Re: [tips_and_tricks] Refute not a "person" under the Tax code
- Greetings,All these cases did not have the record set against being an "individual"or against being "federal personnel".See 5 USC 552a (a)(2) which states:(2) the term "individual" means a citizen of the United Statesor an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence;And 5 USC 552 a (a)(13) states:
(13) the term "Federal personnel" means officers and employees
of the Government of the United States, members of the uniformed
services (including members of the Reserve Components), individuals
[FN1] entitled to receive immediate or deferred retirement
benefits under any retirement program of the Government of the
United States (including survivor benefits).
They volenteered into subjection and never refuted the introduction
of their "slave number" in the form of SS account number.
One can claim to be an "elephant" but what does the record show?
Also see the 13 definitions in Black's Law [5th] for the term "of"!
If one "belongs to" a corporate state they are a subject!
Set the damn record [Administrative procedures] against them
and you will never see the inside on a fed court on this issue!Also see Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific RR for the 1st timea corporate entity became a "person" and forever destroyedthe term. It is called into question by the Fed Ct. clerksletter making the determination. See "Waite" under thatcase.Deo volente,
Jim DeArman~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:31:04 -0000 "fastmuscleman" <m.schrader@...> writes:
>Not a "Person" Under the Tax Code:
>they were not "persons" under the
> Some have contended that
> Internal Revenue Code, an argumentwhich has been lost.