Taxpayer is not a CITIZEN of the United States??
I just posted extensive comments on my blog relative to the argument, "Taxpayer is not a CITIZEN of the United States??" here: http://bit.ly/98ncDC I'm interested in what you think about my comments. I think they are well thought out and reality based. Maybe you have time to comment yourself as well. Bear
Best times to call: 8:30 am-9:00 pm MST
Bear's Pages: www.irsterminator.com www.legalbears.com www.legalbearsblog.com
www.irslienthumper.com www.irslevythumper.com www.irs-armory.com www.freedivorceforms.net
www.cantheydothat.com (a free lien evaluation) www.trafficrocketblog.com Send an email to:
firstname.lastname@example.org to join Tips & Tricks for Court Group
- Hello Barry,
I don't find the thread on that web site. What am I missing?
Bernie: Here is the link not shortened. Bear
Phones from the USA:
"If they can get you asking the wrong questions,
they don't have to worry about answers." Thomas Pynchon
- I believe that if you review 26 USC section 871, titled " Tax on nonresident alien individuals" it will be found the privilege of residing within the U.S. is the grounds for "a tax of 30 percent of the amount received fromn sources within the United States by a nonresident alien individual..."
It is readily apparent that this section does not apply to citizens of the United States. Neither is it cited within typical indictments as a statute that authorizes a tax upon citizens.
What statutes imposes a tax upon citizens of the United States ??? Well, it that statute exists, it is not alleged and put into contestation in any IRS prosecutions. Of course, it would be an ESSENTIAL ELEMENT of any valid indictment. An indictment that does not allege EVERY ESSENTIAL ELEMENT of a crime is invalid. Almendarez v United States, 523 U.S. 224, 228 (1998).
A casual reading of any income tax indictment reveals they always refer to the defendant as a "taxpayer." That is a conclusion of law that has NO standing in a valid indictment and should be challenged. The statutory imposition of "taxpayer" is another essential element that must be alleged in a valid indictment.
--- In email@example.com, "Barry" <bear@...> wrote:
> I just posted extensive comments on my blog relative to the argument,
> "Taxpayer is not a CITIZEN of the United States??" here:
> http://bit.ly/98ncDC <http://bit.ly/98ncDC> I'm interested in what
> you think about my comments. I think they are well thought out and
> reality based. Maybe you have time to comment yourself as well. Bear
- I was very interested in the term taxpayer and what that really
means. I did some research and this is what I came up with:
The description of the Individual Master File in the IRM says:
“IRM 22.214.171.124.1.3 (01-30-2001)
(2)The returns filed include Income Tax Forms 1040, 1040A, 1040NR,
1040 C, 1040SS, 1040PR and Estimated Tax Returns 1040ES. Each
taxpayer account has an entity module and one or more tax modules.
The entity module contains data which describes that taxpayer as an
entity and which applies to all records of the taxpayer.”
When the IRS is referring to a Taxpayer the are referring to an "entity".
The entity classification rules are published in the regulations for
26 USC Section 7701. 26 CFR 602.101 shows OMB 1545-1486
is the collection of information authorized for 26 CFR 301.7701-3
The collections of information under OMB 1545-1486, published at
61 FR 66584, December 18, 1996 is titled “Simplification of Entity
Classification Rules”. Stated by the regulations,
“Summary: This document contains final regulations that classify
certain business organizations under an elective regime. These
regulations replace the existing classification rules.”
“(a) Organizations for federal tax purposes-(1) In general. The
Code prescribes the classification of various organizations for
federal tax purposes....
(4) Single Owner organizations. Under §§ 301-7701-2 and 301-7701-3, certain
organizations that have a single owner can choose to be recognized or
as entities separate from their owners.” OMB 1545-1486, 61 FR 65588 &
26 CFR §301-7701-1
69 FR 43317 July 20, 2004
Section 301.7701-3(a) provides that an eligible entity with two or
more owners may
elect to be classified as an association (and thus a corporation under
§ 301.7701-2(b)(2)) or a partnership, and a eligible entity with a single
owner may elect to be classified as an association or to be disregarded
as an entity separate from its owner. Section 301.7701-3(b) provides
that unless the entity elects otherwise, a domestic eligible entity is a
partnership if it has two or more owners or is disregarded as an entity
separate from its owner if it has a single owner.”
