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

I had to deliver Peter Hendrickson at noon today to Milan FCI.

Expand Messages
  • Barry
    Dear Friends- I had to deliver Peter at noon today to Milan FCI. I ll post more later (this is not over), but I promised him a lot of things and this is the
    Message 1 of 25 , Jun 30, 2010
    • 0 Attachment

      Dear Friends-

      I had to deliver Peter at noon today to Milan FCI. I'll post more later (this is not over), but I promised him a lot of things and this is the easiest to fulfill. He would be delighted to get mail throughout his hopefully brief time enjoying the hospitality of our government. Please address correspondence as follows:

      Peter Hendrickson #15406-039
      FCI Milan
      P.O. Box 1000
      E. Arkona Rd.
      Milan, MI 48160

      I'll start another thread reporting on current events later. Btw, one of the best ways to win this is to keep spreading the word.

    • jerry bell
      Well Pete was warned about his citizenship but he chose not to look at that fact. Dear Friends- I had to deliver Peter at noon today to Milan FCI. I ll post
      Message 2 of 25 , Jul 1, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Well Pete was warned about his citizenship but he chose not to look at that fact.


        Dear Friends-

        I had to deliver Peter at noon today to Milan FCI. I'll post more later (this is not over), but I promised him a lot of things and this is the easiest to fulfill.
      • Barry
        ... I went to jail for 7 months on two cases I should have won five different ways. My judge recused himself but continued to hear my case anyway. He told me
        Message 3 of 25 , Jul 1, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, jerry bell <anguillabell@...> wrote:
          >
          > Well Pete Hendrickson was warned about his citizenship but he chose not to look at that fact.

          I went to jail for 7 months on two cases I should have won five different ways. My judge recused himself but continued to hear my case anyway. He told me straight up that it was his last retention period and he was retiring. All the people that had long sentences in jail with me, were sent there by him. My point; going to jail or prison is not proof of being wrong. Also, it does not prove the correctness of your theory because you aren't in prison. There is a certain amount of smugness in an I told him so.

          At one Frontline Master's symposium Jack Smith spent a great deal of time explaining why the Montana Freeman were not in prison and we all know what happened with that situation.

          Look what the latest frivolous arguments .pdf from the IRS says about citizenship:

          "C. The Meaning of Certain Terms Used in the Internal Revenue Code
          1. Contention: Taxpayer is not a "citizen" of the United States, thus not subject to the federal income tax laws. Some individuals argue that they have rejected citizenship in the United States in favor of state citizenship; therefore, they are relieved of their federal income tax obligations. A variation of this argument is that a person is a free born citizen of a particular state and thus was never a citizen of the United States. The underlying theme of these arguments is the same: the person is not a United States citizen and is not subject to federal tax laws because only United States citizens are subject to these laws. The Law: The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution defines the basis for United States citizenship, stating that "[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." The Fourteenth Amendment therefore establishes simultaneous state and federal citizenship. Claims that individuals are not citizens of the United States but are solely citizens of a sovereign state and not subject to federal taxation have been uniformly rejected by the courts. The IRS issued Revenue Ruling 2007-22, 2007-14 I.R.B. 866, warning taxpayers of the consequences of making this frivolous argument. In April 2005, a federal district court in Georgia permanently barred Jonathan D. Luman blocking him from selling his "Tax Buster" program that was based on the false theory that customers can avoid paying tax by renouncing their Social Security numbers and becoming sovereign citizens. See http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2005/April/05_tax_190.htm; see also 2005 TNT 93-17 (Apr. 7, 2005).

          "In September 2006, a federal district court in California permanently barred James L. Tolbert from preparing income tax returns for others, because he promoted a fraudulent tax scheme based on the frivolous theory, among others, that state residents are not liable for federal income tax since they are citizens of the state and not of the United States. See http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2006/September/06_tax_602.html; see also 2006 TNT 177-31 (Sept. 8, 2006).

          "In January 2006, Lynn N. Ealy was sentenced in federal district court to 27 months imprisonment for his conviction on three counts of federal income tax evasion and ordered to pay restitution of $84,174 to the IRS. The evidence against Mr. Ealy demonstrated various affirmative acts of evasion, including the fact that he claimed he was not a citizen of the United States and the tax laws were unconstitutional. See 2006 TNT 18- 48 (Jan. 12, 2006).

          "In September 2006, a California federal district court barred James L. Tolbert from preparing federal tax returns. Tolbert promoted a tax avoidance scheme representing, among other things, that residents of California or other states are not liable for federal income tax because they are citizens of California (or other state) and not the United States, and that American citizens working in the United States need not file federal income returns because "compensation for labor" is totally different in meaning and in law from "income." See http://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/pr/2006/September/06_tax_602.html.

          "In May 2009, a Connecticut federal district court judge granted the government's motion for a permanent injunction against Deowraj Buddhu and Sunita Buddhu, precluding them from: preparing or assisting in preparing federal tax returns; representing customers before the Internal Revenue Service; owning, working for, or volunteering for tax-returnp reparation businesses; and promoting tax-fraud schemes. Sunita Buddhu and her father Deowraj Buddhu had operated a tax return
          preparation business in which they advised their clients that the IRS does not have authorization or jurisdiction to conduct examination of Connecticut residents' tax returns. http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2009/May/09-tax-474.html.

          "Relevant Case Law:

          "United States v. Hilgeford, 7 F.3d 1340, 1342 (7th Cir. 1993) – the court rejected "shop worn" argument that defendant is a citizen of the "Indiana State Republic" and therefore an alien beyond the jurisdictional reach of the federal courts.

          "United States v. Sileven, 985 F.2d 962 (8th Cir. 1993) – the court rejected the argument that the district court lacked jurisdiction because the taxpayer was not a federal citizen as "plainly frivolous."

