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


Expand Messages
  • dave
    Someone sent me this…I have no comment on it…I just forward on as educational material All, Following is the text of nine documents that are being used in
    Message 1 of 1 , Oct 4 7:20 PM
    • 0 Attachment

      Someone sent me this…I have no comment on it…I just forward on as educational material



      Following is the text of nine documents that are being used in a 26 USC 7203 (Wilfull Failure to File) case.  These documents are true masterpieces, the contents of which were thoroughly researched and prepared by a seasoned albeit lowkey legal expert (not me!!).  The author has given his permission to distribute these documents far and wide with the hope that those that are currently incarcerated or have any pending 7203 issues can use the information presented herein for their complete exoneration. 

      • It is suggested that individuals who wish to use these documents first visit a law library and pull a copy of Corpus Juris Secondum, volume 42, 1991 edition.
      • Then go to the heading titled "Indictments and Informations" (Section 71, pages 391).
      • Then go to the subheading titled "Accusation or Statement of Offense".
      • Then copy, read and understand Sections 71 - 124, pages 391 - 445.
      • Then copy, read and understand Sections 137 - 141, pages 462 - 467.

      I am not an attorney and cannot give legal advice.  This communique' is for informational purposes only, as reiterated under Amendment I to the U.S. Constitution, and should not be construed as being legal advice.  Always take responsibility for your own actions, and do your own due diligence. 


      The following example documents were copied and pasted from their original Word document format, so beware of and I apologize for the fact that some of the document formatting may have been lost in the transfer.  






      V.                                                                                            NO.   RX-010YC




      (Lack of Essential Element)

                      COMES NOW the Accused, by special appearance in challenge of jurisdiction, pursuant  Rule 12(b)(2),  to state:

      A.     The charging instrument, an Information, presents five counts of failure type of offenses punishable under §7203.

      B.     In order to comply with constitutional safeguards concerning due process of law and the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation rules of procedure have been promulgated to regulate and simplify as well as to “standardize” the process which is due.

      C.     FRCrP  Rule 7 specifies the content of an Indictment, or an Information, and portions relevant here are:

                      “The indictment or the information shall be a plain, concise and definite written

                      statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged.”

                      “The indictment  or information  shall state for  each  count the official or customary citation of the statute, rule, regulation or other provision of law which the defendant Is alleged therein to have violated.”

      D.      The Information fails to state in each count the official citation to a statute or code section which allegedly has been violated, as expressly required by the Rule.  Additionally, the Information fails to specify in a written form in plain, concise and definite statement all of the essential facts in substantial allegations so as to inform the defendant and the court exactly of the nature of the offense intended to be charged.

      1)     At two places within each count the wording of, “to make an income tax return” appears.  And from that one can glean that the nature of the complaint has something to do with income tax returns,  that is, not a return in regard to some other tax, such as a distiller’s tax.  That the Information specified INCOME TAX returns helped to narrow the field to that particular species of return.

      2)     Because of the allegations about making an INCOME TAX return in each count one can determine that the missing citation of the provision supposedly violated must be located within Sub-Title A of the tax code.  In order to be sufficient within the context of this Information one can discern that the nature of the text, if any there be, as relates to the or those missing statute section(s) would impose a requirement or duty to make (and file?) a return;  an income tax return.  The non-cited and missing statute section(s), if any, would be the one or more section(s) that supposedly were violated,  not  section 7203!

      3)     In addition to the omission of citation of statute section(s) supposedly violated, there is no written statement of the essential facts concerning a duty or requirement to make an income tax return.  In lieu of any substantial allegation(s) the Pleader substitutes the phrase, “he was required by law”, which is merely  a conclusion of law, if such law actually exists.  And if there is no portion of the income tax law which expressly and clearly imposes a duty and requirement to make an INCOME TAX  return then the above quoted pleader’s conclusion is not a conclusion concerning something  that a statute supposedly says.  Instead, the quoted phrase represents a blatant fraud in pleading.