69 FR 43318, July 20, 2004
“If the late or invalid election is not perfected, the default rules will
maintain passthrough taxation treatment by classifying the entity
as a partnership or a disregarded entity.”
Default classification of an entity falls to a partnership or a disregarded
Now we have
Taxpayer defined as an entity, defaulting to a partnership or a
disregarded entity (AKA a entity, disregarded as being separate
from its owner), unless an election is in place.
This applies to all records of the taxpayer. So anytime they are addressing
the taxpayer -
JOHN DOE, a disregarded entity
JOHN DOE, a partnership entity
JOHN DOE, a corporation entity
JOHN DOE, a trust entity
No other classifications are specified in their regulations.
> I believe that if you review 26 USC section 871, titled " Tax on
> nonresident alien individuals" it will be found the privilege of
> residing within the U.S. is the grounds for "a tax of 30 percent of the
> amount received fromn sources within the United States by a nonresident
> alien individual..."
> It is readily apparent that this section does not apply to citizens of
> the United States. Neither is it cited within typical indictments as a
> statute that authorizes a tax upon citizens.
> What statutes imposes a tax upon citizens of the United States ??? Well,
> it that statute exists, it is not alleged and put into contestation in
> any IRS prosecutions. Of course, it would be an ESSENTIAL ELEMENT of any
> valid indictment. An indictment that does not allege EVERY ESSENTIAL
> ELEMENT of a crime is invalid. Almendarez v United States, 523 U.S. 224,
> 228 (1998).
> A casual reading of any income tax indictment reveals they always refer
> to the defendant as a "taxpayer." That is a conclusion of law that has
> NO standing in a valid indictment and should be challenged. The
> statutory imposition of "taxpayer" is another essential element that
> must be alleged in a valid indictment.
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org
> <mailto:tips_and_tricks%40yahoogroups.com>, "Barry" <bear@...> wrote:
> > I just posted extensive comments on my blog relative to the argument,
> > "Taxpayer is not a CITIZEN of the United States??" here:
> > http://bit.ly/98ncDC <http://bit.ly/98ncDC> <http://bit.ly/98ncDC
> <http://bit.ly/98ncDC>> I'm interested in what
> > you think about my comments. I think they are well thought out and
> > reality based. Maybe you have time to comment yourself as well. Bear
- A statement of citizenship, in duplicate, from a worker has always served to relieve an employer of duty to withhold income taxes from ANY workers pay, under Section 1.1441-5 and Publication #515 (wording was altered in 1999 to disguise the provision).Tax Code §§ 1402(b), 3121(e) 3306(j), and 42 USC 411(b)(2), define "citizen" and do not mention me, an American, but there is no statute that mentions my citizenship as a subject of the Tax Code; I'm only named in regulation 26 CFR 1.1-1 by the U.S. Treasury. This violates the 16th Amdt. which says that only Congress may lay and collect income taxes.Citizen has not obtained the standing of a former slave by petitioning Congress for admittance to venue and jurisdiction of the Fourteenth Amendment, then Congress has no power over that individual under this clause (Amend. 14, Sec. 5)." [9 Fed. Stat. Anno. 6331. The definition in Black's Sixth Edition, pg.657, tells it all: "The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of theUnited States , ratified in 1868, creates or at least recognizes for the first time a citizen of the United States , as distinct from that of the states.". Notice it didn't do away with citizenship of a state, it only adds this citizen of the United States .
1. Congress decided to prevent the federal courts from deciding the matter on state citizenship and federal citizenship and such in respect to federal taxes. "§ 2201. Creation of remedy (a) In a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction, except with respect to Federal taxes,... any court of the United States , upon the filing of an appropriate pleading, may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be sought." How convenient.
You are then not arguing jurisdiction in front of that court - you are using evidence to prove that jurisdiction already exist in another court. Read 28 USC 2201 and it states that it must be argued in the proper manner - and that is by not letting the US court decide that issue - go to common law and plead condition precedent under FRCP rule 8.(The citizenship was already decided before the action began).Many people claim that citizenship or adhesion contracts or strawmen & so on are SUPPOSEDLY responsible.