          "United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255, 1256 (8th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1193 (1994) – the court rejected the Gerads' contention that they were "not citizens of the United States, but rather `Free Citizens of the Republic of Minnesota' and, consequently, not subject to taxation" and imposed sanctions "for bringing this frivolous appeal based on discredited, tax-protester arguments."

          "United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499, 500 (7th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1060, reh'g denied, 503 U.S. 953 (1992) – the court affirmed a tax evasion conviction and rejected Sloan's argument that the federal tax laws did not apply to him because he was a "freeborn, natural individual, a citizen of the State of Indiana, and a `master' – not `servant' – of his government."

          "United States v. Ward, 833 F.2d 1538, 1539 (11th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1022 (1988) – the court found Ward's contention that he was not an "individual" located within the jurisdiction of the United States to be "utterly without merit" and affirmed his conviction for tax evasion.

          "O'Driscoll v. IRS, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9829, at *5-6 (E.D. Pa. 1991) – the court stated, "despite [taxpayer's] linguistic gymnastics, he is a citizen of both the United States and Pennsylvania, and liable for federal taxes."

          "Rice v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2009-169, 98 T.C.M. (CCH) 40 (2009) – the court affirmed the imposition of a section 6702 frivolous return penalty against the taxpayer and rejected the taxpayer's claim that he was not liable for income tax because he resided in the "American Republic of Georgia" and was not a United States citizen.

          "Knittel v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2009-149, 97 T.C.M. (CCH) 1837 (2009) – the court imposed a $7,500 section 6673 penalty against the taxpayer for asserting the frivolous argument (among others) that he was "not a United States person as defined in I.R.C. section 7701(a)(30)."

          "Bland-Barclay v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-20, 83 T.C.M. (CCH) 1119, 1121 (2002) – the court rejected taxpayers' claim that they were exempt from the federal income tax laws due to their status as "citizens of the Maryland Republic," characterized such arguments as "baseless and wholly without merit," and required taxpayers to pay a $1,500 penalty for making frivolous arguments.

          "Marsh v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2000-11, 79 T.C.M. (CCH) 1327, aff'd, 23 Fed. Appx. 874 (9th 2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1029 (2002) - the court rejected the argument that the United States lacked legal standing to assess taxes because Marsh was a descendant from native Hawaiians. The court held that Marsh was a United States citizen subject to tax and not excluded as a purported member of the "Nation of Hawaii."

          "Solomon v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-509, 66 T.C.M. (CCH) 1201, 1202-03 (1993), 42 F.3d 1391 (7th Cir. 1994) – the court rejected Solomon's argument that as an Illinois resident his income was from outside the United States, stating "[he] attempts to argue an absurd proposition, essentially that the State of Illinois is not part of the United States. His hope is that he will find some semantic technicality which will render him exempt from Federal income tax, which applies generally to all U.S. citizens and residents. [His] arguments are no more than stale tax protester contentions long dismissed summarily by this Court and all other courts which have heard such contentions."

          If your warning to Pete about his citizenship consisted of one line like it did here, based on the above, I don't think not listening to you hurt him much. Now, if you explained how to get around the judicial state of mind that resulted in the above decisions, that might be another matter. C'mon Jerry, help us out here.

          We've got to get out of this naive mindset that thinks that just because we haven't been to court to make these arguments that no one else has. I'm not saying we can't make the argument. I'm just saying that at this late stage of the game we have to anticipate and study out what has already happened in the courts and be totally prepared to deal with it. We need to go to court recognizing that the DOJ/IRS has been setting out over the years and getting these precedents put in place in anticipation of unskilled and inexperienced litigants coming to court to make arguments that have already been dealt with previously by the courts. Bear
        • Jake
          ... Which is totally irrelevant because it has nothing to do with what he was charged with & convicted of.  And none of Pete s arguments had anything to do
          Message 4 of 25 , Jul 1, 2010
          --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, jerry bell <anguillabell@...> wrote:
          >

          > Well Pete Hendrickson was warned about his citizenship but he chose not to look at that fact.


          Which is totally irrelevant because it has nothing to do with what he was charged with & convicted of.  And none of Pete's arguments had anything to do with the charges either - arguing over the definition of "employer", "employee", etc. is a complete & total waste of time when you're charged with 10 counts of "Filing a False Document" (26 U.S.C. § 7206(1)) - 4 Form 1040's & 6 Form 4852's - read the attached Verdict sheet.


          As far as the court & the jury is concerned it's real simple - we're not here to argue over the tax code - did the defendant willfully file false documents, yes or no?  The jury said yes - end of story.  Pete's only defense would have been the "Cheek Defense" (Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991)).  


          Cheek was charged & convicted of 6 counts of "Willful Failure to File" (26 U.S.C. § 7203) & his case went to the U.S. supreme court - the main points being the element of "willfulness" & whether a good-faith belief that one is not violating the law negates "willfulness".  The lower courts held that his beliefs, however sincere they might be, were not "objectively reasonable", but the supreme court overturned.  Excerpt from the Syllabus (emphasis added):


          "In instructing the jury, the [district] court stated that an honest but unreasonable belief is not a defense, and does not negate willfulness, and that Cheek's beliefs that wages are not income and that he was not a taxpayer within the meaning of the Code were not objectively reasonable. It also instructed the jury that a person's opinion that the tax laws violate his constitutional rights does not constitute a good-faith misunderstanding of the law. Cheek was convicted, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.


