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

Re: [tips_and_tricks] Internal Revenue Service is debt collector for the Inte...

Expand Messages
  • Steve Stern
    Ck this out  It is working; the fraud is in the open!  Its all clear    right here!!!!   READ ATTACHMENT  !!!! Steve Stern - -       -- On Sun,
    Message 1 of 16 , Oct 31, 2010
    Ck this out  It is working; the fraud is in the open!  Its all clear
     
     right here!!!!
     
    READ ATTACHMENT  !!!!

    Steve Stern - -
     
     
     
    -- On Sun, 10/31/10, John Hill <otoman@...> wrote:

    From: John Hill <otoman@...>
    Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Internal Revenue Service is debt collector for the Inte...
    To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
    Date: Sunday, October 31, 2010, 5:07 PM

     
    
     
    RE:
     
    "I am filing an appeal of a district judge's default judgment against me in favor of the U. S. government.  I want to show that the IRS has no authority to collect because the agency for whom it collects has no authority to collect from AmeI would like to know the difference between the two......"
     
    Interesting fact that I have never seen mentioned within this group. Please check out Title 31, which is a list of departments within the Dept. of the Treasury. If you notice, the "Internal Revenue Service" is not listed! Nor is the IRS mentioned within the CFR under Title 31. It is of my humble opinion that this is evidence that Congress never did establish the IRS, that is for the purpose of regulation and tax collection within the 50 states, as we are falsely lead to believe. Have fun with this! I have not had the time to research any further.  


  • John Hill
    RE: They want us to believe we have the burden of proof, but in reality they do. Response: Not at all true. The aggressor in the case, usually the
    Message 2 of 16 , Oct 31, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      
      RE:
       
      "They want us to believe we have the burden of proof, but in reality they do."
       
      Response:
       
      Not at all true. The aggressor in the case, usually the Petitioner, has the burden of proof. Besides, if you did not bring up the issue of IRS authority in your original petition, then you cannot bring it up during an appeal. The only issues that can be taken to appeals are issues that were presented during the original case. In essence, the appeals process is a a time for you to prove that the judge erred in his decisions,  and why, or ignored factual evidence, or gave the distinct impression of being biased, etc.
       
      The IRS does have the burden of proof when "additions to taxes" are made and that is only when you present factual evidence which contradicts their erroneous numbers.

       
       
    • John Hill
      ... From: John Hill To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2010 8:07 PM Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Internal Revenue Service is debt
      Message 3 of 16 , Oct 31, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        
         
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: John Hill
        Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2010 8:07 PM
        Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Internal Revenue Service is debt collector for the Inte...

         

        

         
        RE:
         
        "Nor is the IRS mentioned within the CFR under Title 31."
        This is a correction and clarification to my own post. ROFL! The IRS is in fact listed under 31 CFR 10.0 to 10.93, PRACTICE BEFORE THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE. This is the section for "Rules Governing the Authority to Practice." In other words, there are rules governing the operations of a department that does not exist!!!
         
        .

      • BOB GREGORY
        *Fighting with this approach is waste of time, and an an earlier message stated, you could not bring it up on appeal if the argument was not raised in the
        Message 4 of 16 , Oct 31, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          Fighting with this approach is  waste of time, and an an earlier message stated, you could not bring it up on appeal if the argument was not raised in the original trial.    I am not saying that you are not right or could not find law to support what you believe.  The problem is that courts have been ruling against arguments of this type for a very long time so that almost all judges either don't know the way the law is actually written or don't care because they have no intention of shoveling against the tide.

          It is pretty hard to find an honest attorney anywhere, though there are some.  But within the tax division (or probably any division) of the Department of Justice it is almost impossible to find one.  They see their job as WINNING, not as seeing justice done according to the law.  (Things are pretty much the same with any District Attorney's office.)

          Occasionally you will find a letter from a congressman or from an individual IRS employee that actually tells the truth about how the law works, but you cannot usually use such letters as evidence in a court case.  Here is an excerpt from an IRS letter in response to a FOIA request back in 1995:


          Dear Mrs. Hoverale:

          This is in response to your Privacy Act request dated December
          12, 1995.

          The Internal Revenue Code is not positive law, it is special law.  It applies to specific persons in the United States who choose to make themselves subject to the requirements of the special laws in the Internal Revenue Code by entering into an employment agreement within the U.S. Government.

          The law is that income from sources not effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the U.S. Government is not subject to any tax under subtitle " A Q of the Internal Revenue Code.

          This concludes our response to your request.


