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

Re: [tips_and_tricks] Response to Income Tax know it all...

Expand Messages
  • jmem367@gmail.com
    To suggest that it makes inroads upon the independence of ... Aliquot Al i*quot, a. [L. aliquot some, several; alius other + quot how many: cf. F. aliquote.]
    Message 1 of 8 , Jul 26, 2009
      "To suggest that it makes inroads upon the independence of
      > judges who took office after Congress had thus charged them with the
      > common duties of citizenship, by making them bear their aliquot share of
      > the cost of maintaining the Government, is to trivialize the great
      > historic experience on which the framers based the safeguards of Article
      > III, § 1."

      Aliquot Al"i*quot, a. [L. aliquot some, several; alius other +
      quot how many: cf. F. aliquote.] (Math.)
      An aliquot part of a number or quantity is one which will
      divide it without a remainder; thus, 5 is an aliquot part of
      15. Opposed to aliquant.
      [1913 Webster]

      aliquot share is judicial gibberish.

      "There is no good reason why a judge should
      not share the tax burdens borne by all citizens."

      I think subjection to the will of the executive for a determination of
      tax owing and due is a good reason. Also, conflict of interest in
      judicial review of tax questions, such as those presented in Evans v.
      Gore, is another good reason.

      Does a judge hold an office of profit ?
      Is judging a commercial activity ?
      Is judging a taxable activity ?

      Is citizenship a privilege ?




      On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 16:36:29 -0000
      "jazz742917" <jazzmojoguard-notsohappy@...> wrote:

      > O'Malley v. Woodrough, No. 810, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES,
      > April 28, 1939, Argued , May 22, 1939, it was decided:
      >
      >
      >
      > "To subject them to a general tax is merely to recognize that judges are
      > also citizens, and that their particular function in government does not
      > generate an immunity from sharing with their fellow citizens the
      > material burden of the government whose Constitution and laws they are
      > charged with administering."
    • legalbear7
      Rebecca O Dell Townsend wrote me back and I responded in red: Evans v. Gore was overruled. Tommy Cryer may have avoided criminal charges, but not civil
      Message 2 of 8 , Jul 27, 2009
        Rebecca O'Dell Townsend wrote me back and I responded in red:


        Evans v. Gore was overruled. 

        Tommy Cryer may have avoided criminal charges, but not civil liability. 

         

        On what basis? I know; I know; they'll find a basis. Here's what I know. The trusts that were accused of not filing that Tommy set up to benefit and care for his wife, never made any money; they lost money.

         

        I am an appellate attorney who practices before the U.S. Supreme Court and other federal and state appellate courts. 

         

        All that tells me is that you know on a first hand basis how corrupt those courts are. Most judges are in violation of 18 USC § 2383 & 2384. Your influence and knowledge would certainly be instrumental in getting them prosecuted.

         

        I know quite a bit about statutory and constitutional interpretation.

        In addition to working fulltime for a law firm, I speak 3-4 times a week on the Constitution, teaching patriots how to regain control of their government.  I do not charge a speaker's fee.  I do it on my own dime and time – unlike most, if not all, of the charlatans who are perpetuating tax myths.

         

        I applaud you for that. So far, you haven't taught us a thing in these emails.

         

        I don't see how your comment, "Sorry, people, but there is a federal income tax.  The Constitution authorizes it." fits into the above paragraph.

         

        Have you ever looked into how many 26 USC § 7214 prosecutions there have been? Did you ever wonder why there are so few? Violations of § 7214 are rampant. Forensic accountant Victoria Osborne finds these violations all the time. How about if you use some of your credibility and knowledge as an attorney to convince the DOJ to prosecute some IRS personnel? If they refuse, how about if you help us write some really credible complaints to file against them in the district court. How about if you help us get in front of some federal grand juries so we can get some indictments on IRS personnel? If the DOJ continues to be all palsy walsy with the IRS, how about helping us go after the DOJ on their violations of 18 USC §§ 2 & 3?