          Held:


           1.
          A good-faith misunderstanding of the law or a good-faith belief that one is not violating the law negates willfulness, whether or not the claimed belief or misunderstanding is objectively reasonable. Statutory willfulness, which protects the average citizen from prosecution for innocent mistakes made due to the complexity of the tax laws, United States v. Murdock, 290 U.S. 389, is the voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty. United States v. Pomponio, 429 U.S. 10.  Thus, if the jury credited Cheek's assertion that he truly believed that the Code did not treat wages as income, the Government would not have carried its burden to prove willfulness, however unreasonable a court might deem such a belief. Characterizing a belief as objectively unreasonable transforms what is normally a factual inquiry into a legal one, thus preventing a jury from considering it."


          Note that while Cheek's conviction was vacated & remanded, with the supreme court's determination that a good faith belief doesn't have to be "objectively reasonable", Cheek was tried & convicted again, so he still lost.  But, the "willfulness" standard was set & even if you do sign of form "under the penalty of perjury" & the form contains false information, if you honestly believe the information is correct, you could have a defense.  But that is the only one Pete could have used & from all the court papers I've read in his case, he didn't.


          Simply put, you signed the forms, they contained false information & that's that - you're guilty.


          ~ ~ ~

             



        • Frog Farmer
          ... In my own reading of the above cases, I saw lots of agreement that the defendant was a taxpayer . There was most likely also proof on the record that
          Message 5 of 25 , Jul 2, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            > We've got to get out of this naive mindset that thinks that just
            > because we haven't been to court to make these arguments that no one
            > else has. I'm not saying we can't make the argument. I'm just saying
            > that at this late stage of the game we have to anticipate and study
            > out what has already happened in the courts and be totally prepared to
            > deal with it. We need to go to court recognizing that the DOJ/IRS has
            > been setting out over the years and getting these precedents put in
            > place in anticipation of unskilled and inexperienced litigants coming
            > to court to make arguments that have already been dealt with
            > previously by the courts. Bear

            In my own reading of the above cases, I saw lots of agreement that the
            defendant was a "taxpayer". There was most likely also proof on the
            record that they had also claimed to be a "resident".

            In my own studies, the status of resident has that of a corporate
            character. Here in California it is described as being here "on more
            than a temporary basis". Like Coca-Cola and the federal government.
            They hope. And it is a matter of intent as well. Coke and the federal
            government may actually fail to be here on more than a temporary basis,
            but it is the intention that seals it. Now, on the other hand, I know I
            am mortal and cannot hope to be here on more than a temporary basis.
            Nobody has argued with me about it yet. I rely upon it as a true state
            of the law as expressed in California's own statutes and codes.

            I cannot agree that I am a resident. I cannot obtain proof that I am!!
            I would have to lie about it on a paper with my signature under a jurat
            to get false proof that I am one!

            But I would like a dollar for everyone I meet who will claim to be one!

            Regards,

            FF
          • Michael
            ... It seems axiomatic that anyone who has the misfortune of finding him/herself in court has already lost the battle, regardless of the argument to be
            Message 6 of 25 , Jul 2, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "Barry" <bear@...> wrote:

              > If your warning to Pete about his citizenship
              > consisted of one line like it did here, based
              > on the above, I don't think not listening to
              > you hurt him much. Now, if you explained how
              > to get around the judicial state of mind that
              > resulted in the above decisions, that might be
              > another matter. C'mon Jerry, help us out here.


              It seems axiomatic that anyone who has the misfortune
              of finding him/herself in court has already lost the
              battle, regardless of the argument to be presented in
              court.

              Most every case cited has the one asserting the claim
              of being a state citizen of some sort, and NOT a US
              citizen. You make the claim, you bear the burden of
              proving it. Not one case appears to have the IRS
              bearing the burden of proving ITS claim against a state
              citizen.

              This is a simplified observation, to be sure, but then
              again, keeping it simple is always the best start

              The challenge starts at "Dear Taxpayer..." Make the
              sender, some IRS agent, prove that claim and everything
              else being asserted in the equivalent of FF's IMOC [initial moment of contact, I think].

              I speak from limited, but very direct experience of
              challenging the IRS, several agents, and a personal
              delivery of a letter to a chagrined Chicago District
              Director, pissed, and surprised that I walked into
              his office, right past his secretary and handed him
              my letter.

              Once the first agent read what I handed him, he
              stomped off and left me alone...to roam the rest of
              the floor and find the district director's office.

              Never heard back from any of them.
            • Jake
              I speak from limited, but very direct experience of challenging the IRS, several agents, and a personal delivery of a letter to a chagrined Chicago District
              Message 7 of 25 , Jul 2, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                I speak from limited, but very direct experience of challenging the IRS, several agents, and a personal delivery of a letter to a chagrined Chicago District Director, pissed, and surprised that I walked into his office, right past his secretary and handed him my letter.

                Must have been prior to 1 October 2000 because there haven't been any district directors since - the office was eliminated as a result of "restructuring".  And it is very interesting to note that while many Regulations have been changed, many still contain "district director" - even though there aren't any.
                You can check out the "IRS Organization Blueprint 2000" (276 pages) showing a major shift in organizational structure from regional & district divisions to 4 nationwide divisions; Wage & Investment; Small Business / Self-Employed; Large & Mid-Size Business; Tax Exempt & Gov't. Entities:

                http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/27877d00.pdf%c2%a0

                ~ ~ ~


                > If your warning to Pete about his citizenship

                > consisted of one line like it did here, based

                > on the above, I don't think not listening to

                > you hurt him much. Now, if you explained how
              • Roger Hattman
                I have never found any case law indicating that being a resident somehow waives rights; however, my experience tells me that it is absolutely the case.  I
                Message 8 of 25 , Jul 3, 2010
                • 0 Attachment
                  I have never found any case law indicating that being a resident somehow waives rights; however, my experience tells me that it is absolutely the case.  I find that the biggest admssion to being a resident is having a "residential" address. The only acceptable way to get mail is general mail and use that only. 




