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

Legal Fictions

Expand Messages
  • Nick
    People misunderstand the ALL CAPS argument. The Answer is not an easy one, let me try and explain it as best as I can. In Tax Law,there are certain
    Message 1 of 16 , Apr 2 3:17 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      People misunderstand the ALL CAPS argument. The Answer is not an easy
      one, let me try and explain it as best as I can.

      In Tax Law,there are certain presumptions that take place and if not
      rebutted, they will stand as fact. The first presumption is that you
      work for federal "wages" under section 3401 and 3121 or, you have
      income that is Federally connected income which is credited to your
      Social Security account. If these are not rebutted, the next
      presumption is at 5 usc 552(a)(13) which if you look it up, please
      do, it says that if you are an "individual entitled to receive
      immediate or deferred retirement benefits under ANY retirement
      program of the Government of the United States (including survivor
      benefits)..." you are federal personell. So, if you are ENTITLED to
      recieve benefits under Social Security, which is a retirement program
      under the United States, then you are considered Federal Personell.
      These benefits are not just retirement benefits, but also
      Unemployement, Medicare and other social programs under the Social
      Security umbrella.

      Guess what, if you are federal Personell, are you not considered
      taxable? Ok...lets go on...it gets worse.

      There is no money in the Social Security trust account is there? No.
      So, why is the trust even used? Why not just scrap the trust part?
      Because trust law is a weapon. IT IS A WEAPON! There are trustees of
      the Social Security trust and there are beneficiaries. There are also
      grantors. You, are the grantor when you sign the SS form. You
      contract into their little scheme. You are also, the beneficiary or
      have rights to beneficial interest in Social Security if you have
      been paying into the system, correct? So the Trustees are employees
      of the United States who act as an interested third party to the
      action.

      What happens in trust law? The grantor/beneficiary after contracting
      in, loses all legal ownership rights. The Grantor/beneficiary now has
      only beneficial interest in property. Trust me, one does not want to
      be here. Why? The Attorney General, in charge of property in the US
      under the trading with the Enemy act has legal title to your
      property. Proof?

      26 C.F.R. 303.1-2 concering taxes under the trading with the enemy
      act...

      "Federal employment taxes are applicable with respect to wages paid
      to a person not a regular Government employee, permanent or
      temporary, for services immediately connected with the operation of
      an enterprise under CONTROL of the Attorney General such as might be
      rendered to a private operator."

      This is the tie into the trading with the Enemy act. When one works,
      is he not paid....FEDERAL WAGES? He certainly is not paid PRIVATE
      SECTOR WAGES is he?

      If these presumptions that I have laid out are not refuted, this is
      where you will end up. If you want to learn how this whole thing
      operates, read 26 USC sections 671-677. Specifically how one gives up
      their labor, 1.671-2 in exchange for being "Part of" the trust.

      You the HUMAN are not a corporation, you are made liable under the
      code for your "PART OF THE TRUST" when your part of the trust has
      TRUST INCOME. Your part of the trust is what is in ALL CAPS not you
      the human being. Which is why the argument that is laid out in court
      is Frivolous. Yet, you are liable under section 7203 for filing and
      paying the tax due on the trust income being generated via section
      671 as being the fiduciary of the trust. If you don't believe me, ask
      yourself why the definition of INCOME is in section 643 relating to
      trust income?

      I hope that helps. Its a complicated issue, but rebut the
      presumptions and you never get there. I would get Pete Hendriksons
      book Cracking the code at Losthorizons.com There is a procedure for
      rebutting these presumptions.

      --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "Greg Knapp"
      <gregoryknapp@c...> wrote:
      > 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?
    • John Wilde
      No. It s a crock. g day John Wilde
      Message 2 of 16 , Apr 2 8:38 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        No.  It's a crock.

        g'day
        John Wilde

        Greg Knapp wrote:
        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?
        ----- Original Message -----

      • Dave Miner
        Nick -- Excellent and detailed reply. Only problem is you never addressed the ALL CAPs issue, and you are wrong about the trust. There is no SS trust, and
        Message 3 of 16 , Apr 2 9:12 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          Nick --

          Excellent and detailed reply. Only problem is you never addressed the ALL
          CAPs issue, and you are wrong about the trust. There is no SS trust, and
          never has been. Lots of politicians use the words because they are trying
          to reassure We The People. But the original Act specifically stated that SS
          was a plain and simple tax with a plain and simple welfare benefit, and that
          the SS revenues went straight into the General Fund of the Congress. We
          have been lied to all these years. There is no SS trust fund. There are no
          SS trustees. There never has been.

