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

Legal Fictions

Expand Messages
  • paradoxmagnus@earthlink.net
    Based on the below case, it appears to me that the Supreme Court is saying that when acting as the agent or representative of a legal fiction (juristic
    Message 1 of 19 , Mar 30, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Based on the below case, it appears to me that the Supreme Court is saying  that when acting as the agent or representative of a "legal fiction" (juristic person, corporation, etc.) that a man is not exercising his own rights (a presumed voluntary act), but those "duties and privileges" of the entity.and is "bound by its obligations.".
       
      Would not such a presumption would stand unless rebutted?
       
      Pat in California
       
      "But individuals, when acting as representatives of a collective group, cannot be said to be exercising their personal rights and duties nor to be entitled to their purely personal privileges. Rather they assume the rights, duties and privileges of the artificial entity or association of which they are agents or officers and they are bound by its obligations. In their official capacity, therefore, they have no privilege against self-incrimination. And the official records and documents of the organization that are held by them in a representative rather than in a personal capacity cannot be the subject of the personal privilege against self-incrimination, even though production [487 U.S. 99, 111]   of the papers might tend to incriminate them personally." UNITED STATES v. WHITE, 322 U.S. 694 (1944)
       
    • jm367@bellsouth.net
      Well, what is the nature of this juristic person ? Is it a form of business enterprise ? In the tax laws an individual is a form of business enterprise, which
      Message 2 of 19 , Mar 30, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Well, what is the nature of this juristic person ?
        Is it a form of business enterprise ?  In the tax laws an individual is a form of business enterprise, which would be a juristic person like a corporation.. 
        Is this legal creation what they refer to as "citizenship" ?  In the privacy act the term individual means a citizen of the United States.
         
        There are many sorts of citizens of the United States.  There was certainly no juristic person implied in citizen of the United States until after the Maternity Act. 
         
        I don't think we are dealing with a presumption.  Is the presumption that it exists ?  Or is the presumption that you can be compelled to answer in the name and behalf of this juristic person ?  Or is the presumption that you have volunteered to act in the name and behalf of this jurisdtic person and therefore are obliged to answer in its name and behalf ?
         
        A while back, I was considering the part of the constitution which forbids any religious test as a Qualification to any Office or Public Trust under the United States.  This provision traces back to the Corporation Act.
        It seems to me any form of business enterprise constitutes a Public Trust.
        It seems to me citizenship constitutes an Office.  The original 13th amendment stripped those who violated it of the Office or Public Trust of citizen of the United States.
        Yet the supreme court has allowed religious tests to be applied to immigrants, although so far as I know this has never been challenged by Article VI.
        I personally have a religious objection to witnessing to the existence of a juristic person with a name which sounds like my name.
         
      • Paul Lowery
        Good Day All; Thought I would throw this out — Found it while searching the right of travel position. Used it to confuse the ADA and the court forcing them
        Message 3 of 19 , Mar 31, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Good Day All;

          Thought I would throw this out — Found it while searching the "right of travel" position. Used it to confuse the ADA and the court forcing them to dismiss for lack of SMJ.

          Quote "All codes, rules and regulations are applicable to the government authorities only, not human/creators in accordance with God's laws. All codes, rules and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking in due process...."
          Rodriques v. Ray Donavan (US Department of Labor), 769 F. 2nd 1344,1348 (1985).

          Can any one verify this, I have yet to find the decision — would love to read it.

          Paul Lowery
          Hermes Architects, Inc.
          713.785.3644

          Moderator/Bear: Paul, below is the decision you cite to:



          Rodrigues v. United States Secretary of Labor, 769 F.2d
          1344 (9th Cir. 08/26/1985)

          [1] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
          NINTH CIRCUIT

          [2] No. 84-1712

          [3] 1985.C09.40322 <http://www.versuslaw.com>; 769
          F.2d 1344

          [4] decided: August 26, 1985.

          [5] SHERWOOD T. RODRIGUES,
          PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. UNITED STATES
          SECRETARY OF LABOR, RAYMOND J. DONOVAN,
          ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES

          [6] Appeal from the United States District Court for the
          Northern District of California, Robert P. Aguilar, District
          Judge, Presiding.

          [7] Sherwood T. Rodrigues, Pro Per, Sunnyvale,
          California; Judith D. Lazenby, Esq., Sunnyvale, California,
          for Plaintiff-Appellant.

          [8] Sandra Willis, AUSA, San Francisco, California, for
          Defendants-Appellees.

          [9] Wallace, Kennedy, and Fletcher, Circuit Judges.

          [10] Author: Fletcher

          [11] FLETCHER, Circuit Judge:

          [12] Rodrigues challenges the termination of his workers'
          compensation benefits, contending that he has been
          deprived of due process. The district court dismissed his
          claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, on the basis
          that Rodrigues had failed to exhaust available administrative
          remedies. We reverse and remand.

          [13] I. FACTS

          [14] From January 1969 to July 1972, Sherwood Rodrigues
          was employed as a bank examiner with the Federal Home
          Loan Bank Board. In November 1972, Rodrigues filed a
          claim with the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs,
          United States Department of Labor (OWCP). OWCP
          determined that Rodrigues was totally disabled and
          awarded compensation for his disability from December 9,
          1971.

          [15] In the fall of 1977, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
          began investigating Rodrigues for tax evasion. The IRS
          concluded that Rodrigues had been employed as an
          accountant and had received earnings from 1971 through
          1979. The IRS communicated this to OWCP and also
          referred the matter to the United States attorney, who
          brought criminal charges against Rodrigues for failure to file
          tax returns, 26 U.S.C. § 7203 (1982), and for filing false
          claims for disability payments with the Department of
          Labor, 18 U.S.C. §§ 287, 1920 (1982).

          [16] On July 19, 1979, before Rodrigues was tried on the
          criminal charges, OWCP notified Rodrigues by letter that
          his disability benefits had been suspended. The OWCP
          letter also asked him to submit a statement detailing his
          employment and earnings since 1971. Through counsel,
          Rodrigues responded that he had not worked for anyone
          since he left government employment and that he had not
          had any employment earnings. Rodrigues also requested a
          hearing concerning "why he [had] been disqualified for
          further benefits."

          [17] OWCP responded by letter that Rodrigues had not
          been disqualified for further benefits, but that they merely
          were suspended pending resolution of the criminal action.
          The letter stated, "If Mr. Rodrigues is found not guilty of
          the charges, appropriate benefits will be reinstated." The
          letter did not mention Rodrigues's request for a hearing.