                  _
                  > We've got to get out of this naive mindset that thinks that just
                  > because we haven't been to court to make these arguments that no one
                  > else has. I'm not saying we can't make the argument. I'm just saying
                  > that at this late stage of the game we have to anticipate and study
                  > out what has already happened in the courts and be totally prepared to
                  > deal with it.
                • Daniel Nieves
                  I agree totally. Now I always describe myself as a transient foreigner and a stateless person pursuant to Newman-Greene v Alfonso Larrain 490 U.S.
                  Message 9 of 25 , Jul 3, 2010
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I agree totally. Now I always describe myself as a transient foreigner and a stateless person pursuant to

                    Newman-Greene v Alfonso Larrain 490 U.S. 826(1989.).� I correct all other forms that do not say this on it.�


                    > We've got to get out of this naive mindset that thinks that just

                    > because we haven't been to court to make these arguments that no one

                    > else has. I'm not saying we can't make the argument. I'm just saying

                    > that at this late stage of the game we have to anticipate and study

                    > out what has already happened in the courts and be totally prepared to

                    > deal with it.
                  • dave
                    Another acceptable way to get mail OUTSIDE residence claims: If you acquire a post office box, that name post office box is registered by the postal
                    Message 10 of 25 , Jul 5, 2010
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Another "acceptable way" to get mail OUTSIDE residence claims:



                      If you acquire a post office box, that name "post office box" is registered
                      by the postal service and ONLY for the delivery of mail to a post office
                      box. Since you probably are not permitted to reside on post office property,
                      you can't have a residence there. Further the Post Office requires a
                      "permanent address" in order to get the PO BOX..so by admission, both are
                      not the same. And since the courts use the genuine postal service to
                      establish their own service of process, it's hard for court officer's to
                      deny that one can't reside in a 6 x 6 inch box.

                      Here are some tricks of the trade:

                      . Rip the mailbox in front of your house out of the ground. Trust
                      me..this will prevent a ton of problems. Cut off your detractors cleanly;
                      don't put a forwarder on the mail! You can get general delivery..or..Get
                      either a PO BOX or a PMB. Remember I said that the Post Office registered
                      the name PO BOX .so no one else can use it such as "The UPS Store"..so they
                      had to come up with a new name for UPS Store boxes and that name is "PMB".
                      So if you get mail at a UPS Store or other private box service make SURE you
                      use for example PMB 143.

                      . On mail addressed to lawyers or courts make sure you caption it
                      right under the address "A Mailing address of Convenience". This SHOULD
                      force the court officer to look elsewhere for a jurisdictional establishment
                      within the filing but you might have to raise it. In one case where the
                      judge proceeded on, I simply sent the court a package with only the words
                      "mailing address of convenience" highlighted, and a picture of the post
                      office where I had scribbled across the front, "they won't let me live
                      here." The judge tore into the attorney in her ruling saying no residence
                      was established by her to invoke court jurisdiction and that court had
                      nothing to do.

                      . Lawyers will REMOVE the words PMB every time from their filings
                      and letters to you. You must insert it back to them and remind them "mailing
                      address of convenience".

                      . In ALL collection matters when you receive a letter saying the
                      letter is from a debt collector, the debt collector must invoke jurisdiction
                      either where the contract was signed [hard to prove for CC debt], or where
                      you reside. This the moving party must show the court to invoke its
                      jurisdiction. [They don't and hope you don't notice.] The easiest way to
                      show the court you are not in its jurisdiction is in the Court caption
                      address. Simply eh?



                      You can have multiple mailing addresses of convenience in a free society. In
                      a free society only YOU can establish residence or domicile for if
                      government could PLACE you someplace, you wouldn't be free would you?



                      If you want an advanced discussion on this matter go to either
                      www.edrivera.com and read the free material there..or become a student for
                      life..for which if you study well, you WILL be rewarded the small cost of
                      becoming a student many times over. Ed has some rock solid NEW material.




                      I have never found any case law indicating that being a resident somehow
                      waives rights; however, my experience tells me that it is absolutely the
                      case. I find that the biggest admssion to being a resident is having a
                      "residential" address. The only acceptable way to get mail is general mail
                      and use that only.
                    • Roger Hattman
                      My comments are below. YES, YES, YES he is absolutely correct.  However, I have no experience with PO Box and PMB so I cannot comment on those.  One drawback
                      Message 11 of 25 , Jul 5, 2010
                      • 0 Attachment
                        My comments are below.

                        YES, YES, YES he is absolutely correct.  However, I have no experience with PO Box and PMB so I cannot comment on those.  One drawback is as far as I know you cannot have a Driver License or Auto registration at a PO Box.

                        .        On mail addressed to lawyers or courts make sure you caption it
                        right under the address "A Mailing address of Convenience". This SHOULD
                        force the court officer to look elsewhere for a jurisdictional establishment
                        within the filing but you might have to raise it. In one case where the
                        judge proceeded on, I simply sent the court a package with only the words
                        "mailing address of convenience" highlighted, and a picture of the post
                        office where I had scribbled across the front, "they won't let me live
                        here." The judge tore into the attorney in her ruling saying no residence
                        was established by her to invoke court jurisdiction and that court had
                        nothing to do.
                        Great thinking.

                        .   