          Tom Tancredo and Ron Paul, among others, have both given long and detailed
          speeches about this, but the media totally ignores them.

          But you are absolutely correct about the presumptions. And everyone
          entitled to receive SS benefits is presumed to be a federal employee
          entitled to be taxed by the so-called income tax. Unless that presumption
          is rebutted.

          The problem about rebutting is the IRS Reconstruction Act of 1998. Before
          that Act, rebutting was a fairly simple matter of documenting a bunch of
          court cases and legal references. I did thousands of these rebuttal letters
          and successfully got hundreds of people permanently free from the IRS. But
          since the Act, the IRS is allowed to presume that its files on you are
          correct. As a result of these presumptions being allowed, even mandated, by
          the law, then letters rebutting the presumptions simply do not work anymore.

          Now, when you write a letter challenging anything about the IRS, its
          activities against you and its files concerning you, the IRS is allowed to
          ignore your challenges and presume its records are accurate and its
          procedures valid.

          I still write hundreds of letters, but I cannot get people free from the IRS
          based on letters. Now I have to go through the very laborious process of
          obtaining and decoding the Individual Master Files of other related files
          and I have to force the IRS to change the entries in those files. Instead
          of two or three well-documented letters involving 3-5 hours, now I have a
          year-long process involving 80 hours.

          I still get my clients free from the IRS, but simply challenging
          presumptions doesn't work anymore.

          Yours in financial freedom,

          Dave Miner
          www.IRx-Solutions.com


          -----Original Message-----
          From: Nick [mailto:nickster97@...]
          Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2005 6:17 AM
          To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Legal Fictions



          People misunderstand the ALL CAPS argument. The Answer is not an easy one,
          let me try and explain it as best as I can.

          In Tax Law,there are certain presumptions that take place and if not
          rebutted, they will stand as fact. The first presumption is that you work
          for federal "wages" under section 3401 and 3121 or, you have income that is
          Federally connected income which is credited to your Social Security
          account. If these are not rebutted, the next presumption is at 5 usc
          552(a)(13) which if you look it up, please do, it says that if you are an
          "individual entitled to receive immediate or deferred retirement benefits
          under ANY retirement program of the Government of the United States
          (including survivor benefits)..." you are federal personell. So, if you are
          ENTITLED to recieve benefits under Social Security, which is a retirement
          program under the United States, then you are considered Federal Personell.
        • Carrol
          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
          Message 4 of 16 , Apr 2 10:49 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            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..  The returns filed include Income Tax Forms 1040, 1040A, 1040NR, 1040C,
            1040SS, 1040PR, and Estimated Tax Returns 1040ES.  Each taxpayer account
            has an entity module and one or more tax modules.  The entity module contains data
            which describes the taxpayer as an entity and which applies to all records
            of the taxpayer."

            So according to this paragraph, the following statement becomes fact:
            The 1040 form is for use by an entity.

            I have never received any correspondence from the IRS addressed to my proper name.
            It has always been all captial letters.  According to this provision in the IRM,
            they are addressing an entity.  Do you have proof otherwise???

            Carrol


            John Wilde wrote:
            No.  It's a crock.

            g'day
            John Wilde

            Greg Knapp wrote:
            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?



          • John Wilde
            Yes there is a social security trust. There is just no trust fund. What is being held in the trust is something in the neighborhood of 20 trillion in notes
            Message 5 of 16 , Apr 2 11:15 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              Yes there is a social security trust. There is just no trust fund.
              What is being held in the trust is something in the neighborhood of 20
              trillion in notes executed in the name of the United States. These
              notes are used to generate more FRNS and put them into circulation to
              fund what are known as OBE's (Off Budget Enterprises). The trust was
              created by Chapter 666 of the 1939 Statutes-at-Large (Vol 53 of the
              Statutes-at-Large). In addition to holding the notes, what happens is
              one hundred percent of the FICA withholding each month is automatically
              appropriated and dumped into the trust and paid out to the current
              beneficiaries.