           This Accused challenges, and this court should insist that the government attorney(s) shall cite and produce copies of the section(s) of the income tax statute which imposes a duty to make an income tax return.

      4)     A duty and requirement to make a return is an essential element to constitute an offense under section 7203, and must be plainly, concisely and definitely alleged in an Indictment or an Information as required by Rule 7(c) FRCrP.  And then, later, must be proved at trial.  It is suggested that the only means of evidencing such a proof is to produce copies of the statute section(s) which impose the duty  to make the particular type of tax return at issue.

      5)     In the instance of this Information, the duty and requirement to make a return is not alleged conformably with the Rule 7(c).  Indeed, not at all because a Pleader’s conclusion is not a substantial allegation of fact and emphatically not of an essential fact.  Such a conclusion should be treated as not being an allegation at all.

      6)     The failure to allege an essential  fact, as required by the Rule, yields  a defective and insufficient charge, one which, in this instance,  is fatally defective and cannot be resurrected.

                      THEREFORE:  The effort at the charges in the Information, all five counts, must be dismissed.  Be it so ordered.

      Dated this ______of April, 2009.                

                                                                                                                                      _______________________                                                                                                                                                  IVE B. PERSECUTED,  Accused



      {Add Certificate of Service – directed to U.S. Attorney by way of U.S. Mail.  Get address from Clerk of court }




      NOTE  - - - [NOT to be appended to the above paper!  This is info for you.

            “It  is now a well established fact that Congress never enacted any Statute(s) at Large creating a specific liability for taxes imposed by  Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code. By comparison, Congress has enacted Statute(s) at Large creating specific liabilities for taxes imposed by  Subtitles B and C of the

      Internal Revenue Code.  On this key point, see 26 CFR 1.1-1(b) and Commissioner v. Acker, 361 U.S. 87,

      4 L. Ed.2d 127, 80 S. Ct. 144 (1959), quoting in pertinent part:


                      But the section contains nothing to that effect, and, therefore, to uphold this addition to the tax would be to hold that it may be imposed by regulation, which, of course,the law does not permit.  United States v. Calamaro, 354 U.S. 351, 359;  Koshland v. Helvering, 298 U.S. 441, 446-447;  Manhattan Co. v. Commissioner, 297 U.S. 129, 134. [Bold emphasis added]







      v.                                                   )                                           Case No. RX-010YC

      IVE B. PERSECUTED                   )




                   Comes now the Accused, by special appearance, in challenge of jurisdiction, and without waiver of improper plaintiff, to state:



      1.)    It has long been recognized that the federal United States has not been granted any common law authorities or jurisdictions.  This was emphatically confirmed in 1938 when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Tyson doctrine in Erie Railroad v. Tompkins, 304 US 64.


      2.)    That the federal United States lacked any common law jurisdiction was early-on recognized in U.S. v. Worrall, (1798) 2 US 384 Fed. Case. 2 Dall. 384, and also ruled in the U. S. Supreme court in U. S. v. Hudson and Goodwin (1812) 7 Cranch 32.


      3.)    In U.S v. Cruikshank (1875) 93 US 542, the U.S. Supreme Court explained, “The government of the United States is one of delegated powers alone.  Its authority is defined and limited by the Constitution.  All powers not granted to it by the instrument are reserved to the States or the people.  No rights can be acquired under the constitution or laws of the United States, except such as the government of the United States has the authority to grant or secure.  All that cannot be so granted or secured are left under the protection of the States.”  (Emphasis added) 92 US, at 551.  Obviously the U.S. Congress has not been granted or delegated any power to adopt a common law and therefore  cannot lawfully authorize a criminal mode of procedure by way of a  Information in the U.S. District Courts.


      4.)    This Accused is aware of the ruling in DUKE v. UNITED STATES, 301 US 492 which was decided in May of 1937, almost one year prior the Erie Railroad decision above cited and wherein the court ruled in these words, “There is no federal general common law.  Congress has no power to declare substantive rules of common law applicable in a state whether they be local in their nature or ‘general,’ be they commercial law or a part of the law of torts.  And no clause in the Constitution purports to confer such a power upon the federal courts.” 304 US 78.