                        You can have multiple mailing addresses of convenience in a free society. In
                        a free society only YOU can establish residence or domicile for if
                        government could PLACE you someplace, you wouldn't be free would you?
                        Not only can you, but you should.  Since no special action is needed on your part (for general mail), when you are away, tell people to send you mail at whatever post office is handy.  General mail is the ultimate in convenience for those on the move (In my opinion, that is really everybody, unless you are either dead or a plant.)
                      • Rickity
                        I m not good at passing the forum rules but I thought this to be worth a last shot. My wife and I have use General Delivery for our incoming mail for about 12
                        Message 12 of 25 , Jul 5, 2010
                        • 0 Attachment
                          I'm not good at passing the forum rules but I thought this to be worth a
                          last shot. My wife and I have use General Delivery for our incoming mail
                          for about 12 years now. Yes, we had to fight for it but I put the
                          postmaster over a barrel and it stuck to many of the clerks' amazement. If
                          the recipient needs a "physical address" then we put the "physical address"
                          of the post office along with "General Delivery." It works. My wife's and
                          my driver's licenses both list general delivery as the address. Nothing
                          works unless you try it. Most things don't work unless you fight for it. I
                          believe the car registration would have to be accepted as well. Rickity






                          "When someone who is honestly mistaken discovers the truth he is no longer
                          mistaken or no longer honest."


                          _____


                          My comments are below.

                          YES, YES, YES he is absolutely correct. However, I have no experience with
                          PO Box and PMB so I cannot comment on those. One drawback is as far as I
                          know you cannot have a Driver License or Auto registration at a PO Box.
                        • Michael
                          ... Yep. It was just about a decade ago, and it still brings a smile to my face.
                          Message 13 of 25 , Jul 5, 2010
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, Jake <jake_28079@...> wrote:
                            > Must have been prior to 1 October 2000 because there
                            > haven't been any district directors since - the office
                            > was eliminated as a result of "restructuring".

                            Yep. It was just about a decade ago, and it still brings
                            a smile to my face.
                          • hobot
                            RESIDENCE makes all the difference in the world. If you ain t found evidence in black and white yet then you just ain t trying very hard. Anywho I ve solved
                            Message 14 of 25 , Jul 5, 2010
                            • 0 Attachment
                              RESIDENCE makes all the difference in the world.
                              If you ain't found evidence in black and white yet then you just ain't
                              trying very hard.
                              Anywho I've solved all this in all ways via W8BEN and knowing the
                              definitions of
                              the treaties and Acts involving banks and taxes.
                              After understanding the scope and confusing variations of W8BEN forms
                              and this
                              to use it, there is an attachment form [banks can provide IRS version of]
                              that specifically covers US mailing address as convenience only not
                              permanent
                              home jurisdiction. See #2 in this site for example.
                              http://www.bacflorida.com/en/customer-service/w8-forms.php

                              Part I. Please check the appropriate box below and provide the
                              information requested:
                              􀂉 The U.S. mailing address provided on my Form W-8BEN presented to BAC
                              Florida Bank
                              is not my permanent residence address and is used for convenience
                              purposes only, such
                              as a vacation home, the home of a relative or some other address where
                              receipt of mail
                              and similar notices is particularly convenient.
                              􀂉 Other – I explain below the reason for using the U.S. mailing address
                              provided on my
                              Form W-8BEN presented to BAC Florida Bank, despite the fact that such
                              address is not
                              my permanent residence address:
                              ______________________________________________________________________
                              ______________________________________________________________________
                              I hereby provide a copy of one or both of the documents listed below
                              (see document(s)
                              checked) to support further my claim of foreign status.
                              􀂉 Driver's License
                              􀂉 Passport
                              Signature: _________________________

                              Non US resident address format.
                              Johnny Appleseed
                              111 Main Square #222
                              Town, County, mail route 44, [use last 2 digits of ZIP as dejure postal
                              route]
                              Statename, United States of America [spelled out fully not abbreviated].

                              hobot - used a current passport with same data as in W8BEN but striking
                              out US citizen and underlining
                              non citizen national, no SSN, no penalty. Used photo ID from clubs and
                              schools or
                              other non -gov't issued ID that requires a RESIDENCE in United States,
                              but not America.
                            • E Junker
                              Yes you can use a PO Box for an address on a Driver License and Auto Registration. They frown on it at the DMV but we remind them that if a purse is stolen
                              Message 15 of 25 , Jul 5, 2010
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Yes you can use a PO Box for an address on a Driver License and Auto Registration. They frown on it at the DMV but we remind them that if a purse is stolen with ID and keys we have handed the address and the keys to the home. There's invariably a pause before the logic registers.

                                This is true in N.M., at least.
                              • Roger Hattman
                                  Nothing works unless you try it.  Most things don t work unless you fight for it I could not agree more.  Registration to General Delivery was rather
                                Message 16 of 25 , Jul 5, 2010
                                • 0 Attachment
                                   "Nothing
                                  works unless you try it.  Most things don't work unless you fight for it"
                                   
                                  I could not agree more.  Registration to General Delivery was rather easy for me, but it took me 3.5 years and several court battles to get "General Delivery" as my actual address at licensing.  I had no idea it would even work in their sytsem.   So far, I have had no problems with the "physical address" issue.  I usually play dumb when asked for one.


                                   

                                • Frog Farmer
                                  ... One way to use a PO Box without calling attention to it is to use the address of the Post Office building, and use # in front of the number of the box
                                  Message 17 of 25 , Jul 6, 2010
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    > I have no experience
                                    > with PO Box and PMB so I cannot comment on those.� One drawback is as
                                    > far as I know you cannot have a Driver License�or Auto registration at
                                    > a PO Box.