              Congress only created the Trust after the Social Security Act
              survived the constitutional challenges. Had it created the trust and
              earmarked the withholding when Social Security was first adopted, it
              would have been declared unconstitutional just like the first Railroad
              Retirement Act.

              Prior to the creation of the Trust in 1939 Congress had to
              appropriate the monies to be paid to the beneficiaries each and every
              month. Once the Trust was created, the appropriation was done
              automatically without any further act of Congress. Of course this means
              that the withheld amounts are now being earmarked again, which renders
              the FICA withholding unconstitutional, but no one has challenged it
              since the change in the law in 1939.

              g'day
              John Wilde

              Dave Miner wrote:

              >Nick --
              >
              >Excellent and detailed reply. Only problem is you never addressed the ALL
              >CAPs issue, and you are wrong about the trust. There is no SS trust, and
              >never has been.
              >
              >
            • Nick
              ... the ALL ... Sure I did Dave, it was at the bottom of the post if you read it. Your Part of the trust is the part in ALL CAPS not you the human. You are a
              Message 6 of 16 , Apr 2 1:46 PM
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Miner" <dminer@f...>
                wrote:
                >
                > Nick --
                >
                > Excellent and detailed reply. Only problem is you never addressed
                the ALL
                > CAPs issue,

                Sure I did Dave, it was at the bottom of the post if you read it.
                Your "Part of" the trust is the part in ALL CAPS not you the human.
                You are a seperate entity from the trust yet you are held under 7203
                to file and pay as a fiduciary of the trust under sections 671-677 of
                the code.

                >and you are wrong about the trust. There is no SS trust, and
                > never has been. Lots of politicians use the words because they are
                trying
                > to reassure We The People. But the original Act specifically
                stated that SS
                > was a plain and simple tax with a plain and simple welfare benefit,
                and that
                > the SS revenues went straight into the General Fund of the
                Congress.

                Dave, do not mix money of account not in a trust with no trust
                whatsoever. Consider this...

                Title 42
                § 401. Trust Funds

                (a) Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund There is
                hereby created on the books of the Treasury of the United States a
                trust fund to be known as the "Federal Old-Age and Survivors
                Insurance Trust Fund".

                And here is a 2002 report of the trust fund by the trustees. Here you
                will find who the trustees of the SS trust are...

                www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/TR00/tr00.pdf


                > But you are absolutely correct about the presumptions. And everyone
                > entitled to receive SS benefits is presumed to be a federal employee
                > entitled to be taxed by the so-called income tax. Unless that
                presumption
                > is rebutted.
                >
                > The problem about rebutting is the IRS Reconstruction Act of 1998.
                Before
                > that Act, rebutting was a fairly simple matter of documenting a
                bunch of
                > court cases and legal references.

                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.

                This is why I am giving credit where credit is due. You need to read
                cracking the code by Pete Hendrikson at www.losthorizons.com. Since
                you get information about you from other people that is false
                information about you, you need to be able to refute these
                presumptions on forms supplied by the IRS for this purpose.
              • John Wilde
                I don t have to explain myself. I have done it time and time and time and time and time and time, etc. again. Go into the archives of this list and the
                Message 7 of 16 , Apr 2 3:40 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  I don't have to explain myself.  I have done it time and time and time and time and time and time, etc. again.  Go into the archives of this list and the Liberty Tree List, and the legality of the income tax list and the legality of the driver's license list.  I am done explaining why this is a crock.

                      However, if you want to go on arguing this useless piece of crap.  Go right ahead, I am not going to stop you.  Then when the gummint comes to you and starts stealing your stuff don't come crying to me.

                      If you wish to learn practical means to deal with the IRS then come talk.  Until then.  I have nothing more to say on the matter.  I am going to start treating this list the same way I have begun treating all of the other lists.  You don't exist.