                                                                                            Sincerely yours,



                                                                                             Cynthia J. Mills
                                                                                             Disclosure Officer

          However, see the comments at this site concerning the letter above:  http://www.losthorizons.com/comment/hoverale.htm
        • Bob Conlon
          www.ustreas.gov/regs/to150--06.htm ... From: John Hill Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Internal Revenue Service is debt collector for the
          Message 5 of 16 , Nov 1, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            www.ustreas.gov/regs/to150--06.htm

            --- On Sun, 10/31/10, John Hill <otoman@...> wrote:

            From: John Hill <otoman@...>
            Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Internal Revenue Service is debt collector for the Inte...
            To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
            Date: Sunday, October 31, 2010, 7:07 PM

             
            
             
            RE:
             
            "I am filing an appeal of a district judge's default judgment against me in favor of the U. S. government.  I want to show that the IRS has no authority to collect because the agency for whom it collects has no authority to collect from AmeI would like to know the difference between the two......"
             
            Interesting fact that I have never seen mentioned within this group. Please check out Title 31, which is a list of departments within the Dept. of the Treasury. If you notice, the "Internal Revenue Service" is not listed! Nor is the IRS mentioned within the CFR under Title 31. It is of my humble opinion that this is evidence that Congress never did establish the IRS, that is for the purpose of regulation and tax collection within the 50 states, as we are falsely lead to believe. Have fun with this! I have not had the time to research any further.  


          • Clare Reading
            We relied on that quote & Congressional Representative, Matt Salmon s office faxed it to the Phoenix IRS, following with a phone call to which the IRS
            Message 6 of 16 , Nov 2, 2010
            We relied on that quote & Congressional Representative, Matt Salmon's office
            faxed it to the Phoenix IRS,
            following with a phone call to which the IRS responded that it was true.

            Later, we found the same quote in a book titled, IRS Humbug (attached).
            The contents of the letter was (is) true.
            The letter itself was a fake.

            ~ Clare




            Dear Mrs. Hoverale:

            This is in response to your Privacy Act request dated December
            12, 1995.

            The Internal Revenue Code is not positive law, it is special law. It
            applies to specific persons in the United States who choose to make
            themselves subject to the requirements of the special laws in the Internal
            Revenue Code by entering into an employment agreement within the U.S.
            Government.

            The law is that income from sources not effectively connected with the
            conduct of a trade or business within the U.S. Government is not subject to
            any tax under subtitle " A Q of the Internal Revenue Code.

            This concludes our response to your request.



            Sincerely yours,




            Cynthia J. Mills

            Disclosure Officer


            However, see the comments at this site concerning the letter above:
            http://www.losthorizons.com/comment/hoverale.htm
          • Bob Conlon
            Try this   www.ustreas.gov/regs/to150-06.htm   The IRS fraudulently represents itself.  According to the above treasury order, the designation internal
            Message 7 of 16 , Nov 2, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              Try this
               
               
              The IRS fraudulently represents itself.  According to the above treasury order, the designation 'internal revenue service' was cancelled 5 years ago.  Everything mailed out since then by them is, I allege, mail fraud!


              --- On Mon, 11/1/10, Bob Conlon <bobc3591@...> wrote:

              From: Bob Conlon <bobc3591@...>
              Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Internal Revenue Service is debt collector for the Inte...
              To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
              Date: Monday, November 1, 2010, 10:42 PM

               
              www.ustreas.gov/regs/to150--06.htm

              --- On Sun, 10/31/10, John Hill <otoman@...> wrote:

              From: John Hill <otoman@...>
              Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Internal Revenue Service is debt collector for the Inte...
              To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
              Date: Sunday, October 31, 2010, 7:07 PM

               
              
               
              RE:
               
              "I am filing an appeal of a district judge's default judgment against me in favor of the U. S. government.  I want to show that the IRS has no authority to collect because the agency for whom it collects has no authority to collect from AmeI would like to know the difference between the two......"
               
              Interesting fact that I have never seen mentioned within this group. Please check out Title 31, which is a list of departments within the Dept. of the Treasury. If you notice, the "Internal Revenue Service" is not listed! Nor is the IRS mentioned within the CFR under Title 31. It is of my humble opinion that this is evidence that Congress never did establish the IRS, that is for the purpose of regulation and tax collection within the 50 states, as we are falsely lead to believe. Have fun with this! I have not had the time to research any further.  



            • E Junker
              TREASURY ORDER: 150-06 SUBJECT: Designation as Internal Revenue Service CANCELLATION DATE: August 22, 2005 REASON FOR CANCELLATION: TO 150-06, dated July 9,
              Message 8 of 16 , Nov 2, 2010
              • 0 Attachment

                TREASURY ORDER: 150-06

                 

                SUBJECT:  Designation as Internal Revenue Service

                 

                CANCELLATION DATE:  August 22, 2005

                 

                REASON FOR CANCELLATION TO 150-06, dated  July 9, 19 53. The entity formerly known as the Bureau of Internal Revenue would be known as the Internal Revenue Service. TO 150-06 is cancelled.