                                    One way to use a PO Box without calling attention to it is to use the
                                    address of the Post Office building, and use # in front of the number of
                                    the box inside, like this:

                                    Your Name
                                    Post Office's Address on Main Street #123
                                    City, State

                                    You'll get it and nobody but you and the post office will know it isn't
                                    a regular house.
                                  • dave
                                    Yes you are correct on driver s license..but think for a moment..a PMB is not a Post Office Box. So says the genuine USPS.right in their regulations. Most
                                    Message 18 of 25 , Jul 6, 2010
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Yes you are correct on driver's license..but think for a moment..a PMB is
                                      not a Post Office Box. So says the genuine USPS.right in their regulations.
                                      Most driver's license places simply tell you "No Post Office Boxes." [Hint:
                                      Ditto other government forms.] So here is the dialogue I went thru with the
                                      DMV clerk..for me the Ohio DMV is just down the street from Mailboxes Etc
                                      [my PMB location]:



                                      Me: [Putting down 1776 Main Street PMB 123.]

                                      DMV: Sir.we don't allow post office boxes.

                                      Me: I didn't give you one.

                                      DMV: Our system shows that as one.

                                      Me: Only the Post Office has post office boxes..so says the postal
                                      regulations. In fact they are the only ones permitted to use that name.

                                      DMV: Well..I'm not sure..

                                      Me: Look..the form clearly says "NO POST OFFICE BOXES"..do you see a genuine
                                      post office over there? I don't. I don't see the flag.I don't see the
                                      trucks..I don't see a post office there..so I clearly didn't give you a Post
                                      Office Box.

                                      DMV: Ok..I'll use the address you gave.







                                      My comments are below.

                                      YES, YES, YES he is absolutely correct. However, I have no experience with
                                      PO Box and PMB so I cannot comment on those. One drawback is as far as I
                                      know you cannot have a Driver License or Auto registration at a PO Box.
                                    • dave
                                      This really works. I use it all the time. You can use it for ambush tactics. Let your adversary keep filing stuff against it. At the last minute throw this
                                      Message 19 of 25 , Jul 6, 2010
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        This really works. I use it all the time. You can use it for "ambush"
                                        tactics. Let your adversary keep filing stuff against it. At the last minute
                                        throw this at the court...take a yellow highlighter to your address on your
                                        adversary's filings....include a snap shot of the Post office with your
                                        scribbled address of the post office along with, "Impossible to have a
                                        residence/domicile here."





                                        > I have no experience
                                        > with PO Box and PMB so I cannot comment on those.  One drawback is as
                                        > far as I know you cannot have a Driver License or Auto registration at
                                        > a PO Box.

                                        One way to use a PO Box without calling attention to it is to use the
                                        address of the Post Office building, and use # in front of the number of
                                        the box inside, like this:

                                        Your Name
                                        Post Office's Address on Main Street #123
                                        City, State

                                        You'll get it and nobody but you and the post office will know it isn't
                                        a regular house.
                                      • Thomas
                                        Since the United States Post Office has been GONE since the mid-1970s, I use the format: c/o [care of:] Box XXXX, U.S.P.S. [UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, a
                                        Message 20 of 25 , Jul 7, 2010
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Since the United States Post Office has been GONE since the mid-1970s, I use the format:

                                          c/o [care of:] Box XXXX, U.S.P.S. [UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, a corporation] My Town, My State, U.S.A.

                                          I have most of my snail-mail correspondents [even the State where I live] trained to use this format.

                                          I have ALSO had to make the point that, while I MAY be homeless, I certainly cannot LIVE in my 4" x 6" x 8" mail receptacle.

                                          "Frog Farmer" <frogfrmr@...> wrote:
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > > I have no experience
                                          > > with PO Box and PMB so I cannot comment on those.  One drawback is as
                                          > > far as I know you cannot have a Driver License or Auto registration at
                                          > > a PO Box.
                                          >
                                          > One way to use a PO Box without calling attention to it is to use the
                                          > address of the Post Office building, and use # in front of the number of
                                          > the box inside, like this:
                                          >
                                          > Your Name
                                          > Post Office's Address on Main Street #123
                                          > City, State
                                          >
                                          > You'll get it and nobody but you and the post office will know it isn't
                                          > a regular house.
                                        • Roger Hattman
                                          Funny interaction. This verifies further what I have observed:  The computers will accept most any address.  The problem is usually the person, so just keep
                                          Message 21 of 25 , Jul 8, 2010
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Funny interaction.
                                            This verifies further what I have observed:  The computers will accept most any address.  The problem is usually the person, so just keep trying.
                                            When I switched my alleged license after a fraudulent suspension to General Delivery (after years of registration at the same they still to switch my alleged license), I handed the clerk at an auto tag place (a private entity that has direct access to DMV computers) the following:  registration to General Delivery (GD), insurance (GD), an invoice from the county court for an alleged traffic infraction (General Post), and a hand signed letter from the head Licensing to a (different) general post addy (another separate story of corruption).  She looked at me with a look of panic.  
                                             
                                            Me:"It is not a PO Box.  I know you cannot use PO Box."
                                            Clerk:  "Well, I can try it."
                                             
                                            Several minutes later she printed it all out.
                                            Just be persistent.  Try different people.  I have to assume that these computers all work more or less the same and will accept most anything.  I should note that c/o addresses are also expressly forbidden, as well as PO Boxes. 
                                             
                                            In addition to being an essential element for challenging jurisdiction, having a non residential address is a big plus for privacy.
                                             
                                            My only concern is, how do you get a PMB without some street address or ID or something?  I love the ambush idea, though. 