          [18] In September 1982, the criminal action against
          Rodrigues was concluded. Rodrigues was convicted after a
          jury trial on the tax return charges, but the government
          agreed to dismiss the charges relating to false disability
          claims in return for Rodrigues's agreement not to appeal his
          conviction on the other counts. OWCP did not reinstate
          Rodrigues's benefits, however. Instead, it initiated an
          investigation of Rodrigues's employment and earnings
          through the Office of Inspector General (OIG). Rodrigues
          asserts that from 1979 onward, he made numerous efforts
          to have his benefits reinstated and repeatedly received
          reassurances from OWCP personnel that a decision was
          imminent. But, as of November 1983, sixteen months after
          the conclusion of the criminal action, OWCP had not
          issued any formal decision.

          [19] Rodrigues's counsel demanded that a final decision be
          rendered. Finally, on December 27, 1983, based on
          "additional information" obtained from the OIG
          investigation,*fn1 OWCP issued a decision formally
          rejecting Rodrigues's claim for benefits. The stated reason
          for the termination was that Rodrigues was employable and
          had been employed in the field of public accounting. The
          decision letter stated that OWCP had reached its
          conclusions based on "evidence of record," but the letter
          did not set forth what that evidence was.

          [20] OWCP issued a second decision on January 9, 1983,
          concluding that Rodrigues had been overpaid benefits in
          the amount of $97,163.76 for the period from 1971 to 1979
          because he "failed to report his employment activities
          correctly."

          [21] Rodrigues requested administrative hearings with
          regard to both OWCP decisions. Then, on February 6,
          1984, Rodrigues filed this action in the district court,
          seeking injunctive relief to compel the Secretary to reinstate
          benefits from September 1982, until an administrative
          hearing could be held. The complaint alleged that OWCP's
          handling of Rodrigues's claim had violated fifth amendment
          due process.

          [22] The district court denied Rodrigues's motion for a
          preliminary injunction and, on its own motion, dismissed
          the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Rodrigues
          timely appealed.

          [23] While the case has been on appeal to this court,
          OWCP has advised Rodrigues that an administrative
          hearing will be held on his claims.

          [24] II. DISCUSSION

          [25] The district court concluded that it lacked subject
          matter jurisdiction because Rodrigues had not exhausted
          his administrative remedies. Jurisdiction and exhaustion in
          this case, however, are separate issues, and the district
          court should have treated them as such. See United States
          v. California Care Corp., 709 F.2d 1241, 1248 (9th Cir.
          1983); SEC v. G.C. George Securities, Inc., 637 F.2d 685,
          688 & n.4 (9th Cir. 1981); Montgomery v. Rumsfeld, 572
          F.2d 250, 252-53 (9th Cir. 1978). We address these issues
          separately here.

          [26] A. Jurisdiction

          [27] Rodrigues's compensation claim arose under the
          Federal Employees Compensation Act (FECA), 5 U.S.C.
          §§ 8101-8151 (1982), which provides:

          [28] The action of the Secretary or his designee in allowing
          or denying a payment under this subchapter is -- (1) final
          and conclusive for all purposes and with respect to all
          questions of law and fact; and (2) not subject to review by
          another official of the United States or by a court by
          mandamus or otherwise.

          [29] 5 U.S.C. § 8128(b) (1982). The Secretary contends
          this provision divested the district court of jurisdiction to
          hear this action. We disagree.

          [30] Courts have long indulged in a presumption favoring
          judicial review of agency action. The Supreme Court has
          stated that "only upon a showing of 'clear and convincing
          evidence' of a contrary legislative intent should the courts
          restrict access to judicial review." Abbott Laboratories v.
          Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 141, 87 S. Ct. 1507, 18 L. Ed. 2d
          681 (1967); accord Lindahl v. Office of Personnel
          Management, 470 U.S. 768, 84 L. Ed. 2d 674, 105 S. Ct.
          1620, 470 U.S. 768, 105 S. Ct. 1620, 1627 84 L. Ed. 2d
          674 (1985); Dunlop v. Bachowski, 421 U.S. 560, 568, 44 L.
          Ed. 2d 377, 95 S. Ct. 1851 (1975). The "clear and
          convincing evidence" standard is not talismanic. See Block
          v. Community Nutrition Institute, 467 U.S. 340, 81 L. Ed.
          2d 270, 104 S. Ct. 2450, 104 S. Ct. 2450, 2454, 81 L. Ed.
          2d 870 (1984). The question is one of congressional intent;
          whether a statute precludes judicial review "is determined
          not only from its express language, but also from the
          structure of the statutory scheme, its objectives, its
          legislative history, and the nature of the action involved."
          Id. at , 104 S. Ct. at 2454 (citations omitted), quoted in
          Lindahl v. Office of Personnel Management, 105 S. Ct. at
          1627.

          [31] Section 8128(b) of FECA precludes judicial review of
          an action of the Secretary "in allowing or denying a
          payment." The conduct of the Secretary that Rodrigues
          challenges in this action is not the "allowing or denying [of]
          a payment," but rather the manner in which his claim was
          decided. He contends that he has been denied procedural
          due process. He does not seek to have his disability claim
          decided by the district court. He is not arguing in any
          respect the merits of his underlying compensation claim.
          Rodrigues's procedural challenge is entirely collateral to his
          underlying substantive claim for benefits. See Boettcher v.
          Secretary of Health & Human Services, 759 F.2d 719, 721
          (9th Cir. 1985); cf. Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602, 80 L.
          Ed. 2d 622, 104 S. Ct. 2013, (1984) (challenge to
          procedures was "inextricably intertwined" with claim for
          benefits, therefore claim should not be separated into
          procedural and substantive elements).

          [32] The presumption in favor of judicial review is
          especially strong in cases in which constitutional challenges
          are raised. "Constitutional questions obviously are unsuited
          to resolution in administrative hearing procedures and,
          therefore, access to courts is essential to the decision of
          such questions." Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 109, 51
          L. Ed. 2d 192, 97 S. Ct. 980 (1977). Indeed, if Congress
          intended to preclude judicial review of the constitutionality
          of a statutory procedural scheme, that likely would raise a
          substantial question concerning the constitutionality of the
          statute itself. Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749, 762, 45 L.
          Ed. 2d 522, 95 S. Ct. 2457 (1975). Several cases have
          refused to read statutory finality provisions to preclude
          review of constitutional claims. See, e.g., Johnson v.
          Robison, 415 U.S. 361, 373-74, 39 L. Ed. 2d 389, 94 S.
          Ct. 1160 (1974); Rosen v. Walters, 719 F.2d 1422, 1423
          (9th Cir. 1983); Parodi v. Merit Systems Protection Board,
          702 F.2d 743, 745-49 (9th Cir. 1982); Humana, Inc. v.
          Califano, 191 U.S. App. D.C. 368, 590 F.2d 1070, 1080-81
          (D.C. Cir. 1978); Trinity Memorial Hospital, Inc. v.
          Associated Hospital Service, Inc., 570 F.2d 660, 665-67
          (7th Cir. 1977); Ralpho v. Bell, 186 U.S. App. D.C. 368,
          569 F.2d 607, 620-22 (D.C. Cir. 1977).