         

        You, of all people, should know about the hearings that preceded the Restructuring & Reform Act of 1998 and why the Treasury Inspector General's office was set up. Another thought; the fact that the OFFICIALS in the Treasury Inspector General's office must PERSONALLY file returns and be subject to the arbitrary and capricious nature of the IRS has rendered them toothless as well. If you review their audit reports you will see that they are all palsy walsy with the IRS. They see the crimes the IRS commits and do nothing about it respecting prosecution.

         

        Here's another thought; if the only one who can understand the Internal Revenue Code is "an appellate attorney who practices before the U.S. Supreme Court and other federal and state appellate courts." who knows "quite a bit about statutory and constitutional interpretation." what is that telling us about the Code? Do you recognize this phrase: "…ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement."? If we must wait until we are in front of a judge to find out whether our conduct is conformed to the law, what is that telling us about the Code? If on a whim, an IRS agent can disallow our deductions 4-7 years after the fact resulting in a bunch of penalties and interest, what is that telling us about the Code? If the Supreme Court ruled in Evans that they couldn't tax a judge, why then is Judge Joseph W. Woodrough, in the face of the Evans decision, just 19 years later, having to pay a tax under protest and having to sue to get his refund?  I thought the IRS was supposed to honor Supreme Court decisions? What that gives us is two judges who paid the tax and sued for a refund; one who won in Evans, and one who lost in Woodrough. What does the fact that there is a 50/50 chance of prevailing which depends upon who is sitting in the Court at the time your petition for cert arrives tell us about the Code, IRS, and the judiciary? What's up with Congress passing another law to tax judges knowing full well about the Supreme Court's ruling in Evans?

         

        If I am in court on an IRS issue, how do you think the judge will respond when I tell him that I want to know as much about him as my opponent knows? If I say, hey judge, I need to look into personal papers the same way the IRS has, so I can determine if you can sit on this case. What do you think the judge will say? Why hasn't he already told the IRS, you want to look at my "papers", get a warrant! The IRS and the DOJ work this the same way the cops do; they gather evidence that would be subject to suppression and never use it in court. They use that evidence to gather other evidence that is not subject to suppression. Or, they never reveal to the court or defense that they gathered the evidence illegally. I watched a cop walk into a house when no one was home without a warrant! Oh yeah, it happens. Ah, who cares, most of the time the DOJ will prevail anyway because the judge is a former prosecutor. How about this: Judge, we need to see your tax return. We need to have a CPA examine it to see if there is anything questionable in it that the IRS can use against you to keep you in fear of being discovered.

         

        Rebecca, this is right in front of your face, but you haven't recognized it; judges are fraddy cats! That's why they have guards outside their courts. That's why they don't want us to know where they live. That's why they take different routes to work and park in underground parking garages. The IRS and the DOJ made an example out of a judge in Las Vegas by putting him in prison. It is just inescapable human nature to use a judgeship to protect oneself personally from the IRS.  

         

        I see in the Hatter decision that I overlooked that one Justice joined Douglas in dissent in Evans.

          

         

         

         

         

         

      • vicki mangum
        Hi Everyone, This is part of what Channing Wilson used to get the U.S. Tax Court to rule that they did not have jurisdiction over him: [4.2] 7.2.9.8
        Message 3 of 8 , Jul 27, 2009
          Hi Everyone, This is part of what Channing Wilson used to get the U.S. Tax Court to rule that they did not have jurisdiction over him:


          [4.2] 7.2.9.8 (05-14-1999) Supreme Court Digest [excerpt from IRS Manual] Importance of Court Decisions:



          Decisions made at various levels of the court system are considered to be interpretations of tax laws and may be used by either examiners or taxpayers to support a position.Certain court cases lend more weight to a position than others.� A case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court becomes the law of the land and takes precedence over decisions of lower courts.� The Internal Revenue Service must follow Supreme Court decisions.� For examiners, Supreme Court decisions have the same weight as the Code.Decisions made by lower courts, such as Tax Court, District Courts, or Claims Court are binding on the Service only for the particular taxpayer and the years litigated.� Adverse decisions of lower courts do not require the Service to alter its position for other taxpayers.

