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

Re: letter from CA

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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.