Seriously, HOW many of us were ORIGINALLY NOTIFIED by the IRS that we were an INDIVIDUAL that WITHHOLDING was REQUIRED of or that we were an INDIVIDUAL that were REQUIRED to file an INCOME TAX return?IF NOT, then WHY did WE originally REQUEST withholding or FILE an income tax return in the FIRST PLACE?
It would CLEARLY be recognized that there is NO NEED let alone any LOGIC Whatsoever in even bringing up a citizenship issue (14th Amendment or otherwise) let alone FILE such with the County Recorders Office, or CITE ANY CASES WHATSOEVER as the BURDEN/S to Prove or Establish Grounds, Issues and/or Jurisdiction lie solely ON THE PROPONENT as Stated in Sec. 556(d)!!! NOR would Anyone KNOWING 5 USC 556(d) & 702 thereby SUBMIT themselves to an "administrative" review/determination of "status" !!! One defeated the IRS/DOJ and Exposed their Lack of Jurisdiction in the U.S. Court of Appeals Nearly Thirty YEARS Ago by using Title 5!!
Since Most American Workers do NOT "begin" their Contact with a "Summons" by the IRS whereby they can IMMEDIATELY FILE a Judicial Notice Challenging the Jurisdiction/Authority of Same, and since the IRS is NOTORIOUS for Implementing 26 USC 6331 to Seize one's financial assets, whether Bank Accounts or Paychecks, Upon receiving ANY IRS Requests for Information or CP Notices to Send NOTICES OF COMPLAINTS via Registered Mail to the Officers (e.g. Commissioner & Treasury Secretary) as well as ALL of one's Elected Officials in D.C., with Same Requesting their assistance as well as Requesting: ALL Identities, Copies of ALL Documents, Records, Points & Authorities. (the Word "ALL" encompasses things such as verified assessment, Master Files, Proof of Jurisdiction /Authority etc, without having to individually identify and ask for each as such) Such NOTICES ATTACH PERSONAL LIABILITY TO SAME and inevitably ends the Matter either by their assistance with same, or Estoppel via their Silence.
People have been saying we are not legal fictions, a person, an individual, a corporation, a FEDERAL EMPLOYEE, A UNITED STATES CITIZEN, and the like. We have claimed we are natural persons, human beings and the like.
Since Title 26 only applies to the aforementioned things we are not, I see no logical reason why a Title that claims it only deals with things we are not should be used when dealing with us.
Inversely, it is only logical to conclude that we should use a Title that claims it deals with things we claim we are, ie natural person and human beings. These Titles would be Title 15 and Clayton Act section 17.
We have been tricked into using Title 26 so as to invalidate any previously claim that we are not the things listed in Title 26.
Only an insane man would claim he is not something and then invoke the laws designed for the thing he is not.
Yet a sane man would say I am not something and invoke the law designed for that which he claims he is.
On another note:Hauert Case
PROSECUTION CAN'T PROVIDE THE STATUTE MAKING THE PARTY REQUIRED TO FILE
Tom Hauert was indicted on five counts Sec. 7203 WILLFUL FAILURE etc. Hauert wanted to know the OFFENSE statute he was accused of violating and would be pleading guilty to. He wanted to know the particular statute that made him a person required to pay the income tax. His attorney (addressing the judge): The prosecution has been trying to get my client to plea bargain. My client is interested but has a few demands of the prosecution in order to understand the charges and determine the potential guilt. He has a serious question that nobody will address. Will the court entertain that question? Hauert: Your honor, Section 7203 of the I.R. Code is a DISCIPLINARY STATUTE. It defines the penalty for someone who has broken the law. I need to know the underlying offense statute that is used to determine if I am the any person required to file. The term any person is ambiguous. Hauerts attorney then requested a Bill of Particulars, defining the specific offense statute that created the liability for Hauert to pay the income tax and file a 1040 Tax Return. A Bill of Particulars is a written statement of the SPECIFIC CHARGES against the defendant. This switched the burden of proof back to the government to provide such a statute. After an extended period of time, the prosecution still could not supply the court with the offense statute or regulation that made Tom Hauert (or any American Citizen) the person made liable to pay the S.1 graduated Income Tax (because no such statute exists). Hauert, therefore, filed for and was granted a DISMISSAL! http://irsdebteliminated.com/blog/2009/06/24/how-to-beat-the-irs-irs-v-hauert/