          [33] The structure of FECA and the language of section
          8128(b) convince us that Congress's intent was that the
          courts not be burdened by a flood of small claims
          challenging the merits of compensation decisions, see, e.g.,
          Soderman v. United States Civil Service Commission, 313
          F.2d 694, 695 (9th Cir. 1962) (per curiam), cert. denied,
          372 U.S. 968, 83 S. Ct. 1089, 10 L. Ed. 2d 131 (1963), and
          that the Secretary should be left free to make the policy
          choices associated with disability decisions. Cf. United
          States v. Erika, Inc., 456 U.S. 201, 208-10, 72 L. Ed. 2d
          12, 102 S. Ct. 1650 (1982) (similar purpose found in
          Medicare review provisions); Johnson v. Robison, 415
          U.S. at 370 (similar purpose found in finality provision of
          veterans' benefits statute). We do not read the statute to
          take the "extraordinary" step of foreclosing jurisdiction
          over constitutional claims. See Califano v. Sanders, 430
          U.S. at 109; see, e.g., Allen v. Faragasso, 585 F. Supp.
          1114, 1118 n.3 (N.D. Cal. 1984) (court decided challenges
          to OWCP procedures but refused to consider merits of
          compensation decision).

          [34] Although a mere allegation of a constitutional violation
          would not be sufficient to avoid the effect of a statutory
          finality provision, see Reid v. Engen, 765 F.2d 1457, 1461
          (9th Cir. 1985), the record before us indicates that
          Rodrigues may have cognizable due process claims.
          Rodrigues does not make a facial attack on the
          constitutionality of the FECA procedures themselves, but,
          instead, asserts that the procedures are unconstitutional as
          applied to him. Given the Secretary's failure to provide a
          hearing after the suspension of benefits, despite
          Rodrigues's request for one, and the Secretary's
          considerable delay in deciding Rodrigues's claim, we do
          not find the due process challenges insubstantial. See
          Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532,
          84 L. Ed. 2d 494, 105 S. Ct. 1487, (1985) ("At some point,
          a delay in the post-termination hearing would become a
          constitutional violation." (citation omitted)); Kelly v.
          Railroad Retirement Board, 625 F.2d 486, 490-91 (3d Cir.
          1980).

          [35] We do not mean by this to express any opinion on the
          ultimate merit of Rodrigues's due process claims. We defer
          to the district court in the first instance. We simply
          conclude that, on the basis of the record before us,
          Rodrigues's due process contentions appear to be more
          than mere allegations included in the complaint to create
          jurisdiction where none would exist otherwise.

          [36] B. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

          [37] Our cases consistently have held that, unless statutorily
          mandated, application of the exhaustion doctrine lies in the
          sound discretion of the district court. Reid v. Engen, 765
          F.2d at 1462; United States v. California Care Corp., 709
          F.2d at 1248; Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, Inc.
          v. Watson, 697 F.2d 1305, 1309 (9th Cir. 1983); Aleknagik
          Natives Ltd. v. Andrus, 648 F.2d 496, 500 (9th Cir. 1980);
          Montgomery v. Rumsfeld, 572 F.2d at 253-54. The
          judicially-created exhaustion doctrine does not limit
          jurisdiction; rather, it permits courts to decide whether to
          exercise jurisdiction. See United States v. California Care
          Corp., 709 F.2d at 1248; Stauffer Chemical Co. v. FDA,
          670 F.2d 106, 107 (9th Cir. 1982).

          [38] FECA clearly does not require exhaustion of
          administrative remedies as a prerequisite to a district court's
          jurisdiction. As we noted above, FECA precludes federal
          jurisdiction with regard to the merits of a compensation
          claim. 5 U.S.C. § 8128(b); see, e.g., Soderman v. United
          States Civil Service Commission, 313 F.2d at 695; see also
          Reep v. United States, 557 F.2d 204, 207 (9th Cir. 1977)
          (failure to exhaust FECA remedies barred suit under
          Federal Tort Claims Act). But we hold today that FECA
          was not intended to preclude jurisdiction over a due
          process challenge, such as the one Rodrigues raises here.

          [39] Just as the nature of Rodrigues's claim in this action
          avoids the effect of FECA's finality provision, the nature of
          the claim also makes it somewhat ill-suited for application
          of the exhaustion doctrine. Exhaustion typically is thought
          of as a precondition to a review of the merits of an agency
          determination, but, as we must emphasize again, Rodrigues
          is not seeking review of the merits of the Secretary's
          decision.

          [40] Still, the considerations that inform the exhaustion
          doctrine are not completely out of place here. Exhaustion
          of administrative remedies ordinarily is required to

          [41] prevent[] premature interference with agency
          processes, so that the agency may function efficiently and
          so that it may have an opportunity to correct its own errors,
          to afford the parties and the courts the benefit of its
          experience and expertise, and to compile a record which is
          adequate for judicial review.

          [42] Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. at 765; see also
          Montgomery v. Rumsfeld, 572 F.2d at 253. Some of these
          policies are implicated here. In particular, review at this
          point may be premature and the record as it now stands
          may be inadequate for judicial review of Rodrigues's due
          process claim.*fn2

          [43] First, it is not entirely clear what relief Rodrigues is
          seeking. The thrust of his complaint seems to be that he
          wants a hearing concerning the overpayment and
          termination decisions, and retroactive reinstatement of
          benefits until such a hearing is held. But the Secretary has
          now notified Rodrigues that he will have a hearing, and, in
          fact, that hearing already may have taken place.*fn3

          [44] If reinstatement of benefits pending a hearing is the
          only relief that Rodrigues seeks and a hearing has been
          held, it may be that this case is now moot. On the other
          hand, if Rodrigues seeks or is entitled to other relief or if he
          contends that the hearing he was given still does not satisfy
          due process requirements, it may be that he has now
          sufficiently exhausted administrative remedies and the case
          should go forward in the district court.

          [45] If the hearing Rodrigues was promised has not taken
          place, or if it has taken place but no decision has been
          issued, it may be appropriate for the district court to retain
          jurisdiction in order to ensure that Rodrigues is given the
          process he is due.

          [46] In sum, then, whether it is prudent to require
          exhaustion in this case depends on precisely what relief
          Rodrigues is seeking, where his compensation claim stands
          in the administrative process, and whether subsequent
          administrative hearings, if they have occurred, have affected
          Rodrigues's claims.

          [47] Given the vagaries of this case, we are in no position
          to say whether requiring exhaustion would be wise. In any
          event, the determination whether to require exhaustion is a
          matter committed in the first instance to the district court's
          discretion. The district court, having construed exhaustion
          as jurisdictional and having dismissed on that basis, has not
          exercised its discretion.*fn4 Under these circumstances, the
          appropriate course is to remand to allow the district court
          the opportunity to exercise its discretion. See Stratman v.
          Watt, 656 F.2d 1321, 1326 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. dismissed,
          456 U.S. 901, 72 L. Ed. 2d 170, 102 S. Ct. 1744 (1982);
          SEC v. G.C. George Securities, Inc., 637 F.2d at 688 &
          n.3; Montgomery v. Rumsfeld, 572 F.2d at 254. We do not
          preclude the possibility that the district court after a review
          of the facts may find this case moot.

