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

Re: Fw: [tips_and_tricks] Legal Fictions

Expand Messages
  • John Wilde
    No. It s a crock. g day John Wilde
    Message 1 of 16 , Apr 2, 2005
    • 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 2 of 16 , Apr 2, 2005
      • 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 3 of 16 , Apr 2, 2005
        • 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 4 of 16 , Apr 2, 2005
          • 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 5 of 16 , Apr 2, 2005
            • 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 6 of 16 , Apr 2, 2005
              • 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 7 of 16 , Apr 2, 2005
                • 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 8 of 16 , Apr 2, 2005
                  • 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 9 of 16 , Apr 3, 2005
                    • 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 10 of 16 , Apr 3, 2005
                      • 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 11 of 16 , Apr 3, 2005
                        • 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 12 of 16 , Apr 4, 2005
                          • 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 13 of 16 , Apr 4, 2005
                            • 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.