                                             

                                          • jerry bell
                                            The post office has not been gone since the mid 70 s Give this a try when you send the mail fill the front like this   c/o [care of] person name fill out the
                                            Message 22 of 25 , Jul 8, 2010
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              The post office has not been gone since the mid 70's Give this a try when you send the mail fill the front like this
                                               
                                              c/o [care of] person name
                                              fill out the full address
                                              Write out the full city and state name NO zip code
                                               
                                              Oh and by the way check this out you can send it for 2 cents per half ounce. this law has not been repealed.
                                               
                                              Test it with your friends and put this law inside the mail you send so if they give you any crap just tell them to follow the law and lack of knowing the law is no excuse.
                                               
                                               


                                              --- On Wed, 7/7/10, Thomas <tthor.geo@...> wrote:

                                              From: Thomas <tthor.geo@...>
                                              Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Re: I had to deliver Peter Hendrickson at noon today to Milan FCI.
                                              To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                                              Date: Wednesday, July 7, 2010, 7:33 PM

                                               

                                              Since the United States Post Office has been GONE since the mid-1970s, I use the format:

                                              c/o [care of:] Box XXXX, U.S.P.S. [UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, a corporation] My Town, My State, U.S.A.

                                              I have most of my snail-mail correspondents [even the State where I live] trained to use this format.

                                              I have ALSO had to make the point that, while I MAY be homeless, I certainly cannot LIVE in my 4" x 6" x 8" mail receptacle.

                                              "Frog Farmer" <frogfrmr@...> wrote:
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > > I have no experience
                                              > > with PO Box and PMB so I cannot comment on those.  One drawback is as
                                              > > far as I know you cannot have a Driver License or Auto registration at
                                              > > a PO Box.
                                              >
                                              > One way to use a PO Box without calling attention to it is to use the
                                              > address of the Post Office building, and use # in front of the number of
                                              > the box inside, like this:
                                              >
                                              > Your Name
                                              > Post Office's Address on Main Street #123
                                              > City, State
                                              >
                                              > You'll get it and nobody but you and the post office will know it isn't
                                              > a regular house.


                                            • Daniel Nieves
                                              I thought Id share this with the group on Residence   MILLER BROS. CO. v. MARYLAND, 347 U.S. 340 (1954) Thus, the Court has frequently held that domicile or
                                              Message 23 of 25 , Jul 8, 2010
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                I thought Id share this with the group on Residence
                                                 

                                                MILLER BROS. CO. v. MARYLAND, 347 U.S. 340 (1954)

                                                Thus, the Court has frequently held that domicile or residence, more substantial than mere presence in transit or sojourn, is an adequate basis for taxation, including income, property, and death taxes. Since the Fourteenth Amendment makes one a citizen of the state wherein he resides, the fact of residence creates universally recognized reciprocal duties of protection by the state and of allegiance and support by the citizen. The latter obviously includes a duty to pay taxes, and their nature and measure is largely a political matter. Of course, the situs of property may tax it regardless of the citizenship, domicile or residence of the owner, the most obvious illustration being a tax on realty laid by the state in which the realty is located. Also, the keeping of tangible or intangible personalty within a state may give it a similar taxable situs there (sometimes called a business or commercial situs or domicile). Certain activities or transactions carried on within a state, such as the use and sale of property, may give jurisdiction to tax whomsoever engages therein, and the use of highways may subject the use to certain types of taxation. These cases overlap with those in which incorporation by a state or permission to do business there forms the basis for proportionate taxation of a company, including its franchise, capital, income and property. Recent cases in which a taxable sale does not clearly take place within the taxing state, elements of the transaction occurring in different states, have presented peculiar difficulties, as have those where the party liable for a use tax does not use the product within the taxing state. 



                                                --- On Thu, 7/8/10, Roger Hattman <rogerhattman@...> wrote:

                                                From: Roger Hattman <rogerhattman@...>
                                                Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] I had to deliver Peter Hendrickson at noon today to Milan FCI.
                                                To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                                                Date: Thursday, July 8, 2010, 4:24 AM

                                                 
                                                Funny interaction.
                                                This verifies further what I have observed:  The computers will accept most any address.  The problem is usually the person, so just keep trying.
                                                When I switched my alleged license after a fraudulent suspension to General Delivery (after years of registration at the same they still to switch my alleged license), I handed the clerk at an auto tag place (a private entity that has direct access to DMV computers) the following:  registration to General Delivery (GD), insurance (GD), an invoice from the county court for an alleged traffic infraction (General Post), and a hand signed letter from the head Licensing to a (different) general post addy (another separate story of corruption).  She looked at me with a look of panic.  
                                                 
                                                Me:"It is not a PO Box.  I know you cannot use PO Box."
                                                Clerk:  "Well, I can try it."
                                                 
                                                Several minutes later she printed it all out.
                                                Just be persistent.  Try different people.  I have to assume that these computers all work more or less the same and will accept most anything.  I should note that c/o addresses are also expressly forbidden, as well as PO Boxes. 
                                                 
                                                In addition to being an essential element for challenging jurisdiction, having a non residential address is a big plus for privacy.
                                                 
                                                My only concern is, how do you get a PMB without some street address or ID or something?  I love the ambush idea, though. 

                                                 


                                              • windandthestone
                                                ... substantial than mere presence in transit or sojourn, is an adequate basis for ... Re Pete: I have read some of his books and postings, but did he ever
                                                Message 24 of 25 , Jul 16, 2010
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Nieves <dannyruel@...> wrote:
                                                  >
                                                  > I thought Id share this with the group on Residence
                                                  >  
                                                  > MILLER BROS. CO. v. MARYLAND, 347 U.S. 340 (1954)
                                                  > Thus, the Court has frequently held that domicile or residence, more substantial than mere presence in transit or sojourn, is an adequate basis for >
                                                  >

                                                  Re Pete:  I have read some of his books and postings, but did he ever tell anyone that giving your employer a W-4 was VOLUNTARY!!  If you don't give one,  aren't you saying in effect, "I am not volunteering to be a "federal person" this year."    (See 26 CFR 31.3402(p))

                                                  No W-4 means no SS# means no income reported, means no taxes -- but also means no Social Security maybe's and no federal workers compensation. 