          [48] III. CONCLUSION

          [49] We conclude that the district court had jurisdiction
          over Rodrigues's action. We remand to the district court to
          allow it to consider whether to exercise that jurisdiction or
          to require exhaustion or to fashion such other relief as may
          be indicated.

          [50] REVERSED and REMANDED.

          [51] Disposition

          [52] REVERSED and REMANDED.

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

          Opinion Footnotes

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

          [53] *fn1 The record does not show what this additional
          information was or whether OIG issued a report of its
          investigation and findings.

          [54] *fn2 Here, we refer to the inadequacy of the record,
          not in the sense of lack of factual determinations going to
          the merits of Rodrigues's compensation claim, but rather in
          the sense of lack of facts as to exactly what process the
          Secretary has or will afford Rodrigues (the type of hearing,
          the reasons for delay, etc.).

          [55] *fn3 It was scheduled for the week of April 22-26,
          1985.

          [56] *fn4 The district court may decide to require
          exhaustion, or it may decide to exercise its jurisdiction and
          allow the action to proceed. Alternatively, the court might
          retain jurisdiction over the case, but stay its own
          proceedings pending administrative review. See
          Montgomery v. Rumsfeld, 572 F.2d at 254.

          19850826

          © 1998 VersusLaw Inc.
          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        • Cyril Grosse
          It would appear that the case you cited has nothing to do with the quote you provided. It is a case regarding the Exhaustion of Administrative Remedy. Cyril
          Message 4 of 19 , Mar 31, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            It would appear that the case you cited has nothing to do with the quote you
            provided. It is a case regarding the Exhaustion of Administrative Remedy.

            Cyril Grosse
            Cyril@...
            ________________________________________________________________
            "A truth's initial commotion is directly proportional to how deeply the lie
            was believed. When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to
            the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and
            its speaker, a raving lunatic." --Dresden James

            -----Original Message-----
            From: Paul Lowery [mailto:plowery@...]
            Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 7:41 AM
            To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Legal Fictions



            Good Day All;

            Thought I would throw this out - Found it while searching the "right of
            travel" position. Used it to confuse the ADA and the court forcing them to
            dismiss for lack of SMJ.

            Quote "All codes, rules and regulations are applicable to the government
            authorities only, not human/creators in accordance with God's laws. All
            codes, rules and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking in due
            process...."
            Rodriques v. Ray Donavan (US Department of Labor), 769 F. 2nd 1344,1348
            (1985).

            Can any one verify this, I have yet to find the decision - would love to
            read it.

            Paul Lowery
            Hermes Architects, Inc.
            713.785.3644
          • Legalbear
            Paul and Group: I searched for this quote in the case below and couldn t find it; can you? This is why you can t just quote this without verifying it. I didn t
            Message 5 of 19 , Mar 31, 2005
            • 0 Attachment

              Paul and Group: I searched for this quote in the case below and couldn’t find it; can you? This is why you can’t just quote this without verifying it. I didn’t have to read the whole case. I pushed control F and a find window opened. Then, I put in the pagan word “God” and clicked find. The pagan name “God” does not appear in the whole case. Then, I put in the phrase, “applicable to the government authorities,” and ran it again, and again there is not phrase in this case either. If this was in a brief, it was an attempt to perpetrate a fraud on the court. Bear

               

              Good Day All;

               

              Thought I would throw this out — Found it while searching the "right of travel" position. Used it to confuse the ADA and the court forcing them to dismiss for lack of SMJ.

               

              Quote  "All codes, rules and regulations are applicable to the government authorities only, not human/creators in accordance with God's laws. All codes, rules and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking in due process...."

              Rodriques v. Ray Donavan (US Department of Labor), 769 F. 2nd 1344,1348  (1985).

               

               

              PHONE #s: 970-330-3883/720-203-5142 c. 

               

              For mailing:  Excellence Unlimited, 2830 27th St. Ln. #B115, Greeley , CO  80634

               

              BEAR'S WEB PAGES:

               

              www.legal-research-video.com

              www.legalbears.com

              www.freedivorceforms.net

              www.irs-armory.com

               

              And, for optimum health:

              www.mannapages.com/barrysmith

              To subscribe to Tips & Tricks for court send an email to:

              tips_and_tricks-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

            • paradoxmagnus@earthlink.net
              Congrats on the dismissal! Your belief that you were right probably had more to do with it that this quote. IF this quote exists, it most like from a case or
              Message 6 of 19 , Mar 31, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                Congrats on the dismissal! Your belief that you were right probably had
                more to do with it that this quote.

                IF this quote exists, it most like from a case or brief that cited
                Rodriques.

                Pat in California

                >
                > -----Original Message-----
                > From: Paul Lowery [mailto:plowery@...]
                > Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 7:41 AM
                > To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                > Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Legal Fictions
                >
                >
                >
                > Good Day All;
                >
                > Thought I would throw this out - Found it while searching the "right of
                > travel" position. Used it to confuse the ADA and the court forcing them to
                > dismiss for lack of SMJ.
                >
                > Quote "All codes, rules and regulations are applicable to the government
                > authorities only, not human/creators in accordance with God's laws. All
                > codes, rules and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking in due
                > process...."
                > Rodriques v. Ray Donavan (US Department of Labor), 769 F. 2nd 1344,1348
                > (1985).
                >
                > Can any one verify this, I have yet to find the decision - would love to
                > read it.
                >
                > Paul Lowery
                > Hermes Architects, Inc.
                > 713.785.3644



                --
                No virus found in this outgoing message.
                Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
                Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.0 - Release Date: 3/31/2005
              • paradoxmagnus@earthlink.net
                The 3rd quote says a lot about government. Pat in California The United States is a juristic person in the sense that it has capacity to sue upon contracts
                Message 7 of 19 , Mar 31, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  The 3rd quote says a lot about government.
                  Pat in California

                  "The United States is a juristic person in the sense that it has capacity to
                  sue upon contracts made with it or in vindication of its property rights.
                  [T]...

                  Since, in common usage, the term 'person' does not include the sovereign,
                  statutes employing the phrase are ordinarily construed to exclude it. 5 But
                  there is no hard [312 U.S. 600, 605] and fast rule of exclusion. The
                  purpose, the subject matter, the context, the legislative history, and the
                  executive interpretation of the statute are aids to construction which may
                  indicate an intent, by the use of the term, to bring state or nation within
                  the scope of the law. 6

                  The Government admits that often the word 'person' is used in such a sense
                  as not to include the sovereign but urges that where, as in the present
                  instance, its wider application is consistent with, and tends to effectuate,
                  the public policy evidenced by the statute, the term should be held to
                  embrace the Government. [A]..."

