask me. I ask for a referral to one with his B&P6067
              papers in order. Haven't got one for decades now.

              Most Californians are so anxious to play the game, the game that is
              OVER, that they permit all kinds of unqualified, disqualifiable knaves
              to portray officers in sham proceedings designed to influence the
              gullible public. Then they complain that the outcome wasn't to their
              liking.

              Regards,

              FF
            • mn_chicago
              Wednesday 3 June 2009 Why is everyone dancing around the issue? The STATE OF CALIFORNIA is asserting a claim. the burden is on them to prove it. Could it be
              Message 6 of 12 , Jun 3, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                Wednesday 3 June 2009

                Why is everyone dancing around the issue?

                The STATE OF CALIFORNIA is asserting a claim.
                the burden is on them to prove it. Could it
                be any simpler?

                "Write back that you want to dispute them, but
                do it in a way as to not p!ss them off...."

                Great advice. One's rights are on the line,
                and the choice is to go hat in hand to kind
                of claim them?

                A winning tactic?

                Is it any wonder why people have lost the battle?
              • The Handyman
                Can a corporation (IRS) order a man to do anything? Tracy Darling has been ordered to furnish information by a State Taxing Agency. Is she mandated to
                Message 7 of 12 , Jun 3, 2009
                • 0 Attachment



                  Can a corporation (IRS) order a man to do anything?

                  Tracy Darling has been ordered to furnish information by a  State Taxing Agency.  Is she mandated to comply? I don’t think so and I have not done so for 31 years because a man is substance and a corporation is form…. and I have no contract with them.  I do not respond because I have no income or wages and am not a corporation. Most people are mixed up about wages and income.  When one labors for anyone, whether it be a corporation (blue sky) or another man, it can only be earnings that the IRS calls wages.  Never admit you have wages.  Earnings of a man are not taxable. Earnings of a man have never been declared to be income. Please prove me wrong. As to "voluntary compliance", look at the context.  If the word voluntary is dropped, it only means compliance or forced.  Understanding context is not easy, and of course, the DOJ doesn't want laymen to understand it either. I have great difficulty applying context and usually consult with another who is very lazy and won’t write much about such.  Everyone on this group needs to read HALE v. HENKEL, 201 U.S. 43 (1906) near the end to better understand context, persons and the word includes.  Usually, the  “persons” being referred to by the IRS is actually a “juristic person” (a firm, corporation, union, association, or other organization capable of suing and being sued in a court of law” AND/OR “the United States, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any individual, firm, or corporation acting for the United States and with the authorization and consent of the United States” AND/OR “any State, any instrumentality of a State, and any officer or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State acting in his or her official capacity” ) AND/OR “manufacturers, industrialists, merchants, agriculturists, and others to identify their businesses, vocations, or occupations; the names or titles lawfully adopted and used by persons, firms, associations, corporations, companies, unions, and any manufacturing, industrial, commercial, agricultural, or other organizations engaged in trade or commerce and capable of suing and being sued in a court of law” using a “trade name” or a “commercial name”? These persons have income and wages. Notice that man is not included.

                  Under "Context", usually there are two separate phrases: a general, and a particular phrase.  The general phrase proceeds, and the particular phrase follows, and controls.  The general phrase is the substantive, while the particular is procedural.  The general or substantive phrase is repugnant to particular phrase.  So the general or substantive phrase is removed, otherwise, the whole statute or whatever you are interpreting would be un-constitutional.  This also applies to all definitions, being that all statutes have ambiguous words or words with several meanings. This is my best interpretation of the word "Context", as used in THE LAW.  I always go the last word in the definition of words, and that is the particular part.  An example is how they define the word State in the motor vehicle code.  The last word in the definition of State is: a Province of Canada!!!!!!!    If you learn this, you will see how the attorneys can change this to steal from a man, by making the general or substantive part, particular, they are so sly and deceptive.  I would not respond or use any form sent by any  government agency because they have Legal Attachment Notices under procedural law, which a substantive man cannot use.  Can a corporation (IRS) order a man to do anything? Not unless he is involved in commerce and then such is questionable.

                  15 USC 1127 states in part: 

                  The word “commerce” means all commerce which may lawfully be regulated by Congress.

                  HALE v. HENKEL, 201 U.S. 43 (1906) said the following:

                   

                  "The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen.

                  He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way.

                  His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or

                   to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an

                  Investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him. He owes no such

                   duty to the state, since he receives nothing there from, beyond the

                  Protection

                  Of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of

                  The land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can

                   only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance

                  With the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate

                   himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or

                  Seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public

                  So long as he does not trespass upon their rights.  

                   

                  Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the state. It is

                  Presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives

                  Certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to

                  The laws of the state and the limitations of its charter. Its powers are

                   limited by law. It can make no contract not authorized by its

                  Charter. Its rights to [201 U.S. 43, 75]   act as a corporation are

                   only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation." 

                  When was the first suit filed by a corporation against a man and where was that suit filed?

                  ----- Original Message -----
                  Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 9:23 PM
                  Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Re: letter from CA

                  It may be worth considering to put the ball back in their court by asking them to supply copies of whatever information they have which indicates that you had income.

                  Roger Hattman wrote:

                  Just a suggestion:  I might be very careful how you word you letter. 



                • Al Cintra-Leite
                  Found this in a book called IRS HUMBUG by Frank Kowalik , complains that they exempted themselves , but I see it as exempting all income derived
                  Message 8 of 12 , Jun 4, 2009
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Found this in a book called "IRS HUMBUG" by Frank Kowalik , complains
                    that "they" exempted themselves , but I see it as exempting all income
                    derived therefrom,just like it says, that is , the greenbacks in your
                    wallet....
                    12 U.S.C. Sec.531 Exemption from taxation.
                    Federal Reserve Banks, including the capital stock and surplus
                    therein, and the income derived therefrom shall be exempt from Federal,
                    State, and local taxation , except taxes on real estate.
                    Dec. 23,1913, C.6,sec. 7, 38 stat.258
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.