          Power to provide for the general welfare independently of the taxing power is not conferred by the provision of Article 1, Sec. 8, clause 1 of the Federal Constitution empowering Congress “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” but the only thing granted is the power to tax for the purpose of providing funds for payment of the nation’s debts and making provision for the general welfare.� United States v. Butler, 297 US 1, 56 S Ct 312, 102 ALR 914, 80 L Ed 477.”

          Congress, though free in the enactment of statutes to ignore the ordinary meaning of words and make definitions of is own, may not employ that device so as to change the nature of the acts or things to which the words are applied.� Carter v Carter Coal Co. 298 US 238, 56 S Ct; 855; 80 L. Ed 1160”

          Whether the end sought to be attained by an act of Congress is legitimate is wholly a matter of constitutional power and not at all of legislative discretion. Carter v. Carter Coal Co. 298 US 238, 56 S Ct 855; 80 L Ed 1160�

          The attainment by Congress of a prohibited end may not be accomplished under the pretext of the assertion of powers which are granted. United States v. Butler, 297 US 1, 56 S Ct; 312, 102 , ALR 914; 80 L Ed 477.”






          ANSWER TO RESPONDENT'S NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY-

          LACK OF PERSONAM JURISDICTION

          _______________________________________________________________

          Respondent served Petitioner with a Notice of Deficiency apparently based upon Respondent's mistaken belief that the Petitioner, for the time period stated in the Notice, was, in fact, a "U.S. citizen." And, moreover, a "taxpayer"� as defined in 26 USC 7701.

          Petitioner has not conducted his life as a U.S. citizen� for many years, having learned (discovered) the differences between a natural born American Citizen of the state and that of a 14th Amendment federal citizen-subject. Petitioner has long-rejected the status of "U.S. citizen", and any writings or statements to the contrary (by Petitioner) were based upon government deceit and deception in failing to advise Petitioner of the consequences of that "status."

          Petitioner denies being (for the period at issue) a resident and/or citizen of the United States and is in fact domiciled in the sovereign Republic of Colorado, and claiming state Citizenship. The term resident and citizen of the United States is distinguished from a Citizen of one of the several states, in that the former is a special class of citizen created by Congress. U.S. v. Anthony, 24 Fed. 829.

          Respondent may have jurisdiction to assess "U.S. citizens"�, whenever "resident"�, but again, Petitioner rejects that status. See enclosed regulations on citizenship status.

          The tax at issue Respondent seeks to impose upon Petitioner goes far beyond Congress's constitutionally delegated powers. See enclosed decisions of the United States Supreme Court.

          Respondent must follow United States Supreme Court decisions. See enclosed excerpt from IRS Manual entitled "Importance of Court Decisions."

          Even the states recognize Congress' attempts to usurp its constitutionally delegated powers. see enclosed HR 94-1035 from Colorado Legislature. Again, the tax at issue, as Respondent would impose it on Petitioner, exceeds Congress' powers.

          Petitioner's right to declare his legal character� is clearly evidenced by President Reagan's Executive Order 12612 see enclosed Executive Order.

          Not even the federal district courts have jurisdiction to decide one's citizenship if the controversy involves federal taxes see Title 28 Section 2201, entitled Creation of remedy.

          Before the Tax Court can proceed to adjudicate the matters herein, Respondent must first establish that Petitioner is/was a U.S. citizen” during the period at issue.

          Absent the required personam jurisdiction, this case must be dismissed.

          He was informed that he would never be eligible for social security or any other federal benefits because he stands firm on his status as a non U.S. citizen. Channing never did have to pay the "income tax" that the IRS originally claimed that he was liable for. I have spoken in person and over the phone with Channing and have a copy of his paperwork that he used to beat the IRS. There are other U.S. Supreme Court decisions that have not been overturned that support the fact that most Americans are not liable for the income tax. I would have to look them up.