                  UNITED STATES v. COOPER CORPORATION, 312 U.S. 600 (1941)
                  http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=us/312/600.html



                  --
                  No virus found in this outgoing message.
                  Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
                  Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.0 - Release Date: 3/31/2005
                • jm367@bellsouth.net
                  Are the records maintained by Government on persons kept in ALL CAPS ? I have a document in all caps from the Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce,
                  Message 8 of 19 , Apr 1 7:29 PM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Are the records maintained by Government on persons kept in ALL CAPS ?
                    I have a document in all caps from the Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce, giving notice of registration of child. All caps NAME.  Mother of maiden name.  Father known by initial only which means unknown by the common-law rules of evidence.
                     
                    Draw your own concluions.  Do your own FOIA request.  Find out what their records say you are.
                    Read Bracton to find out what is freeman in common-law.
                    ----- Original Message -----
                     
                    Is their any truth to this concern that if a person is named in ALL CAPS, that person is now a corporation, and the real human being is some kind of trustee of the ALL CAPS ENTITY NAMED?
                  • jm367@bellsouth.net
                    I recently posted authority which directly disputes that No corporation can exist unless there are forms filed and they must be a mater of public record.
                    Message 9 of 19 , Apr 2 7:19 AM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I recently posted authority which directly disputes that No corporation can exist unless there are forms filed and they must be a mater of public record. 
                      Maitland in his authoritative treatise on equity says flatly that you can become a trustee wuthout knowingly entering into a trustee agreement.
                       
                      But, the simple and undeniable facts are
                      1. people's births are recorded and registered in their name and behalf;  the registration of every child is an article in treaties.
                      2. the federal Government distributes funds to States for the benefit of mother and child with regulatory strings attached;  these funds are to reduce infant mortality, etc. and for education; expenditures for the benefit of registered child both before and after birth; 
                      3. the USC requires that States prosecute Parens Patriae actions unless they enact law to the contrary;  none have tht I know of;
                       
                      4. principles of maritime law provide for equitable liens.
                      5. the public debt may not be questioned.  14th amendment
                      6. U.S. citizenship is said to be a privilege;  a privilege is, as it were, a private law (maxim)
                       
                       Everything you need to see in order to understand what seems hidden or unknown is in Government records.
                       
                    • jm367@bellsouth.net
                      Social Security cannot be a retirement prgram because there are no legal rights in it. That s why they are pushing private accounts. To indenture them forever
                      Message 10 of 19 , Apr 2 7:23 AM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Social Security cannot be a retirement prgram because there are no legal rights in it.
                        That's why they are pushing private accounts.  To indenture them forever under real contract.
                      • MFurtado
                        I believe Mr. Wilde may have meant, It s all crap according to the criminal courts. If he didn t, then Carrol may have just proved him wrong. But is he
                        Message 11 of 19 , Apr 2 11:56 AM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          I believe Mr. Wilde may have meant, "It's all crap according to the criminal courts."
                          If he didn't, then Carrol may have just proved him wrong. 
                           
                          But is he convinvced?
                          Does it matter if he is or is not?
                           
                          Probably doesn't matter.  We often adopt the bull S__t that the government keeps parroting totally forgettigng who it is that we are deaing with.
                           
                          For some reason we keep forgetting that when the government says yes, it means no, especially if no tends to make them look bad or invalidates their twist of reality, and yes means they are to continue business as usual.
                           
                          Kind of like, "The IRS isn't a government agency..."  People react with "That's a lot of bunk, read..." this case and that decision.  But decisions by whom?  By Criminal Courts and Black Robed, self-believing prophets (spelled "profits")?
                           
                          I've read Dan Meadors evidence, and that's enough truth for me.  I can string obvious circumstantial evidence together and make my own conclusions of what is truth (like how does a agency allegedly of the Dept. of Treasury get paid by the Dept. of Agriculture?  Sounds shady to me!)  Let's face it!  Conspiracies exist in abundance in these united State of America!
                           
                          I'm a much more reliable means of truth thanis government.  The government line is obviously crap, and judges who go on and on about "This court has consistently held..." this and that, discounting the evidence that obviously exists, well, what did you expect?
                           
                          Did you expect the judge to say, "Well after reading The Law That Never Was, I'm convinced that the income tax is a bogus amendment that wasn't ratified, and Irwin Schiff is a master mind, because there IS NO LAW making any American, or anyone else for that matter, liable for, and required to pay the tax!  I find the defendant US government guilty of nearly 100 years of fraud.  I sentence them all to death for treason of the worst kind... enslaving the American People under Color of Law!  This case is now conlcuded, and every member of Congress will be taken into immediate custody... "
                           
                          NOT!
                           
                          Mel
                           
                          Mel
                          ----- Original Message -----
                          From: Carrol
                          Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2005 10:49 AM
                          Subject: Re: Fw: [tips_and_tricks] Legal Fictions

                          Wow - that's just like saying "Because I said so".

                          If it is all a crock, why is there this provision in the
                          IRM regarding the 1040 form:

                          "IRM 9.4.4.2.1.3 (01-30-2001)
                          The Individual Master File
                          2.. 
                        • jm367@bellsouth.net
                          It s basic common-law law that there can be no trust without a corpus. Promises do not a corpus make. Congress can define an ant as an elephant. Does it make
                          Message 12 of 19 , Apr 2 2:19 PM
                          • 0 Attachment
                            It's basic common-law law that there can be no trust without a corpus.
                            Promises do not a corpus make.
                            Congress can define an ant as an elephant.  Does it make it so ?
                            In federal courts, I guess it does.
                          • Nick
                            ... corpus. ... Title 42 section 401 tells exactly what the corpus is, any other questions? The Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund shall
                            Message 13 of 19 , Apr 2 9:04 PM
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, <jm367@b...> wrote:
                              > It's basic common-law law that there can be no trust without a
                              corpus.
                              > Promises do not a corpus make.
                              > Congress can define an ant as an elephant. Does it make it so ?
                              > In federal courts, I guess it does.

                              Title 42 section 401 tells exactly what the corpus is, any other
                              questions?