                      FWIW, I see nothing in your citation of the manual that mentions anything about your name being in ALL CAPS as being the means for describing you as an entity.  It just says your information will be in an entity module.  It doesn't mean you ARE AN ARTICFICIAL ENTITY.  Guess what? As a man or a woman, you are also an entity - a living entity.  What are you guys going to start doing when these agencies and courts start using upper and lower case as the district courts are beginning to do?  Arizona's US District Court have required all pleadings be in upper an lower case for almost 5 years.  All you have to do is object and the court will issue a simple order to comply with local rule 1.9.  Has nothing to do with whether you are treated as an ARTIFICIAL entity or not.

                      What a crock.  Game over.

                  g'day
                  John Wilde

                  Carrol wrote:
                  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..  The returns filed include Income Tax Forms 1040, 1040A, 1040NR, 1040C,
                  1040SS, 1040PR, and Estimated Tax Returns 1040ES.  Each taxpayer account
                  has an entity module and one or more tax modules.  The entity module contains data
                  which describes the taxpayer as an entity and which applies to all records
                  of the taxpayer."

                • Dave Miner
                  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
                  Message 8 of 16 , Apr 2 10:01 PM
                  • 0 Attachment

                    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


                     

                  • Dave Miner
                    Carroll -- Every return has an Entity Section. It matches the Entity Section in the Individual Master File. The Entity Section of the IMF establishes who and
                    Message 9 of 16 , Apr 2 10:12 PM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Carroll --
                       
                      Every return has an Entity Section.  It matches the Entity Section in the Individual Master File.  The Entity Section of the IMF establishes who and what the "taxpayer" is.  There is also a Module Section and a Transaction Section in the IMF.  Does this mean that the "taxpayer" is a module?  Or a transaction?
                       
                      You said: "So according to this paragraph, the following statement becomes fact:
                      The 1040 form is for use by an entity.
                      "
                       
                      This is indeed a true statement.  But it does not necessarily follow that your understanding of the word "entity" is accurate.
                       
                      Yours in financial freedom,
                       
                      Dave Miner
                       
                       


                      From: Carrol [mailto:seafish@...]
                      Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2005 1:50 PM
                      To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                      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..  The returns filed include Income Tax Forms 1040, 1040A, 1040NR, 1040C,
                      1040SS, 1040PR, and Estimated Tax Returns 1040ES.  Each taxpayer account
                      has an entity module and one or more tax modules.  The entity module contains data
                      which describes the taxpayer as an entity and which applies to all records
                      of the taxpayer."

                      So according to this paragraph, the following statement becomes fact:
                      The 1040 form is for use by an entity.

                      I have never received any correspondence from the IRS addressed to my proper name.
                      It has always been all captial letters.  According to this provision in the IRM,
                      they are addressing an entity.  Do you have proof otherwise???

                      Carrol


                      John Wilde wrote:
                      No.  It's a crock.

                      g'day
                      John Wilde

                      Greg Knapp wrote:
                      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?



                    • Carrol
                      an Entity is a legal fiction. It is not a man, nor is it a woman. It exists in fiction only - An it . If that is not true, please enlighten me. Carrol
                      Message 10 of 16 , Apr 3 4:40 PM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        an Entity is a legal fiction.
                        It is not a man, nor is it a woman.  It exists
                        in fiction only - An "it".

                        If that is not true, please enlighten me.
                        Carrol


                        Dave Miner wrote:
                         
                        You said: "So according to this paragraph, the following statement becomes fact:
                        The 1040 form is for use by an entity.
                        "
                         
                        This is indeed a true statement.  But it does not necessarily follow that your understanding of the word "entity" is accurate.
                         

                      • Frog Farmer
                        ... This is from wordiq.com: An entity is something that has a distinct, separate existence, though it need not be a material existence. In particular,
                        Message 11 of 16 , Apr 3 10:39 PM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          On Apr 3, 2005, at 4:40 PM, Carrol wrote:

                          > an Entity is a legal fiction.
                          > It is not a man, nor is it a woman.  It exists
                          > in fiction only - An "it".
                          >
                          > If that is not true, please enlighten me.
                          > Carrol
                          >

                          This is from wordiq.com:

                          An entity is something that has a distinct, separate existence, though
                          it need not be a material existence. In particular, abstractions and
                          legal fictions are usually regarded as entities. In general, there is
                          also no presumption that an entity is animate.