          --- On Mon, 7/27/09, legalbear7 <bear@...> wrote:



          Rebecca O'Dell Townsend wrote me back and I responded in red:
        • GeeTee
          The trusts that were accused of not filing that Tommy set up to benefit and care for his wife, never made any money; they lost money. The Trust account Tommy
          Message 4 of 8 , Jul 28, 2009
            "The trusts that were accused of not filing that Tommy set up to
            benefit and care for his wife, never made any money; they lost money."

            The Trust account Tommy set up did lose money--so, that much is true.

            However, to keep things in perspective... let me say that I was at the trial from start to finish... worked with both Larry and Tommy on the case before, during and after the trial. The tax evasion charges were dropped along with the trust account issue the morning of the trial... all Tommy faced was the 7203 charges.

            So, as I recall the event, the trust account issue was never addressed in the prosecution's case--much to the dismay of the defense. By the way, Larry made a good argument for holding the prosecution to its indictment... it was funny to see how that sat with the prosecution. Of course, in the end, the 7201 charges were dropped.

            Of note though, one should keep in mind that a lawyer was on the jury and he ended up being the jury foreman... and aptly explained the willfulness instruction, which was one of the issues the jury didn't fully understand (the jury submitted a question to the court as re willfulness). Seems that had the jury not been nourished by the lawyer's ability to explain willfulness to the 11 other people on the jury things may have been different... In other words, Tommy would probably not be out and about these days--or at best had a hung jury.

            Worthy of note... a year later (July 2008) another fed-tax trial was before the same judge (HICKS)... I recall being told that the judge said, "...there won't be a lawyer on this jury." There wasn't and the Defendant was convicted. What a surprise!?

            GT
          • Bob Conlon
            (Last message was rejected)   When one studies the income tax code, one must look elsewhere for the keys to Title 26.    Solving the riddle of why the
            Message 5 of 8 , Jul 29, 2009
              (Last message was rejected)
               
              When one studies the income tax code, one must look elsewhere for the keys to Title 26. 
               
              Solving the riddle of why the income tax is "constitutional" and why there is so much emphasis on 'federal' employers, employees, officers, payments, etc in various sections of code (26 USC 6331 (a), 26 USC 3402 (p),  26CFR 301.6331(4)(i))  can be answered by:
               
              Title 4 Section 111. Same; taxation affecting Federal employees; income tax
               
               
               (a) General Rule. - The United States consents to the taxation of


                  pay or compensation for personal service as an officer or employee


                  of the United States
              ,....
               
               
               
              There you have it.  THIS IS WHY the courts will laugh at you when you claim income tax is unconstitutional!  What the courts don't tell you is this section does not  impose a liability on the American people in the private sector.
               
               WHY don't 'constitutional lawyers' ever mention this section of code?  What this means is that income tax is constitutional in the narrow sense that it applies to Federal employees only and not to the private sector.(26 CFR 301.6331 (4) (ii) says that state or local government employees, and Seamen may be levied).
               
              I cannot find any statute where the American people consent to ithe taxation of pay... 
               
              I kind of like the idea of taxing only governmentl employees for the source of their own wages and the cost of big government they foist upon us all.
               
               
              Hope this clears up a few misconceptions.
               
              Regards,
              Bob
              ._,___

            • Carrol
              It also can be answered by 5 USC 5516, 5517 and 5520. These are actually the taxing statutes that are attached to the W-2. You can find this connection by
              Message 6 of 8 , Jul 29, 2009
                It also can be answered by 5 USC 5516, 5517 and 5520. These
                are actually the taxing statutes that are attached to the
                W-2. You can find this connection by looking at the Federal
                Register publication in 63 FR pg 69719 which is the publication of
                the System of Records for the W-2 form. Look under "Routine
                uses of records maintained in the system, including categories of
                users and the purposes of such uses:" And since this is published
                in the Federal Register, this is considered as having general applicability
                and legal effect.

                You are right - most of the pieces of the puzzle are outside Title 26.
                Carrol

                Bob Conlon wrote:
                >
                >
                > (Last message was rejected)
                >
                > When one studies the income tax code, one must look elsewhere for the
                > keys to Title 26.
                >
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.