                              The Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund shall consist
                              of the securities held by the Secretary of the Treasury for the Old-
                              Age Reserve Account and the amount standing to the credit of the Old-
                              Age Reserve Account on the books of the Treasury on January 1, 1940,
                              which securities and amount the Secretary of the Treasury is
                              authorized and directed to transfer to the Federal Old-Age and
                              Survivors Insurance Trust Fund, and, in addition, such gifts and
                              bequests as may be made as provided in subsection (i)(1) of this
                              section, and such amounts as may be appropriated to, or deposited in,
                              the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund as hereinafter
                              provided. There is hereby appropriated to the Federal Old-Age and
                              Survivors Insurance Trust Fund for the fiscal year ending June 30,
                              1941, and for each fiscal year thereafter, out of any moneys in the
                              Treasury not otherwise appropriated, amounts equivalent to 100 per
                              centum of—
                              (1) the taxes (including interest, penalties, and additions to the
                              taxes) received under subchapter A of chapter 9 of the Internal
                              Revenue Code of 1939 (and covered into the Treasury) which are
                              deposited into the Treasury by collectors of internal revenue before
                              January 1, 1951; and
                              (2) the taxes certified each month by the Commissioner of Internal
                              Revenue as taxes received under subchapter A of chapter 9 of such
                              Code which are deposited into the Treasury by collectors of internal
                              revenue after December 31, 1950, and before January 1, 1953, with
                              respect to assessments of such taxes made before January 1, 1951; and
                              (3) the taxes imposed by subchapter A of chapter 9 of such Code with
                              respect to wages (as defined in section 1426 of such Code), and by
                              chapter 21 (other than sections 3101(b) and 3111(b)) of the Internal
                              Revenue Code of 1954 with respect to wages (as defined in section
                              3121 of such Code) reported to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue
                              pursuant to section 1420(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939
                              after December 31, 1950, or to the Secretary of the Treasury or his
                              delegates pursuant to subtitle F of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954
                              after December 31, 1954, as determined by the Secretary of the
                              Treasury by applying the applicable rates of tax under such
                              subchapter or chapter 21 (other than sections 3101 (b) and 3111 (b))
                              to such wages, which wages shall be certified by the Commissioner of
                              Social Security on the basis of the records of wages established and
                              maintained by such Commissioner in accordance with such reports, less
                              the amounts specified in clause (1) of subsection (b) of this
                              section; and
                              (4) the taxes imposed by subchapter E of chapter 1 of the Internal
                              Revenue Code of 1939, with respect to self-employment income (as
                              defined in section 481 of such Code), and by chapter 2 (other than
                              section 1401(b)) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 with respect to
                              self-employment income (as defined in section 1402 of such Code)
                              reported to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue on tax returns under
                              such subchapter or to the Secretary of the Treasury or his delegate
                              on tax returns under subtitle F of such Code, as determined by the
                              Secretary of the Treasury by applying the applicable rate of tax
                              under such subchapter or chapter (other than section 1401 (b)) to
                              such self-employment income, which self-employment income shall be
                              certified by the Commissioner of Social Security on the basis of the
                              records of self-employment income established and maintained by the
                              Commissioner of Social Security in accordance with such returns, less
                              the amounts specified in clause (2) of subsection (b) of this
                              section.
                              The amounts appropriated by clauses (3) and (4) of this subsection
                              shall be transferred from time to time from the general fund in the
                              Treasury to the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund,
                              and the amounts appropriated by clauses (1) and (2) of subsection (b)
                              of this section shall be transferred from time to time from the
                              general fund in the Treasury to the Federal Disability Insurance
                              Trust Fund, such amounts to be determined on the basis of estimates
                              by the Secretary of the Treasury of the taxes, specified in clauses
                              (3) and (4) of this subsection, paid to or deposited into the
                              Treasury; and proper adjustments shall be made in amounts
                              subsequently transferred to the extent prior estimates were in excess
                              of or were less than the taxes specified in such clauses (3) and (4)
                              of this subsection. All amounts transferred to either Trust Fund
                              under the preceding sentence shall be invested by the Managing
                              Trustee in the same manner and to the same extent as the other assets
                              of such Trust Fund. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, in any
                              case in which the Secretary of the Treasury determines that the
                              assets of either such Trust Fund would otherwise be inadequate to
                              meet such Fund's obligations for any month, the Secretary of the
                              Treasury shall transfer to such Trust Fund on the first day of such
                              month the amount which would have been transferred to such Fund under
                              this section as in effect on October 1, 1990; and such Trust Fund
                              shall pay interest to the general fund on the amount so transferred
                              on the first day of any month at a rate (calculated on a daily basis,
                              and applied against the difference between the amount so transferred
                              on such first day and the amount which would have been transferred to
                              the Trust Fund up to that day under the procedures in effect on
                              January 1, 1983) equal to the rate earned by the investments of such
                              Fund in the same month under subsection (d) of this section.
                            • jm367@bellsouth.net
                              Would the procuring of an entity with a name that sounds like the name of a man be a thing whereby any part of the rights and liberties confirmed by sovereign
                              Message 14 of 19 , Apr 4 11:42 AM
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Would the procuring of an entity with a name that sounds like the name of a man be a thing whereby any part of the rights and liberties confirmed by sovereign power or the concessions confirmed by sovereign power might be revoked or diminished ?
                                 
                                To the extent such an entity might be used for such purpose, the sovereign has conceded it is to be null and void and of no force and effect and any judgment to the contrary is to be undone and holden for naught.  And the right to that concession exists antecedent to any constitution.
                                 
                                But any right can be waived.
                                 
                              • gary
                                Dave, Maybe my memory is failing me (it has been a few years since I dug into this) but as I remember it, an IMF is generated each year that a return is filed.
                                Message 15 of 19 , Apr 4 6:52 PM
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Dave,
                                   
                                  Maybe my memory is failing me (it has been a few years since I dug into this) but as I remember it, an IMF is generated each year that a return is filed.  If no return is filed and there are W2s or 1099s, the IRS generates a substitute for return (SFR) which generates an IMF for that year.  If this is true, would I be correct in assuming that the reason they don't bother you is that they look at the last IMF and if that says you need not file then they don't ask you for a return and don't generate a SFR for the last tax year?
                                   
                                  Gary
                                  ----- Original Message -----
                                  Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2005 2:01 AM
                                  Subject: RE: [tips_and_tricks] Re: Legal Fictions

                                  Nick --

                                  You said:
                                  "Dave, it is not a matter of what or who the Government says you are, it is the documentation that people send in about you. What is sent in about you are W-2s and 1099s. These are the specific items that say you work for a FEDERAL WAGE. These presumptions have to be rebutted and this is where to cut everything off at the knees."

                                  It is very much an issue of what the govt says I am.  Whatever these forms state and whatever these people claim (knowingly or unknowingly) is nothing more than hearsay unless and until I confirm them as fact by filing a Form 1040 and declaring them to be fact. 

                                  Various persons (corporate and otherwise) send the IRS W-2s or 1099s concerning me every year.  But the IRS never even bothers me about them, much less attempts to collect taxes from me.  What others say about me or my money has no basis in fact if my Individual Master File has me listed as a non-taxpayer not required to file returns.

                                  Yours in financial freedom,

                                  Dave Miner
                                  www.IRx-Solutions.com


                                   

                                • Frog Farmer
                                  ... Yes. There are quite a few people AND entities spelled and pronounced John Smith . Look in any directory of names. And we all know (or should know)
                                  Message 16 of 19 , Apr 5 1:05 PM
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    On Apr 4, 2005, at 11:42 AM, <jm367@...> wrote:

                                    > Would the procuring of an entity with a name that sounds like the name
                                    > of a man be a thing whereby any part of the rights and liberties
                                    > confirmed by sovereign power or the concessions confirmed by sovereign
                                    > power might be revoked or diminished ?

