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

Re: [tips_and_tricks] Re: letter from CA

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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


    • 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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.