                Suspicious:  It says "REASON FOR CANCELLATION", but does not give a reason.  It makes a straight-forward statement.  Period.


                So, what is the reason???  

                 



                From: Bob Conlon <bobc3591@...>
                To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Tue, November 2, 2010 7:06:51 PM
                Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Internal Revenue Service is debt collector for the Inte...

                 

                Try this
                 
                 
                The IRS fraudulently represents itself.  According to the above treasury order, the designation 'internal revenue service' was cancelled 5 years ago.  Everything mailed out since then by them is, I allege, mail fraud!


                --- On Mon, 11/1/10, Bob Conlon <bobc3591@...> wrote:

              • GEORGE LUNIW
                Does anyone know what the grounds are for showing good cause when relating to the following? I ve had an agent file on my behalf for taxable income that is
                Message 9 of 16 , Nov 2, 2010
                • 0 Attachment
                  Does anyone know what the grounds are for "showing good cause" when relating to the following?

                  I've had an agent file on my behalf for taxable income that is exempt income granted under section 1.1402(a)(1-3). http://www.dsbcpas.com/databases/irc/howtoircs1402a.html and
                  http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/26C2.txt( then search for Sec. 1402. Definitions)

                   I want to know by what grounds (underlined in Red below) did they start the mess that they created.

                  § 1.6012-1   Individuals required to make returns of income. (this is just the header of the section. My questions stems from Form 2848).

                   (I've reprinted the explanation below for convenience from Form 2848 "line 5" to be specific which can be found at this link for verification: http://www.irs.gov/instructions/i2848/ch02.html#d0e251

                   (5) Returns made by agents
                  Line 5. Acts Authorized (from form 2848)

                  Use line 5 to modify the acts that your named representative(s) can perform. In the space provided, describe any specific additions or deletions.

                  Substituting representatives.
                  Your representative cannot substitute another representative without your written permission unless this authority is specifically delegated to your representative on line 5. If you authorize your representative to substitute another representative, the new representative can send in a new Form 2848 with a copy of the Form 2848 you are now signing attached and you do not need to sign the new Form 2848.
                  Disclosure of returns to a third party. A representative cannot execute consents that will allow the IRS to disclose your tax return or return information to a third party unless this authority is specifically delegated to the representative on line 5.
                  Authority to sign your return. Regulations section 1.6012-1(a)(5) permits another person to sign a return for you only in the following circumstances:
                  (a) Disease or injury,
                  (b) Continuous absence from the United States (including Puerto Rico), for a period of at least 60 days prior to the date required by law for filing the return, or
                  (c) Specific permission is requested of and granted by the IRS for other good cause.

                  You can reply to alomega789@... or just reply to tips_and_tricks.

                  Thanks to all that endeavor.
                • BOB GREGORY
                  *The fraud is much bigger than just this cancellation. The original TO 150-06 was issued in 1953 without authority. Canvassing for taxes owed and collection
                  Message 10 of 16 , Nov 2, 2010
                  • 0 Attachment
                    The fraud is much bigger than just this cancellation.  The original TO 150-06 was issued in 1953 without authority.

                    Canvassing for taxes owed and collection of taxes is the responsibility of district directors and directors of Regional Service Centers, but the districts, service centers and their directors were disestablished in 2001.  No laws and regulations exist to provide for other entities to assume these functions.

                    The part of the tax code most dangerous and costly to people is Subtitle F which codifies administration, but since 1939 it has been progressively re-worded and re-structured so that is is impossible to read it and know which of the many tax laws (only some of which relate to income tax) the various sections are intended to apply to.  Most of those sections are not implemented by substantive regulations that have the force and effect of law.  Judges ignore these facts and apply all of the Subtitle F sections as though they apply to income taxes.  People who point out such errors are branded as "frivolous."

                    It is almost like the old game of pick-up-sticks with the Treasury Department and IRS trying to see how many of the sticks (representing false, unauthorized, fraudulent parts of the organization) can be removed deftly without causing the whole pile of sticks to be disturbed.  Because the DOJ, the courts, IRS employees and the great majority of the people have bought into the con for various reasons, they tend to stick together and support the remaining stack of sticks so that they don't tend to fall even in the absence of what should be critical support.

                    Like the Wizard of Oz, who emanated loud, booming threats from behind a curtain and ruled with fear and intimidation, so does the IRS.  And so long as the curtain of deceit is allowed to remain in place, the con will continue.  But it will take more than a yippie little dog to pull away the curtain.  Unlike the "wizard," the IRS has a "backer" and has aggregated power to enforce its regime of fear and intimidation.  Instead of a small delegation entering the Emerald City, there will need to be a delegation of millions of people who are willing to pull back the curtain and declare an end to the con.  Until that happens, the fakery, fraud and rip-off operations will continue.