                                    Yes. There are quite a few people AND entities spelled and pronounced
                                    "John Smith". Look in any directory of names. And we all know (or
                                    should know) that when John Smith gets sued or prosecuted, everyone who
                                    uses the name does not appear in court. Some John Smiths are affected
                                    and some are not. Does it really need to be explained why this is so?
                                    Could it be that a sovereign John Smith at any particular moment
                                    chooses to surrender his sovereignty, and change his lawful status to
                                    that of subject?
                                     
                                    > To the extent such an entity might be used for such purpose, the
                                    > sovereign has conceded it is to be null and void and of no force and
                                    > effect and any judgment to the contrary is to be undone and holden for
                                    > naught.  And the right to that concession exists antecedent to any
                                    > constitution.

                                    Absolutely. And some John Smiths know that and use that knowledge in
                                    the moment of choice and decision, while many do not, and end up later
                                    wishing that they had, and spending inordinate amounts of time and
                                    resources trying to recover from their waivers.

                                    > But any right can be waived.

                                    I believe that is true, but some say not. Ask Terry Schiavo.

                                    However, one can make the decision to try to personally avoid making
                                    rights waivers, or to at least make them consciously instead of in a
                                    knee-jerk reaction driven by fear and adrenaline, or the need to "fit
                                    in".

                                    I think when you find a case where a juristic entity and a man are
                                    taken as one and the same entity, the record will probably show the
                                    train of events whereby this link was first made, and an event can be
                                    identified as a voluntary choice by one making a waiver of rights in a
                                    situation where they would still defend their sanity. And that is the
                                    problem. And there usually is not just that initial event, but many
                                    subsequent ratifications of it, with more compounding surrenders, one
                                    upon the next. Then a point is reached where the discomfort level
                                    causes the waiver-maker to chafe under all his statements and promises.
                                    Then he says to himself, "hey, how come some people are more free than
                                    others, that's not fair." Meanwhile at home, his new widescreen
                                    digital TV awaits his arrival, with no interest due until January and
                                    no payments until 2006! And then his tax refund should cover the whole
                                    thing!
                                  • Dave Miner
                                    Gary -- Good question, but its logic will lead you to what I have been saying. I will explain, but first I will correct a fundamental misunderstanding you
                                    Message 17 of 19 , Apr 5 10:13 PM
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Gary --
                                       
                                      Good question, but its logic will lead you to what I have been saying.  I will explain, but first I will correct a fundamental misunderstanding you have concerning the IMF.
                                       
                                      An IMF is created when the first return is filed.  For most of us, this occurred when we were teenagers.  Since only businesses are required to file a return, the IRS creates the IMF and enters the individual as a business.  The IMF is a permanent file (for most people) and it consists of three sections.  The first section is the entity section, which establishes who and what you are, including what returns you are required to file.  The entity section remains pretty much the same every year, with only a few changes.  The second section is the module portion.  This is the section where the data from the return is entered.  There is a module section for each and every year.  If you do not file a return, the IRS will file one for you, based on the authority of the IRS to file returns for certain types of businesses, which you correctly noted is a Substitute for Return.  The third section is called the transaction section, and it includes transaction codes and status codes.  This section records almost every action the IRS takes against you, plus some other data.
                                       
                                      If you obtain your IMF-Complete, you will receive a stack of pages with one entity section and a whole bunch of module and transaction portions organized by year.  If you obtain your IMF-Specific, you will receive 2-6 pages (typical according to my experience with hundreds of them) for each year, with all three sections in each printout.
                                       
                                      The IMF is generated every year regardless of whether or not you file a return, on or about the first week in January.  The IRS creates the entity portion based on the previous year's IMF.  The module and transaction portions will remain blank until you file a return.  If you request your IMF-Specific in February of any given year, you will receive an IMF with the entity portion completed and the module and transaction portions will be blank.  If you do not file, your IMF will remain this way for usually two years.  Then the IRS will process a Transaction Code 424, which starts the process of completing the SFR with lots of other transactions that add taxes and penalties and interest.  Stat Codes recording the collection letters the IRS sends to you will be added over the next few months to a couple of years.  Sooner or later, the IRS will make an attempt to lien or levy your assets if the IRS deems you to be profitable (there are two fields in the IMF that render a "score" that tells the IRS if you would be a profitable account to pursue).  If the IRS deems you to be not profitable (assets hidden, or difficult to snatch), then sooner or later the IRS stops pursuing you for that year.  After 2 or 3 years of non-filing, the IRS will add everything together and go after you regardless of your assets, simply because the total amount due (in the eyes of the IRS) is large enough to warrant serious collection efforts.
                                       
                                      The IMF is created 2-3 years before the SFR is created, and maybe more.
                                       
                                      But you are correct in one thing.  If the IRS sees that you are not required to file returns, then it ignores you for 3 years.  After 3 years, the IMF is removed to what the IRS calls "retention" (which renders your account inactive) and it simply disappears.  There will then be no more IMFs created for you until you file another return, creating the whole process all over again.
                                       
                                      But the IRS would see in your IMF the fact that you are not required to file ONLY afar you have forced it to enter that item.  If you do not force the IRS to change your IMF to reflect that you are an individual not required to file, then your IMF will ALWAYS reflect several data entries that indicate you ARE required to file.  If you filed once, the IRS enters the fact that you ARE required to file based on the presumption that no one would be stupid enough to file unless they are REQUIRED to file. 
                                       
                                      So if you ever filed a return, your IMF will show that you are required to file.  And that won't change until you force the IRS to change it.
                                       
                                      Yours in financial freedom,
                                       
                                      Dave Miner
                                       
                                       


                                      From: gary [mailto:gary2666@...]
                                      Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 9:53 PM
                                      To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                                      Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Re: Legal Fictions

                                      Dave,
                                       
                                      Maybe my memory is failing me (it has been a few years since I dug into this) but as I remember it, an IMF is generated each year that a return is filed.  If no return is filed and there are W2s or 1099s, the IRS generates a substitute for return (SFR) which generates an IMF for that year.  If this is true, would I be correct in assuming that the reason they don't bother you is that they look at the last IMF and if that says you need not file then they don't ask you for a return and don't generate a SFR for the last tax year?
                                       
                                      Gary
                                    • gary
                                      Dave, Thanks for the explanation, I have some comments below. Gary ... From: Dave Miner To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005
                                      Message 18 of 19 , Apr 6 10:20 AM
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Dave,
                                         
                                        Thanks for the explanation, I have some comments below.
                                         
                                        Gary
                                        ----- Original Message -----
                                        Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 1:13 AM
                                        Subject: RE: [tips_and_tricks] Re: Legal Fictions