      5.)    From the above, this Accused contends that the Erie decision necessarily overturned the Duke ruling and in effect postulates that the statute of December, 1930 which led to the questions in Duke is also unconstitutional.


      6.)    A re-view of history shows that the origin of a criminal procedure by way of an Information was a device concockted in the infamous Star Chamber by the excessively ambitious Empson and Dudley after the statute of 1495, 11 Henry VII, Chap. 3 (Offenses against Statutes) had further extended the jurisdiction of the Star Chamber so as to include a criminal jurisdiction.

                When the Star Chamber as a court was abolished by statute in 1640, 16 Car. I, Chap. 10 (Star Chamber), the procedural device which originated there was also abolished.  But its use was revived in the King’s Bench despite its unlawfulness.  And it continues - - - -.


      7.)    Criminal procedure by way of an Information is of British origin and has not and cannot be adopted by the Congress, despite that the language of some statutes seem to suggest otherwise.


      8.)    The procedural method being pursued here in this alleged case is that of an Information, a method which is absolutely unlawful.


                 ACCORDINGLY:  This Information must be dismissed.  Be it so ordered.




      Ive B. Persecuted, Accused









      v.                                                                                              No.  RX-010YC



      4th  MOTION  TO  DISMISS

      (No  Charge)


              COMES NOW  the  Accused, by special appearance in challenge of jurisdiction,  pursuant Rule  12(b) (2), to state,

      This Accused contends:

      1)          The government attorney has used a typical “pattern” charge in each count in the Information.

      2)           In each count all of the wordage up to the words, “he did willfully fail ---“ is unnecessary to any charge intended, is only preliminary data that goes to describe a WHO that may be charged with an  offense  made  penal  by  section 7203.  Such  unnecessary data may be struck and disregarded because it is not pertinent to the charge.

      3)           The actual charge intended in each count begins with the words, “he did willfully fail ---“, and thereafter the government attorney musty allege all the essential elements to constitute the offense.

      4)           In the instance of an offense under §7203, which is a generic penalty section, there are only five distinct acts of failure that have been made penal, and they are:

                        (a)     Failure to pay an estimated tax;

                        (b)     Failure to pay a tax;

                        (c)     Failure to make a return;

                        (d)     Failure to keep records;

                        (e)     Failure to supply information.


          And a so-called “failure to file” (a return) is not within the express  provisions of  the section.


      5.)        In this Information the only charge element which has been alleged is failure to make a return. 

                  Whether  the  allegedly  not  made return  is an income tax return is not a core element of a  charge here.

      6.)        But, for all that the paragraph of each count does excessively say, it nevertheless remains that an essential element has not been alleged.  Namely, the “charge” portion of §7203 requires that for each count of the five failure acts, as specified above, there must be an accompanying allegation asserting that they were not done at a time (or times) as required by law (or


      7.)       The failures of allegation in this Information is that the Accused has not  been charged  in the charging portion of each count with having failed to make a return at the time (or times) as required in an unspecified statute, or regulation.


      THEREFORE:  No charge has been presented before this court and the case or cases must be dismissed.          Be it so ordered.


      Dated this ___ April, 2009



      Ive B. Persecuted,  Accused


                                                        Add certificate of Service








      V.                                                                         No.  RX-010YC




      Improper  Plaintiff


                                      COMES  NOW the Accused,  by special appearance in challenge of jurisdiction, to show the court a lack of authority, as follows:

      1)              The  Information names  “UNITED STATES OF AMERICA”  as being the Plaintiff without   explaining or more particularly describing who or what that “UNITED STATES OF AMERICA” is.

      2)              The nature of the Information as presented seems to deliberately utilize an implication to the end that the unaware will assume that the “UNITED STATES OF AMERICA”  is or refers to the federal government;  and the gul

      (Message over 64 KB, truncated)

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