                                                  I have spent years reading both Title 26 Code (USC) and Federal Regulations (CFR).  What a difference between the two!!  There is no taxing regulations which support the income tax on "everyman's wages."  The CFR begins with stating that Section 1 imposes a tax on everyone, but never says "there is imposed upon ..."  - yet the more I read it, the crazier it gets! 

                                                  Like this -->

                                                  "26 CFR 1-1.1
                                                  (a) General rule. (1) Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States and .... [They talk about imposing a tax, but never do it!]

                                                   (b) Citizens or residents of the United States liable to tax. In general, all citizens of the United States, wherever resident, and all resident alien individuals are liable to the income taxes imposed by the Code whether the income is received from sources within or without the United States. Pursuant to section 876, a nonresident alien individual who is a bona fide resident of a section 931 possession (as defined in §1.931–1(c)(1) of this chapter) or Puerto Rico during the entire taxable year is, except as provided in section 931 or 933 with respect to income from sources within such possessions, subject to taxation in the same manner as a resident alien individual. As to tax on nonresident alien individuals, see sections 871 and 877.

                                                  (c) Who is a citizen. Every person born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen. [Note: there are no commas in that sentence.]  For other rules governing the acquisition of citizenship, see chapters 1 and 2 of title III of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1401–1459). For rules governing loss of citizenship, see sections 349 to 357, inclusive, of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1481–1489), Schneider v. Rusk, (1964) 377 U.S. 163, and Rev. Rul. 70–506, C.B. 1970–2, 1. For rules pertaining to persons who are nationals but not citizens at birth, e.g., a person born in American Samoa, see section 308 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1408). For special rules applicable to certain expatriates who have lost citizenship with a principal purpose of avoiding certain taxes, see section 877. A foreigner who has filed his declaration of intention of becoming a citizen but who has not yet been admitted to citizenship by a final order of a naturalization court is an alien.

                                                  (d) Effective/applicability date. The second sentence of paragraph (b) of this section applies to taxable years ending after April 9, 2008."

                                                  Okay folks, please tell my why section (d) is there????
                                                • BOB GREGORY
                                                  *In regard to the question, **Okay folks, please tell my why section (d) is there???? **after looking at the question and CFR section again, I believe I see
                                                  Message 25 of 25 , Jul 19, 2010
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    In regard to the question, "Okay folks, please tell my why section (d) is there????" after looking at the question and CFR section again, I believe I see the problem.  The writer, windandthestone, highlighted the sentence beginning "In general, all citizens..." which is not really the second sentence of the paragraph but the first.  The second sentence begins "Persuant to section..."  I assume that the provision about nonresident aliens came into effect on April 9, 2008.

                                                    On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 12:53 AM, windandthestone <mmgemmel@...> wrote:
                                                     


                                                    --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Nieves <dannyruel@...> wrote:
                                                    >
                                                    > I thought Id share this with the group on Residence
                                                    >  

                                                    > MILLER BROS. CO. v. MARYLAND, 347 U.S. 340 (1954)
                                                    > Thus, the Court has frequently held that domicile or residence, more substantial than mere presence in transit or sojourn, is an adequate basis for >
                                                    >

                                                    Re Pete:  I have read some of his books and postings, but did he ever tell anyone that giving your employer a W-4 was VOLUNTARY!!  If you don't give one,  aren't you saying in effect, "I am not volunteering to be a "federal person" this year."    (See 26 CFR 31.3402(p))

                                                    No W-4 means no SS# means no income reported, means no taxes -- but also means no Social Security maybe's and no federal workers compensation. 

                                                    I have spent years reading both Title 26 Code (USC) and Federal Regulations (CFR).  What a difference between the two!!  There is no taxing regulations which support the income tax on "everyman's wages."  The CFR begins with stating that Section 1 imposes a tax on everyone, but never says "there is imposed upon ..."  - yet the more I read it, the crazier it gets! 

                                                    Like this -->

                                                    "26 CFR 1-1.1
                                                    (a) General rule. (1) Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States and .... [They talk about imposing a tax, but never do it!]

                                                     (b) Citizens or residents of the United States liable to tax. In general, all citizens of the United States, wherever resident, and all resident alien individuals are liable to the income taxes imposed by the Code whether the income is received from sources within or without the United States. Pursuant to section 876, a nonresident alien individual who is a bona fide resident of a section 931 possession (as defined in §1.931–1(c)(1) of this chapter) or Puerto Rico during the entire taxable year is, except as provided in section 931 or 933 with respect to income from sources within such possessions, subject to taxation in the same manner as a resident alien individual. As to tax on nonresident alien individuals, see sections 871 and 877.

                                                    (c) Who is a citizen. Every person born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen. [Note: there are no commas in that sentence.]  For other rules governing the acquisition of citizenship, see chapters 1 and 2 of title III of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1401–1459). For rules governing loss of citizenship, see sections 349 to 357, inclusive, of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1481–1489), Schneider v. Rusk, (1964) 377 U.S. 163, and Rev. Rul. 70–506, C.B. 1970–2, 1. For rules pertaining to persons who are nationals but not citizens at birth, e.g., a person born in American Samoa, see section 308 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1408). For special rules applicable to certain expatriates who have lost citizenship with a principal purpose of avoiding certain taxes, see section 877. A foreigner who has filed his declaration of intention of becoming a citizen but who has not yet been admitted to citizenship by a final order of a naturalization court is an alien.

                                                    (d) Effective/applicability date. The second sentence of paragraph (b) of this section applies to taxable years ending after April 9, 2008."

                                                    Okay folks, please tell my why section (d) is there????

                                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.