                                        Gary --
                                         
                                        Good question, but its logic will lead you to what I have been saying.  I will explain, but first I will correct a fundamental misunderstanding you have concerning the IMF.
                                         
                                         
                                        The IMF is generated every year regardless of whether or not you file a return, on or about the first week in January.  The IRS creates the entity portion based on the previous year's IMF.  The module and transaction portions will remain blank until you file a return.  If you request your IMF-Specific in February of any given year, you will receive an IMF with the entity portion completed and the module and transaction portions will be blank.  If you do not file, your IMF will remain this way for usually two years.  Then the IRS will process a Transaction Code 424, which starts the process of completing the SFR with lots of other transactions that add taxes and penalties and interest.
                                         
                                        *** This is not what happened in my case.  The last year I filed was 91 (tax year 90) and there was a W2 during 91 but I did not file in 92.  About the end of 92, after some letters requesting that I file a return they went ahead and did the SFR and an IMF was created for that year.  They did an exaimination and using the Bereau of Labor Statistics tables, they imputed income to me of 38k (W2 was for about 8.5K).  Several years later, I requested copies of my IMF specific for 90 through 95 and was told that no IMFs existed after 91.
                                         
                                          Stat Codes recording the collection letters the IRS sends to you will be added over the next few months to a couple of years.  Sooner or later, the IRS will make an attempt to lien or levy your assets if the IRS deems you to be profitable (there are two fields in the IMF that render a "score" that tells the IRS if you would be a profitable account to pursue).  If the IRS deems you to be not profitable (assets hidden, or difficult to snatch), then sooner or later the IRS stops pursuing you for that year.  After 2 or 3 years of non-filing, the IRS will add everything together and go after you regardless of your assets, simply because the total amount due (in the eyes of the IRS) is large enough to warrant serious collection efforts.
                                         
                                        *** They have filed their notice of tax lien (I don't own any property and don't have a bank account and don't work for a wage) and the only thing I get from them about once a year is a bill showing what they say I owe now. 
                                         
                                        The IMF is created 2-3 years before the SFR is created, and maybe more.
                                         
                                        *** It appeared to me that they were created about the same time in my case.
                                         
                                         
                                      • Dave Miner
                                        Gary -- I don t mean to get picky on you, but you are wrong about the sequence of events. The IRS cannot contact you about wanting a return from you unless an
                                        Message 19 of 19 , Apr 6 2:01 PM
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Gary --
                                           
                                          I don't mean to get picky on you, but you are wrong about the sequence of events.  The IRS cannot contact you about wanting a return from you unless an IMF already exists for that year and there is no return logged in it.  The agent that contacted you had no way of knowing there was no return on file without looking in the IMF.  The three files that would have reflected the lack of a return all take their data from the IMF.  And the IRS cannot send you any letters at all without an IMF because the ACS (Automated Collection System) keys off the IMF -- no IMF, no letters demanding returns or taxes.  Each and every contact with you is logged in the IMF.  And the creation of an SFR requires the IMF to be in existence, because there several steps that must be logged in the IMF long before there can be a Substitute for Return created.  The IRS cannot perform an examination unless a Request for Examination is entered in the IMF as a Transaction Code of 420 or 424.  As a result of the TC 420 or TC 424, the computer automatically spits out several other actions resulting in the examination.  All this is automated and tracked by the IMF.
                                           
                                          I cannot speak for why the IRS told you there were no IMF after 1991.  If there is no action on an IMF for two years, it is sometimes moved to retention and cannot be retrieved by computer.  It is on microfiche or microfilm, perhaps, but not always.  This is odd -- normally the IRS would state that there were no IMFs BEFORE a particular year and not AFTER a particular year.  If the lien you mentioned is for year 1990, it is possible that the IRS has changed you IMF and it has been dropped from the system.  IF so, you will not receive anything concerning other later tax years.  But if you are receiving anything concerning years since 1990, then you still have an IMF for the years involved in the contact.
                                           
                                          I have requested at least a dozen IMFs for 2004.  All were sent to the client by the IRS and not one had any module info or transaction info because none of the clients had sent in any returns and no collection activities had been initiated for 2004 yet.  All the IMFs were created with the entity portion completed, which is just copied from the prior year.
                                           
                                          Yours in financial freedom,
                                           
                                          Dave Miner
                                           
                                           


                                          From: gary [mailto:gary2666@...]
                                          Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 1:20 PM
                                          To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                                          Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Re: Legal Fictions

                                          Dave,
                                           
                                          Thanks for the explanation, I have some comments below.
                                           
                                          Gary
                                          ----- Original Message -----
                                          Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 1:13 AM
                                          Subject: RE: [tips_and_tricks] Re: Legal Fictions

                                          Gary --
                                           
                                          Good question, but its logic will lead you to what I have been saying.  I will explain, but first I will correct a fundamental misunderstanding you have concerning the IMF.
                                           
                                           
                                          The IMF is generated every year regardless of whether or not you file a return, on or about the first week in January.  The IRS creates the entity portion based on the previous year's IMF.  The module and transaction portions will remain blank until you file a return.  If you request your IMF-Specific in February of any given year, you will receive an IMF with the entity portion completed and the module and transaction portions will be blank.  If you do not file, your IMF will remain this way for usually two years.  Then the IRS will process a Transaction Code 424, which starts the process of completing the SFR with lots of other transactions that add taxes and penalties and interest.
                                           
                                          *** This is not what happened in my case.  The last year I filed was 91 (tax year 90) and there was a W2 during 91 but I did not file in 92.  About the end of 92, after some letters requesting that I file a return they went ahead and did the SFR and an IMF was created for that year.  They did an exaimination and using the Bereau of Labor Statistics tables, they imputed income to me of 38k (W2 was for about 8.5K).  Several years later, I requested copies of my IMF specific for 90 through 95 and was told that no IMFs existed after 91.
                                           
                                            Stat Codes recording the collection letters the IRS sends to you will be added over the next few months to a couple of years.  Sooner or later, the IRS will make an attempt to lien or levy your assets if the IRS deems you to be profitable (there are two fields in the IMF that render a "score" that tells the IRS if you would be a profitable account to pursue).  If the IRS deems you to be not profitable (assets hidden, or difficult to snatch), then sooner or later the IRS stops pursuing you for that year.  After 2 or 3 years of non-filing, the IRS will add everything together and go after you regardless of your assets, simply because the total amount due (in the eyes of the IRS) is large enough to warrant serious collection efforts.
                                           
                                          *** They have filed their notice of tax lien (I don't own any property and don't have a bank account and don't work for a wage) and the only thing I get from them about once a year is a bill showing what they say I owe now. 
                                           
                                          The IMF is created 2-3 years before the SFR is created, and maybe more.
                                           
                                          *** It appeared to me that they were created about the same time in my case.
                                           
                                           
                                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.