                          An entity could be viewed as a set containing subsets. This set itself
                          is among other sets. In philosophy, these sets are said to be abstract
                          objects as they do not refer to anything animate. The distinctive
                          propriety of an entity rationally yields the existence of the
                          relativily distinct entities.

                          The word 'entity' is often useful when one wants to refer to something
                          that could be a human being, a non-human animal, a non-thinking
                          life-form such as a plant or fungus, or a lifeless object; for
                          instance, one could say that any entity that enters a black hole would
                          be transported, in many pieces, to another dimension.

                          Sometimes, the word 'entity' is used in a general sense of a being,
                          whether or not the referent has material existence; e.g. God is often
                          referred to as an 'Entity' with no corporeal form.

                          In law, an entity is something capable of bearing legal rights and
                          obligations. It generally means "legal entity" or "artificial person"
                          but also includes "natural person".
                        • Dave Miner
                          Carrol -- Don t know if it is true or not. Never heard of any definition in law. But I do know that entity is used by a lot of legal and govt types to mean
                          Message 12 of 16 , Apr 3 11:09 PM
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Carrol --
                             
                            Don't know if it is true or not.  Never heard of any definition in law.  But I do know that entity is used by a lot of legal and govt types to mean anything that can function and do actions. 
                             
                            My Webster's defines it as:
                             
                            1. a: being, existence; esp. independent, separate, or self-contained existence; b. the existence of a thing as contrasted with its attributes;
                            2. something that has separate and distinct existence and objective or conceptual reality
                             
                            I know the IRS uses entity to designate an individual, a corporation, a partnership, a trust, or anything else that can file forms or pay taxes.  Within those categories, or entities, is the separation between taxpayer and non-taxpayer.  The IRS has me listed in the Entity Section of the IMF as an individual not required to file returns.  Or at least it did, when it had an IMF on me.
                             
                            Yours in financial freedom,
                             
                            Dave Miner
                             
                             


                            From: Carrol [mailto:seafish@...]
                            Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2005 7:41 PM
                            To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                            Subject: Re: Fw: [tips_and_tricks] Legal Fictions

                            an Entity is a legal fiction.
                            It is not a man, nor is it a woman.  It exists
                            in fiction only - An "it".

                            If that is not true, please enlighten me.
                            Carrol
                          • Michael Pf
                            This should fly some fur: entity: something that has a real existence - do YOU have a real existence? something that exists as a distinct, independent, or
                            Message 13 of 16 , Apr 4 8:49 AM
                            • 0 Attachment
                              This should fly some fur:
                               
                              entity: something that has a real existence - do YOU have a real existence?
                                        something that exists as a distinct, independent, or self-contained unit - are YOU distinct, independent and/or self-contained?
                               
                              Maybe YOU are an entity.  But are an entity that needs to file a 1040?   Ahhhhhhh - THAT is the real question, and the source of our troubles with the IRS.  They have convinced their computers that you ARE.  And, under the terms of the IRS Restructuring Act, the onus is now upon YOU to prove that you are NOT.

                              Carrol <seafish@...> wrote:
                              an Entity is a legal fiction.
                              It is not a man, nor is it a woman.  It exists
                              in fiction only - An "it".

                              If that is not true, please enlighten me.
                              Carrol


                              Dave Miner wrote:
                               
                              You said: "So according to this paragraph, the following statement becomes fact:
                              The 1040 form is for use by an entity.
                              "
                               
                              This is indeed a true statement.  But it does not necessarily follow that your understanding of the word "entity" is accurate.
                               



                              Michael
                              Laguna Niguel, CA
                            • John Wilde
                              He (or she) who claims the affirmative has the burden of proof. g day John Wilde
                              Message 14 of 16 , Apr 4 9:00 AM
                              • 0 Attachment
                                He (or she) who claims the affirmative has the burden
                                of proof.

                                g'day
                                John Wilde

                                Carrol wrote:

                                > an Entity is a legal fiction.
                                > It is not a man, nor is it a woman. It exists
                                > in fiction only - An "it".
                                >
                                > If that is not true, please enlighten me.
                                > Carrol
                                >
                                >
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.