                    On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 8:57 PM, E Junker <westernwit@...> wrote:


                    Suspicious:  It says "REASON FOR CANCELLATION", but does not give a reason.  It makes a straight-forward statement.  Period.


                    So, what is the reason???  

                    --------------------------------------------


                     
                    The IRS fraudulently represents itself.  According to the above treasury order, the designation 'internal revenue service' was cancelled 5 years ago.  Everything mailed out since then by them is, I allege, mail fraud!



                  • Bob Conlon
                    Bob, good observation about the elimination of district directors but then you go on to say this:  No laws and regulations exist to provide for other entities
                    Message 11 of 16 , Nov 3, 2010
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Bob, good observation about the elimination of district directors but then you go on to say this:�

                      No laws and regulations exist to provide for other entities to assume these functions.

                      This is actually not true. When the�IRS�got rid of the position,� they did�it illegally. It was illegal because�RRA98, the very law they used as an excuse to eliminate the position, actually established a statutory requirement for the position to exist!

                      In section 3445 of Public Law 105-206 you'll find the statutory requirement.

                      Go here and search for 3445: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=105_cong_bills&docid=f:h2676enr.txt.pdf

                      At paragraph (b)�of that section, read the amendment to�Section 6334(e) and you'll find�it.


                      This is clear evidence of the "entity formerly known as the IRS" lawbreaking.� Why do we let�them get away with this?�


                      The fraud is much bigger than just this cancellation.� The original TO 150-06 was issued in 1953 without authority.

                      Canvassing for taxes owed and collection of taxes is the responsibility of district directors and directors of Regional Service Centers, but the districts, service centers and their directors were disestablished in 2001.  No laws and regulations exist to provide for other entities to assume these functions.
                    • BOB GREGORY
                      *Good information, Bob C. Basically, as I understand this law and law in general, PL 105-206 makes the issuance of TO 150-02 of March 2001 comprehensible and
                      Message 12 of 16 , Nov 3, 2010
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Good information, Bob C.

                        Basically, as I understand this law and law in general, PL 105-206 makes the issuance of TO 150-02 of March 2001 comprehensible and the issuance of TO 150-02 of May 2006 (which canceled TO 150-02 of March 2001) incomprehensible.  The reason for issuance of the cancellation of the earlier TO 150-02 of March 2001 was cited as Treasury Directive 21-01  of August 1999. (So why, if an earlier basis for cancellation existed, was TO 150-02 of March 2001 issued in the first place?)  However nothing UN-CANCELED the earlier 150-01 of September 1995 which contained the designations of districts. 

                        Regardless of this, regulations still exist requiring performance of certain functions by district directors and directors of regional service centers.  And those regulations are based on code sections which still refer to district directors.

                        It seems as though the IRS may be operating more or less in conformance with PL 105-206 but that the codification and regulation issuing processes have failed (for twelve years) to reflect the new law.  It seems to me that it cannot be an accident, but I don't understand why the new organizations and their directors would not be made a part of the regulations.

                        Does anyone have any comment about the provisions of PL 105-206 and Lindsey Springer's case involving non-existence of district directors?

                        ================================


                        On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 10:38 AM, Bob Conlon <bobc3591@...> wrote:
                         

                        Bob, good observation about the elimination of district directors but then you go on to say this: 


                        No laws and regulations exist to provide for other entities to assume these functions.
                      • Frog Farmer
                        ... How many millions will it take? 20 years ago they admitted that there were over 40 million non-filers . Let me know when there are enough millions, and
                        Message 13 of 16 , Nov 6, 2010
                        • 0 Attachment
                          All caps BOB GREGORY wrote:

                          > Instead of a small delegation entering the Emerald
                          > City, there will need to be a delegation of millions of people who are
                          > willing to pull back the curtain and declare an end to the con. Until
                          > that happens, the fakery, fraud and rip-off operations will continue.

                          How many millions will it take? 20 years ago they admitted that there
                          were over 40 million "non-filers". Let me know when there are enough
                          millions, and who is going to give the go signal.

                          We already gave it decades ago. But then we're not involved in the
                          Ponzi scheme, claiming there's no alternative.

                          For concise exposition of the current ongoing fraud, I like Max Keiser
                          (self made billionaire) and his friend Stacey Herbert, who have the time
                          to be overly productive. He takes a personal interest in restoring the
                          liberty his ancestors won from the British. I'm sure he's enlisting
                          many every day better than any of us here could do.

                          He has his own site (www.maxkeiser.com) and a You-tube site.

                          Regards,

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